The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[?!..!?]

It's funny as hell that beiser calls my vision of femininity "stereotypical", yet the first example he gives of pro-gay lyrics is unbelievably stereotypical. It portrays gays as stereotypically hypersexual. Selling a gold cockring also reinforces the stereotype that gay men are hypersexual. And then when I point out it's stereotypical, he accuses me of homophobia. So I guess to avoid homophobia I have to uncritically accept everything gay men say and do? LOL

Anyway, why don't we all talk about ways to help others? I've already given sensitivity and emotional availability as two examples of altruistic behaviors. Any one have any more examples?

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

I'm too feminist to watch porn, sorry! If you were actually interested in feminism, you wouldn't be posting porn.

Also let me note that beiser is trying to move the thread away from discussions of feminine culture, and instead just trying to argue that I'm a bigot.

 

[ghost]

Here's Lil Nas X on stage in 2016, kissing a backup dancer.

 

[?!..!?]

You're really just a bully, beiser.

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

 

[ghost]

Here's Frank Ocean looking good, as is his prerogative.

 

[?!..!?]

Now that the trolls are offline, does anyone want to talk about how we can help socially isolated men?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Now that the trolls are offline, does anyone want to talk about how we can help socially isolated men?

You might be less socially isolated in the first place if you didn't, you know, express any of the terrible opinions that you routinely express?

 

[?!..!?]

You might be less socially isolated in the first place if you didn't, you know, express any of the terrible opinions that you routinely express?

I'm sorry, how are my views terrible? You're just making baseless assertions to hurt my feelings.

Your behavior here clearly exemplifies phallic repression of feminine culture. All I did was try to help others in a feminine way, and you insult my views for no reason.

I guess you think the way to make friends is not to help others but rather to just have no opinions.

 

[ghost]

Mr Tea, don't fall for the bait. You can quote the 74 times he claimed that "every man should be castrated; the loss of the eunuch class has been disastrous for feminine culture" and he'll deny saying it, he'll deny that it's wrong, he'll say it's merely an expression of femininity, he'll say it sounds a little like something judith butler said once, he'll allege that he's cis-nonbinary, that there's nothing wrong with calling himself a soldier in the marines because he wears blue clothing too, that you're simply attacking him for trying to oppose the phallus, that women are universally in need of saving by a phallus-free hero such as himself, because their feminine virtues make them unable to take actions. And then he'll drop a bizarre string of racial innuendos and feign ignorance of all of it. You cannot argue with this, a man who looks like a medieval peasant, absolutely bereft of any visual sign of femininity and actually totally sexless, but who dedicates his life to a fantasy where he pretends to be queer even though he shrinks like a daisy from mere descriptions of an erect member. And then he'll quote your post again, for the next six days, asking why nobody will argue with him, why everyone is evading his crisp prose and clear arguements, why nobody has ever answered his questions. And then he'll post another 173 pages, FLASHBACK about how the Female Pervert was once kind enough to crush his testicles using a garlic press, expelling their bloody remains into thin spaghetti-like strands. The fact is, the man has one claim (judith butler says that capeshit is good because it increases the ineffable femininity (essential meekness) of the world) and has been unable to even parse any argument put against him. That this claim is revolutionary seems to be a load-bearing part of his exceptionalism narrative, and I worry that if we ever do succeed in explaining just where he turned wrong, he may be so filled with despair that he kills himself.

Malelesbian, if you're reading this: please check your home for gas leaks. Carbon monoxide can have terrible and even lethal effects, and checking for it could save your life.

Finally:

 

[?!..!?]

Mr Tea, don't fall for the bait. You can quote the 74 times he claimed that "every man should be castrated; the loss of the eunuch class has been disastrous for feminine culture" and he'll deny saying it, he'll deny that it's wrong, he'll say it's merely an expression of femininity, he'll say it sounds a little like something judith butler said once, he'll allege that he's cis-nonbinary, that there's nothing wrong with calling himself a soldier in the marines because he wears blue clothing too, that you're simply attacking him for trying to oppose the phallus, that women are universally in need of saving by a phallus-free hero such as himself, because their feminine virtues make them unable to take actions. And then he'll drop a bizarre string of racial innuendos and feign ignorance of all of it. You cannot argue with this, a man who looks like a medieval peasant, absolutely bereft of any visual sign of femininity and actually totally sexless, but who dedicates his life to a fantasy where he pretends to be queer even though he shrinks like a daisy from mere descriptions of an erect member. And then he'll quote your post again, for the next six days, asking why nobody will argue with him, why everyone is evading his crisp prose and clear arguements, why nobody has ever answered his questions. And then he'll post another 173 pages, FLASHBACK about how the Female Pervert was once kind enough to crush his testicles using a garlic press, expelling their bloody remains into thin spaghetti-like strands. The fact is, the man has one claim (judith butler says that capeshit is good because it increases the ineffable femininity (essential meekness) of the world) and has been unable to even parse any argument put against him. That this claim is revolutionary seems to be a load-bearing part of his exceptionalism narrative, and I worry that if we ever do succeed in explaining just where he turned wrong, he may be so filled with despair that he kills himself.

Malelesbian, if you're reading this: please check your home for gas leaks. Carbon monoxide can have terrible and even lethal effects, and checking for it could save your life.

Finally:
View attachment 16044

Well I don't have to respond to this. You haven't made a single argument, and you made up multiple lies about me. You even put a sentence in quotation marks that I never said. Not to mention, no textual evidence supports any claim you made about me. Just another strawman from you.

I just don't understand why my views are considered "terrible", yet no one has any problem with trolls inventing many fabrications about me.

 

[ghost]

I'm sorry, this is all too mean. I'll say what I believe clearly this time: I think we've spent almost 50 pages expounding on why we're not convinced by the ideas you've posted, and it's dissappointing that you say we haven't addressed them. I spent far too much time today pointing to the fact that if you describe yourself as a "nonbinary queer cisheterosexual," you have, through your self positioning alone, alienated yourself from anyone seriously invested in the project of gay rights. I have also pointed to the fact that your claims about how the depiction of sexuality in gay culture is bad are deeply lacking in any historical perspective, and takes as axiomatic the idea that frameworks about "objectification" can be cleanly reapplied to gay contexts—which they cannot. I say this, again, as the token dick sucker of this board. I am telling you that your statements are wildly offensive, and now I am telling you that so unambiguously that I hope it is able to get through to you. I have made similar arguments on a variety of other topics, and you have ignored those too.

if you have the gall to tell me now that nobody has explained why your ideas are bad, I will post high resolution images of a pregnant Sonic the Hedgehog engaging in sexual acts you can't even concieve of, with no spoiler censorship, until one or both of us is forcibly removed from this website.

 

[?!..!?]

I spent far too much time today pointing to the fact that if you describe yourself as a "nonbinary queer cisheterosexual," you have, through your self positioning alone, alienated yourself from anyone seriously invested in the project of gay rights.

I think that anyone who understands the pursuit of equal cultural representation will see that it's good for cisheterosexuals to participate in marginalized cultures. Anyone who understand the gender binary knows that a feminine man defies the gender binary and gets marginalized for doing so. Again, you're too focused on labels. If you think I don't count as queer, fine. But I do subvert the gender binary, and that's enough to make me non-binary.

Labels don't matter. Actions do. Representing femininity does.

I have also pointed to the fact that your claims about how the depiction of sexuality in gay culture is bad are deeply lacking in any historical perspective,

Provide the relevant historical context then.

I never said that homosexual depictions of hypersexuality are bad, I said they are phallic and stereotypical.

and takes as axiomatic the idea that frameworks about "objectification" can be cleanly reapplied to gay contexts—which they cannot.

Why not?

I say this, again, as the token dick sucker of this board. I am telling you that your statements are wildly offensive,

What statements are so offensive? I criticize heterosexuals and queers equally for their phallic behavior.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm sorry, how are my views terrible? You're just making baseless assertions to hurt my feelings.

I should probably take beiser's advice and simply not respond, but I will simply say this, before abandoning this dumpster-fire of a thread:

Several people have been telling you exactly how your opinions are terrible, for nearly 50 pages, and you haven't taken a single damn thing on board. I see thirdform has already used the phrase "no true Scotsman" in this thread, which is exactly right: it does't matter how much culture women are producing, because you can dismiss any of it that you don't like (which seems to be nearly all of it) as "phallic", whatever that means, and therefore disqualify it from being truly "feminine."

 

[Mr. Tea]

If there's any "phallic" behaviour going on here, it's your relentless gatekeeping in pursuit of some supposedly genuine and pure "feminine culture", which you - a man - have set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter and guardian of.

 

[?!..!?]

I should probably take beiser's advice and simply not respond, but I will simply say this, before abandoning this dumpster-fire of a thread:

Several people have been telling you exactly how your opinions are terrible, for nearly 50 pages, and you haven't taken a single damn thing on board. I see thirdform has already used the phrase "no true Scotsman" in this thread, which is exactly right: it does't matter how much culture women are producing, because you can dismiss any of it that you don't like (which seems to be nearly all of it) as "phallic", whatever that means, and therefore disqualify it from being truly "feminine."

I've told you what "phallic" means numerous times. It means self interested. There are plenty of examples of culture produced by women and men that I have classified as non-phallic.

 

[?!..!?]

If there's any "phallic" behaviour going on here, it's your relentless gatekeeping in pursuit of some supposedly genuine and pure "feminine culture", which you - a man - have set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter and guardian of.

I'm no ultimate guardian or judge. You guys are the ones calling me an expert on gender, not me. And again, I have accepted some examples others gave of feminine culture. My problem is that no one here wants to focus on the actual topic of promoting feminine culture. They just want to criticize me.

I have done extensive research on the topic of feminine culture. Have you? Have you done any research into the relevant feminist literature?

 

[ghost]

Provide the relevant historical context then

No. Go fucking google it. Go look it up. Watch Paris is Burning. Try for one second to understand anyone's argument in any way that's not "reading Judith Butler." I was joking earlier in the thread, but ChatGPT really might help you.

 

[?!..!?]

No. Go fucking google it. Go look it up. Watch Paris is Burning. Try for one second to understand anyone's argument in any way that's not "reading Judith Butler." I was joking earlier in the thread, but ChatGPT really might help you.

LMAO Butler wrote an essay about Paris is Burning. I haven't finished it yet tho. But you're seriously telling me Butler's work isn't relevant to a movie about drag, when drag performance is literally the main example Butler gives of gender performativity?

But suppose you're right. It doesn't change the fact objectification is phallic and thus objectification in gay culture or any culture does not count as an example of feminine culture. I acknowledge that objectification can be used to undermine itself -- a huge part of my argument is that sterotypes can be used to undermine themselves. But I really don't see how rapping about exchanging sex for money and talking about how big your man's dick is are examples of using stereotypes to critique stereotypes.

 

[ghost]

I should probably take beiser's advice and simply not respond, but I will simply say this, before abandoning this dumpster-fire of a thread:

Several people have been telling you exactly how your opinions are terrible, for nearly 50 pages, and you haven't taken a single damn thing on board. I see thirdform has already used the phrase "no true Scotsman" in this thread, which is exactly right: it does't matter how much culture women are producing, because you can dismiss any of it that you don't like (which seems to be nearly all of it) as "phallic", whatever that means, and therefore disqualify it from being truly "feminine."

I've told you what "phallic" means numerous times. It means self interested. There are plenty of examples of culture produced by women and men that I have classified as non-phallic.

Is this not the most dissapointing response we could imagine? Have you not taken a frontal assault on your ideas, cherry picked a single, non-essential clause, misinterpreted it, denied the considerable ambiguity that it refers to (I was told upthread by you that "phallic" does not just mean self-interested) and then ignores the entirety of the rest of the argument.

This is the pattern of every post you've made, for fifty pages. Turns out I really did make a mistake in deciding to re-engage with this absolute horseshit. If you want to apologize for this awful stuff you've been posting, fine. But otherwise, I don't think I want to engage with you ever again. Beiser out.