Barky Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 I would say feminism may have weeded out the "pansies" from the real men. I was just going to post this! I love feminism. It means I'm no longer obligated to cater to women as children. The only thing that annoys me is when women expect both feminism and chivalry in the same culture. You can't have it both ways. Feminism treats women as capable adults, chivalry treats them as incapable children. I've never had any desire to "lead" or "guide" women, to drap my cape over mud puddles so they don't tarnish their "purity," or any such silliness. I expect women to stand by my side, not behind or in front of me.
torranceshipman Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 OP, feminism would only kill off 'real men' if the 'real men' you allude to are actually insecure dinosaurs who require all females to be 'below' them, submissive, deferential to their husbands, willing to take unequal pay, willing to never be a manager or leader of an organisation but settle for secretary, willing to give up the right to an education, willing to take poor human rights conditions, willing to have no right to vote, and willing to sign all of their property over to their men and be the 'property' of their husbands when they get married. The whole point of feminism was to fight for equality - around 100 yrs ago the situation was pretty dire. Now it is a whole lot better but the feminist movement has had to fight hard for it, and have to conitune to push (albeit not nearly as much) and with all fights that push society into better ways by notably challenging the status quo (civil rights movement, the fight against apartheid and so on) - they are usually responded to very bitterly. Often the bitter folk tend to be the ones that originally benefited from another sub-group being trampled on. It's sad but really true. A big part of this bitterness is the insiduous nature of lots of the threads started on this forum - about how 'feminists' are the enemy. I should suspect that the person/people you were talking to misunderstand feminism and mistakenly think it means misogynism (man hating) - the 2 couldnt be more different.
Barky Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 True. There's a huge difference between "feminism" and "being a greedy b!tch." For example, giving women greater than 50% child custody by default is non-feminist, because it's non-equal.
donnamaybe Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 I expect women to stand by my side, not behind or in front of me. I think I'm in love
donnamaybe Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 True. There's a huge difference between "feminism" and "being a greedy b!tch." For example, giving women greater than 50% child custody by default is non-feminist, because it's non-equal. My son's child support (even though I rarely get it) is split 41/59. I pay the 59%, and I have no problem with that. After all, I make more money than he does. It's only fair. What would be fair, though, would be if he actually PAID his measly $169 a month. AND he hasn't paid ANY of his unreimbursed medical/dental expenses for the past 8 years.
silic0ntoad Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 You know, these types of threads make my stomach churn at their soul crushingly vague analysis of real world data. Let's get one thing straight. Feminisim didn't kill off "real" men. I think sociomodern males tend to lean more towards an emotional side that wasn't shed before. So, you can thank the modern trend of new age thought for creating the invertebrate species known as the "modern" man. For christ's sakes, since when did men get their nails did? Or beg and plead for a female to give them attention? Seriously. When I am with a girl I brush everything off. That's what this forum is for. For me to purge my insecurities and ask advice, not to come on touting some bull**** about feminism killing manliness. You know what killed real men? Elmo. And the teletubbies. Feminism isn't a militant movement as depicted in some movies, although one thing I do agree on is that most feminists didn't expect the outcome they recieved.
calizaggy Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 1.Would it be better to live in a world where women were not allowed to vote, were thought of as property, and were given dowries to be married off? 2. How many men today sincerely want to support women? 3. How many men today can support a family on a single income? 4. How much are women responsiblie for men's mascunilinty? . Ok, most of your questions are easy to refute, but let's look at dowries. What is the problem with dowries? The girls family gives land/animals/money to the husband so that the 2 have a "head start" of sorts. In case of divorce whatever was given to the husband is to be given back to the female so that she has something of value to live on. Were not allowed to vote.. Well for many years only land owners voted, which means most men did not vote either..The actions of govt were also rather limited, so not much to vote on, except things like going to war..Which involved MEN dying. Yes, it is not hard to support a woman.. And yes, I want to.And yes, I will. Women should not marry a man who cannot support himself. And if he cannot earn enough to feed and clothe his wife, then perhaps he should not marry until he does.
Barky Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 Yes, it is not hard to support a woman.. And yes, I want to.And yes, I will. Oh I'm sure there are many women who will take you up on your offer! But, christ, why would you want to work that hard? Makes no sense to me.
Woggle Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 I would say feminism may have weeded out the "pansies" from the real men. Very true. Real men are the ones who ignored women's attempts to make men into something else. These are the men that women are still attracted to unlike the feminist men who get dumped on constantly.
calizaggy Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 Oh I'm sure there are many women who will take you up on your offer! But, christ, why would you want to work that hard? Makes no sense to me. 1. If you marry a woman whom is a high earner, typically she would be under a lot of stress and have to put in long hours. Not much of a wife. 2. If you marry a mid to low earner,they end up being just as expensive. Day care must be paid for, maybe a maid, eating out more, her work clothes, car expenses, etc. The amount she adds would be negligible. Then I have to come home after work and still cook for myself. Might as well be single and still sleep with random women. 3. So, i would prefer supporting a wife and kids, in return that she takes care of all the home duties so i can come home to a relaxed, stress free environment. It would also allow me to earn more as I can focus more attention on work. Win/win.
Johnny M Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 The only thing that annoys me is when women expect both feminism and chivalry in the same culture. You can't have it both ways. Feminism treats women as capable adults, chivalry treats them as incapable children. Feminism is a great idea - in theory. Like many other things that are great ideas in theory (communism, for example), it doesn't really work in real life. In theory, feminism implies equality. In theory, feminism means that I no longer have to treat my dates as glorified prostitutes (pay for their dinners, buy them gifts, etc.) In theory, it means that women will now have to put in as much effort into initiating the dating process as men do and expose themselves to the same risk of potential rejection (chasing men, asking men out, etc.) All of that is of course IN THEORY.In reality, "feminists" want to keep the vestiges of the old system that benefit them (free meals and entertainment and the comfortable passivity of allowing men do all the approaching, asking out and other legwork in the early stages of the dating process), while adopting "progressive ideas" that - surprise surprise - also benefit them. In other words, instead of equality, the so-called "feminists" want a system where men are relegated to the status of second-class citizens.
Johnny M Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 1.Would it be better to live in a world where women were not allowed to vote, were thought of as property, and were given dowries to be married off? This is a rhetorical question, right? Of course it would be better!! A dowry would come in handy right now.....I have student loans to pay off, you know? And as for voting - why do I need a woman who can vote? I can do that myself
calizaggy Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 In other words, instead of equality, the so-called "feminists" want a system where men are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Exactly.. It also means that women want a whole lot of "rights" but no responsibilities. Maybe work some, take some years off, maybe work part time, maybe stay home..And of course they must have a job they enjoy that usually entails getting dressed up. How many women are taking the dirty/dangerous/back breaking jobs they whine about being denied in the past? If women wanted TRUE equality, it would mean they also marry much lower earning men, as men have for centuries.. But strangely women still want to "marry up." Most women I have met that worked still viewed what they earned as THEIR money. Which means the man should pay for dates/rent/mortgage, and they spend their money as they see fit. If a man asks for a true 50/50 arrangement he is shamed almost immediately as being "cheap."
Woggle Posted March 1, 2010 Posted March 1, 2010 I actually prefer having a wife who earns her own money and we have seperate accounts. That way as long as we both contribute our halfd to the household expenses we spend our money as we see fit. If feminists truly practiced what they preached as far as equality is concerned it would be a great thing that is often not the case.
sally4sara Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I think its great that some posters have provided super examples of likely the only thing feminism needed to kill off - the pigeon holing. Men setting standards for themselves that only work when on someone else is being limited to a "dependent". If one parent stays home with 2 kids and does all domestic work and errands. And either parent could do this.... That parent makes it possible for the other parent to focus entirely on monetary gain. Just so that person can call them a "dependent"?
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 If one parent stays home with 2 kids and does all domestic work and errands. And either parent could do this.... That parent makes it possible for the other parent to focus entirely on monetary gain. Just so that person can call them a "dependent"? Well not very many women want to support a man..It's all about 2 people making life easier for one another. if you run a business do you have everyone do half of each others work? Or divide responsibilities? If you want to stay "independent" then why get married? Or is the goal to get married and spend every day proving how independent you are?
sally4sara Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Or is the goal to get married and spend every day proving how independent you are? It doesn't surprise me that you would rather twist words than address the point. What is it to seek the limiting of another just so you can feel like you're more than you are and avoid tasks you don't want to do? Because I really am curious as I couldn't imagine doing this to someone and calling it love. And if it isn't love - why even bother getting married?
silverfish Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) I think its great that some posters have provided super examples of likely the only thing feminism needed to kill off - the pigeon holing. Men setting standards for themselves that only work when on someone else is being limited to a "dependent". If one parent stays home with 2 kids and does all domestic work and errands. And either parent could do this.... That parent makes it possible for the other parent to focus entirely on monetary gain. Just so that person can call them a "dependent"? Great post and the bolded part...awesome - why feminism is not the dirty word it's made out to be. Riddle me this gentlemen....if a woman does take responsibility for supporting herself (on her own whether voluntarily or through force) and her and her mates offspring...surely if feminism killed off real men, those women that brought up the children without male help would be esteemed by society. Surely real men would think highly of such females and consider them 'alpha' as they encompass both strength and femininity. Why is it that that doesn't happen? Edited March 2, 2010 by silverfish
Barky Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 in return that she takes care of all the home duties so i can come home to a relaxed, stress free environment. It might be interesting to do a survey to see how likely you are to always come home to a "relaxed, stress-free environment" just because your spouse doesn't work.
Barky Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 In reality, "feminists" want to keep the vestiges of the old system that benefit them (free meals and entertainment and the comfortable passivity of allowing men do all the approaching, asking out and other legwork in the early stages of the dating process), while adopting "progressive ideas" that - surprise surprise - also benefit them. In other words, instead of equality, the so-called "feminists" want a system where men are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. I have yet to meet a feminist who wanted anything of the sort. All the feminists I've met and dated have been breaths of fresh air. Sexually proactive, balanced, understanding of men, into their own lives, independent, non-clingy, willing to open the door for me if they went through first, etc etc etc. Whereas all of the women I've ever dated who called themselves "traditional" have been manipulative gold-diggers. Pure and simple.
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 It doesn't surprise me that you would rather twist words than address the point. What is it to seek the limiting of another just so you can feel like you're more than you are and avoid tasks you don't want to do? Because I really am curious as I couldn't imagine doing this to someone and calling it love. And if it isn't love - why even bother getting married? Huh? You act as though all women LOOVE working, when in reality for the vast majority it is out of necessity. Very few have wonderful and rewarding careers. Most women I have known spend most of their free time complaining about their job and how much they hate it, no matter how much money they were making. Real life isn't Sex in the City. Many women LOOVE the idea of taking care of a home and raising a family. It is no surprise not many are posting on this forum. Funny how feminists twist a man wanting to support a wife and kids as a man who wants to "limit another". Society is turning to crap today largely because parents are too busy "working and being independent" over spending time with their kids. I love that my mother stayed at home,(cooked 3 times a day and educated us) and that my father could take us places when he got home after work because everything at home was in order. I prefer the above to 2 stressed and tired parents bringing home some Mcdonalds while shoving video games in the kids face so that they leave them alone.
silverfish Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Huh? You act as though all women LOOVE working, when in reality for the vast majority it is out of necessity. Very few have wonderful and rewarding careers. Most women I have known spend most of their free time complaining about their job and how much they hate it, no matter how much money they were making. Real life isn't Sex in the City. Many women LOOVE the idea of taking care of a home and raising a family. It is no surprise not many are posting on this forum. Funny how feminists twist a man wanting to support a wife and kids as a man who wants to "limit another". Society is turning to crap today largely because parents are too busy "working and being independent" over spending time with their kids. I love that my mother stayed at home,(cooked 3 times a day and educated us) and that my father could take us places when he got home after work because everything at home was in order. I prefer the above to 2 stressed and tired parents bringing home some Mcdonalds while shoving video games in the kids face so that they leave them alone. Who in their right mind 'loves' working. Take men and women out of this - work is a means to an end, its a means to support your children, your roof, food and leisure - that's it barring ego. Women have egos too, women like to know, same as me, that they're not just a number, that they can count in society. Your parents were lucky - it takes 2 full time incomes to run a family these days and thats a sad reality we've all been duped into believing is ok...thats the fault of our parents bad political and economic choices that we are paying the price for If you want things to change in the future you need forward thinking females to move things along - who are those women in your opinion?
Johnny M Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) I have yet to meet a feminist who wanted anything of the sort. All the feminists I've met and dated have been breaths of fresh air. Sexually proactive, balanced, understanding of men, into their own lives, independent, non-clingy, willing to open the door for me if they went through first, etc etc etc. WOW....maybe feminists in LA are different, I don't know. Around here, they are mostly ugly, bitter, and man hating (but still want the man to pay for everything). I do agree with you though that when a woman calls herself "traditional", it's usually a code word for gold digger. Edited March 2, 2010 by Johnny M
Barky Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I do agree with you though that when a woman calls herself "traditional", it's usually a code word for gold digger. "I'm traditional" is code for "you're gonna pay for everything."
silverfish Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 WOW....maybe feminists in LA are different, I don't know. Around here, they are mostly ugly, bitter, and man hating (but still want the man to pay for everything). I do agree with you though that when a woman calls herself "traditional", it's usually a code word for gold digger. Embrace your feminine side then Johnny and hug a firefighter. Workshop on Tuesday. All welcome - bring your own bra
Recommended Posts