Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
So what do we do? Assume that any time someone uses a word, they use it with whatever additional meaning we, personally attach to it? How can we have a discussion if we all use the same words, but mean different things by them?
You educate yourself about the history of the movement/ideology, and about similar situations where political movements claim one goal or idea and then move the goal posts. There are plenty of feminist apostates that can explain this to you on YouTube videos etc. if you can't figure it out on your own. It is not uncommon in politics for a movement to say their goal is one thing, for example equal opportunity for blacks in so-called Civil Rights, and then when the outcomes don't achieve their expectations they change their goal to equality of outcome rather than opportunity. Post-modern ideologies don't care about logical consistency, they will contradict themselves 12 times before breakfast on their path to achieving their political ends. They will hold you to your logical consistency though, so watch out for that and when you realize someone is holding you to a standard they are not following you should not believe anything else they have to say.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Does a strong sexual liberated woman scare men?

Of course it does. Have you seen some of the DNA statistics on the percentage of men that have raised other men's children in the past? It's ******* incredible. Why on earth would a man invest his whole life (wealth, work, time, love, everything) into a woman who has shown she doesn't treat the sex act as something important?
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I'm not saying a sexually liberated woman should go **** anyone she wants. And that's not what Betty Dodson and Carlin Ross are about either. They host a body sex class on teaching women how to embrace their own sexuality, firstly how to give themselves orgasms so that they can enjoy sex with a man, and also to set aside porn myths that many men think are real.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
You educate yourself about the history of the movement/ideology, and about similar situations where political movements claim one goal or idea and then move the goal posts. There are plenty of feminist apostates that can explain this to you on YouTube videos etc. if you can't figure it out on your own. It is not uncommon in politics for a movement to say their goal is one thing, for example equal opportunity for blacks in so-called Civil Rights, and then when the outcomes don't achieve their expectations they change their goal to equality of outcome rather than opportunity. Post-modern ideologies don't care about logical consistency, they will contradict themselves 12 times before breakfast on their path to achieving their political ends. They will hold you to your logical consistency though, so watch out for that and when you realize someone is holding you to a standard they are not following you should not believe anything else they have to say.

Yea sort of like libertarianism... on one hand they speak against "government control", on the other hand they want government to protect property rights. They don't understand that they need government control to define property rights into law.
 

keith

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
490
You educate yourself about the history of the movement/ideology, and about similar situations where political movements claim one goal or idea and then move the goal posts. There are plenty of feminist apostates that can explain this to you on YouTube videos etc. if you can't figure it out on your own. It is not uncommon in politics for a movement to say their goal is one thing, for example equal opportunity for blacks in so-called Civil Rights, and then when the outcomes don't achieve their expectations they change their goal to equality of outcome rather than opportunity. Post-modern ideologies don't care about logical consistency, they will contradict themselves 12 times before breakfast on their path to achieving their political ends. They will hold you to your logical consistency though, so watch out for that and when you realize someone is holding you to a standard they are not following you should not believe anything else they have to say.

Jag2594 beat me to it. That's a good libertarian position. White Christian men should have the freedom to do whatever they want, including to decide how everyone else should behave.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Yea sort of like libertarianism... on one hand they speak against "government control", on the other hand they want government to protect property rights. They don't understand that they need government control to define property rights into law.
No they don't, that's just what people unread in libertarian theory say as a straw man. People like yourself.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
No they don't, that's just what people unread in libertarian theory say as a straw man. People like yourself.

So Ray Peat is unread in political philosophy.

GM: As a country that was apparently founded on such strong libertarian values, why do you think US culture has grown to be so authoritarian?

RP: The meaning of the word “liberty” has been expanded since the 18th century, and many “libertarians” see something in the founders of the republic that wasn’t there. Following Locke, most of them believed that the chief purpose of the government was the preservation of property; they were the propertied class. Since voting was restricted to white men with property, only about 3% of the population voted. Slavery and the annihilation of the native population were part of the context of their understanding of liberty. In England, the Enclosure movement was an important context for what was meant when people talked about civil rights and freedom — money should have the freedom to do what money does. Thatcherism and neoliberalism grew naturally out of the political philosophy of that time.

GM: So you don’t view this as a big government/small government dilemma, as it’s often framed, but whose interests the government is ultimately serving?

RP: Powerful individuals and their corporations are simply aware that small streamlined governments are easier to control. The “small government advocates” want to privatize all the constructive functions — water, roads, schools, and medicine — and to limit government to taxing, policing, and war-making, but with the unstated function of defining property rights with a class bias. The power functions, taxing, policing, and war-making, can’t be privatized, because they have no constructive social function. The destructive powers of corporations were widely recognized 200 years ago, but skilled ideological construction has shifted the fear of bigness away from corporations, toward “government,” when government threatened to interfere with their power. Constructive social functions can be performed cooperatively, and borders or size limitations are probably irrelevant.

On culture, government, and social class


Unless you can fully argue against the quote above then the original statement still stands. Libertarianism is a pseudo- economic theory which is built upon the contradictions of interest groups like the koch brothers to become more powerful. They want the benefits of government control that helps their interest, while promoting anti-government "policies" that hurt their interest and power.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407

Yes he is, I emailed him about some literature and he was 100% ignorant of it. You can ask him yourself how much of, for example, Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises he has written if you don't believe me. He has a surface level understanding of the popular ruminations of so-called libertarians, groups like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, that are funded by the Koch brothers and play nice with the D.C. establishment. Peat is also a notorious communist and believer in Hegelian/Marxist dialectic, one of his books is full of it I forget which title it was. He has some great insights, someone like him always does, but yes he is extremely unread on the deep libertarian literature.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Peat is also a notorious communist and believer in Hegelian/Marxist dialectic, one of his books is full of it I forget which title it was..
You really shouldn't make such a defamatory statement without giving proof. Being class conscious is not the same as being a Marxist.
 
Last edited:

BibleBeliever

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
403
Location
Canada
Are you a christian? your words invoke a sense of conservatism. That was a pretty cruel rundown even if I don't agree with modern feminism.

You can have both women empowerment and a loving family. Check out Betty Dodson and her co hort on youtube.... they speak of feminism, they speak of sexual liberation, yet Carlin Ross looks amazingly happy in a steady relationship with children. Does a strong sexual liberated woman scare men?

Yes. It is an accurate rundown though.

It would be a rarity, an exception. The overall rule as seen by collective action/statistics is the loving traditional family is destroyed as feminist notions increase and spread.

Of course "sexually liberated" is up to interpretation. It is best and ideal for both partners to be virgins going into marriage. It is not something boast worthy to go into marriage with used mileage. All this experimentation does no one any good.
In a healthy society sex within the bounds of marriage is supreme.

Strong woman is very subjective too. I don't think you mean she has a strong overhead press. The term seems to negate the fact that men are physically stronger than women; equality is a myth. Not just equality of sexes but of all peoples, everyone has there different strenghts and weaknesses.

Usually feminist women attempt to emasculate men via manipulation and control. This is why most men tend to avoid them. Thus many feminist women as they age, who become barren often replace children with cats.
 

BibleBeliever

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
403
Location
Canada
How dare they? I'll be on the lookout for these horrible women who destroy our society with their strangely dyed hair. No wonder they confuse oppression with not being able to make their own choices, if they can't even dye their hair a reasonable color.

ok, I'm out. You can't argue with this type of logic. If anyone wants to have an intelligent, open, honest dialog, feel free to PM me.
It is a symptom of their issues. To see a blunt article on it; probably considered offensive: 5 Reasons Why You Should Never Date A Girl With Dyed Hair – Return Of Kings

The basic premise is the odd coloured hair is the woman's method of advertising her damage/mental illness to others.
It's the same if you saw men with hair dyed green or pink or purple or other strange oddities.

So it is not the strange colours that make them horrible, but usually is a result of their horrible beliefs.
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,990
Are you a christian? your words invoke a sense of conservatism. That was a pretty cruel rundown even if I don't agree with modern feminism.

You can have both women empowerment and a loving family. Check out Betty Dodson and her co hort on youtube.... they speak of feminism, they speak of sexual liberation, yet Carlin Ross looks amazingly happy in a steady relationship with children. Does a strong sexual liberated woman scare men?
Why does sexuality have to be liberated? It loses its very essence by being exposed. anatomically a woman is hidden - it's almost a metaphor for her sexuality. To me the idea of liberation is destructive. What are we freeing exactly? What is a strong sexually liberated woman to you? I'm genuinely curious. I think women should enjoy sex, obviously, but I don't think liberation has anything to do with that. Isn't seduction about hiding or at least not exposing everything? This idea that everything has to be freed, I just don't get it.
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,990
It is a symptom of their issues. To see a blunt article on it; probably considered offensive: 5 Reasons Why You Should Never Date A Girl With Dyed Hair – Return Of Kings

The basic premise is the odd coloured hair is the woman's method of advertising her damage/mental illness to others.
It's the same if you saw men with hair dyed green or pink or purple or other strange oddities.

So it is not the strange colours that make them horrible, but usually is a result of their horrible beliefs.
Sorry but that's a really stupid post.

"How many investment bankers, entrepreneurs, engineers, and physicians do you know who look like Zoe Quinn in the above photo? Zero."

How are the actions of bankers and physicians a lithmus test for sanity and social appriopriateness? Some of the most sociopathic behaviors I've ever witnessed have been by physicians and bankers/people in finance.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
Yes he is, I emailed him about some literature and he was 100% ignorant of it. You can ask him yourself how much of, for example, Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises he has written if you don't believe me. He has a surface level understanding of the popular ruminations of so-called libertarians, groups like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, that are funded by the Koch brothers and play nice with the D.C. establishment. Peat is also a notorious communist and believer in Hegelian/Marxist dialectic, one of his books is full of it I forget which title it was. He has some great insights, someone like him always does, but yes he is extremely unread on the deep libertarian literature.
Mind and Tissue.
 

NathanK

Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
684
Location
Austin, TX
I think you are making unfair assumptions about the people who created the FB group, that is the subject of this post, that are based on your perceptions of a completely different group of people who hold, or claim to hold, feminist views. The diversity among feminists is vast, and I don't think you can make assumptions about "what is really going on" relative to one FB group, based on what some other self-described feminists do or don't do. I highly doubt that the administrator was thinking of the same concept of feminism when they wrote that description as you were thinking of when you read it. It isn't fair of you to judge their intentions without any evidence. Wouldn't the simplest, most common definition be the most likely intended use?
Meh, I was part of a RP FB group that I had contributed to for many years. I never got into tangles, but I noticed over time how many of the women that had started the feminist group were quick to trigger, condescending, and extremely aggressive to normal guys sharing their personal ideas.

It was concerning that there was a strong double standard with some women (and a couple male apologists), often collectively, allowed to be very nasty while men would be banned for much less. For the women, their actions were always justified. I warned that the group was edging into censoring free speech while endorsing divisive ideologies, but the group think was too strong. Ironically, it felt "unsafe" and only a matter of time until I felt I would be jumped on so I left.
 
Last edited:

walker_in_aus

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
349
would be a rarity, an exception. The overall rule as seen by collective action/statistics is the loving traditional family is destroyed as feminist notions increase and spread.

"Loving Traditional Family"? As in, once the woman don't want to play mum and stay home and make their husband happy, then all hell breaks loose? From who's point of view is that .....

WOW.

I grew up in a family where my mum was the dominant force, even as the "stay at home mother". She was a director of a company, and ran the house, and was the boss parent and decision maker. My dad worked full time in his profession, and they had fairly traditional household roles. Mum cleaned and cooked, dad did some outdoor stuff. Mum did lawn mowing because she could see the lines in the lawn and they had to be straight.

I received a ***t tonne of love and happiness as a child, and my parents are still happily married.

I really don't like this anti-feminist thing. I think what people don't like is nasty people, whether women emotionally bashing men, or men physically bashing women.

Why does sexuality have to be liberated? It loses its very essence by being exposed. anatomically a woman is hidden - it's almost a metaphor for her sexuality. To me the idea of liberation is destructive. What are we freeing exactly? What is a strong sexually liberated woman to you? I'm genuinely curious. I think women should enjoy sex, obviously, but I don't think liberation has anything to do with that. Isn't seduction about hiding or at least not exposing everything? This idea that everything has to be freed, I just don't get it.

I think the whole "sexual liberation" thing is less about openly exposing our vaginas proudly to the world, and more about women being physically and emotionally free to enjoy sex... Even in a long term relationship I feel guilt about my partner having to "work" for my pleasure, despite it being perfectly expected for women to **** worship and enjoy it.... Never mind the still huge gap in understanding on how to get a woman to reach climax, even by women...
 

keith

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
490
It is a symptom of their issues. To see a blunt article on it; probably considered offensive: 5 Reasons Why You Should Never Date A Girl With Dyed Hair – Return Of Kings

The basic premise is the odd coloured hair is the woman's method of advertising her damage/mental illness to others.
It's the same if you saw men with hair dyed green or pink or purple or other strange oddities.

So it is not the strange colours that make them horrible, but usually is a result of their horrible beliefs.

Right, because "they" are all the same, and you can judge someone purely based on one aspect of their appearance.
 

walker_in_aus

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
349
Right, because "they" are all the same, and you can judge someone purely based on one aspect of their appearance.

People on this forum are particularly good at this.

I bet I could find an article showing that "Men who won't date you because of your hair color were likely sexually aroused by their mothers" or something if I looked hard enough!!!!
 

keith

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
490
Meh, I was part of a RP FB group that I had contributed to for many years. I never got into tangles, but I noticed over time how many of the women that had started the feminist group were quick to trigger, condescending, and extremely aggressive to normal guys sharing their personal ideas.

It was concerning that there was a strong double standard with some women (and a couple male apologists), often collectively, allowed to be very nasty while men would be banned for much less. For the women, their actions were always justified. I warned that the group was edging into censoring free speech while endorsing divisive ideologies, but the group think was too strong. Ironically, it felt "unsafe" and only a matter of time until I felt I would be jumped on so I left.
Thanks for sharing. Nice to hear from someone who has actually had experience with some of the individuals involved. Sorry it wasn't a better experience. Seems like it impossible to avoid challenging people who want to push their own agenda on any type of internet forum. I think I need a hiatus.
 

keith

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
490
People on this forum are particularly good at this.

I bet I could find an article showing that "Men who won't date you because of your hair color were likely sexually aroused by their mothers" or something if I looked hard enough!!!!

Hahahaha
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom