Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Mme. Chaucer]

Why get so hung up about who had it worse when times were rough back in the tough old days?

 

The real issue was not about how men had / have it just as tough as women. The issue that feminism started was an issue of fighting for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of gender, and against discrimination based upon gender.

[dasein]

The thing about voting though was that the justifications for not giving women the vote wasn't that women had less hardships in working life, but because women couldn't be trusted with the vote.

 

My concern with that particular historical issue is it is monotonously trotted out as an example of male oppression of women, not however the social wrong was rationalized.

 

It becomes strident to the point of infuriating to hear people who have had the right to vote their entire lives, and whose parents did also, continue to use it as the grounds for illegitimate, discriminatory political action in the here and now, when the truth is that in the grand scheme of the brutal environment of the past, in a world of barbarism and shackles, not being able to vote for who got to rob you blind for the next few years just wasn't the big deal then that it is today. If men had had the choice to stay at home and raise young, not be conscripted, not work in constant fear of death or maiming, I imagine many would have gladly given up their vote for that choice, a choice they did not in fact have.

 

The protection of the reproductive function of the species, perpetuated by men in favor of women for millenia, trumped the right to put a slip of paper in a box when considered in historical context.

 

Husbands who beat their wives are not entitled to have those wives stay with them.

 

Agreed, and let us be thankful that our Western heritage has been successful due in part to the well-documented policy of punishing and scorning men who abuse women going back a long, long time, nitpicked wackadoo local ordinances feminists love to cite notwithstanding.

 

I'm not saying that women have experienced unique forms of oppression, I'm saying that the fact that women work outside of the home, have the right to own property (which they had in the Near East a thousand years ago), and the right to stay single or divorce their husbands, is not a bad thing at all.

 

We can certainly agree on that.

 

As to the role of feminism in any of those social trends, though, didn't happen. The influence of feminism in modern society is overwhelmingly negative. The doctrine has done immense damage to our society and the damage continues to multiply.

[NXS]

Why get so hung up about who had it worse when times were rough back in the tough old days?

 

The real issue was not about how men had / have it just as tough as women. The issue that feminism started was an issue of fighting for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of gender, and against discrimination based upon gender.

 

Here's your earlier post:

 

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about any subject with someone who intentionally "misunderstands" or rewrites history to promote their own point of view.

 

We can't talk about feminism, or men who have problems with feminism, or the existence and purpose of a "men's rights movement" if the people in the conversation won't acknowledge that women did not receive the same "human rights" as men until society made significant changes - and recently.

 

Now there is fallout. Quotas, "affirmative action" stuff, etc. need to be addressed and true equality afforded to all. It's worth discussing. But not with guys who deny that women have been oppressed by patriarchal societal constructs for centuries.

 

This illustrates one of the main differences between between feminists and the MRM, actually it also illustrates one of the main differences between men and women which up until inernet forums was not previously highlighted. Up until this point women could change their minds every five minutes and make total contradictory statements with impunity, as well as denying what they previously said.

 

Men on the other hand have always been held accountable for their statements and must be willing to either back up what they say or concede, if not then they have lost credibility. The nit-picking over some of Dasein's posts here are one example, while the sophistic ramblings by some of the feminists here are an opposite example.

 

This is why arguing with feminists is futile except to highlight the fickle nature of their arguments. Most have still haven't adjusted to the fact that writing on forums is recorded for all to see and re-post.

 

You are now saying "feminism started was an issue of fighting for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of gender" with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Can you please substantiate this claim by giving examples of what feminism has done in areas of specific discrimination against men?

[Els]

 

Let's give you a hint: you just described the behavior of feminists for half a century. Backlash is a bitch.

 

Riiight. And the solution to extremism is extremism, am I right? Those women did so, ergo you have carte blanche to do the same and not be blamed for it? Thanks for admitting to it, though.

 

History has records of many TYPES of feminism and feminists, from the extreme and radical to the more reasonable. Painting all feminists with the brush of the radical is equivalent to painting all Muslims with the brush of the terrorist - AND agreeing that bombing mosques would be an appropriate solution as backlash.

 

You and soserious haven't answered me. A major proponent of several branches of feminism was for women to have the rights to work outside the house and earn equal pay. Had these branches not existed and as you feel the principles upheld by ALL feminists are wrong, are you willing to support a woman to be a SAHM as was the tradition amongst families before the feminist movement, as the majority of RedPill's post stated (whom you also agreed with - or is this another 'I typed in a blanket agreement but I really don't mean all of his post even though I quoted all of it and I really disagree with half of it' thing?

[dasein]

Can you please substantiate this claim by giving examples of what feminism has done in areas of specific discrimination against men?

 

Normally I hate these smilicon things and almost never use them, but:

 

:laugh::laugh:

[Taramere]

Well since it was your example from your jurisdiction... I'm not overly concerned with court procedural rules in this discussion.

 

I still maintain that your categorizing that litigant as vexatious or serial, rightly or wrongly, is irrelevant to the underlying merits of their case, and thus irrelevant to the discussion here.

 

If somebody doesn't have standing to raise a case, then they don't have a case and it ends there. Which is what happened in that case. The Amicus Curiae (report by a "friend of the court") which I linked to alleged that their actions were consistent with a pattern of vexatious litigation by Fathers' Rights groups. The court itself doesn't comment on that.

 

Again, I only know the procedures where I live...but I should think it would be similar. That if they keep going after agencies that fund DV shelters and getting the same knockbacks from courts, then sooner or later somebody will petition for a declaration of vexatious litigation.

 

It's more likely, I think, that lawyers they went to would advise them "look - here's a case that tells us you're unlikely to get far with this action." If they can't find lawyers to represent them then they're probably going to stop raising the actions. Or members of the organisation might take it upon themselves to raise the action as party litigants. Based on the arguments I've seen online from MRM activists, I can't imagine them doing too well.

 

You might say "that's because courts have been brainwashed by feminism". I'd say it's because judges have limited patience for people presenting opinion as fact and raising points they consider to be largely irrelevant. When I see MRM arguments on this board, I see people with 1000 grievances against something intangible.

 

While people putting forth the MRM arguments on here might honestly believe that they have a winnable case against feminism, you can't raise court actions against belief systems. Nor can you outlaw them (though of course you can prevent people from applying those belief systems in ways that injure others). Not in a free society. If what MRM activists are campaigning for is a less free society...well, the old adage about being careful what you wish for seems very apt.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Taramere

[Woggle]

People here who advocate more hatred to fight hatred are no better than the women who think men have no right to complain about being cheated on because men have done it for years.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Mme. Chaucer

 

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about any subject with someone who intentionally "misunderstands" or rewrites history to promote their own point of view.

 

We can't talk about feminism, or men who have problems with feminism, or the existence and purpose of a "men's rights movement" if the people in the conversation won't acknowledge that women did not receive the same "human rights" as men until society made significant changes - and recently.

 

Now there is fallout. Quotas, "affirmative action" stuff, etc. need to be addressed and true equality afforded to all. It's worth discussing. But not with guys who deny that women have been oppressed by patriarchal societal constructs for centuries.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mme. Chaucer

Why get so hung up about who had it worse when times were rough back in the tough old days?

 

The real issue was not about how men had / have it just as tough as women. The issue that feminism started was an issue of fighting for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of gender, and against discrimination based upon gender.

 

This illustrates one of the main differences between between feminists and the MRM, actually it also illustrates one of the main differences between men and women which up until inernet forums was not previously highlighted. Up until this point women could change their minds every five minutes and make total contradictory statements with impunity, as well as denying what they previously said.

 

Um … I'm a good reader, and I am not seeing where the later of my posts contradicts what I said in the former.

 

Men on the other hand have always been held accountable for their statements and must be willing to either back up what they say or concede, if not then they have lost credibility. The nit-picking over some of Dasein's posts here are one example, while the sophistic ramblings by some of the feminists here are an opposite example.

 

Oh, please. You personally decimate your own credibility when you constantly resort to pedantic language, sexism and put-downs in your wobbly efforts to "win" an argument on the Internet.

 

You are now saying "feminism started was an issue of fighting for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of gender" with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Can you please substantiate this claim by giving examples of what feminism has done in areas of specific discrimination against men?

 

I think I understand your confusion. I should have specified that the issue that started Feminism was fighting for equal human rights regardless of gender which up until that time HAD NOT BEEN AFFORDED TO WOMEN, but which had been denied to women SOLEY UPON THE BASIS OF GENDER.

 

I was clear in both posts that I was talking about the ISSUE THAT STARTED FEMINISM, back in the days of the Suffragettes. Certainly many men fought against that, but I don't think they were concerned with fighting for "men's rights" at that time.

 

I was not talking about the subsequent waves of feminism, which gave rise to a current "men's rights movement."

 

Have I made myself clear enough now?

 

I forgot that my post was being read by a man (or maybe more than one, but at times I think you're mostly the same dude with many heads, much impotent rage and a heck of a lot of spare time) who believes that it is an "uncontested and incontrovertible fact" that there was NEVER a time that the same basic rights that were a white man's birthright were NOT afforded to women.

 

Hope I was able to help you understand.

[NXS]

You might say "that's because courts have been brainwashed by feminism". I'd say it's because judges have limited patience for people presenting opinion as fact and raising points they consider to be largely irrelevant. When I see MRM arguments on this board, I see people with 1000 grievances against something intangible.

 

While people putting forth the MRM arguments on here might honestly believe that they have a winnable case against feminism, you can't raise court actions against belief systems. Nor can you outlaw them (though of course you can prevent people from applying those belief systems in ways that injure others). Not in a free society. If what MRM activists are campaigning for is a less free society...well, the old adage about being careful what you wish for seems very apt.

 

The guy I linked to earlier is not taking a case against an intagible belief system, it's a college course and environment with a specific gender discrimination. Furthermore it's in breach of their own guidelines and anti-discrimination laws in the UK, not to mention false advertisement.

[dasein]

You and soserious haven't answered me.

 

Pardon me, allow me to correct that oversight:

 

Feminism is a Marxist social construct that was created by Communist propagandists such as Betty Friedan in the 60s. Because American Cold War sensibilities would not respond favorably to any doctrine so directly related to and inspired by Communist realpolitik social control methods (methods identical to feminism being historically demonstrated in Maoist China, Cambodian "ground floor" control, etc.), a "first wave" of feminism was created out of thin air. This was accomplished by weaving imaginary threads between female social activists in the past to create the illusion of some historical unified front where no unified front actually existed.

 

This allowed indoctrination into a stated and well-documented agenda of destroying the American social structure by fomenting a victim mentality in women and removing men, to the extent possible, from social influence within the family unit, placing the state and the academy in the stead of men. Conveniently, the imaginary "first wave" provided a "rosy mask" of "equality for women," "human rights for all," to be placed over the underlying Communist Cold War methods to avoid rational scrutiny of the underlying doctrine.

 

By the end of the Cold War, the doctrine had become so lucrative and politically profitable that it grew unquestioned into today's massive "women's rights" industry, comprised of bureaucrats, marketers, social workers, and of course professors, among others, riding a gravy train as profitable as any other American industry in the history of American capitalism. Just as so many "radicals" from the sixities sold out and hit the big time, feminism, begun ironically as a Communist construct, evolved into just another type of "government industrial" capitalist business in the U.S.

 

All well and good, so long as the industries' profits don't derive from the continuous and pervasive discrimination against men and the stripping away of men's rights. They do, though, and today, the backlash is in its nascence, just forming, the "industry" is being dragged into the light of day, and better times for all of us will be the end result, as any political doctrine founded on marxist polarization, victimization politics is doomed to failure.

 

Hope that covers it. Happy to offer further clarification if you like.

[Els]

Interesting bit of history, but that does not answer my question. Are you or are you not willing to support the traditional SAHM that embodied the Western woman prior to the changes that modernity brought? And if you argue that feminism did not cause those changes, how can you claim that feminism is solely responsible for the negative changes as well?

 

Neither does the origins of a movement necessarily dictate what EVERYONE who has branched out from it does. The Protestant Church was founded initially because a King wished to marry without the consent of the Roman Catholics, but that does not mean that the millions of people who follow the Protestant doctrine today are all about that.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Real women are frigid, hates sex and intimacy and would prefer to be alone than with a man.

 

Great job bringing this thread back on topic!

[NXS]

History has records of many TYPES of feminism and feminists, from the extreme and radical to the more reasonable. Painting all feminists with the brush of the radical is equivalent to painting all Muslims with the brush of the terrorist - AND agreeing that bombing mosques would be an appropriate solution as backlash.

 

Who's engaging in hyperbole now?

 

Debating about the different types/waves/tenets of feminism is nothing more than a distraction. They may not all agree on the same approach or goals but they are in broad agreement on the outcomes. Furthermore individual feminist's beliefs are irrelevant, as feminism has a structure with access to power at the highest levels of government and international organisations.

 

Here's the UN CEDAW Committee:

 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom1

 

This organisation makes policy recommendations for all the member States, whom must report to the committee every four years on their progress towards compliance. 21 of the current 22 committee members are women, who knows how many of the are extremists or moderates, but they are in positions of tremendous influence and none of them ever faced an electorate.

 

Getting back to your earlier reply to Soserious and Dasein re suggestions for a military draft for women because of past injustices, it may appear to be extreme but I'm sure we all know that it's never going to happen. However one way of focusing on "equality" is to turn feminists' arguments back on their head by proposing examples of how equality could also apply to men. Some people just don't get it until faced with the results of their proposals. I'm sure you already knew this but chose to pretend otherwise.

[Taramere]

The guy I linked to earlier is not taking a case against an intagible belief system, it's a college course and environment with a specific gender discrimination. Furthermore it's in breach of their own guidelines and anti-discrimination laws in the UK, not to mention false advertisement.

 

I took a look at your link. Basically, the guy enrolled on a gender studies course, felt that the teaching encouraged a victim complex in women and the perception of men as persecutors, dropped out after 6 weeks, was refunded his fee as a goodwill gesture and is now suing for £50,000.

 

He's started a media campaign to raise awareness of his case and to get funding for his legal action.

 

All I'll say is that when I talk about a sense of how a sense of dread set in on the rare occasions a client would walk in with scrap books full of newspaper clippings, this is exactly the kind of thing....

 

I spent about 6 weeks reading the law on discrimination, another 6 weeks filing the particulars of claim which are 42 pages long...

 

Oh dear, for several reasons. This suggests that the £2,000 he says he has spent on legal fees so far has not led to any solicitor actually representing him. Particulars of claim = 42 pages?

 

I'm not saying any more, other than that it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Els]

Who's engaging in hyperbole now?

 

You? That was a perfectly apt analogy - if you'd like to point out the logical flaws, please go ahead.

 

Debating about the different types/waves/tenets of feminism is nothing more than a distraction. They may not all agree on the same approach or goals but they are in broad agreement on the outcomes. Furthermore individual feminist's beliefs are irrelevant, as feminism has a structure with access to power at the highest levels of government and international organisations.

 

Here's the UN CEDAW Committee:

 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom1

 

This organisation makes policy recommendations for all the member States, whom must report to the committee every four years on their progress towards compliance. 21 of the current 22 committee members are women, who knows how many of the are extremists or moderates, but they are in positions of tremendous influence and none of them ever faced an electorate.

 

The current UN committee's goals and tenets, as I see it, are completely different from the marxist doctrine that dasein posted about. Neither do they engage in 'braiding armpit hair' and 'burning bras' as soserious likes to sardonically claim.Thanks for reinforcing my point.

 

Getting back to your earlier reply to Soserious and Dasein re suggestions for a military draft for women because of past injustices, it may appear to be extreme but I'm sure we all know that it's never going to happen. However one way of focusing on "equality" is to turn feminists' arguments back on their head by proposing examples of how equality could also apply to men. Some people just don't get it until faced with the results of their proposals. I'm sure you already knew this but chose to pretend otherwise.

 

Mmmhm, so how does this make them any better than the feminazis they purport to hate, again?

[dasein]

Interesting bit of history, but that does not answer my question.

 

Oh sorry, allow me to address that oversight:

 

I was out in the car, just got back actually, and a typical "feminist industry agitator" was prattling on about all the impoverished, hungry children in my state. She blithely offers the following:

 

"There are 700,000 children in this state that either go hungry or are in danger of going hungry."

 

OMG! Alert the media! 700,000 poor starvin urchins! Something must be done!

 

But wait a minute.

 

There are fewer than 9 million people in my state. So out of 9 million people, 700,000 are starving children? Where the hell are they? There is a shelter for orphaned kids in my city, it's mostly empty. They don't exist. As long as feminists insist on perpetuating lies, who's to ever find out the truth? Just a 15 minute car ride with a random radio station to hear more lies.

 

700,000 starving children in my state, in a country where 50 million people are on food stamps? where you fill out a one page form to get $200 worth of a federal debit card for free food per head? Where I spend about $250 a month on eating very, very well?

 

I got back home before the conversation turned to the inevitable "evil man' half of the show, no doubt all those invisible, imaginary starving children are starving due to some man's doing, either a deadbeat dad or callous politician who won't authorize moremoremore expenditure for "women's issues."

 

Couldn't make this stuff up.

 

All lies, mountains upon mountains of lies, just like any other big business in the United States of Femerica.

[joystickd]

Interesting bit of history, but that does not answer my question. Are you or are you not willing to support the traditional SAHM that embodied the Western woman prior to the changes that modernity brought? And if you argue that feminism did not cause those changes, how can you claim that feminism is solely responsible for the negative changes as well?

 

Neither does the origins of a movement necessarily dictate what EVERYONE who has branched out from it does. The Protestant Church was founded initially because a King wished to marry without the consent of the Roman Catholics, but that does not mean that the millions of people who follow the Protestant doctrine today are all about that.

 

Correction The Church of England was founded because Henry VIII wanted to annul a marriage. The rest of protestant churches were founded as a protest to Catholism. I know for me I'm cool with gender equality but some of the promotion for strong women has no place in the home. The same skillset for success in the workplace can't be used at home and that is my main problem with feminism. You see it in the black community where these strong women can't find mates because there is a failure to teach what should be done in the home. I think at least 42% of black women are unmarried and this is one of the factors contributing to it. Now when I say what should be done in the home doesn't not mean her place is in the kitchen. There should be at least some respect for your partner.

[Els]

Oh sorry, allow me to address that oversight:

 

I was out in the car, just got back actually, and a typical "feminist industry agitator" was prattling on about all the impoverished, hungry children in my state. She blithely offers the following:

 

"There are 700,000 children in this state that either go hungry or are in danger of going hungry."

 

OMG! Alert the media! 700,000 poor starvin urchins! Something must be done!

 

But wait a minute.

 

There are fewer than 9 million people in my state. So out of 9 million people, 700,000 are starving children? Where the hell are they? There is a shelter for orphaned kids in my city, it's mostly empty. They don't exist. As long as feminists insist on perpetuating lies, who's to ever find out the truth? Just a 15 minute car ride with a random radio station to hear more lies.

 

700,000 starving children in my state, in a country where 50 million people are on food stamps? where you fill out a one page form to get $200 worth of a federal debit card for free food per head? Where I spend about $250 a month on eating very, very well?

 

I got back home before the conversation turned to the inevitable "evil man' half of the show, no doubt all those invisible, imaginary starving children are starving due to some man's doing, either a deadbeat dad or callous politician who won't authorize moremoremore expenditure for "women's issues."

 

Couldn't make this stuff up.

 

All lies, mountains upon mountains of lies, just like any other big business in the United States of Femerica.

 

Wow, you managed to type up paragraphs of unrelated stuff to my question for the third time in a row. Congratulations. The man-comprehension within you must be strong indeed.

[joystickd]

Let just end the feminism and men/women hate its counterproductive. Who did what to who and when is crazy. The main focus should be to positively create some form of compromise between both genders. Life is balance that means give and take on both sides. Men and women are basically two halves to make a whole. We are all looking for that person that completes us but the thing is we have to learn to have some respect. I think the initial thing was to be equal and offer options but its lost that identity because there is no one really focused agenda.

[Els]

Correction The Church of England was founded because Henry VIII wanted to annul a marriage. The rest of protestant churches were founded as a protest to Catholism.

 

I can't be arsed to google something this unrelated to the topic, so let's assume you are correct.

 

How does that make the base logic of my analogy wrong again? The majority of current Protestants are STILL most certainly not Protestants for the sole reason of protesting Catholism.

[joystickd]

I can't be arsed to google something this unrelated to the topic, so let's assume you are correct.

 

How does that make the base logic of my analogy wrong again? The majority of current Protestants are STILL most certainly not Protestants for the sole reason of protesting Catholism.

 

I was just saying. This who argument is stupid and doesn't solve the problem of equality

[Els]

I was just saying. This who argument is stupid and doesn't solve the problem of equality

 

Indeed. That was my entire point to begin with. The reasonable people on this thread, both male and female, have been saying that for pages and have gradually been driven away one by one, by the extremist misogynists here who don't realize that their words and actions are no better than that of the radical feminists they despise.

[dasein]

Oh, please. You personally decimate your own credibility

 

He reduces his credibility by 10%? Doesn't sound all that bad.

 

 

I was clear in both posts that I was talking about the ISSUE THAT STARTED FEMINISM, back in the days of the Suffragettes.

 

No, feminism started in the 60s, soon after the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique." There were female campaigners for various social reforms before then, scattered throughout the preceding 100 years, but not unified in any way into any kind of movement, not even tangentially. The Communists/cultural Marxists needed some air of legitimacy to cover their actual purpose, Cold War cultural espionage, so fabricated a "first wave" of feminism by plucking up individuals and their isolated causes out of history and patching together something that had no true historical existence.

 

Feminism = Communism to start, and now Feminism = Big Business. You don't think the irony in that is at least a little bit funny? Communist >>> Capitalist in only a few decades? I sure do, and especially how funny it is that so many feminists don't even know the actual history of their movement.

 

EDIT: This just in, and the book was written by a SOCIALIST!

 

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/friedan-per-horowitz.html

Edited November 17, 2011 by dasein

[NXS]

I think I understand your confusion. I should have specified that the issue that started Feminism was fighting for equal human rights regardless of gender which up until that time HAD NOT BEEN AFFORDED TO WOMEN, but which had been denied to women SOLEY UPON THE BASIS OF GENDER.

 

Ok I see where you're coming from now, lack of rights and oppression are being conflated as the same thing. Well even in tin-pot dictatorships people still have rights, and are often given these 'rights' as nothing more than a means of manipulation to prevent civil unrest. Having the right to vote in Zimbabwe doesn't really add up to much.

 

I also couldn't care less about who had it worse off as the majority of both genders had it tough, but I also don't care about the original issue that started feminism as it's not relevant to it's more recent history.

 

I forgot that my post was being read by a man (or maybe more than one, but at times I think you're mostly the same dude with many heads, much impotent rage and a heck of a lot of spare time) who believes that it is an "uncontested and incontrovertible fact" that there was NEVER a time that the same basic rights that were a white man's birthright were NOT afforded to women.

 

You must be mixing me up with someone else I never made any such claim. Feel free to back up your assertion.

[NXS]

I took a look at your link. Basically, the guy enrolled on a gender studies course, felt that the teaching encouraged a victim complex in women and the perception of men as persecutors, dropped out after 6 weeks, was refunded his fee as a goodwill gesture and is now suing for £50,000.

 

He's started a media campaign to raise awareness of his case and to get funding for his legal action.

 

All I'll say is that when I talk about a sense of how a sense of dread set in on the rare occasions a client would walk in with scrap books full of newspaper clippings, this is exactly the kind of thing....

 

 

 

Oh dear, for several reasons. This suggests that the £2,000 he says he has spent on legal fees so far has not led to any solicitor actually representing him. Particulars of claim = 42 pages?

 

I'm not saying any more, other than that it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

Well you may be right about his approach but that doesn't mean he doesn't have sound legal grounds. From what I gather there's more to it than is on that site, including some of the interactions with the lecturers and facilities.

 

Anyway it should be an interesting case alright.