PDA

View Full Version : Feminism is finally dead, looks like heirarchy wins


90sAce
12-06-15, 11:12 AM
This lovely lady here does a great job deconstructing what modern "feminism" has devolved into (much like most radical social democratic movements), with only 19% of people even in "socialist" UK identifying with it anymore.

I've visited a few of the most popular feminist websites like "Everyday Feminism" attempting to have an open mind, but I can't contain laughter at the trivialities which pass for "issues", whether it's complaining how a man trying "too hard" to make a woman happy in bed is "sexist", or how women wearing high heels is some form of institutionalized oppression - the level of whining sounds like something from an emo kid convention or a Teenybopper mag, not something purporting to be a serious special interest group. :D At least websites like SPLC which have an obvious left-wing bias focus on issues such as racial hate crimes rather than the "oppression" of wearing high heels.

The most ironic part is they do more to affirm the most cliche 1950s stereotypes of women than they do to dispels it, since reading the websites, apparently these supposedly liberated women are so delicate and fragile that they get flustered over high heels or Youtube trolls (yet expect us to think they can handle Navy SEAL training - which is it? It can't be both).

In brutal honesty, even the worst of the so-called "masculinist sites" I've been hearing about (such as ReturnOfKings which is basically the "He Man Woman Haters Club" from Little Rascals) are still better than the best of the "feminist" sites, which rank about in the same category of credibility as Alex Jones or David Icke in my book.

For real, the only thing more cringeworthy than a feminist is a "male feminist" (who's about as likely to get a date with a woman as a Catholic Priest in a gay bathhouse, and far more likely to make women laugh at him behind his back than please them with his obsequious patronization).

Thank god this neo-Marxist movement is dead, because if it wasn't dead I'd have to shoot it. Real equality is merit which the suffrages achieved, not the "right" to be obese and still be considered attractive, or the "right" not to see a (much) better looking woman than you on a billboard. The only semi-legit issue that modern feminists discuss is consumerist attitudes toward sex and relationships (and of course like all special interest groups it's done out of the context of real underlying principle).

Emily Hill (http://new.spectator.co.uk/author/emily-hill/)


It would be easy to believe from the papers these days that women have never been more oppressed. From the columnist Caitlin Moran to the comedian Bridget Christie, a new creed is preached: that we are the victims, not the victors, of the sex war. Feminists claim we are objectified by the builder’s whistle, that a strange man attempting to flirt with us is tantamount to sexual assault. Suddenly, just as it seemed we women were about to have it all, a new wave of feminists has begun to portray us as feeble-minded — unable to withstand a bad date, let alone negotiate a pay rise. Worse still, they are ditching what was best about the feminist tradition: solidarity with the sisterhood and the freedom of every woman to do as she pleased. Feminism 4.0 consists of freely attacking other women over, erm, crucial issues such as bikini waxing, wearing stilettos and page three of the Sun. Moran writes that it is childbirth that ‘turns you from a girl into a woman’ (causing every woman in my office to snort involuntarily) and that feminism will only triumph ‘when a woman goes up to collect the Oscar for Best Actress in shoes that aren’t killing her’. The revolution will be televised, with ‘Nicole Kidman in flip-flops’.
Well, if this is feminism, then feminism is dead, and the triviality of the fights feminists pick is the surest proof of its demise. What started as a genuine crusade against genuine prejudice has become a form of pointless attention-seeking.
I was born in 1983, and was fortunate to grow up in a country where it was blindingly obvious that women ruled: with a queen on the throne and a woman in Downing Street. I was a grocer’s daughter, educated at a state school, living in the flat above the shop, and I looked to that real feminist icon Margaret Thatcher as objective proof that I could get wherever the hell I wanted in life, provided I sharpened my wits and gave it my all. I knew, without having to be told, that where you were born was not necessarily where you’d end up, because Maggie, facing far greater odds, bulldozed every obstacle foolish enough to stand in her way with sheer bloodymindedness and an attitude that screamed ‘never say die’. Feminists in the West, if they had any sense, would stop moaning and whingeing, order Germaine Greer a crown of laurels, stick her on a four-horse chariot, and march her in triumph through the streets of Rome so she that could offer a blood sacrifice to Emmeline Pankhurst. The totemic battles were hard fought — and they were won. The next generation should be encouraged to enjoy the spoils, not worry old wounds.
Today, girls outperform boys at school — and have done since the mid-1970s. They are more likely to get five good GCSEs. A third of them go to university, compared with just a quarter of men. Once in university, they do better and are significantly more likely to graduate with a first or 2:1 degree. And equality? In many courses, it has gone a bit beyond that. Last year, women constituted 55 per cent of those enrolling in courses in medicine and dentistry and 62 per cent of those enrolling in law. Business, banking and the professions may be dominated by men today but, judging by the rapidity of our ascent, this won’t last long. As Boris Johnson has observed, when my generation reach the peak of our careers, the entire management structure of Britain will have been transformed — and feminised.


Since the suffragettes won us the vote, women have made greater strides than men have made in millennia. In fact, the demographic doing worst in schools is white boys on free school meals — only a quarter of whom gained five decent GCSE grades. So yes, there are gender equality issues — but they are deeply unfashionable. Who will wave placards, or lie on the carpet of film premieres, for the cause of under-performing boys?
Most self-styled feminists argue that we still struggle in the workplace. On close inspection this isn’t borne out either. Women in their twenties have out-earned men in for the last few years; now the under-40s are doing so as well. The speed of our trajectory is startling. Across Europe and America, and particularly in Scandinavia, women are pushing their way on to executive boards and into the seats of power. The French government has passed a law which will require that two in five executive board members of the largest public companies are women. Feminists argue we need quotas in this country, too, but isn’t there a sweeter triumph in the sisters doing it for themselves?
So the next generation have everything to play for — if only they aren’t encouraged to view themselves as helpless victims at the mercy of an insuperable patriarchy. Only 19 per cent identify as feminist nowadays, which perhaps isn’t surprising since it’s become so dull. In the 1970s, feminists were ball-breaking, ass-kicking, devil-may-care thinkers — the likes of Greer, Gloria Steinem and Susan Sontag. Now the ‘voice of a generation’ is Harry Potter star Emma Watson, who delivered a highly praised speech to the UN, lamenting that her girlfriends had given up competitive sport because they were worried it might make their arms look ‘muscly’.
But while Watson frets about the tyranny of the male gaze, it’s being eyeballed by a feminist which is truly terrifying. These middle–class aesthetes love to boss other — particularly working-class — women around, sneering at how they dress and behave. They disapprove of Beyoncé and Rihanna flaunting their beautiful -bodies in pop videos with a vehemence you might expect from the Taleban. In April, an advert featuring a busty model appeared on the Tube, with the tagline: ‘Are you beach body ready?’ Within hours it had been defaced; within days 44,000 signatures had been appended to a petition demanding it be removed. Making sure women are covered up in public, so their bare flesh doesn’t offend anyone, is something you’d expect in Saudi Arabia, not here, where we should be free to dress as provocatively as we please.
Why shouldn’t we wear make-up, stockings and suspenders if we like? From Elizabeth I to Bette Davis, women have considered lipstick, high heels and killer hairdos to be legitimate weapons in our arsenal, as effective, in their own way, as crossbows and bazookas. But new feminists are determined to drain the fun from life, and illustrate how awful it is to be a woman in the UK.
Another challenge girls apparently quail at is trolling on the internet. So let’s say you have received threats from some maladjusted loser who disagrees with something you’ve said. Should you call the police? Abandon Twitter? Or perhaps relish the insults, in the manner of Maggie, who said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding. It means they have not a single political argument left.’
Alternatively, you could remain impervious to insult entirely, like rock goddess Chrissie Hynde, who last month was trolled by feminists after confessing that she had suffered a sex attack aged 21 and took ‘full responsibility’ for it. Twitter lit up with the unedifying spectacle of hundreds of women attacking her for expressing her honest opinion, until even the Guardian’s Julie Bindel felt moved to point out that Hynde herself was ‘not a rapist’. Hynde’s magisterial response? ‘If you don’t want my opinion, don’t ask for it.’
But when it comes to sex, new feminists are excessively squeamish, so much so that one timid male, Samuel Fishwick (24, 6ft 3in, GSOH) has compiled a guide to romance in the age of equality. Approaching the -Vagenda blog for advice, he was roundly informed that a man must never ask a woman to meet him for a drink at a location near his abode: ‘It makes women think you’re going to turn their skin into a lampshade.’
Does it, though? Or are feminists exaggerating ridiculously — spending so much time dwelling on their own vaginas that they fail to use their brains? Surely we should be revelling in the fact we’re the ‘second sex’ no longer, and teaching our girls how to rely on what Emily Bronte called our ‘no coward’ souls.

Emily Hill is a freelance writer. The Evening Standard Londoner’s Diary had her gatecrash a funeral and the Mail on Sunday sent her down a sewer.

Iroquois
12-07-15, 02:13 AM
Feminism isn't just some monolithic entity where any flaws in the thinking of certain individuals automatically discredit the concept as a whole. It's certainly a lot more complex than just being a question of women opposing men - that's without bringing other factors such as race, sexuality, or gender identity into play. The last time Germaine Greer was even in the news was because of the controversy surrounding her dismissive attitude towards transgender women, which does feed into your complaints about mainstream feminism (or is that "white feminism"?) having skewed priorities. Even some of your cited article's examples are a little flawed - comparing Western feminists' complaints about exposed female skin to Saudi Arabia is a little disingenuous, especially when Western women are liable to think that removing Middle Eastern's women's hijabs is justified in the name of liberating them from oppression. Referencing the suffragettes as being an example of the merit of "real equality" - well, that's a little complicated (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11914757/Racism-and-the-suffragettes-the-uncomfortable-truth.html). The same goes for citing Chrissie Hynde's comment on being sexually assaulted - considering how likely this is to happen to (or have happened to) a woman and the inherently damaging concept that a woman "asks for it", this does make people challenging Hynde understandable. That's on a whole other level to Caitlin Moran's obliviously milquetoast comments about true womanhood. That's without bringing into question the whole idea of the article's author citing Margaret Thatcher as a feminist icon, which does skim over her more unpopular policies in favour of championing the same kind of empty "girl power" rhetoric that the author spends the rest of the article deriding.

This topic seems to run on the same line of reasoning as your "degradation of pop music" thread where you hold up the most blandly mainstream examples possible (e.g. Emma Watson's UN speech, which I grant is well-intentioned and not inherently awful but is still open to criticism beyond that thrown out by spiteful MRA types) as clear-cut examples of how the subject in question is either in a decline or dead. These things tend to get lumped under "white feminism", a concept which is prone to a lot of flaws due to its emphasis on reaching a slightly more agreeable status quo that looks to preserve peace and order rather than generate justice for other marginalised groups (case in point - #AllLivesMatter). There are definitely more pressing issues going on and white feminists like Greer or Moran seem to have lost sight of that in favour of pushing narrow-sighted agendas that ironically operate from a position of privilege. Even with the caveat that they have some incredibly flawed outlooks, that still doesn't cancel out some of the flaws that they and this article do address. Not putting up with unwanted male attention like wolf-whistles or obtrusive conversation is at least understandable because women shouldn't have to be made uncomfortable like that. People complain about how consciously trying to prevent such undesired interaction is pushing a concept of victimhood onto women, but it's not like the actions in their own right weren't generating victimhood on their own in the first place.

In short, feminism is complicated and not dead.

90sAce
12-07-15, 03:03 AM
Whelp this was a "rant" thread, and since I'm trying to turn the Ghostbusters thread into a more civil discussion I'm going to hold of on responding to this one any further for now so that I keep my mood level.

And yeah there were rude "humorous" remarks made in this thread which will probably offend people, so I discussed that issue in the Ghostbusters thread.

90sAce
12-07-15, 03:14 AM
...
Whelp since that was a well-written response I won't butt heads too much, I'll just make it clear that when I say feminism I'm talking about the modern special interest groups, not the entire history of women's rights (though I think people shouldn't "have" to say this because there's no serious movement to remove basic rights for women outside of some extremist groups).

And as mention from what little I've seen from some of these "MRAs", some of them are just as bad as some of the worst of the feminist websites. My opinion leans toward all special interest political groups based on physical characteristics (race, sex, etc) being a bad thing since they center on a physical trait rather than an ideology or creed, which I think inevitably leads toward xenophobic jingoism.

Problem though is that attacking "MRA's" on the whole while objecting to generic criticism of "feminism" seems like a double standard to me, and IMO is based on the idea that double standards should apply simply based on "who's the most oppressed".

And as far as I know of, even the worst "MRA" websites aren't as bad as the worst feminist websites I've heard of - there was a site called RadFemHub which was basically a feminist version of Stormfront where things such as genocide and forced abortions against males were discussed - I've yet to see an "MRA" website calling for genocide against females; the worst I've seen on those sites is some posers claiming that women are only good for cooking, cleaning, and f-king, etc.

---

As for the title of this thread regarding hierarchy, it was sarcasm - I was making a point about how the feminist website I cited IMO did more to reenforce the stereotypes about women being too weak and fragile to compete with men by having such a whiny tone.

90sAce
12-07-15, 03:30 AM
You seem to have more education on the subject than me, I have a pretty layman's understanding of it in specific, but I'm more interested in general social psychology and philosophy, which IMO better addresses most of the social issues than special interest which center along the lines of sex, race, etc

90sAce
12-07-15, 03:44 AM
Iroquois you seem to have a desire to make some positive difference in the world, if nothing else that is admirable

90sAce
12-07-15, 03:54 AM
I think I'm wrong to be so arrogant to march in here and aggressively proselytize my views, not taking into account anything about the people I respond to - other than that they disagree with me and are therefore my "opponent". not taking into account anything about their life experiences, contributions to the website, or anything else except me and what "I" think is right.

matt72582
12-07-15, 10:37 AM
Feminism is the first time they told you to join a group to become an individual - what a concept!

Redwell
12-07-15, 10:48 AM
Feminism is the first time they told you to join a group to become an individual - what a concept!

lolwut

Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

How exactly do you interpret that to mean anti-conformity?

matt72582
12-07-15, 11:20 AM
lolwut

Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

How exactly do you interpret that to mean anti-conformity?

Equality is fine, but we are born different, we aren't the same.

I know the big argument is for equal pay. But single women make more than men, $1.04/1 - but no one is ever going to talk about that. Yeah, if a woman has kids, it's unlikely she can work much, have more responsibility, etc.., which explains the disparity.

Women want the great traits of men, but none of the other stuff.. For example, still do this day, the man courts, the man pays, the man performs in business, in combat, even in the act of love. Sounds like a buffet, "I like this, don't like that"

Even in the courts, in a custody battle, the child ALWAYS goes to the woman.

I hear the word "minority" - women are 53% of the population, not really a minority.

Are people really serious about justice? This is a tactic to pander for votes. Do you think Hilary Clinton is going to liberate women?

christine
12-07-15, 11:32 AM
'Socialist' UK :D

90sAce
12-11-15, 07:03 AM
lolwut

Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

How exactly do you interpret that to mean anti-conformity?
Old school feminism's a different ballpark, modern "feminism" is just a subset of "special interest" groups.

Feminist issues have already received enough attention in mainstream politics that the ideas of equality for women have been thoroughly incorporated into mainstream debate, leaving modern "Feminst groups" simply bastions for elements who were too radical to gain mainstream notoriety.

It's idea of "equality" is the one used by the cultural Marxist manifesto - equality of outcome not opportunity, and simply extends Marx's doctrine of "class struggle" to include social categories such as race, sex, etc.

Using a dictionary definition is pretty pointless since I'm describing a modern incarnation rather than the entirety, it's basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. The modern incarnation is rooted in Marx's radical ideas.

90sAce
12-11-15, 07:07 AM
'Socialist' UK :D
The "socialist" was in quotes, seeing as UK's economics are more "mixed" than America's are - which isn't a bad thing in every regard. I'm not sure if there's a direct correlation between economic socialism and social Marxism or not.

I'm a nationalist so I support some "socialist" institutions such as healthcare reform to make sure that Americans have a level playing field, but not the radical cultural Marxist notion of "equality".

Though with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of the Labor party it's heading further in that direction.

90sAce
12-11-15, 07:53 AM
Women want the great traits of men, but none of the other stuff.. For example, still do this day, the man courts, the man pays, the man performs in business, in combat, even in the act of love. Sounds like a buffet, "I like this, don't like that"

I wouldn't generalize "women" - that sounds IMO too insecure, like a whiny rant.

In spite of some modern issues of both chivalry and equality being demanded at the same time, the last thing that man should do is "become" like an angry feminist and whine about "inequality.

The sexes aren't the same so they can never be "equal", nor should they. The opportunities to succeed should be equal and the best individual should win.

I like buying things for women because I know that women love to be doted on, it's what turns them on - not the "stuff itself" but the act of being provided for.

But I do it on my own terms, I don't buy or do stuff for women "on command" like a servant boy - guys who do this get used, then get disgruntled and blame women because they thought they were such as "nice guy", when in reality they got used because they were being a doormat.

Just like the chick who sleeps with every guy she meets on the first date, never gets a 2nd date, then becomes an angry feminist who thinks all men are pigs - fact is she set herself up to be "used" by being so easy.

But if a guy doesn't like "doing stuff" for women his best bet is to make like Bruce Jenner and become one himself. Or instead, how about he be selective about the caliber of women that he "does things" for, and remember that anyone can be "born" a woman but not every woman is a lady worthy of being ravished by him.


Even in the courts, in a custody battle, the child ALWAYS goes to the woman
Well fact is women have stronger natural rights to the child, and women by biology are better nurtures.

I mean if I had a daughter, no offense, but I wouldn't want an adult man babysitting my kid. Plus a man who's "too into kids" gives me a bad vibe..


I hear the word "minority" - women are 53% of the population, not really a minority.
Women aren't the problem. Far-left special interest groups are a problem, but they don't speak for minorities or "women" anymore than the KKK speaks for whites.

Fact of the matter is a lot of males act like wusses while at the same time thinking they're "entitled" to attention from women simply because they have a penis.

Men would be wise to learn self improvement and what it means to be a man to begin with, not take the route of the losers on the far-left and whine about how helpless they are.

-KhaN-
12-11-15, 10:13 AM
I hate modern feminists and feminism.
(this post probably raped someone)

But seriously... True feminists are minority in their own movement, majority of feminist ideas are just ********. Like that time they wanted to ban word "bossy" or #killallmen... Oh even better, "slut walks" , when they claimed we live in a "rape culture". LOL

90sAce
12-11-15, 10:19 AM
I hate modern feminists and feminism.
(this post probably raped someone)
I don't think that anyone is fans of the radical social justice groups except those who are already in it - kind of like how everyone hates hipsters, emos, goths... except those who are already hipsters, emos and goths.

I think the internet media and alternative medias are helping to kill the radical elements of social justice - they've made headway in the past when far-left was able to sneak this into uinversities and into mainstream media. Today there are quite a few professors in mainstream universites who are outright Marxist - I mean imagine if a public university professor was an unabashed fascist or Neo-Nazi, and was teaching kids on taxpayer dime - think what the media outcry would be.

But from what layman observations I've observed, the average person is wising up to just how far from its roots feminism and social justice has strayed, and how it's much more closely mirror Marxist class warfare.

South Park dedicated their most recent season to mocking the social justice and PC warriors, so that's a very good sign that the tide's changing, and universities and MSN may wisen up soon too.


But seriously... True feminists are minority in their own movement, majority of feminist ideas are just ********. Like that time they wanted to ban word "bossy" or #killallmen... Oh even better, "slut walks" , when they claimed we live in a "rape culture". LOL
Women's equality issues are already address in mainstream politics - the movements may have had relevance in the past when the issues weren't already on the table.

Now that they are, there's no reason for these "special interest" groups to exist other than as havens for the remaining fringe.

-KhaN-
12-11-15, 10:27 AM
I don't think that anyone is fans of the radical social justice groups except those who are already in it - kind of like how everyone hates hipsters, emos, goths... except those who are already hipsters, emos and goths.

Yea, but emos, goths and hipsters are not as loud as "feminists". I never hear anything about them. But feminism directly influences things I enjoy, it's really worrying that Zoe Quinn made it to UN for Gods sake... She and her friends want internet restrictions, and I know, nothing bad there, we need less internet harassment as it can get really ugly, totally understandable, but... For them only women can be harassed and they consider everything that questions their opinions as harassment. So while I agree, I think these feminists movements are having effects on our daily lives.



South Park dedicated their most recent season to mocking the social justice and PC warriors, so that's a very good sign that the tide's changing, and universities and MSN may wisen up soon too.

Yep, I know, I follow South Park. But its creators are just few guys, South Park will never get media coverage (not counting making fun of celebrities) while stupid movements will.

90sAce
12-11-15, 10:36 AM
Yea, but emos, goths and hipsters are not as loud as "feminists". I never hear anything about them. But feminism directly influences things I enjoy, it's really worrying that Zoe Quinn made it to UN for Gods sake... She and her friends want internet restrictions, and I know, nothing bad there, we need less internet harassment as it can get really ugly, totally understandable, but... For them only women can be harassed and they consider everything that questions their opinions as harassment. So while I agree, I think these feminists movements are having effects on our daily lives.





Yep, I know, I follow South Park. But its creators are just few guys, South Park will never get media coverage (not counting making fun of celebrities) while stupid movements will.
I think the popularity of South Park does a lot to highlight though that this fringe isn't the norm of the masses, it's just AstroTurf by media outlets and campus activists.

I look at what people do, not what they say. While the MSN narrative wants to normalize extreme forms of political correctness, if you look at the types of movies, music, entertainment, etc that people enjoy, you'll see it's pretty much anything but PC.

This might be one of the reasons for Trump's surprising popularity - regardless of the guy's qualifications, the fact that he was willing to speak like a normal human being and not have "thought police" tell him what he could or couldn't say was inspiring to the masses.

Tugg
12-11-15, 10:40 AM
Yea, but emos, goths and hipsters are not as loud as "feminists". I never hear anything about them.
I do. I keep hearing how everyone hates them. For example:
I don't think that anyone is fans of the radical social justice groups except those who are already in it - kind of like how everyone hates hipsters, emos, goths... except those who are already hipsters, emos and goths.

90sAce
12-11-15, 10:42 AM
I do. I keep hearing how everyone hates them. For example:
Fact is almost no one likes groups of people that form essentially for the sole purpose of letting the whole world how "persecuted" and "misunderstood they are".

-KhaN-
12-11-15, 10:46 AM
I do. I keep hearing how everyone hates them. For example:

Ummm... That was my answer to him, he said everyone hates them and I pointed out I don't hear that. Why are you using my answer to him as a question? Maybe its just my English betraying me.

Tugg
12-11-15, 10:48 AM
Ummm... That was my answer to him, he said everyone hates them and I pointed out I don't hear that. Why are you using my answer to him as a question?
I'm just pointing the fact, that if it wasn't for all the haters, I wouldn't even know they existed.

-KhaN-
12-11-15, 10:52 AM
I'm just pointing the fact, that if it wasn't for all the haters, I wouldn't even know they existed.

True, somehow I don't hear about them at all. :D

matt72582
12-11-15, 12:03 PM
I wouldn't generalize "women" - that sounds IMO too insecure, like a whiny rant.

In spite of some modern issues of both chivalry and equality being demanded at the same time, the last thing that man should do is "become" like an angry feminist and whine about "inequality.

The sexes aren't the same so they can never be "equal", nor should they. The opportunities to succeed should be equal and the best individual should win.

I like buying things for women because I know that women love to be doted on, it's what turns them on - not the "stuff itself" but the act of being provided for.

But I do it on my own terms, I don't buy or do stuff for women "on command" like a servant boy - guys who do this get used, then get disgruntled and blame women because they thought they were such as "nice guy", when in reality they got used because they were being a doormat.

Just like the chick who sleeps with every guy she meets on the first date, never gets a 2nd date, then becomes an angry feminist who thinks all men are pigs - fact is she set herself up to be "used" by being so easy.

But if a guy doesn't like "doing stuff" for women his best bet is to make like Bruce Jenner and become one himself. Or instead, how about he be selective about the caliber of women that he "does things" for, and remember that anyone can be "born" a woman but not every woman is a lady worthy of being ravished by him.

Well fact is women have stronger natural rights to the child, and women by biology are better nurtures.

I mean if I had a daughter, no offense, but I wouldn't want an adult man babysitting my kid. Plus a man who's "too into kids" gives me a bad vibe..

Women aren't the problem. Far-left special interest groups are a problem, but they don't speak for minorities or "women" anymore than the KKK speaks for whites.

Fact of the matter is a lot of males act like wusses while at the same time thinking they're "entitled" to attention from women simply because they have a penis.

Men would be wise to learn self improvement and what it means to be a man to begin with, not take the route of the losers on the far-left and whine about how helpless they are.

I think you might have misunderstood a bit. I'm all for justice, I just know it's business using the "movement" for marketing. Watch TV before 5pm - they are trying to sell things for women. Soap operas weren't made for men.

How many do you know insist on paying for the entire bill? Of course we don't know every single woman, but from just experience, wouldn't you say a HUGE majority of men (not women) do the courting?

There's about 5,000 "far-left" in this group. Don't confuse that for a liberal, or a Gloria Steinem, who used and slept with men to climb up the social ladder. She worked for the CIA, even took down names of everyone she knew at the Vienna Youth Festival. The money was laundered by them through Warner Brothers to start her "Ms" Magazine. Even Prescott Bush helped with PP for his reasons.

Biologically speaking, a man has to perform, not the woman. In war, it's the men who sacrifice their lives, but I haven't seen too many women out in the streets against the war, but they'll march for a few more pennies on the dollar. And I just don't look at one statistic and become satisfied; I try to read a lot of different ones, worded differently. And you'll see that single women make MORE than men, but it's not popular, because of the electorate. Don't forget as men it's usually not a question of liberalism, the guys are pandering for pu$$y.

And about custody, I would give affirmative action to women. But that's if both parties are equal. There's plenty of men who are more responsible than the court records show.

Men are weaker because the society has changed too. During the hunter-gatherer days, it was much more important, but strength isn't revered as much, and our roles have changed as well. You can only have one person driving, so a relationship while remaining complementary still changes. Sometimes the woman "drives" - and the men who still "wear the pants" probably don't have the same rights on paper or behind closed doors.

If it was really about equality, people would ask why single women make more than men. But it has nothing to do with justice, equality - it's more like "I want to get mine no matter what I have to do"

90sAce
12-11-15, 07:53 PM
I think you might have misunderstood a bit. I'm all for justice, I just know it's business using the "movement" for marketing. Watch TV before 5pm - they are trying to sell things for women. Soap operas weren't made for men.

How many do you know insist on paying for the entire bill? Of course we don't know every single woman, but from just experience, wouldn't you say a HUGE majority of men (not women) do the courting?

There's about 5,000 "far-left" in this group. Don't confuse that for a liberal, or a Gloria Steinem, who used and slept with men to climb up the social ladder. She worked for the CIA, even took down names of everyone she knew at the Vienna Youth Festival. The money was laundered by them through Warner Brothers to start her "Ms" Magazine. Even Prescott Bush helped with PP for his reasons.

Biologically speaking, a man has to perform, not the woman. In war, it's the men who sacrifice their lives, but I haven't seen too many women out in the streets against the war, but they'll march for a few more pennies on the dollar. And I just don't look at one statistic and become satisfied; I try to read a lot of different ones, worded differently. And you'll see that single women make MORE than men, but it's not popular, because of the electorate. Don't forget as men it's usually not a question of liberalism, the guys are pandering for pu$$y.

And about custody, I would give affirmative action to women. But that's if both parties are equal. There's plenty of men who are more responsible than the court records show.

Men are weaker because the society has changed too. During the hunter-gatherer days, it was much more important, but strength isn't revered as much, and our roles have changed as well. You can only have one person driving, so a relationship while remaining complementary still changes. Sometimes the woman "drives" - and the men who still "wear the pants" probably don't have the same rights on paper or behind closed doors.

If it was really about equality, people would ask why single women make more than men. But it has nothing to do with justice, equality - it's more like "I want to get mine no matter what I have to do"
Sorry if I offended you with my satirical writing. Fact Is I agree with you that "feminist groups" are just special interest groups which are primarily interested in "their own kind" above actual principles and issues.

Some of your complaints I see as rather age old. As a man I enjoy "sacrifice" as in taking action, I believe men were meant to enjoy sacrifice and conflict since men are fundamentally different than women psychologically.

But. If a woman demands that a man "pay for everything" while still wanting everything else to be split 50/50 she's not worth it, she's just a prostitute who's basically "buying stuff" with sex - I still like buying gifts for women but on my own terms.

Fact is there's a lot of good reading out there - the reason some women like men to "buy them stuff" is because the act of being doted on is what they find satisfying, not the "stuff itself" - men are hardwired the opposite way - being offered "free stuff" can make us feel guilty.

It's just like how a lot of women can't understand how a guy would want to have sex with a "hot woman" who he doesn't even know - women think guys are weird because they don't understand the brain differences; to men sex in a lot of ways is about conquest and achievement, women aren't hardwired to think this way because they're oriented toward self protection, so there's a stronger need to "vet" the man in question and make sure he's a suitable candidate.

In other words, complaining about outright hypocrisy is valid. But "age old complaints" like "why should the men buy stuff for women if she makes money" are IMO pointless because they're ignoring the essential ways in which male and females' brains work, and how they were designed to be.