Okay so everyone has probably started reading this myTake brandishing their opinions, full of ideas about the right way to look at this topic. I've read some other myTakes on Feminism and the like and I get kind of fed up with some of the same things men and women come out with in the comments section. So could you just calm your tits everybody and keep an open mind for a bit, I swear if I hear one 'I didn't even have to finish reading this...' in the comments section I WILL put caps lock on. You've been warned ;).
So here are some arguments for and against feminism that annoy me personally:
1. Feminists are evil
Not all feminists are the feminazis, okay? If you judge every idealogy by those who are unreasonable and corrupt that follow it, then you'll find that all Christians are members of the klu klux clan, and all Muslims are terrorists, and a lot of other similar things. Basically, just dont generalise. From what I can see, most of us want the same. Feminism is about equal rights at the core, it has just become corrupted by the klu klux and terrorists of feminism.
2. We can never have equal rights though, we're different from each other
Equal altogether and equal rights are different things. We can't be equal altogether in every way, because we're different. We can have equal rights. Feminists want it to be illegal for women to be payed less for doing the same jobs, and fair abortion laws. Just some examples.
3. Okay, but what about the men? It's all about what women want.
I understand a lot of men feel they dont have equal rights either. Why does feminism have to cover both? It's a movement for women's rights. And that's because the suffragettes didn't think, "well we can't vote, we have barely any say in anything, we are property of the man we marry and they can do with us what they like... Let's start a movement for women's rights! Oh, wait, what about the poor oppressed men...?" Because I'm sorry but nobody can argue that the way women were treated then was entirely unfair. Nobody can argue that they should've also campaigned for men's rights. Would that have crossed your mind if you were a woman back then? That men werent being treated fairly? I'm not saying men were monsters and poor women never did anything wrong but it was fairly one sided back then. So feminism was created for women, that's why it isn't working for men's rights.
Complaining that it isn't is like complaining a charity for endangered birds isn't doing anything to save endangered pandas. It doesn't mean the individual supporters of feminism dont believe in rights for men, it means they believe in rights for women amongst other things. Since when does one group have to cover all bases? The bird charity isn't going around killing pandas, ok?
Who came up with this?! They need to get their head out their ass. Seriously. Thank you very much whatever dumb woman made that up, or anyone who thinks all men should actually die. You have corrupted the meaning of the word feminism. So yeah, cheers feminazis.
5. How dare you open a door for me! I will kill you in your sleep!
It's a miracle nobody has killed YOU in your sleep yet if you're someone who says this kind of thing. Look at him as human, not 'male specimin trying to oppress me'. You wouldn't take offence if a girl did this. Please just take a chill pill okay, does this matter in the grand scheme of things?
6. No reason for modern feminism.
I kinda get where you're coming from. We got it a lot better than we used to, right? I know and I appreciate that but saying there's no reason for feminism is kinda like saying there's no reason for anti-racism. Every race has the same rights (women almost have the same rights as men) but that doesn't mean racism doesn't exist anymore. You can't change the way people think about other races but you can be against all the acts of violence and discrimination. You can't change the way people think about the role of a woman but you can be against domestic abuse. I'm not saying racism isn't an issue in any way nr am I trying to compare the severity of the two, I'm just trying to use a model that most people will feel without a doubt is wrong.
However!!!!
Saying all this, I dont call myself a feminist. I feel the word has changed definition to meaning someone who thinks they should #killallmen, at least it has changed definition in a lot of people's minds anyway. I would call myself a humanist personally.
Thanks for reading and listening to my side of the story.
Good take I fundamentally agree with your views on 1,4,5 and 6 where we differ is point 2 and point 3, I see no reason why feminists and MRAs/MGTOW cannot join together to fight for the rights of all people under the banner of Egalitarianism. Every issue that the feminists' and MRAs/MGTOWs' have had or have now is that for some reason one gender is being favoured above the other but if you scrap the notion of gender and demanded equality for both as one group are not both sub groups' aims being sated. The establishment love to sit back and watch the factions squabble among themselves as long as they are fighting with each other they won't realise who the real enemy is. I have absolutely no problem supporting a woman's issue today after listening to the details but there is every chance I will be supporting a man's issue tomorrow if I felt they were being treated unfairly. In rights issues I don't think big picture macro management but one case at a time micro management. If you have all the pieces of a jigsaw in the same box it is far easier to put it together.
This is refreshing to hear :). Yes I agree but the problem is you can't really just tell everyone to change groups to egalitarianism. Although everyone definitely should :).
I agree that it looks good on paper but in reality it just wouldn't work. There is already a tonne of disagreement between the groups already.
I think that one gendered groups focusing on that specific gender's issues in society will get things done more efficiently and the way that gender needs it done. If there wasn't so much squabbling then that would be good, but that's not happening.
If only both sides realised that they are mostly two sides of the same coin, squabbling over what the cause is instead of producing results together, in harmony.
While it is true that feminists want equal rights - they only truly care about the female gender, otherwise they'd be called something like "equalists" rather than "feminists". Their main focus is women's rights. While they do care about the other gender, their main concern is to bring women's rights up to what they think it should be.
Whereas a true person who wants equality for all would not be called a feminist, which is a gender marked name.
Feminism has never been about equality between the sexes, its been about women getting the same privledges without the subsequent responsibilities that come with it. For instance women couldn't vote (men did earn that right until about 1850, 70 years before women, a fact conviently left out by feminist) men could, but why? Men where drafted into war they paid for the right to vote with blood, women wanted that right however they where against the idea of a draft for women ie they did not want the responsibility that came with that right, thus they did not want equality. This is one of many examples of the extreme inequality that feminist fought for. As for your second comment, their is no pay gap, its been disproven time and time again. The original study was done to get a specific result, they asked men and women their earnings and determined that there was a pay gap. When other researchers tested it out, they asked men and women from the same profession what they where paid and found their was no gap.
As for abortion laws, feminist have pushed for the laws we have right now, at least in the US. Those laws are that it is legal to abort a child meaning every single place in the entire country of the United states by law allows for abortion. Their are also safe haven laws that allow a mother to abandon her child at desginated areas or she can give up that child for adoption, these are the rights of women. What are the fathers rights in this? Well many states do not even require a woman to notify the father if they give up their child for adoption ie he has no rights in this situation only she does. As for abortion, if he she doesn't want the child and he does, what happens? She has every legal right to abort. Fair enough the burden is on her, but if he does not want to be a father and she wants to keep the baby, what happens? She keeps the baby and the father is legally obligated to pay childsupport for the next 18 years despite the burden being on him. In both situations the woman has a right to choose, the man has absolutely no right. So, what laws do feminist fight for when it comes to reproductive rights? For the fathers? No, they want the government to pay for their birth control. For your third point, women where never property at any point in history period. When the titanic sank, who stayed and died and who left and lived? Women lived men died, specifilcy 1358 men to the 100 women. Doesn't really sound like men where the ones doing the oppressing.
By law, historically speaking, a married woman was under the care of her husband. This however is considerably different then being property and in fact one could argue the opposite. A man was legally responsible for any debt incurred by his wife and could (and where) imprisoned if they could not pay hence men being given the right to own their wife's property, because he had the responsibility to maintain it and to pay the taxes on it. He was also responsible for feeding her clothing her sheltering her just as a parent is responsible for a child. Now who set this system up? Was it men who decided they wanted to give away everything they worked for to a woman? Did they decide that they wanted to risk legal ramifications for another s actions? If so then why? How does it benefit them? I can see how it benefits women but not how it benefits men.
Then we have the issue of women claiming no responsibility for how society operates despite being 50% of the population, despite birthing raising and teaching those supposedly evil (you would have to believe that to claim that the vast majority of men treated their own mothers wives sisters and daughters as things instead of people, in fact its sociopathy) men, despite counciling those men (their are so many kings who's greatest advisor was their queen and in some cases manipulator), despite the fact that they chose who they married (yes they actually did choose, they may have had pressure from their family but it was still a choice). The fact is this is yet another attempt to frame women as weak and helpless (ironic considering that feminst claim that women are strong and independent) and therefore are not responsible for anything. The fact is men where (and are today to a degree) expected to sacrifice everything to women. Even if it was their life (hence the titanic) So it is arguable and
in fact true to say women where not mistreated at least not to the degree that men where and are. Even your take hammers that point home by dismissing male complaints while claiming the victim card for women (from the evil men that died for them and sacrificed all they had to them, who where expected to treat them like royalty (thats where holding the door open came from)). Did you know that their is actually a proper way to walk with a woman? It requires the man be nearest to the street, see before plumbing people would simply throw their chamber pots out into the streets, from the second floor, the man stayed closest to the street in order to act as a shield for her so that she could remain pristine. What a monster. Now that women are giving sex away for free, do you see men doing this? No. The second women allowed men to stop sacrifining themselves for them, men stopped. Seems strange to claim that it was all their idea when they so readily abandoned it (to the complaints of women)
The definition of feminism by its primary components is femin (female) ism (ideology) or a female centric ideology ie it does not by definiton give any room for men, in short its not about equality its about women both in defintion and in action. As for your remark about women almost having the same rights as men, no they don't they have substantially more. I already pointed out the reproductive rights, but we also have father rights issues like the fact that women get full custody of children the vast majority of the time, men pay 80% of all child support and of all alimony, yet do not see their children by law. They are frequently put in debtors prison for missing payments irregardless of them lacking the ability to pay thus ensuring that they miss more payments and thus go back to prison with in a short duration after being freed. a father who does not get to see his kid and has to pay child support and can't is viewed as a deadbeat, yet while about 70% of men pay their child support
(keeping in mind that 80% of the time its the father ie much larger group) only about 30% of women pay their child support (out of the considerably smaller number of women who have to pay) ie women are more likely to ditch child support then a father yet you don't hear about these dead beat mothers do you? Then we have issues of alimony which I alluded to earlier, the irony being that while 80% of alimony is paid by men, its 80% of divorces that are filed by women, the most sited reason being irreconsilable differences or no fault (out of the 20% of men who file 12% or over half file due to their wifes infidelity) Strange isn't it? Then we have the issue that women recieve a third of the sentencing for a crime then a man even though they commited the same crime, we have many programs that benefit women few for men, we do not acknowledge male victims of rape by women, despite the CDC grudgingly, admiting they are almost the same percentage (before factoring societal refusal to believe men)
and the list goes on. As for domestic violence, women actually commit violence more then men. 70% of nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners is perpetrated by the woman. Its a 50/50 distribution amongst reciprocal violence, that is both parties seem to be as likely to initiate as the other. However while a violent relationship is a positive indicator for past and future violent relationships for a woman it is not an indicator for men, suggesting that women initiate most likely by verbal abuse (men are the victims of emotional abuse in relationship about 80% of the time). In short, feminism is horrible, women have always had more rights then men and now have even more so much in fact that men are actually rebelling against the ideology, men who historicly where more then willing to die for women are now wanting little to do with them.
I wanted to reply to the MyTake owner, but you have done a way better job than I probably would. Anyway, I want to add a few things.
Actually women often could also theoretically vote, because most votes were tied to land-ownership. The issue here was that usually the land was owned by the man - as you explained later how he owned the property, so he made the vote for everyone on his land. Now if said man died or a father had no male offspring, etc. it wasn't uncommon that the woman then voted. There are actually copies of old votes involving several female names.
To avoid any "that isn't the definition of feminism" mental gymnastics. The definition is "Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." What that means? We fight for womens rights to make them more equal towards mens rights. Now imagine what happens when you have a potentially uneven scale and you keep putting more and more weight onto only one side. Obviously it will become uneven and this alone shows how feminism is NOT for equality, but solely for benefitting women.
Also to her points: 1. I would judge christians, if the ones deciding where christianity moves towards to would be the extreme members of them. That is the case for feminism. The extreme ones make the politics and the followers don't do anything against it and thus are to blame as well.
2. I don't see how women have less legal rights than men in the west. Actually its the different way around. Women have more, since they have a ton more of reproductive rights while men have the option to pay alimony or go to prison. Not to mention that abortion is legal for years already and in many states way past the point of arguing that the baby is just "a clump of cells". To put it into comparision, in Germany it is allowed to abort until the 14-15th week. In all states of the US, but two, it is allowed to 20th week and higher with 10 states having no limitation at all. To put in in relation - in the 17th week an unborn can already feel all over it's body.
´Additionally women are also capable of mentioning the father at will during the birth-certificate and if he doesn't deny it in time, he is fucked in most states. Also if you lose your job and earn less - good luck trying to reduce the amount of alimony payment/child custody as a man. While that is common proecdure in many countries, it is not in the USA - what are feminists doing about it? Oh wait, it benefits them. Also the father wants to take a paternity test of his supposed child? Well, he is fucked, because it is illegal. It would be legal for the mother though. #equality
Further it is actually already illegal for quite some years to pay someone less for reasons of gender or ethnicity. So MyTake owner, you should inform yourself better.
I'm not from the united states. There are other places in the world where we don't have abortion rights for if we're raped or the child is guaranteed not to survive birth, or if the mother won't survive childbirth. I agree it's unfair father's have less say in parenting matters but to the first argument (he wants the baby, she doesn't), it's in her body. She's the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months and then give birth. I think it's perfectly fair that the man can't force her to go through that. It's an embryo/foetus. It's barely aware of it's own existence. Women were property. In some places in the world they still are. Did you know they used to have to quit their jobs when they got married? Did you know a husband could abuse a wife freely and she could do nothing? Also the men on the Titanic decided to let women go first. The women weren't going around attacking men that didn't let them leave first.
You're acting like you think women never needed to campaign. Have you ever heard of a scold's bridle? An extract from the wiki article: A scold's bridle, sometimes called a brank's bridle or simply branks, was an instrument of punishment used primarily on women, as a form of torture and public humiliation.[1] The device was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. A bridle-bit (or curb-plate), about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue.[2]
The curb-plate was frequently studded with spikes, so that if the offender moved her tongue, it inflicted pain and made speaking impossible.[3] Wives who were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear the branks, locked onto their head.
On your first point: yes men paid for it, and it was brave and brilliant and I admire everyone involved in that. So, do you think we should've started another war so that we could earn it too? Or maybe we should all just get the same rights for free. I support men getting more rights as well, but this take was about feminism and feminism doesn't include men's rights. But that's okay ( I refer you to point 3)
@FakeName123 Yes that is true, I did not mention that and I should have, women could vote if they had the land, since they argued that the rich supported the government through property tax. Also in Canada women who worked as medics in the military or some tertiary position where also allowed to vote since they contributed, but this was after men got the right to vote for perfoming the same tasks. As for the “feminist” definition, the definition itself requires the assumption of males having more rights which was technicly not correct, which was my point when I mentioned that women wanted male privledge without male responsibility. And yeah you are correct the more you place on one the less the other has and that is wanting inequality in the favor of women. So round about way of saying yes I agree entirely. As for the “pay gap” yeah, it was made illegal to pay a different wage based on gender in 1963.
Well, it is legal in the UK, up until the first week of the third trimester to be exact, longer then most (in the us its only up until the second). Their are only two countries where abortion is illegal under all circumstances, chile and nicaruagra (if memeory serves).: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law Almost all western countries allow abortion with little to no restrictions, well on the mother, the father has no say in any of it but she does. Yes she is taking the majority of the risk during pregnancy (makes me wonder why she chose to get pregnant to begin with, seeing as how it is a choice, if she didn't want to take that risk.) However by the same argument he has no obligation to pay, why did you not mention that part? Its his money his choice is it not? Women where never property and this is a fact. Men where expected to die for women and did.
This is indisputable as I pointed out you do not die for property, you don't even sacrifice yourself for something of equal value you die for something you believe is more important then you. Thats why when the titanic sank only 100 women died, as opposed to the 1358 men, in fact one man attempted to save himself with disasterious consequences. Thats why a man would go to prison if he could not pay his wifes debt, its why to this day women are less likely to be convicted of crimes then men and when they are they receive only a third of the sentencing. Its why feminist take on the role of victim, because men are by their very nature subserviant to women, it is their puprose to protect them. That is why strong independent women (feminist) always claim to be the victim, it illicits the best response out of men (its partially due to neotany) its why so many of our laws protect women yet we have no corresponding laws to protect men, like with reproductive rights.
Women complained, they where given rights and privledges, men complain, and their told to stop complaining and grow a pair. Its why men where expected to fight and die in battle while women stayed safely at home, its why rape is only rape when its a man forcing himself on a woman, when the roles are reversed its not a problem, he should be happy about it (according to society and our government). Its why when a woman cries rape she is automaticly believed even when all evidence shows she is lying (as what accurd with the UV rape case and so many others) Its why women are portrayed as evil rapists despite data showing women commit rape at nearly the same rates, why men are portrayed as violent abusers despite all evidence showing that women are more likely to abuse their spouse then the man is by a large percentage. Its why we refuse to allow men to be nurturing a role reserved only for women again despite the fact that statisticly women are more likely to abuse children
(in england the study showed 49% of abuse occurred from the mother and only about 40% from the father, 60% of child deaths due to negligence was due to the mother and 20% from the father.) And that male students actually respond better to male teachers yet male teachers are pushed out of education (especially early childhood education) its why in media men are always portrayed as idiots at best and sociopaths at worst while women are routinely portrayed as competent and capable. Its why we have laws that protect women from rape but not men, from doemstic violence but not men. Women have never been property as for other countries you are reffering to the middleast I presume?
Men by law are required to take care of their families, a woman by law is not obligated to do so. Thats why when the father dies responsibility passes on to his eldest son, if that son cannot get a real job then his only choice, is becoming a bacha bazi, or child prostitute which is on a rapid rise in afghanistan in particular. So he, a little boy, is expected to take care of his family not his fully capable mother. Yet we don't hear about that do we? We don't here about entire villages having every male exterminated except for how it impacts the women in these villages. We don't hear about how men have gone to jail because they can't pay the taxes on their wifes income, or how adulterous men are stoned just as the women. Or how those evil men who circumcise girls are themselves circumcised ie the girl is going through nothing more then what the boys go through. We don't hear about that do we? So why do you think that is?
As for your ridicoulus statement about the titanic, who conditioned those men to put women first? Was it the mothers who raised them? The women who chose their mates based upon a certain criteria or did all those men just made a pact where they would be horrible horrible people tormenting and oppressing their mothers their wives their daughters but on the off chance that they where on a sinking boat they would let those same women they didn't give a damn about a chance to save themselves while damning themselves in the process? What seems more likely to you? Women didn't need to campaign for themselves because their where plenty of people, the suffragest who where campaigning for everybody to have the right to vote, not just women. The suffragetts on the other hand only campaigned for white women to vote ie no I don't think we much needed the suffragetts. As for medieval torture, that is ridicoulous. Have you ever heard of emasculation?
Or the wheel, the rack the horse, the rat cage, thumb screws, hanging, hanging until dead, drawn and quartered, cutting etc all of which where applied to men, almost exclusively? How about riding the donkey backwards? Have you heard of that? Its quite fascinating, here's how it works, so if a man beat his wife to access (it was viewed as a private matter since it did not affect the community however the man would be viewed as worhtless, hence it being really to identify the bad guy in stories because he is the one who mistreates women and the good guy treats women with respect.) he would be lynched and whipped and beaten, if however the woman beat him (they called it being henpecked) he would be dragged into the streets lynched whipped and beaten. It got its name because he would be put on a donkey backwards and have rocks and what ever else could be found thrown at him for having the audacity to be beaten by his wife.
weird right? Men not having everything handed to them? Men being victims at the same rate as women? Who knew? As for men paying for their right to vote, obviously (your making a straw man argument) I don't think we should have started a war of only women, I am saying it was not free for men, something feminist and you initially claimed. They earned their right to vote, women did not. That is an unfair system and you know that. Women should have been drafted if not for combat roles then for something else before they where allowed to vote in fact in an English survey, 70% of women said they did not want the right to vote if it meant they could be drafted. Feminist did not want the responsibility only the privledges ie feminism is not about being equal to men but superior. It has created inequality not equality and continues to do so. No you nor any one else should be given anything for free, you must earn it.
Yes this take was about feminism as it pertains to women unfortunatley feminist claim that feminism is about equality which as I pointed out it is not, they also attempt to argue that we don't need a mens rights movement because thats what feminism is which as I pointed out is not the case. That is the issue , feminist claim that they are the solution to the problems that they themselves created and they are not taking care of them but making things worse.
"There are other places in the world where we don't have abortion rights for if we're raped or the child is guaranteed not to survive birth, or if the mother won't survive childbirth." Logically fallacy. You are shifting the context by justifying feminism in the west based on what happens in countries where there are no western feminists. If you really care so much about it, why don't you - or said western feminists - move their ass away from first-world problems and do something about it in Tumbuktu or some places? Or do you not care what happens to those women's laws in other countries, because they don't directly affect you?
"She's the one who has to be pregnant for 9 months and then give birth." And he is the one fully responsible for the financial care of her and the child. So either he has a say in it, or if she - and I can understand that argument - wants full bodily autonomy and decide herself over if she keeps the child or not with no say of the father, then she will also need to have the fully responsibility. Else this is treating women like children. They get to decide, but have no financial responsibility. That's ridiculous.
"Did you know they used to have to quit their jobs when they got married?" So they could fully focus on the household and the children. Something proven time and time again that when the children get more parental time, they develop better. So it is only natural an idea to have one person stay at home and it is only natural it is the woman, because only she can take care of a child in his first year and because she most likely earned less than the man in the past, because there were no such jobs as secretary, earning money as an artist and whatever female occupation there is. Or would you rather have the man stay at home and let the woman go mining or some other physically rough job?
Everything in life has advantages and disadvantages, but staying at home, being safe there from the outside world, having literally no responsibilities but child- and household-care, having more free-time AND spending more time with the children to me sounds like the better deal.
"Did you know a husband could abuse a wife freely and she could do nothing?" Actually abuse was always illegal of the wife. What was allowed though was physical punishment within means (just like towards children). Spanking for example. Now by todays standards that could be abuse, but what you probably define as abuse was illegal in the past as well. It's just that there were some bad and evil people who still did it independent of it being illegal or not.
"Also the men on the Titanic decided to let women go first." Yes, these evil oppressors letting the women live by sacrificing their own lifes for it.
"Have you ever heard of a scold's bridle?" You really use mediaeval torture-practices as an argument? Something everyone suffered from? Or do you just not care enough about the male-victims there? And before you start with witch-hunting. Most witch-huntes were initiated by women and the men only had to do the shit work.
@FakeName123 there may be a reason behind it but that doesn't mean it's fair for her to have to mandatorily leave her job. She should have a choice and that is what feminism has done for women to improve their situation from those times- it has given them choices. As for your spanking thing you're just wrong. It may have been illegal but if a wife was being abused by her husband there was still nothing she could really do. Speaking out against her husband would be scandalous and it would end badly for her.
She did have a choice, get married or don't, have a child or don't, quite her job or don't (it was not mandatory, it was heavily suggested but not mandatory) Its not fair but neither is being forced to work twice as hard to support a wife and child, which by law was required. Why are you not complaining about how it was unfair to men? It was unfair that the man was expected to die in her stead, a much bigger deal then being expected to take care of the child, why are you not complaining of the unfairness of that. your complaint is that women had it kind of bad ergo men are to blame, mean while men had it really bad, yet are told to shut up and deal with it. Equality! the fact is women where held in higher regard, they where viewed as precious and important by the simple fact that they had a uterous, men however where disposable. The persacution of women is rampant. . . only if you don't acknowledge all of the privledges and advantages they had and ignore all abuse that males faced.
So if men set up a system designed to keep women safe and secure above everything else - are they really that oppressive?
Think about it that way. Biologically/Evolutionary a womans life is worth MORE than a mans life. One man could easily impregnate hundreds of women (thus it was common in some cultures that wealthy men had several wives since they could make sure to provide for them and their offspring) while on the other hand one woman can't get hundreds of children from tons of men.
Thus a womans life is simply more precious by design. As a result womens lifes were more protected with all it's advantages (being more safe, the man being responsible to provide and protect them, not having to go to war, most war-mongeres keeping women and children alive except the most cruelst, women and children first in case of emergency, etc.) and the disadvantages (like less freedom).
Here is a key concept though: Freedom and Safety are contradictions. If you get more of one, you most likely lose of the other.
A good concept would be current airport securities. The securities were increased after 9/11, but that naturally decreased the freedom of people who are travelling (body-searches, having to go through body-scanners, etc.)
@KawaiiPie67 Women had the majority of power. They chose who they reproduced with (due to a higher reproductive value ie they put in more resoureces at greater risk and due to years of dependency for the child dicatate whether or not that child keeps living ie she chose whether or not his offspring lived which is why rape was never a viable option of reproduction) They raise the children for years teaching them how to behave and by extention how to treat women. This meant that the ones who controled reproduction controled the society. Do you see men waiting for years to marry a woman and only then have sex with her? No, because women no longer demand it of them. They dictated the behavior not men. Men did everything because they where disposable they where pawns that could and where readly sacrificed for their society and women (hence the titanic) Since men did not have inherint value like women did, they had to prove thier worth by pushing boundaries or being a protector/soldier.
@KawaiiPie67 Dr. Warren Farrell actually wrote a book on this called the myth of male power (He was also the only man to serve on the board of NOW (national organization of women) to show that he isn't some bias wackjob) Bascicly the best way to describe it is that men where disposable which made them valuable, in chess your more willing to lose a pawn then a queen, the queen is valuable the pawns are not. This also means though that your going to be using your pawns more frequently then the queen because its has low risk with moderate rewards. However if you use the queen who is the best piece, your not going to risk it on the everyday pawn, in fact you don't want to risk it at all so what happens? The queen doesn't get used, your progress comes at the expense of the lesser pieces. This is essentialy how society works women where valuable and therefor where never encouraged to take risks so they didn't, males where worthless and thus where encouraged to take risks to increase their value
@KawaiiPie67 so they did. This give the illusion of greater value on the pawns/men when in fact th power lies on the queen/woman. He needs to fight and die to be valuable, she only needs to exist. This again was due to how we reproduce, if we have one women and ten men we can only reproduce once in a great while because of nine month gestation and then the years of nursing and dependency. But if you have ten women and one male, you can reproduce ten times in the same period of time. So if you have ten women and ten men its more practical to sacrifice the men then the woman (keeping in mind this is survival in an incredibly harsh world) so those men go out and do everything while the women don't. Now this was the womens choice, the fact is life is about survival and reproduction and this gave women a higher rate of survival, however it also gave men a higher rate of reproduciton (since if they die the child does not die with them as would be the case if it was teh mother, due to nursing)
@KawaiiPie67 this became a mutually beneficial arrangment, though it adversly impacted the males personal survival it was viewed as a fair exchange (same reason why a male praying mantis allows itself to be eaten, it increases the odds of survival for its offspring which does benefit it ergo the risk, or in this case the act of, death becomes beneficial) The reason we had the family unit created was because of this and because prior to it only 40% of men reproduced as opposed to 80% of women (women as previously stated where more valuable in reproduciton then men) but this meant that only a small handful of men where reproducing with a greater quantity of women, they had the resources and power and could cycle women out when they became board with them or they became to old to father children (women whent along with it because it increased the odds of reproduction/survival but only in the short run). This meant a man had to do considerably more to be able to reproduce (hence men being
@KawaiiPie67 greater risk takers tehn women, they needed to be in order to reproduce, men fight for a mate women fight for the best mate). So either the men took greater risks and became warriors or inventors or artists all in an attempt to convince women of his worth or they simply stoped trying, desciding that they had no chance and why bother. This however resulted in a drop in economic potential because they didn't put as much effort in to hunting fishing etc because all they where doing is maintaing their own life. So the idea of marriage came about, those men get married, they only get to be with one woman but that is more then they had before, they get exclusive reproductive rights, in return the man protects her provides for her and cannot abandon her when he gets bored of her or she becomes to old to reproduce, both parties get what they want, a mutually beneficial arrangment. Society then benefits because the man becomes more active and has a reason to care about the society
@KawaiiPie67 because he know has a future investment in it through his children. This is why marriage and the family unit is one of the foundational blocks of society. In short women had a greater power over men due to control of reproduction, mate selection, and raising of children (unless you believe that enviorment and parenting have no impact on a person what so ever). The reason the man was king was because he was the one who was strong enough to work the land, as all societies where/are agrarian by nature and it required stength women didn't have (I don't think many people today could do it to be honest) and they where the ones who protected the land. The best way to think of it is that men where the body women the soul of a society. This is why men where the farmers warriors and kings and women where the advisors and in many societies the spiritual aspect (in scandinavian society only women where allowed to use "magic" commune with spirits and gods, the oracle of delphi in greece
@KawaiiPie67 was always female as where the vestil virgins in the roman empire, its why aztec and mayan priests would cut their genitals in order to emulate a womans menstraul cycle and the spiritual power they believed it held.) just because a womans power doesn't seem obvious doesn't mean it was less power, in fact it makes it more potent because you are unaware of how your being influenced/manipulated. As @FakeName123 pointed out the safer you are the less free you become, the irony being the most free people are the ones no one cares about while the ones most cared about are the least free. However because of womens power of reproduction they actually could do what men could do because they had the leverage to do so however if given the choice to work yourself to death in a field or literally fight to the death in battle, most women chose not to thus making it seem they had no power when in reality they had the most power because they got to choose to live men didn't.
How can you say that women have the same rights as men but in a different way. When men made those rights and women had no other option but to follow them. Men also made their own rules as well. You can't make your own rules, make rules for the other gender as well and then hold the very world that you created over the other genders head. You're especially in control of everything and everyone at that point, including yourself.
@GirlsLie Well as I pointed out, not only did women have substantial power they where also the only ones who had any leway when it came to gender roles, males did not. I gave many examlples of this. I realize that its a lot to read but you should read all my comments on this post, it will be informative and answer your question. Also I didn't say women had the same rights I said they have more as can be seen by our current laws.
Well that was a cluster fck to read with you and the other guy as well lol
I was refering to the "Actually women often could also theoretically vote, because most votes were tied to land-ownership. The issue here was that usually the land was owned by the man - as you explained later how he owned the property, so he made the vote for everyone on his land." part
And how one of you were saying women couldn't join the army or die for their country etc.
@GirlsLie Yes he owned the land but only if she agreed to marry him (the reason why queen elizabeth was the “virgin” queen was because she never got married thus maintaining her power, marriage was a lose of freedom for the gain of security, and a choice women maid just as men maid the choice of having a greater responsibility for the right to reproduce.) and so an heiress/widow could and did own land and voted, women who lived in certain states (like pennsylvania) could vote and again you are ignoring the fact that this was applicable to only a small percentage of people who happened to be males, it was not that they where male or female that allowed them to vote, it was money. Meanwhile men who had a far greater responsibility in society then women did not get the right to vote only through military service was it granted and then only after 1850(only 70 years before women who did not have to pay that to get the right to vote)
@GirlsLie As for joining the army as I pointed out one, women where more important for survival then men ie men where disposable, which is why women where not allowed in combat roles however women never actually wanted to go to war or be in the military it was in fact the reason why so many women opposed womens suffrage. As a English survey discovered 70% of British women did not wish to have the right to vote specificly because they did not wish to have the responsibility of going to war. Further more as I said women chose the mates and raised/educated the children ie they chose men who would provide and protect them, they conditioned their sons to treat women in a specific manner that mirrored their choice in men ie women created these rules by who they chose to mate with, continued to encourage these rules by training their sons to adhere to them and maintained them by actively resisting the change to them.
@GirlsLie Look at today, how many women are in the military? Only 14% of the military is female, women do not really want to join the military (and there are many reasons why this would be detrimental if women joined in combat roles from lesser resilience to unique medical issues to interpersonal conflict/drama) Only 12% of women are in he police department despite having easier admittance programs and it being fully legal and endorsed, why is that the case if it is men keeping them out? Because it isn't, they do not wish to join. To claim that men forced women into this is to say that women where and are completely helpless, that they have absolutely no influence on society in any capacity despite as I pointed out the fact that they have a greater leverage then men. It also ignores the fact that in our current society despite women claiming that men held women down for their own gain, you can see from everything that they where the ones who lost out.
@GirlsLie They lost their money, their freedom and their lives while women did not. It is not logical to claim that this was for their benefit, but it would be reasonable to see it as beneficial to women. When men die for women and they allow it they are encouraging the behavior and the mindset that goes with it ie men are disposable and women are valuable. This was the case through out history and as I pointed out only women had any kind of leway with their behavior a woman could do anything a man could do with nothing but some insults thrown her way if that, men however if they deviated in even the slightest it would result in exile lynching, imprisonment or even death. One cannot claim that women where oppressed considering that their circumstances where far better. Women allowed for it and encouraged it. Its like saying that paying a man to kill some one is not the same as killing some one.
@GirlsLie our actions created the situation and you wanted the situation to occure ergo you are equally responsible for it. Notice how every stance in feminism is that of women being victims? How is that a viable strategy? If men oppressed women then how is an apeal of pity going to make them stop oppressing you? If that was viable their would never have been slaves, all you had to do is yell out that they are oppressing you and they would let you on your way, same goes for dictatorships and criminals. Yet this is the strategy of feminist everything is mens fault ergo they have to fix it so that women will be happy. And it worked. Laws that only benefit women came into affect, ideologies that painted men as evil and worthless where instituted (the real men don't rape campaign (irionic since women rape men at nearly the same rates) the duluth model of domestic violence that paints men as abusers (ironic since studies show that men are actually more likely to be abused then women) etc.)
@GirlsLie If you look at the UV rape case (rolling stones magazine covered it) where it was shown that no rape occurred and society continued to defend the woman who made the false accusation while demonizing men saying that we must always believe the “victim” of rape because of the chance that she might be telling the truth ie a woman is more important then a man better to have the certanty of ruining a mans life then the possibility of ruining a womans Again another example of male disposability and more importantly of how powerful women are. If women where oppressed by men they would not respond in this way they would not be so ready to view themselves as evil as rapist as abusers yet they are and take pride in viewing men in this way, why? Because women want it, they have been told by women, the ones who raised them, the ones who taught them, the ones who date/marry them to think in such away.
@GirlsLie This would never be possible if women did not have extreme levels of influence over men and if men where as evil/horrible/oppressive as feminist/women claim. Just think of how we ignore male issues of rape, of abuse which is considered funny, of suicide which is ignored, of alcohol and drug dependecy (which is significantlly higher in men then women) of homelessness (70% of homeless are male) of mens health (men have a 50% probability of dying from cancer to a womans 33%, when was the last time you saw something about prostate cancer?) of fathers rights (which I believe I already mentioned) of mens complete lack of reproductive rights, of the sentencing gap where women receive only the third of the sentencing that men do for the same crimes, of the growing drop out rate of boys in schools (which is significantlly higher then womens) of the graduation rates (women make up over 60% of college graduates), of men making up 98% of all work place deaths/accidents?
@GirlsLie Feminist and the world are strangely silent on these things. A world that is supposedly run by men for the benefit of men yet strangely ignore all male issues does not sound like a logical conclusion to me. In all cases women benefit and men lose, whats the probability that its men in control? Seems slim to me. Think about our current culture, women wanted to sexually “liberate” themselves and what did men do? Embraced it. Hookup culture is booming promiscuity is booming, why the sudden change if men where the ones preventing this? They have to do less work to get the same reward, and they are happy for it (for the most part). Just something to think about. Sorry I gave you a book to read.(I can't help it its a condition)
All you need to know about feminism is that pretty much every faucet of the ideology suggests that women have been oppressed for a hundred thousand years, give or take. In contrast to every other group of oppressed peoples who rose up against their oppressors, suggests women are the weakest and most inferior group in the world. In short, the very foundation of feminism is that women are weak, stupid, and inferior; and, in contrast, that men are ultra-dominating and have always used women as tools and slaves, through marriage
So is it that women were too stupid and submissive and inferior that they couldn't fight back against their powerful, innately evil oppressors? At least, until a virtual eyeblink ago? And even then, it was only until most women wanted something that men quickly acquiesced and gave them the rights they wanted. There was no war for freedom, because there was no need. Men were simply doing what women wanted, the whole time. As they still do
So... Was it that women preferred things as they were and didn't see any need to rise up against men? Or were they brutally held down and forced to stay in the home against their will? Perhaps women felt they had the better end of the deal rubbing their hands raw 12 hours a day doing housework and raising children than getting to walk the dangerous pre-industrial streets, a right paid for by being shot or blown up on a battlefield, getting limbs severed and bleeding out on cold Earth; or suffocating or getting crushed in a mine; or breaking their backs 16 hours a day in the sweltering sun plowing the field. End of the day, women got all the rights men had paid for in blood, sweat, and tears. And they got them for no equal responsibility or obligation. Some women didn't want the right to vote, because they feared it would give them a similar obligation
In the end. All that matters is situation to situation. What is the best thing for everyone? How can we make most everyone content? Ultimately, the most important is not getting deceived by fake statistics or issues like the supposed "income disparity". It's illegal to discriminate. Companies would simply fire all men and just hire women, if they could pay them less. To that end, men do make more money, overall. Because they work longer hours, do more dangerous jobs, and don't take as much time off. This is not an inequality that need be balanced.
Gah. I got carried away again. I only wanted this to be a couple paragraphs -.-;
Your logic is making leaps here and there are some gaps in it. Women were oppressed. You know that they were, just like people with dark skin were oppressed, just like so many people all over the world continue to be oppressed. It isn't suggesting women are weak at all dude. In most cases, with varying degrees of truth, women in the feminist movement feel they are just as capable at most tasks as men are. So, are you saying we haven't earned our rights? Are they a prize or something? I think it's awful men are obliged to take up arms to have the right to vote in America, but I also think that it isn't going to solve anything to attempt to inflict that same injustice you suffer on others. Also, there are other places in the world that aren't America where the situation was different.
I never said women shouldn't have rights. Simply that they obtained the same rights that men had without similar obligations. I believe everyone should have rights. I am for gender equality.
However. If you really think that women were oppressed, there is literally no other explanation than women are naturally submissive and weak and stupid. Why wouldn't they rise up against their oppressors? Literally every other class in the history of history ended up rising up against their oppressors, usually ending in a bloody coup; whereas all women had to do was say "Most of us want the same rights." Then men went "Hmm. Well, okay, if most of you want them." What horrible oppressors to give in so quickly. To that same end, we have to say that men are naturally oppressive, domineering assholes, as well. I don't believe that. I believe women knew they were better off than the men who died off in scores.
So tell me. Why didn't women fight until a virtual eyeblink ago?
The big thing is that the feminism movement really took off after the Industrial Revolution, when everything became 1,000 times safer. They didn't want the rights when it meant increasing the chance of getting damaged and being killed or dying. Only when things got safer.
Women campaigned for rights first in the 1960's. One woman threw herself in front of a horse at a race for the cause. Many were put in jail in horrible conditions, where they still didn't give up hope. Do you really think, 'most of us want the same rights' would've changed years of male superiority? It took five years of similar campaigns from passionate women to persuade men to let them vote. And your point about women bring stupid and men being assholes: they weren't being assholes, it was the way they had always lived and interacted with women. By today's standards they were but back then it was normal. Women are not stupid and inferior- there is no biological difference in intelligence between men and women. You can't decide women are inferior and also say you believe in equal rights dude. Women got the right to vote in 1965. The same year as black people. It was the time when people were beginning to realise how unfair the world was.
Wow. You really don't get it, at all. I don't believe women are stupid and inferior. Although, you're starting to make me wonder. You do believe women are stupid and inferior, however. Whether you realize it or not. That's what I've said like 5 times. You clearly did not understand a single thing I said. Chica.
*sigh* I'm just wasting my time, at this point, because you don't absorb anything. But Woman's Suffrage started in 1840. The same year the Industrial Revolution was completed. And you completely ignored my question on why women waited 100,000 years to start vying for rights.
Contrasting woman's suffrage to slavery and black peoples' situation is simply ludicrous, for one. But. Believe whatever you like. I've made my points. Look up GirlWritesWhat on youtube if you ever feel the need to take in an Anti-Feminist Pro Gender Equality point of view.
No I haven't. You don't have to be stupid, weak and inferior to be oppressed. I do absorb things, so far I've learnt a lot from some of the other guys on this comment section about feminism in America. I'm not from America and that's why I'm not as aware of your history. However you seem to have confused veiws and an unclear way of expressing them.
Well, you would be one of the first to say that about me. My syntax and grammatical progression is clear cut; I had college level English skills when I was in 7th grade. I hardly think *I* am the problem. The thing is, you're simply ignoring my points or completely taking them out of context.
To be oppressed for 100,000 years, you have to be weak, stupid, and inferior. No other group on this Earth has been oppressed for so long and not done anything about it. You make these claims, but don't back it up even with a rational after thought. Simply "Nu uh. That's not right."
So, tell me *why* you don't have to be weak, stupid, and inferior to be oppressed forever?
Of course, since you're in the U. K., I could bring up WWII and women handing out white feathers of cowardice to 14, 15 year old boys, convincing them to go to the battlefield or be branded a pussy-coward. And the boys went. Just because a woman they didn't even know said they were a coward if they didn't. Which was oppressed?
If you think Feminazis are evil then no doubt feminists are evil as well. Because Feminazi was born out of feminists. Think about it, groups don't get formed out of discrete difference in views. The extremism of views has to be continuous. So imagine a set of concentric circles, the outer of is feminists, inner most one is feminazi. Between them there is also a circle which agrees with some views of feminazi and most of feminists. They are the radical feminists. Then, there is again a circle which agrees with most views of feminazi and some of feminists, they are the extremist feminists. Even if you separate the feminazi from the pool, these groups remain which share some or most of the ideology of the feminazi system. Thus on that basis they are evil.
2. We can never have equal rights though, we're different from each other Sorry, that is true. No matter how much you try , women would always be more reluctant to move around shirtless bare-chested than males. So maybe we cannot have perfectly equal rights , we can endeavor for almost equal rights, but since we cannot ever achieve it, it's pointless.
3. Okay, but what about the men? It's all about what women want. I believe I took too much footage in the first para, so I would like to keep it short from this point on. You cannot get EQUALITY from one sided moment. If you see only one side of the story you will always be BIASED. As @hellionthesage pointed out, there have been instances where feminists fought for rights without being ready to pay the price that men paid for it. That is abuse of sympathy, that is not fair.
4. #Killallmen I agree with it, men are the brutal selfish assholes that just about ruined this planet and held the society in a stranglehold. Valar Morghuilis
5. How dare you open a door for me! I will kill you in your sleep! Meh.. No time for commenting on low iq shit like this.
6. No reason for modern feminism. There is no reason for feminism, it's a shallow, one-sided, half-witted, unfair moment. But there is a need for gender equality, I would agree with that. I am sure we can come up with a better moment that this.
Thanks for reading and listening to my side of the story.
You're wrong. The 'extremism' doesn't have to be continuous. This group was formed and then slowly people began to interpret it in different ways. Are you saying every single feminist on the planet thinks the same way? How many times do I have to repeat myself here? A lot of them want rights for men. Can we think of them as human beings rather than feminists for a while? They won't campaign for rights for men in the name of feminism because, as I have explained, it was founded for women. When they asked for the right to vote, do you think it was a secret conspiracy to rid the world of men? Or maybe they just wanted to have a political voice. You're not listening. The extremism isn't continuous because there are so many other groups like this where the internet has become full of women supporting 'feminism' that is just oppressing men. But that's not what all feminists believe.
2. You've just agreed with me. I think you misinterpreted that point a bit. Walking around bare chested is hardly a right. That would be equal altogether. 3. The movement is one sided because it's a campaign for women's rights! I used to call myself feminist and at the same time I also supported men getting more say in parental issues etc. Not in the name of feminism, because men's rights have nothing to do with feminism. I can be against fat shaming and also be against skinny shaming at the same time. Just because I'm against skinny shaming doesn't mean I'm against fat people. 4. ? 5. I said it was low IQ too, are you arguing with me or agreeing? 6. I agree. I think it's time for a new name for this so that we can just abandon ship on a boat that's being sunk by everyone from #killallmen etc that have hijacked it. I think we believe in the same stuff, I'm not attacking men, okay?
@ArtDent I addressed every one of this person's points with an argument about what they said. Also, you aren't making any arguments or even backing up your points. You just seem to be kissing @takumii 's ass.
@ArtDent I wasn't aware he did, I just stopped reading his babble of logical fallacies after a while. And also you still aren't backing up anything you say. You shouldn't repeat them, you should stop sucking up to all the guys on here and come up with your own opinion.
I don't get your take, you seem really indecisive. You don't associate with feminism but argue for it? I had a problem with a few of your points though:
1. Throughout you seem indecisive on what feminism is about, if you can't decide, why should I bother trying? You say feminism is about equal rights, but you say it's only about equal rights for women, how is that equal? Other feminists claim feminism is for both male and female rights, are you following a different feminist sect? Your ideology is different from mainstream feminism, so which branch are you trying to defend? Why follow a movement if you disagree with what it preaches.
2. "Nobody can argue that they should've also campaigned for men's rights" In the UK, men only had the right to vote 15 years before women did. Before then it was less than 5% of the population who could vote, only rich landowners, both men and women. Campaigning for both working men and women's rights is partly what 1st wave British feminism and socialism is about. You owe a lot to the men who died campaigning for basic lower class rights so feminism was even possible. I think it's important you read up on the modern history of our country.
3. "saying there's no reason for feminism is kinda like saying there's no reason for anti-racism" That's a really offensive analogy, women are in no way oppressed more than people of color in any society. In western society the difference in rights between men and women is negligible, but people of color are still vastly discriminated against in almost all aspects. That's like me saying the creepy dinner lady who used to pinch my cheeks when I was a kid is on par with bill cosby. You said you aren't comparing it right after, but you literally just did compare them.
4. In the UK there are already many laws set up in favour of abortion. If you are vulnerable or cannot look after a child, the govt will pay for your abortion, irregardless of the moral issues surrounding it. So what the hell do you think feminism is doing in that respect? It seems like you're just listing a lot of things that aren't even problems and saying "huh, feminism is helping us do the thing!".
5. You argue in defense of feminism and won't even associate with them yourself. If you won't stand by your own views cause you realize how tainted feminism's image is, why should I support it? Surely that shows me something is very very wrong, and I should look for something else to support.
Good points. Truth is I am kind of indecisive about this whole thing. I don't associate with feminism but I'm defending some aspects. Men seem generally against feminism, and because of this I think a lot of you lose the ability to discriminate between things that are valid and things that aren't. Men spreading legs too far apart on the tube: invalid. Women being payed less for doing the same jobs: valid. Where I come from (northern Ireland) and in many other places, it is illegal to abort if you're raped, or if your baby won't survive inevitably. Can we all stop living in the little bubble of our own countries please? I know that racism is much more extreme. I wasn't saying they were both on similar levels of severity. Reading that back I realise I didn't get my point across well on that bit. I meant that there are still things we can do to improve the way women are treated. Crack down on harassment, all that kind of stuff. I didn't mean to offend.
I'm not ungrateful to the men. I'm not saying your ancestors are evil for not immediately giving women the right to vote, it was just the way people thought at the time. The men already had the right to vote though. And were it not for the suffragettes women may still not have it. That was the first feminism and soon after followed other new rights. The pojnt wasn't only voting but because women couldn't vote but to change how they were veiwed. They couldn't vote because they were 'too feeble minded'.
If you judge every member of a group by the actions of its members then all KKK members would be “white supremacist” not Christians… that’s a different ideology all together. And they all are white supremacist. Feminism is an ideology with a doctrine, it teaches and studies the same bigoted feminist icons like Solanas, Dworkins, Greer, etc. They all read the same books by the same women. They all believe the same lies and false stats, they all repeat the same bullshit. “Good” feminist haven’t done ANYTHING in decades. There isn’t a single actual item of feminism that shows actual movement towards “equality”. The movement is fights more to stifle those who criticize its lies than they do any actual “cause”. The causes they claim to fight don’t actually exist. Rape culture, wage gap, etc. This has been proven time and time again. Regardless of their desire to ignore those facts. Feminism being “about equal rights at its core” means NOTHING if the majority of the actions show otherwise. “Basically, just don’t generalize”… OH generalizing is bad, that must be why feminist believe ALL men are rapist in waiting, why EVERY campaign ever produced by feminist group ALL men into ONE big shaming men are monsters hate campaign. If feminist want to rid the “terrorist” of its group, then why don’t they silence those who spread the lies instead of supporting them? Like Emma Watson saying wage gap exists at the UN? Or mattress girl turning false rape claims into massive anti-male campaigns? Or NOW shutting down equal parental rights for men? Or any and all of the buzzfeed/jezebel hate propaganda constantly reposted? WHY… you don’t stop it because you benefit from it. You just get to act superior and pretend you are different or “Not like those feminist”.
#2: You mentioned wage gap as if it were a real issue. Point 1 validated. If you are not part of the parasite of feminism, look outside your propaganda machine at ACTUAL information before spreading misinformation. Fair abortion laws would mean fighting to give fathers 50% say in parental choices. But feminist actually don’t want that. You actively fight against it.
#3: Feminist don’t have to cover both male and female issues. Men are completely ok fighting for their rights, but feminist seem to have an issue every time men speak about male issues. So if you want to throw out the scapegoat of “we shouldn’t have to fight for men too.” Then STFU when men point out issue we face and stop trying to silence, ridicule...
marginalize, or ignore that they exist. And on top of that… HEforSHE? Why do feminist so desperately want men to fight for their issues? We have more actual issues than your fake ones (please ask me for the list, I beg you), so why do feminist constantly want or need me to fight for them? I mean “Why should we cover both, right? It’s a movement for women’s rights after all isn’t it.” #4: #killallmen and every other hateful feminist hashtag were made up by and are made popular by feminist like yourself. They base their hate on the ever so popular iconic feminist like Valerie Solanas and her SCUM manifesto, which is the holy grail of feminism. #5: Hipocracy is a very core part of feminism. The only way to play the victim card completely is to say “don’t you dare/how dare you not” with everything a male does. It’s a lose/lose situation propagated by feminist like yourself who say “why should we fight for men’s issues… but HeforShe is ok”...
”. If you actually pay attention to your ideology, everything about it is a contradiction.
#6. There is actually zero need for western feminism at all. NONE. Saying there is no need for feminism is more like saying there is no need for purple people eater protection. It’s 100% valid to say because there is no purple people eaters. There is nothing feminism claims which hasn’t been completely shown as bullshit a million times over. But when you ignore every and all outside information, it’s easy to believe that 1 in 4 women are raped and women don’t rape men, that women get paid less, that only women suffer abuse. Etc. You may not call yourself a feminist to avoid negative back lash but if you believe the doctrine (which you have shown above that you do by quoting wage crap) then you are just as much part of the problem.
Seriously, can we STOP with these fucking Feminist MyTakes? It's boring, repetitive and literally full of logical fallacies.
Feminism (in the West) doesn't work anymore. The third wave has made it into a self-entitled, hypocritical laughing stock.
All Feminists complain about nowadays is:
1) The (non-existent) pay gap. It's been debunked, debunked and debunked again by top economists. It DOESN'T exist. Yet we heard Hermione Granger complain about it in her UN speech, Obama goes on about it whenever he can too and it's in every single fucking documentary on BBC 3.
2) Mens Rights Advocates / Pick Up Artists. You've got the right to be loud and obnoxious bitches, well guess what? They can do what they want to. Don't go around claiming they won't get laid because that's AD HOMINEM.
3) Privilege. OMG where to fucking start with this one. It has been reductio ad absurdumed to a complete and irreversible demise. Enough with this "check your privilege" nonsense.
Etc...
Another reason why Feminism fails so dreadfully is that it's not one single tree. It's full of different branches and none of these branches agree with each other.
You have Liberal Fems who think Lisa should be a sheep if she wants to and Julie can cut her penis off if she feels she's a woman... then you have Rad Fems who think men are to blame for everything, that the patriarchy affects everyone and that room temperature is oppressing women. With all the other groups in between.
1. Feminists are evil They're useful idiots. People who control them are evil.
2. We can never have equal rights though, we're different from each other. Get over it.
3. Okay, but what about the men? It's all about what women want. This is only brought up when feminism goes from protecting women in society onto destroying what is good and functional about a society.
4. #killallmen Cunts who teach women's studies in colleges and leaders of the feminist movement say the most sexist shit. This is nothing.
5. How dare you open a door for me! I will kill you in your sleep! Nobody SAYS it, it's a message many women deliver. They want to both be feminine and protected, but also want to be in charge and protect. Then they fail and men just back off.
6. No reason for modern feminism. Exactly, even you have to admit it. Everything else is liberal contrived bullshit to justify these social justice warriors' existence. Same goes for all contrived social problems like racism, fat shaming and other bullshit. You do more damage than good.
"Saying all this, I dont call myself a feminist." Oh you're definitely a feminist, only you don't CALL yourself one because you want to marry.
Don't tell me what I am you prick. And there is a reason for modern feminism actually. A small need in the western world but the rest of the world exists too you know. Are you saying racism isn't a problem? How stupid are you? And also extreme feminists do say the door thing. My friend was telling me about an incident he had with a girl the other day where she was being stupid and obnoxious while he was only trying to be polite. What do you mean get over it? Get over that I can't get an abortion where I live if I'm raped? Get over that I may end up being payed less than a male coworker who is doing the same job as me? Get over all the women in deprived counties who are from about the age of ten are being forced to marry and have sex with men who could be fifty? Get over FMG? I will not get over any injustices like these. You can't ignore it.
Don't be a cunt and just research. "Are you saying racism isn't a problem?" Not in western countries. The only racism comes from the left pushing affirmative action and welfare on poor groups settling them in their low status, instead of integrating them and pushing them by holding them to the same standards as everyone else.
"How stupid are you?" Now don't be a cunt.
"Get over that I can't get an abortion where I live if I'm raped?" You had abortion since '67. Wtf are you talking about? Google.
" Get over that I may end up being payed less than a male coworker who is doing the same job as me?" This is why you're a useful idiot. Fucking GOOGLE. You're not.
" Get over all the women in deprived counties who are from about the age of ten are being forced to marry and have sex with men who could be fifty?" That's issue of religion, NOT feminism and social pressure in the West.
"Get over FMG?" Again, issue of religious brainwashing, has nothing to do with feminist agenda in the West.
I'm not American. I don't have abortion you dickhead. I live in northern Ireland. Racism is a problem in the rest of the world. What is everyone's obsession with western countries? Are they the only ones that matter or something? You seem to think the internet is always right. There is a pay gap actually, maybe not in America but then again you seem to assume that everywhere is just like there.
Typically people that resort to personal attacks do so for lack of a verifiable opinion. There's no need to get nasty in a discussion. There's no point going at each other's throats. If you can't discuss without cussing each other out, what is the point of saying anything at all?
@nyTake Owner, so that's it. You're not just indoctrinated, but severely emotionally invested in this bullshit and you don't WANT it to be wrong. You don't care what top economists say about anything, you don't care to google basic terms and knowledge about genders, that's just "what the internet says". Yeah, enjoy your cats, or your emasculated male you won't love but will be forced to marry because men worth their salt are taken. Also, America and Ireland are equally feminized, same thing.
@Mekkalyn Who talked to you anyway? Nobody cares, go away.
America and Ireland aren't actually. How would you know? I've just told you the ways in which they aren't. Also in the UK there is a 35% pay gap- and not made up because the government is trying to address it. You can't take action on non existent problems, and since they are attempting to tackle this that proves it does exist over here. And you didn't answer my question about the rest of the world. You realise how much suffering is going on? America isn't the only country.
The infantile level of non-argument just got astronomical. You two don't have two brain cells to rub together and anyone who reads your replies to me with any critical thought will see that. I'm done.
@Mekkalyn Yes, there is a use for arguing with women like @Soyeah999, @lilac_flowers has gotten a follower out of it. Probably more than one. What you're forgetting is that there is an audience, here. I agree with you, that arguing with feminists who are emotionally invested in their delusion is useless if your goal is to persuade them of anything. They can't be persuaded -- they're religious zealots.
But I can see here that lilac_flowers has a grip on reality that makes most female non-feminists look like Phyllis Schlafly or Andrea Dworkin by comparison.
@Transigence I meant that there is no use arguing with her because she believes what she believes and will never see the logic behind opposing opinions. She will also resort to personal attacks to attempt to make her points. The only thing arguing with her does is frustrate the person arguing with her, since she's completely unaffected and couldn't care less. So, for your own sake, don't argue with her. There isn't a point, since she will not be swayed and will just come with with personal attacks.
@Mekkalyn You are missing my point. You are right, and you should never argue with a feminist in a vacuum or in a 1 on 1 private conversation. It's a waste of time.
But anywhere there is an audience, there is value in arguing with them, as you will sway fence-sitters (and even exhaust people who identify as feminist but are critically-minded themselves, pressuring them to abandon that religion).
The value in arguing feminists with an audience is what the audience takes away. And when the name-calling starts, as it always does, then the audience can see the petty feeble-mindedness for what it is in all of its ugliness.
Disclaimer I read your entire my take. Now I agree that feminism is not about men's issues, nor should it be. But some people in that movement have stated that feminism is the only viable conduit for the discussion of gender issues, that such groups as Mens Rights Advocates and the like should allow feminism to address male issues. Therefore when they say "let us handle it" and don't then it's an issue. Second women have more rights then men, this idea that men have more rights is not backed by fact. Third ironic misandry (#killallmen as an example) is problematic as feminism seems to feel that ironic humor is exclusive to itself (#shootafeministinthe face and it's backlash as an example), and no one else can use it. Lastly one of my BIGGEST issues with feminism is when it creates an issue through it's own lobbying and propaganda, then acts as if it's the solution to the problem that it created.
You seem to be one of the few people here who actually look at things from both sides. I'm not disagreeing with you but can you please back up your argument on how men have less rights?
Take owner, women on average receive less jail time for the same crime, and women also win custody AND alimony (even in cases where the female earns more) in at least 90%+ of cases.
Seriously, if your a man going through a divorce, it's pretty much fucking guaranteed your going to loose everything, even if you are the one who earned it
I know men don't have equal rights either. I know that's not fair and it's an issue. At no point have I stated I don't care about them. But you realise that website is only talking about America? I don't live there and neither does most of the population of the world. Abortion laws, voting laws, genital mutilation laws etc. are different all over the world. I don't know where all the Americans on here got the impression that that's the only place in the world but you need to look at the rest of the planet and the awful things that happen there to both men and women. In America they may have more rights, in most of the poorer parts of the world they have almost non-existant rights and where I live half those things aren't valid. Men don't have to take up arms to vote, and women dont have fair abortion rights.
I am sorry, I just assumed you were speaking about American feminism. You are correct different places have different issues. I am an American and can only speak from my research, and other then UE and UK I haven't really studied feminism in other countries (actually I feel that there is probably some work to be done to help everyone in virtually every country). I only shared that because you asked me to "please back up your argument on how men have less rights?" and it was a convenient link that I have on one of my Facebook pages. If it's irrelevant where you live feel free to ignore it.
Thank you, you backed up your argument great we were just arguing about different things :). And now i think I see the reason (since most people on here are American) that guys on here get aggravated when you say women have less rights.
interesting take, i read through it and some of the comments. i think that feminism is still needed in parts of the world where women don't have the same rights as men and feminism is needed. and it's hard to advocate for men's rights when they have the obvious majority in things. and thanks to all the crackpot crazy American feminazis that ruined things for everyone else. i think the best role models for feminist is Malala Yousafzai. she got shot in the head on her school bus by the taliban for defending her right to go to school. and miraculously survived. if there's anyone who represents real, proper feminism it's her.
cf.girlsaskguys.com/.../...0-b481-22815123c2d4.jpg Men don't want their *own children* killed in the womb? What assholes! There's nothing wrong with having a doctor kill the unborn kid! What self righteous pricks, they want their offspring to survive to birth.
A man doesn't want to take care of a kid or be involved? memeshappen.com/.../...eir-children-meme-21853.jpg What an asshole! He thinks he can be like a woman (who can on a whim have her unborn child butchered and be defended for exercising her rights) and just not have to be responsible for a child? Fucking douchebag! Does he not know what it means to be an adult?
I'm not talking about accidental pregnancies. Where I live even if you're raped you can't get an abortion. Even if your child is guaranteed to die as soon as it's born (because of some kind of illness) you can't get an abortion.
@Riggers I love the way you guess the statistics to back your argument. The majority of people in America, you mean. Where I live accidental preganacy abortions are illegal anyway, and you've ignored the bit about sick children. And it's definitely not 0.01% of women you retard.
I kind of feel like guys took over feminism a lot. if you're a feminist, it means automatically you're irrational. So lots of people now say they're egalitarian or humanitarian. and I feel like that's because of how much guys complained about everything; they took over feminism.
I didn't even have to finish reading this before my tits went out of control! I think again feminism is a hard topic to really dissect. There are so many feminists that are trying to create a happier better world for everyone but some radicals are screwing them over and many people are trying to deny sexism that is still present today. Are men and women different? Yes we're vastly different but that doesn't mean we can't be equals. I love women and don't want to feel superior or inferior to them. I want a partner not a slave or a master.
Lol! I agree with you. The topic (and the positives and negatives) has been on my mind a lot lately and I do find it hard to fully appreciate everyone's viewpoint and reading some of these comments has helped me look at it in some other ways too. :)
It seems to be that it bothers you that people don't agree with feminism like you do. Well, people don't agree with MRAs either. Both groups aren't for anybody. I get the point you're trying to make, but I'm still not going to support feminism, no. As I said in your other Take (-I think it was yours -) feminism is pretentious and political. And, yes, in truth, feminism is actually more misogynist than anybody: it pretty much hates any woman who wants to be a woman, or feminine and "submissive." It doesn't agree with women if so women don't want to be tough like men. Feminism also has racism in its movement.
And ultimately for me, feminists try to cry out about sooooooo much to stay relevant, when the racial issues society faces are much worse. So no, feminism doesn't really mean a lot to me.
I think men are responsible for feminism, racisum and just about every other 'ism, and mainly men of the various religions of the world.
A very long time ago everyone was equal, then religion came along. The religious leaders needed to control their followers, sex and color became some of the tools they used.
Move forward several thousand years and educated people now see how they have been treated differently.
Hmm, do you know what happened a very long time ago? No, the Roman and Greeks were pagans and very oppressive... Jesus, a Jew talked about equality , so did his Christian followers before the Romans stole Christianity from the middle easterners
A very long time ago is 5 too 10 thousand years ago. Society war run by two types of people. The strong who killed to get what they wanted, and the wise normally the elders regardless of sex.
Look around at the many religions in this world, how many are led by womem?
Religion ran by men. I'm not missing a point but making one , Christianity wasn't ran by men until the Romans stole it. And no, any way has always been by man, men are too arrogant. And religion did not control color.. your delusional my friend.
Feminism was funded by the Rockefeller family for the purpose of taxing women and breaking up families. Despite the lie that feminism just means equality, the hidden agenda of feminism is to destroy the family. Feminism is a cancer to relationships and has done nothing to create peace and harmony between men and women. I've seen too much hypocrisy and man hate in feminism to believe that it just means equality.
I used to call myself feminist, I know so so many women who also did. None of them had any intention of destroying their relationship with their families.
I never said feminists as individuals wanted to destroy their family, but feminism itself plants negatives seeds in women's minds that can cause women to divorce their husbands or to abandon marriage and motherhood. But you're missing the point. The point is that feminism was funded by the powerful rulers of the world, the Rockefellers, in order to break up families and divide men and women. It is no coincidence that when feminism became pervasive in society, divorce rates sky rocketed. Today, marriage, love, and commitment are rapidly declining, and feminism is part of the reason.
Maybe it's because now women can actually survive without a husband compared to ages ago before the feminist movement. I get what you're saying but I object to the whole, 'plants negative seeds thing'. You're talking as if we're children and are incredibly easily influenced, poor little us...
Well you are, which is why the media spends more time manipulating women than it does men. Women can now turn to big government for financial support. That was the whole agenda. To get women to abandon marriage and motherhood and focus on education and career, and big brother government would take care of them if they needed financial support without a man. The end result is a generation of high divorce rates, broken families, single mothers, fatherless children, and a lack of love and commitment. Well done feminists.
You do realise there's no intellectual difference between men and women? We are biologically the same in that aspect therefore you're speaking bullshit about the whole easily manipulated thing. If a woman wants to be single she now can live in that position much more happily. Education and career are options. All feminism has done is create options, no women are being forced to abandon their families.
Even though men and women can be the same intellectually, they still think different. Women are often driven by their emotions and are more trusting. Women are easier to manipulate because of their emotions, which is why the media targets women more than men. Feminism has done more than create options, it also encourages women to divorce their husbands, give up on marriage and family, and see men as the enemy. The lies that comes out of feminism does cause a lot of women to get angry at men and see them as the enemy. Feminism doesn't have to force women to abandon their families, all it has to do is brainwash women with anti-male propaganda.
Feminism is a conspiracy? Great theory. Well done. Genius. It does none of these things, you're looking at an absolute minority of women who have decided they see men as 'the enemy', which is obviously a stupid conclusion to come to. The only people I see as 'the enemy' are some of the people on here who have decided women don't deserve the vote, that they were never oppressed and that for some reason have this idea that feminists want to wipe out every single creature with a dick.
As I said before, feminism was funded by the Rockefeller family for the purpose of breaking up families. Nick Rockefeller admitted to it some years ago, so this isn't a theory, this is fact. Look up "the Rockefellers and women's studies" and you will get over half a million citations. Maybe you don't care about the truth but I do. And even if you deny that there's a conspiracy, the fact remains that when feminism became pervasive in society, marriage and family started to deteriorate very rapidly. Feminism is a cancer to relationships and has done nothing to bring men and women closer together in love and commitment. It's done the opposite. All I see today is a generation of angry bitter women who became bitter after being indoctrinated by feminism. Go figure!
You're acting like feminism has caused the apocalypse. WOMEN ARE SELF RELIANT! OH MY JESUS WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! Families are not deteriorating rapidly. Most people's aims in life still include marriage and having children. Only now, thanks to feminism, the woman could also go and get a job and live a happy single life if she doesn't want to have a family.
When feminism became pervasive in society, marriage and family started to deteriorate and divorce rates sky rocketed. Also, women were still working before feminism. Women have been working for thousands of years. Feminism did not allow women to go out and work. That's another myth that you have fallen for. What feminism did is ENCOURAGE women to put the workforce before marriage and family, and over time the family unit deteriorated. And studies have actually revealed that most women, not all, but most women are happier when they are married and full time mothers, rather than in the workforce chained to a desk every day or stuck in a factory. If you don't believe me, research it for yourself. Feminism is a brainwashing cult with a hidden agenda to destroy the family. Again, look up feminism and the Rockefellers. But it seems that the truth isn't something you're interested in.
Well... society started to split because the economy took a nosedive. I think the value of the dollar went down? or something like that. I don't think anything was emotional.
@KawaiiPie67 Nah, it was mostly down to feminism and the change in the family court laws. Take away fathers rights and empower women then the family unit will fall apart.
Christians are part of the klu Klux Klan... but Christianity came from the middle east, it would be then all white people are apart of the kkk, not Christians , Jesus wasn't a white man. Second feminism , didn't really fight racism. Third wave feminist are dumb, it's a fact even second wave feminist say so, what modern feminist are fighting for is just bonkers.
In fairness, Femithiest was never a feminist and she changed her stance on that over a year ago after a personal meltdown that involved faking her own death.
Yet another dipshit feminist trying to sell the moderate feminist spiel. Yawn.
Why you so desperate for recruits?
Skips to the end.
Wow. Has it gotten so bad that the best way to recruit for feminism is to tell everybody you don't believe in the word any more? Such confidence in your position. How can anyone say no? lol
The wage gap has existed forever. It has gotten much better, but still has room for improvement. Even your link shows that under controlled conditions, taking similar obs and all factors into consideration, there is still a wage gap. Those that call it a myth are either blind or see it but lie about it.
@Red_Arrow Blind? You actually need evidence that it exists. Generally speaking if your evidence is the BLS (77 cents to a dolar crap) then you haven't actually read the report that says it... If you did you would have seen they aren't sure if it's sexism or not and it shouldn't be assumed for politics... It's not at appropriate to assume sexism without any measurements or evidence. There are many reasons why wages aren't the same and it doesn't have to be sexism.
@Red_Arrow 2.7% is not a gap. Also are you aware that the minor gap that does exist are majority in the retiring sector? People who have had jobs for 30+ years from a time when women worked less. So they make more money because they have been at the job forever. if you look at the 20-25 demographic the wage gap is actually in favor of women, with men making less. But of course no one complains about that.
I am talking about people who are working, not retired.
@Doofey - I read many reports and the overall conclusion was that the gap exists. It has existed and it still does. Regardless of the reason, sexism or not, it exists. And it should not exist when all else is equal
@Red_Arrow reports? By who? Woman's advocacy groups? The only reliable source is the BLS whih keeps track of all of that. They don't agree with you, period. The idea that it should "not exist if all else is equal" makes no sense. You're setting up a situation that doesn't exist yet claiming you already know that it isn't equal. In other words you are begging the question, a logigcal fallacy. "When all else is equal" has never existed and it never will exist. There will always be more talented people, people with more resources, people with more experience, and people with different priorities.
Since there is a "gap" in the populations of men and women in the united states (about 1% more women) does that mean god hates men? Is it wrong that there are more women than men in the US? Do we need to fix this gap so things are "equal"? Or is it just a result of many factors beyond our control?
@Doofey "When all else (experience, training, expertise, availability, etc., etc.) is equal" means all the rest is equal, so it makes complete sense that a gap should not exist. The groups that made the studies made sure to look at people that fit those criteria. When they accomplished that, they did have "all else equal". Even a moron should understand that.
And we do not need to "correct" a gap in the number of males and females. We need to correct differences in compensation. Again, even a moron should understand that.
@Red_Arrow moving to ad hominem? That's always a good argument. You do realize you can't just eliminate all of those things right? You can't equalize a persons job preference, their personal values and how well the negociate. You fail to understand that they actually don't account for these things. These numbers don't just magically pop up like you seem to think. The are infinitely many variables that will affect someones career and they can only try to estimate how each one affects a persons wages. Do you really not understand how complicated it is to try to mathematically estimate the impact of all of these variables? You also realize the "wage gap" is taken from the AVERAGE income of men and women. It is not based on hourly wages, hours worked, experience, tenure, or any other factors. And no, other studies do not account for the these factors because you literally can't while also having a large sample size. The margin of error is so laughable no one would take it seriously
@Red_Arrow Also reread the poulation example. "Regardless of the reason, sexism or not, it exists," as I said a population "gap" is not neccessarily bad or wrong. The exsistence of a gap in women's pay does not mean we need to correct "compensation". How do we "correct" this? Afirmative action? Preferential treatment to make up for the "sexism" you can't even prove?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions