There are definitely women who pretend to be ditzy/stupid/helpless in order to get men to like them.

To an extent most porn stars do that. With all the groaning they do and all.
Note: Being stupid and helpless is something both sexes do.

I like intelligent girls I am not sure why you would like unintelligent ones?

Tbh i don't like intelligent women. I'd rather not get into debates about some offhand historical comment i make. Them again, a dumb girl wouldn't understand aforementioned comment. Other personality traits are more important relationship wise. Physical aspects could mean less.

EDIT: It's sad when a smart girl gets hooked up with a dumb guy though.

Edited 4/11/2015 16:22:12

People Lawlz hates feminism and women, why would he make an alt and start a thread about something he hates?

Edited 4/11/2015 17:57:01

I was obviously refering to the text beneath it. I didnt see it wasn't written by OP, because of the absence of quote. I do not know in what context these line were originaly written and it doesn't matter, because here, out of context, the post is obviously meant to be against feminism. "women are usually inferior to their partner intellectually" is a pretty bold and misogynistic claim imho,and i don't care who says it, if it is meant to be understood litteraly.(i don't know in what context it was originally written)

So... you see a link to a book, see a text underneath it, with "2.3 THE POWER OF THE WEAKER PARTNER". You didn't wonder what happened to 1.1 or 2.2? Well I shouldn't expect too much of the likes of you I guess.

Even if, in this context, it was meant against feminism, then how does that make OP a misogynist? Are you too stupid to understand the distinction between women (a gender) and feminism (an ideology)?

When you say that "'women are usually inferior to their partner intellectually' is a pretty bold and misogynistic claim imho,and i don't care who says it", then you are calling Esther Vilar, a feminist woman, a misogynist. Instead of trying to silence women who want to talk about women, you should shut up, let them speak, and listen. Then you might become a less ignorant young boy.

wow you sure insult me a lot, insecure much?

Did you cover your eyes when i wrote that the statement, "as is", taken "litterally", "out of context" (do i need to elaborate more?), is a misogynistic statement.
Whats up with you and your acusations of me being a "young boy" trying to silence women?
Can't you do better that personal insults and irrational accusations? Do you really think you are being smart here?

I was just responding in kind. Was that offensive to you? I'm so sorry if I hurt your manfeelz.

Neither "litterally" nor "literally" changes anything in your message. In fact, it just makes my point stronger. You said that the author of that piece was a misogynist, no matter who it is, so you called her a misogynist. Is this really so hard to grasp?

But you are right, calling you a young boy does not do young boys justice. There are a lot of young boys who can think for themselves, even if you don't.

Again with the insults and personal attacks, you must be desperate.

I shouldn't even respond since you just don't give a shit about what i said, you just want me to have said the things that fits what you are irrationally attacking me for (but again you don't seem to be a very rational person)

The correct quote was that OP use "a feminist name to spread misogynistic ideas", in the context of his post.
i don't know in what context it was originally written, i feel like i'm starting to repeat myself, but aparently you didn't get it the first 2 times, i have little hope that you will get it the 3rd time, but whatever.

Do i need to explain to you the difference between a PERSON and an IDEA?

Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic

I rest my case

Edited 4/11/2015 19:18:29

came here to laugh at reddit neckbeards and/or quixotic tumblr sjws

but i can't make head or tail of any of this

"women are usually inferior to their partner intellectually" is a pretty bold and misogynistic claim imho

it's arguably factually true. women are denied education, and can be tied to the household in patriarchal societies, ie backwards societies. they would therefore be less intelligent than the men, as part of their designed subjugation.

intelligence/intellect is a non-scientific term so it's improvable. but, for example, female illiteracy rates are higher worldwide. (i surely don't need to look this up to know it's correct.)

to say "women are naturally intellectually inferior to men" would be inherently misogynistic, though.

Edited 4/11/2015 19:40:47

to say "women are naturally intellectually inferior to men" would be inherently misogynistic, though.

False. Natural Selection shows us that the fittest survive and the least fit die off. In early human days, hunter/gatherers were usually men. If you are a stupid hunter, you will die (Without the protection of guns/armor/camouflage).

you are calling Esther Vilar, a feminist woman, a misogynist. Instead of trying to silence women who want to talk about women, you should shut up, let them speak, and listen.

it's possible for a woman to say something misogynistic, or be a misogynist. and it's important to take criticism from whoever it comes.

if a person is talking shit you can challenge them regardless of gender. that's equality son. letting mad sociologists chat all kinds of shit is detrimental to feminism, since it gives ammunition for misogynists to deride feminism. which i suspect is what op is doing

The correct quote was that OP use "a feminist name to spread misogynistic ideas", in the context of his post.
i don't know in what context it was originally written, i feel like i'm starting to repeat myself, but aparently you didn't get it the first 2 times, i have little hope that you will get it the 3rd time, but whatever.

Do i need to explain to you the difference between a PERSON and an IDEA?

Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic

You aren't going to get out of the responsibility of explaining your logical fallacies by acting butthurt over a few snarky remarks. I never complained about your language, try to stay on the subject and don't change it.

The correct quote? Where did you take that quote from? You know, if you say that the correct quote was "a feminist name to spread misogynistic ideas", then that quote must be somewhere. Please show me where you found that quote.

You say that you don't know the context of the feminist writing. Well, perhaps you should FIND OUT before you talk about it like some damn expert!? He quoted a feminist, he did not take her text out of context, yet you somehow manage to convince yourself that quoting a feminist in a way that makes feminism look less than credible is misogyny. So as far as you are concerned, there is no way of criticizing feminism without being a misogynist. Again, you are confusing a gender with an ideology. Please, please make the distinction clear to yourself before you bother to respond again.

@Benjamin

when the clever hunters reproduce, they pass on their smart genes to their daughters

Natural Selection shows us

concepts can't show things [/grammar nazi]

Edited 4/11/2015 19:55:10

The Lord, Lawlz, and Original Poster are all from New Jersey...

concepts can't show things

Algebra is a concept. So is science. They can show you a lot of things

you somehow manage to convince yourself that quoting a feminist in a way that makes feminism look less than credible is misogyny.

>dredging up some crazy old pamphlet that literally nobody cares about
>posting it in a completely unrelated internet forum alongside a non-controversial feminist campaign
yes, i bet OP definitely doesn't hate women

Algebra is a concept. So is science. They can show you a lot of things

no, they are the things

mathematicians and scientists show you the things

abstract concepts cannot do things

Edited 4/11/2015 20:00:40

when the clever hunters reproduce, they pass on their smart genes to their daughters

I thought about this, and you are right. What I am about to say is no way proven science:

Wouldn't the "super intelligence" gene naturally be on the Y chromosome? If said gene were on the X chromosome, wouldn't females be significantly smarter?

Again, that is just my thought process, not necessarily true

it's arguably factually true. women are denied education, and can be tied to the household in patriarchal societies, ie backwards societies. they would therefore be less intelligent than the men, as part of their designed subjugation.

intelligence/intellect is a non-scientific term so it's improvable. but, for example, female illiteracy rates are higher worldwide. (i surely don't need to look this up to know it's correct.)

to say "women are naturally intellectually inferior to men" would be inherently misogynistic, though.

i agree with everything you said, if we chose to include "education" or 'illiteracy" in the evaluation of "intelligence". I get that this could be a use (or abuse in my opinion) of the word intelligence. Wich i think was your point when you said that intelligence was not a scientific term and therefore could be used in various context with different meaning. My understanding of the word intelligence is in a general way the mental capacities (wich i guess can be inhibited by the lack of intellectual stimulation)

That said, i hardly think this was the point OP was trying to make with this quote, as such a definition would require clarification.

Edited 4/11/2015 20:11:44

@The Lord: here is the exact quote of my first post

Are you blind or just plain stupid? What do you think #HeForShe means? He uses a feminist name to spread his misogynistic ideas.

Do with it what you wish, i've made my point, i'm done with you

@Benjamin628

Wouldn't the "super intelligence" gene naturally be on the Y chromosome? If said gene were on the X chromosome, wouldn't females be significantly smarter?

You assume there is a "super intelligence" gene, wich is almost certainly incorrect
And you assume that survival is only due to "intelligence", wich is also almost certainly incorrect.

Edited 4/11/2015 20:13:40