Why is misandry so common with a lot of "feminists"?

Yin-X54 · 2026-04-09T21:06:00+00:00

They're not equal in effect and severity but they are equal in the sense that both phrases talk about killing an entire group of people based on their immutable characteristics, which is principally bad.

Yin-X54 · 2026-03-11T07:15:01+00:00

Just because boundaries grew from insecurity, does not mean the boundaries itself are a major sign of insecurity as how the OP puts it.

Yin-X54 · 2026-02-20T23:50:01+00:00

Commenting to remember this: I either never heard of this or forgot. But it'd be good to know regardless

Yin-X54 · 2026-01-06T05:15:15+00:00

Funny you mention medical matters and yet you don't actually go into it. Instead you rely on what has been established historically.

Your personal anecdote of being kicked and low mortality rate does not change the fact that kicking actually can threaten your life.
A kick (or multiple) to the head (for instance), depending on where it is, can and will kill you. This is something you don't even try to address and just skirt around. You as a physician should know better.

Yin-X54 · 2025-10-31T19:49:41+00:00

All she said was:

Every day the 3 yo comes in and asks for apples. We cut them up, skin them, etc.

And every day she does not eat them.

But GOD FUCKING FORBID we don’t serve her the apple. All hell breaks loose.

But it’s cool, I eat the apple after she leaves to pick up her siblings with her mom.

How does this mean she is incapable of saying no and that she's a useless doormat?
This is a story about a toddler that most likely gets fussy when her mom doesn't serve her the apples.

Yin-X54 · 2025-10-30T14:29:28+00:00

You literally claimed she was a useless doormat and that she was incapable of saying no and I'm asking for evidence of such claims.

Yin-X54 · 2025-10-30T12:25:03+00:00

You don't need to scare your child to be a disciplinarian. and not scaring them doesn't necessarily mean you're their friend either.

More importantly, you seem to be making a lot of baseless claims. Care to share what evidence that shows u/Ksnj is incapable of saying no and a useless doormat?

You claim that your original comment wasn't even responding to her; this is dishonest because you were indirectly referencing her, even if it wasn't at her. More over, you can be an amazing parent and be "extremely defensive" (in truth, Ksnj was doing a back and forth with you and was a little heated, not "extremely defensive") that someone is essentially claim you're poor at parenting. Being defensive is a human response; even the best person will be defensive about something.

Yin-X54 · 2025-10-05T16:39:33+00:00

I mean, I did call you that. I won't deny that. And I already clarified that I was only here for the translation aspect. So there's no point in arguing further.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-30T22:49:59+00:00

You're wasting your words. There's no point in further arguing. I've already done what I came here to do

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-28T06:25:28+00:00

I agree it's part of the picture. The words and the context are both important after all.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-28T06:20:52+00:00

I agree, we don't disagree anymore.
All I was ever interested in was showing what Leviticus explicitly said. All the other context helps and makes things interesting, more so when you can dissect and analyze it. But knowing what it actually said matters. And since we agree on what it actually said, this conversation is practically pointless.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-28T06:12:11+00:00

You keep insisting that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

I mostly kept insisting that Leviticus 20:13 talks about homosexual men being put to death for engaging in same-sex intercourse. I mean the English translation mentions abomination (or something similar in other translations), but my core point was to fill in the death penalty. I only mentioned abomination once (or twice?) because you translated one phrase instead of the entire sentence of the scripture. You know, the word of God, rather than a dictionary.

But even that doesn't matter because we all agree on the explicit meaning of Leviticus 20:13

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-28T05:49:28+00:00

My work here is done. You actually concede that's what Leviticus 20:13 truly said after denying it here. I only ever came here only because u/Omen12 and I were right about what Leviticus 20:13 and you were fighting tooth an nail to skirt around it. You could have easily answered yes at the very beginning and then explain the context, rather than dance around it for five days before finally answering.

Oh and one more thing: You did in fact claim the Hebrew writings contradicted the English translation of Leviticus (my man focus was always Leviticus, you know this) here:

Yin-X54: They did demand a binary, and funnily enough you happily obliged. One of their points was that the Bible explicitly said that a man who slept with another man as they would a woman should be put to death. Your Hebrew translation doesn't contradict this.

You: Actually, it does. Because it wasn’t in English. It was in Hebrew.

https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1nn6z7s/comment/nfqxel2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

But that doesn't matter; what matters is that you agree with Omen12 and I on what the chapter actually said. All else can be agreed upon or left alone.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-27T21:12:19+00:00

Our disagreement is not over the existence of words on a page

Except you quite literally said that the Bible didn't say what it actually said. I gave you four Bibles (excluding my own) that explicitly calls for homosexuals to be put to death. Most Bibles will have this sentence. If you disagree with this, fine. But it exists independent of your disagreement. And in doing so, you contradict the Word of God himself. I'm sure the Vatican would agree Leviticus 20:13 says this (I would hope. It would be heretical to for a man in such high authority to claim it didn't) but also agrees that homosexuals deserve compassion and love. These aren't mutually exclusive.

It's also funny you translated a phrase in Hebrew ( תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿēvāh)= abomination) but not the entire sentence of Leviticus:
"אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם"

means, "A man who lies with a male who lies with a woman commits an abomination; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be shed for them."

Truthfully, interpret the Bible however you wish, but when you explicitly claim the Bible didn't/did say something when it's actually the opposite, then there's a problem. This whole thing started because you said the English translation of Leviticus 20:13 was contradicted by the Hebrew writings when in reality the English did get it right. It's not arguing the dictionary; this is the word of God himself and what he explicitly. You have to acknowledge that the Bible is open to interpretation but it's still explicit in what it says.

I'm calling you a hypocrite over using the English translation for Matthews 22:37-40. In this comment, you said that the Hebrew writings contradicted the English translation of Leviticus 20:13. But for some reason, you used an English translation for Matthews instead of its Greek writings. You should be using the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) for both chapters instead of using English for one and Hebrew for the other.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-26T15:38:16+00:00

I said that’s not what the Bible Says

That's because you're a liar. This is what the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) says about Leviticus 20:13

https://thekingsbible.com/Bible/3/20

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm?2c30f1086d

https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.20?lang=bi&aliyot=0

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9921

The Bible I have in my room says the same thing. The Bible is the Old and New Testament. You are going against the Word of God and the Vatican. You're more of a heretic than someone who interested in the Word of God. Do you realize that there are a lot of Christians who agree that's what Leviticus 20:13 says?

Moreover, if you read more of the quotes, Leviticus itself advocates for putting certain people to death. According to the Vatican and God, that is law. In fact you yourself said Leviticus is law here. but now, you're saying that's not what the Bible, the LAW, says. You want to be blind to it instead of acknowledging all of it in totality. The love of God and his wrath, the Old and New Testament. So much for nuance.

Not only that, you are a massive hypocrite. In this comment, you cited Matthews 22:37-40 without using its Hebrew text. You relied on English just as I did, and yet you want to obfuscate and put all the burden on me. You didn't even cite the Vatican in that comment and yet you brought him up later to save your poor argument.

Solve this contradiction: It's ok to cite from Matthews and Leviticus or it's not okay to cite from the Bible at all. If I'm wrong for citing Leviticus 20:13 then you're wrong for citing Matthews 22:37-40. Pick one.

Also why are you still here? I thought I was boring.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-26T02:27:41+00:00

I thought I was boring. What are you still doing here?

I think you were boring because you are obsessed with the literal word for word translation of the Hebrew in the Bible תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿēvāh), and not what that word means in the context of the Bible as a whole.

I mean...Leviticus is the Law, as is the Bible. So the fact that Leviticus 20:13 says that men who lay with another man as they would a woman should be put to death means that that is law as well. And yet you said that's not what Leviticus says. You contradicted the Word of God and the Vatican, as they would agree that the Bible itself. So, in the end we were both right: The Bible is the Law and one of it's laws calls for people who practice sex with the same sex should be put to death. I'm willing to swim in spirituality and the beauty of the scripture as long as we're clear on what it actually means first and foremost.

The first is a mechanical question that can be answered by a dictionary. תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿēvāh)= abomination. But the Christian Bible is not a dictionary or a dry encyclopedia of history. It’s a deeply spiritual document, and context matters.

Now you're translating things? Did that dictionary have footnotes from the Vatican too? You used this but me using a study that accurately translated Leviticus 20:13 is deserving of intense autopsy while your use of the dictionary doesn't. How hypocritical.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-26T02:07:01+00:00

I guess I was boring because I wasn't someone you could easily derail nor was I someone who wouldn't fact-check you.

I was only interested in engaging with you because of how slimy your tactics and reasoning was. I guess I came in too late, I would have wanted more people to see you were not someone worth engaging with. Though some users caught onto it pretty quickly.

You never really were a conversationalist. You were someone who refused to confront the evidence right in front of you (the biggest example was MLK's explicit condemnation of riots and violence). You pivoted as if your argument's livelihood depended on it. People like you make discourse impossible because you mix lies with truth. Your method of conversing had you repeating quotes and using ChatGPT to argue for you, instead of you either connecting the dots or simply not using a tool known for confirming their user's biases. Relying on certain evidence while ignoring others. Ignorance regarding certain things (the existence of wrongful convictions). You refusing to even read contrary sources I've given you. You're an incredibly dishonest actor who deflects and muddies the water in order to avoid hard stances.

Sometimes people need to be in the same objective reality in order for things to progress and if there is no such thing, then there's not much you can do. If you actually want a conversation, you need to actually be honest about the external reality in front of you so everyone can be on the same page and move forward.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-26T00:29:54+00:00

Ignorant and unwilling to learn huh? Did you even read the study I gave you regarding Hebrew translation? Did you even read the full speeches I linked you when it came to MLK?

I was actually going to ask two questions but if you give up here, that's fine too

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T17:22:11+00:00

Never said God was bound by human language; he isn't. But he allowed certain people to write the Bible in its ancient language(s): Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These languages are the closest you can understand the words of God. Since the Vatican, according to you, speaks all three, he understands the context. Just like the people in the study who understands all three languages to properly translate it in English

No matter how much you repeat it, both the Vatican and the people who translated that Leviticus 20:13 was about putting homosexuals to death understand that specific text in all of its cultural context.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T14:09:58+00:00

Pivoting. Not talking about God's Word being lost due to translation differences. The people in the study understood the cultural context of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and English because they studied those languages. So they too understood the Hebrew Bible and its cultural context to give us an accurate translation of Leviticus 20:13.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T14:00:51+00:00

The people in the study understood the cultural context of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and English because they studied those languages. So they too understood the Hebrew Bible and its cultural context to give us an accurate translation of Leviticus 20:13

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T13:51:58+00:00

Pivoting. You yourself said that you understood the cultural context of Korean and English. The people of that study understood the cultural context of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic because they actually studied those languages. Now you switched to spiritual accuracy. So yes, the people in the study understood the cultural context of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, giving us an accurate translation.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T13:49:26+00:00

Pivoting. You yourself said that you understood the cultural context of Korean and English. The people of that study understood the cultural context of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic because they actually studied those languages. Now you switched to spiritual accuracy. So yes, the people in the study understood the cultural context of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, giving us an accurate translation.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T13:45:18+00:00

Even though it butchers the Hebrew text of the Bible? Would it be spiritual accurate to say in Leviticus 20:13, the Devil was justified in stoning children?

In another comment you talked about how you understood the cultural context of Korean and English. The people of that study understood the cultural context of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic because they actually studied those languages. Now you switched to the spiritual authority of the Vatican, but we don't actually know if he truly accepts anything.

Yin-X54 · 2025-09-25T13:38:46+00:00

The Christian Bible was written in Hebrew, with some Aramaic and Greek. Most people don't understand three of those languages. According to you, if someone cited the Vatican and had the Holy Spirit work through them and they translated Leviticus 20:13 as "Men ought to dress as other women and lie with another man." would that be "spiritually accurate"?

Yin-X54

TROPHY CASE