Wisdom wasn't a quote. It was in inverted commas to indicate sarcasm. Ie. You aren't very wise but seem very sure of yourself. I could trawl through this thread picking out examples of where you advocate for women to be submissive, subservient etc. but I'm not the type to trawl through information that is frustrating and nigh on self-evidently false. I'm no masochist.
You keep making the same mistake. You selectively cherry pick outcomes informed from a very narrow experience. Feminism isn't aimed at making women's lives better, that's just a happy by-product. It's largely about empowering women. For example, a common line in these discussions is to point out that poor men faced conscription and died in droves during wars compared to far fewer female casualties. A win for females right? An indication of a 'gynocentric' culture right? Wrong. It's a nice outcome. Not dying and such. But it stems from a direct lack of respect for women's agency.
Maybe some fringe African-American communities riddled with gang violence would have lead happier lives under a slave master. Shelter, food etc. But give people the options and the overwhelming majority will value their agency over outcome. You paint history like women have been staying home, out of danger, not having to work, sponging off of men as a whole as if the female populous subconsciously colluded to get an easy ride. If I even have to begin explaining how wrong that is to you then I simply won't bother.
As for the quip about male feminists being a product of an inability to get laid or whatever, you're just deluded.
Wisdom is a quote of yours, as it's in response to my use of the word in #3472. Hence it being highlighted by quotation marks. You used "wisdom" in your response to me that had nothing to do with my post that you quoted and followed up with a conclusion, and thus made for a strawman. Your sarcasm doesn't change that fact. You trawling through this thread hunting down posts of mine won't change the fact that you strawmanned my post.
How can you definitively state that "You keep making the same mistake" based on your assumption "You selectively cherry pick outcomes informed from a very narrow experience"? Your presumption is that my view has been formed by only my own "narrow" personal experience. Let me tell you that it's not. We nowadays have this thing called the internet, whereby men, the world over, can relate their own experiences.
Feminism is aimed at making women's lives better by granting women advantage, privilege and special consideration compared to men. Such is no doubt empowering to women.
Women have agency, yet it's gynocentric men who like to fantasize that women don't, in order to play the useful knight in shining armour that saves the day and remains of useful utility to the fair maidens. These men, in playing down women's agency and thus raising the level of their own in comparison, are the kind of men that get their validation through women, as displayed by having to be a human doing, for her benefit, and not merely a human being. These men give women their privileged position in society. They give women all the rights of men, but little to none of the responsibility and obligation that comes with it that men have to shoulder. At one stage, men had to fight in the war to get access to their right to vote. What did women who wanted the vote do? They bitched and moaned until such men gave it to them with no responsibility and obligation attached. And such is an example of what feminism remains to this day: screeching and carrying on like harpies to spring the gynocentric men into action, to come to their rescue, and give them the advantage, privilege and special consideration above and beyond that of the average man. Feminism campaigns for women to get what men have, but without the responsibility and obligation. This is called by feminists 'equality'.
Agency > outcome, indeed. Hence some have been saying opportunity > outcome. Feminists/SJW's disagree with this and only look at outcome.
Where in my quoted post here have I "painted history like women have been staying home, out of danger, not having to work, sponging off of men as a whole as if the female populous subconsciously colluded to get an easy ride"? If you're going to speak as to my previous posts, quote them directly, rather than speaking of them in a post regarding a different matter.
You're in some kind of loser denial if you think male feminists are attractive to women. These male feminists do get sex from women... just after women have ridden the carousel and had their fun throughout their 20's and are now looking to a nice guy/provider to prop up her lifestyle and to fund her dream of family - a family she can unilaterally decide to take from the man when she gets bored with his nice guy/pandering/worshiping at her feet routine. Here's a video of a feminist that's mocking male feminists/manginas. So not even feminists want to bed their male allies. The fact she calls male feminists "manginas" is a dead give away that she has no respect for them. Yet the good little useful idiot puppy dogs for men line up with sword in hand, donned in polished armour, mounted on fine steeds and are at the ready to come to these poor helpless damsels' rescue and shower them in the advantages they've so clearly earned for being born with a vagina.
10 Reasons You Should Have Sex with Manginas