Comments by "POO CRAYON" (@poocrayon4588) on "Mothers vs Daughters: Is Marriage Necessary? | Middle Ground" video.

Feminism is women being entitled to choose whatever they want and men having to provide it societally.
59
@lauren.r29 Feminism is equality between the sexes as defined by women. Which isnt really equality at all. Equal according to who? Feminists? Who deciedes on what kind of "equal" society we will have? Feminists think they should of course and they always have a new theory as to why that should be the case. So feminism is not about a mutually beneficial equality reached by consensues between the sexes but is about womens version of equality which suits them coming to pass. Which isnt really equality at all. And clearly if women have more of a say in that it does raise the opinion of women above that of men. But keep on with the simplistic definitions Im sure Im sure they appeal to women who are already biased to agree and who arent capable of thinking any deeper.
23
@nyles7470 Its a "toxic" mindset to want a say in the societal standards of your own society? But you just said women DESERVE to have the only say and that them setting the societal standard was "empowered". So is the mindset of women like you doubly toxic then? And of course anyone would be threatened by having no control of the society they live in - how could they not be and why is that a bad thing lol? I hate to break it to you but women being "empowered" must come with the support of men or guess what? the 'societal standards" that women wish to set can not possibly be implemented or have any influence over men. And why would men possibly support the standards of a feminist (like you) who doesnt think there wishes or opinion on anything that contradicts women matters? Your comment proves that you are threatend by women not being able to set mens standards and so you want a absurd and impossible degree of control over men - which is the most toxic mindset of all and something endemic amongst feminists and feminist thinking.
12
@nyles7470 And what makes you think feminism should set the standards for equality or is even capable of doing so? I questioned why women should set the standards thinking it was obviously unjust that they should solely set the standard and anyone actually for "equality" would surely agree - however you answered in such a extreme and arrogant way that it made it clear you actually do believe men should have no say. I hope you keep being so blatant about it, because if what you said does represent feminists version of equality then that feminist "equality" is disgusting and bigoted and not equality at all. And people need to be made aware of that.
12
@nyles7470 Men do have the control over the definition of equality because without them - it is a pipe dream. Although if attitudes like yours prevail amongst women it is a pipe dream anyway. You draw a ludicrous and illogical comparison to white people and racism when men and women are not different races and the situation is very very different. But thats the feminist way of divide and conquer I guess.
10
Shes right
4
D Alm No they''re the best, you must be an upset feminist who cant think of anything to say. But your vomment was completly asinine
3
No men want to be the S/o with a woman who will feel that way tho - at least not for long, just for a fling. Also you've gotta have money which if the man isnt contributing toward means a lifetime of constant work. Plus constant travel is overrated by women
2
@RK-xk4qw Of course its subjective - obviously laws and cultural practice are specific - what I mean is a society could apply the same law and enforced culture onto both sexes equally but that law and culture would still be specific - therefore if women had a greater say in determining what it was it wouldnt be a true equality and would only be equality as defined by women. To use a very very simple example you SHOULD be able to follow - lets say you and me had to eat lunch together every day for the next two weeks and we need to choose a law saying what it is we'll be eating. You say we should eat oranges and I say Apples - one of these choices is made the law for what we will eat and the other isnt - we would be under equal law so technically "equal" but in reality because what was wanted was chosen by one of us and wasnt wanted by the other it isnt really equal at all. And so it is with society - if women simply attempt to force thru THEIR PREFERRED VERSION of equality - its not only a false equality because it places a greater value on their wishes and desires - but also because of the nature of what it takes to actually enforce laws and mantain cultural practices its also a totally unsastainable equality. And that's why women who believe they are moving us toward equality by pushing for their fantasy version of it based on their own wants and desires are deluding themselves into believing a pipe dream. Which for men is an opprsession and not an equality - no matter how feminist women label it.
2
@RK-xk4qw Okay going by your parroting of the "consider a loss of privilege oppression" line your obviously a closed off feminist so I wont bother too much, but Ill give you one example which alone makes the whole thing oppressive and worthless. (By the way the implication of that example (which you willfully ignored) was clearly that the feminist choice would be shoved down everyones throats) But to the example - In the matter of child custody and asset splitting after divorce - feminist women have (at best) advocated for a 50/50 split - however, women are the ones who chose to initiate divorce 87% of the time. And so here we have an equal law applied equally to both genders, which has been advocated for by feminist women and is utilized by the choice of women the vast majority of the time. So basically you have a law which although technically equal - obviously favours and protects women because it caters to a choice women wish to make at a much greater rate than men and at the expense of men and in exact disagreement to the men they make it unilaterally for. So by advocating for an equal law in this situation while the initiation of the situation, use of and want for the law is so unequal along gender lines - feminists advocate for "their version of equality" - ie a law applied equally which favours womens wants and beahviours while placing no value on mens. You can try to justify this however they can but its the reality - and the reality is this law and others like it require men to enforce them with violence and the threat of violence and imprisonment (as it the nature of the law) in order for them to be practical in the long term. Which also demonstrates that feminists still wish for men to play that old fashioned gender role of providing for women the world which suits them best. Often against there own best natures and by violent means. But thats a whole nother thing we needn't get into here.
2
@RK-xk4qw A lot of logical inconsistency and untruth in that turd storm you thought was a logical reply to my comment, but I'll start at the end since it's relevant to almost every other point you think you have. "Not sure why women initiating divorce in general is a complaint" - "87 percent of divorce is initiated by women and this is a problem how?" "How is this unfair to men". Explaining how women initiating divorce combined with 50/50 laws was unfair to men was almost the entire content of my comment to you (which has clearly gone over your head) 🤦‍♂️ I already explained how a law which is equally applied to both genders while only being utilized and protecting one of them at the expense of the other is not a truly equal law. Please re read it and try to comprehend its meaning because you clearly didn't. But nevertheless I'll try to add to it - because of this female initiation factor in divorce and custody of children - marriage, cohabitation and family mean two very different things for women and men under the law - for women, they mean that you can choose to get married (or live together) and have a family - then if you stay together that's fine, but likewise if you get sick of it and want to leave you'll be fully supported by the law both financially and will be free to have at least 50/50 custody and raise your children with whoever you choose next. Well that probably doesnt sound too bad to you and if leaving was what both genders chose more or less equally that would be fine and an equal law that was fair and practical. But the problem is - it's women who are getting bored or whatever else and choosing to divorce - 87% of the time. So for men what marriage means is that you can choose to marry or cohabitate and have children - and poor your effort and recources and love into this, then at some time in the future your wife or partner will seek a divorce and you will split assets with her 50/50 and the same with custody. Basically for men the deal is - have a relationship and kids that you work to support until the woman decides to leave you and raise the kids elsewhere (50% of the time) And this is the future we are presenting to young boys (and they know it) and you ask why this is a problem? You must be kidding. I cant believe if men were choosing to leave their wives and split custody at an 87% initiation rate you would fail to see the unfairness to women - are you truly so blind to anything other than what women want you cant see it here? In your comment you also go into the reasons for the 50/50 split (which aren't really accurate but lets pretend they are) - you say they were created to protect the housewife from her husband walking out and leaving her with nothing - I have no problem with that either in those times or them protecting the caregiver from the same in these times. But those laws were originally made with a fault stipulation that they would protect the one who GOT left - not the one who chose to do the leaving. But as the 87% female initation rate shows - what they actually do (with no fault) most of the time is protect the housewife when she ups and gets bored and leaves the husband - so the majority of the time they're used they are actually used to protect the housewife who gets bored and wants to take the kids with her - not to protect the housewife from being left without an income. So at least tell the truth about it. Now you say that "the reason women are favoured over men in custody" is because of traditional values and not feminism? Wrong. In fact men were originally (and also unfairly) favoured in custody as they were seen as having the means (money) to raise children after divorce - then for a time it went more 50/50 based. Then in the 70's feminists came out with "the tender years" doctrine which basically stated that women were more naturally better caregivers for children and so should be awarded custody - so actually the sole reason women are favoured in custody is feminism, and feminisms sole reason for women being favoured in custody was based on gender stereo types. That sister is a fact of law which you can research quite easily for yourself. If men are not seen as deserving as custody - it is not by other men but by women and feminists that this is so. Do you suppose it was or is men that are trying to get less custody? Lol hardly. I couldn't care less about old fashioned gender roles - but the whole point is apparently feminisms idea of new fashioned gender roles is that men should have children and relationships with women then when women choose to split the family and relationship (and 87% of initiation shows it will be women who choose it) they are protected by laws which are enforced by men. (the means to enforce the laws feminist women choose are provided by men) The solution isn't to outlaw divorce but to bring a fault basis into child custody and asset splitting - ie the one leaving and the reasons they are doing so effect the outcome of both custody and asset splitting. For example if someone leaves a marriage because they have an affair and want to live with their new partner - the spouse and parent being left will receive a greater share of the custody and assets (assuming assets are in the couples mutual name). That would be one example of a different law which could be applied equally to both sexes and be fair to men. (although given that 87% initiation divorce rate of women maybe women would think it was unfair to them - but wanting to be protected for being fickle isn't much of an argument against these laws)
2
Men need to be educated that women initiate divorce 85% of the time and they were the ones that pushed for the no fault laws which they utilize by far the most. So men should be telling their sons that marriage is worthless for a man and any women that asks it of a man doesnt respect him
1
@iheartfm2458 I have no idea what your replying to grammar queen
1
@dumbass1426 lol no
1
@Logan Botill Do not
1