Did feminism kill off real men?

[Jersey Shortie]

Actually Tnerforireyeh, they do consider me a Feminist here.

 

 

This is the hypocrisy..

 

Women are now "equal", but still must be paid for like children, or the men will be "shamed".

 

If I am going to pay (The old fashioned role), then I expect my wife/girlfriend to play the old fashioned role (Cook, few past sex partners, take care of the home etc)

 

Feminism has just made women more selfish.. They still want the man to pay(No logical reason other than he is being a gentleman), yet they want all other past RESPONSIBILITIES to be shared and divided equally, along with being sexually "free".

 

Look, if you want equality, put your money where your mouth is. Go be that equal woman, ask men out, pay for dates, pick them up, etc.

 

Firstly, comparing women to children for a man paying of her meal is the "shame" game at its finest.

 

Secondly, why shouldn't women shame men? Men shame women into how they want them to behave as well. Don't have too many partners, be attractive, work out, work hard..etc etc etc. Both men and women set a line of qualities they look for in the opposite sex and that is what you call "shaming" my friend.

 

By the way, YOU do expect your wife/gf to have few sex partners. You’ve said as much.

 

And if men consider it childish to pay for dates, then maybe women should consider it childish to cook a man a good meal. He is an adult after all and can cook his own meal right? Just like she can pay for her own dinner. If he doesn't want to pay for dinner, then she shouldn't ever cook him a meal. At least by your reasoning any man that pay sfor a woman's date puts the women in the spot of a child and any woman that cooks a man a meal puts the man in the spot of a child as well.

 

Feminism has given women more opportunity towards things that men had access to for generations prior. That's your real beef. Women have more choices. Women don't want to settle anymore.

 

And you are darn right. I still want a man to pay and I still want equality. That's not hypocritical. Men still want bjs and still want women to pay for dates. Lets call that hypocritcal too.

 

By the way, I have no desire to pursue men for dates like men pursue women. I am not a man. I don't want to be treated by a man. But I still deserve equality. Sounds like you want a more asexual interaction between the sexes, which is pretty monochromatic and unexciting and passionless. I perfer one that highlights each gender's positive traits and encourages men to be men and women to be men.

[calizaggy]

Simply put..

 

As a man, and I have one life to live, which makes more sense?

 

Pick a woman I must pay for that will put me and the children first?

 

Pick a woman I must pay for that puts her career first, or at best I share her with her career?

 

I have dated several career women that EXPECT men to pay for everything, no matter what they earn. Can I picture ever coming home to a home cooked meal? Can I picture one day splitting all bills 50/50 and she is happy? Basically it would be me paying for her and still living the bachelor lifestyle minus the sexual and other freedoms.

[Tnerforireyeh]

While I agree with what you say, there ARE many LS women who want equality but still want to be pursued and paid for by men.

 

Well, that's really nobody's concern but their own. This thread is about feminism. And I think any true representative of the "movement" would consider the idea of a woman passively sitting around soaking up men's money to be abhorrent. For both the men and the woman.

[calizaggy]

And you are darn right. I still want a man to pay and I still want equality. That's not hypocritical. Men still want bjs and still want women to pay for dates. Lets call that hypocritcal too.

 

.

 

Well I think it is hypocritical..

 

Hopefully more and more men stop paying for women at all. We need TRUE equality..

 

The male genders positive trait is opening his wallet, and the female postive trait is giving bjs?

[Jersey Shortie]

While I agree with what you say, there ARE many LS women who want equality but still want to be pursued and paid for by men.

 

For sure. Men and women both deserve equality. However, to me, equality doesn't mean that everything is matched tit for tat and things are paid off by exactly the same things. In a relationship, you give and take. If your bf/husband takes out the garbage, you might make him his favorite desert. If you buy his favorite beer, he might fix the drain in the kitchen. If you buy him beer, he isnt' going to buy you beer in return and make sure that the exact cents and dollars match the beer you bought him! That's riduculous. Just because women want equality doesn't mean they want to be treated asexual or that all differences between the genders should be wiped clean.

 

Men still want women to interact with them in ways that make them feel like men. Women still want men to interact with them and act in ways that make them feel like women. How I act at home with the man I love, is vastly different then how I interact with the men I work with or exchange services with in my day to day life. That's exactly how it should be. Women and men both deserve equality but that doesn't mean you wipe away everything that makes men feel like men and women feel like women in romantic relationships.

[Jersey Shortie]

Well I think it is hypocritical..

 

Hopefully more and more men stop paying for women at all. We need TRUE equality..

 

The male genders positive trait is opening his wallet, and the female postive trait is giving bjs?

 

Yes. I know you think it's hypocritical. If you want men to stop paying for women then women should stop making meals for men and doing other things that support the men in their lives.

 

What a sad existance that would be.

 

And no, I never said the the positive trait was that the male openned his walled and the woman gave bjs. What is positive is letting the other gender feel good in their sexuality and doing things for them that you might not get the same 100 equal return on the moment you give it. It's about giving and sharing.

[calizaggy]

This is how I would sum it up..The following have been my experiences..

 

Relationship type A:

 

I pay for EVERYTHING, and she takes care of me in other ways.. She cooks for me daily, gives massages, is always there for me.

 

Allows her to be feminine, and me mascualine. Clearly defined roles. I have found many women enjoy this type of relationship. Also we have a mutual NEED for one another.

 

Relationship type B:

 

EVERYTHING is 50/50.. Rent, dates, vacations, household chores, etc. I would find this acceptable, but have NEVER found this. Not many women want to share their money.

 

Relationship type C:

 

Perhaps the most common these days. Woman works, yet man still pays for mostly everything. She feels cooking for a man is too old fashioned, and also feels she needs to be more "independent".. I have ZERO need for this relationship type.

[Els]

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t217455/

 

The above thread is a more realistic example of "feminism"at work.

 

Millions of girls are "sold" by watching Allie McBeal, Sex in the City, etc, into believing once they graduate college, they will have some great, fun, exciting and rewarding career.. They will find the man of their dreams at any age, and live happily ever after..

 

The reality is more or less similar to the girls thread above.. Acquiring HUGE sums of debt, then no longer having any choices as to having a family, marriage, etc..If she is fortunate enough to find a job in her field, it will barely be enough to make ends meet, as she has to pay off all this debt, buy a car, pay rent, bills, clothes etc.. The job itself will be a job,. not some rewarding and exciting career.

 

And of course, very few men can afford the above girl. The only ones happy about the above woman's situation are the tax collectors and banks.. She is TRAPPED into working , whether she likes her job or not. Maybe by the time she pays her debt off she will get around to finding a man, but she will not be 25 anymore, and perhaps she will miss out on having a family altogether.

 

At that point the girl will become either broken, or more hardened. She will live a life of working to pay bills mixed in with casual sex.

 

I can name FAR MORE women in her situation, than I can career women who simply love their jobs and make great money, and have wonderful lives.

 

Do you think men have more satisfying careers then, on average?

 

I know plenty of men who are unhappy with their jobs and straddled with debts as well. I honestly agree that this is a problem - but it's not a men/women or feminism problem. It's just the problem with our job and career system today.

[homersheineken]

And you are darn right. I still want a man to pay and I still want equality. That's not hypocritical. Men still want bjs and still want women to pay for dates. Lets call that hypocritcal too.

 

Actually that's the definition of hypocrisy ... You wanting it both ways is hypocritical.

[donnamaybe]

I think any true representative of the "movement" would consider the idea of a woman passively sitting around soaking up men's money to be abhorrent. For both the men and the woman.

 

Well said.

[donnamaybe]

What is positive is letting the other gender feel good in their sexuality and doing things for them that you might not get the same 100 equal return on the moment you give it. It's about giving and sharing.

 

But here's the conundrum: If a man spending money on a woman is what you think makes a man feel like a man, then THAT would mean that we should expect men to always make more money.

 

So much for equality.

[Johnny M]

Actually the point behind feminism was to create more taxable assets, while also enriching banks and corporations.

This. No major social change has ever occurred without an underlying economic trigger and feminism is no exception.

 

It wasn't until WWII that women started entering the workforce in huge numbers (because so many men were away frighting in the war). Once the war ended, the government, banks and corporations realized that instead of returning to the status quo, it would be far more profitable to keep women in the workforce. The difficult part was convincing a woman that instead of being a mother and raising a family, she should aspire to become a career woman.

 

And that's where feminism comes in. And again, I am not talking about the feminist

ideal - I am talking about the actual feminist policies pursued by governments and various radical feminist groups. Their strategy effectively boils down to demonizing every aspect of a woman's place in society that was considered normal or even admirable before. Being a stay at home mom and having a large family of 3-4 kids has all of sudden become very uncool and only something that an uneducated trailer trash woman would do.

 

In contrast, a cool, modern, progressive woman would spend much of her youth attending college and grad school and then maybe have one kid by the time she's well into her thirties (of course, she doesn't even have the time to raise that one kid because of her career, so she pushes the little sucker off to a semi-literate foreign babysitter, and the kid predictably grows up to be a pot-smoking, playstation-playing imbecile suffering from ADD and all sorts of other psychological problems).

[donnamaybe]

the kid predictably grows up to be a pot-smoking, playstation-playing imbecile suffering from ADD and all sorts of other psychological problems.

 

You mean like Chelsea Clinton?

[Johnny M]

You're just not very keen on women generally, are you Johnny M? Traditional = gold digging whore. Feminist = ugly, bitter and man-hating.

Women who are keen to apply labels to themselves are usually trying to find an excuse for some negative aspect of their character. A woman who hates men justifies her hatred with feminism, while a gold digging whore claims to have "traditional values". And I'm not just picking on women here - men do the same thing.

[donnamaybe]

Women who are keen to apply labels to themselves are usually trying to find an excuse for some negative aspect of their character. A woman who hates men justifies her hatred with feminism, while a gold digging whore claims to have "traditional values". And I'm not just picking on women here - men do the same thing.

 

Oh, puhLEEZZ!!! You just claimed that every woman who has the audacity to have a career AND a child is destined to raise a - how did that go now - "pot-smoking, playstation-playing imbecile suffering from ADD and all sorts of other psychological problems."

 

Talk about placing labels. Why do you have to make this into an all or nothing situation? Are you trying to say there are no women capable of working and properly raising a child? If so, then I don't want to hear you bitch when men NEVER are awarded custody, because no man would be thusly capable either.

[calizaggy]

This. No major social change has ever occurred without an underlying economic trigger and feminism is no exception.

 

It wasn't until WWII that women started entering the workforce in huge numbers (because so many men were away frighting in the war). Once the war ended, the government, banks and corporations realized that instead of returning to the status quo, it would be far more profitable to keep women in the workforce. The difficult part was convincing a woman that instead of being a mother and raising a family, she should aspire to become a career woman.

 

And that's where feminism comes in. And again, I am not talking about the feminist ideal - I am talking about the actual feminist policies pursued by governments and various radical feminist groups. Their strategy effectively boils down to demonizing every aspect of a woman's place in society that was considered normal or even admirable before. Being a stay at home mom and having a large family of 3-4 kids has all of sudden become very uncool and only something that an uneducated trailer trash woman would do.

 

).

 

 

Exactly.. It also helps to lie about the past and make it seem like women were horrible "oppressed". Typically the more educated (indoctrinated) a woman becomes, the more she learns about how horrible men have been to women in the past..

 

I believe in 18th or 19th century England the "women's movement" was to liberate women FROM work..(Duh obviously this is an improvement)

 

But since the propaganda today is so good, women think working is some new and wonderful privilege they were horribly denied in the past..

 

It makes the most sense to me that an improving society would be marked by people having to work LESS, not MORE. But good enough propaganda can fool people into believing anything, no matter how ridiculous.

 

What's really funny is that the new liberated woman is not more free, but actually less. She is FORCED to work usually to end up at a negative point by the end of the year.. But don't worry, the banks/tax collectors/mega corporations thank you for your hard work..Better than having to answer to some man!

[donnamaybe]

Oh, yeah. MUCH better. I have my own money, so I can make my own choices.

[Jersey Shortie]

But here's the conundrum: If a man spending money on a woman is what you think makes a man feel like a man, then THAT would mean that we should expect men to always make more money.

 

So much for equality.

 

Where did I say that a man spending money on a woman is what makes him feel like a man?

 

Where did I say that the man should be expected to make more money?

 

And where did I say that the man should "always" pay?

 

And where did I say that everything needed to be matched tit for tat?

 

 

Actually that's the definition of hypocrisy ... You wanting it both ways is hypocritical.

 

How is that having it both ways? If you think that's having it both ways then men that want women to both have great jobs and still have babies must also want it both ways.

[donnamaybe]

Where did I say that a man spending money on a woman is what makes him feel like a man?

That was your explanation when someone challenged you on why men should pay.

Where did I say that the man should be expected to make more money?

I never said you said that.

And where did I say that the man should "always" pay?

Then what did you mean when you say men should pay for you?

And where did I say that everything needed to be matched tit for tat?

Again, I never said you said that.

 

When you made the bold statement that men should pay for women on dates, you were challenged. You then defended your statement by explaining that it's because men should be allowed to feel like men.

 

Please - my head is starting to hurt. Just mean what you say and say what you mean, okay?

[sally4sara]

I'm sort of stunned that feminism is something that still has people all angsty and upset. What is it keeping anyone from doing?

 

Just find someone you blend well with. Why get upset about the existence of people you're not compatible with living lives you don't want to live? They don't HAVE to be unhappy just because they don't seek a life you seek. For them to live the way you want, rather than how they want will make them unhappy. Wouldn't you rather be with someone who wants the same kind of life you do?

I don't think less of a man who wishes to marry someone who will have children with them and who will stay home to raise those kids. There are all kinds of personalities out there; I'm sure he can find one who wants the same.

I don't think less of a woman who would want to be a SAHM.

 

I think less of people who think everyone has to live according to their views and derive pleasure from fantasizing the worst to come to all who don't fall in line. I think less of people who crap on others for following their own path; I don't care what their gender is - it is an evil way to be to hope misery on others when they don't want to live according to your personal views. Frankly, if you can't accept or respect the wants of others, what makes you think you're cut out to be the sole provider and household head to anyone but yourself?

[donnamaybe]

I don't think less of a man for wanting a SAHM for his kids either. However, the REASON he does may make me think less of them, i.e., a woman is incapable of anything else.

[meerkat stew]

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.

 

1. Taramere, troggleputty and I are not the same, I've been much too busy these last several days to post on LS, and wouldn't do it under another account name anyway.

 

Get used to mistaking lots of men for me, because we are out there, we are waking up to the massive political-gender polarizations created and engineered by the American left, and more and more utilized by the right, we are getting fed up with it, and we are going to do something about it.

 

2. There was nothing resembling a "fight" for women's equality in the U.S. The a) industrial revolution capitalism and technological progress associated with it that led to b) lower infant mortality, easier housekeeping and child-rearing, c) the cold war and pressures to economically outgrow the USSR, d) institutionalized education and childcare removing children from the home, e) the growth of the service economy in relation to the more dangerous manufacturing sector, and f) cheap, effective birth control, led to a cultural and economic imperative of welcoming women into every facet of the workplace. The very historical moment that the economy and history demanded it in the post WW2 20th century, women were DRAGGED into the workplace. They never "fought" for it.

 

Men and women together were responsible for progress in the above areas, but factually, most of these advances were pushed forward by men, and some of them were resisted highly by women. History needed women in the workplace, and we as a society enacted the mandates of history. There was no "fight" for women's rights at all after suffrage, which wasn't much of a fight itself, merely compliance with historical imperative.

 

3. Upon capitalizing on the very real "fight" for civil rights to leverage policy, the left sought to create a similar political windfall by manipulating women politically, as women were perceived to be more receptive to socialism and statist politics. So from the base of what was called "the battle of the sexes" in a teasing Billy Jean King v Bobby Riggs way in the 70s, the left manufactured the "fight for women's rights," feminism and modern gender polarization out of thin air. By clever reconstruction of history, the Left defocused on the very real historical imperative enacted by men and women together, and instead characterized the history of women in America as an oppressed minority being held back by a good old boy patriarchy.

 

Yes, the same "patriarchy" that created the industrial revolution, all manner of technology making the lives of women and children longer and easier, the education state, the service economy, the pill, and the same "patriarchy" that enacted and upheld Roe v Wade had somehow simultaneously conspired to "keep women down." Instead, individual women, usually hand picked by socialists historically in reverse, had overthrown the "evil male empire." And a testament to the stupidity of the American voting public is that this absurdly transparent canard worked... kinda.

 

4. This wasn't so bad until a) the left took the concept of "feminism" overboard and began stealing away men's rights, and b) the right, seeking to take some of the left's thunder, began its own brand of mischief by manipulating women in the voting booth. Next time you see legislation that is targetted at "protecting our children" or "obtaining rights for women," take a moment to look beneath the surface at the true target of such legislation.

 

The internet, for example, is under attack by the tax-hungry government and monied corporate interests seeking to enforce their intellectual property rights and maintain monopolies in entertainment. What we see ostensibly, though, is rights strictures and taxing regimes aimed at "keeping our children safe from internet predators" and "protecting our children from terrorists." Fortunately, most men see through this transparency, yet most women are perfectly willing to be led around by their gonads towards a totalitarian state.

 

Take a look at a chart of the incarceration rate in the U.S. over the last 20 years. It is a steep curve, and 90% of those affected by it are male. Take a look at the drug wars and supposed deadbeat dad civil actions. Ostensibly for getting our children their due, but in reality just a convenient gender polarization tool that grows the state at the same time.

 

5. So, did feminism kill "real men?" First, with respect to feminism, it is a hollow, meaningless political construct used to manipulate women in the voting booth and polarize them against men. It just wouldn't do for political interests to acknowledge the truth, that men and women together are responsible for social progress and gender equality, as that truth just doesn't incite the fear and greed that a good propagandistic political lever needs.

 

Second, as far as real men go, no, feminism did not kill them off, but is rather pissing us off mightily, and as the marriage rates decline and divorce rates increase, we will all, men and women, continue to reap the whirlwind of backlash and male defiance in a system that is patently manipulative against us.

[Jersey Shortie]

That was your explanation when someone challenged you on why men should pay.

 

Please provide a qoute.

 

What I said was there were certain things that made women feel like women and men like men. I NEVER said that a man spending money on a woman made a man feel more liek a man.

JS: Where did I say that the man should be expected to make more money?

donna: I never said you said that.

 

Sounds like that's where you were heading when you told me I always expected the man to make more money. But glad that we can agree that's not what I was saying at all.

 

Then what did you mean when you say men should pay for you?

 

I'm not sure because I never said a man should pay for me. My point is that it's nice when men do pay and it doesn't make me hypocritical to think that and want equality at the same time.

Again, I never said you said that.

Then you don't expect everything to be matched tit for tat? A man can pay for dinner and a woman can repay him in a different way by showing kindness in her own way? (Not by sex).

[homersheineken]

How is that having it both ways? If you think that's having it both ways then men that want women to both have great jobs and still have babies must also want it both ways.

 

I couldn't understand your second sentence.

 

You said you wanted the man to pay and equality. You cannot have both. Either you want the man to pay or you contribute equally. It's really not that complicated. If you want both, it's hypocritical.

[Woggle]

So JS would you be willing to make a man feel like a man if he is willing to be a gentlement? Chivalry works both ways and I think many men's frustrations stem from the fact that there are laundry lists of what men are supposed to do for women but women aren't expected to give anything. Also cooking a nice meal is not just a female thing. I cook for my wife all the time because I know how to do good things in the kitchen.