Spinoff: "Real women..."

[soserious1]

Elswyth,

 

My "solution" to many of the social ills we face today is to end

the government's role in the sorts of situations that individuals, couples & families used to handle privately.

 

My remarks about reverse affirmative action were meant to underscore to the fact that if you live by the sword you risk dying by it too. Men are underrepresented in the ranks of entering college Freshmen, as women continue to swell the ranks of higher education it will only be a matter of time before the affirmative action pendulum swings the other way.

 

Also, IMHO,we cannot talk about the negative impact of feminism coupled with affirmative action without looking at it's impact in minority communities, most notably the black community.

[Woggle]

So, then, you disagree that they should make women do 4 years of draft and not men, as 'payback', and that women should be shipped to the end of priority lists for college grants?

 

I don't agree with that. Punishing a gender for what are societal wrongs is not something I agree with. We will never achieve equality until people are treated as individuals instead of a gender.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm willing to bet if a couple needed to sign an agreement stating that child custody would be 50/50 in event of a divorce that we'd see a lot more parents doing things like truly equally sharing both child care & bread winning implementing fair solutions like Dad works day shift, Mom works nights with the kids being cared for by the at home parent.

 

Who is to mandate that? The government, right?

 

The Government makes a piss poor mother and an even poorer father.. less government intrusion, not more is needed imho.

 

I think you are proposing MORE government. You are proposing to take away the right for families to choose whether both work outside the home or not.

 

Plenty of couples don't equally share breadwinning and child care NOT because they are either brainwashed or moochers - but because each one of them is bringing their own strengths to the family.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I don't agree with that. Punishing a gender for what are societal wrongs is not something I agree with. We will never achieve equality until people are treated as individuals instead of a gender.

 

Huzzah, Woggle. But … there is irony (as well as cheers) in seeing a post stating that from you.

[soserious1]

I don't agree with that. Punishing a gender for what are societal wrongs is not something I agree with. We will never achieve equality until people are treated as individuals instead of a gender.

 

But that's exactly what affirmative action did to men at the behest of feminists... now that the pendulum looks like it's swinging the other way & men are being discriminated against

affirmative action is suddenly unfair?

 

We have a tragedy happening in this country, generations of young minority ( and increasingly poor young white men) being lost to the street gang/ drug culture.Young men, dying in our streets and rotting in our prisons. Something must be done and soon.

[Woggle]

Huzzah, Woggle. But … there is irony (as well as cheers) in seeing a post stating that from you.

 

Where is there irony? I fully admit my trust issues which I am working on but I don't advocate legal discrimination. I do think we need to do more to reach out to boys in high school and college though. Doing that takes nothing away from girls.

[Woggle]

But that's exactly what affirmative action did to men at the behest of feminists... now that the pendulum looks like it's swinging the other way & men are being discriminated against

affirmative action is suddenly unfair?

 

We have a tragedy happening in this country, generations of young minority ( and increasingly poor young white men) being lost to the street gang/ drug culture.Young men, dying in our streets and rotting in our prisons. Something must be done and soon.

 

That was wrong as well and many feminists are complete hypocrites about it but at the end of the day it is best to just end the cycle completely.

[soserious1]

Who is to mandate that? The government, right?

 

 

 

I think you are proposing MORE government. You are proposing to take away the right for families to choose whether both work outside the home or not.

 

Plenty of couples don't equally share breadwinning and child care NOT because they are either brainwashed or moochers - but because each one of them is bringing their own strengths to the family.

 

 

No I am not.. read carefully

 

I am proposing that the government get out of the business of minding family business.

 

You can decide with John going in that you or he want to be a stay at home parent.... but... you will do so with full knowledge that in the event of a divorce physical and legal custody will be split 50/50 and no child support will be changing hands. No more sitting at home, then deciding to dump John 15 yrs later while getting the government to act as your leg breaker to shake John down for everything he's got.OTOH,John won't be able to decide 15 yrs in hey I want a younger model & expect to walk away free of all practical, hands on parenting responsibilities.

 

Each couple can decide how much risk tolerance they are willing to take regarding their family structure... couples retain the right to make their own choices, all they lose is the right to use the family court as their leg breaker in order to impose their will on their spouse.

Edited November 16, 2011 by soserious1

[dasein]

So, then, you disagree that they should make women do 4 years of draft and not men, as 'payback', and that women should be shipped to the end of priority lists for college grants?

 

My personal feelings on the matter include parts of:

 

end the government's role in the sorts of situations that individuals, couples & families used to handle privately.

 

Young men, dying in our streets and rotting in our prisons. Something must be done and soon.

 

at the end of the day it is best to just end the cycle completely.

 

and no, I would not be a supporter of compulsory armed service for women and not men. That doesn't change that the disparate impact of military service on men in this country is an issue worthy of discussion and hashing out alternative remedies.

 

Saying for the third and final time, whereas I might not agree with every single element of change soserious posted, I do agree that all of those are issues in need of addressing, and still maintain that feminist shouting and tantrum throwing is what ends up preventing meaningful discussion more often than not.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Where is there irony? I fully admit my trust issues which I am working on but I don't advocate legal discrimination. I do think we need to do more to reach out to boys in high school and college though. Doing that takes nothing away from girls.

 

Ironic because you frequently post about "most women" and do not take situations on a case by case, or individual basis.

[soserious1]

dasein. Many of the things I proposed were meant to highlight the current inequalities men are faced with & are overly simplistic just to make my posts briefer.

 

Military service? IMHO the best thing we ever did was to go for a volunteer Army,what would be better? Compulsory National Service for both men & women, everybody spends say 2 years

either in the military or performing work that betters our communities.

 

As far as divorce law goes, yes there will be cases where parents are unfit, situations where child support is warranted but those situations should be the exception rather than the rule.The vast majority of divorcing couples are not mentally ill, not drunken,drugged criminal monsters who beat their spouse or their kids, yet the family court routinely turns one parent into a marginalized "visitor" good only as a walking wallet, stripped of all parental authority.

[Woggle]

Ironic because you frequently post about "most women" and do not take situations on a case by case, or individual basis.

 

It doesn't mean that I think the system should discriminate. I have my own personal issues which is obvious but I believe in fairness.

[dasein]

dasein. Many of the things I proposed were meant to highlight the current inequalities men are faced with & are overly simplistic just to make my posts briefer.

 

Yes, that's what I thought you meant in that post. I didn't find the nature of your post at all unclear.

[Red Pill]

The notion that women were oppressed throughout much of recent western history is, in my view, nothing more than the usual feminist-inspired hokum that is designed to stir up hatred towards men.

 

This is not to suggest that people have not been oppressed in the west. They surely have been – in one way or another. But the idea that women have been oppressed more than men is just not supported by the evidence. And the ubiquitous propaganda suggesting that ‘men oppress women’ is ludicrous.

 

Men tend to oppress men, not women.

 

Let’s start with how things were in the 1930′s in the UK, especially. Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment. Indeed, there was not much in the way of ‘industry’. Families were seen as economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it simply wasn’t tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house while the next door neighbors had none! Such a thing would have been a recipe for social envy, disaster and violence – and, of course, in those days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the imbalances.

 

Neither was there much of a police force; which meant that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems. For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were seemingly wealthier with impunity.

 

And why not? – if their families had no wage earners and very little food, while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even luxuries?!

 

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

 

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

 

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom – and, in many cases, through the law.

 

Indeed, as an example, in the US, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, ‘seduced’. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint.

 

Given that most women had MANY children fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country’s, or a family’s, VERY LIMITED wealth in the education of women – because they were the very ones most likely NOT to take any value from it!

 

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen – like a having a full-time ‘career’, or a job, of whatever sort.

 

Also, looking after children in those days was somewhat more time consuming, more complex an affair, and far more laborious than it is today. There were no microwave ovens, washing machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, telephones, televisions, automatic heating systems, cars, etc.. And there was little in the way of modern materials, medicines and chemicals that we now rely on so heavily.

 

Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore, major domestic industries in themselves, and preparing young girls for dealing successfully with all of these things was crucial for their well-being and their survival in the rat race.

 

Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this were not going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did! In terms of cultural ‘evolution’, therefore, societies whose women did not care properly for the children, while the men labored on their behalf, never made it! Indeed, such societies would have disappeared very quickly – as more effective ones took over the land.

 

And you can see this sort of thing happening today!

 

For example, there are now many pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up their children properly, and where the fathers are – thanks to feminism – ‘not required’.

 

And, as a result, across the entire country, there are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society.

 

These pockets of deprivation, which they have now become, all have something in common. They are places where a significant proportion of the fathers are absent or ineffective. And it doesn’t take more than a handful of their dysfunctional offspring to terrorize and ruin entire neighborhoods.

 

Yet they survive – but only because the rest of the country keeps injecting millions and millions of dollars into them and because it is prepared to provide them with so many supportive services – police, health, education etc.

 

Without this support, they would fail. Indeed, they would destroy themselves.

 

And this is exactly what would have happened in the past.

 

The best road to success in the past was for women to bring up the children – and to be trained to do so properly – while the men spent much of their time developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children – particularly the boys.

 

And it wasn’t only men who enforced these ‘decisions’ and norms, it was WOMEN!

 

Indeed, if the men had been given their way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and wives working out there – for money – in order to help to pay the bills. But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one family to have both parents earning while their neighbors had no income at all.

 

Given that women were biologically chosen by nature to be the ones to bear children and nurture them, it is hardly surprising that, throughout all of History, in all other areas, they have been ‘held back’. They have simply had other things to do.

 

And for feminists to keep blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognized for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather, slaving) in order to support their loved ones.

 

While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by ‘keeping them at home with the children’, it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as ‘oppression’, was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.

 

And if anyone thinks in any way that the jobs of men 50-200 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today, you are poorly educated indeed! They were awful – and, at the very best, utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not much in the way of rights and pay.

 

Do feminists really believe that women would actually have preferred to do these jobs rather than stay at home with their children in the comfort of their surrounding friendly neighborhoods?

 

Here’s an extract from David Thomas' book Not Guilty …

“The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 percent to 10 percent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”

 

In other words, during that period, women did not like the jobs that were available, and so they opted out of them.

 

The men had to do them instead!

 

The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who ‘oppressed’ his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed ‘victims’ in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief.

 

One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where ‘women and children first’ was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the ‘oppression’ and the ‘low status’ of women in those days. Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

 

The idea that women, particularly western women, have not had power throughout recent History is, of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood, and it was created mostly by emotionally-deficient women to provide further fuel for their personal campaigns of hatred against men.

 

Indeed, it is almost impossible to envisage a successful society – a strong one – in which women do not have considerable power.

 

The fact that, in the past, the women brought up the children, and, hence, the very next generation, gave them untold powers. Not only did they influence the values, beliefs and behaviors of the next generation, they also benefited hugely from the fact that their children, both sons and daughters, bonded very tightly to them, emotionally speaking. This was a tremendous ‘investment’ for their own futures which benefited them throughout their entire lives, well into old age and death – not only financially and emotionally, but in almost every possible way. This empowered them hugely. And the further fact that the fathers were so much engaged elsewhere, away from their families, gave the mothers at home even greater relative influence, power and advantage over the future generation. In fact, the men were often reduced to little more than slaves and wallets when it came to ‘the family’.

 

Thus, when it comes to shaping the generations that follow, there can be no question of which gender has, and has always had, real power.

 

If women of the past were particularly oppressed in any way, then it was with the full complicity of the women themselves.

 

Indeed, there surely has never been a successful society in which women, as a whole, were treated badly.

 

Further, if any group had come up with something better than ‘marriage’ then it, whatever it was, would have been dominating our formal social arrangements by now.

 

Instead, the reality is that ALL other systems governing the relationships between males and females, particularly in connection with their reproductive roles – and there must have been some other systems that were tried out – have clearly failed abysmally.

 

They never got very far.

 

Not one of them turned into a strong successful society.

 

Not one!

 

Another example that is often cited as evidence for the oppression of women

was the common ‘inheritance’ procedures, whereby the oldest son inherited the property – the land, the money, the title and the status.

 

But was this really oppression, given the circumstances and limitations of the recent past and beyond?

 

For example, what does one do when there is no enforceable, observable, common, sufficiently complex legal system to deal with matters of property – or title, such as ‘King’? Well, the best route is surely the simplest one. You hand the property down to just one member of the family – the oldest one. You don’t even have to choose, and so stir up hostility in the unchosen. No piece of paper is even needed to prove the deal (not that most ordinary people could have read it even if there was one). And there are no arguments over this and that. The first-born male is the solution throughout. Further, by keeping all the wealth in the hands of just one person, this ensures that the family’s power base is not divided into smaller units which eventually dissipate into relative insignificance.

 

You only have to look at what happened in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable, undisputable ‘heir to the throne’. Different warloads rise up, all claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring factions struggling for power.

 

AND THE WOMEN ARE COMPLETELY DISEMPOWERED IN THE PROCESS!

 

Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

 

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male – and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains.

 

She also has the children to bear and to look after. Further, females will have spent much of their youth preparing for motherhood and all its ramifications. In other words, females had enough on their plates.

 

And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?

 

Well, they would have been rapidly outgunned by those that didn’t do this. And so they would have quickly disappeared.

 

And so it is that, on balance, both the men and the women benefited from the custom that gave the male control of the family’s wealth and power. Indeed, even today, those groups that are still very much attached to ‘the family’ (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those where the ‘family’ is more loosely structured and where the men have, effectively, been disempowered. These latter groups (e.g. as found in many council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon the rest of us.

 

In conclusion, it seems that if in any social groups from the past had handed more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have rapidly disappeared.

 

And, indeed, this is exactly what seems to be happening now.

 

Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be washed away and completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have children. Very simple mathematics will demonstrate this. And given that white western women currently make up only some 5% of the Earth’s population then, in 100 years time, they will barely exist at all.

 

Feminism is an ideology that promotes self-extinction.

 

It is a cultural and racial suicide pill.

 

It has no hope of succeeding.

 

It has no hope of surviving.

 

And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.

[Queen Zenobia]

 

Military service? IMHO the best thing we ever did was to go for a volunteer Army,what would be better? Compulsory National Service for both men & women, everybody spends say 2 years

either in the military or performing work that betters our communities.

 

Being a libertarian, obviously I disagree. Why not just let everyone interact and serve as they see fit? If they want to serve some greater purpose, great. If not, their loss.

 

Compelling anything (military or peaceful service) is IMO, immoral.

[joystickd]

But that's exactly what affirmative action did to men at the behest of feminists... now that the pendulum looks like it's swinging the other way & men are being discriminated against

affirmative action is suddenly unfair?

 

We have a tragedy happening in this country, generations of young minority ( and increasingly poor young white men) being lost to the street gang/ drug culture.Young men, dying in our streets and rotting in our prisons. Something must be done and soon.

 

A lot of young men lost. I remember being in college and meeting guys that were in gangs. I hung out in the rough neighborhoods and got to know them. The main thing is that they had no male example of what it is to be a man. These guys turned to the streets because their only example of success was the drug dealer or the pimp. I see successful women that mentor females and empower them to improve their life and men particularly minority men get left out in the cold. Its a shame when you meet drug dealer and they are so smart and have the potential to be CEOs but no one mentors them. They fussed at me about going to school and being successful. I got hell when some of them found out I was selling drugs. I stopped because I had other options but these guys feel they don't.

[soserious1]

Being a libertarian, obviously I disagree. Why not just let everyone interact and serve as they see fit? If they want to serve some greater purpose, great. If not, their loss.

 

Compelling anything (military or peaceful service) is IMO, immoral.

 

Ah yes, the cult of worshiping the "individual" we already have that here in the USA with disastrous results.

 

Personally I feel we need to take a cue or two from Eastern cultures. Duty first to nation, then to family,with an individual's wants coming in last.

 

We live in the cult of "me,me,me" and have been since the flower power revolution.. look at the mess that stance has gotten us into.

[Queen Zenobia]

Ah yes, the cult of worshiping the "individual" we already have that here in the USA with disastrous results.

 

Personally I feel we need to take a cue or two from Eastern cultures. Duty first to nation, then to family,with an individual's wants coming in last.

 

We live in the cult of "me,me,me" and have been since the flower power revolution.. look at the mess that stance has gotten us into.

 

I don't think you know the first thing about libertarianism, or at least not enough to adequately critique it. I think people should have a duty to whatever they feel they have a duty to. Personally for me my religious and familial responsibilities come first, but because I chose those responsibilities, not because someone else decided those were best for me.

 

That's the essence of libertarian philosophy: voluntary interaction. You should be able to choose how to act and interact with others as long as you don't harm them. I certainly encourage people to do so in ways that are productive, but I do not believe that I or anyone else has a right to make anyone do so.

 

That's a fair cry from a "cult of worshiping the individual".

[dasein]

The notion that women were oppressed throughout much of recent western history is, in my view, nothing more than the usual feminist-inspired hokum that is designed to stir up hatred towards men.

 

Welcome to the forum. Lots of great points in your post.

[dasein]

A lot of young men lost. I remember being in college and meeting guys that were in gangs. I hung out in the rough neighborhoods and got to know them. The main thing is that they had no male example of what it is to be a man. These guys turned to the streets because their only example of success was the drug dealer or the pimp. I see successful women that mentor females and empower them to improve their life and men particularly minority men get left out in the cold. Its a shame when you meet drug dealer and they are so smart and have the potential to be CEOs but no one mentors them. They fussed at me about going to school and being successful. I got hell when some of them found out I was selling drugs. I stopped because I had other options but these guys feel they don't.

 

Some have asked what feminism has to do with the outrageous incarceration rate in the U.S. (highest in the world). Here's the answer.

[Elysian Powder]

The notion that women were oppressed throughout much of recent western history is, in my view, nothing more than the usual feminist-inspired hokum that is designed to stir up hatred towards men.

 

This is not to suggest that people have not been oppressed in the west. They surely have been – in one way or another. But the idea that women have been oppressed more than men is just not supported by the evidence. And the ubiquitous propaganda suggesting that ‘men oppress women’ is ludicrous.

 

Men tend to oppress men, not women.

 

Let’s start with how things were in the 1930′s in the UK, especially. Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment. Indeed, there was not much in the way of ‘industry’. Families were seen as economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it simply wasn’t tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house while the next door neighbors had none! Such a thing would have been a recipe for social envy, disaster and violence – and, of course, in those days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the imbalances.

 

Neither was there much of a police force; which meant that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems. For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were seemingly wealthier with impunity.

 

And why not? – if their families had no wage earners and very little food, while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even luxuries?!

 

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

 

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

 

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom – and, in many cases, through the law.

 

Indeed, as an example, in the US, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, ‘seduced’. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint.

 

Given that most women had MANY children fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country’s, or a family’s, VERY LIMITED wealth in the education of women – because they were the very ones most likely NOT to take any value from it!

 

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen – like a having a full-time ‘career’, or a job, of whatever sort.

 

Also, looking after children in those days was somewhat more time consuming, more complex an affair, and far more laborious than it is today. There were no microwave ovens, washing machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, telephones, televisions, automatic heating systems, cars, etc.. And there was little in the way of modern materials, medicines and chemicals that we now rely on so heavily.

 

Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore, major domestic industries in themselves, and preparing young girls for dealing successfully with all of these things was crucial for their well-being and their survival in the rat race.

 

Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this were not going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did! In terms of cultural ‘evolution’, therefore, societies whose women did not care properly for the children, while the men labored on their behalf, never made it! Indeed, such societies would have disappeared very quickly – as more effective ones took over the land.

 

And you can see this sort of thing happening today!

 

For example, there are now many pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up their children properly, and where the fathers are – thanks to feminism – ‘not required’.

 

And, as a result, across the entire country, there are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society.

 

These pockets of deprivation, which they have now become, all have something in common. They are places where a significant proportion of the fathers are absent or ineffective. And it doesn’t take more than a handful of their dysfunctional offspring to terrorize and ruin entire neighborhoods.

 

Yet they survive – but only because the rest of the country keeps injecting millions and millions of dollars into them and because it is prepared to provide them with so many supportive services – police, health, education etc.

 

Without this support, they would fail. Indeed, they would destroy themselves.

 

And this is exactly what would have happened in the past.

 

The best road to success in the past was for women to bring up the children – and to be trained to do so properly – while the men spent much of their time developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children – particularly the boys.

 

And it wasn’t only men who enforced these ‘decisions’ and norms, it was WOMEN!

 

Indeed, if the men had been given their way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and wives working out there – for money – in order to help to pay the bills. But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one family to have both parents earning while their neighbors had no income at all.

 

Given that women were biologically chosen by nature to be the ones to bear children and nurture them, it is hardly surprising that, throughout all of History, in all other areas, they have been ‘held back’. They have simply had other things to do.

 

And for feminists to keep blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognized for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather, slaving) in order to support their loved ones.

 

While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by ‘keeping them at home with the children’, it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as ‘oppression’, was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.

 

And if anyone thinks in any way that the jobs of men 50-200 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today, you are poorly educated indeed! They were awful – and, at the very best, utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not much in the way of rights and pay.

 

Do feminists really believe that women would actually have preferred to do these jobs rather than stay at home with their children in the comfort of their surrounding friendly neighborhoods?

 

Here’s an extract from David Thomas' book Not Guilty …

“The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 percent to 10 percent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”

 

In other words, during that period, women did not like the jobs that were available, and so they opted out of them.

 

The men had to do them instead!

 

The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who ‘oppressed’ his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed ‘victims’ in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief.

 

One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where ‘women and children first’ was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the ‘oppression’ and the ‘low status’ of women in those days. Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

 

The idea that women, particularly western women, have not had power throughout recent History is, of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood, and it was created mostly by emotionally-deficient women to provide further fuel for their personal campaigns of hatred against men.

 

Indeed, it is almost impossible to envisage a successful society – a strong one – in which women do not have considerable power.

 

The fact that, in the past, the women brought up the children, and, hence, the very next generation, gave them untold powers. Not only did they influence the values, beliefs and behaviors of the next generation, they also benefited hugely from the fact that their children, both sons and daughters, bonded very tightly to them, emotionally speaking. This was a tremendous ‘investment’ for their own futures which benefited them throughout their entire lives, well into old age and death – not only financially and emotionally, but in almost every possible way. This empowered them hugely. And the further fact that the fathers were so much engaged elsewhere, away from their families, gave the mothers at home even greater relative influence, power and advantage over the future generation. In fact, the men were often reduced to little more than slaves and wallets when it came to ‘the family’.

 

Thus, when it comes to shaping the generations that follow, there can be no question of which gender has, and has always had, real power.

 

If women of the past were particularly oppressed in any way, then it was with the full complicity of the women themselves.

 

Indeed, there surely has never been a successful society in which women, as a whole, were treated badly.

 

Further, if any group had come up with something better than ‘marriage’ then it, whatever it was, would have been dominating our formal social arrangements by now.

 

Instead, the reality is that ALL other systems governing the relationships between males and females, particularly in connection with their reproductive roles – and there must have been some other systems that were tried out – have clearly failed abysmally.

 

They never got very far.

 

Not one of them turned into a strong successful society.

 

Not one!

 

Another example that is often cited as evidence for the oppression of women

was the common ‘inheritance’ procedures, whereby the oldest son inherited the property – the land, the money, the title and the status.

 

But was this really oppression, given the circumstances and limitations of the recent past and beyond?

 

For example, what does one do when there is no enforceable, observable, common, sufficiently complex legal system to deal with matters of property – or title, such as ‘King’? Well, the best route is surely the simplest one. You hand the property down to just one member of the family – the oldest one. You don’t even have to choose, and so stir up hostility in the unchosen. No piece of paper is even needed to prove the deal (not that most ordinary people could have read it even if there was one). And there are no arguments over this and that. The first-born male is the solution throughout. Further, by keeping all the wealth in the hands of just one person, this ensures that the family’s power base is not divided into smaller units which eventually dissipate into relative insignificance.

 

You only have to look at what happened in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable, undisputable ‘heir to the throne’. Different warloads rise up, all claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring factions struggling for power.

 

AND THE WOMEN ARE COMPLETELY DISEMPOWERED IN THE PROCESS!

 

Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

 

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male – and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains.

 

She also has the children to bear and to look after. Further, females will have spent much of their youth preparing for motherhood and all its ramifications. In other words, females had enough on their plates.

 

And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?

 

Well, they would have been rapidly outgunned by those that didn’t do this. And so they would have quickly disappeared.

 

And so it is that, on balance, both the men and the women benefited from the custom that gave the male control of the family’s wealth and power. Indeed, even today, those groups that are still very much attached to ‘the family’ (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those where the ‘family’ is more loosely structured and where the men have, effectively, been disempowered. These latter groups (e.g. as found in many council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon the rest of us.

 

In conclusion, it seems that if in any social groups from the past had handed more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have rapidly disappeared.

 

And, indeed, this is exactly what seems to be happening now.

 

Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be washed away and completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have children. Very simple mathematics will demonstrate this. And given that white western women currently make up only some 5% of the Earth’s population then, in 100 years time, they will barely exist at all.

 

Feminism is an ideology that promotes self-extinction.

 

It is a cultural and racial suicide pill.

 

It has no hope of succeeding.

 

It has no hope of surviving.

 

And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.

 

I think I've just witnessed that UFO that is mythically known by pink forums as man-logic

[dasein]

I think I've just witnessed that UFO that is mythically known by pink forums as man-logic

 

Yep, it's going to be really interesting to see how feminism stands up to "man logic," "man statistics," "man math," and "man history," over the next few years. Until the internet, it has been allowed to fester like a giant slimy mold in a cave of illogic, shoddy statistics, unmath and history lite.

 

EDIT: I have Berkeley misspelled in an earlier post and Friedan wrote "The Feminine Mystique" not "The Feminist Mystique." Sorry if the typos confused anyone.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dasein

[Taramere]

Where is there irony? I fully admit my trust issues which I am working on but I don't advocate legal discrimination. I do think we need to do more to reach out to boys in high school and college though. Doing that takes nothing away from girls.

 

That's the crux of it for me. Yes, work to promote fairness. It's when the focus is on finding ways to disadvantage women as a sort of strike against the much hated "evil feminism" that my concerns set in. The word feminism is often applied to anything that provides support to women in difficulties - which must therefore be "attacked" as an evil agent of evil feminism. Even where similar supports would be provided to men, were they to ask for them. One example of this is of a case where a MRA group (called Men and Women Against Discrimination - which I hadn't heard of but maybe others have) took a government agency to court over the funding of domestic abuse shelters. Perhaps this is a well known case in the US?

 

Anyway, they were arguing that because more funding was provided to shelters for women, anti-male discrimination was in operation. A resource funded by the government agency provided an amici curiae (information provided to the court by somebody who isn't a party to the action) containing arguments similar to those which can be seen on LS, and which often provoke much rage.

 

That is, that the litigants didn't have any particular policy in mind for the provision of services to domestic violence victims and were solely concerned with trying to cut services to women and children as part of a Men's Rights Movement. In a nutshell, this movement was not genuinely trying to procure equality in funding for a resource men as well as women needed, but was raising the action with spiteful motives -though trying to conceal that spite under terms commonly associated with fairness and equality.

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OChmN3nIKP0J:www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/feb11/35558national-network.pdf+men+and+women+against+discrimination+west+virgina+men%27s+rights+vexatious&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjj0LluJYMN1Y0kv5rA0_kYeWFv_owvjEe4WWEy_sCfc5XnMysx0-N7_gTQ-KwnJJnUpZ_mAYsg4kfLLZR-Zw_4x5S_ntFRpymsxD8jZWUAtstgxdji5NjLTfXdyDrAnWp1UshE&sig=AHIEtbTWj7mvwPLIQpCcj6S6g5yMNsD1Sw

 

The first court hearing the case said that the activist group had standing to bring an action. It went to appeal, and the appeal court said they had no standing and that the action should be dismissed. Although a greater number of shelters were provided to women, this was in response to a greater number of women seeking help...and not arising from an assumption that women were more likely to be victims.

 

Funding for services has to be allocated in accordance known demand (so if male demand for shelters increased, funding provision of suitable shelters would increase)

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:OChmN3nIKP0J:www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/feb11/35558national-network.pdf+men+and+women+against+discrimination+west+virgina+men%27s+rights+vexatious&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjj0LluJYMN1Y0kv5rA0_kYeWFv_owvjEe4WWEy_sCfc5XnMysx0-N7_gTQ-KwnJJnUpZ_mAYsg4kfLLZR-Zw_4x5S_ntFRpymsxD8jZWUAtstgxdji5NjLTfXdyDrAnWp1UshE&sig=AHIEtbTWj7mvwPLIQpCcj6S6g5yMNsD1Sw

 

I know this might not immediately seem to link in to your post, but for me the crucial thing is that...yes, by all means explore men's needs and encourage men to speak out about what it is they need. I just find it really unfortunate that some segments of the MRM seem more concerned with making adversarial gestures against feminism....by attacking resources that exist to assist victims of crime or violence.

 

Some male posters here are asking women to define why they are feminists and if they even know what that means. Speaking personally, it's a label that is applied to me on here by virtue of the fact that I'm female and that I participate in discussions like this. I'm not an activist, except in so far as it's my job to procure justice for my clients.

 

However, if these groups keep springing up and abusing the judicial system with vexatious actions, then I think a lot of sane and rational people will start becoming somewhat more activist in taking a stand against them. And rationality will win out, just as it won in that appeal case I linked.

 

Come to me with a genuine grievance that involves your rights being trampled over, and I will try my best to help you. Come in with a grievance about a doctrine you don't like, and an idea for a vexatious action aimed at delivering a gut punch to that doctrine, and I will kick you out the door for trying to inveigle me into abusing the judicial system. That system doesn't exist for the purposes of people trying to score cheap points or get revenge against people/organisations/doctrines that they don't like.

 

Which is the problem with the MRM. Organisations concerned with fathers' rights may well achieve good things - if, for example, they support men who are going through the court process to secure contact with children who are being used as pawns by a malicious former partner. Which certainly isn't unusual. A a man who raises an action to get contact in such instances is doing so correctly and in good faith.

 

Unfortunately, axe grinders get in on the act and start raising these maliciously intended court actions that consume court time and money for the benefit of absolutely nobody. In order do battle with these invisible dark forces known as "feminism". Then wonder why courts and other authorities fail to take them seriously.

 

So congratulations, Woggle, on keeping a balanced view of this. On focusing on genuine issues for men and being promoted by fairness, rather than by spite and the desire to see an "enemy" stripped of their support network.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Taramere

[Taramere]

Yep, it's going to be really interesting to see how feminism stands up to "man logic," "man statistics," "man math," and "man history," over the next few years. Until the internet, it has been allowed to fester like a giant slimy mold in a cave of illogic, shoddy statistics, unmath and history lite.

 

Following on from my post to Woggle, and bearing in mind the tone & content of the posts you welcome as "man logic" (which don't sound like anything I've ever heard from the smartest and most logical men of my acquaintance): Probably in much the same way that courts deal with axe-grinding, obsessive, vexatious litigants. By giving them a hearing until it becomes clear that they are motivated by unlimited rage, hatred and spite against a perceived enemy rather than by any genuine quest for justice in relation to a specific and valid grievance. By recognising that in accusing their appointed enemy of all manner of ill intended motives and vendettas, they only expose their own.

 

Of course the man who stumbles into a lawyer's office armed with 10 boxes full of files, newspaper clippings and grievances believes he has a fantastic, unloseable case. Of course he's looking forward to seeing his latest opponent (in a long line) cowed into submission by a court that is torn between fury with the evil opponent and enormous respect for the articulate and highly informed pursuer/plaintiff. Even though it's never happened yet, in all the adversarial actions he's entered into.

 

Nothing...absolutely nothing will convince him otherwise. He'll battle the dark forces until his dying day and get nowhere...because the real conflict is taking place in his own mind. He just won't see it.

 

PS - note to the Big Question. Thank you for your kind comments, and likewise....I always enjoy reading your calm, balanced critiques.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Taramere

[Els]

Woggle, you've progressed quite a bit as of late, I think. Congratulations.

 

@soserious: There you go, trying to backpedal again. Now it's compulsory military service for everyone for 2 years instead of women for 4 years, eh? Won't you make up your mind?

 

My point, simply put, is that your extremist views and one-sided rationale are aiding your cause about as much as the extremist feminists truly aided the understanding of women. Which is about nil or thereabouts.

 

Saying for the third and final time, whereas I might not agree with every single element of change soserious posted, I do agree that all of those are issues in need of addressing, and still maintain that feminist shouting and tantrum throwing is what ends up preventing meaningful discussion more often than not.

 

Do you know what is actually preventing meaningful discussion?

 

The usage of the very same tactics one abhors in one's opposition, to get one's 'point' across. Come now, surely you see the similarities. The feminazis used to cry, "Misogynist!" in response to any opinion that differed from theirs - crying, "Feminazi!" in response is no different. The feminazis skew statistics and 'history' to fit their agendas - guess who's doing that now?

 

Yes, that's what I thought you meant in that post. I didn't find the nature of your post at all unclear.

 

Mmhmm, I'm sure that your entirely rational and logical self would defend me similarly if I posted:

 

Hey, here's how we can solve current issues:

 

Mandate the use of pain-transmitting devices that allow men to share in labour pain

 

If the wife dies from childbirth, have the husband buried alongside her in an act of suttee

 

Have the state rule that men are now legally not entitled to vote for the next 50 years to counterbalance the fact that women were not allowed to do so for the past several decades

 

:rolleyes: Oh, wait, is it only you and those on your side who are allowed to play the 'I didn't mean xyy even though I said xyy, silly, I meant xzz, and that should have been perfectly clear' card?

 

Yep, it's going to be really interesting to see how feminism stands up to "man logic," "man statistics," "man math," and "man history," over the next few years. Until the internet, it has been allowed to fester like a giant slimy mold in a cave of illogic, shoddy statistics, unmath and history lite.

 

Funnily enough, I have not seen any demonstration of the above elusive qualities from the masculinazi posters on this thread. I suppose being born a man does not guarantee one the possession of man-logic. The saddest part about this is that there are indeed many rational, logical, brilliant and eloquent men in these forums - it is simply that none of them are choosing to blindly side with you on this thread. Ever wondered why?

 

Let's give you a hint: The truly rational are able to view problems in a neutral and unbiased manner - they speak out against those who eschew logic, rather than relentlessly pursuing an agenda and agreeing blindly with everyone who purports that same agenda, regardless of how illogical the other person's words or how inane their methods may be.

 

Riddle me this: I know both you and soserious have posted claiming that you are against women who work as SAHMs, and see the institution as a mockery of a job. What exactly do you think the majority of women would be working as now, if it weren't for the feminist movement? Trashing feminism seems rather disingenious when one is not inclined to be the sole, or even main breadwinner in a household.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Elswyth