You put much more thought into that than LinusK has given to anything he has ever posted.
But did you mean gender-non-conforming heterosexuals in point five? Because there’s a really awful strain of radical feminism that is really, really nasty towards trans women and you could vilify the entirely of the gay/lesbian rights movement for that.
I believe it was even sven in one of the previous threads who pointed out that **LinusK **seems to be particularly fixated on Slut Walks. He frequently brings them up as an example of not something he considers merely silly or misguided but feminism at its very worst. IIRC he did not respond to her direct question about what specifically his objection to Slut Walks is.
Personally I can think of only one reason why someone would be both obsessed with and furious about Slut Walks, although I am still not convinced that LinusK is a human being and not a bot. Maybe he’s a man who believes that “sluts” do deserve to be raped, or maybe Slut Walks are just one of the relatively small number of topics that the LinusBot is programmed to post about.
But did you mean gender-non-conforming heterosexuals in point five? Because there’s a really awful strain of radical feminism that is really, really nasty towards trans women and you could vilify the entirely of the gay/lesbian rights movement for that.
[/QUOTE]
I concur with your point, but no, I was making an analogy with LinusK’s typical senseless grouching about how it’s the traditionally privileged groups (e.g., men, or white people, or gender-typical heterosexuals) who are actually the victims of all sorts of horrible institutional bias that somehow are never clearly and convincingly articulated.
To be honest, I think Linus’s whole schtick boils down to a version of the he-man, women haters club. He finds any discussion of or with non-subservient women repulsive. It’s not-so-thinly veiled misogyny, but with pseudo-science of his own invention.
Jack, on the other hand, just likes to use his keyboard. Why use a few words, concisely, when he can use paragraphs that say essentially nothing? Other than declamations of his own brilliance, and the assertion that feminists aren’t actually feminists, he’s contributed nothing more than paeans to his own “wit”.
The pair of them are tiresome, with no contribution to make other than hate.
Yeah, I have to confess to feeling somewhat sorry for the (hopefully fairly small) minority of heterosexual men who just plain don’t like women. Since they tend to be the sort who believe they need to have a lot of sex, and in particular that they need a lot of sex with “hot” partners to uphold their masculinity in the eyes of other men, they’re kind of screwed. In order to get the sex they want, they have to either pretend to like women or somehow trick or force women into having sex with them, and none of that is good for the psyche. (Not good for the women either, of course.) So they tend to wind up very bitter and resentful, with a lot of stupid rationalizations about Why Women Are So Terrible.
I don’t know why we don’t see so much of this sort of loudly articulated spitefulness from the corresponding minority of heterosexual women who just plain don’t like men. I think those women are probably more likely to either just not bother with sex for the most part, or else to take out their dislike in unscrupulous exploitation of men. To the (minor) extent that the misogynists’ cartoon stereotype of women as greedy selfish heartless golddigging bitches actually does exist in the real world, it’s probably embodied in the heterosexual women who just plain don’t like men.
Hmmm. You know, maybe the heterosexual men who don’t like women are hooking up with the heterosexual women who don’t like men. After all, the HWWDLM don’t really care about being sincerely liked or respected, since their basic attitude toward men is one of contempt; they’re willing to put up with the HMWDLW for the sake of what they can get out of them. And the HMWDLW gravitate towards those women because they’re easier to get than the women who want a guy who genuinely cares about them. So it’s a scam of mutual exploitation that ends up with both parties despising each other more than ever.
If true, couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks, I guess. As long as it keeps the HMWDLW and the HWWDLM away from decent women and men respectively, that’s a plus.
Oh, Jack of Words is quite clearly in the he-man, women haters’ club. He even extends his hate to men who like women and aren’t threatened by them. Fortunately, he can be disappeared.
I love that this is an “echo chamber” while the stalwart refusal to even address issuing viewpoints in the GD thread is apparently the height of rational discourse.
And now there’s the classic feminist response. You can’t just call him a witnessing moron who refuses to actually address facts, you have to emasculate him, imply he’s gay and say that no woman would have him.
Are you trying to prove him right? Cause this is how you prove he’s right.
I’m just riffing on the “mutual MRA handjob” remark. The comment that no woman would want them has nothing to do with them being gay (since “situational homosexuals” specifically aren’t) nor emasculated (which I said nothing about) and everything to do with them being misogynistic assholes.
But thanks for the kneejerk “YOU SAID A BAD THING THEREFORE YOU REPRESENT ALL FEMINISTS” response yourself. I’m sure it’s “classic” something or other.
I’m not wild about the blowjob/situational homosexuality stuff myself. Come too close to implying that being gay is a bad/unmasculine thing. I’m happy to call LinusK a witnessing moron who wouldn’t know a fact if it flew up his nose. Not that I think LinusK and Jack of Words have much luck with the ladies because of the whole hating the wimmin schtick.
I’ve never understand guys who use cocksucker as an insult, either. I’ve always understood it to be a rather pleasant experience for the suckee.