Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[scon]

News just to hand:

Men do Ironing!!
Beat chests on Feminist Myths thread!!



Halarious - YouTube

 

[clogged]

When you compare them to the mommy boys who are so desperate for female attention they'll say and do just about anything then I reckon the Men's Rights folks would still have them covered.

Who says those who criticise blokes like you are desperate for women's attention? From the point of view of a man, there is little more pathetic than a man whinging about how good women have it.

 

[tesseract]

Haha -When has the 'feminist movement' claimed to be fighting for men and women equally? Their concerns are for women, the gender that has long been disadvantaged and discriminated against.
Can you check the stats for rape/domestic violence and see if one gender is still more at risk?
Judging by some of the fear shown in this thread, there is still plenty of work to be done to achieve equality on all levels.

The feminist movement claims to be fighting for both men and women equally by stating that feminism stands for equality. Your stating that feminism's concerns are for women highlights the doublespeak of feminism.

Given that you say women have "long been disadvantaged and discriminated against", what legal rights do women now lack compared to men? I've previously posted wrt feminism having no end point because it isn't really about equality. Now that women have legal equality, this should be feminism's end point, but it isn't and has no intention of stopping. Feminism wants women to have all the rights of men, but without the obligation and responsibility that comes with it. Feminism is about advantage, privilege and special consideration for women and women alone. It amounts to equality+...

In Canada an academic law professor and feminist by the name of Elizabeth Sheehy has written a book about and is lobbying for legal husband killing as a way to end a marriage that's gone bad.
In England, feminists are lobbying for women to never be sent to jail under any circumstances. Instead, they call for women to be rehabilitated in more comfortable surrounds, as jail isn't conducive to such.
What's notable is the very lack of equality feminism claims to stand for.

The primary reason for the contradiction is that it behooves women. Feminism is not based on a set of principles or moral core, it's based simply on using any means possible to get women a better deal. That's all it is. The best deal is to have all the rights of an adult and all the responsibilities of a child. That's exactly what feminists want. It's their attitude when it comes to sex: they want the freedom to have sex but still want to be protected like a child. So, too, they want the "right" to work but not the "obligation" to work; obligation is something reserved for men. That way, a woman can work as long as she wants, then take time off to raise a family or write a novel: because the man (or the government) is obligated to support her. Male obligation results in female options and freedom. Thus does not make for the equality that feminism claims to stand for.

What many people fail to realize is that feminism is not so much an ideology as it is a special interest group. It dresses itself up in ideological costumes, but the outfits chosen will vary depending on the kind of ball that is being attended. There is a difference between a thing and the costumes it wears.

I've already posted the world's largest bibliography of studies showing that domestic violence occurs at comparable rates amongst both male and females in The violence against women thread. It also shows that DV is instigated by the woman 70% of the time. This shows that women strike men first knowing the law has their back. In America, there's a "Predominant Aggressor" policy which basically means that regardless of who hit who first or even if she only hit him and he didn't respond in kind, she can call the cops, and once the police have been called someone has to be arrested. Under the Predominant Aggressor policy the man gets arrested and taken to jail while the issue is being sorted out as he's considered the physically stronger of the two. That's a feminist inspired gynocentric policy that mocks the notion of equality.

Rape, in some places, is being redefined to not include men as victims, for feminists are trying to have it defined as "penetration of the penis", thereby making it impossible for women to be found guilty of raping a man.
Copy pasta "Silly_Menz You can_t be raped_ (Soundbite)" into Google. This came from feminists at the London School of Economics (LSE). This used to be a video clip on YouTube, but it's been removed. There are articles on this, though.

When women talk about their issues that's seen as good and empowering; but when men do it, the feminists and their male sycophants call it fear. Such a call is nonsense, even moronic. If men are human they should have issues pertaining to them explored, just the same as women, without intimidation, silencing tactics, censorship, and use of buzzwords, like "fear", attempting to downplay the issue. But given the all-too-predictable response by feminists and their male lackeys to downplay men's issues, they prove themselves to be in opposition to equality despite claiming to stand for equality. This is just another of many feminist double standards and a case of hypocrisy.

 

[tesseract]

Systematic laws went both ways. For the "authority" men had over women, there were always laws put in place to protect women and ensure that the man didn't abuse his wife and there were always consequences if he did. Is being protected by the system really "systematic oppression"?

With the authority men had over women in the traditional household came responsibility, burden and obligation. Women have historically been protected from these things under this arrangement. Bored wives of plutocrats started calling being a housewife "oppressive". Hence the feminist top-down, not grassroots-inspred, aim to destroy the traditional family arrangement.

Under the traditional system women got to stay home and men had to do the unpleasant work. This necessitated praising and honoring men for taking on the burden of doing unpleasant work. Feminist women reacted with pure envy to the praise men got without any regard to their own better part of the bargain. In their toasted ice ideal world, men would still do all the unpleasant shit but wouldn’t get any recognition or compensation for it.

And this is where we have feminism attempting to destroy marriage and the traditional family arrangement.

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."- Simone De Bouvoir, Feminist.

"A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman." - Simone De Bouvoir, Feminist.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." - Catherine McKinnon, Prominent legal feminist scholar, University of Michigan, & Yale.

"Since marriage is slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women can not be won without the abolition of marriage." - Sheila Cronin (Leader of National Organization for Women.)


Marriage 1.0 (Pre-Feminism) shackled men to women. However, it rewarded men with a degree of social prestige and ownership of their wealth and children. Men were not free though, there was a strong social expectation to find a wife, start a family, be a provider. Marriage was a legal contract.

Marriage 2.0 (Under Feminism) removed all rewards for men but the expectations remain. Women are elevated and men are dehumanized. The involvement of the State in Marriage 2.0 is pervasive. Marriage is a piece of paper.

Almost all contemporary feminists have absolutely no knowledge of their own movement’s history, and that the original feminists would have been fiercely opposed to virtually everything they have pushed for in the last 50 years.
Original feminism meant supporting the value of women’s specific contributions to the world *as women*. As such, it meant a deep opposition to women engaging in casual sex and having abortions (especially in order that they could be used as economic units for the corporate state). Original feminists wanted to ensure women could keep living under the traditional family arrangement. They would be appalled by modern ‘feminists’. And most original feminists had no interest in women having the vote, either.


Rockefeller funded and implemented a broad psychological subversion campaign during the 1960′s. You saw it in marketing, military industrial complex, the assault on the family, the assault on morals. Basically turned everything upside down. Mass disorientation. People lost their moral compass because there was a very concerted effort by the powers that be to turn the children into mindless consumers with conditioned insecurities. It was no accident that feminism was brought front and centre, it was used to assault and destroy the roots of family relations. The healthy family was under direct attack. The US government helped usher it in... it was controlled by the same military/industrial complex.

Pardon for taking a portion of your comment to divert and make a different point. Wrt to your point on feminist involvement in WW1 and the white feather campaign to shame men into sacrificing their lives, as you're likely already aware, the deeds of Emmeline Pankhurst in this matter were despicable, and indeed evil.

 

[tesseract]

News just to hand:

Men do Ironing!!
Beat chests on Feminist Myths thread!!



Halarious - YouTube

Callofdutywomensedition.jpeg

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Why? Is it so awful to advocate for the rights of men, despite the privilege we may have?

That's like we can't campaign to end poverty in Australia because kids are in worse poverty in Africa.

Check out the post I was responding to for conext

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

The feminist movement claims to be fighting for both men and women equally by stating that feminism stands for equality. Your stating that feminism's concerns are for women highlights the doublespeak of feminism.

Given that you say women have "long been disadvantaged and discriminated against", what legal rights do women now lack compared to men? I've previously posted wrt feminism having no end point because it isn't really about equality. Now that women have legal equality, this should be feminism's end point, but it isn't and has no intention of stopping. Feminism wants women to have all the rights of men, but without the obligation and responsibility that comes with it. Feminism is about advantage, privilege and special consideration for women and women alone. It amounts to equality+...

In Canada an academic law professor and feminist by the name of Elizabeth Sheehy has written a book about and is lobbying for legal husband killing as a way to end a marriage that's gone bad.
In England, feminists are lobbying for women to never be sent to jail under any circumstances. Instead, they call for women to be rehabilitated in more comfortable surrounds, as jail isn't conducive to such.
What's notable is the very lack of equality feminism claims to stand for.

The primary reason for the contradiction is that it behooves women. Feminism is not based on a set of principles or moral core, it's based simply on using any means possible to get women a better deal. That's all it is. The best deal is to have all the rights of an adult and all the responsibilities of a child. That's exactly what feminists want. It's their attitude when it comes to sex: they want the freedom to have sex but still want to be protected like a child. So, too, they want the "right" to work but not the "obligation" to work; obligation is something reserved for men. That way, a woman can work as long as she wants, then take time off to raise a family or write a novel: because the man (or the government) is obligated to support her. Male obligation results in female options and freedom. Thus does not make for the equality that feminism claims to stand for.

What many people fail to realize is that feminism is not so much an ideology as it is a special interest group. It dresses itself up in ideological costumes, but the outfits chosen will vary depending on the kind of ball that is being attended. There is a difference between a thing and the costumes it wears.

I've already posted the world's largest bibliography of studies showing that domestic violence occurs at comparable rates amongst both male and females in The violence against women thread. It also shows that DV is instigated by the woman 70% of the time. This shows that women strike men first knowing the law has their back. In America, there's a "Predominant Aggressor" policy which basically means that regardless of who hit who first or even if she only hit him and he didn't respond in kind, she can call the cops, and once the police have been called someone has to be arrested. Under the Predominant Aggressor policy the man gets arrested and taken to jail while the issue is being sorted out as he's considered the physically stronger of the two. That's a feminist inspired gynocentric policy that mocks the notion of equality.

Rape, in some places, is being redefined to not include men as victims, for feminists are trying to have it defined as "penetration of the penis", thereby making it impossible for women to be found guilty of raping a man.
Copy pasta "Silly_Menz You can_t be raped_ (Soundbite)" into Google. This came from feminists at the London School of Economics (LSE). This used to be a video clip on YouTube, but it's been removed. There are articles on this, though.

When women talk about their issues that's seen as good and empowering; but when men do it, the feminists and their male sycophants call it fear. Such a call is nonsense, even moronic. If men are human they should have issues pertaining to them explored, just the same as women, without intimidation, silencing tactics, censorship, and use of buzzwords, like "fear", attempting to downplay the issue. But given the all-to-predictable response by feminists and their male lackeys to downplay men's issues, they prove themselves to be in opposition to equality despite claiming to stand for equality. This is just another of many feminist double standards and hypocrisy.

Have you read Sheehy's book or are you basing your comments about it from the balanced reporting on the A Voice for Misogynists site?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ehy-the-law-and-history-speak-for-themselves/

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Check it out Vic Vinegar. This bloke still thinks I'm you.

interesting that when I first outed you as menzel, you acted all innocent - like you had no idea who that was, now you apparently know it was someone elses alias, someone who stopped posting shortly after you phoenixed into Raz0r6ack - amazing...

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

When you compare them to the mommy boys who are so desperate for female attention they'll say and do just about anything then I reckon the Men's Rights folks would still have them covered.

No, I was comparing those men who believe in gender equality (mommy boys in your lingo) to those that feel emasculated by it. I, being of the former was pointing out what a buncha pussies y'all are, and that far from being a mommies boy, could line you all up and beat the sheeit outta y'all with ease. Pathetic, whingeing, wimps

 

[Santana]

No, I was comparing those men who believe in gender equality (mommy boys in your lingo) to those that feel emasculated by it. I, being of the former was pointing out what a buncha pussies y'all are, and that far from being a mommies boy, could line you all up and beat the sheeit outta y'all with ease. Pathetic, whingeing, wimps

Most people are perfectly fine with gender equality. But there’s a difference between gender equality and modern day feminism.

There’s a reason why most people today are not feminists. There’s a reason why most people just laugh at feminists nowadays. It’s because it’s made up of a bunch of women losers with serious daddy/men issues and white knight little boys so desperate and pathetic that the only female attention they can get is from the bottom of the barrel, which just happens to be made up of mostly feminist women.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Most people are perfectly fine with gender equality. But there’s a difference between gender equality and modern day feminism.

mindless nonsense, rinse, repeat

 

[scon]

Callofdutywomensedition.jpeg

The Lady Fancy-Stand By Your Man - YouTube

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Most people are perfectly fine with gender equality. But there’s a difference between gender equality and modern day feminism.

There’s a reason why most people today are not feminists. There’s a reason why most people just laugh at feminists nowadays. It’s because it’s made up of a bunch of women losers with serious daddy/men issues and white knight little boys so desperate and pathetic that the only female attention they can get is from the bottom of the barrel, which just happens to be made up of mostly feminist women.

And here's what they look like:

 

[Lester Burnham]

And here's what they look like:

The funniest thing is that these dweebs think they are going to get laid by agreeing with people who hate men.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

The funniest thing is that these dweebs think they are going to get laid by agreeing with people who hate men.

I don't think in all my years on this planet socializing with people in both professional and personal capacities, from all walks off life, has the topic of feminism ever come up at a mixed social gathering.

It must absolutely rankle with these losers that they can't espouse their insipid social drivel in regular social settings without being seen as the misfits they are.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I don't think in all my years on this planet socializing with people in both professional and personal capacities, from all walks off life, has the topic of feminism ever come up at a mixed social gathering.

It must absolutely rankle with these losers that they can't espouse their insipid social drivel in regular social settings without being seen as the misfits they are.

You probably need to expand your social setting then.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I don't think in all my years on this planet socializing with people in both professional and personal capacities, from all walks off life, has the topic of feminism ever come up at a mixed social gathering.

It must absolutely rankle with these losers that they can't espouse their insipid social drivel in regular social settings without being seen as the misfits they are.

yet you have a pathological obsession with it

 

[Zarrix]

Being a heterosexual male feminist would surely only serve to inflict chronic cognitive dissonance. Can't understand how these people live comfortably or vibrantly

 

[tesseract]

Know your man's buttons.



The male feminists' buttons have been pushed. This video is an eye opener.

 

[evo]

Know your man's buttons.



The male feminists' buttons have been pushed. This video is an eye opener.

I wouldnt worry too much about that channel. It's obviously a bit of a piss take.

This one gave me a good laugh:



My personal fave was the 'progressive stack'

 

[medusala]

You probably need to expand your social setting then.

 

[tesseract]

I wouldnt worry too much about that channel. It's obviously a bit of a piss take.

This one gave me a good laugh:



My personal fave was the 'progressive stack'

On WTRP channel she seems to think herself someone doling out wisdom and self-help information. What I've posted isn't her only video speaking wrt "C types" and "S types", as in controlling and submissive types. Given this, it leaves the question open as to the question of whether she was just taking the piss, whether it was actually for real or, whether she was just exaggerating her true beliefs for YouTube hits.
The video I posted highlights how subservient thirsty male feminists are to women in their ceaseless quest for female validation and pussy. I don't get annoyed by such videos, I'd rather shine a light on them.

'Progressive stack' was a good call. I liked "Feminism will never be about what feminists want feminism to be about" because it pretty much sums up what I've been talking about on this subject. There's what feminists think feminism is about: equality, and then there's what it actually produces: double standards and oppression.

I viewed this excellent video about a week ago. Sargon has a good channel that I've been paying attention to since Gamergate began. I appreciate you posting it nonetheless, because I enjoyed re-watching it for the lolz. It's a great vid.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

I disappear for a few months thinking that possibly the white knights had come up with a different approach other than name calling and tired old cliches.

How many kids did you raise?

You've got real issues with women.
You're either a virgin, or a product of a failed relationship where your partner refused to be your mother.

Nope.

 

[Grin]

Nope.

None?
Didn't think so.