Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:3/24/2012
Last Login:7/09/2016
Content Thumbs: 124 total,  219 ,  95
Comment Thumbs: 3394 total,  3942 ,  548
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 11 Content: New Here → Level 12 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 83% (83/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:18634
Times Content Favorited:20 times
Total Comments Made:1063
FJ Points:3292

latest user's comments

#20 - New Conglomerate master race  [+] (1 reply) 06/20/2014 on tumblr makes a joke 0
User avatar
#21 - nyctonightingale (06/20/2014) [-]
It looks like you're both wrong now...

Vanu Sovereignty all the way
#25 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 reply) 06/16/2014 on Putin loves his waifu +36
#47 - anon Comment deleted by
#109 - What the hell is this whole "not all men" thing about?  [+] (26 replies) 06/11/2014 on - 0
User avatar
#121 - thirdjess (06/11/2014) [-]
In response to all those softcocks saying 'well if women had stopped being such cunts and slept with him', #YesAllWomen trended on twitter. I was once thrown off of public transport for causing a disturbance when a man started yelling at me for rejecting him. #YesAllWomen (true story). Because of that, #NotAllMen became popular, stating that not all men are arrogant, self important douchecanoes.

Personally, I don't consider #NotAllMen valid because #YesAllWomen.
User avatar
#129 - thesoulseeker (06/11/2014) [-]
"Personally, I don't consider #NotAllMen valid because #YesAllWomen. " What?
From what I understand the #YesAllWomen is the idea that all women go have to go through bullshit perpetrated by men and the #NotAllMen basically says that not all men are filthy animals.

In conclusion I don't see how one invalidates the other.
#137 - thirdjess (06/11/2014) [-]
See like this, this just came up on my dash.
User avatar
#130 - thirdjess (06/11/2014) [-]
Frogman, a fairly popular internet blog comedian guy (you may have seen hi, tubby guy with a neckbeard and a hat with a bear on it? Nice fellow) compared it to a bowl of skittles.

On the table is a bowl of skittles. You know that one in ten of those skittles is poisoned, and should you eat one you woul suffer and then die. Though 10% is minimal, would you still have a handful of skittles?

Not all men opposes yes all women because it's saying we should be afraid or annoyed or angry by that behavior because not all men do it. But that is fucked up logic because all women experience it, even if not all men are perpetrators, all women experience it.

If a dog was kicked in the side every day by it's owner, and then rescued and given to another man, even if the second man never so much as pinched it's ears the dog would still likely hate him for a time because it has been kicked before.
User avatar
#180 - thesoulseeker (06/12/2014) [-]
For one this "being cautious of men is seen as misandry" seems wrong. Although it depends on what you mean by "being cautious", because I've heard some pretty crazy shit. Of course bat shit crazy "cautious" is rare and I don't consider a woman who goes out of her way to protect herself as a misandrist.
The skittles analogy not a very good one. because it implies that a woman being raped is solely based on chance.

But apart from that you'll notice I agreed that many women do get abused and I simply said how I don't see how #notallmen "opposes" #yesallwomen.
You asset that it opposes it and you give an explanation I've read four times and can't figure out exactly what it's supposed to be, except that it's not a conclusion I would ever draw.
And I'll use your dog analogy to illustrate my point. #YesAllDogs = most dogs suffer abuse #NotAllOwners = not all owners do it.
How do the two conflict? (Of course going back to the topic #yesallwomen is wrong in and of itself, because not all women have been or are going to be victims of rape.)
User avatar
#182 - thirdjess (06/12/2014) [-]
I think the problem is, is that you're not looking at it from the bitches perspective (both dog and woman, get it?)

You can say that rape is not a chance thing (to a certain extent, it is) but from a womans perspective, if you line up ten men, which of them could potentially be the rapist. You're skittles because you all look the same, we don't know you well enough to take the chance. Just as you wouldn't from - their outside appearance - know which skittle was poison and which was not.

So instead of tenitively trying one skittle at a time until our luck runs out and we die, we just don't eat skittles. Not all men is saying that we shouldn't treat men like they're only after our body or that, if locked in a room with us, they would hurt us. That treated all men as suspect is misandry. Yes all women is saying that, ok not all men are rapists, we understand that, but if every woman (as an aside, it's not victims of rape, it's victims of sexual assault) has or will experience it at some point in their life then certainly a large amount of men are like that and we have the right to be cautious.
User avatar
#183 - thesoulseeker (06/12/2014) [-]
You seem to be unaware of the "innocent before proven guilty" concept. That aside I still see no conflict.
"...then certainly a large amount of men are like that and we have the right to be cautious. "
Here you basically say "not all men are rapists", but the more important thing is that you also basically say "but to me they are".

By the way you do need to eat skittles. Reproduction is sort of necessary for the survival of the species, which is somewhat important you might have noticed.
So you are a misandrist, maybe a small one but your rhetoric shows it quite clearly.
To you all men might as well be rapists, you start with the assumption and work from there on.
User avatar
#184 - thirdjess (06/12/2014) [-]
To you all spiders are poisonous. Even though a vast majority of them do not pose a threat to humanity at all, not even a little bit. You work on the assumption that they are all poisonous because you don't know how to tell the difference between a funnel web and a mimic, and you've seen what kind of damage they can do, so you figure it's best to not go and poke every odd spider you see in your house.

Why is it rational to be cautious of spiders and sharks, but irrational to be cautious of men?
User avatar
#185 - thesoulseeker (06/12/2014) [-]
For starters humans have a bit more sophisticated of a brain than other animals.
Now it's not irrational to be cautious, but what you're talking about is not caution. It's fucking paranoia.

Maybe you I'm misunderstanding here, because I have real trouble believing you think the way you portray it. Because if you did you wouldn't even allow a man to flirt with you just in case he might turn out to be a rapist.

You also illustrate my point quite well with that spider analogy. In reality I know full well that where I live there are very few venomous spiders and that most are harmless. How do I know this? I learned, I studied, something that you can do with men as well.
With your analogy you show that your fear is in fact irrational, because it's based on ignorance.

With absolutely the same retoric I can say "All women are crazy cunts and there is no reasoning with them. This is because I've met quite a few who are and I can't tell the difference from half a mile away." Not very rational is it?
Of course not all women are crazy cunts, most of them are actually quite pleasant and as rational as humans can be. Similarly some men are rapist, but most of them aren't. And it's unfair to label them guilty until proven innocent.
That's the idea the justice systems of modern countries are based on.
User avatar
#186 - thirdjess (06/12/2014) [-]
-sigh- for fucks sake

1) You're damn right I don't like dudes flirting with me. Straight up makes me ill when I realise they expect sexual shit from me. I don't know how to handle that shit, just leave me alone to my drink for fucks sake.

2) Yes obviously I can learn about a man, and if a guy wants to sit and talk to me about general shit so I can do just that, then I am happy with that. But not if I'm by myself, not if I'm in a place I'm unfamiliar with, and not if it becomes clear to me that the only reason he is talking to me is because he wants to fuck me.

3) Crazy bitches aren't literally the number one cause of death in men. Men are the number one cause of death in men. Men are also the number one cause of death in WOMEN. Not accounting for outliers, men tend to be faster and stronger than women. If shit goes down, and I try to run away, chances are I won't be able to.

You are honestly really fucking aggrivating me right now, you refuse to understand how dangerous the nightlife is for a woman. People in the justice system are innocent until proven guilty because during the proceedings they are locked down. If a murderer is on trial, they're not just gonna let him skip around and potentially murder more people, are they? Or if you happened to have a big wad of cash for some reason, and you had to tie your shoe, you wouldn't just give it to some random person and say 'here hold this'.

I am going to bed because I am cranky as fuck now
User avatar
#191 - thesoulseeker (06/14/2014) [-]
1. That I can't relate to, but I do understand. Here's my question though: Why do you go to bars? I actually don't understand why most people go to bars so often.
(Assuming you go alone, I find it hard to believe guys just walk up to you when you're talking with friends or whatever. But then again I don't understand people very well, that's why I study physics, physics is easy to understand... sorry about the tangent.)

2. Then don't go to an unfamiliar bar by yourself. I also see nothing wrong with people going out to find someone to fuck. If that's not your cup of tea (it's not mine I can tell you that), then my only advice is to be as persuasive as possible in telling the guy to bugger off.

3. Men are not the number one cause of death to anyone. The number one cause of death is Cardiovascular diseases followed by Infectious and parasitic diseases.
That aside you seem to have missed my point and got it at the same time (remarkable really), which was that if I used the same logic to regard women you'd say it was misogyny and unacceptable.

Lastly where have I said that nightlife isn't dangerous for a woman? Of course it is, I was talking about the outlook you presented regarding men. That you start with the idea that all men are rapists and work from there. In my analogy I started with all women are crazy cunts, something I think you'd disagree with just like I disagree with you.
Now do understand I'm not against you or anyone else being cautious I'm just saying that I find the kind of thinking you present to be reprehensible.
Sure be cautious, don't go to bars alone, be weary of guys who try to hit on you. But don't regard all men as rapists.

Of course my original point was that the way I understand it the ideas represented by #yesallwomen and #ntoallmen aren't in conflict and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise. What you've done is show me weird extrapolations you make and that said extrapolations don't even make sense to me.
#194 - meanyus (06/15/2014) [-]
Perhaps some new perspective will help. #notallmen is starkly in opposition to #yesallwomen because it works to undermine the lived experiences of women who have been harassed, and catcalled and treated as nothing but an object of sexual gratification. To say #notallmen is to say that because I am not a scumbag, it is wrong of you to assume I might have the same intentions as others who have slighted you in the past. The reality is that nearly all, if not all, women have these uncomfortable and dangerous experiences throughout their lives. It's not as simple as telling a guy to back off in the bar because US-American culture has societal norms that say you should continue to pursue even if you hear no. You might not be understanding because this is not your perspective, but enough guys do not respect that request that going out in public can be a dangerous proposition.

The mere fact that you are using the example of crazy cunts shows that you too are participating. While you might not go out and rape a girl (I don't know you so who knows?), you are perpetuating the culture from which #yesallwomen was berthed.

That said, I hate both hashtags because they are used to perpetuate arguments that are not conducive to actually changing the culture and thus are a way for men and women alike to make shitty generalizations that are harmful to making anything better.
User avatar
#201 - thirdjess (06/15/2014) [-]
User avatar
#199 - thesoulseeker (06/15/2014) [-]
I used crazy cunts, because I thought a woman would find that offensive.
The idea behind the analogy was to show how I feel when thirdjess basically said she looks at all men as potential rapists. And to show that it is in fact wrong to assume that.
User avatar
#200 - thirdjess (06/15/2014) [-]

All snakes (unless you know how to identify them) are potential threats. All spiders are potential threats. All people are potential threats. The difference between people and snakes is I can't look at you, say 'you have red stripes which means you're probably poisonous so kindly fuck off'.

I'm not saying EVERY MAN IS A RAPIST I've saying everyone is a threat and I'd say as a 100 pound 5'7" woman I'd have a higher chance of fighting off another woman than a man, therefore men are more threatening. For gods sake, American culture basically dictates that safety means carrying a gun with you at all times because you could get robbed at any moment. But obviously I don't have a gun so instead I just don't accept drinks and try to avoid people put in the situation where I am alone with a man I don't know.

And by the by, I didn't find crazy cunts offensive because, lo and behold, crazy cunts exist. And if you saw me on the street, you wouldn't know that I poke holes in condoms to guarantee a long term relationship (..I don't). Cause I don't have a big sign that says 'HEY IM A CRAZY CUNT' nor do you have a big sign that says 'HEY IM A RAPIST' nor does anyone else. Even people who are registered sex offenders would likely not be recognised as such unless they were on the news recently.
User avatar
#202 - thesoulseeker (06/15/2014) [-]
Here's the thing, the things you described ("...I just don't accept drinks and try to avoid people put in the situation where I am alone with a man I don't know. ") are quite reasonable.

I think the whole disagreement came from the way you described your views and probably some preconceptions on my part.
In the end you seem to be a much more reasonable person, compared to the image I got from your earlier comments.
#206 - meanyus (06/15/2014) [-]
I think a better way to think about the #yesallwomen hashtag is to say that yes, all women must consider refusing drinks and situations where they may be alone with a man (whether she finds him attractive or not) because there are no ways to identify who is a danger and who is not. Therefore, you take precautions against all sittles, snakes, spiders, whatever as a method of avoiding those undesirable consequences.

Also I'd just like to point out something that is severely missed in these feminist debates on FJ. Modern feminism has a much stronger focus on social justice than it does on women's rights. In fact, there are a multitudes of sub-sections of feminism that focus highlight how first and second wave feminism were really white women's problems. If you want to see the most proactive modern works you need to look at colored women, and perhaps even further to trans bodies to see how some people are slipping through the cracks.
User avatar
#203 - thirdjess (06/15/2014) [-]
What the hell did you think I meant, I spray every man with pepper spray? Are you crazy?
User avatar
#204 - thesoulseeker (06/15/2014) [-]
In a nutshell you came across as someone who thought that every man is to be considered an animal.
User avatar
#205 - thirdjess (06/15/2014) [-]
Bullshit I did.
User avatar
#207 - thesoulseeker (06/16/2014) [-]
Yes indeed your bullshit.
User avatar
#208 - thirdjess (06/16/2014) [-]
Like I get that you're trying to be clever but no one would interpret 'bullshit I did' that way, not even if they read it as 'bullshit, I did.'

You were a pressumative asshole, assuming that every feminist on the internet (ironic, huh) is out to get men. You were wrong, you were a dick, and now you're trying to deflect the fault to me because of 'how I came across'.
User avatar
#209 - thesoulseeker (06/16/2014) [-]
"I think the whole disagreement came from the way you described your views and probably some preconceptions on my part."
That last part? I didn't add it to make the sentence pretty. I know very well that I have preconceptions about feminists. Some of them not being unfounded as well.

And yes, I know very well what you meant. I also know very well what I meant, that being that you came across as someone who considered all men to be rapists.
Once again, I could be the only one who sees it that way and I probably misunderstood you. But that's what I understood. Can I make this any clearer?
User avatar
#192 - thirdjess (06/14/2014) [-]
Weird example, when I was a kid a tree crushed me. Yes all women is 'hey, I've had this traumatic experience, and now I don't like being stood close to a large tree'. Not all men is 'well not all trees are filled with rot so you being afraid of them is ridiculous.'

Read this healthyisthenewskinny.com/landing/recent-posts/empowerment-recent-posts/rape-culture-through-a-mans-eyes
User avatar
#132 - thirdjess (06/11/2014) [-]
we should not be afraid or etc*
User avatar
#110 - jaymeelu (06/11/2014) [-]
"Not all men are the same"
#125 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 reply) 06/06/2014 on (untitled) 0
#126 - popcornqueen Comment deleted by