Feminists

Without men who will protect you from men?
Checkmate feminists.
- According to Americans: Armed Bears
  🧍‍♂️🔫🐻
  
  I thought they protect the cans of frozen peaches.
  
  Obviously the bears have a right to bear arms but it also protects their right to their own bare bear arms, which are plenty unless the man has a rifle.
  In which case yes, that's why the good bears need AR-15s.
- I thought that's what the bears were for.
  
  i think bears got other shit goin on
  
  This is why I don't prevent forest fires, Smokey is just trying to get the home field advantage on me...

I also can't draw noses.
- They're just all related to Beedle.
  
  I get this reference.
  
  WOW!
- Better off just drawing the nose holes IMO. Maybe a little line. Also : why the pig pink in the nose but not on the face??
  But then again, those kind of things are usually so that you recognise the comics.
  
  I recently got a tip from a friend, that drawing just the shadow a nose creates (so kinda a skewed pear-like shape) looks much better than the sharp lines people usually use for noses.
- just make a upside down 7
  
  We call that an L
  
  o O L ---

The thing that NOBODY seems to understand, or maybe not willing to admit is, you CANNOT group people together.
It's the whole reason racism logically makes no sense. At all.
"Oh, all those dirty (insert race here) are good for nothin! They're all assholes!"
And sure, regardless of what race you inserted there, there's going to be some assholes. There's also going to be some amazing people that you're unfairly judging.
And it's not just races. It's anything. Races, genders, religions, countries, social groups, book clubs, whatever.
If you think all people of one group think the same on everything, you're just factually wrong. And if you use that incorrect fact to judge that group, now you're just an asshole.
I've found that people th]?6ink judging people is bad, and wrong. I don't think so. I think some people are just terrible at judging people, and miss the point of judging people. You're supposed to judge them as an individual. Not as (insert group here).
- There’s a difference between judging people on a category they don’t choose vs. a set of beliefs they choose to follow.
  If I tried to claim all brown-eyed people are evil, I’d be bigoted because eye color does not determine who you are as a person. But if I claimed that all members of the Puppy Kickers Club are evil because they literally believe in kicking puppies and require doing so frequently as a requirement for membership, then my claim is valid.
  
  Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If it's acceptable to judge people based on group membership because it aligns with behavior, people will ascribe abhorrent behavior to group membership. "Oh, you're a (insert religious group here)? Those people literally rape children!"
- How did 28 ppl downvote this? lmao
  If you downvoted that comment, you've gone to the dark side
- I think we can safely shit on Nazis as a whole, though.
  
  My critic to what the other guy said, is that you can judge a group of that group is specific enough to judge them on these characteristics.
  Are all christians bad? Hell no. Active adult members of the Westboro Baptist Church? Hell yes. They are bad because their website is literally godhatesfags.com.
  Now Nazis are fucking Nazis. 11 millions murders should be enough to judge them as a group and those who liked it.
  
  Modern nazis? Yes. They can all go fuck themselves.
  Historical nazis? Like the ones from the 1920s-1945? Maybe. I'm unclear how many of them knew what being nazis actually meant. Like, the average nazi soldier in some 1942 battle. Does he know about jews dying? Does he know the things the nazis stand for? I'm not saying yes or no, because I legit don't know. I find it hard to believe that millions of soldiers all knew, and still went along with it.
  Now the SS? Oh, those assholes KNEW! They were far enough up the ladder that they knew exactly what was going on. They were the ones enforcing it.
  Same as the nazis who ran the camps.
  I read about this one guy who was basically the warden of one of those camps. Directly responsible for literally millions of dead jews in 4 years. They put him on trial at the Nuremburg trials, and he says he did nothing wrong. So they asked him if they threw him in that same oven, would that be wrong? He said no. Sooooo......that's what they did. One of the last things he said was that it was ironic that the one who was to throw the switch on his death was Jewish.
  That's not irony. That's payback.
- The thing that NOBODY seems to understand [is] you cannot group people together.
  🤦🏻‍♂️
  
  Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
- I know a person who genuinely thinks men shouldn't have any rights because they're so bad. She's like "women are superior, they develop emotional maturity earlier" or "all men are assholes". I think she's a lost hope.
  
  Don't talk to them anymore. Antisocial people should be isolated.
  
  Does she think trans men deserve rights?
  Every answer to this question is that she's a TERF
- You have to look at it from the opposite to understand why social psychology and sociology works: people inherently group people together and that very grouping creates power imbalances and forces shared perspectives. Social constructs are constructs, yes, but they also have very tangible effects.
  
  The root problem with society is people.
- I think the reason is our futile yearning for safety.
  People look for patterns so they can fool themselves into thinking they are prepared. They know this group so they know what to expect.
  Bullshit, of course.
  People are complex, life is dangerous, face your anger and see it is just fear.
- I really disagree here. Religion and book clubs are essentially special interest groups that involve choice to join or continue participating in.
  Religion is for weak minded people.
  Edit: I knew I should have trusted my gut when I got weird vibes from your post. Then I saw your Nazi apologia below.
  
  What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They're good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics... They're groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.
  
  What's your problem with Buddhism?
- I mean you can and you can't. All X people are Y will never be true while some X people are Y will almost always be true. Stereotypes come from most X people are Y and is often true. There is a reason it got started although in some cases it is just straight up propoganda or differences in definition. Like lazy. lazy about what? I straight up rather do any physical activity than dealing with bills, budgeting, and taxes. My ancestry is known for drinkin. I rarely drink. Being able to count in a year the times on one hand and zero not being uncommon. If you were at a family wedding though you would not notice me not drinking especially given all the male family members who get closer to your face when talking to you the more they drank. So it does not hold for me but it does for like 90%+ of my extended family and from my other experiences with my folks who are not family and share my ancestry it is a typical thing.

This is part of thing with anything. Whos definition of feminism whos definition of communism. Jane Adams feminism. Hell yeah. But then some celebrity in the 80's was arguing against physical fitness tests for firefighters saying well they could use like power axes or something (which you know. did not exist). Which is sorta funny to me because its sorta dissing on womens ability to pass the tests. Its like there are women who can pass the tests. Its not beyond them. Felt antifeminist to me.
EDITED - I think it was Gloria Steinem
- Protip: when arguing online, a very good strategy for wasting other peoples' time and generally being an insufferable prick is to always pick a slightly unconventional definition of the topic that you're arguing about. It works even better if you shift your definition subtly throughout the course of the argument. That way, each individual statement you make is technically not false, while your overall "argument" is an inconsistent ill-defined undisprovable mess that's impossible to argue against.
  
  The tankie handbook.
- But then some celebrity in the 80’s was arguing against physical fitness tests for firefighters saying well they could use like power axes or something (which you know. did not exist).
  Who? I feel like a huge issue here is saying anyone who is a woman and says a thing = feminism. I know dozens of firefighters who are women, they pass the tests all the time. (My brother is a volunteer firefighter in BC, Canada.)
  
  They are probably referring to Brenda Berkman who successfully sued the NY dept because they could not prove that the requirements of the test matched the actual conditions firefighters face: that as soon as women started applying they added a new condition that they had to meet speed requirements of carrying an unresponsive body up a burning building: something that you simply wouldn't do.
  The moment they reverted the test to what men had previously had to accomplish, 41 women passed with flying colors.
  
  sorry. she was actually a big feminist at the time and she mentioned as part of a feminist talk interview but for the life of me her name escapes me. Honestly any use of the term patriarchy pretty much makes me tune out given the system has plenty of women enabling it. When it comes down to it things are more rich/poor to me than anything else.
  EDITED - I think it was Gloria Steinem
- It's why I don't like applying labels to myself. Just seems like a reason for people to try to start shit or discount your opinions as soon as they can find a reason to "other" you. There are shitty people claiming allegiance to all factions.

Can’t tell his expression at the end. Is he mad or is he ashamed or does he kinda like her?
- Basically this.
  
  I like to imagine he took a minute to glue on eyebrows for the last frame.
  
  The superior template.
  
  Now it all makes sense!
- My guess is that he's farting
- well, I'm pretty sure he's an alcoholic (red nose. red cheeks.) and I'm pretty sure the shadow across the face means he's mad.
  
  She has the same red nose and cheeks. I think that’s just the author’s style.

The entire "bear" thing is the exact same situation from the other side. The reality is that there is always nuance, while it is more popular / more often that people see the extreme outliers and attribute that to the entire group.
- The point of the bear question isn't blaming men. It's assessing risk, and the risk of random man in the wilderness is far greater than random bear. Yes. A bear can maul, kill, and eat you, but a bear will never assualt, torture, or throw you in a pit for years on end. The risk of sexual and psychological abuse is worse to women than the threat of being eaten by an animal. It's not about blame at all.
  
  Ugh, not this BS again
- Which makes sense. You get only one shot at life. So being more sensitive to negative bias could be an advantage to the individual.

I'm genuinely torn, because I support the message, but the execution is... very unclear.
- You support the message that attacking a group people are born into and a group people choose to identify with are equally bad?
  Q: Are Not All Proud Boys Like That? Or does it only extend to groups you support?
- The have the "unacceptable" face, so maybe he's the kind of people that he think feminist talk trash about? Idk 😂

Are people still saying that?
- Not adults. People see posts from 14 year olds and take it as gospel for an entire demographic.
  
  Reddit in a nutshell

I actually agree with this comic, feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths who treat misandry as a guiding principal, but it's sexist to talk about that.
I'm not saying that equality between the sexes or women's liberation is inherently bad, but we need to ask if we're demonizing men and if men deserve it, and the answers are yes and no.
That's not to say women are not in danger of sexual violence, we're the primary targets of it, but surely we can't just write off an entire group as being.... characterized specifically by this behavior.
- When you say "feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths" what are you specifically talking about?
  
  my guess is they saw a tweet they didn't like, which is a damning indictment of the past 180 years.
  
  Before I came out as trans, I was blamed for every problem women faced simply for existing, afterwards, I continue to be blamed for every problem women face simply by existing... only now it's not just by TERFs, it's also by the actual people creating problems for women.
- I actually agree with this comic, feminism has been hijacked by career sociopaths who treat misandry as a guiding principal, but it’s sexist to talk about that.
  I'm sure that is not what the comic is trying to say. From what you've said, you actually disagree with the message of the comic.
  
  If it's wrong to categorize all feminists in a bubble, then it's wrong to categorize all men in a bubble, and since criminalizing masculinity is a goal of feminism, this comic debunks the bigoted movement.
  If you really care about equality between the sexes, call yourself an Egalitarian. I will not be aligned with bigotry. Only difference between an Incel and a Radical Feminist is the plumbing of the cult leader.
- I wouldn't say that misandrists qualify as "feminist"
  From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism:
  feminism - noun - belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
  
  But many of them claim they are feminists and are welcomed in because giving a test to prove it would be insensitive
- Do you talk with many feminists? Because it sounds like you have confused reality with a conservative straw man of feminists.
- Maybe you're missing the whole point of the comics?

I mean I'm a single straight dude and I'm pretty much certain guys are trash.
So while not all feminists might think that, I could give them plenty of examples of all guys being trash
Edit: a bit too many of you took this way too seriously, it's a fucking comic strip.
Yes not all guys are trash, but the number of times I have to call my friends out on something like "women expecting too much of us because they get paid less." Like no, women expecting equality is not expecting too much.
- I think you should change friends 😅
- You'll get it for real when you realize it's not a "men bad" thing but more of a "people bad" kind of thing. Everyone has the capacity to do wrong, and a lot of people choose not to overcome that. Men are just typically in more of a position of power to be able to do larger acts of wrongdoing, and have historically either been punished lightly or not at all for many insidious crimes because of their predisposition to power.
  
  This is exactly it. My wife had a father that was like my mother and I recognized the BS almost immediately. As bad as my mom was though she was more limited in bullying her kids being female and could only do it indirectly with my dad. Her dad though kept up being a significant negative influence for her well into adulthood. Her worst experience in life despite male power came from a female friend.
- By that logic all women are trash too. I could give examples of just about every woman I know doing shitty things. Nobody's perfect. People do shitty things. Sometimes it's just here and there. Sometimes it's a consistent pattern of behavior. All men and all women are not consistently bad, some are. If your friends are consistently like that you have bad friends. I have had to explain shit to my friends on occasion and I've had to have things explained to me. It happens but it's far from a consistent thing and we've all gotten better as we've grown and broadened our perspective.
- That's just internalized misandry though
- Pick me, pick me
- Ok, what's one example of all guys being trash then?
- we don't have a very good reputation.
  
  Who's "we" in this ?

... said the incel