Jump to content


Photo

Sexist, feminist-women should be ashamed of their total lack of solidarity and empathy toward men and boys

sexism misandry gender equality

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 March 2015 - 02:30 AM

Emma Watson, why are you hiding behind the expression “gender equality”?  The HeForShe campaign is NOT about gender equality, it’s about protecting women and girls, and only them.  As found on the web site, it is “committed to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls”: it’s obvious that those women want to exclude violence and discrimination faced by men and boys, as if issues affecting men and boys shouldn’t be equally addressed.  The feminist sexism of the HeForShe campaign creates two classes of citizens: those who are important enough to be protected (women and girls), and those who are left to themselves (men and boys), without explicit protection from organizations or governments. They are implicitly, or “de facto”, considering men and boys as second class citizens.  How did we end up accepting such extreme sexism from these women?  Aren’t there any women (or men) who also care about their sons, or the men of their lives (or men as a group)?  This campaign shows again that societies (and especially some sexist, feminist-women) care less about men than women, and even more monstrous, that they care less about boys than girls.

 

There can’t be a gender equality without having a movement that also include the liberation of men. How can we pretend seeking gender equality when we are not even able to say that sending men to wars or to a military service was, and still is, a sexism against MEN?  Or if we hide that “child-soldiers” are in fact “boy-soldiers”, as if we were unable, as a society, to admit that this is a problem affecting almost exclusively boys (shame on us).  When we listen to a feminist-women, we can see that she has no empathy toward men (she only speaks about women and girls), especially when they speak about the “African women”: we can see their total lack of solidarity toward the “African men” (…and boys!).  These women should be ashamed of their misandry, and if they are not, ALL women should be ashamed that they pretend to speak in their name.  Emma Watson should be ashamed of this accepted misandry which is building up in the society, because of campaigns like HeForShe.  In the USA, Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of being one of the strongest advocate for this feminist sexism. Women must evolve too, they must learn that showing only solidarity and empathy toward their own gender IS a form of sexism from their part, and they should be ashamed of what these sexist, feminist women are doing on issues affecting men (they are preventing liberation of men).  They must learn to show solidarity and empathy toward their “opposite gender” (like men do), at least as much as they are toward their own.

 

Traditionally, men have the role of protecting “women and children”, and this constitute a sexism in itself (against men), because woman should also pay the price for “protecting the nation”, and they should not receive more protection (from men or societies) than men.  What the HeForShe campaign is asking is to perpetuate this sexist expectation that some women have toward men: they want men (… and boys!) to protect “women and girls”.  By the way, notice that we passed from the concept of protecting “women and children” to protecting “women and girls” (boys are of the wrong gender I suppose): do you consider this as “gender equality”, Emma Watson?

 

We don’t live in a world where only women are oppressed, and where only men have privileges: women, societies, also have sexist expectations towards men, and women also have privileges (… one of them being the solidarity and empathy we show towards women and girls, but not towards men and boys, as demonstrated by this HeForShe campaign).  A few decades ago, sexism and issues affecting women were not recognized, and we see the same phenomenon with the sexism and issues affecting men: we don’t recognize this particular sexism (we didn’t learn).

 

Issues affecting men and boys must be equally addressed: men and sometimes boys are forced into “slavery” with military services or conscriptions (for example, we must force nations to stop this sexism and force mandatory military service or conscriptions for women too, if they are not ready to eliminate it).  Men occupy dangerous jobs which leads to overrepresentation in job related deaths and health issues.  In demonstrations, men are far more likely to be targeted for violence or killing, and they are more likely to be massacred in wars or genocides.  A man’s life expectancy is shorter than a woman’s life expectancy, and we close our eyes on the sexism leading to this imbalance.  Same thing with the education problems affecting boys (because of the incompatibility between education and the traditional role they are destined to), which is not addressed the same way they are addressed when discrimination is affecting girls.

 

As we can see at the UN and other organizations sites, when they use the expression “women and children” (which exclude men), they are in fact promoting discrimination against men by only considering the mother-child link, to the expense of the father-child link (as if the mother-child link was more important): that’s pure sexism against men.  And this, despite the fact that men is the gender which is discriminated against when it comes to child cares (considered not compatible with men’s traditional roles).  The UN, instead of fighting against this woman’s privilege, is perpetuating it, and has the indecency to call this gender equality.

 

We see this same sexist double standard in regards to genital mutilations (GM), which is treated differently depending on the gender of the victim.  GM made on girls is considered a crime, while GM made on boys is not (and we invent all sorts of to excuse to justify this double standard, or sexism).

 

This feminist sexism has created a new privileged group: women and girls, because the violence and discrimination affecting them are being addressed, while the violence and discrimination affecting men and boys are not being addressed.  Men and women must fight against the sexism of this “HeForShe” campaign, because gender equality is not about caring only for women and girls, it is not about protecting women and girls only, it’s about fighting all kind of sexism, including the sexist expectations of societies (and women) toward men… and including this “neo” sexism introduced by the feminist ideology.

 

I think we can only achieve gender equality by developing a new “anti-feminist” progressive movement, which would fight for both men’s and women’s rights: for a real gender equality.  On the contrary, if we continue to only show solidarity toward women and girls (= feminist sexism), we will antagonize and polarize societies that we want to change, and movements fighting for human rights will continue to lose ground to more conservative values (because they are not fair, bring injustices and double standards affecting men and boys).

 



#2 Szalka

Szalka

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • LocationHexham , UK

Posted 09 March 2015 - 03:30 AM

Feminism is human rights. Feminists = be treated like human being. Last time I check men's are humans too. This campaign is for women, girls , men and boys.

"I don't want other people to decide who I am. I want to decide that for myself." 

Hot-Emma-Watson-GIF.giftumblr_n2a8gukRTG1s6o2svo2_250.giftumblr_n2a8gukRTG1s6o2svo1_250.gif


#3 Thessalie

Thessalie

    Dedicated Member

  • Wind
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 853 posts
  • LocationFrance

Posted 09 March 2015 - 12:24 PM

I agree with the last commen, sexist does not equal feminist, so the misunderstanding starts in your title. 

Feminists are for gender equality and thus should not (and are not) hateful towards men, otherwise they should not call themselves feminists. 

 

I consider myself a feminist, and I totally agree that we sould have empathy for men ! 


Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself. 

 

Desiderata

Max Ehrmann

 


#4 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 11 March 2015 - 09:28 PM

I'm sure I'm totally missing something here. Emma Watson is a hypocrite for speaking out for womens/girls rights while forgetting to do the same for men/boys ? Instead of asking "Where is Daniel Radcliffe doing for men and boys what Emma does for girls?" , all the blame is laid on Emma Watson for not taking care of all problems at the same time ? Really ?

 

A lot would be won already for a lot of women if they could somehow manage to be just subject to the same sort of discrimination and violence that men usually are.

 

Guys like this Philip Blay make me sick, trying to find something, anything, to criticize and then hide behind a lot of hot air.



#5 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 12 March 2015 - 02:55 AM

To “130671”, Szalka, and Thessalie:

 

To use the expression of “130671”, I don’t want a “Daniel Radcliffe” (… I have to admit I had to search who this was) to only show solidarity toward men and boys, I don’t want an “Emma Watson” to only show solidarity toward women and girls.  I want a real gender equality, I want human beings to show solidarity to all human beings, whatever their gender, whatever the capacity of a gender to attract empathy.  If we were living in a world where issues affecting men and boys would be addressed as much as the issues affecting women and girls, we wouldn’t have this conversation.  But it’s certainly not the case today: issues affecting men and boys are almost always ignored, or hidden (example, the use of the expression “child-soldiers” instead of “boy soldiers”).

 

And when I look at the reasons why we have such a huge, disproportionate imbalance, I think we can make a link between the lack of solidarity toward men of the typical feminist-women, and the use of men in wars (throughout history), which was also based on a lack of solidarity toward men (necessary to societies, and especially women, to accept to only send men to wars and only prepare their boys for this traditional role).

 

What do you think (most) people, men or women, are concluding when they are only hearing about issues affecting women and girls, and when they see all these men who (among so many other examples):

  • are drafted in wars, killed or wounded in wars, without mentioning that this constitute  sexism against men
  • are the primary target of torture in many countries, or are the target of gender based massacres (as with the genocide in Rwanda, which was also a (hidden) gendercide against men)
  • are enslaved in a multitude of military services, while women continue to live their lives, free: can you imagine the injustice felt by these men, when they hear that women are oppressed in a world of privileged men?
  • have a shorter life expectancy than women, because of the conditions they are living in
  • Female Genital Mutilations (GM), which is treated differently depending on the gender of the victim (a crime when it’s a girl, a subject of derision when the victim is a boy)
  • violence against men in movies and video games which is completely ignored phenomenon

 

Of course, this sexism against men is roughly compensated by the sexism against women (not really the case anymore, in many countries, where women are free, but not men).  Of course, women are also victims of, sometimes equivalent, violence and discriminations, but at least, they are not hidden and we are addressing them in a multitude of organizations.  We don’t do that for men and boys, why?  For me, the lack of solidarity toward men, which was necessary to use them in wars, is the consequence of this feminist sexism: to be expandable in wars, men has to be expandable in life in general, and we that’s why we care less about their well-being (it even affects boy, which is a shame).

 

I don’t know how you can close your eye on such injustices, such double standards, as if men and boys were second class citizens.  I can’t understand how you can see that, and at the same time support the women who are responsible for this “neo” sexism of the feminist ideology.

 

Today’s most important battle our societies has to face regarding gender equality, is the liberation of men, which means fighting against the lack of solidarity and empathy toward men and boys, a phenomenon exploited and emphasized by the feminist sexism. Of course, these feminist women (and feminist men like you) didn’t “invent” this absence of solidarity/empathy toward men: the traditional sexism of the right is responsible for that, and must also be fought as well.

 

This said, I think Emma Watson is far, far from being the worst of these sexist women.  She has shown that she also has a certain amount of empathy toward her “opposite gender”, and she also has the courage to say it.  But there is the problem: she only say (without insisting too much) that men are also discriminated against, she doesn’t act accordingly.  When it’s time to ACT, she only speak of discriminations and violence affecting women and girls, and she only calls to act against these (and only these) issues, as if men and boys were not as important as women and girls.  In the HeForShe campaign she represents, she ask men and boys to PROTECT women and girls, which is an exploitation of one of the worst traditional sexism, since women and girls are not asked to protect men and boys (… of the feminist sexism, for example!).  The liberation of men will be (by far) the hardest of the social revolutions to accomplish, and it has to start somewhere.



#6 dookdookdook

dookdookdook

    Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 12 March 2015 - 05:07 AM

More hot air. Your examples of sexism against men don't even make sense.

 

 

drafted in wars, killed or wounded... Most militaries are dominated and controlled by men. In the US, women were banned from combat roles until a couple years ago. The UK has yet to remove the ban. And this is womens' fault?

 

The Rwanda genocide did not just target men. The goal was to kill all the Tutsi - men, women and children. Nearly every woman that survived was raped.

 

enslaved in military service - see above

 

Men have a shorter life expectancy in general. Part may be biology, but also men are more likely to die from many of the leading causes of death.

 

I hope you are not trying to equate circumcision with female genital mutilation.

 

The typical gamer (of violent games) is male. The target audience of violent movies is male. If males didn't want the violence in these media, it would not be there.



#7 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 12 March 2015 - 08:46 PM

@ Philip Blay

 

" are enslaved in a multitude of military services, while women continue to live their lives, free: can you imagine the injustice felt by these men, when they hear that women are oppressed in a world of privileged men?"

 

Yeah right...somehow I get the feeling you are mixing up the situation of males and females from all over the world to be even able to make your point. And your repeatedly displayed obsession with "unjustly enforced" military service for males makes me want to ask you how old you are. I'm guessing here, but if you are afraid to be called up and end up as something you don't want to be for others there, just say so, and maybe refuse or run. Don't put the blame on Emma Watson for not saving men, boys and you from all sorts of things you are afraid of.



#8 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 03:09 PM

I see, when we are showing solidarity toward women and girls, that’s a liberation movement.  But when we are showing solidarity toward men and boys, that’s “hot air” as you said.  Don’t you see the double standards, the sexism of the feminism you are defending?

 

You said: “I hope you are not trying to equate circumcision with female genital mutilation”?  Wow, this is a good example of the lack of solidarity and empathy toward men and boys.  This is a good example showing that we are protecting girls more than we are protecting boys, and we should all be ashamed of our silence on that.  Yes, of course, I do equate MGM (Male Genital Mutilation or circumcision) with FGM (Female Genital Mutilation or excision), and every person who thinks that the well-being of a boy “equates” the well-being of a girl should do the same: that’s gender equality (despite all the excuses invented to justify the unjustifiable, by feminist who don’t care about men, and even boys as we can see with MGM). Times are changing (slowly), more and more men and women have the courage to challenge the sexism of those who believe that girls should be more protected than boys.

 

You said: “if males didn't want the violence in these media…”: I think the sexism in this phrase is so… feminist!.  Men are not “asking” stereotyped roles in these media, not more than women are “asking” for stereotyped roles in these media: men and women are the “victims” of the stereotyped roles, and especially men since there was no liberation of men.  This is a clear case of a sexist double-standard so typical of feminists (to absolve them of guilt for their lack of solidarity toward men and boys: “they are “asking” for it”).

 

Dying in wars in not a privilege.  Reducing the self-esteem of a group (men) in order to optimize them for an (eventual) war is not a privilege.  Enrolling in the army should be a “personal” choice and not the result of a social pressure on a group, but it’s not the case for men, contrarily to women.  There has been no liberation of men, thus the traditional models/roles/stereotypes are still there (in movies and games for example), and that’s why “the target audience of violent movies is male” as you said: men and boys are the victims of this sexism.  If a country can’t yet afford peace, then women, and girls, must also pay the social price men and boys are paying for being optimized for military standards (ex: incapacity to express themselves, caring less about their health or their security, lack of solidarity, low self-esteem, lower life expectancy, …).

 

Go see the numbers of those killed in wars by modern armies (ex: the coalition in Afghanistan), and you will notice that they are almost all men (near 100%).  Women are still protected from the dangers of combat roles (still the case in the US, and in almost all other countries), and this constitutes sexism against men, not women. You gave an example of a modern western countries (like US), where the probability of death is relatively low, because of the technological supremacy. But what about the many wars and military services in underdeveloped countries or less modern countries, where conditions are much worst?  We cannot, on one hand, put pressure on underdeveloped countries to emancipate women and girls, without, on the other hand, also put pressure on them to emancipate men and boys, like enrolling women in case of wars or making the military services mandatory for women too. Both gender must profit from gender equality (not women and girls only).

 

It’s a hidden fact that the genocide in Rwanda began as a gendercide against men (contrarily to what you say, men were almost exclusively targeted), and it’s only at the end of the genocide, that the attackers began to rape some women (some, not every, do you really believe that “nearly every woman that survived was raped”?), because men had to leave the villages because THEY were the target of the killings.  And it’s only then, when some women were also being targeted, that the international community began to speak about an intervention, which is a “classic” behavior in our sexist societies: we close our eyes as long as only men and boys are the targets of violence, and feminist sexism is strengthening this behavior (lack of solidarity and empathy toward men and boys).  Same thing with the Srebrenica massacre (in Bosnia), and with almost all civil wars and wars in general.  We know it, exactions on men and women are used as “weapons of war” and as military strategy, but differently: SOME men are primarily targeted to be massacred/tortured/mutilated/wounded and SOME women are primarily targeted to be raped (in general of course, with SOME exceptions in both cases).  And we cannot ask to protect women from exactions affecting them without asking, at the same time, to protect men from exactions affecting them (which are generally more serious, quantitatively and qualitatively).  Go see yourself the population's sex ratio of countries where there was a war: you will see the sexual imbalance in favour of women in these periods of wars.



#9 dookdookdook

dookdookdook

    Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 03:57 PM

Circumcision does not significantly impact a man's life. The same is not true for FGM. Circumcision may have some minor medical benefits. There are no benefits of any kind in FGM.

 

Destiny was just named "best game of the year". Destiny is all about shooting and killing. The typical gamer is young and male. Bungie is giving them what they want.

 

I know of very few countries where military service is mandatory. I think in many less developed countries people may see it as a privilege, a secure job.  Yes, it's mostly men that die in conflicts. Not because women are "protected from the dangers of combat roles" but because they have been excluded. The only sexism here is denying women the chance to serve in combat roles.

 

"Hidden fact" = conspiracy theory.



#10 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:39 PM

"Women are still protected from the dangers of combat roles (still the case in the US, and in almost all other countries), and this constitutes sexism against men, not women."

Yeah right, male soldiers, who where until now only concerned about gender discrimination in combat and little else, will finally feel a lot better and much less discriminated against when they see Private Jenny get shredded by machingun fire right next to them. Finally some equality !

 

Countering percieved sexism against male soldiers with "positive" sexism against female soldiers, meaning mandatory frontline service so all can feel equal in death, is just dumb. And that is the only thing you can expect from a military - none of them are going to tell their women AND men that fighting from day x onward will be voluntary only for all since it was high time something was done against sexism in the military.



#11 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 03:44 AM

“130671”, wrong guess, I’m not near from “being called” for a military service, I simply find that sending men to wars and preparing them for that in military services is one of the worst sexism (against men).  It’s the “mother of all sexism”, and we cannot achieve a true gender equality without addressing this discrimination against men.

 

I’m not blaming on Emma Watson for “not saving men”, I’m blaming her for only saving women, in a world where both genders have to be saved.  Gender equality means saving both genders, and it’s ironic to see that she demonstrates sexism when it’s time to consider who is victim of sexism or not.  She is the “goodwill ambassador” for the HeForShe campaign, and as I said, the HeForShe campaign is NOT about gender equality, it’s about protecting women and girls, and only them (protection by men and boys).  A quote from the HeForShe site: “committed to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls”.

 

I don’t see why sending women to wars and military services should be considered a "positive sexism against female soldiers” as you said (it’s not a sexism, negative or positive).  There again, it’s gender equality, simply: equals in rights, equals in duties.



#12 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 15 March 2015 - 08:26 PM

Your utopian dream world where humans (and maybe predominantly men) deny their basic nature to strive for ideals most will feel no connection to is just that - a dream. A dream for a small minority. Because the world you find so horrible right now is a world mostly made by men, for men. Men are expected to do things beyond anything women are expected to do, true, military service taking the top spot there, but they also reap the rewards for that, at least in large parts of the world. That that is no longer as obvious in western countries as it is in many others does not mean the mechanism behind it has lost its purpose for the continuation of society. It is a necessity for as long as we have to contend with societies who have no time to contemplate life the way you do, and who would find your ideas simply laughable if you explained them.

At least Emma Watson wants to attack only the way men see women - you want to attack the way most men see themselves. I think its clear who maybe has a slight chance of improving something.

 

"I’m not blaming on Emma Watson for “not saving men”, I’m blaming her for only saving women, in a world where both genders have to be saved."

:rolleyes:  That's a good one. "Wortklauberei" we would call that in german.


Edited by 130671, 15 March 2015 - 08:31 PM.


#13 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 12:07 AM

Dookdookdook, we can continue this “dialogue of the deaf” for a long time, but may I remind you that because of feminist sexism (and its gyno-centrism), there has been no liberation of men that’s why men and boys are still stereotyped, and that’s why film and video game producers can still produce products that presents stereotyped men and boys, which targets them with traditional role models (contrarily to women and girls, who benefits from non-traditional roles in the medias).  Liberation of men is the next social evolution still remaining to do.

 

“Circumcision does not significantly impact a man's life”: how convenient for you to believe this propaganda.  Who decides this?  Sexist feminists who we know are incapable of showing solidarity even toward boys?  This double standard has to stop.

 

Quoting you about mandatory military service: “…may see it as a privilege, a secure job”: we all know that it’s not a privilege, that’s it’s rather a dangerous, stereotyped job for men.  Men must be liberated from this sexism against them, by making mandatory military service mandatory for women too (and we have to make policies which enforce this equality issue for men: this way, both gender will profits from gender equality).

 

And no, "Hidden fact" does not necessarily equates “conspiracy theory”.  It’s a FACT (see on the GendercideWatch site) that men and boys were primarily targeted foe death in Rwanda (and any other wars or protests, as a matter of fact), and yet very few persons are aware of this fact: this is the result of the lack of solidarity and empathy toward men and boys of the feminist ideology.  Feminist women, like those of the HeForShe campaign, have an interest in hiding violence against men and boys, because they are (and I quote) “committed to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls” (no commitment for men and boys).  Since they are women, who want to protect women and girls (and ONLY them) they know that if we are becoming more and more aware of the atrocities committed on men and boys, one day they will have to justify the unjustifiable: why as human beings, and as WOMEN, are they showing empathy and compassion only toward their own gender.  Why can’t they show the solidarity, compassion and empathy toward the other half of the population, their “opposite gender”: men and boys?  That also explains the reactionary attitude of many feminist women (and their denial of the sexism affecting men).



#14 dookdookdook

dookdookdook

    Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 1,828 posts

Posted 17 March 2015 - 02:40 AM

We could continue, but I won't. You pick and choose what you respond to, and pick and choose what you want to believe. If you open your eyes, and stop just regurgitating what you read on misogynistic websites then maybe we can discuss it. Until then I'm done.



#15 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 17 March 2015 - 06:29 PM

Me too. One has to have some pretty big issues of sorts to join a site like this and just rant on and on about a gynocentric world conspiracy ....



#16 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 12:41 AM

You’re a very stereotyped man, “130671”, and it’s sad that you have assimilated the misandrist ideas of sexist feminist women, who don’t care about men and boys (example: this notion of world “made by men, for men”).  I prefer to dream of a world with a real gender equality, than to dream of a world where men and boys would be considered second class citizens (= the HeForShe campaign), a world that would only protect women and girls.  Or to conform to an ideology which exploits the lack of solidarity toward men (exploits you, by the way).  Fighting the sexism of these women is the next step in social evolution: that’s progress (and contrarily to you, I’m an optimist, because misandry is becoming less and less accepted, both by men and women).

 

“…issues of sorts to join a site like this…”: I just want to remind you that Emma Watson is the “goodwill ambassador” for the HeForShe campaign (a sexist campaign), so there’s a link here.

 

“…That's a good one. "Wortklauberei" we would call that in german”: you’re right, that was not one of best phrase.  What I meant was: we should protect all humans, whatever their gender, because both suffers from sexism, sometimes differently.

 

To “Dookdookdook”: I don’t read on “misogynistic websites” as you say, I’m able to think by myself.  I prefer critical thinking over conformism (to ideologies).



#17 Emmy Wemmy

Emmy Wemmy

    Dedicated Member

  • Earth
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • LocationFrance

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:29 PM

Dude I know my comment is almost as low as yours but I so feel the need to say that one thing in the name of all the women from this website: you're a di**.


pattes33.jpg

 

Sister : Kim. E-son : Lil Chris. E-dad : Andrew.


#18 Philip Blay

Philip Blay

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 09:40 PM

At least, “Dookdookdook” and “130671” had the courage of bringing some arguments.  As a society, we’re not used at exposing the sexism that some women have against men and boys, and that you probably have.  And I can understand why it can generate the kind of fear we can see in your insults (fear of change).





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users