# Women Aren't Women Anymore?



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> Its only Bashing when its not true. Its like I said. Want to be an independent, manly, entitled/golddigger, then I say, Lets Empower You!
> 
> I live in the South where this sort of thing is not supposed to be. Yet it is the reality. It is amazing how many southern white guys are marrying Hispanic, Hispanic illegals and illegals in general from many other groups.
> 
> ...


Well, it sounds like your problem is racial and not accurate to the broader American landscape. Come to the west coast where Hispanics and other ethnic minorities tend to dominate. 

I find it stifling that your definition of an "American" woman is limited to white Southerners. I'm a Latina-Jew who was brought up to dote hand over foot on a man and I still carry many of the feminine gender values I was taught as a matter of personal preference and choice. And I know many others of my kind. Am I discounted by your book because I'm not a white female and I was born outside of the USA and therefore one of these migrants of whom you seem to discredit the status, "American woman"??


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Well, it sounds like your problem is racial and not accurate to the broader American landscape. Come to the west coast where Hispanics and other ethnic minorities tend to dominate.
> 
> I find it stifling that your definition of an "American" woman is limited to white Southerners. I'm a Latina-Jew who was brought up to dote hand over foot on a man and I still carry many of the feminine gender values I was taught as a matter of personal preference and choice. And I know many others of my kind. Am I discounted by your book because I'm not a white female and I was born outside of the USA and therefore one of these migrants of whom you seem to discredit the status, "American woman"??


I'm Indo-Iranian living in the south, so that should stifle you a bit more. Well it depends, do you act like an American woman??? 

My brother married a Dominican and my sister a Mexican who grew up in California. Neither, in law acts like an American. My brother's wife acts like a Dominican who lives in the USA. Dresses Dominican, cooks Dominica, despite being here since she was 15. She did not pick up the nasty habits. She has a Masters degree in bioinformatics and runs her own non-profit to help Legal immigrants to the USA. Yet she does not act empowered, entitled, or manly. 

My brother prefers the looks of Southern White women, but he readily acknowledges they are unreliable and very entitled, so he made a more pragmatic choice.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> I'm Indo-Iranian living in the south, so that should stifle you a bit more. Well it depends, do you act like an American woman???
> 
> My brother married a Dominican and my sister a Mexican who grew up in California. Neither, in law acts like an American. My brother's wife acts like a Dominican who lives in the USA. Dresses Dominican, cooks Dominica, despite being here since she was 15. She did not pick up the nasty habits. She has a Masters degree in bioinformatics and runs her own non-profit to help Legal immigrants to the USA. Yet she does not act empowered, entitled, or manly.
> 
> My brother prefers the looks of Southern White women, but he readily acknowledges they are unreliable and very entitled, so he made a more pragmatic choice.


Oh cool, Iranians are awesome. I grew up in LA alongside alot of Iranians so I think I get where you are coming from. Compared to Hispanic, Iranian and other ethnic cultures I suppose your average "white" American can seem a bit off. But arguably that's their culture and lots of American men like it or put up with it. I agree that you don't and if your brother found a pragmatic place to lay his head, more power to him. I just really think this is more of a cultural conflict about what femininity is and how it's expressed. I have yet to understand what a good example of femininity would be to contrast it to your "I I I me me" explanations...which you have yet to illustrate with concrete samplings.


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> I can get used to that.


There is no fucking way in which I can get used to that..The only thing I can get used to and prefer is a good friendship between husband and wife.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I still have no idea what acting like a man is supposed to mean in these contexts.


----------



## Kurt Wagner (Aug 2, 2014)

newbie const said:


> There is no fucking way in which I can get used to that..The only thing I can get used to and prefer is a good friendship between husband and wife.


Couldn't she provide that?


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I want a wife but I may end up opting out too.

Women make dating too hard.

Last women I went on a date with, was attractive and looking for a husband and she had dated 40 men without settling. I should have just walked out of the date when she told me. If the last 40 weren't good enough, I'm nothing special.

Then just today, I had been talking with a woman on an online dating site, that I had started to like. We had talked 2 or 3 times. But I had been busy at work so I hadn't spoke in a couple days. I logon to tell her how I'm doing and she's deleted her profile. Now the thing with this is, she wasn't smoking hot and she had "liked" me first which meant she was interested... but she disconnected. Real nice.

There's a girl at church I think likes me, but she's really chunky. Now, one of my big issues with that is... "Is she desperate?" I think she is. If so, then that means she should lose the weight and go find the guy she wants, rather than making do with the first guy that wanders into our small church. This sort of situation describes 95% of the women who "like" me on dating websites.

Yet even this one girl I did like back, I asked her on a date and she was chicken. -.-

I deleted my online dating profile. Online dating is just too silly... it's like the normal absurdities times 10. I got the matchmaking service which is blind dates only, so there's that at least. Other than that, I'm going to have to meet someone by happenstance.

Now amazingly, there was a woman once that I liked *a lot*. My mother tried to get me to date her when I was 19 and in college. I had never saw her, and I thought the idea was dumb that my mom would match me up with someone. Years later, I met her and fell in love... but she was married at that point. So that's a great dose of irony, I think. I'm over it now, of course, I'm just pointing out how dumb it all is.

The great thing is, even if I fail in the area of marriage, I'm still a Christian so I get a future anyway.

Anyway, about marriage for men... society only penalizes men for getting married or having children. I don't want to get married because it is a good idea. No, it's a very dumb idea unless you believe in a miracle working God who can cause dumb things to work correctly by divine action.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

I sometimes think that when men start talking about these predatory and demanding women, they're really manifesting a sort of archetype that they fear. I've had a number of female friends, acquaintances, and romantic partners, and I find most of them to be decent human beings. I actually find men to be the callously judgmental ones in a lot of situations. I've seen a number of men who seem to demand that their one and only be some glamorous super model, and act callously toward women who they perceive as "plain Janes". These men demand that their partners better have the right body measurements, the right education, etc. They do the same damn thing they accuse the women of doing. I really do think there is a lot of projection going on here with a number of men. I don't deny that there are unreasonable women out there, but I'm not sure I believe they are the *massive majority*. 

Also, those men who sit around and whine about not being able to find a gf, ask yourself why. Go improve yourself, work toward some goals instead of just sitting in the basement playing video games. There are millions of women out there, if one rejects you, it's not the end of the world.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Even if her hypothesis is correct, which I doubt. It is not the responsibility of women to make sure the men feel like they have a swinging big dick.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> It is hard to find women today that act feminine. Most that do act feminine are gold diggers looking for a husband that will provide them with the best things in life.
> 
> I am not especially thrilled with women who think they have to be guys, so they act all masculine, while expecting guys to want a girl who acts like a dude. I cannot name one reason, that I would want to be around a girl who acts like she is a dude, much less date one.
> 
> ...


Its going the same way over here across the Pond. Ive met and dated British women and women from else where.

Im not gonna say all British Women are bitches, but there is a definite difference between the women from Britain and the women from say the Netherlands, just more friendly and give off better energy. Same with Women from Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Sweeden and Romania. 

Im just glad that I live in a diverse enough city where there are women from all over. 

That said, that's just my personal view from personal experience. Im not saying its the same for everyone.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> I am not especially thrilled with women who think they have to be guys, so they act all masculine, while expecting guys to want a girl who acts like a dude. I cannot name one reason, that I would want to be around a girl who acts like she is a dude, much less date one.


In regards to that, women who act masculine,surely if was attracted to a dude, Id be gay and with a dude.

I don't see how women acting like Dudes is meant to be attractive. 

But each to their own, if there are dudes out there who want to be with dudes without dicks, then let them go for it.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

Fatuous and tiresome.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I think,

Feminism, through 'sexual liberation', and the attempt at accustoming new "beauty standards", allowed for a new set of behavioral and physical traits to develop.

Newly adopted traits may conflict with a criteria of evaluation.

Such conflict can give rise to a disinterest in engaging in certain practices, which are reliant on these traits.

In the article, the following statement is referred to,



> “Where have all the good (meaning marriageable) men gone?”


The following can also be posited,

_Where have all the good (meaning marriageable) women gone?_


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> I think,
> 
> Feminism, through 'sexual liberation', and the attempt at accustoming new "beauty standards", allowed for a new set of behavioral and physical traits to develop.
> 
> ...


The thing is, the beauty standards that feminism promotes, where are these actually taken from? Or are just ideals?

Surely the way you find out whats attractive and whats not, is by looking around and seeing how men/women respond to certain things.

Then the things responded to positively are attractive.
And those negatively are not.

The only people that can really be influenced are the sheep, and who cares about the sheep baa baa baa. 

As David D says:



> Attraction is not a choice. Being attractive is


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

cybersloth81 said:


> The thing is, the beauty standards that feminism promotes, where are these actually taken from? Or are just ideals?
> 
> Surely the way you find out whats attractive and whats not, is by looking around and seeing how men/women respond to certain things.
> 
> ...


I think that it is essentially forged on the abandoning of conventional standards; it is an ideal stance.

*Plus-Size Model Tess Holliday Says "Eff Your Beauty Standards" Scary Mommy*









*Photographer Uses Female Body Hair to Challenge Traditional Beauty Standards - Mic*









etc.

The idea seems to be articulated as the following,

_All women are beautiful. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes._

_

On a side note,

I wonder how feminists would react to the following,

*France passes bill banning 'excessively thin' models - BBC News*


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

*Double post


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Eska said:


> I think that it is essentially forged on the abandoning of conventional standards; it is an ideal stance.
> 
> *Plus-Size Model Tess Holliday Says "Eff Your Beauty Standards" Scary Mommy*
> 
> ...


Thanks I now want to throw up.

Model or not, as far as I am concerned that's still minging.

It does take more than just the label model to make someone attractive though.

All that has changed was that before it was a privilege, now any whale can call themselves a model.

So the word model now has no value.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Kvothe Lackless said:


> I will just drop this into the Cafe and make a run for it!
> 
> http://www.crossmap.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore-23996#.VpF-KW9d3KA.facebook
> 
> *Disclaimer: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, simply wanted you all to go wild, while I sit here and eat my grapes.*


The change is only about 10%.

That could be due to anything -- like guys delaying marriage to develop careers.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Eska said:


> I think that it is essentially forged on the abandoning of conventional standards; it is an ideal stance.
> 
> *Plus-Size Model Tess Holliday Says "Eff Your Beauty Standards" Scary Mommy*
> 
> ...


If a big woman has a pretty face then sure, I'll "do" her.

I will not do anyone with tat's however. I hate tat's.

Drunken sailors get tat's. Tat's don't belong on females unless they are ***** on bikes as well.

If a skinny lady is hairy however then I will first shave her myself.

I have actually already done so with Debbie, Phyllis, and Olivia.

Their lame excuse was "... oh it was the first date and I did not think we would be banging on the first date ... ".

My reply to that was "... hold still, Grace ...".


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Metasentient said:


> *yawn* Next.
> 
> They've been saying this since the earliest days of feminism, except they usually invoked God in their arguments as per the predominantly religious social setting of the time.


The ancient Spartan women were feminist too.

That's because they had to live alone with their hubbies gone a lot.

It freed them.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Nightmaker81 said:


> Yeah it's fucked up, how am I as a dominant man supposed to claim women as my property in marriage, like my great, great granddaddy did.
> 
> I'm tired of all these women trying to get independence, education, and basic human rights. No longer can my ego be filled as a superior position by subjecting women. I already lost that ability with minorities, now women, what's next, non cis people!?
> 
> America is messed up man. If only it were like the 1600s when men and women knew their identities and smallpox ran rampant :/


You can always try Mexico.

The girlies down there all want to marry ******'s anyway.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Well you see society is every man for himself. There is no love in life. Everyone is expendable. No one matters, there are 7 billion more people to choose from. That is why no one should marry.


Yup very Machiavellian and Nietzsche-ian.

I hope you are at least kind to animals and children though.

They are innocent.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

95134hks said:


> If a big woman has a pretty face then sure, I'll "do" her.
> 
> I will not do anyone with tat's however. I hate tat's.
> 
> ...


I just wonder what color those armpits are.

Then I realise I don't care.

In regards to the tattoo's its a case by case issue for me. 
The "model" in the photo however, is just a no.

If me and here were the last humans alive, th human race would be over. Id spend the rest of my days before extinction playing with myself using fine grade sand paper. It would bring me more pleasure.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

fair phantom said:


> I think Gomez and Morticia had the best marriage.


I've never seen Cousin It's face before !!

Looks just like my X ... Phyllis.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Didn't know she was Phyllis Schlafly's niece.
Suzanne Venker goes on Fox News to argue that women, unlike men, don’t have enough time for jobs.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I love how the women I'm into are just as threatening to (straight) men as I am.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

WamphyriThrall said:


> I love how the women I'm into are just as threatening to (straight) men as I am.


I don't see them as a threat, Im just not into them.


----------



## Dasein (Jun 11, 2015)

I don't identify with the article at all. (Although, I think it is common for many to identify with this article.) All the women I've been heavily attracted to were professionally driven women. But I think it is unfortunate that many women (btw, not these women I've known) identify with feminism (how ever it's defined, usually by the media) like a badge on their breast chest and don't allow themselves to be individuals free of constraints of some external identity.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

First half of the article is spot on.

No matter what the true aims of feminism are, a subconscious culture of women:good/men:bad has been fostered. There is absolutely no denying that.

It's pulling things apart, _badly_.

Second half of the article is interesting but just shows a load of marriage/divorce statistics which I don't care about because marriage has never meant anything to me. However the lifelong union of two people is still an important factor which I think is being eroded by the current - and worsening - ideologies (women-good, men-bad) being propagated today.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Well if the author is female then she can go back to the kitchen and make some sandwitch, if that's what she wants.  Writing articles online expressing her opinion, having a voice of her own? How unfeminine of her!
> 
> Well, while she contemplates on the good old days where women are only to be married, other women can happily enjoy their equal freedom and not only be breeders, while their husbands who can handle equal partners can be have the burden of being the sole provider taken off their shoulders.


I know some women who actually want to cook and have an old fashioned family, be a stay at home mom etc..
I think they have the same right as every other woman to do what ever they want with their lives.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> I know some women who actually want to cook and have an old fashioned family, be a stay at home mom etc..
> I think they have the same right as every other woman to do what ever they want with their lives.


Its odd,

Get a successful man, career wise and he generally dosnt care about his partner and how successful she is (personally I don't view women as Jobs with dollar signs).
Yet get a successful career woman and they seem to want their partner to just as successful.

When I dated some Political Campaign Organiser, she wouldn't shut the hell up about careers and jobs. I didn't even need to enquire about her work, it was all she had going for her, work work work, no friends or social life. Quite sad really,

But anyway, I just decided, f**k this, I have finished work it is Saturday. Time to switch off. 

And I have heard other guys say that, and also some women say how their partner isn'tvery ambitious, well why should he be, the woman is now the breadwinner and pays the bills and stuff. Granted the guy should do the ironing and hooverin and clean the windows.

Just my random thought process.


----------



## gmaslin (Feb 28, 2015)

Grandmaster yoda said:


> Well you see society is every man for himself.


It doesn't need to be. We are systematically being indoctrinated into this way of thinking because it enables the continuing oppression of the mega wealthy upon their base.

@sweetraglansweater
I thanked what was the most poignant and heartbreaking post on page 4 of this thread. I am so sorry to discover your experience and my respect for you has grown immensely knowing you can still see the supreme value of a hetero-normative relationship over all others in spite of it. 
I've stated this before but it bears restating:
Our minds are under constant assault by mass media and the oligarchs will fund any cause that keeps up an environment of sufficient divisiveness. Pretty much everything in your truth table is a kind of programming and that includes your gender roles and sexuality. All the studies you read and rely upon as truth are compromised. Even elementary schools are no longer a safe haven for your mind. We are in a new, more insidious dark age than ever known before. Don't believe me? Ask yourself the following questions and really think about the implications of your answers. Who funds mainstream science and University research, why do they do it and what is the criteria for who gets the money? What does your entertainment programming validate and endorse? What lifestyles do advertisers promote and why? What forms the contextual framework of _normal _in your mind? Open your eyes people and take the red pill. A very dangerous and destructive element has taken over this world and I'm afraid that you and others like you are being subconsciously led away from a fruitful life. Sexual ambiguity works hand in hand with other programmed forces meant to degrade the natural sanctity of the traditional family structure. All our cognitive maps are a result of programming. Hetero-normative behavior is in my programming and it was probably a product of my familial environment. That is the key issue here. Whose programming has the most mind share? Whose programming is the most valid for society? Whose programming came from a spirit of love and benevolence? What parent would prefer to have a gay/sexually ambiguous child?
I've been where many of you now are and I know the sad outcome of living in an environment of distorted/ambiguous gender roles. It has a repeating pattern with a very low percentage of happy endings. What you consider hot or not is one of the most important considerations in your life and a great deal of what happens after you've made this evaluation is based on it. Doesn't it disturb you to think that you're being manipulated in this evaluation by those looking to exploit its outcome? What if you're being programmed to believe things that are bad for your own well being? Too few people realize the full impact of sexual ambiguity until it's too late to do anything about it. What is the aim of this insidious programming? It controls population growth and keeps a constant destabilizing pressure on forming households. It also keeps a constant source of economic churn which those at the top can exploit. I know what I am saying sounds outrageous but when you really begin to critically analyze all the information available, your conclusions may match my own. Orgasms are a powerful conditioning mechanism meant in nature to bond hetero couples. It is really sad to see them reinforcing a fruitless conclusion. This is my offering of wisdom to this forum, make of it what you will. Oh, and for those interested in the who, how and why:


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

gmaslin said:


> It doesn't need to be. We are systematically being indoctrinated into this way of thinking because it enables the continuing oppression of the mega wealthy upon their base.


I dsagree here. The sooner you realise no one really cars about you. The easier life gets, as all stupid xpectations disappear. Also it creates dependence upon oneself instead of being a vulture on other people.

What would you rather be

A Vulture
or
An Eagle


----------



## gmaslin (Feb 28, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> What would you rather be
> 
> A Vulture
> or
> An Eagle


What's wrong with being a human being? This is really a question of perspective. Too many times, the well being of the self depends upon the cooperation of many. Consider the logical outcome of a purely dog eat dog world. When that becomes the philosophical edict there is only one dog standing in the end. All we need to do is begin caring about each others well being for it to become the norm. It's all a matter of which mind program we decide to run. I want to emphasize the distinction between cooperation and dependency here. I am not implying that you should expect your fellow man to carry your load but I am saying that we as a people should not allow any person or organization to accumulate and control resources to a point when large portions of a populations depend upon them to acquire those resources.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

gmaslin said:


> What's wrong with being a human being? This is really a question of perspective. Too many times, the well being of the self depends upon the cooperation of many. Consider the logical outcome of a purely dog eat dog world. When that becomes the philosophical edict there is only one dog standing in the end. All we need to do is begin caring about each others well being for it to become the norm. It's all a matter of which mind program we decide to run. I want to emphasize the distinction between cooperation and dependency here. I am not implying that you should expect your fellow man to carry your load but I am saying that we as a people should not allow any person or organization to accumulate and control resources to a point when large portions of a populations depend upon them to acquire those resources.


Being a wolf is lonely.
Being a sheep is boring.

And even those at the top are still human.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> I just didnt finish the Article. You know why today marriage is a joke? Since no one has a sense of morality or commitment or morals. Everyone thinks life is about getting laid and thats about it.


You know how hard this all sounds for an INFP.
There is no way I would give myself away to someone just to "get laid", I'd have to have a connection with them, or they at least have to be attractive to me.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Eska said:


> I think that it is essentially forged on the abandoning of conventional standards; it is an ideal stance.
> 
> *Plus-Size Model Tess Holliday Says "Eff Your Beauty Standards" Scary Mommy*
> 
> ...


No offence, but I hate all this politcally correct bullshit these days. All women of all shapes are beautiful... I understand some people have genuine problems, but the people who are fat without problems are just lazy and need to get off their ass. In the inside they're not healthy. Why would someone want to date someone who might die before them because their heart had to work overtime to pump blood through their body? Just saying. They may be beautiful on THE OUTSIDE, but what about what the actual body is doing... All their organs... and levels of cholesterol... Its not healthy. People aren't thinking about their health...

"Eff your beauty standards"
Yeah that's shallow, yes she's good looking. But that's it. She needs to lose weight before she'll have a heart attack, that's what these people are failing to see, apparently.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

StrangeINFP said:


> No offence, but I hate all this politcally correct bullshit these days. All women of all shapes are beautiful... I understand some people have genuine problems, but the people who are fat without problems are just lazy and need to get off their ass. In the inside they're not healthy. Why would someone want to date someone who might die before them because their heart had to work overtime to pump blood through their body? Just saying. They may be beautiful on THE OUTSIDE, but what about what the actual body is doing... Its not healthy...


That would require them doing something.

Instead, they want to change everyone else, that way they can carry on having 3somes with Ben and Jerries.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> That would require them doing something.
> 
> Instead, they want to change everyone else, that way they can carry on having 3somes with Ben and Jerries.


And have a heart attack while in an orgy.

All these overweight people are like, "I'm fat I'm still beautiful!" yes you may be but subconsciously people know that being overweight is unhealthy for the body so they're turned off by it.

Inb4 I get hate comments by... well overweight people. I'm not being mean, I'm just stating the truth.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

StrangeINFP said:


> And have a heart attack while in an orgy.
> 
> All these overweight people are like, "I'm fat I'm still beautiful!" yes you may be but subconsciously people know that being overweight is unhealthy for the body so they're turned off by it.


Its just sugar coating as people are too scared to hurt other peoples feelings.
Plus I dread to think how these people must feel inside, working out and fitness means feeling good. No fitness is generally when the negative downward spiral starts.

Still each to their own. There is no helping some people, so may as well just sit back and let em enjoy their heart attacks and diabetes.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Cheveyo said:


> My parents were wonderful people and I had a healthy upbringing, I think. There was no abuse, neither parent did drugs. They worked their asses off to provide for me and my brother. I've got nothing but respect for both of them.
> 
> However, I am not getting married. I gave up on dating not that long ago, as well. It's nothing but stress and the only reward is sex. And you can get sex without investing in a relationship. I spend my time indulging in my hobbies, so my stress level is extremely low. I see my married peers looking like they're 10 years older than I am. Every time I see them, it's like they've aged another few years. I see male relatives that are around my age that I've grown up with dating nothing but psychotic cunts over and over.
> 
> The well is poisoned, so I'm not going to drink from it.





Carpentet810 said:


> It is hard to find women today that act feminine. Most that do act feminine are gold diggers looking for a husband that will provide them with the best things in life.
> 
> I am not especially thrilled with women who think they have to be guys, so they act all masculine, while expecting guys to want a girl who acts like a dude. I cannot name one reason, that I would want to be around a girl who acts like she is a dude, much less date one.
> 
> ...


Where do you both even live? Sin City? I haven't spent much time in the USA, but it can't be that fucked up, can it? I find it very hard to believe that most women there have the elegance and the grace of a fishwife, and the decency of a sociopath. The women I'm friends or friendly with are decent people, and are far from vulgar, they're not difficult to find.
It seems to me that this is really an act of bad faith on your part, though I don't know why you do it.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

cybersloth81 said:


> Its just sugar coating as people are too scared to hurt other peoples feelings.
> Plus I dread to think how these people must feel inside, working out and fitness means feeling good. No fitness is generally when the negative downward spiral starts.
> 
> Still each to their own. There is no helping some people, so may as well just sit back and let em enjoy their heart attacks and diabetes.


Yes, I wouldn't want to make them feel worse than they are, especially if they're depressed (I've had depression, its hard).

But yeah, some people can't be helped.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

StrangeINFP said:


> Yes, I wouldn't want to make them feel worse than they are, especially if they're depressed (I've had depression, its hard).
> 
> But yeah, some people can't be helped.


I just like to leave them to it. Its when they start asking questions that I feel uncomfortable as I don't want to lie to them. So I just avoid. 

And in all honesty, being around like minded healthy people is probably better in the long run anyway.


----------



## terrences (Jan 11, 2016)

That Tess Holliday chick is too much to handle. There's lots of heavy stuff on this page.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

gmaslin said:


> It doesn't need to be. We are systematically being indoctrinated into this way of thinking because it enables the continuing oppression of the mega wealthy upon their base.
> 
> @sweetraglansweater
> I thanked what was the most poignant and heartbreaking post on page 4 of this thread. I am so sorry to discover your experience and my respect for you has grown immensely knowing you can still see the supreme value of a hetero-normative relationship over all others in spite of it.
> ...


I had to caveat my 'thank' for this post. I thanked you for being kind and honest. But I disagree with how viscerally you've taken hold of the perspective outlined above. It is obvious that people with money dictate how their companies, organizations, media and components of their empire will be. But to dwell in the idea of that borders on hysteria. Having worked in propoganda I know how corrupt human nature can but...but I also see that most of the corruption lies in the simplicity of the human nature which dotters along.

The truth is that the world is rudderless already and human just wrack the ship of humanity back and forth. 

When we begin to practice daily kindness to ourselves and others in the simplest of things then we shall begin to reflect the change we wish to see. To get bent out of shape about forces beyond our control, whether they are real or imagined (and especially if they are in fact, real) doesn't do anybody any good.

The best thing you can do is make happiness for everyone in small things. When a soul is conquered with beauty it is a triumph for all mankind.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

StrangeINFP said:


> No offence, but I hate all this politcally correct bullshit these days. All women of all shapes are beautiful... I understand some people have genuine problems, but the people who are fat without problems are just lazy and need to get off their ass. In the inside they're not healthy. Why would someone want to date someone who might die before them because their heart had to work overtime to pump blood through their body? Just saying. They may be beautiful on THE OUTSIDE, but what about what the actual body is doing... All their organs... and levels of cholesterol... Its not healthy. People aren't thinking about their health...
> 
> "Eff your beauty standards"
> Yeah that's shallow, yes she's good looking. But that's it. She needs to lose weight before she'll have a heart attack, that's what these people are failing to see, apparently.


I doubt that most who advocate such a message, legitimately find it 'attractive'.

I think that most use it as a tactic to reinforce its status under the effect of political correctness, or attempt to shift the standards in that direction, by utilizing the repetition of positive affirmations in such a manner.


----------



## The_Highwayman (Nov 26, 2015)

I read this the other day; this may provide the OP with additional support for social views....

However; I am not stating my opinion, I do not have time to argue with either sex about this. I am posting this to add substance to the OP topic and further discussion ONLY, please no bating of it.

It’s No Surprise That Young Men Are Getting Fed Up With Women Faster Than Any Other Group Of Men » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Those who see a need to constantly complain are as damaged as the ones they complain about. End of story.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Enxu said:


> Those who see a need to constantly complain are as damaged as the ones they complain about. End of story.


Indeed. Can't you just taste the bitterness from these poor excuses for men?


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

Gore Motel said:


> Indeed. Can't you just taste the bitterness from these poor excuses for men?


It's a natural psychological reflex: we react the strongest to things we see in others that reflect what we hate most about ourselves. :wink:

Bitterness? I've been there myself.


----------



## Kvothe Lackless (Dec 30, 2015)




----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

StrangeINFP said:


> You know how hard this all sounds for an INFP.
> There is no way I would give myself away to someone just to "get laid", I'd have to have a connection with them, or they at least have to be attractive to me.


That means you are one of the good ones, sadly most of society does not hold that same mentality. I think life and love is about more too but I know I am not the majority and neither are you. Just try to be a good example for society and perhaps one day that idea will change. We lead by example. Just be the best possible person you can be, and I sure one day together those of us who believe in it will make a difference.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

The problem isn't feminism and sexes fulfilling their assigned gender roles. None of that matters. Because there's a million different ideas to what Feminism really is, and every woman that claims the title does not think of it the same as their feminist counter part. All of these problems stem from society making men responsible for things they aren't responsible for. The way society nurtures us as a species, and what is appropriate for men or for women. It's all fucking trash. 

Let's say a man and woman get together. Neither of them has the right to assume the other will take on whatever role- whether it's doing household chores because she's a woman, or the man bringing in the money because he's a man. Individual adults need to take action for what they expect in a partner. Communicate this.

Would it sound smart of me to dive into a relationship-- even marriage, if me and my SO aren't on the same page? Different ideas for married life, for our possible offspring.. whatever it is. It is not fair for one person to assume the other is going to take charge of whatever aspect of your relationship. And then the person delegated with these obligations feels inferior because they can't live up to these expectations? Come on.

We tried so hard to get women out of this kitchen-bound, sandwich making BS- so why are we subjecting men to a group of qualities? Being the bread winner is just the beginning. 

As far as this blog entry/article goes.. I just want to roll my eyes.

Women are women if they identify as such, same goes for men. Stop applying certain characteristics or qualities to a gender and slapping people in the face with these things, expecting them to comply. Women don't need to know how to cook or do household chores, and men don't need to have a higher income.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm glad that men who don't find a woman who they are happy with opt out of marriage. The same is true for women. 

1) If you don't find a person worth marrying - don't get married. It's simple.
Understand however, that this doesn't mean that all people out there are "wrong". They might be wrong for you, but if you expect everyone to be the way YOU expect/want, you might have to either accept that reality is not for you or change your world view. The choice is yours, the responsibility is yours - don't blame others, because that is just petty.

2) If a person has unrealistic expectations of/little to no respect for the opposite sex, it is a good thing not to get married. Chances are that the person in question will become an abuser and that is not fair to anyone. 
A bitter person should not get married, because a marriage will not magically erase personal issues, no matter how much we wish that would be possible. You will not become happier and you will likely make another person very unhappy as well.

3) We forget to discuss the fact that if fewer young men are getting married today, chances are also that fewer young women are getting married. (Too lazy to look for stats though.)
More and more women get higher education nowadays in the west. Many of us who do got married late in life, because we were busy during our 20s. In short, the pool of young women who are getting married is likely shrinking. I do seem to recall that more women than men pursue higher degrees in the US, so I'm thinking that this is a huge factor.

4) Blaming feminism is pretty sad.... especially since many who do have no idea what feminism is. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I fail to see how marriage is anything more than *a social contract to raise kids*,* to survive* or as a nostalgic or religious *emblem of "love" and "loyalty."*


What more could it possibly be? What more do you want?

Not even touching the, er, "history" you described. 



> If we've come into an era where couples no longer need each other to survive, thrive or procreate that's just a consequence (not a bad or good one) of modern living. We'll adjust accordingly as we evolve into a better understanding of ourselves in this new technological, socialized age. If people aren't getting married that doesn't mean they don't love or care deeply- it just means that the symbol of marriage has little to no meaning...and why should it? Marriage is a religious contract, emblematic of religious sentiment. And fewer westerners than ever before do not connect with religion...it follows that they will not connect with the symbols of religion, either.


We don't need a lot for basic physical survival. Happiness and self-actualization, as well as larger scale actualization of human potential, are different matters. Everything is a construct...it is human nature to use constructs to understand and organize our reality so as to function within it. The physical world can be viewed as "just" a construct for the spiritual reality. In which case, are things like physical survival or raising healthy children or basic units of society the purpose of an emblem (marriage) or are _they_ emblems for the intangible meaning their context (marriage) brings to our existence?

Marriage and the meaning it brings to an existence, to a physical way of being, is the point in itself, and the other functions it serves only support this meaning. My favorite cliche phrase lately: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 

Religious institutions are not the same as spirituality, of course. However, the psychological impact of symbolic rites is not insignificant, and ignoring that shows less understanding of human nature, not more. While it may be a trend to disregard "emblems", it doesn't equal progress. 

Spirituality is about actualization of ultimate potential, not physical, animal survival. 

This reminds me of the juvenile assertion so many smart-ass teenagers make that "love is just a chemical reaction in the brain". Oh really? So is EVERYTHING.

----

That is a tangent from the OP....So back to it. A problem I have with these assertions is that things were ever ideal. People are romanticizing the past. Women were never those women in the romanticized past, and men were never those men. Both contain a whole lot of "shoulds" that are odds with being a whole human, which is our first and foremost identity as living creatures. I don't think the concept of gender roles is wrong or unnatural in itself, but they become a problem when they don't allow people to be whole humans.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Women are smarter in 2016 than they have ever been. They don't need men to tell them who they are, what they need, what to think, how to feel and mostly what to do. An Independent women is a dangerous women, men fear women who don't need them.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> I know some women who actually want to cook and have an old fashioned family, be a stay at home mom etc..
> I think they have the same right as every other woman to do what ever they want with their lives.


And ditto for men.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Women are smarter in 2016 than they have ever been. They don't need men to tell them who they are, what they need, what to think, how to feel and mostly what to do. An Independent women is a dangerous women, men fear women who don't need them.


I actually disagree. Its just independent women are independent so as they say don't need no man. SO generally whats the point in communicating with them and as they don't need no man, other than small talk there is no chance of anything else.

Unless of course your my boss, or your a family member, then I have reason to have you in my reality.

But other than that, your like all the independent men, they are also independent so they don't need support systems and friends or relationships.

Have fun with your independence. I hope it brings you the life you want.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

cybersloth81 said:


> I actually disagree. Its just independent women are independent so as they say don't need no man. SO generally whats the point in communicating with them and as they don't need no man, other than small talk there is no chance of anything else.
> 
> Unless of course your my boss, or your a family member, then I have reason to have you in my reality.
> 
> ...


Thank you , I will


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> I know some women who actually want to cook and have an old fashioned family, be a stay at home mom etc..
> I think they have the same right as every other woman to do what ever they want with their lives.


Totally agree. But how is this balanced with the accusation of 'gold diggers' that pop up every now and again? 

It's really interesting; some of the more vocal traditionalist men seem to think that women are not 'feminine' enough today while they also accuse women of being 'gold diggers'. I mean, make a choice already - you can't have it both ways! If you wan't a stay-at-home wife, is it not totally reasonable for her to make sure that you can handle it from an economical stand-point? The double standard is just ... sigh ...


----------



## Geejayblue (Dec 21, 2015)

Kvothe Lackless said:


> View attachment 461546


Lol 

Happy?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Swede said:


> Totally agree. But how is this balanced with the accusation of 'gold diggers' that pop up every now and again?
> 
> It's really interesting; some of the more vocal traditionalist men seem to think that women are not 'feminine' enough today while they also accuse women of being 'gold diggers'. I mean, make a choice already - you can't have it both ways! If you wan't a stay-at-home wife, is it not totally reasonable for her to make sure that you can handle it from an economical stand-point? The double standard is just ... sigh ...


This is actually a good point.

I think that realistically we can never go back to how we were.

But there are women out there with jobs, that don't get consumed with their job and don't make their whole identity their job. So I think personally I find them quite attractive and suitable for my lifestyle.

I just think now a days its more a bout finding someone with the same social/work lifestyle balance.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Amaryllis said:


> Where do you both even live? Sin City? I haven't spent much time in the USA, but it can't be that fucked up, can it? I find it very hard to believe that most women there have the elegance and the grace of a fishwife, and the decency of a sociopath. The women I'm friends or friendly with are decent people, and are far from vulgar, they're not difficult to find.
> It seems to me that this is really an act of bad faith on your part, though I don't know why you do it.




Southern California.
A woman being nice and friendly to her acquaintances is no indication of how they will act with a significant other.

Take my own personal experience as an example. An ex of mine was abusive. She'd guilt me into not seeing or talking to friends. She'd get physically violent when angry. If she was feeling neglected, like when I had to be in class for example, she'd go online to games we played together and tell friends there that I was abusing her. She'd invent bullshit if I got angry at her for doing that. She'd threaten to harm herself if I thought about leaving her. However, her friends saw none of that. All they saw was the happy, vibrant, caring personality that attracted me to her.


Thankfully, no one I know anyone has had that same kind of experience. At least as far as I'm aware of.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> An Independent women is a dangerous women, men fear women who don't need them.


Ah, the old reliable 'Men are intimidated by strong independent women' fallacy.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Gore Motel said:


> Ah, the old reliable 'Men are intimidated by strong independent women' fallacy.


I keep saying its not fear.

They don't need men, so we should respect their wishes and have nothing to do with them.

If they are truly independent, why do they even need to communicate with men?

If I were to date one though, I would feel guilty as I am ruining her dreams of independence.

But even the most independent women do seem to have a lot of cats. I wonder if there is a link.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

cybersloth81 said:


> This is actually a good point.
> 
> I think that realistically we can never go back to how we were.
> 
> ...


Maybe that's more about personality about gender though? Some people identify strongly with their career persona and others do not. 

* *





I got an education and I decided to work in order to feel safe and independent. My goal was/is to have the luxury of free time (so 1 job only, with a good work-life balance) and to afford to do what I enjoy doing during that free time. I also wanted to be sure that I could financially afford the responsibility of a family, if I and a potential partner would decide to have children. And if my husband dies or if we get divorced, I can still care for my children.

My husband's pov was very similar - until we had kids. It seems that he somehow decided that being the 'provider' was a more important responsibility than co-running the household or even being a father. Not sure why, but he just started stressing out about work way more - basically his priorities changed. 

I have heard that in general men identifying more strongly with their work personal is fairly common, no matter whether they are the main provider or not, but it's hard to judge that fairly from afar, I think.




I guess my point is that things can change in unexpected ways. For example, you can marry an easy-going person, a life-changing event occurs, and that persons entire priority list gets shuffled around. (And in all honesty, so did mine - 'mother' trumps 'engineer'.)


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Cheveyo said:


> Thankfully, no one I know anyone has had that same kind of experience. At least as far as I'm aware of.


Probably because people seldom talk openly about abuse. Victim blaming is pretty strong in many cultures.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Swede said:


> Maybe that's more about personality about gender though? Some people identify strongly with their career persona and others do not.
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


Well I don't really intend on having a relationship, marriage or kids with another man. So Im not really fussed about if men have that personality trait or not. That's probably more of something a woman needs to decide if they want that trait in a man or not,

Yeah I totally agree that priorities can and will change. But not at that point yet and Im not going to live in the future.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Swede said:


> Probably because people seldom talk openly about abuse. Victim blaming is pretty strong in many cultures.



There's also the fact that men aren't taught to recognize it as abuse. I didn't. A woman throwing a plate at your face when she's angry is seen as normal. Often people will laugh and ask what you did to deserve her physically assaulting you.

For example: if you mention that Hillary Clinton was physically abusing Bill, people will laugh and say he earned that for cheating on her.

It wasn't until I spent time reading about abuse victims years later that I realized that it was, in fact, abuse.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

OrangeAppled said:


> That is a tangent from the OP....So back to it. A problem I have with these assertions is that things were ever ideal. People are romanticizing the past. Women were never those women in the romanticized past, and men were never those men. Both contain a whole lot of "shoulds" that are odds with being a whole human, which is our first and foremost identity as living creatures. I don't think the concept of gender roles is wrong or unnatural in itself, but they become a problem when they don't allow people to be whole humans.


^this.

My point was that people center the conversation around "marriage" as if that word sums up what a healthy relationship and thereby, healthy family, community etc. looks like. Marriage is just a word and a contract. It can be helpful. It can not be helpful.

But basically you hit it on the head: it's wrong to romanticize the past to pin the problem or the model on anything we didn't actually experience. If things had been so great back then people wouldn't have struggled against the conformity which we now idealize. There were real problems back then and there are problems now. Chalking it up to "marriage" or "roles" is really loosing sight of the fundamental fear that men and woman have when they face each other. If there is any marriage it is the marriage of humanity, the male and female, mother and father, locked eternally together trying to face the fear of each other in love and failing miserably at it yet compelled and trying and in so trying longing because truly they have a deep desire for peace. Both sides have deep flaws and god to heaven knows how we'll ever be able to live amongst each other without fear. 

The choice is for each individual to make their life a better place, starting within themselves and then their most intimate relationships and springing outwards to the extraneous parts of their community. Society isn't going to do it for us: we have to make our relationships better and lasting, whatever that entails (marriage or not) and treat each other with the love and respect and gratitude we seek in turn. How little we truly love one another- how little we all try to deal with the deep fear within ourselves by facing the vast abyss of another person's soul. I know the deep fear in me keeps me running away from men, from friends, from community. I'm one of the people who destroys society by simple abdication. But my fear is really real, my strength, faint.

The truth is we cannot control the person alongside of us, in front of us, much less the community around us and in this way the universe is a kind of emotional chaos to the individual, seeking whatever straws s/he may grasp in passing to justify their own suffering of the unknown. It takes courage to love unconditionally and in spite of being wronged and with no promise of gratification. And it's true; nobody deserves to have our love or is entitled to our love. But if we wish to be truly happy we must do the hard things and love irregardless because it mets us with the meaning we so yearn and seek. 

To love is really the only meaningful thing a person can do in this life.... and blaming society for one's own unhappiness at the lack of fulfillment is nothing more than donning the mantel of self-exculpatory victim hood.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> I keep saying its not fear.
> 
> They don't need men, so we should respect their wishes and have nothing to do with them.
> 
> ...


Even if you don't need somebody, they can still enrich your life. Being independent doesn't mean you have to be alone. 

I don't think it's fear either, I think its usually one of two things. Either the "independent woman" has a chip on her shoulder due to some kind of insecurity, or the man just wants to feel needed. I mean, I get it, it's nice to feel needed. It really is. It can be fulfilling, emotionally and psychologically. But at the end of the day the harsh reality is that we are each our own last line of defence. Everybody else can potentially abandon you, and you need to be able to support yourself if need be. Not just financially and physically, but emotionally and psychologically as well. I think an independent person is just someone who won't crumble when their support disappears. It's an extremely important trait in both sexes.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> Southern California.
> A woman being nice and friendly to her acquaintances is no indication of how they will act with a significant other.
> 
> Take my own personal experience as an example. An ex of mine was abusive. She'd guilt me into not seeing or talking to friends. She'd get physically violent when angry. If she was feeling neglected, like when I had to be in class for example, she'd go online to games we played together and tell friends there that I was abusing her. She'd invent bullshit if I got angry at her for doing that. She'd threaten to harm herself if I thought about leaving her. However, her friends saw none of that. All they saw was the happy, vibrant, caring personality that attracted me to her.
> ...


That's terrible and I'm so sorry you experienced that. I can't imagine what you went through underneath those circumstances. It's too common a story; I know several other gentlemen who've suffered at the hands of women like the one you described. It's abhorrent what you endured and I'm so glad you're not in that place anymore. Thank you for speaking up about it: it's too often overlooked. I can only hope that you'll one day find a girl who loves you tenderly and that you will both be very happy together.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Cheveyo said:


> There's also the fact that men aren't taught to recognize it as abuse. I didn't. A woman throwing a plate at your face when she's angry is seen as normal. Often people will laugh and ask what you did to deserve her physically assaulting you.
> 
> For example: if you mention that Hillary Clinton was physically abusing Bill, people will laugh and say he earned that for cheating on her.
> 
> It wasn't until I spent time reading about abuse victims years later that I realized that it was, in fact, abuse.


I don't think that you should generalize too much when it comes to gender and abuse.

I have also been in abusive relationships and I didn't understand how bad it was until very late. And yes, one of them became physically abusive. One-sided only. I never reported it either, so it's not a statistical data point anywhere. See, all women don't speak up about abuse either.

Your post doesn't go against what I stated in the previous post; laughing at a victim is a form of victim blaming/bullying. Telling a victim that s/he is lying is also a form of victim blaming/bullying. Abused men and women and children as separate groups do all experience victim blaming. It's a big problem in society. 

And all people wouldn't say that Bill deserves being beaten by Hillary. All people would not laugh. Maybe the people media would focus on. Would you? I wouldn't. Did people laugh at you when you told them? 

I told the girl that my ex-beater ended up dating after I left him to be careful. She chose not to listen, so basically she did not believe me. At least I gave her a fair chance.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> There's also the fact that men aren't taught to recognize it as abuse. I didn't. A woman throwing a plate at your face when she's angry is seen as normal. Often people will laugh and ask what you did to deserve her physically assaulting you.


Ive always found it funny when that happens. Granted its only happened once. I said I was too tired for sex. 

But a bit of plate throwing and smashing soon got me in the mood.

I still find it funny looking back.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

BlackDog said:


> Even if you don't need somebody, they can still enrich your life. Being independent doesn't mean you have to be alone.
> 
> I don't think it's fear either, I think its usually one of two things. Either the "independent woman" has a chip on her shoulder due to some kind of insecurity, or the man just wants to feel needed. I mean, I get it, it's nice to feel needed. It really is. It can be fulfilling, emotionally and psychologically. But at the end of the day the harsh reality is that we are each our own last line of defence. Everybody else can potentially abandon you, and you need to be able to support yourself if need be. Not just financially and physically, but emotionally and psychologically as well. I think an independent person is just someone who won't crumble when their support disappears. It's an extremely important trait in both sexes.


I can relate to what both you and @cybersloth81 are describing

It's important to have one's own self actuation and to be certain of your own wants needs and desires. The journey of life, whether it was ordained or incidental, has one function: to be true to one's self in the discovery of one's desires so that they may truly enjoy and love and create.

But one need not be fully functional to be independent and be true to themselves or their desires, to love or create or enjoy...which is the essence of free will. Is a person in a wheel chair any less autonomous because he requires help? Is a disabled child wrong in asserting their will simply because they do not have the rational functions which make them capable? Is a child to be taken less seriously because s/he is not old enough to be true to themselves? Is a white collar person more entitled to the pursuit of these rights simply because they are independent of need? And by comparison is an artist more genuine than a wage slave simply because they live "authentically"?

No: autonomy and the joys and sorrows which come with person choice is fundamentally human, irregardless of one's capacity to feed, shelter and clothe. It is grace which sustains the widow, the orphan, the needy and sick. A woman or a man who cannot sustain for themselves or requires aide in the form of relationship(s), marital or otherwise, is not any less of an autonomous individual or any less meaningful in a relationship. A person who enjoys living underneath the shelter of his or her spouse is not any less meaningful. Nor is the spouse, who provides the shelter, merely a pay check to be taken advantage of. All the people described are independent and autonomous, whether they like it or not. Independence, co-dependence, inter-dependence or dependence does not eradicate autonomy, independence or make anyone less responsible for their decisions.

I realize that @BlackDog is not talking about free will and autonomy but fundamentally we have to get back there in this argument because that's what we are really discussing: whether it is okay to rely on someone as an "independent" person. And yes, it is okay to rely on someone in the paradigm I am describing because no amount of self-reliance or inter-personal reliance will ever invalidate a person's autonomy. A woman doesn't need to prove it or earn it; neither does a man or a child or a handicapped person.

Now that we've established that we can talk about this:

A person who can sustain the kind of people described above merely has more to offer by way of resource and energy. But both the person in need and the person giving are equals in the exchange of that gift, which is a choice to exercise (and receive). A person who prefers to receive and create a life of inter-dependence is no less meaningful or valuable. 

There is no shame in needing a community, needing friends, needing family and love and spouses and yes, even a man (or a woman) to add a sense of completion to one's life. It is normative and healthy. And there is nothing wrong with a person who does not have the affore-mentioned need in themselves for society, whether through the path away of marriage, children or otherwise, etc. 

The wrongdoing comes in when someone who has need (either to give or receive) repudiates this deep vulnerability within them and others because they are either too fearful to give or too indolent to exercise gratitude.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I can relate to what both you and @_cybersloth81_ are describing
> 
> It's important to have one's own self actuation and to be certain of your own wants needs and desires. The journey of life, whether it was ordained or incidental, has one function: to be true to one's self in the discovery of one's desires so that they may truly enjoy and love and create.
> 
> ...


I was not approaching the subject in a moral or ontological light. Of course vulnerability is acceptable, and nobody is fundamentally inferior or has any less intrinsic worth as a human being for needing assistance. There is nothing wrong with other people assisting us or enriching our lives, but I do think everybody owes it to him or herself to take a certain level of responsibility for their own well-being. That could mean being able to financially support themselves, physically defend themselves from harm, or it could be as simple as maintaining a certain level of emotional and psychological stability. 

Being independent can mean literally being able to feed and provide for yourself, but more to the point it means being able to survive when others are not there to pick us up, and to have the strength and self-knowledge to leave bad situations when they threaten our well-being. If somebody cannot achieve this for whatever reason, that doesn't make them morally inferior. It is, nevertheless, an important goal to strive for. Sometimes we need to lean on others to get back on our feet, but that is indeed the goal - to be on our feet.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

I feel like @BlackDog and @sweetraglansweater have this pretty well in hand so instead of adding another multi-paragraph explanation about why it's OK to be with someone even if you can take care of yourself I'll just add this touching (and somewhat homoerotic) quote from Captain America:

*Steve:* "Thank you Buck, but I can get by on by own." 
*Bucky: *"The thing is, you don't have to. I'm with you 'till the end of the line pal."

Just echoing the notion that even if you CAN take care of yourself, why would you WANT to? People are stronger together then they are apart so why ever choose to be apart if you could be together instead?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

flummoxed said:


> I feel like @BlackDog and @sweetraglansweater have this pretty well in hand so instead of adding another multi-paragraph explanation about why it's OK to be with someone even if you can take care of yourself I'll just add this touching (and somewhat homoerotic) quote from Captain America:
> 
> *Steve:* "Thank you Buck, but I can get by on by own."
> *Bucky: *"The thing is, you don't have to. I'm with you 'till the end of the line pal."
> ...


Ditto that.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Swede said:


> Totally agree. But how is this balanced with the accusation of 'gold diggers' that pop up every now and again?
> 
> It's really interesting; some of the more vocal traditionalist men seem to think that women are not 'feminine' enough today while they also accuse women of being 'gold diggers'. I mean, make a choice already - you can't have it both ways! If you wan't a stay-at-home wife, is it not totally reasonable for her to make sure that you can handle it from an economical stand-point? The double standard is just ... sigh ...


Yupp, agreed.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I couldn't read that because the page didn't load fast enough before my patience ran out.
> For whatever reason, why do you care? You don't dictate what a man could prefer. It would certainly be nice if they "got with the program" but it ends up being their business, their body and you are mad because there are nut jobs on the internet that you disagree with.


I race my patience. Speed read as fast as possible...

Only got halfway on op article. Oh well. 

----

@ op... for some reason generally the more feminist an ex of mine has been, the more they enjoy being spanked? 

That is about the extent to which I care about this issue :laughing: I have no intention of getting married. If it's not Gilmore Girls they want you to watch, it's Project Runway. A lifetime of that wold ruin me.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Fumetsu said:


> Right?!
> 
> They were told all their lives that as a man they were entitled to a housekeeper with benefits, not a woman with her own thoughts feelings and goals.




You know, this is basically what I've always imagined female feminists think it's like to be a man.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Uh...i think you are a little confused about what feminism is then.



If you're using the dictionary definition, YOU are the one that is confused.
That's not really surprising, as not even feminists have any clue what it means to be a feminist.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Yeah everyone says that. No one actually seems to know what it is. Even the top Feminism Professors.
> 
> And when someone does point out a definition it has no correlation to the reality or actions of the movement.
> 
> If feminists don't know what feminism really is, how the hell will anyone else.


I doubt that any reasonable explanation for anyone's beliefs will actually get through to you, so I'm not going to bother. You've obviously been given the chance, many times, to listen.

Go ahead and believe that torturing and brutally mutilating someone's genitals is related to feminism then. 

Apparently, according to her husband, she did it because he filed for divorce. I suppose this also means feminism is against the right to divorce as well.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> If you're using the dictionary definition, YOU are the one that is confused.
> That's not really surprising, as not even feminists have any clue what it means to be a feminist.



Right--let me guess...me and all the other feminists I have met in my life are wrong about what feminism is...and I should listen to your definition of it, or cybersloth's, even if it completely contradicts all experience I've had or my own beliefs, and is completely irrational--like justifying cutting someone's genitals off because of divorce or 'thinking all men are rapists because they have penises.'

Because somehow you know what i am thinking and what many other feminists believe in. 

No thanks.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

There isn't a specific way of being a woman, the beauty of being human is that we're all complex and unique to our own mindsets and realities although there's patterns that tie us together. I don't think that the decrease of marriages has anything to do with lack of traditional gender roles but it's rather something connected to the way society evolves and the economy makes it harder to be stable with finances. It's also a personal preference. Now that there's no obligation to get married, it becomes a natural and spontaneous choice independent from any kind of pressure or status. I think this kind of freedom is perfect the way it is.

If there's something to be fixed, it's the institution itself and all the bureaucracy behind it.
From international weddings to divorces and custody, there's a messy underbelly to innovate.

I'd personally love to get married, maybe it'll happen, maybe not. Maybe soon, maybe late.
But a woman not desiring to settle down is still a woman. Femininity is a state of mind, a kind of energy.
Plus, successful and career oriented might still want families while traditionally submissive women might not.

Clickbait articles aren't known for their quality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Yeah everyone says that. No one actually seems to know what it is. Even the top Feminism Professors.
> 
> And when someone does point out a definition it has no correlation to the reality or actions of the movement.
> 
> If feminists don't know what feminism really is, how the hell will anyone else.


Maybe it would actually help to define what you think the feminist movement is first, and what people are representative of being feminists, because to me it seems as if you equal a small group of people, vocal as they may be, to be the total representation of the movement, forgetting it is a political movement with as many disparate groups within it as any other. It's like saying there is only one form of Christianity because the pope condemns condoms.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Maybe it would actually help to define what you think the feminist movement is first, and what people are representative of being feminists, because to me it seems as if you equal a small group of people, vocal as they may be, to be the total representation of the movement, forgetting it is a political movement with as many disparate groups within it as any other. It's like saying there is only one form of Christianity because the pope condemns condoms.


Christians generally make it clear what type of Christian they are, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and so on.

Of course there are the Mormons and the JW's that claim they are Christians, and it gets a bit confusing.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Right--let me guess...me and all the other feminists I have met in my life are wrong about what feminism is...and I should listen to your definition of it, or cybersloth's, even if it completely contradicts all experience I've had or my own beliefs, and is completely irrational--like justifying cutting someone's genitals off because of divorce or 'thinking all men are rapists because they have penises.'
> 
> Because somehow you know what i am thinking and what many other feminists believe in.
> 
> No thanks.


No me personally Im not saying you should listen to mine.

Im just saying Im not getting involved in it as there is no clear definition and the video highlights my views on it pretty well.

If you want to be a feminist crack on, no one is telling you to do anything.

Jus because I don't do something, dosnt mean you cant either, you are aware of that.

However my views on Feminism are probably different to yours. Because gues swhat we have different brains. DO you understand this concept so far. Or should I get a youtube video.

I don't know what your perception of feminism is.

But the only stuff I see with the label feminism, is whining and slagging off of men, and violence by women. Disagree if you want, but I will gladly link you all articles I come across.

Most women I know who are actually successful, are managers, do have their own house and Jacuzzi to go with it. They do not identify as feminists either and they actually start convulsing when I use the F word.

So these facts have formed my perception.

Please don't disagree with these facts forming my perception because I can assure you Im aware of what goes on in my brain.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Well, I don't see women creating movements advocating sustaining from relationships with men, badmouthing them on WGTOW forums and videos, or taking advantage of foreign men.
> 
> It's always someone who says, "I'm not MGTOW, but..." before listing a half dozen points they agree with, using terminology specific to that subculture, or posting links.
> 
> And while most say they're apolitical, it's pretty obvious they're against most liberal/leftist ideas, and share views with more extreme... erm, right-winged movements.


Dude, these days anything that isn't in SJW la-la land is far-right. That is fast becoming a meaningless term. 

MGTOWs have no more bitter insane men than feminists have bitter insane women. 

In the most basic sense, if pornography and fantasy have become more viable than real women for these men, that is their choice that they are allowed to make. This is sexual agency.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Right--let me guess...me and all the other feminists I have met in my life are wrong about what feminism is...and I should listen to your definition of it, or cybersloth's, even if it completely contradicts all experience I've had or my own beliefs, and is completely irrational--like justifying cutting someone's genitals off because of divorce or 'thinking all men are rapists because they have penises.'
> 
> Because somehow you know what i am thinking and what many other feminists believe in.
> 
> No thanks.


_Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism (informed by the neoliberal worldview). More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as “choice feminism”. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women and a very narrow, individual notion of “empowerment”. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.


_​Do you agree with the above quote?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

flummoxed said:


> What's wrong with being MGTOW? It's just people who have decided to avoid romantic relationships because they don't find them worthwhile. Most of them have been seriously hurt in the past due to a failed relationship that resulted in them losing their life savings, losing their kids or even just psychologically hurt. Would you shame a woman who had been raped if she decided to avoid romantic relationships? Sure, MGTOW individuals have a pretty pessimistic view of the opposite sex, but so do most feminists. I fail to see a difference.
> 
> Feminist Logic:
> "I'm a strong independent black woman who don't need no man!"
> ...


I see more similarities with Feminists and MRA's.

That said I think it is possible for MRA's to also be MGTOW's Im not 100% sure though. If there are any MRA's or MGTOWs here, please comment and advise as necessary.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

cybersloth81 said:


> I see more similarities with Feminists and MRA's.
> 
> That said I think it is possible for MRA's to also be MGTOW's Im not 100% sure though. If there are any MRA's or MGTOWs here, please comment and advise as necessary.


I've by no means sworn off sex, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive. 

MRA focuses on legal rights (mostly paternity discrimination and divorce settlements). 
MGTOW believes sexual relationships are no longer a rational choice for men. (That the negatives outweigh the positives). Internally, MGTOW has different subdivisions, which they dub "levels". So one can be a certain level of MGTOW and be PUA (fuck women without commitment), but the top-level of MGTOW is the jedi-esque renouncement of sex altogether. 

However, there is still a fairly predictable inter-group rivalry. Almost as one would expect between offshoot brands of Christianity fighting for converts :laughing:


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Right--let me guess...me and all the other feminists I have met in my life are wrong about what feminism is...and I should listen to your definition of it, or cybersloth's, even if it completely contradicts all experience I've had or my own beliefs, and is completely irrational--like justifying cutting someone's genitals off because of divorce or 'thinking all men are rapists because they have penises.'
> 
> Because somehow you know what i am thinking and what many other feminists believe in.
> 
> No thanks.






It doesn't matter what you believe or say. What matters are the actions taken by feminists and feminist groups.

Things like:

Stopping the creation of centers for abused men. As well as attacking any spaces that would be considered "safe spaces" for men.
Creating the guidelines law enforcement uses in cases of domestic violence, which essentially means that men will always be seen as the aggressor.
Lying about statistics in order to make things appear worse than they are in order to create a panic and make it easier to force changes through.
Defining rape by a woman not as rape, so that they can make it look like men are the only perpetrators of rape.
Harassing anyone who publicly disagrees with them. This includes things like: Doxxing, threatening, and harassing their employers.
Slandering anyone they don't like.
Assaulting people over a t-shirt.

Etc.



What you are is no different than a Christian who has utterly convinced themselves their religion has never done, and will never do, anything wrong. You call yourself a feminist because you've been told by someone you trust that it's a good thing. Not because you've done any research on your own, but because you've read what you were told to read.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Btmangan said:


> I've by no means sworn off sex, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> MRA focuses on legal rights (mostly paternity discrimination and divorce settlements).
> MGTOW believes sexual relationships are no longer a rational choice for men. (That the negatives outweigh the positives)
> ...


Thanks, I know there is a lot of rivalry between the various Red Pill groups. But never been 100% on MRA and MGTOW other than the vague concepts.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

@_Cheveyo_ 

Ah yes, a few anons start angrily e-stalking Quinn and Sarkeesian. Despite the fact that Gamergate immediately renounces ties to said trolls, Gamergate is painted as a movement "out to get women"

But feminist advocacy groups have been blocking men's victim centers for decades in a cynical move for funding and when we complain about it we need to shut up because "that's not feminism, stupid. Read the dictionary." That's not feminism huh? Then why doesn't NOW excommunicate the radicals formally?

Mainstream feminism are accomplices to misandry because every time anyone attempts to have a civil discussion about the overreaches of radfem activists, moderate feminists step in to silence the debate. They are acting as shields of misandrists in the cultural sphere.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Btmangan said:


> But_* feminist advocacy groups have been blocking men's victim centers for decades*_ in a cynical move for funding and when we complain about it we need to shut up because "that's not feminism, stupid. Read the dictionary." That's not feminism huh? Then why doesn't NOW excommunicate the radicals formally?


Where? Give me an example of a men's center being forcibly halted due to feminists? 

The topic has been brought up multiple times on this forum and every self-proclaimed feminist has been in support of these shelters.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> @Cheveyo
> 
> Ah yes, a few anons start angrily e-stalking Quinn and Sarkeesian. Despite the fact that Gamergate immediately renounces ties to said trolls, Gamergate is painted as a movement "out to get women"
> 
> But feminist advocacy groups have been blocking men's victim centers for decades in a cynical move for funding and when we complain about it we need to shut up because "that's not feminism, stupid. Read the dictionary." That's not feminism huh? Then why doesn't NOW excommunicate the radicals formally?




NOW is part of the radicals. They're just smart enough not to say so out loud.


They're actually supporting that Jackie chick who made that false rape accusation on an entire frat at UVA.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Christians generally make it clear what type of Christian they are, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and so on.
> 
> Of course there are the Mormons and the JW's that claim they are Christians, and it gets a bit confusing.


And so do feminists? Structural feminists, radical feminists, liberal feminists... So define what you think feminism is and what people are representative of the feminist movement.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Entropic said:


> And so do feminists? Structural feminists, radical feminists, liberal feminists... So define what you think feminism is and what people are representative of the feminist movement.


It hardly matters when anti-feminists _ tell you_ what kind of feminist you are. Of course all feminists are radical when you refuse to listen to those who aren't.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> It hardly matters when anti-feminists _ tell you_ what kind of feminist you are. Of course all feminists are radical when you refuse to listen to those who aren't.


If you are going to debunk his argument, you need to know exactly on what grounds he's reasoning, though. Kick away his legs and he's got nothing left to stand on, but it means you first need to make him reveal what those legs are.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Fumetsu said:


> Where? Give me an example of a men's center being forcibly halted due to feminists?
> 
> The topic has been brought up multiple times on this forum and every self-proclaimed feminist has been in support of these shelters.


The following is from the wiki of Erin Pizzey, who is well-known to be the person who created the first domestic violence shelter in England, the Haven House.

_Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

The deeper you look into Pizzey's story, if she is to be believed, the worse and worse these feminist agitators start to appear.





And then there's this gem. If you want to "skip to the action" I would recommend 1:50 and on


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Btmangan said:


> _Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism (informed by the neoliberal worldview). More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as “choice feminism”. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women and a very narrow, individual notion of “empowerment”. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.
> 
> 
> _​Do you agree with the above quote?


my shift key isn't working regularly, so i apologize for sporadic capitalization.

Do I agree with it? I do not agree that "anything a woman chooses to do is a 'feminist' act." I don't really think that feminism is quite so useful if it's used to define actions in such away, unless the implications of the actions and the responsibility for them has a very solid foundation (such as the negative impact of sexual harassment in the workplace).

For example--legalizing female votes is perhaps a feminist act--but whether or not someone chooses to vote, man or woman, doesn't seem to me to need to be defined as feminist. I don't believe the term should infringe on individual choices such as how one dresses etc. but moreso on legislation regarding that (such as not allowing women to wear pants in public schools). 

I definitely believe having discussions about how individual choices are impacted by social and political conventions, or how individual choices can have a negative impact on other women and men's lives. And I appreciate feminist discourse that explores those contemporary issues. i personally believe that offering discourse and a platform for exploring and expressing contemporary issues offers more service to women and society right now than attempting to condemn or define most individual choices as feminist. And it can help people become more informed about their choices or to consider them in another light.

"Enormous negative impact" of various choices needs to be properly discussed, because much of that is going to be more theoretical, and should not be prematurely assigned a label like "feminist". 

For example, wearing lipstick, or going without it, does not obviously have an enormous negative impact on women's lives (or any other gender)--it shouldn't be defined as either feminist or against feminism, though it may be useful for people to explore it in context of women's issues etc. without automatically assigning the behavior to that binary (for women's equality or against it).

Not sure if that answers your question.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Fumetsu said:


> It hardly matters when anti-feminists _ tell you_ what kind of feminist you are. Of course all feminists are radical when you refuse to listen to those who aren't.


Im not telling you you are anything. 

Im just stating my own reasons for why I disagree with it.

I don't know what type of feminist you are, if I wanted to I would ask.

Can you please stop saying that Im telling you, you are something, just because I have a different view to you.

If I wanted to call you something, I would call it you.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Entropic said:


> And so do feminists? Structural feminists, radical feminists, liberal feminists... So define what you think feminism is and what people are representative of the feminist movement.


Just everything is so hypocritical and scattered.

Personally I prefer order and Hierarchy.

So I cnat get my head around the whole movement/group whatever it is at all.

Certain things they promote I agree with and have no personal issues with. But other stuff they put out there, its more poisoning.

I would rather just agree with certain points than with the whole.

I openly admit and agree some men are twats to women and it should stop. I have my own ways of dealing with this when they arise. 

Should women work - yeah if they want to, but if they don't they shouldn't be forced to either.

Voting - yeah cool woman wants to vote, let her vote.

Relationships - yeah woman wants to be single she can be single, or whatever.

If a woman wants to be the dominant one in a relationship cool, but I disagree all men should be submissive justr because they are men. How about dom women with sub men. And dom men with sub women.

Just some examples.

Generally I agree with individual things. Until it comes outright attack of men.

Also as discussed, certain women or crazies claim to be feminists, I don't know what the secret handshake is so Im just going to avoid it as a group, but just because I don't want that label attached to me at all, dosnt mean I disagree with everything.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Fumetsu said:


> Where? Give me an example of a men's center being forcibly halted due to feminists?
> 
> The topic has been brought up multiple times on this forum and every self-proclaimed feminist has been in support of these shelters.



Look up Erin Pizzey and Earl Silverman.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> Look up Erin Pizzey and Earl Silverman.


As per Wikipedia



> Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (born 19 February 1939) is an English family care activist and a novelist. She became internationally famous for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world. Haven House[2] is often cited as the first women's refuge (called women's shelters in Canada and the U.S.), but at the time of their founding they only worked to help the mentally ill transition from committed life in a hospital to life in the outside world. By contrast the refuge started by Erin Pizzey was focused on removing victims of domestic abuse from their abusers, in an attempt to break the cycle. Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971,[3] the organisation known today as Refuge.[1]
> 
> Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists


----------



## Kvothe Lackless (Dec 30, 2015)

Just sat here eating grapes :kitteh:


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> What you are is no different than a Christian who has utterly convinced themselves their religion has never done, and will never do, anything wrong. You call yourself a feminist because you've been told by someone you trust that it's a good thing. Not because you've done any research on your own, but because you've read what you were told to read.



Look--if Christianity were a good analogy for this, then this would be an example of people saying "I am Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the lord and savior etc." And you as well as other members coming in and saying, "I can't stand Christianity because the Klu Klux Klan burned people on crosses. If you are Christian then you must be lynching people. If you don't erect burning crosses--you're not a Christian." 

Or...the alternate, "I believe in Jesus Christ as the savior and the bible, but I don't identify as a "Christian" because I don't believe in lynching people or blowing up abortion clinics."

But Christianity is not an appropriate comparison because there is no "feminist bible" and no "messiah." It is a diverse social movement that arose to promote equality between the sexes, not a religion. The fundamental backbone of feminism is equality between the sexes, and that is what the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists believe in, which you seem to be unable to hear or accept.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

@_Meltedsorbet_

That question helped me understand your understanding of feminism. I appreciate the answer. 

Starting a dialog is indeed, fine. Attempting to have people fired for violating speech codes isn't. Through public mob-attacking tactics, feminists have created a climate of fear in many circles. It has become clear that anti-feminists are a new culture of resistance. 

If you say the wrong thing, feminists will attempt to have you fired, removed from your position, or at the very least, ostracized in public life. It is the new McCarthyism.

This may seem absurd to you now, but feminist takeovers accusing any resistance of "hating women" have begun within geek culture, atheism, heavy metal, and comedy. Major voices from all these disciplines have been warning us that feminists are using authoritarian tactics to control what people are allowed to say, think, even. These takeovers have been limited to fringe groups mostly, so the football watching, business-majors of the world remain oblivious to the threat.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Look--if Christianity were a good analogy for this, then this would be an example of people saying "I am Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the lord and savior etc." And you as well as other members coming in and saying, "I can't stand Christianity because the Klu Klux Klan burned people on crosses. If you are Christian then you must be lynching people. If you don't erect burning crosses--you're not a Christian."
> 
> Or...the alternate, "I believe in Jesus Christ as the savior and the bible, but I don't identify as a "Christian" because I don't believe in lynching people or blowing up abortion clinics."
> 
> But Christianity is not an appropriate comparison because there is no "feminist bible" and no "messiah." It is a diverse social movement that arose to promote equality between the sexes, not a religion. The fundamental backbone of feminism is equality between the sexes, and that is what the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists believe in, which you seem to be unable to hear or accept.


OK Im going to get to what I see as the real issue here. This is just my view, I am not forcing it on anyone and you are free to disagree. It is not an attack. (I don't feel I should have to say this, as I am just stating a view, people are free to agree or disagree. I don't view this as some frame control battle).

I think people are more bothered about defending the actual label than what it is that it represents to them. And sorry but for me that is all "feminism" is. A label. Its the actions that count. When all these crazies are bought to light, people seem more bothered about the label and defending it, than what ever the hell that label was supposed to mean in the first place.

I know this makes me a hypocrite in some aspects. But Im just trying to get it out there, how I genuinely view it and see it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Just everything is so hypocritical and scattered.
> 
> Personally I prefer order and Hierarchy.
> 
> So I cnat get my head around the whole movement/group whatever it is at all.


Then maybe you should go pick up some feminists texts? Overall, you just come across as vague and you seem to want to have some opinion but you yourself don't even know wtf you have an opinion on. 

I'd recommend to actually go educate yourself on what feminism is, since that is certainly going to clarify any potential confusion you may have. 

I'm sure your local library got plenty of books with an overview of feminism and feminist theory.


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> It is hard to find women today that act feminine. Most that do act feminine are gold diggers looking for a husband that will provide them with the best things in life.
> 
> I am not especially thrilled with women who think they have to be guys, so they act all masculine, while expecting guys to want a girl who acts like a dude. I cannot name one reason, that I would want to be around a girl who acts like she is a dude, much less date one.
> 
> ...


Someone's got some severe sexual frustration, better be careful that doesn't turn into RPS (Raging Penis Syndrome).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Then maybe you should go pick up some feminists texts? Overall, you just come across as vague and you seem to want to have some opinion but you yourself don't even know wtf you have an opinion on.
> 
> I'd recommend to actually go educate yourself on what feminism is, since that is certainly going to clarify any potential confusion you may have.
> 
> I'm sure your local library got plenty of books with an overview of feminism and feminist theory.


I don't have an overall opinion, and I always come across vague. Im not sure if its ann MBTI thing or what.

But in any argument I can see both sides, so I never come to any conclusion.

Someone says "That guy stole my chickens, he is a thief he is bad" - On one hand I will agree completely.
But then I look at it through the other persons perspective "I am hungry I needed food/money" and I agree completely.

So yeah I do come across as vague, but any argument, I will see both sides. So I struggle a lot in some aspects.

Hence I generally just go with the law. What is right/wrong.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Then maybe you should go pick up some feminists texts? Overall, you just come across as vague and you seem to want to have some opinion but you yourself don't even know wtf you have an opinion on.
> 
> I'd recommend to actually go educate yourself on what feminism is, since that is certainly going to clarify any potential confusion you may have.
> 
> I'm sure your local library got plenty of books with an overview of feminism and feminist theory.


If feminism continues to silence dissent and engage in bullying tactics... if they continue to elevate "muh feelings" over artistic integrity, it won't matter if they are advocating for universal love and free candy for all.

This is not a matter of baseline ideological value. It is a matter of 1 ideology trampling liberal values underfoot a la ends justify the means and ignorant white knights rushing to scold anyone who resists.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Btmangan said:


> If feminism continues to silence dissent and engage in bullying tactics... if they continue to elevate "muh feelings" over artistic integrity, it won't matter if they are advocating for universal love and free candy for all.
> 
> This is not a matter of baseline ideological value. It is a matter of 1 ideology trampling liberal values underfoot a la ends justify the means.


Its a shame no one can actually explain it themselves. How does one know which books are written by "True Feminists"?

I know I posted the NeoMasculinity maninfesto/guide lines which probably wasn't the brightest thing to do. But at least it covers every aspect of lifestyle. Even Mormonism (something I disagree with) sends out a monthly publication, so its members know how they should be living if they are to be a "Mormon", one of my friends converted so I know a fair bit about that stuff.

But anyway Im off to bed now, so Im going to leave you all with a story about Patty:



> Privileged Patty squatted herself down on her couch. Her actual weight and physical attractiveness are entirely irrelevant as patriarchal norms based out of male dominance needlessly hierarchize female worth. Privileged Patty is inherently beautiful. And, just being born a woman, she is born with intelligence, capability and insight known only by women.
> 
> She flips on the TV while downing a glass of wine, with the channel Male Privilege flickering across her brand-new plasma screen. In fact, Jezebel declared her new TV to be the only female-only constructed TV on sale in America.
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> I don't have an overall opinion, and I always come across vague. Im not sure if its ann MBTI thing or what.
> 
> But in any argument I can see both sides, so I never come to any conclusion.
> 
> ...


Doesn't seem like an ENTJ thing though. 



Btmangan said:


> If feminism continues to silence dissent and engage in bullying tactics... if they continue to elevate "muh feelings" over artistic integrity, it won't matter if they are advocating for universal love and free candy for all.
> 
> This is not a matter of baseline ideological value. It is a matter of 1 ideology trampling liberal values underfoot a la ends justify the means and ignorant white knights rushing to scold anyone who resists.


I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting I'm trying to silence?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Btmangan said:


> @_Meltedsorbet_
> 
> That question helped me understand your understanding of feminism. I appreciate the answer.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that there are people who will attempt to get people fired or whatever, for many reasons. And certainly public sentiment can be manipulated in any way--whether it be people's values about gender equality, racism, or religion. I wouldn't doubt that.

I personally have never seen what you are talking about. The only times in which I have encountered this "resistance," was in a female gender studies class in which we were assigned the task to depict two scenes--one from before feminism and one from after.

A group of frat boys thought that it would be funny and cool to depict a scene before feminism of an all men's university, where all the men were happy and graduating. In the post-feminism depiction, the men in the university had balls and chains tied around their ankles, were all sad faced, and had a female teacher whipping them with a whip.

They thought it was really funny.

If I were to believe that feminists are these gnarly penis cutter offers that they supposedly are, I would assume that my female gender studies teacher would at least reprimand the boys for being so disrespectful and rude, insinuating that a college environment free from female students and teachers was more ideal. But I recognize that my teacher was in a delicate place--and i do not know what i would have done if i were her, or whether or not a male teacher would have a different way of handling that kind of childish behavior.

But of course, being respectful of free speech and probably used to disrespectful people such as this, she shrugged it off. I've seen students thrown out of classes for far less than that--such as leaning their heads against the table or whatnot, because it was seen as 'disrespectful' to the teacher (also he was a male teacher--I am doubtful his throwing the student out was related to feminism or anything). 

it's hard to take anything like that seriously, as a resistance. Somewhat like hearing the frat boys at yale chanting 'no means yes. yes means anal.'

When I've experienced rape, when I think of how offensive it is to joke about the fact that women were not allowed to pursue higher education or vote until relatively recently--i do not feel embarrassed to call myself a feminist. 

And that gets back to the issue of 'labels.' @_cybersloth81_ There are ways that i apply my feminist principles to my actions in my life. I do not usually feel the need to discuss feminism as a label unless the actual discussion topic ventures into that territory--for example, when you associated feminism with the woman who cut off her husband's penis. that is when the topic of labels comes up, because mutilating people is not a principle of feminism. 

Just showing distorted caricatures of feminists is exactly what you are talking about with 'labels'...suggesting that feminism is about man hating and cutting off penises. So you are probably right--discussions like this are only about labels and silly caricatures such as "privileged patty.' 

What is especially hypocritical though, is that people want to argue that feminism is the cause of divorce, the cause of lower rates of marriage, and at the same time the evil feminist monster is the random crazy woman who chopped off her husband's penis in 'protest' of his filing for divorce. it's just ridiculous. 

but strangely, its stuff like that that makes me so hesitant to cast of the label of 'feminist' because i can't imagine why some people would be so focused on devaluing feminism and painting such a distorted and irrational caricature of it and feminists.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Feminism is difficult to define because it is so dynamic. The difficulty in definition doesn't invalidate it as an ideology though. Philosophy is difficult to define, but yet that doesn't invalidate philosophical discourse. Feminism definitely _has_ been severely watered down though. It is an ever-broadening umbrella term for social and political ideologies. Trying to say what is "real" feminism and what isn't is a futile endeavour. They are all valid in their own right. 

Anybody who's tired of YouTube Feminism but still wants to examine gender relations in some context should approach the subject from the more academic perspective of feminist philosophy. There are a number of writers, including existentialist Simone de Beauvoir, who raise some interesting points on the topic. Hell, even reading male philosophers on the nature of women is an enlightening enterprise. Albeit a somewhat depressing one at times.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Doesn't seem like an ENTJ thing though.


Ive read several books by Tony Robbins and other authors that cover modelling other people. So it may be linked to that. Not sure though.

Anyway Im off to bed.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Look--if Christianity were a good analogy for this, then this would be an example of people saying "I am Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the lord and savior etc." And you as well as other members coming in and saying, "I can't stand Christianity because the Klu Klux Klan burned people on crosses. If you are Christian then you must be lynching people. If you don't erect burning crosses--you're not a Christian."
> 
> Or...the alternate, "I believe in Jesus Christ as the savior and the bible, but I don't identify as a "Christian" because I don't believe in lynching people or blowing up abortion clinics."
> 
> But Christianity is not an appropriate comparison because there is no "feminist bible" and no "messiah." It is a diverse social movement that arose to promote equality between the sexes, not a religion. The fundamental backbone of feminism is equality between the sexes, and that is what the vast majority of people who call themselves feminists believe in, which you seem to be unable to hear or accept.










What Christianity stands for changes based on which particular Christian you're talking to. You have your kind Christians that have their beliefs but would never shove them down anyone's throat. You have your militant Christians who bomb abortion clinics and support the execution of atheists and non-Christians. And you have a ton of other kinds nestled between the two extremes.

Like Christianity, there are many different kinds of feminists, but this does not mean the movement has never or will never do any harm to anyone.

Like Christianity, Feminism is an ideology with a belief system that has little to no basis in reality. The fundamental backbone of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism is the patriarchy theory, not equality. First wave feminism was about getting rich women as many privileges as possible without any of the responsibilities that come with it. It wasn't for the working class. Most modern feminists have no idea what the movement actually stands for, only what they want it to stand for.


And every time you utter the phrase "not all feminists" or "not true feminists", you are both encouraging and supporting the actions of those feminists who harm society. By refusing to accept that they are a threat, you give them free reign to continue ruining lives. By calling yourself a feminist, you give those extremists the shield they need to operate with impunity.



Christianity is an appropriate comparison because both feminists and Christians are what they are because they were told it's what it means to be a good person. You are a feminist because calling yourself such brings you comfort. If this weren't the case, you'd know a bit more about the anti-feminists and MRAs. If it weren't the case you'd be more willing to question your ideology.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> What Christianity stands for changes based on which particular Christian you're talking to. You have your kind Christians that have their beliefs but would never shove them down anyone's throat. You have your militant Christians who bomb abortion clinics and support the execution of atheists and non-Christians. And you have a ton of other kinds nestled between the two extremes.
> 
> Like Christianity, there are many different kinds of feminists, but this does not mean the movement has never or will never do any harm to anyone.
> 
> ...


Im beginning to like that phrase "Anti Feminist", granted there is no such group as far as I am aware. Just the groups that appeared roughly after feminism had goals in mind that do not mesh well with feminism.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Topics in Feminism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/165275/07_01_BR_Oneill.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

This issue becomes a complete non-issue if you just treat everyone respectfully and extend equal opportunities, and choose for your own life what works best for you.

If people just did that in the first place, feminism wouldn't have existed.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> What Christianity stands for changes based on which particular Christian you're talking to. You have your kind Christians that have their beliefs but would never shove them down anyone's throat. You have your militant Christians who bomb abortion clinics and support the execution of atheists and non-Christians. And you have a ton of other kinds nestled between the two extremes.
> 
> Like Christianity, there are many different kinds of feminists, but this does not mean the movement has never or will never do any harm to anyone.
> 
> ...



i am familiar with history and i do have christian friends--my keyboard is malfunctioning a bit and so please excuse the sporadic capitalization--i am not christian, myself.

i fail to comprehend where you are coming from with the 'feminism has no basis in reality.' i want to see the various art and literature that women created before feminism, because it seems to me there is a dearth of it. i want to hear about how women had equal rights.

i've also known women who've experienced domestic violence before it became a more central issue, and the horror stories of trying to seek help. and i also think there is that little problem of not being able to vote, as well as being turned away from universities because of sex. 

certainly there has been an ongoing problem of classism, but there is also a clear history of barring women from opportunities like voting, owning property, attending higher education, and having rights for their own bodies.

What feminists that harm societies? 

That is really silly about "being told what it means to be a good person." It doesn't take rocket science to believe that treating men and women as equal humans is "good." Yeah--it brings me comfort to know I attended university and can vote. i am a little familiar with MRAs, but find their anti-feminist rhetoric kind of annoying, though i am familiar with feminist discourse that i disagree with. I have seen no legitimate reason to question my own conviction to my ideology.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Women are smarter in 2016 than they have ever been. They don't need men to tell them who they are, what they need, what to think, how to feel and mostly what to do. An Independent women is a dangerous women, men fear women who don't need them.


I'm inclined to think it's the other way around.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> i am familiar with history and i do have christian friends--my keyboard is malfunctioning a bit and so please excuse the sporadic capitalization--i am not christian, myself.
> 
> i fail to comprehend where you are coming from with the 'feminism has no basis in reality.' i want to see the various art and literature that women created before feminism, because it seems to me there is a dearth of it. i want to hear about how women had equal rights.
> 
> ...



What do you think life was like for women back then? This is a genuine question. I'm actually interested in hearing what a feminist thinks the past was like for women.




> What feminists that harm societies?



I've already mentioned some problems in another response.

Feminists have also forced the military, law enforcement, fire departments, etc, to lower their standards of admittance because women were not making the grade. The military, iirc, has had to lower their standards quite a few times to get things where they are now. They tend to hold women to a completely different, lesser, standard when this should never be happening.

Feminists are also trying to get women to fight on the front lines.


This is an issue because these are groups that are supposed to protect us. Lowering their standards is screwing everyone.




> That is really silly about "being told what it means to be a good person." It doesn't take rocket science to believe that treating men and women as equal humans is "good." Yeah--it brings me comfort to know I attended university and can vote. i am a little familiar with MRAs, but find their anti-feminist rhetoric kind of annoying, though i am familiar with feminist discourse that i disagree with. I have seen no legitimate reason to question my own conviction to my ideology.



Treating men and women equally is called egalitarianism.
Why do you cling to the feminist label?


One should always question their own ideology, regardless of their conviction.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> What do you think life was like for women back then? This is a genuine question. I'm actually interested in hearing what a feminist thinks the past was like for women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I honestly have no idea how you expect me to answer such a general question. What life was like for women...obviously different women lived different lives. Differences between ethnicity, class, and geography would have also affected women's lives differently--just to name a few influences. There is really no such thing as 'what womens lives were like back then.' Even now it would be ridiculously difficult to answer such a general question about 'women's lives.' 

Not to mention that my understanding of history doesn't hinge on whatever ideology I believe in. 
So I am sorry that I will have to disappoint you with your quest to generalize how 'feminists' understand history? Plus, even if I were to say some generalization about women's lives, like "back then...women all wore purple dinosaur suits...it was horrid," it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with feminist ideology--just my personal understanding of history. And I have been exposed to quite a bit of it in my education--so I really can't give you a short, really general answer to that question.

I didn't have my brain attached to the hive mind that gives me exactly the same concept of history or (as you mentioned earlier in another post) some kind of generalized perception of "what men are" that is somehow representative of "how a feminist conceives history."

"All women," or "all feminists," do not have the same imaginations, conception of history, conception of gender, conception of "men" or conception of "women." I saw earlier that you said something like "this is how I imagine a feminist views men," well--you are wrong. Feminists are just people--and it is not like everyone gets some little pamphlet with a cartoon of a man that explains "this is what a man is--according to feminism. memorize it." 

As was said--it is a very broad umbrella term that the majority of people I've ever met who've identified with it, identified in that they believed in gender equality. 

Here in california, the majority of firefighters are prison convicts that get paid two dollars an hour. So it's kind of funny to bring up standards there. Obviously objective performance is important. I am not a cop or a military official and I am not particularly knowledgeable about it, and have no comment because of that. But thanks for explaining your thinking and agree with you that people who protect society are important, as are those jobs and services.

I believe in egalitarianism, and feminism is one subset of it that specifically relates to gender. I think I explained why I cling to the feminist label.

Indeed. Perhaps you should also question your preconceptions about individuals with ideologies different than your own--because I think you run the risk of overgeneralizing otherwise.

I am also not a philosopher or publishing papers etc. I am just a random person who's on the internet at three am because I can't sleep.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

_Woah_ this dumbass thread is still open.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> Lots of avoidance.



I asked the question I did because I keep seeing feminists mention "before feminism". So I can't help but wonder what kind of dark ages they believed existed back then. Do you believe women were slaves and that men hated them with every fiber of their being? Do you believe the laws and societal expectations were created simply to keep women down?

You can't just say that things are better than before and then not be able to tell me what "before" actually means. There's only two reasons why you'd say something like that: Because you have some idea what you mean by "before", or you're simply just repeating what you've been told in the past without actually understanding it. So which is it?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> I asked the question I did because I keep seeing feminists mention "before feminism". So I can't help but wonder what kind of dark ages they believed existed back then. Do you believe women were slaves and that men hated them with every fiber of their being? Do you believe the laws and societal expectations were created simply to keep women down?
> 
> You can't just say that things are better than before and then not be able to tell me what "before" actually means. There's only two reasons why you'd say something like that: Because you have some idea what you mean by "before", or you're simply just repeating what you've been told in the past without actually understanding it. So which is it?


no, i do not believe that. some men and women have been slaves, both literally and figuratively. i do not believe men hated women, nor do i believe men hate women now. i am certain that there are and were some men who hated/hate women, as well as some women who hate men etc. 

i believe that there were laws and social expectations that did bar women from positions of authority as well as social customs that negatively affected many women. laws and social customs usually have a lot of different influences into how and why they are created, what the motivation for some of them was is unclear--perhaps there is rarely a single motivation that goes into the creation of such things.

sigh--the reason i am not going into it is because the answer to your question is too complicated. i already listed some really obvious ones like 'right to vote,' and 'access to higher education.' the other problem is that 'before' feminism is a reaaally really long stretch of time where it's pretty easy to see that there were few women in positions of judicial authority, as well as representing the creation of written/material culture, as in the arts, writing of historical documents, ecclesiastical authority, sciences...basically all the stuff that ends up as tangible history, and a lot of what i would argue is responsible for cultural change as well as laws. there's an example.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

cybersloth81 said:


> Im beginning to like that phrase "Anti Feminist", granted there is no such group as far as I am aware. Just the groups that appeared roughly after feminism had goals in mind that do not mesh well with feminism.


Both sides are batshit insane if they think being stuck in the defining part of debating <which is the step BEFORE the first step of debates> is doing anything.

I'd honestly just bypass the entire "awareness advocacy" thing our generation is doing and go out and do something.
Maybe volunteer at peace corps.

Also, how'd I get here? ._.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

aef8234 said:


> Both sides are batshit insane if they think being stuck in the defining part of debating <which is the step BEFORE the first step of debates> is doing anything.
> 
> I'd honestly just bypass the entire "awareness advocacy" thing our generation is doing and go out and do something.
> Maybe volunteer at peace corps.
> ...


Nah there are groups that are technically Red Pill, but Feminism actually does them more favours in the long run.
Even though feminists probably despise them more than MRA's or MGTOW's.

I will let any red pill educated person fill in the blanks and work it out.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

@Cheveyo
I imagine a timeline helps put things in perspective to what occurred to signify what was lacking prior to certain events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_rights_(other_than_voting)
Timeline | Australian Women's History Forum
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf
Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.: History and Timeline of Events (1848-1920)
Is a matter of point in time and context but these give a general overview, though not as extensive as they could be.

Also to a point about the military, I imagine it more complicated than perhaps framed and isn't simply lowering standards. One argument for example as seen in this this paper seems to be more about questioning the relationship between qualifications and actual capacity for a military role and the beliefs that underpin it all.
Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Meltedsorbet said:


> sigh--the reason i am not going into it is because the answer to your question is too complicated. i already listed some really obvious ones like 'right to vote,' and 'access to higher education.' the other problem is that 'before' feminism is a reaaally really long stretch of time where it's pretty easy to see that there were few women in positions of judicial authority, as well as representing the creation of written/material culture, as in the arts, writing of historical documents, ecclesiastical authority, sciences...basically all the stuff that ends up as tangible history, and a lot of what i would argue is responsible for cultural change as well as laws. there's an example.




Well, what if I were to tell you that some women were against having the vote because they were afraid having it would mean they'd have the same responsibilities as men? On top of this, back when feminists first started fighting for the vote, most men didn't have it either. I'm not even talking about minorities. Most white men didn't have the vote.

And even before feminism women had access to higher education. It was just rich women, just like it was just rich men who had access to this education.

Now, one reason women weren't allowed careers was because it was men who were expected to take care of their family. Women stayed at home with the children while men worked. This meant that both parents had their job. Which means that an employer would assume any woman looking for a job would be childless and without a husband.(Or she'd have a layabout for a husband and that wasn't exactly seen in a positive light). When they had to decide whom to give the position to, they'd give it to a man outright because it was assumed he had a family to take care of, whereas the single woman just had herself. This is, of course, talking about the wealthy again. Those capable of affording school. Poor women worked just like their husbands did, they just had different jobs.

(And there were women in the arts and sciences.)


Were there some stagnating societal expectations placed on women? Of course. But basically everyone had some kind of pressure keeping them locked in whatever role they had in society.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> Well, what if I were to tell you that some women were against having the vote because they were afraid having it would mean they'd have the same responsibilities as men? On top of this, back when feminists first started fighting for the vote, most men didn't have it either. I'm not even talking about minorities. Most white men didn't have the vote.
> 
> And even before feminism women had access to higher education. It was just rich women, just like it was just rich men who had access to this education.
> 
> ...


i know that there were women against suffrage, even if i did not, it would not surprise me--women are human beings just like everyone else. and yes--history is full of periods where groups of men were denied democratic rights. 

women did not really have access to higher education like rich men, even rich women. they especially did not have access to maths and latin, or to traditional school, but rather home schooling which i doubt anyone, even during that time, considered to be equivalent...actually, that assertion would probably be laughed at, even if perhaps it was accepted as an appropriate level of education for a woman.

right--women were responsible for the domestic sphere in the upper classes, and employers didn't want women with children or husbands for various reasons. why would they give a position to a woman who didn't even receive the same education as a man, and who was for the most part, considered unfit for anything other than the domestic sphere, and in danger of becoming pregnant and whatnot either from her husband or through some other means. i doubt most individual employers really thought about it that much, or cared who had a family so long as it didn't interfere with their work.

yes--poor women worked. there were not many women in the arts and sciences--though certainly there were exceptions.

i agree--and furthermore, just because a society has a 'minority in power' as women clearly were--does not mean that the dominant group is malicious or hateful, or does not care about the minority, or are all individually guilty of devising a system to exploit or oppress them.

there have always been men who loved individual women, and also men throughout history that advocated for women as a group in various ways both socially and politically. 

the problem lies more in that a minority becomes more vulnerable to those who would exploit or be hateful, especially in times of upheaval or stress, and also the obvious barring from various positions, resources, protections, and a lack of representation. 

and yes, certainly everyone has some type of pressure. life was not easy for most men, women, or children, though some groups were closer to the bottom of the hierarchy, or more vulnerable to that position and its threats.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> That means you are one of the good ones, sadly most of society does not hold that same mentality. I think life and love is about more too but I know I am not the majority and neither are you. Just try to be a good example for society and perhaps one day that idea will change. We lead by example. Just be the best possible person you can be, and I sure one day together those of us who believe in it will make a difference.


Aw thanks .. xD Wish you good luck with your style of living too.


----------



## Yamato (Dec 21, 2014)

Kvothe Lackless said:


> I will just drop this into the Cafe and make a run for it!
> 
> http://www.crossmap.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore-23996#.VpF-KW9d3KA.facebook
> 
> *Disclaimer: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, simply wanted you all to go wild, while I sit here and eat my grapes.*


Well i agree on the point that woman have chanced over time , wheter thats good or bad i cant tell cause its to early for me to take the position of judge . This is because i dont really have seen anny of this affecting ppl in their dailly lives , or that i just havent seen that much research and prove of its conclusions . So im might be the wrong person to ask a opinion in this stage .


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

OMG! Grow some balls and labias! What's with all that "we're victims" mindset? It's like "I can't find a mate. It must be feminism or repression by men!" Yes, yes. It's the whole world that is wrong and not (hypothetical) you.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Kvothe Lackless said:


> I will just drop this into the Cafe and make a run for it!
> 
> http://www.crossmap.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore-23996#.VpF-KW9d3KA.facebook
> 
> *Disclaimer: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, simply wanted you all to go wild, while I sit here and eat my grapes.*


So getting out of the kitchen mean you are no longer a woman? Even if your not on women's side this sounds extremely sexist. Also I think most women have an attitude against men since so many of them have this goal of getting in their pants. If the Majority of your sex acts like a drooling monkey when a Girl walks in the room and like "Yeah I going to fuck that" I think most women are going to get a bad impression. 

What I think we should pay attention to is the fact we still put so much incentive on people to have babies and get husband/Wives at an early age. Its known that a higher percentage of people are not driving and not marrying anymore. So all these incentives are doing at this day and age is keeping the poor POOR. We are not all so lucky to find a SOULMATE out of HS. Those standards are horribly unrealistic. Giving better treatment in the military makes sense since they are actually taking you away from your family with this job, doing so for civilians when 2 people living in the same apartment and sharing rent is basically the same thing makes no sense at all. We should not be giving people incentive to get pregnant at 16 and than complain about it.


----------



## ninjamagi (Nov 4, 2015)

Kvothe Lackless said:


> *Disclaimer: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this article, simply wanted you all to go wild, while I sit here and eat my grapes.*


*Gets out popcorn* Want some?

On a side note: Did.....did the author just suggest that women should get married for the sake of the institution of marriage? And have babies within the bonds of marriage? I think I'm offended.
Wait. No...That was my stomach demanding food. Where did I put my popcorn?


----------

