Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Toxic Femininity How feminists will cage all sub-8 men.

K

Klaus Kanga II

Germanic ubermensch marsupial
Joined
Nov 17, 2024
Posts
23
I already quoted this high IQ text below, but I feel it deserves a separate thread.

The text below contains an error, howewer. Fembots will not use this against all men, only against undesirable men only, of course. Not against this dude:

yqnPlB.jpg


The following text is in the public domain, so this quote does not risk violating copywrong.
Miloslav Číž said:

How Feminists Will Cage All Men​

Let's take a look at how feminists can achieve caging all men through shortcut thinking and slowly shifting the meaning of the term sexual abuse.

In 1990 the definition of sexual abuse against a woman might have been something like "PHYSICAL sexual actions against her will, for example touching her genitals, breasts, kissing her and so on". Here feminists start a campaign and force everyone to state they're against sexual abuse, and indeed, most people do because indeed it's not good to physically sexually bully someone, there is little reason for anyone to disagree. Here they establish a shortcut "sexual abuse = bad", which at this stage is not harmful yet. However they slowly start changing the definition of sexual abuse.


By 2000 the new definition of sexual abuse may additionally also include VERBAL actions, such as asking a girl about her sexual life. Here we'll already starting to limit free speech but most people didn't notice the subtle change in the definition of sexual abuse, they just remember they're against sexual abuse.


By 2010 the definition of sexual abuse will also include ANY PHYSICAL action such as any touching at all -- if you touch a woman's hand against her will, you're committing sexual abuse. But most people still only remember they're against sexual abuse, whatever it means -- additionally the few people that notice and criticize the changes in definition start to be bullied for supporting sexual abuse or are told to shut up and not make big deal of a small change in definitions. The changes happen slowly so that at no point people notice a sudden jump which they could protest -- individuals may protest on occasion but one man can do nothing and there will happen no sudden change that would synchronize a mass protest.


By 2020 sexual abuse will include practically any action towards a woman which the woman dislikes in any way, such as making eye contact, talking, smiling, holding door open for her, sending her a friend request on social media sites and so on. Now men are bullied, they're scared of just meeting a woman and talking to her -- if the woman decides it's sexual abuse, it is. But if you ask anyone "Are you against sexual abuse?" of course he has to answer "yes" -- answering "no" is absurd because everyone is against sexual abuse, no matter that definition now is completely different from the original definition, it's just the power of words that can keep people approve of and support insanity.


Soon enough it will be observed that practically all men are sexual abusers because sexual abuse now means just interacting with women and basically all men want to or even just have to interact with women in some way. Now feminists may say: since gender studies proved all men are sexually dangerous, it is "logical" that we have to cage all men, it would be insane to let predators run free, right? And just like that we arrive at our dystopia.


If you think they can't do it, you are wrong.
(source - CC0 public domain)
 
I already quoted this high IQ text below, but I feel it deserves a separate thread.

The text below contains an error, howewer. Fembots will not use this against all men, only against undesirable men only, of course. Not against this dude:

yqnPlB.jpg


The following text is in the public domain, so this quote does not risk violating copywrong.

(source - CC0 public domain)
1731844108557
1731844122303
 

Similar threads

tandoorichickencel
Replies
2
Views
147
Starfish Vs Koala
Starfish Vs Koala
Lazyandtalentless
Replies
5
Views
171
TheDragon
TheDragon
AutistSupremacist
Replies
0
Views
173
AutistSupremacist
AutistSupremacist
dayinthelifeofageez
Replies
17
Views
295
VersoffenerAssi
VersoffenerAssi

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top