LurkNoMore
kiwifarms.net
No we aren't. You simply refuse to read what is being pointed out to you.
It literally is. Any movement that causes "gender critical" nonsense has had a part to play.
You too!
Plagued TERFs / Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists / Gender Critical Feminists - ft. r/GenderCritical & related reddits, Mancheeze, Cathy Brennan, GCDad, RadFHarva, Jamie Shupe, etc; "Gender Critical Feminism is Homophobic" - Cathy Brennan, 2019.
- Thread starter John Daker
- Start date
-
We're mostly back to 100%. Expect more disruptions that will cause sister service outages for the forseeable future.
Patriarchy
kiwifarms.net
various archives of the site, twitter page and mock articles
feministcurrent.com
twitter.com/feministcurrent
twitter.com/feministcurrent
video archive
meghan murphy dox
Hey, it's Megan!
Feel free to send me stuff at my address:
#204-210 East 16th ave,
Vancouver, BC V5T2T4
Canada
Here's my phone too:
+1.7782389519
Feel free to send me stuff at my address:
#204-210 East 16th ave,
Vancouver, BC V5T2T4
Canada
Here's my phone too:
+1.7782389519
Last edited:
Ever get this in response to a post:
That's right, if you're a woman it's not a meme, it's a LITERAL death threat by a MGTOW INCEL who WILL go on to shoot YOU in real life.
Totally not a persecution complex guys, we women receive actual death threats MILLIONS of times per day!
That's right, if you're a woman it's not a meme, it's a LITERAL death threat by a MGTOW INCEL who WILL go on to shoot YOU in real life.
Totally not a persecution complex guys, we women receive actual death threats MILLIONS of times per day!
I don't think your original point is that controversial. Radical feminism and troonery are completely incompatible. This is still the thread for making fun of terves, not for agreeing with them, though.
I'll generally agree with the concept, though, that "TERF" is almost a tautology, because any actually radical feminist would automatically reject troonery.
I hope Meghan stays safe and she isn't harmed.
Aren't libfems all about choice though?
That's what radfems are also critical of. Not all women can afford "choice". Some go into prostitution or pornography because they have no other option (I.E. Not enough money). Also some women are duped into human trafficking.
Last edited:
You certainly seem unusually eager to defend them. Anyway, did you know there are other
Leave @Moloko alone. She can't help it that she has severe autism and schizophrenia. Maybe she's on her period 24/7. In that case, I'd hate to think of her tampon expenses. Jonathan Yaniv would love it though.
Great to know ol' Elle is still alive.
Male TERFs are advanced feminist men. Probably predators and/or compensating for past shameful behavior.
The hacked account is still up https://twitter.com/FeministCurrent
It now says : "America's leading gender focused blackcurrant website since 2011"
Meghan Murphy posted this update after she regained the site:
So she runs a website called "Feminist Current" but she no longer identifies as a feminist?
Whatever. 
Also, I never expected to read this rant on the nature of collectivism from Meghan Murphy:
She also has an update on her Patreon but it's locked:
You have to pay $10 to read this, I guess she's really embraced capitalism now, LMAO!
It now says : "America's leading gender focused blackcurrant website since 2011"
Meghan Murphy posted this update after she regained the site:
As most of you now know, this site and Feminist Current’s Twitter account were hacked on Tuesday, and my personal information (home address and phone number) was posted online (also known as doxxing). With the help of some amazing people who know much, much more than I about such matters, Feminist Current has been saved — we are back online and more secure than ever. The whole ordeal was incredibly stressful, and will likely continue to be, with regard to my own personal safety. Future attacks on the site are inevitable, and have happened numerous times in the past, though hopefully we’ve beefed up security enough to prevent this kind of interference in the future.
This is, of course, nothing new. Feminist Current has been targeted many times over the years by misogynists and trans activists who hate everything the site stands for or who simply hate me. And there is no shortage of people who hate me… Indeed, the specific and acute hatred directed at me has well outgrown Feminist Current. I am the primary target of vitriol and libel in Canada, as far as the gender identity debate goes. Activists and the media alike enjoy promoting the idea that I am a lone nutjob, spreading dangerous ideas about biology and women, though this has become more difficult of late, as more Canadian women are rising up and going public with their concerns.
The reason I am a target is because I come from the left and have long identified as a feminist (though I have begun to distance myself from such labels, preferring free thought and to identify myself as someone who advocates for women’s rights, so as to wrest myself from ideological conformity and limitations on my free speech and independent thought).
The fight goes on (and on)
The attacks on Feminist Current and on women who speak out against the status quo will continue, yet we must keep fighting.web.archive.org
So she runs a website called "Feminist Current" but she no longer identifies as a feminist?
Whatever. Also, I never expected to read this rant on the nature of collectivism from Meghan Murphy:
What happened? Actually, she details exactly what happened, and it's the typical leftist mindfucking power-games and backstabbing you'd expect from a woke organization where mentally ill people are encouraged to embrace their insanity and force it upon others.
She also has an update on her Patreon but it's locked:
You have to pay $10 to read this, I guess she's really embraced capitalism now, LMAO!
Meghan still calls herself a feminist, but she's said in many of her livestreams that she feels that the movement is losing unity and is in conflict with each other.The hacked account is still up https://twitter.com/FeministCurrent
It now says : "America's leading gender focused blackcurrant website since 2011"
Meghan Murphy posted this update after she regained the site:
So she runs a website called "Feminist Current" but she no longer identifies as a feminist?
Also, I never expected to read this rant on the nature of collectivism from Meghan Murphy:
What happened? Actually, she details exactly what happened, and it's the typical leftist mindfucking power-games and backstabbing you'd expect from a woke organization where mentally ill people are encouraged to embrace their insanity and force it upon others.
She also has an update on her Patreon but it's locked:
You have to pay $10 to read this, I guess she's really embraced capitalism now, LMAO!
Thanks for explaining. BTW, do you know what the deal is with this video? Are TERFs, under the influence of right-wing media, turning into anti-maskers?
As far as I know, radfems and gendercrits come with all different perspectives and views. You get some who push social justice identity politics and are either socialists/communists whilst others tend to be a lot more soft left if that's what it's called. For example, Elle Androphobia is a antimasker and anti vax mum and she's a bit nuts whereas a radfem like Magdalen Berns was a lot more grounded and was more focused on women's issues and how trans activism affected them. Some are for the mask and vaccine, some aren't from what it looks like.
Honestly, she just rambles and contradicts herself the whole time in the video. If the women who have covid are going to be fine, what's the big fuss? Stay inside if you really feel that way and stop worrying. Anyway, it's been proven that it isn't as bad as it's made out to be. She also calls the radfems who disagree with her "antiwoman" and she uses divisive identity politics by labeling all those who disagree with her as "white and fairly wealthy". This illustrates the problem Meghan was talking about. A lot of women int he feminist movement seem unable to respect differing opinions.
Well, it depends. Feminists themselves hold many views that are offensive and unacceptable to many. Take for example radical feminist anti-natalism, or feminists who insist that to have children is purely a selfish act, and that all it achieves is to bring forth more suffering into the world. This feminist analysis and critique of having children is I would say pattently unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of the world, most of whom have children and do not view this as a selfish act, neither do they embark on raising families with the intent to cause more suffering. Feminists can point out the offensive aspects of transgenderism while remaining oblivious to the offensive aspects of their own ideology.
Antinatalism is hardly unique to feminists, and hardly obligatory for feminists, and for some reason, most people find it triggering on some level or another. I'd assume it's seen as offensive because it quite simply rejects one of the more fundamental tenets of human society.
LurkNoMore
kiwifarms.net
FTFY
We ultimately exist to make copies of ourselves. Any variation of that. Homosexuals and any other sexual deformity have been historically seen as moral failings on the individual part for this reason. Why would a "conscious" choice be seen any differently.
No we don't. We exist for no reason whatsoever. It is a matter of pure happenstance that the "desire" of some mindless molecule to produce copies of itself (it does not care in the least about humans or their desires or goals) largely controls our destinies. It's purely programming.
LurkNoMore
kiwifarms.net
Milf is a slur!
Twitter
Archive
Ovarit Thread
Archive
Highlights
Lol, what is this nonsense. Are feminists ever satisfied? (rhetorical question, obviously the answer is no.) Would "mother I want to make love to" (MILT) work? Or is having any sexual desire for a woman bad?
Archive
Ovarit Thread
Archive
Highlights
Lol, what is this nonsense. Are feminists ever satisfied? (rhetorical question, obviously the answer is no.) Would "mother I want to make love to" (MILT) work? Or is having any sexual desire for a woman bad?
Last edited:
If you were born with a dick, certainly. That's oppression! Pretty sure it's A-okay for lesbians.
No, lesbians are bigots if they refuse to suck the girl penis.
LurkNoMore
kiwifarms.net
On a biological evolutionary level. Obviously we're a fluke in terms of existence, but so is everything else.
Left loves to eat itself. Its greed knows no bounds.
Sustainable War
kiwifarms.net
This one is a bit of an older one from Ovarit and it's not top tier quality nutters, but it's got so much radfem autism.
Why is it socially acceptable to kill cats in movies
The TL;DR is this lady is upset that cat deaths in film are treated more humorously than dog deaths, and that this is a representation of how little men care about women's lives, then she spiels into the dumb meme-tweet-shit about how men don't like cats because they can't control them, something something witchcraft, she's super serious about how she will never take a fictional cat death for granted. Commenters agree and follow up with their own 3rd grade ironically-troon-tier analysis of gender via pets - then, ALF was offensive, they proceed to further explain that it's okay for cats to be shitty - as I've postulated before on another thread - amusingly reminiscient of how one desperate for little snippets of affection would sugarcoat an abusive partner.
But I'm fucking bummed out no one brought up one of the the greatest humorous cat deaths in cinema,
followed up with one of the greater misogyny laced humorous rants in cinema
Why is it socially acceptable to kill cats in movies
Seeing as there has been an influx of cats here lately, I decided to share something that has been bothering me for a while. This is really long, more like an article than a post, but I hope you find it interesting.
We all know that dogs are worshipped in today’s society, and there are many good reasons for that. They are loyal, loving, friendly, playful, a man’s best friend. People’s love for dogs translates to the medium of films and television too: if a dog dies onscreen, that is usually the biggest tearjerker moment in the entire film. If the dog dies, some will purposefully avoid watching the film. There is an entire site dedicated to the one big question: doesthedogdie.com.
At times, this kind of dog worship gets a bit concerning: I remember reading discussions about horror movies and seeing comments such as “at least the dog survived”. Sometimes I read these same comments, word for word, under articles about real murders of real people (usually women, but we’ll get to that).
Bottom line is, people REALLY care whether a dog lives or dies. Unfortunately, this is very much not the case when it comes to cats.
As a cat lover, I couldn’t help but notice a double standard in how cats and dogs are treated in society and, by extension, in movies. It started early: watching Tom and Jerry as a kid, I was always a bit uncomfortable with how much physical and mental anguish Tom was put through just to get a few laughs. Why is a cat, who is by nature a carnivore, treated as a villain for chasing a mouse?
A good example of an evil cartoon cat is, of course, Lucifer from Cinderella – mean, cunning and, worst of all, mouse-exclusionary. By the way, what’s up with the trope of dogs and mice befriending each other to fight the evil cat?
Those are just two examples off the top of my head – there are many more films and TV series where cat behavior is vilified. But while portraying cats this way is unfair, what I really wanted to talk about is violence against cats onscreen and how it is dismissed by both characters and audiences. In particular, I will be talking about two movies and one series: The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Shape of Water and Stranger Things. There will be spoilers, so proceed at your own risk.
Every screenwriter knows: when you need to kill an animal for plot advancement, your best bet is to kill a cat. Need to terrify a girl in a horror movie? Kill her cat and put it in her locker. Need to start somewhere before building up to killing human characters? The cat it is.
The Shape of Water is a 2017 film that received 13 Oscar nominations and won four of them, including Best Director and Best Picture. It’s a film that I was really enjoying up until a certain moment. Here is some context: American military get hold of a strange creature, a humanoid amphibian, and keep him imprisoned in a government facility to study/torture him. A woman, Elisa, falls in love with him and manages to get him out, hiding him in her neighbor Giles’s apartment. At one point the creature escapes the bathtub where he is kept and starts exploring his surroundings. He sees a cat, the cat hisses, and in the next scene Giles walks in to the sight of the Amphibian eating his cat. And in case you thought the cat’s death is only implied, it is not: we get to see the cat’s body with its head bitten off. It’s horrific.
Here is the scene for those who want to see it for themselves, although I heartily do not recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUCtYm5YJA
Some try to justify this scene. They say the Amphibian had never met a cat before and doesn’t know if it’s dangerous to him or not. He was startled by the cat’s hissing and attacked without thinking. He doesn’t know cats are not for food. But all I have to say to that is, imagine if this was a dog. Imagine if it was a dog’s headless body: do you think the film would win Best Picture then? You think it would even be nominated, amid all the backlash and boycotts?
But there is more. After the cat is killed, the whole thing is treated as a minor inconvenience. The cat’s owner shakes his head: whatcha gonna do? These things happen, right? And the woman, Elisa, pays it no mind at all and goes on to pursue a romantic relationship with the cat killer. When you think about it, it’s almost as if that gruesome scene was meant to be slightly humorous: oh my god, can you believe it, he ate the cat! And judging by the comments online, many people (men?) do find it funny.
Let’s move on to an episode of Stranger Things that features a cat’s death. One of the main characters, Dustin, brings home an unknown creature and keeps it as a pet. This thing, first kept in a fish tank, keeps growing at an abnormal rate, and one day Dustin comes home to a broken tank and his “pet” missing. After a brief search, he finds it in the corner eating the house cat. Again, the camera doesn’t shy away from the scene: for about ten seconds, we see a cat being eaten by a monster. Here is the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiAWZSoRjAo
Sounds similar to The Shape of Water, doesn’t it? Except this time, luckily, we are not supposed to root for the cat killer. But here’s the interesting thing: even though Dustin’s friends react to the news with shock (which is already a huge improvement on how the characters reacted in The Shape of Water), there is still an element of humor added to this situation. Dustin’s mom is portrayed as a stereotypical cat lady; she runs around the neighborhood calling “Mews! Mewsy!”, and the entire search for the “missing” cat reads like a comedy sequence. The viewers are meant to chuckle at her cat-lady antics, while her son is lying to her face pretending that the cat ran away. Would this scene be written the same way if it was about a dog? Would a devastated woman looking for her lost dog be used as a comic relief?
Finally, let’s take a look at The Grand Budapest Hotel. Coincidentally, this one is another critically acclaimed film (9 Oscar nominations, 4 wins). Here is what happens: a rich old lady is murdered, which brings about an inheritance dispute among her many relatives and friends. Children of the deceased push Vilmos Kovacs, an attorney handling affairs of the estate, to finalize the inheritance as soon as possible. When he fails to comply, they throw his Persian cat out of the window. The owner runs to the window only to see his cat lying on the ground, unmistakably dead, with all four paws spreading in different directions. In case you were wondering, the scene is supposed to be disturbing, but hilarious.
You can see it here, although it is incomplete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9b0DAkc-ys
Later that day, the owner collects a bag containing his cat’s body from the coat check. The card reads: “Contents: Persian Cat (DECEASED)”. It is all very, very funny.
Writing all this, I realize it might seem silly to some people that I am dedicating so much time and effort to such a minor issue. Why am I so preoccupied with the fate of cats in films? The thing is, I believe that the abuse of cats in media is closely intertwined with the mistreatment of another group. I am talking, of course, about women.
All three examples that I have listed above have certain things in common. The death of a cat is not taken seriously. It is not the central plot point, like it would be if a dog died. It is described with elements of humor, which completely neutralizes the act of violence. Most importantly, it is unfathomable to imagine the same scenarios applied to dogs, and a person who merely suggests such a plot point would be viewed as a complete psychopath. Because who would want to hurt a man’s best friend?
This is what it ultimately boils down to: dogs are men’s best friends. Owning a dog gives men what they crave the most: utter adoration and complete submission. They don’t have to work for a dog’s love – unlike the love of a woman, or a cat. To some men, this makes dog ownership preferable to having a family: dogs won’t expect anything in return, they will accept breadcrumbs, they will never disagree or complain or leave.
Men tend to associate themselves with their dogs; some go further than that and equate all men with all dogs. “Dogs are boys, cats are girls”. So, with their identities so closely connected, it is no surprise that men have great empathy for dogs, just like they have great empathy for other men.
Cats, on the other hand, are trickier animals. In order to win a cat over, you need to show them respect, give them space and be ready to wait for a long time until a cat decides he or she enjoys your company. Cats are not always available when you want to play or cuddle with them. They teach us consent. Most importantly, they don’t submit. To some men, especially the ones that are narcissists, this sort of thing is infuriating.
While men’s close relationships with their dogs are glorified, women get laughed at if they own and love cats. Men coined the term “men’s best friend”, but what about cats who have been living alongside women for centuries? Do we refer to them as “women’s best friends”? We should, but we don’t. Instead, our bonds with cats are either branded as laughable (crazy cat lady) or evil (witch). Either way, under this set of rules women and cats don’t get any sympathy or compassion from men. There are only two acceptable ways for men to react: laugh at us or hate us.
This is why I don’t laugh when a cat is killed onscreen. I never forget that, at the end of the day, men have as much empathy for women as they do for cats.
P.S. Thank you for reading my Magnum Opus. As you can see, I have REALLY given this a lot of thought, perhaps too much! Would love it if someone wanted to discuss it.
We all know that dogs are worshipped in today’s society, and there are many good reasons for that. They are loyal, loving, friendly, playful, a man’s best friend. People’s love for dogs translates to the medium of films and television too: if a dog dies onscreen, that is usually the biggest tearjerker moment in the entire film. If the dog dies, some will purposefully avoid watching the film. There is an entire site dedicated to the one big question: doesthedogdie.com.
At times, this kind of dog worship gets a bit concerning: I remember reading discussions about horror movies and seeing comments such as “at least the dog survived”. Sometimes I read these same comments, word for word, under articles about real murders of real people (usually women, but we’ll get to that).
Bottom line is, people REALLY care whether a dog lives or dies. Unfortunately, this is very much not the case when it comes to cats.
As a cat lover, I couldn’t help but notice a double standard in how cats and dogs are treated in society and, by extension, in movies. It started early: watching Tom and Jerry as a kid, I was always a bit uncomfortable with how much physical and mental anguish Tom was put through just to get a few laughs. Why is a cat, who is by nature a carnivore, treated as a villain for chasing a mouse?
A good example of an evil cartoon cat is, of course, Lucifer from Cinderella – mean, cunning and, worst of all, mouse-exclusionary. By the way, what’s up with the trope of dogs and mice befriending each other to fight the evil cat?
Those are just two examples off the top of my head – there are many more films and TV series where cat behavior is vilified. But while portraying cats this way is unfair, what I really wanted to talk about is violence against cats onscreen and how it is dismissed by both characters and audiences. In particular, I will be talking about two movies and one series: The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Shape of Water and Stranger Things. There will be spoilers, so proceed at your own risk.
Every screenwriter knows: when you need to kill an animal for plot advancement, your best bet is to kill a cat. Need to terrify a girl in a horror movie? Kill her cat and put it in her locker. Need to start somewhere before building up to killing human characters? The cat it is.
The Shape of Water is a 2017 film that received 13 Oscar nominations and won four of them, including Best Director and Best Picture. It’s a film that I was really enjoying up until a certain moment. Here is some context: American military get hold of a strange creature, a humanoid amphibian, and keep him imprisoned in a government facility to study/torture him. A woman, Elisa, falls in love with him and manages to get him out, hiding him in her neighbor Giles’s apartment. At one point the creature escapes the bathtub where he is kept and starts exploring his surroundings. He sees a cat, the cat hisses, and in the next scene Giles walks in to the sight of the Amphibian eating his cat. And in case you thought the cat’s death is only implied, it is not: we get to see the cat’s body with its head bitten off. It’s horrific.
Here is the scene for those who want to see it for themselves, although I heartily do not recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUCtYm5YJA
Some try to justify this scene. They say the Amphibian had never met a cat before and doesn’t know if it’s dangerous to him or not. He was startled by the cat’s hissing and attacked without thinking. He doesn’t know cats are not for food. But all I have to say to that is, imagine if this was a dog. Imagine if it was a dog’s headless body: do you think the film would win Best Picture then? You think it would even be nominated, amid all the backlash and boycotts?
But there is more. After the cat is killed, the whole thing is treated as a minor inconvenience. The cat’s owner shakes his head: whatcha gonna do? These things happen, right? And the woman, Elisa, pays it no mind at all and goes on to pursue a romantic relationship with the cat killer. When you think about it, it’s almost as if that gruesome scene was meant to be slightly humorous: oh my god, can you believe it, he ate the cat! And judging by the comments online, many people (men?) do find it funny.
Let’s move on to an episode of Stranger Things that features a cat’s death. One of the main characters, Dustin, brings home an unknown creature and keeps it as a pet. This thing, first kept in a fish tank, keeps growing at an abnormal rate, and one day Dustin comes home to a broken tank and his “pet” missing. After a brief search, he finds it in the corner eating the house cat. Again, the camera doesn’t shy away from the scene: for about ten seconds, we see a cat being eaten by a monster. Here is the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiAWZSoRjAo
Sounds similar to The Shape of Water, doesn’t it? Except this time, luckily, we are not supposed to root for the cat killer. But here’s the interesting thing: even though Dustin’s friends react to the news with shock (which is already a huge improvement on how the characters reacted in The Shape of Water), there is still an element of humor added to this situation. Dustin’s mom is portrayed as a stereotypical cat lady; she runs around the neighborhood calling “Mews! Mewsy!”, and the entire search for the “missing” cat reads like a comedy sequence. The viewers are meant to chuckle at her cat-lady antics, while her son is lying to her face pretending that the cat ran away. Would this scene be written the same way if it was about a dog? Would a devastated woman looking for her lost dog be used as a comic relief?
Finally, let’s take a look at The Grand Budapest Hotel. Coincidentally, this one is another critically acclaimed film (9 Oscar nominations, 4 wins). Here is what happens: a rich old lady is murdered, which brings about an inheritance dispute among her many relatives and friends. Children of the deceased push Vilmos Kovacs, an attorney handling affairs of the estate, to finalize the inheritance as soon as possible. When he fails to comply, they throw his Persian cat out of the window. The owner runs to the window only to see his cat lying on the ground, unmistakably dead, with all four paws spreading in different directions. In case you were wondering, the scene is supposed to be disturbing, but hilarious.
You can see it here, although it is incomplete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9b0DAkc-ys
Later that day, the owner collects a bag containing his cat’s body from the coat check. The card reads: “Contents: Persian Cat (DECEASED)”. It is all very, very funny.
Writing all this, I realize it might seem silly to some people that I am dedicating so much time and effort to such a minor issue. Why am I so preoccupied with the fate of cats in films? The thing is, I believe that the abuse of cats in media is closely intertwined with the mistreatment of another group. I am talking, of course, about women.
All three examples that I have listed above have certain things in common. The death of a cat is not taken seriously. It is not the central plot point, like it would be if a dog died. It is described with elements of humor, which completely neutralizes the act of violence. Most importantly, it is unfathomable to imagine the same scenarios applied to dogs, and a person who merely suggests such a plot point would be viewed as a complete psychopath. Because who would want to hurt a man’s best friend?
This is what it ultimately boils down to: dogs are men’s best friends. Owning a dog gives men what they crave the most: utter adoration and complete submission. They don’t have to work for a dog’s love – unlike the love of a woman, or a cat. To some men, this makes dog ownership preferable to having a family: dogs won’t expect anything in return, they will accept breadcrumbs, they will never disagree or complain or leave.
Men tend to associate themselves with their dogs; some go further than that and equate all men with all dogs. “Dogs are boys, cats are girls”. So, with their identities so closely connected, it is no surprise that men have great empathy for dogs, just like they have great empathy for other men.
Cats, on the other hand, are trickier animals. In order to win a cat over, you need to show them respect, give them space and be ready to wait for a long time until a cat decides he or she enjoys your company. Cats are not always available when you want to play or cuddle with them. They teach us consent. Most importantly, they don’t submit. To some men, especially the ones that are narcissists, this sort of thing is infuriating.
While men’s close relationships with their dogs are glorified, women get laughed at if they own and love cats. Men coined the term “men’s best friend”, but what about cats who have been living alongside women for centuries? Do we refer to them as “women’s best friends”? We should, but we don’t. Instead, our bonds with cats are either branded as laughable (crazy cat lady) or evil (witch). Either way, under this set of rules women and cats don’t get any sympathy or compassion from men. There are only two acceptable ways for men to react: laugh at us or hate us.
This is why I don’t laugh when a cat is killed onscreen. I never forget that, at the end of the day, men have as much empathy for women as they do for cats.
P.S. Thank you for reading my Magnum Opus. As you can see, I have REALLY given this a lot of thought, perhaps too much! Would love it if someone wanted to discuss it.
The TL;DR is this lady is upset that cat deaths in film are treated more humorously than dog deaths, and that this is a representation of how little men care about women's lives, then she spiels into the dumb meme-tweet-shit about how men don't like cats because they can't control them, something something witchcraft, she's super serious about how she will never take a fictional cat death for granted. Commenters agree and follow up with their own 3rd grade ironically-troon-tier analysis of gender via pets - then, ALF was offensive, they proceed to further explain that it's okay for cats to be shitty - as I've postulated before on another thread - amusingly reminiscient of how one desperate for little snippets of affection would sugarcoat an abusive partner.
But I'm fucking bummed out no one brought up one of the the greatest humorous cat deaths in cinema,
followed up with one of the greater misogyny laced humorous rants in cinema
Last edited:
Similar threads
Bigot Brigade
Something Awful and Friends
The roller-coaster train-wreck embarrassing downfall of a Web 1.0 giant and its tick offspring like from Cloverfield
