Author Topic: The downsides to "strict" feminism  (Read 2589 times)

Mordred

  • Guest
The downsides to "strict" feminism
« on: February 05, 2017, 11:24:48 AM »
I want to preface this by saying I'm not any kind of alt-right troll, closet Republican or "sheep in wolf's clothing" Christian; I just think that people need to think about ALL the sides and side-EFFECTS to issues. And I believe this video makes some very insightful points. But seriously, if I do end up pissing off some SJW vegan hippies (which TST appears to be full of, perhaps) then I can't deny that it would be a bit satisfying. I think we are all pretty open-minded here and I encourage any intelligent counter-arguments...


beatdaddio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2017, 03:47:32 PM »
It's one thing to invite "intelligent counter arguments" and entirely another to say you'd be satisfied if you pissed off a group of people that you call by an alt-right troll term.

If you actually meant the "intelligent" part, you wouldn't stoop to the other part.
Now more than ever.

Mordred

  • Guest
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2017, 05:27:50 PM »
HAHAHA. Uh oh. Looks like I've "triggered" one already! 

Benjamin T. Awesome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
    • My Medium
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2017, 07:08:43 PM »
This video is nonsense. If you're going to make claims, you have to cite some sort of source, which this guy cites zero. For instance, he says vegetarians have trouble conceiving children. As a counterexample, I offer the country of India. India has the highest rate of vegetarianism in the world and, with a population of 1.25 billion people, the second-highest population in the world. I'm not sure how you could be aware of the existence of India and still claim vegetarians have trouble conceiving. That's just one obvious example, but pretty much everything that guy said was wrong, and it's not surprising he didn't cite any sources for his "facts," because they aren't facts.

Mordred

  • Guest
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2017, 08:45:30 PM »
There's no need for "source-citing" for things that should be simple common sense. A wise person doesn't need 5 more wise people to validate what he or she has been able discover from introspection and intuition. I would argue that eating meat is also common sense, since our ancestors have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years, but I am sure that a lot of (((you))) would disagree. Don't they eat a lot of curry in India? Doesn't curry tend to have MEAT in it? Can you, a supposedly enlightened adult, really sit there with a straight face and try to argue that fetuses/infants who haven't become cynical/disillusioned enough to become vegans yet, don't need the vital nutrients found in meat? I would wager that the meat-eating Indians are the ones having the vast majority of India's -healthy- children. I would wager that the ones that are lucky enough to be conceived by vegans are quite sickly and malnourished. You should check your own "facts" against the tenet that tells us not to distort them to fit our own personal agendas (in your case, a very radical, by-the-numbers left wing agenda apparently)..."Oh but of COURSE all of his points have to be WRONG: they're on the RIGHT!"

***vegetarians/vegans are at much higher risk for***:Vitamin deficiency anemia. In addition to iron, your body needs folate and vitamin B-12 to produce enough healthy red blood cells. A diet lacking in these and other key nutrients can cause decreased red blood cell production. -frommayoclinic.com

Women in the childbearing years are particularly susceptible to iron-deficiency anemia because of the blood loss from menstruation and the increased blood supply demands during pregnancy. -from WebMD.com

Benjamin T. Awesome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
    • My Medium
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2017, 10:52:44 PM »
There's no need for "source-citing" for things that should be simple common sense.

That guy didn't say anything that is common sense. He said stupid unscientific bullshit and didn't offer any logical or empirical foundation for it.

Quote
A wise person doesn't need 5 more wise people to validate what he or she has been able discover from introspection and intuition. I would argue that eating meat is also common sense, since our ancestors have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years, but I am sure that a lot of (((you))) would disagree. Don't they eat a lot of curry in India? Doesn't curry tend to have MEAT in it?

Fact: India has the highest rate of vegetarianism of any country in the world. Maybe you eat curry with meat in it, but hundreds of millions of Indians don't.

Quote
I would wager that the meat-eating Indians are the ones having the vast majority of India's -healthy- children.

This is an irrelevant statement. The simple fact is this guy was saying vegetarianism makes it hard to conceive, yet provided zero scientific evidence for that. Furthermore, the country with the highest rate of vegetarianism in the world has a bigger population than the entire continent of Europe by far, let alone the single minuscule country this guy is from. It's just plain idiotic to conclude that vegetarianism reduces a woman's ability to conceive when the second most populous country on Earth is also the country with the highest rate of vegetarianism. He is likely conflating correlation with causation among vegetarians in first-world countries but, in fact, vegetarianism has nothing to do with declining birthrates.

If you think this guy is right, maybe you should supply the scientific data he was unable to furnish. I'm not interested in your non-expert opinion or conjecture about stuff. You're just some guy on the internet. If you'd rather not defend this moron and his absurd statements, that's cool, too. I'm just saying you posted that video and I think it's laughably unscientific. This is just one example. Pretty much every statement he made could be challenged on the same basis of being unscientific.

beatdaddio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2017, 11:14:58 PM »
What may not be obvious if you're unfamiliar with Varg (the guy in the video) is he is openly racist and homophobic and spent almost 15 years in prison for hate crimes.

That's who OP wants to use as an example of how to talk intelligently about feminism.
Now more than ever.

Mordred

  • Guest
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2017, 06:06:24 PM »
That's completely incorrect. He was not imprisoned for any "hate crimes." Hate crime is a political term. Varg was given the strictest possible sentence for his crimes because Norway had to make an example out of him as the "evil, Satanic figurehead of the black metal scene" (fun fact: he was NEVER a Satanist). Then again, if YOU were familiar with him at all, you would already know this. Yes he committed crimes, but there is no logical justification for drawing a connection between those crimes and his views on completely unrelated topics and issues. I think you're just trying to spin this as far to the left as possible because you assume everyone else here will jump on that same bandwagon because we're all a bunch of ultra-liberal hippies who follow a strict "party line" but just think that Satanism is so "cool." Well that is not the case. You may be wondering "why would I be posting a video like this here of all places?" Because I am really tired of having to deal with the notion that all modern "Satanists" follow the same socio-political ideologies. We don't. I don't think I'm the only one like this here and I am sure more will speak up eventually. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind but if I can get one person to think about this stuff differently that's progress. 

ClovenMischief

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2017, 01:05:25 PM »
The sad music is a hilarious touch.

All of which he stated is women's personal choices. We have the same 'problem' in Japan and China, and many other countries. Even in America, though America has a much larger population so it hasn't really taken much of a face in the matter though it is clearly present.

Women are making choices for themselves and it happens that this is moving in a direction of living single, and/or childless. Don't believe the documentaries that are trying to make you feel "pity" for them, or make you think they are "selfish." Or they are unclean if they bear a kid and didn't marry the father. Or because they choose a personal lifestyle that limits them. Or worse... like this guy, that men have to do something about it for the sake of spreading their "seed."
Need I point out, that this is all double standard?
He may be overlooking the statistics of population shrinkage because:
1) Women, because of their sexuality, do not want children because they like to get around. Same as a guy who doesn't want kids for the same exact reasons.
2) Other means of fulfilling sex lives than with living people and possibility of getting pregnant.
3) Both single men and women choose fertilization from sperm banks, or adoption, AND to live as a single parent.
4) More and more established couples, in Europe too, choose not to bear children and instead choose to solely focus on their own relationship with no 'distraction.'
5) Established couples or single people who choose pets as their babies. :3
6) Many wait to find 'the right one' but may be over menopause or close to it by the time they do.
7) Choose not to have kids because giving literal birth can be deathly dangerous or is simply too traumatizing.
Just saying that population shrinkage is not simply by "women unable to bear children," but by the majority decision that women simply choose not to. Nothing to do with feminism. These are just personal choices, though to men apparently, a women wanting personal choice is feminism. (To the radical meninists anyway)

We also live in a world where if you are barren you are "broken" and that's wrong. I get that they may want to bear kids, but as an adoptee myself I strongly advocate adopting the thousands out there wanting and hoping for a family to love them.  Adoptees can be adopted overseas too, it's not like your choices are limited to a single country so "Europe" doesn't have an excuse and doesn't have to be "shrinking in population size".

If a woman doesn't want to eat meat, that's her choice even if it "so-called sterilizes" her (yes, diet can lead to having trouble with bearing children or making healthy sperm, but only if you are stupid and lazy enough to not get all the nutrients you need. Same goes for any diet and gender under it. Not just Veganism). What are men gonna do? Make a law she can't be vegan because her body is meant to bear kids? Women could do the same for men in that a lacking nutrient diet makes their sperm faulty. Now if she truly screwed up her body and wants to bear kids herself she has access to the doctor's advice to do so, same with men. His claims have no hold when options are clearly available.

By the way- Do you know how many women in this world are refused sterilization methods because "Your future husband might want kids"? How sickening is that statement from your doctor? A women, no, a person, making a choice for their own body and yet they belong to someone they haven't even met yet? This happens to lesbians and lesbian married couples too. I've been through such denial even with something as simple as Birth Control and sterilization methods myself. Because my body, a lesbian body mind you, belongs to a man according to my doctors. Meanwhile 5 of my guy friends (3 gay) got sterilized no sweat and zero denial. Their seed didn't belong to "future wives" apparently...
In other words, don't just fight for means of ending unwanted sterilization, but fight for sought sterilization too.

I'm not even angry, just stating statistics that you may be overlooking. I'm neither liberal nor republican. But this is fact: Men are praised for their personal life choices, are given every opportunity for sterilization, and their single life is welcomed. Women are not treated the same on any of those grounds. TST stands by people's personal choices for their bodies. Male, female, and everything in between. To trespass on one's rights and personal choices is to forego your own.

beatdaddio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2017, 08:01:57 PM »
That's completely incorrect. He was not imprisoned for any "hate crimes." Hate crime is a political term.
He was convicted of burning down multiple churches specifically because they were Christian, which is by definition a "hate crime".  He was also convicted of murder, though that was just a regular crime.  I share his opposition to Christian imperialism and destruction of local cultures, but I prefer TST's approach of using the law (and some theatrics) to put them in their place.
Yes he committed crimes, but there is no logical justification for drawing a connection between those crimes and his views on completely unrelated topics and issues.
Your mistake is in thinking they are unrelated.  His crimes are a reflection of his mindset: he has repeatedly expressed admiration for groups that use violence to push their ideology, and he has stockpiled weapons and explosives for reasons that are either criminal or delusional depending on who you believe.  He regularly promotes racist militant groups and his own propaganda videos.  This is not a rational or balanced person.  This is a nut job with stupid and indefensible ideas who just happens to get listened to because of his fame in the black metal scene.  That is why I brought up his character in relation to speaking intelligently about feminism.
I think you're just trying to spin this as far to the left as possible because you assume everyone else here will jump on that same bandwagon because we're all a bunch of ultra-liberal hippies who follow a strict "party line" but just think that Satanism is so "cool."
You are again mistaken.  There is no cool kids club here; this forum doesn't get much traffic, and I don't know any of these people, and I haven't seen any of that bandwagon you're imagining.  In fact most of the posts I see here are either from new members just saying hi and wondering where to start, or from wannabe "rebels" like yourself who think there is some value to trolling people who you imagine will oppose you on some trite political or social basis. See:
You may be wondering "why would I be posting a video like this here of all places?" Because I am really tired of having to deal with the notion that all modern "Satanists" follow the same socio-political ideologies.
Absolutely nobody outside your imagination is pushing the notion you described.  TST is a political action group that uses religion and law as tools to fight against religious oppression.  It does not claim to represent all modern Satanists, and I highly doubt any individual member of TST would make that claim either.  TST is explicitly feminist, in the sense that it demands the rights of women are not restricted by religious oppressors.

Insofar as there is any measurable or definable population of Satanists, I would doubt that the majority of them are members of TST.  My impression, just from traveling around the country and the world, is that most Satanists do not belong to any religious organization; a small percentage of them belong to CoS, another small number belong to other "known" occult groups, or a local coven (or similar ritual association); and a small percentage support TST.

TST's mission is "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people".  In the fairly short history of organized Satanism,  the focus for many has been "might makes right", egocentrism, and making other people submit to their will.  That is probably even the majority, statistically, within North America.  Surely you would feel happier posting on forums that cater more to those more established and wide-ranging versions of Satanism, rather than one belonging to a specific political action group with a mission that you don't share.
Now more than ever.

ClovenMischief

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2017, 10:19:22 PM »
Basically: Mordred thought we had to open our minds to an alternative look on feminism and worded it in a way as if they were trying to start something with what they assumed to be a crackpot of hardcore leftists. When Mordred them self didn't have a wide view either, or at least this "Varg" didn't (giving benefit of a doubt cuz I'm nice like that). And as I stated before there is far more than what this "Varg" is implying is the source of a 'problem.' A 'problem' that is completely avoidable due to several options being available but simply not taken in large enough numbers. Like McDonald's putting healthy food on the menu, but everyone still just wants the Big Mac.
Also Mordred used a really shitty human being to listen to and I'm hoping they did that to troll everyone, because if they actually listen to the narrow-mindedness of this person often I have no pity. They could have literally used hundreds of people who have good backgrounds and very all encompassing views on topics, but nope, they chose hate crime, lunatic, narrow- minded Varg who thinks Veganism sterilizes women. *facepalm*

Honestly I don't think such a sensitive snowflake that Mordred assumes is here on either side would survive in any Satanic setting, Satanists are renowned for their intelligence and analytical stance that is outside the box looking in. To be too far into something to the point of pure bias, ignorance, and sensitivity because of your inner passions is frowned upon as it means you aren't using your head. Those that have exhibited such snowflake behavior have been quickly, even politely, humbled.

Mordred

  • Guest
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2017, 08:11:34 AM »
@ClovenMischief:

Thanks for bringing up a lot of points I didn't think about and sticking (mostly) to the issues instead of, like others (one other) completely avoiding them and instead choosing to assassinate the character of the person making them. This is what i meant by providing intelligent counter-arguments.

I think it's unfair that a doctor would refuse birth control PILLS for anyone, man or woman, but I have a question. If you're a lesbian, as you claim, why would you need it in the first place? Is that your way of saying you're bisexual, and there may be the possibility of being with a man in the future? If so, wouldn't you deeply regret becoming permanently "sterilized?" I'm not saying that such a hypothetical husband, if he did exist, should be able to force you to have kids, but wouldn't it suck to not even have the option and/or not even have the ability to have the conversation about it as a couple? There is also the Hippocratic Oath to think about. Some doctors may feel that removing repro organs would violate it.

You are wrong though about the problem Varg and I are pointing out being avoidable. It won't be made avoidable without drastic changes to the structure of society. Without these changes, we will continue to see crime, unrest and chaos increase (read the news lately?) and cultural progress decrease (seen what's been going on at universities lately? multiculturalism destroys cultures. it does not bring them together). The poor usually can't afford things like birth control and in some cases are given incentives to have more (i.e. welfare queens). These will in most cases grow up to be our future drug dealers, robbers, killers, rapists, gang-bangers, and inmates. Meanwhile, the best and brightest of the female gender are in many cases being strongly discouraged from procreating (this is what I mean by "downside to feminism"--EVERYTHING has a downside, you know). What's this mean for the future of our race?

Also, the concept of adoption is great on paper, and I'm glad to find out that you seem to have come from a good foster family, but I've heard too many horror stories of abusive and sinister foster parents whose behavior towards the children placed in their care is evil beyond comprehension to think that it's a really great thing; in fact a lot of these foster "parents" care nothing for the children and do it just for the monthly check to use for their own selfish ends.

Mordred

  • Guest
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2017, 08:38:36 AM »
@beatdaddio

From what little I know about CoS, they are not at all interested in socio-political issues or current events; furthermore I don't see much purpose in bringing up ideas with people who already share those ideas. I don't see the point. So, unless you're some kind of official or moderator for TST, I'll keep posting my "inflammatory" ideas right here, and there's nothing you can do about it. hahaha!

I don't remember stating any specific "mission" or "agenda" when making the original post, nor did I specifically disagree with any mission statement of TST, so I don't know where you got enough information to seemingly be able to, in effect, read my mind and glean my personal opinions on certain subjects. Sounds an awful lot like "You're not like US, so you shouldn't be HERE. You should go over THERE with THEM instead." Sounds more like a fundy church than the "political action group" you're talking about...

Eliza

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2017, 12:28:32 PM »
@ClovenMischief:
I think it's unfair that a doctor would refuse birth control PILLS for anyone, man or woman, but I have a question. If you're a lesbian, as you claim, why would you need it in the first place?

You didn't ask this from me, but I'll answer anyway: birth control pills are also used as medicine. Issues like adundandt and painful menses can be eased with pills, and they are used as main treatment when fighting against serious disease called endometriosis. Period can also be relocated to the next month, and that can be handy. That's why a lot of women who actually don't need birth control still use hormonal birth control, it simply does a lot more than prevents undesirable pregnancy. Or can do, of course it won't work for everyone and hormonal birth control also has a lot of side effects.

About the main thing in here: I'm a woman and have been through sterilization, because I don't want kids. And I couldn't really care less about the "future of our race". That is not my concern, because I'll be dead eventually. I'm not bound to society that thinks the most important thing a woman can do is having children. My life is here and now, and for me womanhood includes many more important things than being a mother. That being said, I really can't stand the idea of men, especially someone as gross as Varg, being so "concerned" about the independent decisions of women. Some of us really don't want kids, some (most) of us do. That's none of his business and has nothing to do with unscientific arguments about being a vegetarian.
It is stated that 29%-40% of Indians are vegetarians. That is high percentange, and as country India has most vegetarians in the world. If vegetarianism truly were the issue here, then India wouldn't hold the second-largest population in the world: 1,2 billion people. The main reason for not having "enough" children is simple: in Europe women are more free than ever, and most of them can figure out a lot more reasonable things in life than having six children and spending their whole life as housewifes. Because of reproductive rights that are at good state in most of European countries women no longer need to do as someone else says. We can built a career and have only one child or decide to not have any. If the excistense of mankind (or, as Varg thinks, white mankind) is the price we have to pay for doing so, I'm paying it with pride. What kind of a satanist would I be if I cared about someone elses demands toward to my body?

And yes, I called Varg gross. What comes to your mind first when you hear the name Breivik or Fritzl? The crimes they committed. I don't have any symphaty towards murderer, racist and church-burner. This really has not much to do about it, but I come from Nordic Countries. Especially in here Varg is very well-known and I have not met many people who think that supporting the ideas of criminal this fatal isn't dubious. No to be suprised though because there are lot of nazi scums everywhere, and they follow agendas like his. I really think that humans should be estimated by their acts, and Varg surely has done a lot already. TST may be independent what it comes to party politics, yes, but I personally am not. Are you really amazed when some people don't embrace racists like Varg? If you want people to listen to you, you really could use some source critisism. Also, some of us may be amused when you assume that we already aren't capable thinking outside the box. We are satanists. Of course we are pretty damn objective.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 12:32:27 PM by Eliza »

Benjamin T. Awesome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
    • My Medium
Re: The downsides to "strict" feminism
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2017, 04:07:04 PM »
About the main thing in here: I'm a woman and have been through sterilization, because I don't want kids. And I couldn't really care less about the "future of our race". That is not my concern, because I'll be dead eventually. I'm not bound to society that thinks the most important thing a woman can do is having children. My life is here and now, and for me womanhood includes many more important things than being a mother. That being said, I really can't stand the idea of men, especially someone as gross as Varg, being so "concerned" about the independent decisions of women. Some of us really don't want kids, some (most) of us do. That's none of his business and has nothing to do with unscientific arguments about being a vegetarian.

This is all that really needs to be said. If a woman doesn't want to reproduce, she shouldn't have to. It's as simple as that.

It is a Judeo-Christian belief that we should "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," not a Satanic belief. If your argument against feminism is predicated on that sentiment having some objective moral value, then your philosophy is likely based on Judeo-Christian dogma. Varg's beliefs on this issue are the same as those of evangelical Christians.

Personally, I choose liberation from arbitrary dogma.