One of the core tenets of fascism is making the “enemy” look weak and strong at the same time
Looking at these three (1)(2)(3) descriptions of fascism, only one of them (2) brings up enemies that are both weak and strong at the same time. But looking at that list, you’re showcasing way more of the features of fascism if we’re being honest. You clearly don’t like how modern society is organized and seem to want to go back to how things used to be (1 and 2), you’re very obviously showing social frustration (6), I could argue that you’re obsessed with a plot (7) about how all feminists hate men, you’re claiming women are physically weak and yet have social/cultural power over you (8), and there’re some hints of (12) machismo, specifically the disdain for women.
Masculinity is not fragile or weak. This is nonsensical and cartoonishly evil propaganda invented by females to weaken the diametrically opposite gender.
Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as “masculine” is shaped by society and the people around you. It’s as strong or as weak as you believe it is, and different people can have different beliefs about the same thing. You can find plenty of academic studies or articles talking about this, and they all describe it in a similar way:
Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?
Men at work being scared of women is a common thing.
This was right after the Me Too movement, a response to the very real crimes perpetrated against women in the workplace. If I remember right, it was all started in response to Harvey Weinstein being accused by over 80 women of various crimes. Similarly, Bill Cosby had over 60 women come forward with stories about him. Just these two guys have over 100 victims and got away with it for decades. The department of labor still estimates that somewhere between 25% to 85% of women have experienced sexual assault in the workplace. False accusations happen, but unreported crimes are way more common.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.
Far more feminists use the small hand gesture or reject men based on small height, compared to men lightly teasing women as “flatboards” or whatever else. Easy to search. Here is a body positivity feminist doing it.
Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn’t hurt by it.
Men are avoiding approaching women and going sexless, thanks to feminism.
What part of this says it’s because of feminism? I skipped to the “What’s causing the rise in sexless men?” section (because I’m not about to listen to the entire 90 minute podcast) and the expert said it was because of reduced alcohol consumption, being generally more risk averse, and just not wanting to date.
Women and their one sided disregard for mens’ emotional sanctity (as sacred as womens’ physical sanctity) is why locker room talk will always exist. Disregard for the privacy of mens’ emotions has been a problem for thousands of years. And let’s not act like “girl talk” does not exist. Girls always do a lot of talking while the boys are kept out. This is another female privilege clubbed together with its self-inflicted devastation of their mental health, which they cry about later.
Again, the “locker room” talk that you’re so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that’s fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up “locker room” talk. Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness. You even say that women do it and are worse off for it, why do you want “locker room” talk to be respected so much?
And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days, and the vast majority of it is just reacting to social media posts and other videos. They seem like a rage-bait content mill. And since you posted over 4 1/2 hours of videos, I feel pretty okay about linking this video explaining the “manosphere”, because Aba N Preach seem like they’d fit right in.
Since you linked Umberto Eco’s fascism rules and are tallying me using it, I will do that job more aptly, considering you have not evaluated me accurately.
How far do I want society to go “back”? Certainly not in the medieval, ancient or even 20th century. What we do know is at some point, feminism began to become a safe haven for femcels, to “combat” the incels. This makes me inapplicable for (1).
As for 2, modernism does not overlap with feminism, which makes (2) inapplicable. Feminism has a lot of distinctions with the various waves, western vs eastern feminism, and other elements. Western feminism has caused more or less all of the troubles making people wary of feminism altogether. At some point, the narrative stopped being about woman empowerment and became about wearing less clothes, engaging in promiscuity, “gold digging”, hating men altogether, intentionally falsely accusing men as desired by abusing legal laws, and so on.
(3) is highly applicable to feminist agenda on the internet. There must be typical talking points parroted at all costs, and any critics silenced by labelling and cancelling. (4) falls in place as soon as anyone is labelled.
Because of (3), there is an obsession about a plot about men and their masculinity. Feminist appeal today is largely based on hating “men”, the “intruder/enemy”. The hate stopped focusing on hardcore fundamentalists and religious traditionalists, and instead moved to controlling and destroying men in general. If there is someone obsessed with a plot, it is feminists about how all men are abusive, bad and should die. (5) and (7) applies.
Feminists since the past few years certainly show a lot more social frustration on Instagram and Tiktok more than I ever have. Millions of views on short videos clickbaiting, gaslighting and misguiding lonely women for their social agenda. (6) applies to them disproportionately compared to me. Pretty sure there is never a logical or sensible counter for the double standards I mentioned earlier in treatment of women versus men.
(8) applies for obvious reasons. Masculinity is somehow strong and weak at the same time.
I linked a reaction video on Jubilee, where girls ranked and rated men. The black model who cried upon remembering his friend’s death was mysteriously disliked by the women. Contempt for men and their emotions is very contradicting for a movement that preaches about mental health, self care and vulnerability. Feminists openly say men are not their responsibility at a point of debating. (10) applies aptly.
Everyone in feminism is told to become an activist, a hero, main character vibes, a social justice warrior. This army loosely collaborates on social media everyday, everywhere and all the time. (11) is applicable.
Looking at the reasoning for (6) and (10), it can be seen that (13) is applicable. Opinions of men, consideration for men’s rights and equal treatment, discussing removing or balancing female privileges are unacceptable. Criticism of feminism is almost like how Israel treats any of its critics as antisemitic.
There is an ample amount of invented words and vocabulary among leftists, similar to what happens among rightists. However I consider it ambiguous and debatable.
All in all, feminism currently is eligible for (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11) and (13) according to Ur-Fascism playbook. This is how cultish, extremist, hypocritical and selectively favouring it has become against men.
Let a feminist tell you about pretty privilege.
Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?
Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.
Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as “masculine” is shaped by society and the people around you. It’s as strong or as weak as you believe it is,
That is illogical. Masculinity is a set of traits agreed upon after thousands of years of the existence of civilisation. It is not something random. Feminists love chivalry, masculine physical aesthetics and benefits of traditional gender roles, so I do not think you are advocating for something that feminists would genuinely agree with you upon.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.
I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters. And no, it is not said that cpmmonly. Women are told to sit back and wait for the men to approach. Traditional gender roles, you know, the thing they claim to hate, but love to practice if convenient.
Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn’t hurt by it.
Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya. It does not matter if the guy said he was not hurt, if going by this logic. He was hurt. The body positivity propaganda feminist chose to be a bigot against a man based on penis size. I see no body positivity in that. Only hypocrisy.
Men are avoiding approaching women and going sexless, thanks to feminism.
What part of this says it’s because of feminism?
Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.
It is not a mystery why men are choosing to avoid dating and marriage, when all they end up is losing by playing this game. Western feminism is giving birth to redpillers and incels, which in turn gives birth to femcels and bluepillers.
Maybe watch the podcast.
Again, the “locker room” talk that you’re so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that’s fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up “locker room” talk.
Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk. Locker room talk has always existed in human history, does not matter real or virtual world. You know when girls tell boys to get out of the room because “girl girl talk”? Atleast 80-90% of that is locker room talk. If its going to exist, it better exist with the knowledge that it is happening, rather than nudge the indulgent people into hiding the fact that they will do it. It is better to have the metadata if message contents cannot be seen. I am a privacy advocate with experience of building threat models for people, so it is easy to link these concepts to real world.
Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness.
Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms, because objectification of women is very normalised in porn, and objectification of men carries far more of that exclusivity and taboo factor. Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.
And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days
They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus. Videos? Easy to link, as they provide commentary on only the most significant viral content out there, and there is just enough of it. They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised. AbaPreach are similar to Charlie/moistcritikal but instead focus exclusively on social commentary. You are labelling and cancelling them without knowing about them, by claiming they fit manosphere.
I don’t want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think “this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet.”
Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.
Nowhere does she say she’s a feminist. She’s telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn’t just being a woman. Google “feminist pretty privilege” and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about “pretty privilege” than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.
I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.
Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?
You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked “why don’t women get told to talk to guys?” and the answer is “they do.”
Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.
At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.
Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.
Maybe watch the podcast.
Again, I watched the part labeled “What is causing the rise in sexless men?” and the expert didn’t say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren’t talking about feminism. You’re bringing it up like it’s the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren’t supported by these things you’re linking. I’d tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I’m sure you’d just inject your own narrative into them again.
Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.
You’re the one that keeps bringing it up. “Locker room talk” has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I’ll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the “locker room bois” story should be normal and acceptable.
Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,
I’ve never heard of a girls’ only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here’s a story from last week of your “boys locker room chat” that ends with a someone killing themself.
because objectification of women is very normalised in porn
You’d think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.
Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.
You’d think there’d be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn’t be doing. They definitely exist, but they’re a very small group considering how “exciting and demanded” it should be based on your logic.
They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.
Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people’s content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they’d be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.
They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.
I’m pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn’t because of Aba N Preach. I just don’t think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.
You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them
What does it even meant to cancel them? I’m absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Fresh and Fit got demonetised because of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEaYaqzt3JE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26bgsjW01Y They called AbaPreach (black Ethiopian people) monkeys and other things, and talked a lot of nasty stuff. One of the hosts, Myron, also wore KKK white cone cap while they hosted a white supremacist, who got uncomfortable.
Pearl got demonetised for this. Thumbnail should be enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOL2mBNC8uw AbaPreach cover them best, but there are plenty tubers who dunked on her (and wasted time).
AbaPreach are suspiciously stuck at 2M subs for a year, and have only gone to 2.1M now. Their following is quite large, and I only started seeing them last year due to rational non-conservative takes on social issues. There are a bunch of black conservatives, I fell for one but quickly got off.
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Again, do you want it to be normal that some people get objectified? Do you think it’s good that sometimes you go on a rant about some perceived negative quality other people have? You could try actually talking to the people you’re gossiping about, give them some kind of feedback if their behavior is anti-social. But instead, you’re here defending group chats where people share (fake) nude photos of their (underage) classmates.
You also haven’t shown any real evidence that feminism is behind any of the problems you see in the world. Don’t you believe in the pareto principle? Do you think it might be possible that all the negative, vitriolic things you see (that you assign to all of women and feminism) comes from a small minority of people? And that, just maybe, those people don’t even have to be part of the feminist movement at all?
And I really don’t care about your favorite youtubers, I just think you shouldn’t listen so much to just one source. Especially when all they do is react to the latest social media outrage. But specifically for Fresh and Fit: that video you linked came out at the beginning of June, and the demonetization happened in mid August.
Looking at these three (1) (2) (3) descriptions of fascism, only one of them (2) brings up enemies that are both weak and strong at the same time. But looking at that list, you’re showcasing way more of the features of fascism if we’re being honest. You clearly don’t like how modern society is organized and seem to want to go back to how things used to be (1 and 2), you’re very obviously showing social frustration (6), I could argue that you’re obsessed with a plot (7) about how all feminists hate men, you’re claiming women are physically weak and yet have social/cultural power over you (8), and there’re some hints of (12) machismo, specifically the disdain for women.
Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as “masculine” is shaped by society and the people around you. It’s as strong or as weak as you believe it is, and different people can have different beliefs about the same thing. You can find plenty of academic studies or articles talking about this, and they all describe it in a similar way:
Now on to the examples you gave.
Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?
This was right after the Me Too movement, a response to the very real crimes perpetrated against women in the workplace. If I remember right, it was all started in response to Harvey Weinstein being accused by over 80 women of various crimes. Similarly, Bill Cosby had over 60 women come forward with stories about him. Just these two guys have over 100 victims and got away with it for decades. The department of labor still estimates that somewhere between 25% to 85% of women have experienced sexual assault in the workplace. False accusations happen, but unreported crimes are way more common.
That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.
Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn’t hurt by it.
What part of this says it’s because of feminism? I skipped to the “What’s causing the rise in sexless men?” section (because I’m not about to listen to the entire 90 minute podcast) and the expert said it was because of reduced alcohol consumption, being generally more risk averse, and just not wanting to date.
Again, the “locker room” talk that you’re so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that’s fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up “locker room” talk. Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness. You even say that women do it and are worse off for it, why do you want “locker room” talk to be respected so much?
And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days, and the vast majority of it is just reacting to social media posts and other videos. They seem like a rage-bait content mill. And since you posted over 4 1/2 hours of videos, I feel pretty okay about linking this video explaining the “manosphere”, because Aba N Preach seem like they’d fit right in.
Since you linked Umberto Eco’s fascism rules and are tallying me using it, I will do that job more aptly, considering you have not evaluated me accurately.
How far do I want society to go “back”? Certainly not in the medieval, ancient or even 20th century. What we do know is at some point, feminism began to become a safe haven for femcels, to “combat” the incels. This makes me inapplicable for (1).
As for 2, modernism does not overlap with feminism, which makes (2) inapplicable. Feminism has a lot of distinctions with the various waves, western vs eastern feminism, and other elements. Western feminism has caused more or less all of the troubles making people wary of feminism altogether. At some point, the narrative stopped being about woman empowerment and became about wearing less clothes, engaging in promiscuity, “gold digging”, hating men altogether, intentionally falsely accusing men as desired by abusing legal laws, and so on.
(3) is highly applicable to feminist agenda on the internet. There must be typical talking points parroted at all costs, and any critics silenced by labelling and cancelling. (4) falls in place as soon as anyone is labelled.
Because of (3), there is an obsession about a plot about men and their masculinity. Feminist appeal today is largely based on hating “men”, the “intruder/enemy”. The hate stopped focusing on hardcore fundamentalists and religious traditionalists, and instead moved to controlling and destroying men in general. If there is someone obsessed with a plot, it is feminists about how all men are abusive, bad and should die. (5) and (7) applies.
Feminists since the past few years certainly show a lot more social frustration on Instagram and Tiktok more than I ever have. Millions of views on short videos clickbaiting, gaslighting and misguiding lonely women for their social agenda. (6) applies to them disproportionately compared to me. Pretty sure there is never a logical or sensible counter for the double standards I mentioned earlier in treatment of women versus men.
(8) applies for obvious reasons. Masculinity is somehow strong and weak at the same time.
I linked a reaction video on Jubilee, where girls ranked and rated men. The black model who cried upon remembering his friend’s death was mysteriously disliked by the women. Contempt for men and their emotions is very contradicting for a movement that preaches about mental health, self care and vulnerability. Feminists openly say men are not their responsibility at a point of debating. (10) applies aptly.
Everyone in feminism is told to become an activist, a hero, main character vibes, a social justice warrior. This army loosely collaborates on social media everyday, everywhere and all the time. (11) is applicable.
Looking at the reasoning for (6) and (10), it can be seen that (13) is applicable. Opinions of men, consideration for men’s rights and equal treatment, discussing removing or balancing female privileges are unacceptable. Criticism of feminism is almost like how Israel treats any of its critics as antisemitic.
There is an ample amount of invented words and vocabulary among leftists, similar to what happens among rightists. However I consider it ambiguous and debatable.
All in all, feminism currently is eligible for (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11) and (13) according to Ur-Fascism playbook. This is how cultish, extremist, hypocritical and selectively favouring it has become against men.
Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.
That is illogical. Masculinity is a set of traits agreed upon after thousands of years of the existence of civilisation. It is not something random. Feminists love chivalry, masculine physical aesthetics and benefits of traditional gender roles, so I do not think you are advocating for something that feminists would genuinely agree with you upon.
I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters. And no, it is not said that cpmmonly. Women are told to sit back and wait for the men to approach. Traditional gender roles, you know, the thing they claim to hate, but love to practice if convenient.
Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya. It does not matter if the guy said he was not hurt, if going by this logic. He was hurt. The body positivity propaganda feminist chose to be a bigot against a man based on penis size. I see no body positivity in that. Only hypocrisy.
Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.
It is not a mystery why men are choosing to avoid dating and marriage, when all they end up is losing by playing this game. Western feminism is giving birth to redpillers and incels, which in turn gives birth to femcels and bluepillers.
Maybe watch the podcast.
Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk. Locker room talk has always existed in human history, does not matter real or virtual world. You know when girls tell boys to get out of the room because “girl girl talk”? Atleast 80-90% of that is locker room talk. If its going to exist, it better exist with the knowledge that it is happening, rather than nudge the indulgent people into hiding the fact that they will do it. It is better to have the metadata if message contents cannot be seen. I am a privacy advocate with experience of building threat models for people, so it is easy to link these concepts to real world.
Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms, because objectification of women is very normalised in porn, and objectification of men carries far more of that exclusivity and taboo factor. Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.
They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus. Videos? Easy to link, as they provide commentary on only the most significant viral content out there, and there is just enough of it. They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised. AbaPreach are similar to Charlie/moistcritikal but instead focus exclusively on social commentary. You are labelling and cancelling them without knowing about them, by claiming they fit manosphere.
I don’t want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think “this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet.”
Nowhere does she say she’s a feminist. She’s telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn’t just being a woman. Google “feminist pretty privilege” and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about “pretty privilege” than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.
You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked “why don’t women get told to talk to guys?” and the answer is “they do.”
At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.
Again, I watched the part labeled “What is causing the rise in sexless men?” and the expert didn’t say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren’t talking about feminism. You’re bringing it up like it’s the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren’t supported by these things you’re linking. I’d tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I’m sure you’d just inject your own narrative into them again.
You’re the one that keeps bringing it up. “Locker room talk” has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I’ll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the “locker room bois” story should be normal and acceptable.
I’ve never heard of a girls’ only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here’s a story from last week of your “boys locker room chat” that ends with a someone killing themself.
You’d think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.
You’d think there’d be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn’t be doing. They definitely exist, but they’re a very small group considering how “exciting and demanded” it should be based on your logic.
Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people’s content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they’d be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.
I’m pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn’t because of Aba N Preach. I just don’t think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.
What does it even meant to cancel them? I’m absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Fresh and Fit got demonetised because of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEaYaqzt3JE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t26bgsjW01Y They called AbaPreach (black Ethiopian people) monkeys and other things, and talked a lot of nasty stuff. One of the hosts, Myron, also wore KKK white cone cap while they hosted a white supremacist, who got uncomfortable.
Pearl got demonetised for this. Thumbnail should be enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOL2mBNC8uw AbaPreach cover them best, but there are plenty tubers who dunked on her (and wasted time).
AbaPreach are suspiciously stuck at 2M subs for a year, and have only gone to 2.1M now. Their following is quite large, and I only started seeing them last year due to rational non-conservative takes on social issues. There are a bunch of black conservatives, I fell for one but quickly got off.
Again, do you want it to be normal that some people get objectified? Do you think it’s good that sometimes you go on a rant about some perceived negative quality other people have? You could try actually talking to the people you’re gossiping about, give them some kind of feedback if their behavior is anti-social. But instead, you’re here defending group chats where people share (fake) nude photos of their (underage) classmates.
You also haven’t shown any real evidence that feminism is behind any of the problems you see in the world. Don’t you believe in the pareto principle? Do you think it might be possible that all the negative, vitriolic things you see (that you assign to all of women and feminism) comes from a small minority of people? And that, just maybe, those people don’t even have to be part of the feminist movement at all?
And I really don’t care about your favorite youtubers, I just think you shouldn’t listen so much to just one source. Especially when all they do is react to the latest social media outrage. But specifically for Fresh and Fit: that video you linked came out at the beginning of June, and the demonetization happened in mid August.