feminists driving men away...video

[Radu]

With all due respect, not only have clearly not read any of my posts, you've also probably not read the majority of the other posts either. I'm probably, on this particular issue, as far removed from extremism as possible. I've never addressed the issue more in my entire life than I've had on this thread, and in my social circle we don't go about talking about women's rights at nauseam - in truth, this is absolutely not my priority at all; I just get about my business without giving it a second thought.

I have read your posts.

You are not an extremist in your views, i suspect mostly societal programming; even so, your opinions are a little off center.

 

You must have a brother, a cousin, a friend [male], or just know some men ... why don't you go asking their opinion on society's fairness to men.

 

The problem that I see in your answer, and in nearly all the answers from the male posters on this thread is that you make a distinction between equality and feminism: true feminism is just that, so every time any man (like countless have on this thread alone, re-read it) use 'feminism' for whatever it is they are complaining in their (ex) partners / society, they are against gender equality, because that's what true feminism stands for, no more, no less.

Confirmed, feminism as it was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, referred to extreme feminism, radical feminism, 3rd wave feminism ... NOT the concept of equality between men and women that was the guiding force behind 1st wave.

 

When a woman uses that to her own ends, all hell breaks loose (misandry is not healthy, we know) yet when a man does it, that's okay. I find it strange / hypocritical enough that it is worthy of being noted, since apparently we're all about gender parity on this thread... I won't loose sleep over it though since I have a pretty cool social circle when it comes to feminism and accepting it for what it is, and probably better reflects how men have embrace advances in gender parity / feminism more honestly than on this forum, for the most part.

I have not seen a case where a man has used misandry to further his agenda.

 

It's a bit hard to do, because right now men's rights are mostly on the outside of the system looking in, it is not mainstream accepted.

You can't go into a family court and accuse your wife of being a misandrist for instance [you will not be believed], but she can quite easily accuse you of being a mysoginist and cry 'abuse'.

---

LBH, i have lawyers in my family, judges too, it exists, this double standard.

My own mother, who has 2 degrees [law and chemichal engineering], and went into law at 50, represented both men and women in divorce cases and it is not pretty.

She also represented men and women in criminal cases.

Her words were 'men are stupid', to describe what she saw.

 

One thing of note that i got from talking to the ppl who are in law in my family is the propensity of men and women to do crime.

In this modern society, where everyone has rights, we are face the great equalizer, which removes the built in advantage that men had at one point ... including strength.

 

The new strength is given by social ability, and that is one area where men are seriously lacking [politicians and actors are an exception that only exist to validate the rule].

We develop social skills later and not to the same extent [it's related to brain chemistry and development].

Add to this the still existent instinct of society to protect women [it always existed], and you have a situation that can be abused [and it is abused to some extent].

 

In our law system [different from UK, it's roman law], if you make an accusation you have to back it up and if you can't back it up, it does not go on record and the judge is not allowed to use it to determine the outcome of the case.

I mentioned above divorce cases, in a good number of them the man was accused of being abusive; it's easy to prove because living in apartments you can call neighbours to testify.

Funny enough, in most cases, the accusation was left to die.

And it's the male judges who eat up these accusations; female judges are stricter.

[littleblackheart]

I have read your posts.

You are not an extremist in your views, i suspect mostly societal programming; even so, your opinions are a little off center.

 

You must have a brother, a cousin, a friend [male], or just know some men ... why don't you go asking their opinion on society's fairness to men.

 

 

Confirmed, feminism as it was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, referred to extreme feminism, radical feminism, 3rd wave feminism ... NOT the concept of equality between men and women that was the guiding force behind 1st wave.

 

 

I have not seen a case where a man has used misandry to further his agenda.

 

It's a bit hard to do, because right now men's rights are mostly on the outside of the system looking in, it is not mainstream accepted.

You can't go into a family court and accuse your wife of being a misandrist for instance [you will not be believed], but she can quite easily accuse you of being a mysoginist and cry 'abuse'.

---

LBH, i have lawyers in my family, judges too, it exists, this double standard.

My own mother, who has 2 degrees [law and chemichal engineering], and went into law at 50, represented both men and women in divorce cases and it is not pretty.

She also represented men and women in criminal cases.

Her words were 'men are stupid', to describe what she saw.

 

One thing of note that i got from talking to the ppl who are in law in my family is the propensity of men and women to do crime.

In this modern society, where everyone has rights, we are face the great equalizer, which removes the built in advantage that men had at one point ... including strength.

 

The new strength is given by social ability, and that is one area where men are seriously lacking [politicians and actors are an exception that only exist to validate the rule].

We develop social skills later and not to the same extent [it's related to brain chemistry and development].

Add to this the still existent instinct of society to protect women [it always existed], and you have a situation that can be abused [and it is abused to some extent].

 

In our law system [different from UK, it's roman law], if you make an accusation you have to back it up and if you can't back it up, it does not go on record and the judge is not allowed to use it to determine the outcome of the case.

I mentioned above divorce cases, in a good number of them the man was accused of being abusive; it's easy to prove because living in apartments you can call neighbours to testify.

Funny enough, in most cases, the accusation was left to die.

And it's the male judges who eat up these accusations; female judges are stricter.

 

You will find PLENTY of posts on this very thread of male posters using feminism to excuse their behaviour / expose the ills of society - let me point you to the thread title alone... Intellectual honesty goes a long way in making your point, which can't be said about patronisation. Like I said, that you think I'm a victim of societal programming (an easy counter-argument) and that my views are a little off center (because patently the only relevant views are yours on the topic) are no skin off my nose. I have plenty of male friends / family, none seem to share your views on 'society's fairness' to men, but I suspect it's all because they're either programmed as well, or lying to my face to be pleasant (no idea what they'd gained from that, but there you go).

[Taramere]

Read again, they blame it on run-amok feminism, not feminism.

 

Feminism at it's core, is not something that men are against; men [all in this thread] are for equal rights ... and that applies to races as well.

 

I've tended to find that no matter how reasonable I, as a woman, try to be. In any discussion that's focused around the topic of feminism it tends to involve a lot of bickering very quickly. It's one of those words that invariably invokes a lot of kneejerk reactions. Not least because whenever women do or say anything that men (in general) find irritating, you will almost invariably find somebody either attributing the behaviour to feminism.

 

Even the behaviour is far from feminist in its attributes, people who are fervently anti-feminist will still find a way of relating it to feminism So for example, a woman who didn't know how to change a car tyre of carry out some practical task (and there are probably plenty of men in the same boat) might find herself sneered for not being this superbly competent Jill-of-all-Trades that apparently we all hold ourselves out as being as a result of feminism.

 

It's very difficult, as a woman, to avoid judgement that is linked in some way to feminism...and therefore I think it's perfectly natural for women to defend feminism simply because other people so often link us (purely on the basis that we're women) to feminism. Some women avoid it by going out of their way to preach anti-feminist sermons. There are women on youtube who do that, and who seem to make some sort of living from it (by getting a lot of donations from approving male viewers). I find that risible. As though being a talking head on youtube seriously makes any sort of difference to anything. But no doubt these youtube activists like to pretend to themselves that they're accomplishing something meaningful beyond getting paid by people who evidently have money to waste for preaching what those people want to hear.

 

If a man finds he can't handle being around women it could just be that it's not so much feminism that's alienating him as the possibility that he just doesn't particularly like women. "I'm an anti-feminist" probably just sounds a bit more palatable in that it can be attributed to manufactured ideologies than "I don't like women very much. I find them difficult/unpleasant to deal with".

Edited December 26, 2014 by Taramere

[Radu]

You will find PLENTY of posts on this very thread of male posters using feminism to excuse their behaviour / expose the ills of society - let me point you to the thread title alone... Intellectual honesty goes a long way in making your point, which can't be said about patronisation. Like I said, that you think I'm a victim of societal programming (an easy counter-argument) and that my views are a little off center (because patently the only relevant views are yours on the topic) are no skin off my nose. I have plenty of male friends / family, none seem to share your views on 'society's fairness' to men, but I suspect it's all because they're either programmed as well, or lying to my face to be pleasant (no idea what they'd gained from that, but there you go).

 

I was not patronising; i happen to think that most ppl respond to societal programming and have a hard time trying to see the 'neutral' of something.

One easy way to see this is in the kids who follow in their parents footsteps; most of them [i am talking not just jobs here, but also personality] will end up similar to their parents ... very few decide to go against what they were taught by them.

And i never even called you a victim.

 

Yet there you go, blowing up.

I called you off-center, what does that mean ?

Have you stopped to think ?

You just assume it means the extreme when i clearly said you were not extreme.

Nobody is full center, full neutral ... you can strive for it, but you will never achieve it.

[littleblackheart]

I was not patronising; i happen to think that most ppl respond to societal programming and have a hard time trying to see the 'neutral' of something.

One easy way to see this is in the kids who follow in their parents footsteps; most of them [i am talking not just jobs here, but also personality] will end up similar to their parents ... very few decide to go against what they were taught by them.

And i never even called you a victim.

 

Yet there you go, blowing up.

I called you off-center, what does that mean ?

Have you stopped to think ?

You just assume it means the extreme when i clearly said you were not extreme.

Nobody is full center, full neutral ... you can strive for it, but you will never achieve it.

 

 

Do you really think my answer was me 'blowing up'? You're telling me how and what to think, you're judging my thought processes, you patronise me about my social circle, you go on about social programming like it's any sort of explanation, you tell me no-one is fully neutral yet you're obviously not applying this to yourself - either way, I now have a better understanding of what some men on here view feminism and will be better equipped to deal with that in future.

[littleblackheart]

Feminists sure as hell drive me away.

 

Feminists are for MISANDRY.

 

A girl identifies herself as a feminist, I run, not walk, away.

 

 

My xWW took and took from the marriage and contributed nothing. She was horrible with money, did virtually no housework, and only worked half the time.

 

It's that sense of entitlement that many men are seeing and experiencing from modern feminism. It's one thing to want to better yourself, entirely another to want something for nothing.QUOTE]

 

 

I am all for equality and fully-actualzed women... but, the feminist social engineering event turned into an 'us against them' gender war, and undermined respect, trust and positive regard between the genders. Even for those who don't literally call themselves feminists, the movement has resulted in confusion, picking and choosing, entitlement, thinking one can have it both ways.

 

 

This is what feminism has become, though. Pecking. A constant, bullying, controlling, peck, peck, peck at men. Belittling their concerns and demonizing their natural energy, instincts and behaviour. It's no wonder lads are failing at school, it's no wonder lads are quitting on life and women. It's no wonder lads are losing respect for women. First they are smothered in cotton wool, then they are pecked to pieces. That's how many marriages are going as well, first it's all fluffy then the ring goes on the finger and the pecking starts. "Come here, heel, sit down, roll over, play dead, get therapy, or else!".QUOTE]

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Big Lion Piton

What the hell is gender equality then? For feminism isn't it mostly just arguing for more privileges for women without considering the male perspective?

 

 

 

That's because you jump on the extreme bandwagon, and that is in itself societal programming.

 

 

Really?!

 

 

Until people stop using modern feminism / third wave feminism / whatever other qualification feminism instead of using either misandry or genuinely admitting they don't want women to be equal, and because men feel it's their place to attribute merit badges to those special women who transcend feminism (that would be the majority of women I know...), there'll be people like me (men and women) who will waste untold amount of time on anonymous fora arguing about the relevancy of their own opinions.

[salparadise]

All of this is true - the actualized women you talk about obviously wouldn't have been able to transcend the need for feminism if it wasn't for feminism in the first place though, which is why IMO, it is important to recognise how much this movement has brought to society

 

Oh really? What about women with notable accomplishments before there was such a thing as feminism? For example, Jeanette Rankin was elected to congress four years before the 19th Amendment, and decades before Betty Friedan and the second wave radical feminists. That's just one example; there are thousands if not millions, including the independent women I've known who don't identify as radical feminists.

 

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; I just don't believe that the second and third wave radicals are as important or necessary as they'd like us to believe. The women's movement (as opposed to feminism) began in the 19th century and has been a cultural and social evolution, much of which was prompted by the industrial revolution and the absence of men during two world wars.

 

For every flag-waving, vitriol-spewing radical trying to make headlines by painting the entire male gender as oppressors, there are hundreds of great women simply doing what needs to be done, taking care of their families, and ignoring implied limitations that society has assumed for women... and when I say society, that includes both men and women.

 

The radicals just imitated and piggly-backed the civil rights movement... "hey don't forget about us- we're not black but they made us cook and bear children."

 

The difference is they walk the walk without feeling any need to identify as radical feminists. That's contrasted with others who seek to be divisive and accomplish nothing beyond selling a few books, making a lot of noise while promoting themselves as entitled, oppressed victims of the great male conspiracy to keep them barefoot and pregnant. It's really kind of laughable to think about the difference in mindset and how the latter are able to take themselves so seriously.

 

I live in a university town. It has always intrigued me how so many people have a strong need to supplement their identity with some external populist thing. Around here it seems like two-thirds of the population identify as football fans... t-shirts, stickers on the car, flags on their houses, etc. Some even paint their houses in the team colors! They take that $hit as seriously as the flag-waving NRA joiners. Radical feminism is just another flavor or identity supplementation that some people have chosen. I wish they'd redirect some of that energy toward feeding the hungry.

[Frank2thepoint]

Go a long way in what...you becoming a door stopper, getting laid, making it all about them and not what you want?

 

To see how simple it is to interact with women. Many of the young men that have problems interacting with women is because they don't know how to, never received the guidance.

 

 

I've tried with women and they either cheated or lied or pretended to care.

 

Luckily I have not been cheated on (as far as I know of course), but I have been lied to by girls, and some pretended to care. But I am no longer in a relationship or dating such girls. There are real, caring women out there. Don't blame all women for the faults of a few. Only blame the ones that are at fault.

 

 

Where's all the women who have to "step up" and put in the effort (be confident, funny, whatever) just to get a man?

 

They don't exist. It's all one-sided, the man must prove himself to the woman, not the other way around.

 

I understand your frustration that it seems one-sided. There are some girls that have their expectation that men are to do everything. I mean some girls expect a man to have been in minimum one year long relationship to be even considered to date. But there is positive about all of this. You don't have to date the girls. As soon as you encounter the deal-breaker, don't even bother trying to resolve it, just walk away.

[hotpotato]

Oh really? What about women with notable accomplishments before there was such a thing as feminism? For example, Jeanette Rankin was elected to congress four years before the 19th Amendment, and decades before Betty Friedan and the second wave radical feminists. That's just one example; there are thousands if not millions, including the independent women I've known who don't identify as radical feminists.

 

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; I just don't believe that the second and third wave radicals are as important or necessary as they'd like us to believe. The women's movement (as opposed to feminism) began in the 19th century and has been a cultural and social evolution, much of which was prompted by the industrial revolution and the absence of men during two world wars.

 

For every flag-waving, vitriol-spewing radical trying to make headlines by painting the entire male gender as oppressors, there are hundreds of great women simply doing what needs to be done, taking care of their families, and ignoring implied limitations that society has assumed for women... and when I say society, that includes both men and women.

 

The radicals just imitated and piggly-backed the civil rights movement... "hey don't forget about us- we're not black but they made us cook and bear children."

 

The difference is they walk the walk without feeling any need to identify as radical feminists. That's contrasted with others who seek to be divisive and accomplish nothing beyond selling a few books, making a lot of noise while promoting themselves as entitled, oppressed victims of the great male conspiracy to keep them barefoot and pregnant. It's really kind of laughable to think about the difference in mindset and how the latter are able to take themselves so seriously.

 

I live in a university town. It has always intrigued me how so many people have a strong need to supplement their identity with some external populist thing. Around here it seems like two-thirds of the population identify as football fans... t-shirts, stickers on the car, flags on their houses, etc. Some even paint their houses in the team colors! They take that $hit as seriously as the flag-waving NRA joiners. Radical feminism is just another flavor or identity supplementation that some people have chosen. I wish they'd redirect some of that energy toward feeding the hungry.

 

As a minority. Thats how I feel. Many women in my ethnic group were already in the labor force as employees and entrepreneurs before feminism.

 

 

Also, I dont think any relationship is perfectly 50-50. One person usually is m

the stronger personality, has a little more money, or whatever.

[WomenWubber]

I don't gravitate towards feminists, but it's not really about feminism and nothing against them. I get this feeling that they are too caught up in their ideals, so I just let them do their thing and I do mine.

[Tayken]

I have read your posts.

You are not an extremist in your views, i suspect mostly societal programming; even so, your opinions are a little off center.

 

You must have a brother, a cousin, a friend [male], or just know some men ... why don't you go asking their opinion on society's fairness to men.

 

 

Confirmed, feminism as it was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, referred to extreme feminism, radical feminism, 3rd wave feminism ... NOT the concept of equality between men and women that was the guiding force behind 1st wave.

 

 

I have not seen a case where a man has used misandry to further his agenda.

 

It's a bit hard to do, because right now men's rights are mostly on the outside of the system looking in, it is not mainstream accepted.

You can't go into a family court and accuse your wife of being a misandrist for instance [you will not be believed], but she can quite easily accuse you of being a mysoginist and cry 'abuse'.

---

LBH, i have lawyers in my family, judges too, it exists, this double standard.

My own mother, who has 2 degrees [law and chemichal engineering], and went into law at 50, represented both men and women in divorce cases and it is not pretty.

She also represented men and women in criminal cases.

Her words were 'men are stupid', to describe what she saw.

 

One thing of note that i got from talking to the ppl who are in law in my family is the propensity of men and women to do crime.

In this modern society, where everyone has rights, we are face the great equalizer, which removes the built in advantage that men had at one point ... including strength.

 

The new strength is given by social ability, and that is one area where men are seriously lacking [politicians and actors are an exception that only exist to validate the rule].

We develop social skills later and not to the same extent [it's related to brain chemistry and development].

Add to this the still existent instinct of society to protect women [it always existed], and you have a situation that can be abused [and it is abused to some extent].

 

In our law system [different from UK, it's roman law], if you make an accusation you have to back it up and if you can't back it up, it does not go on record and the judge is not allowed to use it to determine the outcome of the case.

I mentioned above divorce cases, in a good number of them the man was accused of being abusive; it's easy to prove because living in apartments you can call neighbours to testify.

Funny enough, in most cases, the accusation was left to die.

And it's the male judges who eat up these accusations; female judges are stricter.

 

 

Bold 1: You couldn't have said it any better, but to the feminists, they don't care for equality on this front as it does not benefit them to do so.

 

Bold 2: That is true, and before getting to court, if cops are called out under false pretense, the man is more likely to be told to leave the house.

 

Bold 3: The world needs more women like this who not only persevered, but went in hard on the much more marketable courses, as opposed to the ones that are more than happy to just give up on education, as expect a man to carry them while they do fluff jobs like cashiers, admin, sales, 2 yr Micky Mouse courses

 

Bold 4: Yes some of them are. I mentioned the one that lambasted my ex when she kept on coming up with irrelevant points, and the Judge had to tell her....listen Ms, I am not your mother. It was priceless to hear that from a female to another female.

[Got it]

I clearly define myself as a feminist. I believe in equal rights for women. But it has never been about hating men; I love men. And I see the equalizing of the genders as plus for the good in both genders.

 

There is a spectrum to everything, with people on either end and the majority in the middle. I think the word feminism has been misaligned to mean far more than it actually does and has been slurred as a way to diminish what feminism is actually about.

 

Are there men hating, "femnazi" women defining themselves as feminists? Sure. But they are very much in the minority.

 

Similarly, being a vegetarian does not mean I hate meat eaters. But just saying to people you are a vegetarian has caused the "need" to get such a one sided argument when I could care less if one eats meat or not. It oddly seems to evolve a significant defensiveness.

[littleblackheart]

Oh really? What about women with notable accomplishments before there was such a thing as feminism? For example, Jeanette Rankin was elected to congress four years before the 19th Amendment, and decades before Betty Friedan and the second wave radical feminists. That's just one example; there are thousands if not millions, including the independent women I've known who don't identify as radical feminists.

 

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; I just don't believe that the second and third wave radicals are as important or necessary as they'd like us to believe. The women's movement (as opposed to feminism) began in the 19th century and has been a cultural and social evolution, much of which was prompted by the industrial revolution and the absence of men during two world wars.

 

For every flag-waving, vitriol-spewing radical trying to make headlines by painting the entire male gender as oppressors, there are hundreds of great women simply doing what needs to be done, taking care of their families, and ignoring implied limitations that society has assumed for women... and when I say society, that includes both men and women.

 

The radicals just imitated and piggly-backed the civil rights movement... "hey don't forget about us- we're not black but they made us cook and bear children."

 

The difference is they walk the walk without feeling any need to identify as radical feminists. That's contrasted with others who seek to be divisive and accomplish nothing beyond selling a few books, making a lot of noise while promoting themselves as entitled, oppressed victims of the great male conspiracy to keep them barefoot and pregnant. It's really kind of laughable to think about the difference in mindset and how the latter are able to take themselves so seriously.

 

I live in a university town. It has always intrigued me how so many people have a strong need to supplement their identity with some external populist thing. Around here it seems like two-thirds of the population identify as football fans... t-shirts, stickers on the car, flags on their houses, etc. Some even paint their houses in the team colors! They take that $hit as seriously as the flag-waving NRA joiners. Radical feminism is just another flavor or identity supplementation that some people have chosen. I wish they'd redirect some of that energy toward feeding the hungry.

 

 

All of this post I agree with - that's the irony... It's like you have made no effort whatsoever reading what I had to say. Never mind.

[Tayken]

To see how simple it is to interact with women. Many of the young men that have problems interacting with women is because they don't know how to, never received the guidance.

 

And the girls and women that can't seem to be independent / stand on their own 2 feet...it's because they haven't received the "proper guidance" from their mothers on how to be self sufficient, and instead have been mislead that things will get given to you. Apples don't fall far from the tree

 

A woman that doesn't value education and never strived to be independent, is hardly going to raise her daughter to be just that...

[CALOVELY]

I find threads like this incredibly sad. Post after post details something awful a woman did and instead of recognizing that it was the individual that was a horrible human being, an entire movement about equality and basic rights is being denigrated. Would we do that about any other group? A black person hurts someone therefore civil rights is to blame? A gay person does something cruel therefore gay rights is sinister?

My ex used to beat me up and he happened to also be Catholic. Should I ascribe that all Catholics are like that? What about all men?

 

Put the blame where blame lies, with the individual.

[Anela]

And the girls and women that can't seem to be independent / stand on their own 2 feet...it's because they haven't received the "proper guidance" from their mothers on how to be self sufficient, and instead have been mislead that things will get given to you. Apples don't fall far from the tree

 

A woman that doesn't value education and never strived to be independent, is hardly going to raise her daughter to be just that...

 

My mother taught me how to look after myself, and also showered me with presents on my birthday and Christmas (and still does, when she can). She worked long, hard hours as a single mother, and a wife.

 

It's odd to see your post in a thread that's anti-feminism, because what some men here seem to want is a compliant woman, who has no need of independence.

[Tayken]

My mother taught me how to look after myself, and also showered me with presents on my birthday and Christmas (and still does, when she can). She worked long, hard hours as a single mother, and a wife.

 

It's odd to see your post in a thread that's anti-feminism, because what some men here seem to want is a compliant woman, who has no need of independence.

 

Those men are called door stoppers, and can't seem to see past sex. In the end, these men find out the hard way when they are left with a bag of ****e in their hand paying alimony indefinitely, as well as child support whilst that woman is now shacked up with someone else, and living better than they are.

 

You lie on your bed as you make it really. I can never be with a woman again that doesn't have post secondary education with a good career....it just doesn't appeal to me one iota.

[Snaggletooth]

That's because you jump on the extreme bandwagon, and that is in itself societal programming.

 

In the 7 pages of this thread, nobody has said that equality is a bad thing [quite the contrary actually], but everything that they say against abuse of power, radical feminism, or suggest about a new way of thinking [even the situation presented in the OP] is seen as an attack on women everywhere; it is not.

 

You say that your social circle is foreign to this discussion ... well i have a few theories about that :

- we tend to choose a social circle that validates our opinions; this is why many ppl come to places like this forum to get a more neutral opinion on things

 

- UK is probably one of the few nations where women's rights have swung past the neutral point of the pendulum, the other way.

I'm Romanian and i have friends in London who work for EU institutions or in IT.

What they tell me from there [and Canada] is ... unbelievable.

 

 

The head of the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a woman, recently said the pendulum has swung so far that it's now hurting women as it makes them unattractive to employers.

 

A few years ago I stopped taking on trainees because of new demands put upon me in having to cater for women. If a woman wants to be a builder fine, I have no problem with that, I'll train them, I'll work with them, I've done so before and without problem but I no longer do. That's because I'm not prepared to run a holiday camp where one group of people get special treatment and a reduced workload, for the same pay but at extra expense to me, whilst slowing down and restricting the ability of others to learn and earn.

 

It's similar to what is happening with men quitting on women and relationships. You just think "f*ck it, if this is what I have to do then it's no longer worth my time and effort. It's expensive, it carries a high loss risk and doesn't benefit me in any way" so I drop out the apprenticeship program. Lads are let down because they don't get on site training from experienced master craftsman and women are now looked upon as high risk, potentially damaging and not worth the extra effort and expense it costs to employ them over a man or doing the work yourself.

 

Instead, these lads are now taught building in college by a woman who has never set foot on a site. She has a teaching degree but zero experience or real life knowledge of building. Men with decades of experience as Masters were denied the job. Upshot is these lads spend three years being utterly failed in college, they have their heads filled with junk, are taught no worthwhile skills, are made to wear gloves and are told they only have to lay 40 bricks an hour. They hit the real world with soft hands, weak muscles , mollycoddled minds and no ability. They apply for jobs where men are laying 200+ a hour, are shocked at what is expected of them, can't make a job last more than a day and eventually quit on work. When experienced men taught them they left college skilled, match fit, toughened up and able to work at a speed that was employable.

 

It's great that women are moving into certain areas but the same standards and rules need to apply. Otherwise we end up with what is currently happening, a generation of young men who have been failed and neglected through inequality, lack of suitable education, declining standards, a lack of strong consistent male guidance, a lack of opportunity and while the self interest of adult women has been given precedence.

 

As with everything there comes a tipping point and so now, increasingly, women are also going to find themselves disadvantaged by all this. Especially the younger ones, as finding themselves a capable man with a decent job is going to be tougher and tougher.

 

Just for fun, Guardian link

 

Generation of boys 'being failed' by the school system | Education | The Guardian

[Snaggletooth]

I find threads like this incredibly sad. Post after post details something awful a woman did and instead of recognizing that it was the individual that was a horrible human being, an entire movement about equality and basic rights is being denigrated. Would we do that about any other group? A black person hurts someone therefore civil rights is to blame? A gay person does something cruel therefore gay rights is sinister?

My ex used to beat me up and he happened to also be Catholic. Should I ascribe that all Catholics are like that? What about all men?

 

Put the blame where blame lies, with the individual.

 

Thing is, when a collective push for special treatment at the expense of others it is neither individual or about equality.

 

What has denigrated feminism are the self described feminists who demand more than equality. What men want is equality.

 

You're right in that is is sad, I said that in one of my early posts. Sad that is has come to this. Sad that male voices where ignored and ridiculed for so long, sad that a generation has been failed, sad that men are now having to set up their own rights groups to fight for equality. Sad, but increasingly necessary.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Snaggletooth

[most_distant_galaxy]

...then again, maybe "the beautiful ones" experiment applied to people too... Now I really want to get married and have some children. And live in the countryside.

 

In the early 1960s, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) acquired property in a rural area outside Poolesville, Maryland. The facility that was built on this property housed several research projects, including those headed by Calhoun. It was here that his most famous experiment, the mouse universe, was created.[1] In July 1968 four pairs of mice were introduced into the Utopian universe. The universe was a 9-foot (2.7 m) square metal pen with 54-inch-high (1.4 m) sides. Each side had four groups of four vertical, wire mesh “tunnels.” The “tunnels” gave access to nesting boxes, food hoppers, and water dispensers. There was no shortage of food or water or nesting material. There were no predators. The only adversity was the limit on space.

 

 

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.

 

After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.”

 

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

 

Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man. He characterized the social breakdown as a “second death,” with reference to the “second death” mentioned in the Biblical book of Revelation 2:11. His study has been cited by writers such as Bill Perkins as a warning of the dangers of the living in an "increasingly crowded and impersonal world."

John B. Calhoun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[salparadise]

All of this post I agree with - that's the irony... It's like you have made no effort whatsoever reading what I had to say. Never mind.

 

Well, excuse me then. It's just that in the quoted text where you said, "the actualized women you talk about obviously wouldn't have been able to transcend the need for feminism if it wasn't for feminism in the first place", it sounded like you were on the opposite side of that argument. If I misinterpreted that and we are in agreement, then Yay!

[ktya]

That'ghts have swung past the neutral point of the pendulum, the other way.

 

What they tell me from there [and Canada] is ... unbelievable.

 

Im in Canada, and I can tell you that feminist special interest groups have run absolutely amok for 30 years. While I loathe our right wing neoconservative government, one of the things they have started doing that i agree with is the defunding of gender specific non profits.

 

The uproar was crazy when the womens organizations received notice that if they did not provide equal services to men that they would be defunded. The groups and organizations went to the media. When asked tough questions by reporters, the truth started to come out.

 

Many of these groups would not allow men in the building, citing that women might fear them. Reports arose of womens' shelters using makeup to make doctored photos of fake bruises on women to use in custody disputes and domestic violence reports to the police. When reporters asked the simple question of, "well why dont you start offering services to men in order to retain your funding?", they had a blank stare and were practically lost for words.

 

The family court system here has had the pendulum swung so far in womens' favor it may as well be called the "crimes against womens' court. Legal aid for family court is offered only to women who have children, and in most separations with children involved it is the woman who takes them. There is no legal aid for men. Women can finger any man as the father without any need to show proof. The man must pay for a DNA test, about $900, to show he is not the father. Until he does, he must pay support, and he cannot file a civil claim to have his money returned.

 

Then to add insult to injury, the woman can refuse to allow the child to provide a sample for the DNA test, even if court ordered, on privacy grounds.

 

Furthering this silliness, a woman can have an unlimited number of fathers each paying 13% of their income and the court takes no account of the fact that there are many men paying. A woman can get pregnant, leave the bio dad, child is born, file for support against the bio dad, and break up with her new boyfriend, filing that because he cohabitated with her when the baby was born he is also the father- then file against any common law partner who she lives with for more than 180 days for the next 18 years of the kids life. Its unbeleiveable. By the math, a woman could in theory have a maximum of 38 men paying for the same child by the time the kid turns 19.

 

On another level of sillyness there is a campaign going on here to stop the clawback of welfare benefits to women receiving child support. The government introduced this along with forcing single moms to authorize the ministry to legally persue non paying, non custodial fathers. This too they protested against, because once the fathers were forced to pay, they demanded access and shared custody. Many of these men worked fine jobs, and in an ironic twist often argued successfully that they would make a better parent than the welfare collecting woman. In effect, this whole feminist protest against the clawback is saying that women receiving support should be entitled to more money than women not receiving support. Ludicrious.

 

Feminists launched a human rights suit against scouts, a childrens club for boys to learn outdoor skills, and won. Girls are now allowed and its now called simply "scouts". Girl guides is still girls only, and the feminists lobbied to prohibit any men from volunteering, attending any camp, or even setting foot on any girl guides owned property. The inference is that they must protect the girls from sexual abuse, as though every man is a potential child rapist.

 

i could go on and on. Finally governments are starting to do something to reign in these lunatic rules put into place at the urging of misandric feminist groups.

 

New family law now uses 50-50 custody as a starting goal, and any party that tries to obstruct this goal without solid evidence will lose custody and be forced to take a course on how both parents have a right to their children. Womens only groups are losing federal funding. Police are once again being given some lattitude to decide whether to persue domestic violence allegations, and are allowed to include in their interviewing process techniques to determine if the accuser is lying.

 

These changes are not being made easy as the misandric feminist groups are out protesting about how these changes will supposedly increase sexual violence and how they will put womens rights back to the stone age. When confronted with tough questions their line of protest usually falls apart. A media which for decades would never hold feminists to account is finally gaining a backbone.

 

But 40 years of the subversion of our family and justice systems takes a long time to undo.

 

Personally i think we need to wipe out "no fault" divorce to make marriage more palatable to men. There are just too many examples of women just deciding they want to ball someone else and blowing up what for all intensive purposes is an ok marriage and soaking the man for tens or hundreds of thousands when he did absolutely nothing wrong at all, save for make more money than his now estranged wife.

[Robert Z]

One woman scientist who succeeded doesn't negate the fact that on average, girls were denied schooling and entry into the scientific world simply because they were girls. Up until very recently in human history, women and girls were denied rights and opportunities afforded men and boys all the time. To deny this is, to me, akin to denying the holocaust or the moon landing.

 

 

Modern science is only about 100 years old. Madam Curie did her work 100 years ago.

 

 

Emilie du Chatelet (1706 – 1749)

Caroline Herschel (1750 – 1848)

Mary Anning (1799 – 1847)

Mary Somerville (1780 – 1872)

Maria Mitchell (1818 – 1889)

Lise Meitner (1878 – 1968)

Irène Curie-Joliot (1897 – 1956)

Barbara McClintock (1902 – 1992)

Dorothy Hodgkin (1910 – 1994)

Rosalind Franklin (1920 – 1958)

Carolyn Shoemaker (1929- )

I could name many others if I thought about awhile

 

 

I had about 8-10 female science professors in college. So again, this is an issue long dead. So get over it already!

 

 

How about trying this one on for size: Traditionally, more men are interested in science than are women.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Robert Z

[littleblackheart]

Well, excuse me then. It's just that in the quoted text where you said, "the actualized women you talk about obviously wouldn't have been able to transcend the need for feminism if it wasn't for feminism in the first place", it sounded like you were on the opposite side of that argument. If I misinterpreted that and we are in agreement, then Yay!

 

 

We are

 

 

It's just a bit tiring at times to have to justify the need for more gender parity / equality because a tiny minority of women managed to slip through the net and achieve greatness all those years ago when the vast majority still weren't allowed to vote, be schooled or express their opinions as freely as I can today. For many women, gender parity still isn't achieved today (mainly in the workplace / childcare) but the everyday woman is too scared to be called a 'feminist' so shies away from defending her views because another tiny minority of crazed male blood-thirsty women are spoiling and undermining her, and a few men stuck decades ago are more than willing to jump at her throat at a moment's notice.

 

 

It's fine though, the silent majority of women are doing a lot better these days, and there are plenty of open-minded men who can see the benefits equality will bring to society in the long term. From your last post, I'm presuming (hoping?) you're one of them .

[lollipopspot]

Feminists launched a human rights suit against scouts, a childrens club for boys to learn outdoor skills, and won. Girls are now allowed and its now called simply "scouts".

 

Provide evidence for your claim. There is so much misinformation in your posts. It's a hodgepodge of personal victimization, blaming feminists for all the ills of the world, and just made-up "facts."

 

Scouts voted internally to become coed

http://www.scouts.ca/sites/default/files/sl-Celebrating-Ten-Years-of-Co-Ed-Scouting.pdf

 

The Scouts voted in 1998 to become fully co-ed, although the Boy Scouts had been offering co-ed programs since 1974, and began allowing girls to join beavers, cubs and scouts in 1992.

Boy, scouts have changed | Toronto Star