Spinoff: "Real women..."

[soserious1]

Just because some feminists are a bunch of hypocrites which I agree with doesn't make collective punishment right.

 

As a NATION, we stood by and allowed a federal law that discriminated against men to be enacted, a law that caused grievous injury & harm to a huge group of people based solely on the fact that they had a penis.

 

So if we all are responsible for this, who exactly should be held accountable for it? the tooth fairy, Santa Claus?

[Woggle]

As a NATION, we stood by and allowed a federal law that discriminated against men to be enacted, a law that caused grievous injury & harm to a huge group of people based solely on the fact that they had a penis.

 

So if we all are responsible for this, who exactly should be held accountable for it? the tooth fairy, Santa Claus?

 

For years most men supported the draft as well plus many women were involved with the peace movement which was what eventually made our military strictly voluntary.

 

I don't think any vet should be homeless and I have no issue supporting them for life but don't punish a woman who was born long after the fact. How does that make people any better than the feminists who want to punish little boys because their mother faced sexism?

[soserious1]

For years most men supported the draft as well plus many women were involved with the peace movement which was what eventually made our military strictly voluntary.

 

I don't think any vet should be homeless and I have no issue supporting them for life but don't punish a woman who was born long after the fact. How does that make people any better than the feminists who want to punish little boys because their mother faced sexism?

 

In the past when women were found to be the group discriminated against, they were given preference over similarly qualified men via affirmative action,it made no difference whether the men moved to the back of the line had ever discriminated against a woman, he went to the back of the line. Now that we're looking at a situation where men were clearly discriminated against based solely on their gender and affirmative action is suddenly

unfair ?

 

Sorry but I smell self-serving feminist bull here

[Woggle]

This is the first time I have been called a self serving feminist.

[NXS]

Just like at the UN, here in the feminist EU we have the same endless feminist "reports" on how badly off women are being constantly fostered on us. Here's a typical example of the type of rubbish they come out with:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0077:EN:NOT

 

 

Women have also made progress in education : they accounted for 58.9% of university degrees in the EU in 2006 (56.7% in 2004). However, gender differences remain as regards the fields of study, especially in engineering (18% female graduates) and computing (20%), while women predominate in business, administration and law (60 %). Women are still lagging behind men in the use of new technologies and have difficulties in accessing more specialist ICT-related jobs.

 

That's right, even though women account for almost 60% of degrees it's still not good enough, they must be given assistance to get into the other areas that they're under-represented in. This is what feminists see as balance and equality. There's not a single mention in the report on how younger men can increase their share of college degrees. Nor is there any mention of the fact that women chose their field of study. No, it has to be some conspiracy or social conditioning or something else that caused it. Once again men (and boys) don't exist unless it's something about about crime, domestic violence, sexual abuse........

 

Women’s high level of education is not directly reflected in the positions they hold in the labour market. Women are mainly working in ‘feminised’ sectors and professions and remain in lower job categories with less access to senior positions.

 

Duh! imagine that? Women actually wanting to work in feminised sectors i.e. cushy office jobs or government jobs.

 

Again not a single mention in the report about how males can increase their chances to 50% of college degrees. Nope, it's all about women, women, women.

[dasein]

Well if it's a privately funded shelter they should call it whatever they like.

 

I want to note that under the "dasein" initiatives, there could certainly be shelters for victims of abuse, and it would be just fine if women made up a disproportionate number of the clientele.

 

What wouldn't be OK is what goes on now, men are excluded from working at taxpayer funded shelters because that would "traumatize" the abused female clients. Men are denied access to the services themselves on the same grounds. Finally, walking into one of the places, regardless of whether the name of it has gender content or not, it's immediately plain that they are set up for women only.

 

If someone is a billionaire and wants to fund a discriminatory shelter, more power to them, with public funds or grants though? Nope.

[NXS]

I have no problems with the Maori activists group that indeed holds great power in the government of the country that I am currently in. Supremacist is NOT the same. I would certainly have trouble with a female SUPREMACIST group advocating, for instance, that we put men at the back of college grant priority lists.

 

Feminists are supremacists, they want women at top in every area that suits them. They've no problem with affirmative action or any discrimination as long as it's gives them an advantage over men. Oh and a lot of them do think they're superior to men.

 

A large part of the feminist mantra is equality in the workplace. Feminism and the advent of women leaving the home to work are inseparable. Plenty of other anti-feminist people here have said that.

 

So what? Different posters have different opinions on various issues, SAHM is not the main issue or even close. Furthermore I personally wouldn't support a SAHM in the current misandric legal system where I can be stripped of everything on her whim.

 

What has made you so and the others so bitter that you spend countless hours of your time picking out the tiniest cues from social policies and cry 'discrimination!' at everything? Do you want to know what true gender discrimination is?

 

I've been involved in politics before and know that in order to fight against the established lies you have to get your facts straight. The established order, in this case feminism, will quite happily talk in general terms like "oh feminism is just about equality......women were oppressed in the past.... we're just looking for the same as men blah blah blah". Then when you tear down their lies you're accused of nit-picking and then they back to their lies and generalities again.

 

It's like your lie that gender-based violence is not about violence against women, well that's ironic because the Gender Studies course in the LSE has an almost exclusive feminist reading list. Oh and the defence team are arguing that obviously gender studies are about women's studies.

 

Look at the women in Saudi Arabia now, the women in China not too long ago. THAT is true gender discrimination. The radical feminists do not understand that, and neither will you.

 

Yep, just like every other feminist you're quite happy to keep pointing at those "radical feminists" all day long. The radicals are always over there, you're always the good girls who just want "equality" and "balance" and lollipops and rainbows. When I show how the UN committee is no different than those "radicals" then it's "oh but they're just a women's rights group, oh and they're not misandric, and of course they're looking out for women's rights, what's wrong with you, don't you want women to have rights?"

 

I have, to be honest, more reason to be angry at gender discrimination than you do. My ancestors, mere decades ago, killed baby girls so that they might save their one-child quota for a boy. My aunts were given away by their own biological parents because there were no resources to keep them and the limited ones needed to be kept for the male child. My grandmother's mother beat her when she tried to attend school, and my grandaunt endured months of having her feet bound and the putrifying flesh molded into tiny stumps of feet, because of the dictates of society that women must have tiny feet in order to be marriageable. Because if a woman did not marry, she would die because no one would allow her to work and feed herself.

 

And yet you don't see me advocating that a baby boy should be killed for every baby girl killed in this manner, as the 'dog turning on his master'. Yet you don't see me spending hours of my time vilifying the people who did this on an internet forum. You don't see me turning into THEM.

 

What was that feminist phrase again? Oh yeah..."make the personal political".

 

You, dasein, and soserious are doing for men exactly what Steinem and their ilk did for women. You simply foster bitterness and anger towards the activists who truly do just wish to help men with the issues they face in society, and you drive people from their cause.

 

Yep it's the same routine over and over, as soon as you say anything about feminism you're automatically a misogynist, woman-hater, bitter, can't get laid..... but it's never the poor feminists that are bitter and angry. Simply pointing out facts gets you labelled a misogynist these days. This is what has worked successfully for feminists in the past but thankfully those days are over. Many men (and women) are no longer willing to play that game or be shamed into shutting up and crawling back into the corner.

[dasein]

That's right, even though women account for almost 60% of degrees it's still not good enough,

 

 

...and this will never ever end.

 

Point out 60% of college grads are women? They gripe that there aren't enough female engineers without any accompanying data on how many women CHOOSE to study engineering. The presumption of course is that the engineering schools are nefariously turning away female applicants when the actuality? women aren't applying.

 

Point out that the incidence of rape is very low in the West? They pull made up "unreported rape" statistics out of thin air. Completely conjectural BS like "rape is the most underreported crime," "lots of women are raped, they just don't realize it." Anyone else remember the disgusting lie slogan "1 in 4?" (one in four women have been raped) NOT spouted by extremists, but by the feminist mainstream.

 

Point out that the percentage of women who run for office and get elected matches men? They try to shift to saying that the discrimination is in the raw numbers of elected representatives as opposed to how many women actually RUN for office.

 

You can apply the above analysis to literally ANY feminist canard. That's why they are so mealy-mouthed in this thread about stating their actual positions, they know almost all mainstream feminist positions are built on multilayered lies and distorted statistics. And note the above are all mainstream feminist positions, not considered extremist, mainstream.

 

It's a disgusting doctrine, packed with lies, built for liars. Always has been, always will be.

[dasein]

The reason I said that is because this is a dating forum and when I meant in dating I didn't mean who pays the bill. I mean improving male/female interactions on a more communication level.

 

You need to be aware of these things as a young single man in this country in any dealings with women. They aren't going to just come right out and say the extent they believe the feminist lies, you have to play detective and know the signs. Hell even the admitted feminists in this thread won't own their beliefs. The feminists want you to believe that all women support feminism when that is far from the truth. There are normal fairminded women out there, you just have to learn how to cull out the chaff and leave the feminists to their absurdities. IME it's been about 40/60 feminist/rational woman out there, but that's just IME.

 

Don't be mindful of this and wake up one day cheated on, stripped of assets, even in jail because of the polluting effects of feminist doctrine in the U.S.

[NXS]

...and this will never ever end.

 

Point out 60% of college grads are women? They gripe that there aren't enough female engineers without any accompanying data on how many women CHOOSE to study engineering. The presumption of course is that the engineering schools are nefariously turning away female applicants when the actuality? women aren't applying.

 

Point out that the incidence of rape is very low in the West? They pull made up "unreported rape" statistics out of thin air. Completely conjectural BS like "rape is the most underreported crime," "lots of women are raped, they just don't realize it." Anyone else remember the disgusting lie slogan "1 in 4?" (one in four women have been raped) NOT spouted by extremists, but by the feminist mainstream.

 

Point out that the percentage of women who run for office and get elected matches men? They try to shift to saying that the discrimination is in the raw numbers of elected representatives as opposed to how many women actually RUN for office.

 

You can apply the above analysis to literally ANY feminist canard. That's why they are so mealy-mouthed in this thread about stating their actual positions, they know almost all mainstream feminist positions are built on multilayered lies and distorted statistics. And note the above are all mainstream feminist positions, not considered extremist, mainstream.

 

It's a disgusting doctrine, packed with lies, built for liars. Always has been, always will be.

 

Exactly, and they have the audacity to call us extremists. Pointing out facts, or even just debating the issues, makes you an extremist or at the very least a misogynist. That's how absurd it has gotten. The "radical feminists giving feminism a bad name" is a complete and utter lie. It's not the "radical feminists" that are the problem, it's the mainstream feminists, especially the ones in positions of power.

[dasein]

Exactly, and they have the audacity to call us extremists. Pointing out facts, or even just debating the issues, makes you an extremist or at the very least a misogynist. That's how absurd it has gotten. The "radical feminists giving feminism a bad name" is a complete and utter lie. It's not the "radical feminists" that are the problem, it's the mainstream feminists, especially the ones in positions of power.

 

Yeah, feminism simply isn't old enough for all these imaginary "strands" and "subdisciplines" to have developed, that's just women inconsistently shifting positions when things start to get "inconvenient." LOL. NO NO, it's not MEEEE, it's those OTHER ones the bad ones, You see feminism has as many substrands from 50 years as Christianity has from 2000! and besides, it means different things to different people." So does the Easter Bunny, principessa.

 

Actually, it has gotten a bit better, I remember in the early mid 90s, the only response they gave to anyone who questioned any feminist position was the "donnamaybe response" spray out a string of insults and then go footstamping off. Maybe even key your car, put a turd in your mailbox, call in a bomb threat to your work. That we accepted this then in lieu of expecting mature adult responses is our fault. We let them act like Beavis and Butthead and now they think that is a free pass for life... sorry.

 

Now because of the internet, THANK YOU AL GORE! they can't do that right off the bat or they look ridiculous even to themselves. They still stamp their feet and scream and look ridiculous, you just have to scratch the surface a bit first. They can't find your car to key, call your boss to make groundless accusations and it's hard to get a turd into an Email box. God bless the internet.

 

Stating that women weren't historically oppressed any more than men were has gotten me labelled a holocaust denier, UFO conspiracist, flat earth believer, bitter, ignorant, hateful, misogynist, smug, "single issue poster," etc. etc. Just in this thread ROFL. The sad reason they can't present anything better is they don't even understand what feminism is and are unable to articulate even the elementary things they believe about it other than "equal rights for women," something we all learned in the 4th grade as "the rule of law."

 

Then they say things like "feminism is different things to different people." Imagine what result for a political candidate if asked to explain the party platform and the response was "it means different things to different people." That's a real winner of a candidate there.

[NXS]

Then they say things like "feminism is different things to different people." Imagine what result for a political candidate if asked to explain the party platform and the response was "it means different things to different people." That's a real winner of a candidate there.

 

HAHAHAHA, that's hilarious.

[Els]

Oh, Woggle, you are such a self-serving feminist! :lmao::lmao:

 

Your dislike of me aside, your insistence that we simply brush away the fact that hundreds of thousands of men have been discriminated against just because it might now require feminists to sit at the back of the bus while men get to eat first is laughable.

 

Your calling upon the chivalry of men to support your position is also laughable, chivalry died with feminism, equal rights, affirmative action for women meant that men were no longer required to die for women or to lie their coats across puddles so that fair damsels like yourself wouldn't get their shoes ruined.

 

Again, affirmative action was just fine and dandy when it benefited women, when it advanced feminist goals. Yet when the situation of class of potential male plaintiffs is presented, now AA is wrong, those pesky men should all just slink quietly away right? No compensation for them, they should just suck it up like a man ?

 

IMHO, solutions that end war are needed,in situations where conflict is not avoidable we need a draft that is equitable to both genders. However, these issues cannot be properly addressed without admission that a huge class of people were caused terrible harm, discriminated against solely because they were male and some system of compensation put in place to try to rectify the wrong done them. We can't just scrape the old system and walk away now, ignoring documented harm done to the male gender due to an unjust,discriminatory law.

 

Again, we are speaking only about discrimination enforced by the law, not social/cultural norms willingly complied with.

 

Yawn, more of the same ****. Compensation, etc, yes, how many times have I said that compensation is a good thing, but what you are proposing is NOT compensation? How does it even do any of the veterans any good? Where did I even call on chivalry? I simply asked you if you have even ever spoken to a war veteran and asked him if he felt your solution to the 'injustice done to him' was a good one. Have you?

 

Your dismissal of Mme Chaucer's post is also extremely telling. Last I checked, the laws of the USA did not allow women to vote for a specific time period in history. Shall we then enforce 'affirmative action' and allow ONLY women to vote for an equivalent time period? How about the countries that BY LAW do not allow women to earn property or work? When the unfairness is overturned, should ONLY women be allowed to earn property and work, and not men?

 

I don't actually agree with quota systems as I feel they harm the credibility of women who truly received places because of their abilities, but that is another matter entirely. You're not even proposing a quota system. That would be a 50/50 forced draft (interesting how you insist on keeping up the 'forced draft' part despite your claims on how much human suffering it causes).

 

YOU are proposing a petty 'revenge' scheme in which instead of equalizing, the 'injustice' is 'paid back'. THAT is equivalent to a women's right movement proposing that 100% of positions of power must be claimed by women, not 30% or whatever their goal is depending on the country. I have no doubt that some delusional 'feminist' group has attempted to propose that before, but anyone with half a brain will and should respond to that with the same ludicrity with which many of us are treating your suggestion.

[Woggle]

If we use her logic does that mean that she deserved for her to have her ex cheat on her and get alimony since this happens to men all the time? I don't believe that but according to her logic it makes sense.

[soserious1]

If we use her logic does that mean that she deserved for her to have her ex cheat on her and get alimony since this happens to men all the time? I don't believe that but according to her logic it makes sense.

 

You know I'm trying really hard to stick to the subject at hand and not drag personal stuff in here but yes, if you'd like to drag my life in here, then yes, I need to follow the law of the land regarding divorce & alimony just the same way that men do.

 

I pay my court ordered alimony on time and in full each month, no excuses. I don't enjoy it but I do it & fully acknowledge this is the price I must pay for making stupid marital choices.

[Woggle]

You know I'm trying really hard to stick to the subject at hand and not drag personal stuff in here but yes, if you'd like to drag my life in here, then yes, I need to follow the law of the land regarding divorce & alimony just the same way that men do.

 

I pay my court ordered alimony on time and in full each month, no excuses. I don't enjoy it but I do it & fully acknowledge this is the price I must pay for making stupid marital choices.

 

Well I think you got a raw deal just the way many men do. Wrong is wrong. Nobody should have to support the person that cheated on them.

[soserious1]

Oh, Woggle, you are such a self-serving feminist! :lmao::lmao:

 

 

 

 

 

Yawn, more of the same ****. Compensation, etc, yes, how many times have I said that compensation is a good thing, but what you are proposing is NOT compensation? How does it even do any of the veterans any good? Where did I even call on chivalry? I simply asked you if you have even ever spoken to a war veteran and asked him if he felt your solution to the 'injustice done to him' was a good one. Have you?

 

Your dismissal of Mme Chaucer's post is also extremely telling. Last I checked, the laws of the USA did not allow women to vote for a specific time period in history. Shall we then enforce 'affirmative action' and allow ONLY women to vote for an equivalent time period? How about the countries that BY LAW do not allow women to earn property or work? When the unfairness is overturned, should ONLY women be allowed to earn property and work, and not men?

 

I don't actually agree with quota systems as I feel they harm the credibility of women who truly received places because of their abilities, but that is another matter entirely. You're not even proposing a quota system. That would be a 50/50 forced draft (interesting how you insist on keeping up the 'forced draft' part despite your claims on how much human suffering it causes).

 

YOU are proposing a petty 'revenge' scheme in which instead of equalizing, the 'injustice' is 'paid back'. THAT is equivalent to a women's right movement proposing that 100% of positions of power must be claimed by women, not 30% or whatever their goal is depending on the country. I have no doubt that some delusional 'feminist' group has attempted to propose that before, but anyone with half a brain will and should respond to that with the same ludicrity with which many of us are treating your suggestion.

 

Yes I have spoken to Vietnam veterans, many of them divorced, estranged from the children, homeless, broken from PTSD and opiate addictions that started in Vietnam. Many of them confided that they wish they'd been blown to bits over there because then at least they'd have gone out with their buddies. They feel betrayed & gutted by this country, not honored and respected.

[soserious1]

Well I think you got a raw deal just the way many men do. Wrong is wrong. Nobody should have to support the person that cheated on them.

 

That doesn't matter, I chose my husband poorly, well I need to take my lumps & pay my alimony or go to jail just like any man would be required to do. What's good for the goose being good for the gander and all...

[Red Pill]

NOTE -- Here is the message that I wanted to save as the one I feel is the be all-end all of why feminist indoctrination has proved to be poisonous for your well being. Now I'm sure I'll be back here to make more arguments against feminism of any kind. But if I were to sum up my case and make any closing arguments against feminism, then what you're about to read might very well be it.

 

 

We all heard at one time or another of the shaming tactics of accused bitterness: it's always something about how we can't get laid, etc.

 

I LOVE it when I hear that. Why? Because it tells me that I'm making women -- or more specifically, the power structure that women operate in -- very uncomfortable. So much so, that they threaten me, and other men, with nihilism. In other words, complete and utter destruction.

 

Consider it an auto-immune response from the minds of the fairer sex. Consider it an attack because that's exactly what it is. And consider the weapon with which that attack is being carried out as being tied in intimately with procreation. You see, the male human being is very good at understanding force explicitly. If two nations are in conflict, the men of those two nations will use tools with which to threaten each other with force. They design missiles, bombs, submarines and jet fighters because they recognize intimately the threat posed by the forces of the opposing side.

 

The constant pursuit to access of female breeding power, however, is a force with which men have yet to understand implicitly.

 

Women are experts when it comes to leveraging their sexual appeal. Perhaps "experts" is the wrong word, since they do this instinctively.

 

When a man makes a group of women uncomfortable by threatening their power, they immediately tell him that if he keeps it up, he won't have access to female breeding power. That's what it boils down to. That's them saying that if you want to threaten female privilege, comfort and hypocrisy, they will respond with threats designed to destroy you completely and utterly in the genetic sense.

 

Women understand this to be the only true source of feminine power. And so when a female tells you in response to some pro-male rhetoric that you're just mad because you can't get laid, she is, in an indirect and obscure way, informing you that if you keep it up, you will never pass on your genetic legacy. Genetic legacy is the foundation of female thought, it is their obsession. It is their sustenance and it provides to them access to male availability and wealth. In other words, it's their meal ticket. And any and all attempts at resisting misandry will be viewed as an attempt to devalue the price of access to genetic legacy, and thus it will be viewed as a threat to the sustenance to women in general.

 

In the event that a man has passed on his genetic legacy, women will go for the next best thing: complete separation of the man and his children. Custody battles is the attempt to separate genetic transmission from the transmission of custom, culture and wisdom from the male onto his progene. The female mind is thinking that he may have passed on his genes, but he won't pass on his identity. The damage that this exerts onto our children, is seems to her children as a slightly unfortunate price of doing business at best.

 

The only words for this, the only description that accurately encapsulates this type of thought process and behavior is the word evil. Yes, there exists something in women that is evil.

 

There, I said it.

 

Now watch anyone, especially a woman, turn around and tell me how I'm bitter and angry. Watch how she tells me how she will never give me the time of day or how little I will get laid. Watch her do it. Watch these women stamp their little feet and buckle on their metaphorical chastity belt in my field of view so that I know the exact consequences of having dared to shame this phony mystique of female power.

 

In fairness, though, I suspect that men have the same pension for evil. This is expected to be the characterization of human nature. The only difference is the frequency with which you hear about the evil doings of the so-called fairer sex.

 

Now they can stamp their feet all they like, but there's nothing they can do about what's coming towards them.

 

Things, for better or worse, has been put into motion. The days of misandry and female affluence are numbered and in direct proportionality to the time it takes for feminist societies to consume themselves.

 

What proof do I have of this female obsession for their ability to control reproduction? Well, western society have given to women contraceptives far superior than those available to men. They have given them abortion, they have compiled vast facilities full of male genetic material in the form of sperm banks, we have solidified the presumption of motherhood and have given women complete control of children at the expense of the father. And this state of affairs as to whether they arose organically, alongside with the matrifocal society designed first and foremost to pander to women, or via a more nefarious trajectory in which the powers-that-be purposefully engineered it, lends itself to female homogeny and power over men.

 

----

 

Let's talk about rape for a second. This is a word that is currently owned with full rights and privileges by feminists.

 

Since they claim to hate rape so much, why would they seek to deprive half of the human population from protection against it by making the legal definition of rape one which can only be applied to women? Now, that shows a very clear motive. The purpose is to give extra protection to women in regards to the crime of rape. And because a man is, in fact, cheating, he is bypassing female selectivity. And, yes, he should be punished without a doubt, specifically because he chose to attack, sexually enslave and psychologically torture another human being.

 

This standard for the disbursement for the crime of rape could never fall in agreement with feminist motivation because their reason for hating rape is composed entirely out of the desire to control men as much as possible via access to sex.

 

Understand that.

 

If feminists hated rape, you would see them demanding that male prisoners be protected from it, you would see them demand that the definition of the crime be rewritten to accommodate men.

 

What women fail to realize is that men are no longer scared of that threat.

 

Women, you have all the leverage. In fact, it is women who will suffer through, possibly, the first instance of a mass dying off of barren and bitter women who aborted what would've been their husbands and children.

 

 

 

 

Let me paint a picture of what the Germaine Greer's of the world and the acolytes they spawned are headed towards. You will be packed into nursing homes where no one will come and visit you, and you pass into the next life bitter, alone and isolated. Much in the same manner that you wish upon men.

 

Now those are some pretty ugly words and you can turn away in disgust if you please, or you can take that for what it is: a picture that delves pass into the crimson and lipstick carnal female beauty and holds the mirror up to the very essence of what it means to be female.

 

Society tells you nothing but the good about them. Allow me to paint you a very detailed picture of the bad. Let us, for the sake of accuracy, ask ourselves the simple question of just what exactly is woman? Now that's a pretty difficult question to answer, but a few things that I can say for sure is that they are, for the most part, reactionary, permanently infantilized, and, quite possibly, predisposed to hate their need of men. And this will explain their audacious characterization of the past few thousand years as a millennial epoch of female oppression and patriarchal power. One which I would like to disprove right here, right now.

 

I would like to posit that the cause of women's so-called oppression was in fact women, and it has actually have been them that have held themselves back throughout the duration of human history.

 

First, let me lay out and define what the oppression of women actually is. It is the failure of women to compete with men since the dawn of, and even before since, the experiment of civilization started. When human beings were living in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, they lived effectively in roving microcosms of civilization. Scaled down islands to themselves that pitted the tribe against the real dangers that the illusion of our modern day civilization obfuscate. In other words, human beings, at one time or another, found themselves in the state of protocivilization, poised on the brink of conquering the planet and establishing ourselves as the dominant species on this planet. It was at this point in time that women manifested their own so-called oppression by letting the responsibility of the single greatest undertaking of human history -- i.e. the building of civilization -- to fall squarely on the shoulders of men.

 

Now thinking back to what our male ancestors must've felt when tasked with understanding the forces of nature and conquering fire while fighting off the predators, the elements and disease, all the while developing agriculture, and animal husbandry, and setting up the necessary steps through sheer drive and willpower to finally fight back the proverbial jungle, the pressure must've been incredible. And yet, this was the start of what women viewed as the patriarchy, the spark of their so-called oppression. Meaning that at this critical juncture in human history, just to make things clear, it was men who did the necessary work and tackled the incredibly daunting task of taming Mother Nature.

 

Surely, these men could've used help from their women -- and I'm not merely talking about procreating because I'm sick of this monopoly women seem to believe they have on childbirth as if it's their unique contribution to the human race. As I've said, women may dole out the majority of access to their reproductive ability and illusion of excess female contribution due to over-leveraging and price gouging surely exists. But I assure you that the male contribution to the propagation of our species, in terms of fissile genetic material, is just as valuable as its female counterpart.

 

When all is said and done, there cannot be life without male sperm. If procreation were some manifestation of female divinity, like women would have you believe, then they wouldn't need something uniquely male to make it happen.

 

To every female reading this, you are a mere fifty percent of the requisite part to the propagation of our species. You're not helping men to procreate any more than men are in helping you to do the same. To be clear, men could've used help in the mitigation of danger and the understanding of the physical world around them and they could've used help in the acquisition of food and resources, and, more importantly, they most certainly would've wanted the help. There was no chivalry and favoritism back then. Our species was, to put it simply, confronted with what have had to have seem like damn near insurmountable odds and survival was our Number 1 priority.

 

Both genders had the opportunity to carve out civilization, both genders could've contributed to the survival of our species in their own unique and tangible way. Yet, one gender stood up and did what had to be done. One gender proved themselves while the other waited around every night for a bunch of proactive, battle-harden men to bring home some tusk or fang beast that they killed with their bare hands in the wilderness or plucked out of the trees with some spear that they fashioned.

 

So this is to say that when we were nothing but roving bands of hunter gatherers, only one gender did the hunting and the gathering.

 

One gender.

 

And that same gender, while picking up on all the wherewithal and insight, and the observational skills to gather enough information about the world around them to make it so that men, women, and children that constitute the human species would no longer have to live in a world where these burdens existed.

 

It was on this theatre of war between man and the elements that women would one day fashion their non-existent oppression in order to cover up for the fact that they contributed the minimum amount of effort to making life better for our species. It's just that simple.

 

Now let's assume that the total endeavors of both men and women, that were beneficial to the quality of life of the human race, can be quantified for the purposes of comparison. What exactly would we arrive at? Go ahead and assume that the vast majority of scientific discovery, practically 100 percent of it, could be attributed to the endeavors of men. And I think it's also fair to assume that 50 to 60 percent of the progression of the human species can be attributed to scientific endeavor, possibly even more. But let's go ahead and attribute 20 percent to actual physical labor of the erection of the first mud huts to the tallest skyscrapers, which were, once again, provided in the vast majority by men.

 

This leaves the last necessary component of human progression (that of procreation), which is, as I've said, the contribution in equal amounts by both men and women.

 

So what percentage of contribution does that leave with for women overall to the betterment of humanity? Fifteen percent, at best.

 

Now I know I'm going to get some generic, screeching feminists and women who support their toxic views talking about Madame Curie or some other deflectionary nonsense. But we all know the truth: science and innovation has been characterized by male thoughts since the dawn of civilization. And unless you can show me some unknown country or continent brimming with bridges and pyramids and aqueducts and WiFi networks and electricity grids and sewer systems erected by women, then we all know that what I'm saying is true.

 

What I'm saying here are statements of facts. One gender chose to act in a way that eventually bettered, and continues to better, humanity. The other gender has saw fit for the last century to typify this explosion of human innovation and improvement that was the last two thousand years as a prolonged exercise in the oppression of women.

 

I would tell women that they should be ashamed of themselves if I had any evidence that throughout human history that they had any capacity for it. Instead, we'll just do a simple thought experiment that should put this issue to rest.

 

Quickly, without thinking too much about it, think about someone who changed the course of human history for the better.

 

How many of you, regardless of your gender, thought immediately of a man?

 

I'll bet anything that it was the VAST majority of you.

[Els]

Yes I have spoken to Vietnam veterans, many of them divorced, estranged from the children, homeless, broken from PTSD and opiate addictions that started in Vietnam. Many of them confided that they wish they'd been blown to bits over there because then at least they'd have gone out with their buddies. They feel betrayed & gutted by this country, not honored and respected.

 

I see you conveniently ignored the rest of my post that completely detaches whatever logic remained of yours, but no matter. I asked if you had asked those veterans whether or not they feel that continuing to use forced draft, but simply solely on women instead would be good compensation for them.

 

An interesting thing to note, is that you are probably a white American. I suppose you believe that instead of abolishing slavery entirely, the Africans who were legally enslaved for years should now be legally allowed to enslave whites as 'compensation'?

[joystickd]

You need to be aware of these things as a young single man in this country in any dealings with women. They aren't going to just come right out and say the extent they believe the feminist lies, you have to play detective and know the signs. Hell even the admitted feminists in this thread won't own their beliefs. The feminists want you to believe that all women support feminism when that is far from the truth. There are normal fairminded women out there, you just have to learn how to cull out the chaff and leave the feminists to their absurdities. IME it's been about 40/60 feminist/rational woman out there, but that's just IME.

 

Don't be mindful of this and wake up one day cheated on, stripped of assets, even in jail because of the polluting effects of feminist doctrine in the U.S.

 

Trust me I know about both sides of this issue. One of the main reasons black men and black women have problems is feminism.

[dasein]

only one gender did the hunting and the gathering.

 

One gender.

 

Enjoyed reading the post, but wanted to clarify that there could in fact have been tribes, societies where women were shoulder to shoulder with men hunting and gathering. Those got extincted out though because of the fragility of the reproductive capacity. High infant and mother mortality, low life expectancy, harsh environmental factors dictated that in order to survive, the reproductive capacity (many sperm few eggs) had to be protected.

 

We are the progeny of many generations of that. If females are sent out into the broader world without the presence of a certain level of technology in that tribe, that tribe is going to extinct out. The very historical instant we achieved the proper level of technology, women moved out into the broader world and were not impeded in that in the least.

[Beachgirl8]

@ dasein.

 

I'm having trouble understanding your pov. From what I have read, you seem to think that gender discrimination does not exist, specifically in the workplace, because advancements in technology have made it possible for women to work, therefore, end of story and no need for feminism in any way shape or form. Is this a good summary of what you are saying?

[dasein]

@ dasein.

 

I'm having trouble understanding your pov. From what I have read, you seem to think that gender discrimination does not exist, specifically in the workplace, because advancements in technology have made it possible for women to work, therefore, end of story and no need for feminism in any way shape or form. Is this a good summary of what you are saying?

 

Not really, and will try not to make this post overlong as have expressed my opinions over and over in the thread in other long posts.

 

I believe that any doctrine that systematically attempts to isolate the experience of one gender at the expense of the rule of law or the other gender is wrong and destructive. Polarizing people as victims into "gender interests" causes needless divisiveness and untold damage in social institutions and gender relations of the type we are experiencing right now in the U.S.

 

My categorization of mainstream feminist tenets as lies turns on the sense of lies of omission. In short, if there are historical examples of women having it bad, men were right there alongside having it badly. Isolating gender experience falsely places the focus on the other gender as the villain, where if there is any villain, it's highly concentrated political power in the hands of a tiny few people, held and abused by elites... of BOTH genders. The "white man in the castle" had women who were complicit and encouraging of his efforts, and freely enjoying the fruits of his actions. Our checkered past is not a gender issue of men doing bad things to innocent women, but of the powerful 1% of both genders abusing everyone else. That those elites also did great things is a matter for another thread.

 

Turning to the workplace specifically, were you aware that most of the ostensibly "public protections" involved in professional licensure have an underlying purpose of limiting competition in a given field? For example, in the past in this country, to become a lawyer, one had to read the law as an apprentice under a lawyer. Waves of European immigration caused the fear in the status quo that immigrants, specifically Jewish immigrants, would overwhelm the field (in other words reduce the income of the status quo by driving prices down). So harsh and even discriminatory barriers to entering the field were enacted to protect the interests of the status quo. Those barriers were just as discriminatory against men as women.

 

Feminists focus only on the impact on women. IMO, this is dishonest and is a lie.

 

Now I'm sure anyone who wants to pluck out isolated historical incidents of workplace discrimination against women can do so. For every incident, I can isolate similar incidents of workplace discrimination against men, or some equally odious social trend that affected men even more than women, conscripted military service being one example.

 

Another portion of my POV maintains that gender politics is an expression of marxist realpolitik destabilization and control methods, the precedent to social revolution, that most feminists don't know what feminism is, and that the reason it even exists is due to the cultural mistake of giving too much credence to marxist/socialist "critical theory" at the expense of our well-settled 14th amendment jurisprudence in support of the rule of law. Marxists/socialists don't even acknowledge the rule of law, as to them it is simply a bourgeoise control method of its own. That's also a matter for another thread.

 

I made a post of six or so basic administrative solutions to cure the existing problem and that post was ignored for the most part.

Edited November 19, 2011 by dasein