Feminism and gender roles

[Maleficent]

Because men are calling out the feminists here on their BS, that's all. I have no problems whatsoever paying for dates. Most women I've dated called me generous. However, when a so-called feminist says they just want equality, but have no problems with the societal construct where men are essentially required to pay for women, it's nonsense. Feminists, as their name suggests, are just trying to push an agenda that benefits women, not equality.

 

 

 

I am well aware of the definition of a misandrist. Saying men pay for women to control them, to put them down, to stroke their own egos, ect, is textbook misandry.

 

Yet no feminist on this thread has agreed with that premise...

[Woggle]

*AHEM* I am one of those "feminists here" upon whom you are purported calling "shenanigans on".

 

Where, in any of my posts in this thread or any other, have I listed the things I fight for that only benefit one gender...presumably mine.

 

When I fight for equal pay, does the man in my life not benefit from my increased income coming into the home?

 

When I fight for "family leave", as opposed to "maternity leave", does the father of my child not benefit from bonding time with the paternal side of his creation?

 

When I fight in my home by insisting that this time HE should take Junior to the doctor, as I've missed enough time at work and missed none...does he NOT derive a benefit with my continued employment and paycheck?

 

 

Coulda sworn this type of "feminist BS" was mentioned earlier in this thread, when asked how feminism has benefited one man; when mentioned earlier, I encouraged someone to come forth and indicate that none of these did provide a benefit to a man. Not one person indicated it was NOT a benefit.

 

 

Perhaps the reason some of you are not familiar with what "a feminist" truly is, is because you - yourselves - indicate you won't date one 'cuz ya don't like "those misandrists"...but would rather incessantly b*tch about the women you will date who pretend to be "feminists" but then gladly let you pay for dinner, the engagement ring, wait for you to text/call first, and/or never initiate sex.

 

 

The irony remains constantly astounding...not to mention never-ending fodder for the fora.

 

If all feminists thought this way I would wholeheartedly support. I can't speak for any other men in here but I know my issues with what passes for feminism these days have nothing to do with double standards or wanting to keep women down or any of that. Nobody should be treated like a second class citizen because of their gender, race, religion or any other reason.

 

I just know that every woman who has abused me or treated me like garbage has used feminism to justify it. My mother did it and so did my ex and so did the one teacher I had who seemed to want to destroy the dreams of all the boys in her class. I have known women who cheated on and abused their husbands and boyfriends and they use some kind of gender war crap to justify it. I am sure I am not the only one who has had these experiences. If this is man's main experience with open and vocal feminists what is he supposed to think? It is perfectly logical to not support something that you believe is hateful against you.

 

I know there are many feminists who are not like this and I have known many great women who if they don't call themselves one certainly would never tolerate being treated as second class but the misandrists or a cancer within the movement just like the religious right is a cancer to christianity.

[Keenly]

If all of this is true, and it's [most often] done out of kindness and a generosity of spirit,

 

 

why do so many men who hate "feminism" because it's filled with a bunch of militant misandrists get so upset - to the point that it's a constant complaint, an ever-ready excuse, AND a frequent topic of threads - over who pays / that men *have to* pay / that the man is expected to pay. If [the majority of] men enjoy paying for simply the joy of giving...

 

...why so much animosity while doing it?

 

 

 

 

For the record, contrary to popular belief and current colloquialisms, a "misdranist" = "a person who hates men"; the definition a "misandrist" is NOT "an intelligent woman who disagrees with a man, and states so publicly". Really no reason to start throwing around other meant-to-be derogatory labels, simply because one's in a disagreement with another poster.

 

Quite frankly, because hypocrisy is unacceptable, in any form, medium, or environment.

[Maleficent]

 

The feminists here don't need to insist on anything. They also do not deny that's pretty much how reality is. When someone says they are in favor of equality, and fight for the rights of one group only, I am not convinced they care about equality. Especially when one considers the anti-male speech being posted here.

 

 

Actually, the feminists on here have said they see no problem with at least going dutch.

 

Not one has mentioned fighting only for the rights of one gender only and note that the post you referred to a blatant misandry was 'paying for dates is often about control' which means it's not always about control.

 

Not all men pay for dates expecting anything in return but some do. Not that I agree with the use of the term 'often' and would replace it with sometimes but you can't deny the fact that some men do pay for dates and get pissy when it doesn't get them laid.

Just like some women are free loaders and are looking for a rich man to pay their way.

 

I wouldn't agree with you hypothetically calling a woman [promiscuous] for having casual sex like I wouldn't agree with a woman calling a man cheap for not paying for a date but can we agree that since you have the right to choose your partner based on their views on sexuality (and I'm not sarcastic here - you do have that right) then the women who choose their partner based on whether or not they pay for dates also have that right?

Edited September 2, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Language

[mrldii]

If all feminists thought this way I would wholeheartedly support. I can't speak for any other men in here but I know my issues with what passes for feminism these days have nothing to do with double standards or wanting to keep women down or any of that. Nobody should be treated like a second class citizen because of their gender, race, religion or any other reason.

 

I just know that every woman who has abused me or treated me like garbage has used feminism to justify it. My mother did it and so did my ex and so did the one teacher I had who seemed to want to destroy the dreams of all the boys in her class. I have known women who cheated on and abused their husbands and boyfriends and they use some kind of gender war crap to justify it. I am sure I am not the only one who has had these experiences. If this is man's main experience with open and vocal feminists what is he supposed to think? It is perfectly logical to not support something that you believe is hateful against you.

 

I know there are many feminists who are not like this and I have known many great women who if they don't call themselves one certainly would never tolerate being treated as second class but the misandrists or a cancer within the movement just like the religious right is a cancer to christianity.

 

Women who understand the definition of "feminism" and live it should not be chastised and lumped into the same category as women who bastardize the definition of "feminism" to justify their end-game and/or with misandrists.

 

"Traditional women" who fulfill "traditional roles" can be "feminists" if it is out of a free choice and from free will that they do what it is they do. A house-husband can be a "feminist" if he is choosing to be the SAHD out of a free choice and from free will that he is doing what it is he is doing. A father, just released from prison and who has an ankle bracelet to fulfill his parole conditions and who also watches the kids while the mother continues to provide a paycheck, is not necessarily "a feminist".

 

A man who realizes his wife works just as many hours as he does and helps with the cooking, and the dishes, and the laundry, so by working together they both can have an hour of down-time to unwind and relax together is "a feminist"; a man who does the same things, interrupting his 4-hours-of-unwinding-while-watching-TV because "[he's] sick of hearing the ol' hag nag" is NOT "a feminist".

 

 

"Feminism" has more to do with providing everyone the ability to make choices on how they, themselves, would like to live their individual lives while working together as part of a [successful] team; it is NOT about establishing a New Set of Rules that everyone is to live by, that will replace the old The Rules by which everyone is to live. I, seriously, do not understand why anybody would not want to be "a feminist"...

 

...unless, of course, they're afraid of the consequences that 'free will' affords and/or are afraid they're not equipped to make the best choice for themselves.

 

[RedRobin]

If all feminists thought this way I would wholeheartedly support. I can't speak for any other men in here but I know my issues with what passes for feminism these days have nothing to do with double standards or wanting to keep women down or any of that. Nobody should be treated like a second class citizen because of their gender, race, religion or any other reason.

 

I just know that every woman who has abused me or treated me like garbage has used feminism to justify it. My mother did it and so did my ex and so did the one teacher I had who seemed to want to destroy the dreams of all the boys in her class. I have known women who cheated on and abused their husbands and boyfriends and they use some kind of gender war crap to justify it. I am sure I am not the only one who has had these experiences. If this is man's main experience with open and vocal feminists what is he supposed to think? It is perfectly logical to not support something that you believe is hateful against you.

 

I know there are many feminists who are not like this and I have known many great women who if they don't call themselves one certainly would never tolerate being treated as second class but the misandrists or a cancer within the movement just like the religious right is a cancer to christianity.

 

 

Another poster used the word 'opportunists'. I used the word 'hypocrites'.

 

 

Your gripes having nothing to do with feminism or feminists. The fact that some of the 'opportunists' and 'hypocrites' you came across in your life wanted to carry that banner is no different than terrorists and fundamentalists carrying the banner of their particular religion and claiming it as their reason for whatever.

 

 

How about you folks who are so wrapped around the axle on the 'feminist' label be a bit more precise, eh? If those people are not acting like those who want equality, they ARENT FEMINISTS. They are something else... hypocrites, liars, opportunists... lazy... and on and on.

[Keenly]

Women who understand the definition of "feminism" and live it should not be chastised and lumped into the same category as women who bastardize the definition of "feminism" to justify their end-game and/or with misandrists.

 

"Traditional women" who fulfill "traditional roles" can be "feminists" if it is out of a free choice and from free will that they do what it is they do. A house-husband can be a "feminist" if he is choosing to be the SAHD out of a free choice and from free will that he is doing what it is he is doing. A father, just released from prison and who has an ankle bracelet to fulfill his parole conditions and who also watches the kids while the mother continues to provide a paycheck, is not necessarily "a feminist".

 

A man who realizes his wife works just as many hours as he does and helps with the cooking, and the dishes, and the laundry, so by working together they both can have an hour of down-time to unwind and relax together is "a feminist"; a man who does the same things, interrupting his 4-hours-of-unwinding-while-watching-TV because "[he's] sick of hearing the ol' hag nag" is NOT "a feminist".

 

 

"Feminism" has more to do with providing everyone the ability to make choices on how they, themselves, would like to live their individual lives while working together as part of a [successful] team; it is NOT about establishing a New Set of Rules that everyone is to live by, that will replace the old The Rules by which everyone is to live. I, seriously, do not understand why anybody would not want to be "a feminist"...

 

...unless, of course, they're afraid of the consequences that 'free will' affords and/or are afraid they're not equipped to make the best choice for themselves.

 

 

 

In all seriousness, and not just arguing for the sake of arguing like earlier... I do want to ask one thing.

 

Yes, anyone can make the choice over what role they want to play and what shape that takes on an individual basis.

 

But, and be honest with yourself and everyone here, if we look at the choices we make and how the choices affect our lives and our chances of successfully finding a mate, settling down etc... How many women... how many women REALLY... would want a man that neglects much of his "masculine" role?

 

As you are thinking about this question, I want you to be honest with yourself about how threads on loveshack alone play out in pretty much EVERY thread ever.

 

When you choose not to fulfill your masculine role as a man, you pretty much shoot yourself in the junk when it comes to really finding a compatible mate. Statistically speaking at least.

[Maleficent]

Quite frankly, because hypocrisy is unacceptable, in any form, medium, or environment.

 

I agree.

 

So if men have the right choose their partners based on their views on sexuality, isn't it hypocrite to deny women the right to choose their partner based on whether or not he pays for a date?

 

If (general)you are telling promiscuous women that the double standard is there and they can just 'take it up with the universe' isn't it hypocrite to complain about the expectations that men pay for dates (because that is also a double standard that is there and that can just be 'taken up with the universe')?

 

Most men in this thread complaining about the double standard that men pay for the dates also insist on maintaining the double standard that women shouldn't have too much sex because they are women.

 

The women in this thread have specifically said they are fine with going half and half. That would be equality.

 

We also think that our sexual behaviour should not be judged negatively because we are women. That would be equality.

 

But you're right about one thing. There is a lot of hypocrissy here...

[Woggle]

Another poster used the word 'opportunists'. I used the word 'hypocrites'.

 

 

Your gripes having nothing to do with feminism or feminists. The fact that some of the 'opportunists' and 'hypocrites' you came across in your life wanted to carry that banner is no different than terrorists and fundamentalists carrying the banner of their particular religion and claiming it as their reason for whatever.

 

 

How about you folks who are so wrapped around the axle on the 'feminist' label be a bit more precise, eh? If those people are not acting like those who want equality, they ARENT FEMINISTS. They are something else... hypocrites, liars, opportunists... lazy... and on and on.

 

Maybe it has nothing to do with feminism but the ones who abused called themselves feminists and fly the feminist flag. When I stood up for myself I was told that under patriarchy men can never be abused because it is justifiable payback for sexism. If I strongly believe in a movement and a bunch of hate mongers were flying my flag damn right I would denounce them and denounce them hard.

 

I see you brought up religion and many people associate Christianity with the religious right and Islam with Isis and Al Qaeda. Many men also associate feminism with the kind of women who wear bathing in male tears shirts. These associations are unfair but you can understand why non extremist people recoil when they see stuff like this.

[Maleficent]

 

When you choose not to fulfill your masculine role as a man, you pretty much shoot yourself in the junk when it comes to really finding a compatible mate. Statistically speaking at least.

 

Do you know how feminism started? Women decided to stop fulfilling the feminine role that was forced on them by society.

 

Yes, it came at a price. Women who took this path then were insulted, assaulted, ostracized, lost their jobs, their freedom, their friends etc but they did it anyway because at some point, they decided enough was enough. And I'm talking about the first wave feminists here.

 

Even today, (and I'm including myself here) women who choose to not 'fulfil their feminine role) are having trouble finding a compatible mate.

 

Why can't men do the same thing?

Here men are complaining that society expects them to act a certain way and when we tell them they don't have to follow those expectations anyways, excuses like this one come out.

 

Feminists are not the ones maintaining this double standard alive, trust me!

[RedRobin]

Wow, you definitely got an axe to grind. That other thread about me wasn't enough for you that you just had to come over here and attack me as well? Did you remember your torches and pitchforks?

.

 

 

You do such a great job defending your belief in double standards, so you are the perfect person to have this discussion.

 

 

Ok, you say you don't mind paying? Then no more crabbing about it. Just suck it up like you say is the 'reality' (even when it isn't).

 

The feminists here don't need to insist on anything. They also do not deny that's pretty much how reality is.

 

 

How what reality is? You want me to claim that women pretty much expect men to pay? Well, how can I, a woman that never has, reasonably claim that? Especially since I don't make a habit of being around hypocrites and opportunists of either gender?? It's NOT reality in MY world.

 

 

When someone says they are in favor of equality, and fight for the rights of one group only, I am not convinced they care about equality. Especially when one considers the anti-male speech being posted here.

 

 

oh, I see. If a woman disagrees with you, that is anti-male? Jeez.

 

There have been plenty of examples given where those who have fought for equality have benefitted BOTH men and women. I supported my now ex-H when he went to get his master's degree, but unlike you, I don't spend every other post here claiming how special I am that I did that. I did it because WE WERE A TEAM, not because he was a man or because I was 'fighting for equality'. But hey, if someone hadn't fought for my equality before me, I wouldn't be in a position to support him. So, tell me again how fighting for the equality of one group somehow harms the other?? Oh, let me not forget... he divorced me when it was my turn to attend graduate school. One he didn't even have to pay for... Talk about an opportunist. But you don't hear me crab about that all day like some of these guys here do about the friggin' $20 they spent on some girl they hardly know.

 

 

OK, another example. I was given a full scholarship to attend a top school in my field. Total free ride. I spent some of my free time volunteering to help at risk young boys learn to read. Tell me again how fighting for equality for one group has harmed men??

 

 

Your argument holds no water. You have found lots of excuses for yourself to defend your traditional beliefs, and IMHO, sexist ones. But I'm not going to call you a woman-hater or an MRA. I've only used the term hypocrite and opportunist to describe those who act in ways they can't defend themselves through their own actions.

 

The difference between myself and these others you refer to is that I am at least honest and accept who I am. I have no problems finding people who meet my preferences, so there is no reason for me to give those preferences up. Just like women who insist on a guy paying for her. In her place, I would do the same. Why should she go out with guy A when guy B buys her flowers and takes her to dinner? I don't blame her for taking the flowers and dinner when it is offered.

 

My whole point in engaging in conversations like this is to basically call shenanigans on the feminists here. On one hand, they say they are in favor of equality between genders, but when they give an individual list of issues they are fighting against, it's all women's issues. It is not equality when you are trying to fight against all perceived injustices against one gender, but do not take issue with any advantages that come with it. Basically, feminists are here saying they want equal pay (which is pretty much already a reality) and telling men that if they don't want to pay for women, that's their problem. They should not be surprised then when men do not support the feminist agenda.

 

 

Naah, you aren't calling 'shenanigans' on anyone. You are attacking women who have likely lived their lives with a whole lot more integrity and desire to help the men in their lives than you want to admit. Because to do so, you'd have to challenge your own sexist beliefs.

[RedRobin]

Ok, if guys like me are confused on which feminists are truly feminists, then perhaps you can clear things up for me.

On the quote below, I already did. I avoid having to worry about guy's reasons for paying by just paying my share. Easy. Some guys do it for the reasons she mentions. Others do it out of a sense of generosity. Everyone is different.

 

Are these the words of a feminist, or something else? Because if this is feminism, you ladies should have no problem understanding why the men here stand against it.

 

 

I have no idea what the words of a 'feminist' are. I've always lived my life not holding gender specific expectations of anyone.

 

 

You think women MUST allow men to pay now? Any man? All the time? and if she doesn't, then she's a man-hater?

 

 

It's all very confusing.

[Rejected Rosebud]

So paying for another person is not a kindness? I wonder what it is about then...

I can't speak for that poster, but she may have been referring to the many many many guys on here, of which you yourself often are one, who complain bitterly about paying for women on dates, engagement rings, etc., yet do it anyway. That is not "nice." Not at all. That is at the least passive aggressive.

The three main reasons men pay for dates are simple. One, because we enjoy it.

Great!!! Please don't use that against women ANY MORE then okay?? :)

Two, because as men, it is expected of us. Men are given a gender role, just as women are. Our role is to pay for women. It is part of the courting phase for us to pay for the dates, and we just follow the tradition.

Are you alot older than me (24?) :confused: I've thought that young people in every generation challenged the "norms" of their parents. My parents and even my grandparents (only on mom's side!! My dad's family are Baptists! ) have always been in favor of challenging roles ESPECIALLY those that society labels us with because of things out of our own control like race and gender. That is how they brought us up! TBH it is hard for me to wrap my mind around people close to my own age who don't question and challenge stuff, I don't even get it!

We are told from an early age that this is how we show a woman we are interested.

That, I do agree with. It is a good sign of interest to invite another person to do something or give them a gift, personally I love it!! but it works for women to do it for men as well!!

Three, because if a man does not pay for things, his dating life will most likely be shot. I'm sure you've seen the numerous threads on here where women condemn men for being "cheap" when they don't go out of their way to pay.

Not around these here parts! I mean we def have our fair share of "bros" and the girls that go with them but we are a pretty socially progressive group!! You should come out west sometime, where the girls play kickball and buy the pizza when it's our turn, and get the tickets for the Eels concert to surprise our guy! And, even dress up and look hot if we feel like it! Also, know how to appreciate it when our guys make generous and romantic gestures to us as well.

 

I am tired of arguing about this today so I will stop, but srsly, just because you embrace your trad gender role so wholeheartedly, it would be nice if you'd accept that the whole world is not on that program. Thank goodness!

[Woggle]

Even feminists on a subconcious level seem attracted to a masculine man. I have seen it in action. During my darker post divorce days I sort of dated a woman who called herself a feminist and we had a FWB arrangement. Both of us were 100% honest from the start but she got attached. Eventually she became really clingy so I tried to get rid of her. One method I tried was saying outright saying misogynistic stuff and challenging her feminists views because I thought she would be disgusted and offended and finally she would leave me alone. It only made her more attracted to me because I challenged her unlike all the other guys who just kissed her butt. I have seen other feminists who deep down get hot over an alpha man. There is a big difference in what many people say and what they do.

[Rejected Rosebud]

When you choose not to fulfill your masculine role as a man, you pretty much shoot yourself in the junk when it comes to really finding a compatible mate. Statistically speaking at least.

If that role is just something you are putting on because it's socially unacceptable for you not to, then how are you going to find a compatible mate that way? If your true self is a more passive person who prefers doing things around the house rather than being out driving a truck or whatever "manly" job, wouldn't a truly compatible mate for you be one who appreciated that you wanted to be more domestic?

 

I know it is harder to break out of norms than it is to stay in them, but I believe in people doing it if it is for the good of their real inner being. I'm serious even if this might sound all woo-woo or whatever!

[Rejected Rosebud]

Even feminists on a subconcious level seem attracted to a masculine man.

Why not? Just because I am a feminist doesn't mean I can't be attracted to a "manly man"!!! That doesn't mean everybody has to be a manly man though, just like I don't have to be a girly girl. It might not be for everybody, but there are people who will appreciate you for who you are if you are being real.

[Imajerk17]

These threads make my head hurt. I'm throwing my 2 cents in, realizing that I don't have time to unwind every argument on here.

 

I don't mind taking the initiative on dating. Every time I have gotten with a girl it was because I approached her, made the first move, ect. I never really saw it as a burden because the way I saw it, I got to CHOOSE whom I talked to, dated, had sex with. Even the paying part was nbd because I made the first dates to be inexpensive.

 

I don't know why a woman has to feel bad for wanting a guy to put in some effort (I didn't say a lot of money) early on. Why do you need to feel sorry for wanting a guy who clearly is psyched to date you?

 

As for the "numbers" part, I care less about the number of partners a woman has been with and more about how she makes me feel as the most desired man on the planet. If she ravishes me with tricks she learned from other guys before we met that's fine, but I want her to ravish me with all that she has (and I'll do likewise!). No holding back sexually!

 

I don't know why a man has to feel bad for wanting a woman who makes him feel this way either.

 

There seems to be this overarching theme on here that things need to be "fair". Well they aren't and they never will be. C'est la vie.

 

 

Even today, (and I'm including myself here) women who choose to not 'fulfil their feminine role) are having trouble finding a compatible mate.

 

Hey, I feel I should comment on this. The women I was drawn to the most were the smart outspoken ones who played sports and pushed themselves. I definitely don't think I am unusual in this regard at all. The traits you alluded to in yourself are really really attractive. But it will take a strong man to appreciate them. That's what you want though, right?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Imajerk17

[mrldii]

In all seriousness, and not just arguing for the sake of arguing like earlier... I do want to ask one thing.

 

Yes, anyone can make the choice over what role they want to play and what shape that takes on an individual basis.

 

But, and be honest with yourself and everyone here, if we look at the choices we make and how the choices affect our lives and our chances of successfully finding a mate, settling down etc... How many women... how many women REALLY... would want a man that neglects much of his "masculine" role?

 

As you are thinking about this question, I want you to be honest with yourself about how threads on loveshack alone play out in pretty much EVERY thread ever.

 

When you choose not to fulfill your masculine role as a man, you pretty much shoot yourself in the junk when it comes to really finding a compatible mate. Statistically speaking at least.

 

Again, I'll only speak for myself, here (since you quoted me, thus making it appear you are interested in my - and others - answer/s),

 

I would welcome a man who "neglects much [read: all] of his 'masculine' role" and would love and embrace a man who simply is masculine, withOUT playing a "role". His masculinity plays well against and with my femininity.

 

People who are secure within themselves, as to who/how/what they are as humans find [playing] "roles" debilitating and less-than-authentic.

 

There now...we've come full circle, haven't we? But, you - and some of the other men - continue playing the "masculine role" (as has been defined for you by others who came along long before you), and continue paying for dates and engagement rings and taking the initiative when asking women out and taking the initiative when asking (begging?) for sex and leave we "misandrists and radical/militant feminists" out of it because '[you] know how we really are'.

 

According to "traditional roles" (and according to The Rules), b*tching and moaning and nagging incessantly is what women do.

 

 

 

 

Again the irony is quite stifling...no?

Edited September 2, 2015 by mrldii
clarification

[kilgore]

Again, I'll only speak for myself, here (since you quoted me, thus making it appear you are interested in my - and others - answer/s),

 

I would welcome a man who "neglects much [read: all] of his 'masculine' role" and would love and embrace a man who simply is masculine, withOUT playing a "role". His masculinity plays well against and with my femininity.

 

People who are secure within themselves, as to who/how/what they are as humans find [playing] "roles" debilitating and less-than-authentic.

 

There now...we've come full circle, haven't we? But, you - and some of the other men - continue playing the "masculine role" (as has been defined for you by others who came along long before you), and continue paying for dates and engagement rings and taking the initiative when asking women out and taking the initiative when asking (begging?) for sex and leave we "misandrists and radical/militant feminists" out of it because '[you] know how we really are'.

 

According to "traditional roles" (and according to The Rules), b*tching and moaning and nagging incessantly is what women do.

 

 

 

 

Again the irony is quite stifling...no?

 

I can't believe people are still arguing against feminism.

[William]

Folks, after approving some posts I wanted to advise respondents that we have, unfortunately, a number of members on moderation who are posting in this thread so sometimes publication of their responses is delayed so it pays to scan back a page or two. We try to get everything edited and published within an hour or two but that slows down at night since, well, we sleep. This is good reason to keep things respectful and without bashing language so one doesn't get moderated. Thanks for reading and have a good evening!

[jen1447]

According to "traditional roles" (and according to The Rules), b*tching and moaning and nagging incessantly is what women do.

 

 

 

 

Again the irony is quite stifling...no?

 

That was pretty good.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I can't believe people are still arguing against feminism.

Me too, and also that they keep denying that they even know what it is.

[RedRobin]

Reality is, for the most part, men are still expected to pay for things. That has been my side in this entire, I hesitate to even call it a discussion at this point. You say I defend my double standards well, yet the feminists here universally ignore the fact that men are basically expected to pay for things, even though women now earn a wage.

 

 

ok, if you say so. Have you ever challenged your assumptions on that? really? because I'm not even going to tell you how long I haven't expected a man to pay for me. Probably longer than you've been alive, lol. And neither have my girlfriends.

 

The original feminist agenda is pretty much a done deal at this point. Women have equal rights. Women can vote. Women can now work and earn an equal wage for equal work. From what I've seen out of this thread, the new feminist agenda is to tell the world how bad men are, call men whiners when we bring up issues, and tell men not to play a masculine role, but still be masculine...because that's what women like.

.

 

 

Its not done when you still have religious fundamentalists telling women they aren't doing their 'job' if they don't have kids... that we are expected to give birth to babies conceived by rape and incest... and some of you men crab about conscription. It's been, oh, only 40 years since you had to worry about that....

 

 

It's not done when Viagra gets paid for by insurance, but all you have to do is claim its against your 'religion', and you can deny women access to birth control.

 

 

It's not done when women are denied access to positions of leadership because of their gender. The military is just discovering, hey, when we give women a chance to make Army Ranger without lowering standards, some of them actually do it! (head slap).

 

 

It's not done when I have to adopt my middle name (which is a traditional male name) on resumes to get a shot at upper level positions in a male field. That's ok though. I hear that 'Jose' doesn't play as well as 'John' on resumes either. So there ya go.

 

No, when a woman insults much of the male gender by making up ulterior motives for things we do, then I will call that woman a misandrist. Especially when such claims are made without any real evidence or support.

 

 

Take a step back for a moment. a) this is one person, not the entire female gender and b) you aren't a woman, so maybe there have been some experiences that she has had that support it?

 

 

I've had many offers of dinner from men claiming to have noble intentions, only to find out otherwise. Oh, the guy who said he'd give me a work recommendation... when I talked to him to follow up, he told me with a smirk that I'd have to have dinner with him (married co-worker old enough to be my dad). Then there was the professor I went to see for office hours, who asked me out for dinner afterwards. Lemme see... I can think of any number of first dates with guys who expected me to go home with them that night... I could go on. Do you have any female friends? I'm sure they could tell you all kinds of stories of the men who tried to take liberties after paying for a meal or attempting to.

 

 

In spite of all THAT, I still don't assume that every man who wants to pay for me is some horrible person trying to bend my will with a measly dinner date. But it does happen.

 

 

The equality fight is pretty much over, and yes, both sexes have benefited from equality in many ways. It's not as if life for a man was all sunshine and roses before women entered the workforce.

.

 

 

You are right. It wasn't. The Industrial Revolution has gone a long ways towards destroying family life. It isn't about men vs women. It sucks for everyone. Me? Just doing the best I was born with, and doing what I love... that doesn't happen to be a traditionally female occupation.

 

I'm sorry your husband divorced you. It is obvious to me that you let your anger about that divorce control how you think.

. Think about what? I don't have any anger about my divorce. I was glad it was short lived. My dad had some words of wisdom... he said, "It's a shame he couldn't be there for something so easy. Be thankful you weren't still married to him when you really needed him, like with a terminal illness or something like that. Be thankful you never had kids with him."

 

 

Yea, that's my DAD. Gotta love him!

 

 

Please point out to me which views of mine are sexist and I will address them. To just call me a sexist, and then say you aren't going to call me a sexist, without actually pointing out anything sexist, well, that just seems rather silly.

 

I think its sexist to assume that men should pay and that women should be more chaste. It is sexist to assume anyone should do anything just based on the gender they were born.

 

 

If you said a black person should be happy being a janitor, or eating watermelon and fried chicken, we'd call that racist. Or that white people can't dance. That's racist. When you say men and women have to do this or that just because of their gender, that's sexist, by default.

[MoreAmore]

I'm a firm feminist. So is my boyfriend. I believe in equality, and I believe that you can't ignore privilege and just say, "OK now things are equal from this point forward" while completely ignoring historical influence.

 

Feminism wants to pull down the disparaging gender roles that are harmful to both genders. Men are not incapable of controlling their sexuality around women. Men CAN cry and show emotion. Women are not always better caregivers than men. Men are not always more logical than women. This is all individual. Gender roles hurt all of us. Gender roles and the historical patriarchy are why family law favors the mother even when it shouldn't.

 

Women are still put down even in our society. Seen as less. That's just not okay.

 

I feel like men's rights activists downplay the role these gender roles have in creating a hostile environment. Many are clearly misogynist. I'm sure some are not, but I don't feel it's fully introspective. Most men I know personally are not MRA though, and find them ridiculous, so perhaps I'm seeing the worst of the movement trumpeted and not a fair sample.

 

(PS, no one tell me I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist, or other equally inane statement. I know what feminism is, and I know what I identify as and why.)

Edited September 2, 2015 by MoreAmore

[mrldii]

...

The original feminist agenda is pretty much a done deal at this point. Women have equal rights. Women can vote. Women can now work and earn an equal wage for equal work. From what I've seen out of this thread, the new feminist agenda is to tell the world how bad men are, call men whiners when we bring up issues, and tell men not to play a masculine role, but still be masculine...because that's what women like...

 

We do?!? When did this happen?!? And how the hell was I left off the email distribution list when getting this word out???

 

Somebody needs to let the California State Legislature know that women "can now work and earn an equal wage for equal work"; it was announced on the news just last night that the CSL will be voting on (and the Governor has announced he will sign) legislation making paying women a lesser wage for the same work harder to do. They are doing this to combat the factual data, that in this state women make $0.84 to every $1.00 made by a man, while doing the same job.

 

With this, it appears you got it without ever really getting it. STOP "playing a role" especially if you're a man who doesn't like the role (as evidenced by the incessant b*tching about the role) and just be the person you are, which falls on the masculine side of the gender line.

 

Oh, and stop dating/relating with women who are "hypocritical" "opportunists".

 

 

Again, "Feminism and Gender Roles" is - and always has been - about abolishing them. If you're a girl, you can grow up to be a doctor...you aren't automatically going to get as far as *only* being a nurse. If you're a boy you can grow up to be a nurse...it's not necessary that you must become a doctor, because anything *less* is "woman's work".

 

If you're a woman who chooses to give up her work/career to be a SAHM, that's great! If you're a woman who is forced to be a SAHM because no employer will hire you because you might get pregnant again and/or take time off to tend to sick kids/shuttle them to doctors' appointments...that's not so good - for the woman or the man with whom she had the child/ren. It causes him to have to work a little harder to pay for child support - whether they're married or not.

 

Feminism has always recognized the importance of the day-to-day tasks in a relationship and when raising a family: there's paychecks to be earned, laundry to be done, groceries to be fetched, food to be cooked, cars to be maintained, appliances that break down, and trash to be taken out. Divvy up those tasks based on a real set of parameters (who enjoys it more? who is better/more skilled at it?) NOT simply based on who does - or does not - have a womb.

Edited September 2, 2015 by mrldii