Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hello =)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dee View Post
    Deidre
    I can't exactly remember, which is why I went through past threads on the introduction so as to spot it & attempt to re-sign in. Coulda been rabbit something ..


    TheNarrator

    If wishing for bravery were to be feared, then there would be nothing left for us to wish for.


    And I meant "you are only preserving yourself, whereas we want all men preserved."




    Anonymous

    - I wouldn't be here if I thought this forum was unpleasant. I hope you don't think it's unpleasant. Anyway it all depends on how this place is run, like everything else in this world

    - Nature isn't cruel at all but perfect. We are cruel and make bad choices. Plus, I don't think it's natural for men and women to be competing against each other within a relationship. Men usually complete against men, women against women. Together they're complementary. Having them compete against each other as a couple is unbalanced and repelling.

    - The thickness of the womb protects & nourishes the fetus. There would actually be no pregnancy without having that layer become thick enough for the embryo to attach itself onto and remain attached till delivery. Also, the mother cannot limit the fetus from taking anything it needs to grow. Pregnancy is a natural process and holds no risks, and any harm that could occur is mostly due to bad choices the mother makes, especially poor nutrition. It's a baby not a parasite :P

    - You say MGTOW isn't about hate. I completely agree. Letting go isn't about hate at all. Despair maybe, but not hate. I like how you phrased the term cutting your losses in reference to the "movement" because it implies so much, mostly how we're failing each other as genders, as well as being labeled - us women - as losses and burdens rather than partners to gain.

    Our current society, pushed forward by the ever insistent hateful Feminist regime, now has women pitted against men and men pitted against women, in a dog-eat-dog competition which is tilted heavily in favor of women and getting steadily more so. The Men's Rights and the Anti-Feminist movements have risen as a counterweight to the hateful Feminist juggernaut which is threatening to send our civilization careening headlong over the cliff for no useful purpose other than to see how bent they can make it, as they seek to destroy Men and Boys and everything related to masculinity and "maleness". They often mistake the ideology of hateful Feminism with the demographic of all women, and make broad policy assumptions about men which are generally unfounded and which most of society doesn't really agree with, but goes along with because it tends to cater to women in general, and since they speak with the loudest voice, it sometimes gives the illusion that they are speaking for all women. More and more women are waking up to the shrill hatred of Feminism, if not for themselves, then for a son or a husband, or a male friend that they see getting ground under the hateful Feminist boot-heel, and they are starting to form groups and coalitions to speak out against the hateful agenda of Feminism, and to publicly renounce it for themselves. Similarly, Men, the principle target group of the hateful feminist agenda, have begun waking up to the incredible "Woman Good, Man Bad" hate and bigotry that Feminists spew from every media orifice on a daily basis.

    Men and women should be, and naturally are, complementary beings, who operate best when pair-bonded and the strengths of each provides cover for the other's weaknesses, and together make an effective unit for raising kids and surviving in the world. Feminists have poisoned women, and much of our modern society against men and have seductively whispered to women that they don't need men anymore, that they can have it all, do it all, be everything for everybody all by themselves. As a result, there is a very strong anti-male sentiment coursing through society today, and women are doing everything in their power to disavow the pair-bonding, and to avoid establishing a good, solid relationship with a man who will connect and work with them to further their mutual goals. By the time they realize the lie of hateful Feminism, it's too late and they are into their later years, losing their "SMV" (Sexual Market Value) and many years have passed by which could have been much better spent building a solid foundation for a relationship, strong family bonds, and working to build a solid financial basis with which to enter into retirement. All for what..?? Nothing. The hateful Feminists have NOTHING to offer in return. No vision. No Future. Just hatred for Men. And as a result they are busy sucking the life and the future out of *women* as well as Men with their hateful rhetoric and policies. The situation is extremely insidious.

    It is literally not possible to define "Feminism" without casting Men into the role of Antagonists to women. Feminism requires Men to be its foils in order to justify its existence. This, in turn, has had the bizarre and twisted side-effect of requiring Feminist women to become more and more the "victims" in their hateful ideology, and the perpetrators, of course, are men. The further they go in that direction with their hateful mind-fuck thinking, the greater the mental gyrations become which accuse men of whatever ill they're accusing him of causing women at the moment, and how they have no personal will or agency which is capable of withstanding his evil influence, such that they, on the one hand, are permanent victims forever mired in the muck and mire unable to move or engage in any action or else they would have to bear some measure of complicity, however slight, while simultaneously, on the other hand, claiming that they are equal to a man, as capable in all things as a man, and are able to compete on a "fair" and "level" playing field with men. A ludicrous pair of assertions if ever there was one. They could theoretically claim one or the other, but not both. The two constructs are polar opposites of each other. And the one that they generally lead with is that Men are bad. Men are the root of all evil and every ill which has ever befallen women. And therefore men must be rooted out, "othered", emasculated and ultimately thrown out of the society which they themselves built from the ground up-- for the crime of simply being male.

    How do we know this? It is embedded deeply in their hateful words, their speeches, their sit-ins and be-ins. It is written in their books and their articles. It is broadcast from every media outlet in a hundred languages every day all around the world. Many western countries are already deeply within their thrall, and they practice their hatred for Men openly and without concern, so deeply is it embedded in the national consciousness. Others are less indoctrinated, and the hateful Feminist narrative must move more slowly. But in every case, the common theme is the same-- hatred for men, and the destruction of Men, masculinity and everything "male". They are systematically going through every language to remove vestiges of words and concepts which have a "male" root, a "male" meaning, or a "male" implication. They are going through textbooks of every country to systematically remove references to "men" and "maleness" from the concepts presented, to the point where even traditional science venues and institutions are taking part-- twisting themselves around to suit the hateful Feminist narrative and remove "men" and "maleness" from every potential reference-- except one. Where a concept is "negative" or "bad" or "evil", it is left unchanged, or perhaps "enhanced" to further push the connection. By contrast, words and concepts related to "Female-ness" are not purged, and in fact are being steadily added as our society becomes more and more gynocentric. And yet, in perverse form, hateful Feminists refuse to acknowledge or attend to the explicit bias contained in their own hateful ideology as the word "Feminism", the term used practically synonymously around the world with "gender equality" conspicuously has a great big "FEM" in it and an extremely strong connotation that it is by, about, and for *women*. And yet *this* instance of obvious gendered language is perfectly acceptable to them. Because it fits in fine with their hateful narrative and agenda of tearing down the *male* and exalting the *female*.

    Feminism is a HATE GROUP and Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE.

    MGTOW, "Men Going Their Own Way", is a natural and reasonable response to the hateful Feminist agenda, and the overly gynocentric conditions which men find themselves facing in practically every situation in their lives. "Male" fraternities (outside of actual school campuses) have been all but completely busted by litigious Feminists over the last four or five decades-- while pervsersely, more and more "Female-Only" outings, events, sororities, and business functions are becoming commonplace, and for the exact same reasons that Feminists claimed Men's institutions should be broken up. But apparently nobody seems to mind or to care when it is all *WOMEN* getting together and acting in a sexist and hateful manner to exclude MEN. Feminism promotes a culture of *ENGINEERED SEXISM* towards men. And in many countries, this culture has even begun to be enshrined in policies and law which are either thinly-worded to actively discriminate against Men, or out-and-out plain worded with willful discrimination towards Men. Thus the idea of going "MGTOW" is becoming more and more attractive to men all over the world as they are unhooking from society caught in the grips of hateful Feminism and so heavily tilted against their interests. They are marrying less, working less, going to school less, and engaging in society less. They are walking away from Women as the equation regarding becoming involved with a woman is running ever more counter to their interests. Men are leaving women high and dry, and left to their own devices to fend for and provide for themselves.

    The polls say that Female happiness is at a near all-time low while Male happiness, in contrast, has reached all-time heights. The exodus for Men has begun and Men are busy walking away from Women. Women are complaining more and more that there are "no good men" to marry or raise families with. Hateful feminism has given women nothing, and perversely through the application of MGTOW, has given Men practically everything. All they have to do to receive it is to open their eyes and enlighten their awareness to the dangers and traps set out for them by practitioners of hateful Feminism and simply avoid them. This is becoming easier and easier as Men are writing books and articles and giving lectures and putting up YouTube videos telling each other how to spot the traps set out by hateful Feminists and avoid their deleterious effects. MGTOW has arisen almost overnight, and seemingly from nowhere, as Men are fast adopting its tenets in whole or at least part-- getting involved with a Woman these days is generally more trouble than it's worth. You stand to lose a whole lot more than you do to gain. The odds and probabilities are stacked almost entirely in her favor. And she has the power of law and the courts to back her up in going after your hard-earned wealth and assets. Thus there is virtually no upside in getting married or having long-term relationships with women for men, and almost unlimited downsides. The current situation in society provides HER nearly all the benefits and all of the outs while providing him fewer and fewer benefits and sticking him with the majority of the responsibilities-- not to mention the bill. And of course just about everybody in the system has their hand out to get in on that action-- robbing him blind while providing extremely little benefit to him in return. So in doing the math and adding it all up-- many men are choosing to forgo relationships with women as too risky and too potentially dangerous to engage in.



    Originally posted by Dee View Post
    - You say MGTOW isn't about hate. I completely agree. Letting go isn't about hate at all. Despair maybe, but not hate. I like how you phrased the term cutting your losses in reference to the "movement" because it implies so much, mostly how we're failing each other as genders, as well as being labeled - us women - as losses and burdens rather than partners to gain.
    This statement from you is pretty interesting in itself... you seem to "get" and understand the concept and purpose of MGTOW, and correctly interpret the underlying mindset and calculus behind the philosophy. And it is your last words which are the most telling and haunting, in my opinion-- "Women - as losses and burdens rather than partners to gain". And while that makes me sad, very truly it does, because I love women-- I love being around them, I enjoy conversing with them, debating with them, and everything about them that they bring to the party-- but they are dangerous to engage in anymore. If I wasn't already married, I doubt I would even consider it again. This is the state and condition and the "future" that hateful Feminism has given us. Women have become actually "toxic" in every sense they have tried to label us men with that word. It is simply their own arrogance, and dare I say "stupidity" which prevents them from realizing it.

    Feminists have worked to tear down Men, masculinity, "maleness" and destroy "The Patriarch" (Father) by destroying the nuclear family. This is actually one of their most core and coveted stated goals. This didn't happen accidently. Feminists have worked hard to destroy the family, and to take away that which has historically made women truly happy-- and given them absolutely NOTHING in return. Women are more miserable than ever. They have declared themselves independent from men-- "Women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle". And now, with MGTOW, Men are returning the favor.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

    Comment


    • #17
      Welcome

      welcome!

      Comment


      • #18
        TheNarrator

        - Self-preservation is achieved only through the continuance of a species, not the detachment of genders. And although you've stated your reasons, two wrongs don't make a right.

        - By playing into the system and/or surrendering to it, we both are failing each other.

        - You misunderstood my point: I indicated that we were indeed losses, and that we were indeed burdens when we dress up like men.

        - We gotta get ourselves a translator you and me


        LucasJohnson

        Thanks



        mr_e

        - Thanks for the compelling insight, with which I mostly agree in terms of manifestations.

        - I found these points specifically substantial:

        - You say that women are pitted against men and vice versa, in a dog-eat-dog competition that is tilted heavily in favor of women and getting steadily more so. I agree. However, what if the competition were heavily, or even fully tilted towards men and getting steadily more so? It's true that things would be better in terms of re-establishing a more balanced scale through which genders may interact naturally & constructively. However, it would certainly solve nothing since the competition for power and the struggle for it would certainly still exist, even more fervently. Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West? This is my main point and where I'm coming from .. along with all the questions and thoughts that are now seeking an outlet.

        - The transformation of our roles from complementary to competitive is the root of the problem and therefore, the base for a solution. Why were men initially labeled as "powerful", with "powerful positions" when in reality, they were merely struggling at work every day in order to support their families? Why were the positions that men held perceived as "influential" and thus "the only positions worth being sought after" when in reality, the counterpart position women held within the household was just as influential and worthwhile? Why was early feminism retaliated against with phrases like "Get Back in the Kitchen" or "Women, Know Your Place" as if to imply the inferiority of such important roles within the family, while femininity in Eastern cultures thrives under phrases like "Prepare Mothers and You Prepare Nations" or "Heaven Lies Beneath the Feet of Mothers"?

        - More importantly, why were Western men - way before feminism - demonized for showing human weakness through tears while Eastern cultures award the utmost respect to a man who cries, knowing that it results from extreme anguish? Why is softness of heart attributed to women when tenderheartedness is a mere human characteristic that has nothing to do with gender but with humanness, which is a credit to anyone who possess it. Showing emotions and vulnerabilities - by men and women alike - is still frowned upon in the West because it deeply clashes with the Western discourse, which is aggressive, assertive, and hard .. both as a system and a culture.

        - In Eastern cultures, a much more normal attitude exists when it comes to emotional human traits and therefore, a much more balanced relationship exists between genders to this day. When an Indian man shows much more gentleness than what's normally accepted for men here, he would be regarded as a "good man" by his peers. When an Arabic man starts to cry, even in public, men would urgently rush to console him, and women would join in through words of kindness .. some might even cry in response to the situation. Yet, these are the same men who go back home to women who are mostly adhering to their natural feminine side. Gentleness is not regarded as taboo over there, so men's masculinity is never threatened by it, and women feel right at home.

        - The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated. Seems that everybody's running after masculinity in the West .. man, woman, and child. It's a power-crazed system and mentality. I think things are much worse in the States, with the capitalist monster and beast of a foreign policy. So why not wear "the master's clothes" in pursuit of what's prized in the community and within the same mindset as well, the only mindset actually. It's a "Kick-ass culture" and everybody's geared up and ready to go.

        - You say that feminists seek to destroy men and boys and everything related to masculinity and "maleness". I disagree. I think that in essence, it is power-through-masculinity that feminists seek for themselves, compete for, and nourish .. to the detriment of their own nature & wellbeing as women. If anything, femininity is what's being destroyed.

        - I grew up in a gender-traditional home, so I might not be as well-read as others with respect to feminist ideology, nor was I ever inclined to tell you the truth. But I've always been taught to look beyond the facade, and I'm sorry but I think that placing feminism as the primary culprit without asking why is the easy way out. Taking a closer, deeper look at matters, however, allows a better understanding of everything .. most of all of ourselves.

        - I gotta say though, I do believe that men are dangerous by nature, and a threat. Not to women though, not in the least bit. If anything, men are the sole protectors of women, children, and the community. Men are only dangerous to the state; and the more corrupt/oppressive the state is, the more it fears the presence of men. For this reason, the government's main motto towards men is "Wear 'em out." Wear em out by work, wars, unemployment, under-education, division ... and feminism. In culturally-colonized nations, the first thing that the colonizers used to do in order to weaken the men was to hit the family structure; everything spirals downward from there.



        Yeah this definitely shoulda been under philosophy.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          TheNarrator - Self-preservation is achieved only through the continuance of a species, not the detachment of genders. And although you've stated your reasons,
          .. self preservation does not equate species continuation.. not sure where you got that idea.
          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          two wrongs don't make a right.
          i dont think you grasp the situation, men are not "wronging" women. men are making sure THEY dont get wronged.
          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          - By playing into the system and/or surrendering to it, we both are failing each other.
          we're not falling into the system. we're living WITH it. and doing the best we can. women are abusing it. see how that works?
          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          - You misunderstood my point: I indicated that we were indeed losses, and that we were indeed burdens when we dress up like men.
          no, women are burdens and losses when they dont contribute to anything which as of 2017 last i checked they dont. by and large women are useless peices of flesh in 99.999% of relationships. is that close enough for a stat pulled out of my hat?
          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          - We gotta get ourselves a translator you and me
          a translator for what? these:: ?

          Originally posted by Dee View Post
          TheNarrator

          You are only preserving The Narrator, whereas we want all narrators preserved


          TheNarrator

          If wishing for bravery were to be feared, then there would be nothing left for us to wish for.


          And I meant "you are only preserving yourself, whereas we want all men preserved."
          they made no sense! make em make sense and i'll follow!
          Originally posted by MatrixTransform
          where were you before you put yourself last?
          Originally posted by TheNarrator
          Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dee View Post
            TheNarrator

            - Self-preservation is achieved only through the continuance of a species, not the detachment of genders. And although you've stated your reasons, two wrongs don't make a right.

            - By playing into the system and/or surrendering to it, we both are failing each other.

            - You misunderstood my point: I indicated that we were indeed losses, and that we were indeed burdens when we dress up like men.

            - We gotta get ourselves a translator you and me


            LucasJohnson

            Thanks



            mr_e

            - Thanks for the compelling insight, with which I mostly agree in terms of manifestations.

            - I found these points specifically substantial:

            - You say that women are pitted against men and vice versa, in a dog-eat-dog competition that is tilted heavily in favor of women and getting steadily more so. I agree. However, what if the competition were heavily, or even fully tilted towards men and getting steadily more so? It's true that things would be better in terms of re-establishing a more balanced scale through which genders may interact naturally & constructively. However, it would certainly solve nothing since the competition for power and the struggle for it would certainly still exist, even more fervently. Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West? This is my main point and where I'm coming from .. along with all the questions and thoughts that are now seeking an outlet.

            - The transformation of our roles from complementary to competitive is the root of the problem and therefore, the base for a solution. Why were men initially labeled as "powerful", with "powerful positions" when in reality, they were merely struggling at work every day in order to support their families? Why were the positions that men held perceived as "influential" and thus "the only positions worth being sought after" when in reality, the counterpart position women held within the household was just as influential and worthwhile? Why was early feminism retaliated against with phrases like "Get Back in the Kitchen" or "Women, Know Your Place" as if to imply the inferiority of such important roles within the family, while femininity in Eastern cultures thrives under phrases like "Prepare Mothers and You Prepare Nations" or "Heaven Lies Beneath the Feet of Mothers"?

            - More importantly, why were Western men - way before feminism - demonized for showing human weakness through tears while Eastern cultures award the utmost respect to a man who cries, knowing that it results from extreme anguish? Why is softness of heart attributed to women when tenderheartedness is a mere human characteristic that has nothing to do with gender but with humanness, which is a credit to anyone who possess it. Showing emotions and vulnerabilities - by men and women alike - is still frowned upon in the West because it deeply clashes with the Western discourse, which is aggressive, assertive, and hard .. both as a system and a culture.

            - In Eastern cultures, a much more normal attitude exists when it comes to emotional human traits and therefore, a much more balanced relationship exists between genders to this day. When an Indian man shows much more gentleness than what's normally accepted for men here, he would be regarded as a "good man" by his peers. When an Arabic man starts to cry, even in public, men would urgently rush to console him, and women would join in through words of kindness .. some might even cry in response to the situation. Yet, these are the same men who go back home to women who are mostly adhering to their natural feminine side. Gentleness is not regarded as taboo over there, so men's masculinity is never threatened by it, and women feel right at home.

            - The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated. Seems that everybody's running after masculinity in the West .. man, woman, and child. It's a power-crazed system and mentality. I think things are much worse in the States, with the capitalist monster and beast of a foreign policy. So why not wear "the master's clothes" in pursuit of what's prized in the community and within the same mindset as well, the only mindset actually. It's a "Kick-ass culture" and everybody's geared up and ready to go.

            - You say that feminists seek to destroy men and boys and everything related to masculinity and "maleness". I disagree. I think that in essence, it is power-through-masculinity that feminists seek for themselves, compete for, and nourish .. to the detriment of their own nature & wellbeing as women. If anything, femininity is what's being destroyed.

            - I grew up in a gender-traditional home, so I might not be as well-read as others with respect to feminist ideology, nor was I ever inclined to tell you the truth. But I've always been taught to look beyond the facade, and I'm sorry but I think that placing feminism as the primary culprit without asking why is the easy way out. Taking a closer, deeper look at matters, however, allows a better understanding of everything .. most of all of ourselves.

            - I gotta say though, I do believe that men are dangerous by nature, and a threat. Not to women though, not in the least bit. If anything, men are the sole protectors of women, children, and the community. Men are only dangerous to the state; and the more corrupt/oppressive the state is, the more it fears the presence of men. For this reason, the government's main motto towards men is "Wear 'em out." Wear em out by work, wars, unemployment, under-education, division ... and feminism. In culturally-colonized nations, the first thing that the colonizers used to do in order to weaken the men was to hit the family structure; everything spirals downward from there.



            Yeah this definitely shoulda been under philosophy.

            Dee,

            What a great conversation starter! You packed a lot in there to respond to, and I want to, so I'll reply briefly now and then come back to your other points later tonight...

            Originally posted by Dee View Post
            - You say that women are pitted against men and vice versa, in a dog-eat-dog competition that is tilted heavily in favor of women and getting steadily more so. I agree. However, what if the competition were heavily, or even fully tilted towards men and getting steadily more so?
            I think the problem would be the same, albeit tilted in the other direction. I think men and women are essentially different but complementary. Not point for point, but such that they operate best together as a team. I don't think it matters much who leads, as long as there is a clear leader-- or even if they flip back and forth-- or each leads in their spectrum-- or however/whatever the dynamic, as long as there is one and both understand it and are onboard with it.


            Originally posted by Dee View Post
            Why was early feminism retaliated against with phrases like "Get Back in the Kitchen" or "Women, Know Your Place" as if to imply the inferiority of such important roles within the family
            This one is in need of a much longer, more thoughtful and nuanced answer-- but here is my opinion off the cuff... let's leave "Feminism" out of it for the moment and just consider it "the women's movement" (or something similar) to avoid confusion. I think it's for two maybe three basic reasons. First, there was historically a clear division between the duties and labors of the sexes. Men generally did most of the "outside" work ("outside" with respect to the male-female team) while women did most of the "inside" work. To put that in another context, the woman and the kids/family, were the "home base" and women were essentially in charge of that. The man went out and engaged with the world-- i.e., killed something and dragged it home for dinner-- which is really all "going to work" is in our modern context, but let's leave that for the more nuanced view. And there were some other things too-- and I can speak only from the male perspective, perhaps you or one of the other women here can fill it in from your viewpoint.... When men leave out from home they are doing a couple of things-- one, they are leaving on a journey to obtain provisions for their women and families; two they are leaving the people they care about and are investing in; and three, they are removing their "home face" and putting on their "game face" to go stare down the sabre-toothed tiger, or whatever, out in the world.

            (...A whole long conversation belongs here...)

            When women began entering into the male domain, several things happened. One, he was somewhat confused as to why they were there; Two he was a little concerned that she didn't think he was a sufficient provider; Three he became concerned that she intended to replace him as a provider (which turned out to be a largely real concern); Four he started wondering who was at home taking care of the important things there, like keeping house and raising the kids, managing and engaging with the home-related concerns (something else it turns out was a real concern); Five he was quite a bit put out at the way women swept in and invaded his sphere and domain and started immediately demanding concessions be made for them. Special accommodations. More genteel environment. Etc. (And women certainly do not make similar accommodations for MEN in THEIR environments! I have yet to see any hospitals putting up girly posters to attract male nurses and such...) So the natural reaction was pretty much, Why are you here and not in your own domain? As well as more pointed comments designed to ask the question a little more pointedly.

            And that was the beginning of the unraveling of the ancient "Deal" between Men and Women. Men made it possible with their inventions of convenience. Women took advantage of their newfound freedom to usurp his realm. (I am not assigning any particular "right/wrongness" to this, merely pointing out what happened)


            Originally posted by Dee View Post
            - You say that feminists seek to destroy men and boys and everything related to masculinity and "maleness". I disagree. I think that in essence, it is power-through-masculinity that feminists seek for themselves, compete for, and nourish .. to the detriment of their own nature & wellbeing as women. If anything, femininity is what's being destroyed.
            I actually agree with you, in a round-about sort of way. Though I do earnestly believe Feminism is based on hate, and I can point to innumerable sources to back up my claim-- I can accept as an underlying basis a desire to "have and/or be" what Men are, and if that's not possible, reacting by wanting to tear down what is male and masculine. And in this sense, I can agree that Feminism is ultimately tearing down femininity, but is doing so by attacking and working to destroy the male and the family. One only has to go look at the writings of, say, Kate Millet-- or better, Mallory Millet, Kate's sister, for an example. (And when I say an example, I mean that these same sentiments are echoed over and over throughout the spectrum of Feminist writings, speeches, articles, beliefs..)

            MARXIST FEMINISM’S RUINED LIVES
            http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2400...allory-millett

            "It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:


            "Why are we here today?" she asked.
            "To make revolution," they answered.
            "What kind of revolution?" she replied.
            "The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
            “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
            "By destroying the American family!" they answered.
            "How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
            "By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
            "And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
            "By taking away his power!"
            "How do we do that?"
            "By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
            "How can we destroy monogamy?"


            Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?


            "By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded."


            But you could as easily go back another hundred years and be a fly on the wall at the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848 where the proto-Feminists got together and signed the hateful "Declaration of Sentiments" whereupon they effectively declared war on the Male of the species and cast him into the role of the villain-- aka "He", a prototype for "The Patriarchy"-- who is declared responsible for all of the ills which befall women.

            Wikipedia: Declaration of Sentiments:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

            And I don't dispute your claim that Feminists want power through Masculinity, and I have said so myself many times-- they seek "Male companions" (useful idiots) whom they can wield and command to perform their bidding. As this is the only access to "Hard Power" that Feminists possess. But even as it is complicated, it is also useful in that they can plausibly deny any involvement in their violence-by-proxy arrangement, and thus place the blame squarely on the men and their "toxic masculinity". Feminists know this and have gotten quite adept at using their Male Power-by-Proxy arrangement to bind Men with their own Male power-- as evidenced in the way the Feminists have lobbied for laws and policies which enable-- or require-- the government / police to respond and literally take away whomever they name as their target in handcuffs. And drag him (as it's nearly always a him) unmercifully in the courts and bully him financially-- as that is what men are most vulnerable to-- to achieve their objectives and send extremely clear messages all up and down the line about who is really in-charge.

            In one sense, it's the men-- as it is their Male Power that Feminists are borrowing and wielding by proxy, and that is what really chaff's a Feminist's ass-- she doesn't have her own equivalent power to wield directly on her own and for herself. And so on that level, she knows she is never *really* in power, that her power is only ever "borrowed" from the Male-- and thus it is in her direct interest to keep him bound up and befuddled with her Hateful bullshit, as it keeps him constantly on-edge, and never able to fully think through the situation or to formulate a coherent response. Also since women also control the realm of the home, at least historically, they are also busy indoctrinating and "brain-washing" society with their anti-male rhetoric and dogma, making it easier for each successive generation of Feminists to take the reins and wield her own "Male Power by Proxy" a little easier.

            We are now at the point where society is quite conditioned and inured to his treatment and "place", to the degree that people rarely even consider men's issues or situations of concern to men, or the trials and tribulations to which he is subjected. While in contrast, we are made painfully aware of a woman's every hangnail.



            Originally posted by Dee View Post
            - I gotta say though, I do believe that men are dangerous by nature, and a threat. Not to women though, not in the least bit. If anything, men are the sole protectors of women, children, and the community. Men are only dangerous to the state; and the more corrupt/oppressive the state is, the more it fears the presence of men.
            The male IS dangerous. He is the one who has had millions of years worth of evolution and adaptation to become calculating, cunning, inventive, ruthless, resilient and resourceful. Depending upon whether you are on his friends list or enemies list, that may be a good thing or a bad thing for you. He is also adapted to working both alone, for his own purposes, strategies and devices. As well as in groups-- men fall in and form natural hierarchies, which are almost immediately able to pitch together, act cooperatively to achieve ends and purposes greater than themselves. Men are also the rule-breakers. It is generally to their advantage to break the rules-- and then issue edicts against other people breaking those same rules in their wake. And if they are bigger and badder and meaner than everybody else-- they can enforce that edict.

            Men do not fear Feminists, they fear the State. So if you're a Feminist who is intent upon breaking the grip of the male, the natural strategy and agenda is to become the State. Thus your aims and efforts need to be towards getting your people and sympathizers into positions of power, influence and particularly related to policy-making / laws. And that is exactly where Feminists have insinuated themselves. Firstly in academia, because it has always been regarded as a "soft" institution with little concern for it's corruptibility or susceptibility to radical or subversive influences, so few people would be expecting an insurrection to start there. Then into the low-level government positions, mid-level managerial positions, assistants to bosses, etc. Anywhere they could have influence, whether overt or covert.

            Feminists fight micro-battles. They win their ground in inches instead of yardage. Bit by bit, inch by inch. A little at a time. That is why Feminists push for women into government, top-management positions, education, health, and now engineering. They are working to place themselves in all of the areas which are NOT necessarily male dominated-- though most of them are-- but are able to overtly or covertly control or influence *policy* and thus help to advance the hateful Feminist agenda. They are not concerned with "male domination". There are no Feminists looking to "bust up" the male dominated mining industry, or the male-dominated oil industry, or the male dominated fire/police/military industries-- except at the highest levels where they can influence *policy*. In fact, the reasons given by the women suing the military to be allowed into combat wasn't about their right to "serve and protect their country"-- but because of the *civilian* positions they could obtain afterwards which were largely only ever awarded to ex-military men who had served in actual combat.
            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.



            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

            Comment


            • #21
              Okay Dee, I'm finally home and can sit down and take another stab at it...

              Building on my earlier post...

              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              However, it (tilting) would certainly solve nothing since the competition for power and the struggle for it would certainly still exist, even more fervently. Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West? This is my main point and where I'm coming from .. along with all the questions and thoughts that are now seeking an outlet.
              I don't think it *was* originally. I think it became that way as the natural albeit unplanned/accidental result of Men having created enough labor-saving devices to free Women from their allotment of daily burdens. Which, in turn, afforded her a wealth of free time as a result. Not so much for the man though, he still had to continue to get up every day, go to work, do whatever arduous (generally) work he had to do, and then come home hungry and tired to his wife-- who had had the luxury of considerable more free-time during the day than he-- and thus was not so tired and up for adventure. Enough of that daily grind for both of them degenerated into contempt as she longed to spend more of her free-time doing other things outside the home and engaging in the outside world in ways she wasn't really able to previously-- and he existing in the same pattern (rut) as he always had, coming home tired and hungry just wanted a nice dinner, a place to put his feet up before going to bed to do it all again the next day.

              For all of Feminism's proclamations of freedom and choice and opportunities and empowerment-- all of that was only ever really able to be utilized and enjoyed by HER since HE still had to work for a living. But girls just wanna have fun, right? And slowly the dynamic began to shift away from the more or less equitable distribution of labor between the sexes to where it was primarily just him doing the labor and she engaging in other pursuits.

              In the beginning women started organizing primarily for local issues and social campaigns, such as the Temperance Movement, which targeting the social issues of alcohol, gambling, and prostitution. And in the process-- which included quite a bit of uncivilized behaviors as well-- developing the skills and tactics that would eventually set them up for taking part in the Suffrage movement. What started out being Universal Suffrage, turned into Women's Suffrage after most men were granted the right to vote as a result of their war-time service, particularly in the UK, but also in the USA. It's just that the linkage between the two is strung out farther in the States than it was in Britain where it was more immediate.

              As women enjoyed their successes-- however much was truly the result of their specific efforts is debateable, but the results were certainly real enough and in time who did what and how faded from memory and the popular notion of women as the architects of their own liberation sprang up into the popular imagination, no doubt shepherded along by the proto-Feminists. But the real driving force behind "Women's Lib" didn't occur until the advent of the Pill, which was the catalyst needed to kick things into high gear. And that's when the Feminists really started coming into their own as a thing, and a political entity. Along with their radical ideas of "bringing down the Man" and doing away with "the Patriarch" and by extension, "The Patriarchy"-- the system, which hateful Feminists claimed was built by Men for the purpose of advantaging Men over Women and keeping women bound to their kitchens in a form of domestic servitude. Which of course was absolute pure bunk. And moreover, it was ironically "the man" who was continuing to quietly go to work every day to bring home money and resources to provide for his family while the women were out burning their bras and declaring themselves liberated. (Someday, somebody really needs to sit the men all down and explain to them the right way to do oppression...) From there, the doctrine of hateful Feminism really began to pick up speed, helped along by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Simone De Beauvoir, Kate Millet and all the rest.

              And man-hating has been a principle staple of Feminism the entire time. It's in all their writings, all their speeches, all their handouts and fliers, its in everything they say, everything they do. Feminists have NO LOVE for Men. Despite all their protestations to the contrary, you cannot and will not ever find any evidence of "Love" for Men by Feminists. No Feminist love songs for men. No Feminist poems or love sonnets for men. No Feminist novels extolling the many virtues of men. Not even so much as a Feminist "Thank You" note to men for building civilization, inventing all the cool, labor-saving devices and freeing women from their daily domestic duties so they could rise up and stab men in the back by way of thanks. Feminism is a hate group. It has always been a hate group. Feminists have always been hateful people.

              There has never been any reason to vilify men or to demonize men or to blame them for result of millions of years worth of co-evolution and joint society. That was all women's doing. Hateful women. Hateful Feminist women. Bent on torpedoing men for being the one thing they themselves could not be-- and for revenge, tearing down everything that was male or masculine as they work to establish themselves as the new ruling class. Dictators are easily recognized in every generation-- and in every gender. Feminists are basically the reincarnation of Hitler in pantyhose. Their methods are different, but their aim and sexist bigotry is very much the same. And even many of their tactics are similar. Not the same. Not exactly the same. Not detail for detail the same. That was then, this is now. And there are other ways to achieve the same result.




              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West?
              I don't know. You tell me. Men didn't start this war.



              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              Why were men initially labeled as "powerful", with "powerful positions" when in reality, they were merely struggling at work every day in order to support their families?
              Because that made it easier to cast them into the role of antagonists and rationalize their overthrow and the taking of all their stuff. Women said it-- "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Men did their jobs so well they freed up women from their labors so that women could turn around and thank them by kicking them in the nuts and tossing them out of society.



              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              - More importantly, why were Western men - way before feminism - demonized for showing human weakness through tears while Eastern cultures award the utmost respect to a man who cries, knowing that it results from extreme anguish?
              I think it has more to do with the expectations of women. That Western women have been more "impressed" by "manly men" who don't show weakness or fear, and those are the ones they have selected, which has in turn reinforced that trait in Western men, being a largely "captured" population up until relatively modern times. While the women in other cultures set different criteria for "manliness" and selected men with different traits. By and large it is the women who do the selecting, and the men who compete to get selected. This results in a high degree of "flamboyance" and large "showy" behaviors by males, who are all engaged in doing whatever they can to attract the attention of a female and thus receive the chance to mate. It also puts men in the position of having to vye for sex and women in the role of being able to dole it out as they see fit-- which they do to everybody's consternation. Men are thus made out to be the sexual aggressors while women get to sit back and claim they could care less-- even as they are every bit as concerned and compelled to engage in it as men-- again, they get the "softer" power which includes "plausible deniability". Elsewhere (in the forum) I have described the various mating strategies available to men (two, or more darkly, three) and women (one, or more darkly, two). Though as someone else used to point out, there were undoubtedly other secondary reasons such as love, kinship (not meaning incest), etc. which could also draw two people together provided the basic sexual chemistry is there.


              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              - The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated.
              The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated BY WOMEN.

              There, I fixed it for ya. ;-)


              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              - In Eastern cultures, a much more normal attitude exists when it comes to emotional human traits and therefore, a much more balanced relationship exists between genders to this day.
              Yes, but the hateful Feminists are busy working on that as they endeavor to export their hateful Feminism to every corner of the globe. And with a shocking degree of success too, I might add. Witness the Japanese "Herbivore Men" movement, which seems to be an outright rejection of the traditional view of Japanese men, slaving away for their families-- "Death before dishonor" and all that-- along with the ever-increasing modern hateful Feminist onslaught which is hacking away at their cultural value and esteem faster than Jezebel can spew ad hominems. The situation for women there, while still nothing like it is for women here in the West, is rapidly changing and the worm is turning to put them more and more into the driver's seat. The reaction by men to the Feminist invasion is to tune out, drop out, and check out. More and more, all over the world, as hateful Feminism sweeps in, MGTOW Men check out. Men want nothing to do with the hateful cunts.


              Originally posted by Dee View Post
              It's a "Kick-ass culture" and everybody's geared up and ready to go.
              We are what you women have made us. You wanted us to be caricatures of ourselves and our manhood / masculinity. That's what we've become. Men work hard to be what women want. If you don't like who we are, you have only to look at yourselves for why it is so.


              The hateful Feminists are the ones who drove the truck. But all the other women, including the ones who "didn't hate men" were busy tagging along for the ride.


              Men built civilization for women. Invented stuff to free them from their labors. And were still willing to keep going to work themselves to put them up, pay for them, feed them, clothe them, help them raise the kids. And women turned around and spit in their eye by way of thanks. What have women-- especially the hateful Feminist women-- ever done to free Men from their burdens? To make their daily lives a little better? Where are all the Feminist love songs for men? Where are all the Feminist poems for Men? Where are all the great Feminist authors extolling the many virtues of their men? Feminism is a hate group and all the hateful Feminists ever do is screech and harpy and belittle their men, demonize their men, vilify their men. Call them rapists and monsters and declare them unfit to be around children. As they work to "other" them and cast them out of society.

              Feminism is a hate group. You need look no further than the Feminists themselves and all their works to know it. Stack up the evidence of their hatred in one pile. Stack up the evidence of their hate in the other. And then measure them. You won't need an extremely accurate ruler. Perhaps one that measure in miles-- or maybe parsecs...
              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
              It's time to call it out for what it is.



              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                What a great conversation starter!
                Yes.

                First, there was historically a clear division between the duties and labors of the sexes. Men generally did most of the "outside" work ("outside" with respect to the male-female team) while women did most of the "inside" work. To put that in another context, the woman and the kids/family, were the "home base" and women were essentially in charge of that.
                I just want to smuggle in here that before 1850 - 1900 (depending on where you look), the majority of people lived in an agrarian society (and then they moved to the cities to become factory labour). On a farm, the wife contributed 50 % to the wealth, such as it was, of any farm unit. Food that was produced outside had to be processed for storage and consumption, and a lot of food was produced in-house (dairy and poultry). A lot of clothing, if not most or all of it, was produced in-house, etc. etc. IOW, women were "workers" just as much as men, the farm was their "work place". Urbanization and mechanization eliminated women from the work force, and relegated them to the status of "housewife" - that's when a woman's work became "the house and the children" - which it had never been before. I'm pretty sure many saw that as a step down. And spending your time inside a house with dusting and cleaning as your nominal content in life must have driven them crazy. Yeah, well it did, didn't it ...?

                In addition to machinery that eliminated the drudgery of manual work (like, indoor plumbing vs. the hours spent carrying water every day ... there are some weird statistics ...), there is one item I always miss in these discussions,
                and that is The Pill. It's not an accident that both feminism and the number of divorces skyrocketed in the years immediately following its introduction. That was the single most potent weapon that gave women the power they have today.

                M

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                  Yes.



                  I just want to smuggle in here that before 1850 - 1900 (depending on where you look), the majority of people lived in an agrarian society (and then they moved to the cities to become factory labour). On a farm, the wife contributed 50 % to the wealth, such as it was, of any farm unit. Food that was produced outside had to be processed for storage and consumption, and a lot of food was produced in-house (dairy and poultry). A lot of clothing, if not most or all of it, was produced in-house, etc. etc. IOW, women were "workers" just as much as men, the farm was their "work place". Urbanization and mechanization eliminated women from the work force, and relegated them to the status of "housewife" - that's when a woman's work became "the house and the children" - which it had never been before. I'm pretty sure many saw that as a step down. And spending your time inside a house with dusting and cleaning as your nominal content in life must have driven them crazy. Yeah, well it did, didn't it ...?

                  In addition to machinery that eliminated the drudgery of manual work (like, indoor plumbing vs. the hours spent carrying water every day ... there are some weird statistics ...), there is one item I always miss in these discussions,
                  and that is The Pill. It's not an accident that both feminism and the number of divorces skyrocketed in the years immediately following its introduction. That was the single most potent weapon that gave women the power they have today.

                  M

                  That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times. I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family. It is more of an executive function and not particularly that of a servant-- certainly no more than *he* was any kind of servant-- or you could say that *she* WAS a servant, and then have to agree that *HE* was also. Whichever way you want to frame it. You just can't say it was only one and not the other.
                  FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                  It's time to call it out for what it is.



                  The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                  http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                    That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times. I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family. It is more of an executive function and not particularly that of a servant-- certainly no more than *he* was any kind of servant-- or you could say that *she* WAS a servant, and then have to agree that *HE* was also. Whichever way you want to frame it. You just can't say it was only one and not the other.
                    There is often an ignored factor about these things, that tends towards making it rather absurd.

                    This things never happen to any particular standard.

                    A man can work 'outside' to the best of his ability and opportunity, yet still end up with a miserly pay to take to the 'inside' as his contribution. He will be entirely blamed and condemned for this, he will also be expected to compensate even at the cost of his own self sustenance, as in many cases of child support.

                    A woman can determine the quality of the 'inside' work, she can spend time raising children to hate and blame their father, they can be raised in squalor, a husband can return to squalor. There is no balancing state influence on this, a man can either make a good choice or a bad choice for a partner, and he will have to accept the consequences. Social services exist to alleviate a woman from pressures, not to set a standard of performance.

                    So called 'social pressures' massively more impact the deadbeat dad rather than the deadbeat mum.
                    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                    Originally posted by menrppl2
                    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                      There is often an ignored factor about these things, that tends towards making it rather absurd.

                      This things never happen to any particular standard.

                      A man can work 'outside' to the best of his ability and opportunity, yet still end up with a miserly pay to take to the 'inside' as his contribution. He will be entirely blamed and condemned for this, he will also be expected to compensate even at the cost of his own self sustenance, as in many cases of child support.

                      A woman can determine the quality of the 'inside' work, she can spend time raising children to hate and blame their father, they can be raised in squalor, a husband can return to squalor. There is no balancing state influence on this, a man can either make a good choice or a bad choice for a partner, and he will have to accept the consequences. Social services exist to alleviate a woman from pressures, not to set a standard of performance.

                      So called 'social pressures' massively more impact the deadbeat dad rather than the deadbeat mum.

                      Yup.

                      And that is a large part of the reason why courtship used to be a formal thing.
                      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                      It's time to call it out for what it is.



                      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                        That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times.
                        Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.


                        I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family.
                        Tasks that fell on husbands, too.

                        M

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                          Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.
                          Exactly, and I alluded to that also, though I didn't state it outright. I wasn't trying to get bogged down in the specific eras, but just go for a general gist of the progression / transformation of the homestead and the workplace.


                          Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                          Tasks that fell on husbands, too.
                          M
                          Lots of things seem to fall on husbands...
                          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                          It's time to call it out for what it is.



                          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.



                            Tasks that fell on husbands, too.

                            M
                            To be honest, I've always felt working class women have been dragged into this, and feminism was a middle class women's movement. I grew up with women and around women, who expected to work for a living and expected to get married and have kids. They didn't view it as 'having it all' they just viewed it as wanting family and having to earn money. There were women around who worked less 'outside' jobs, perhaps the greater amount, but can't think of any I grew up with who didn't work at all. The work they often did was local, shops on the high street, school, council, library, GP's etc. They didn't want to be far away from the kids.

                            Feminism has kept building for working class women reasons for them to fear their males. It has attacked and undermined the working class movement of men by undermining the homes that was the reward for working a job and having family. Never understood that from working class women's perspective, I've studied local local working class women activist. No doubt they were strong, determined and capable. They ran their own groups, fought for their own issues, had their own identities. They didn't hate working class males, they aimed to struggle alongside them. I look at this as characterised by the difference between Sylvia Pankhurst, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

                            Feminism is and was too artifice constructed, it reeks of a middle class dilettante female jealous of the fact that the middle class men she was expected to be beautiful for in order to hook, didn't actually work very hard for a living and had status and praise passed to him for arrogance and ordering others about.

                            Since then it's evolved and grown into a whole range of jobs for middle class women that make them feel like saviours and let them preach to working class women. Before schooling was handed over to feminist influence, I'd characterise working class women's response to feminism by one I witnessed, where a feminist was going on and on to a woman working in textiles. Saying she was underpaid, abused and used, the worker started laughing at her. The feminist didn't give up shifted over to promising to get her more money, to which she got the reply 'that'll be okay, more money is good, but I won't hold my breath" laughed then went back to her work.
                            "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
                            Originally posted by menrppl2
                            Can't live with em, life is great without them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
                              To be honest, I've always felt working class women have been dragged into this, and feminism was a middle class women's movement. I grew up with women and around women, who expected to work for a living and expected to get married and have kids. They didn't view it as 'having it all' they just viewed it as wanting family and having to earn money. There were women around who worked less 'outside' jobs, perhaps the greater amount, but can't think of any I grew up with who didn't work at all. The work they often did was local, shops on the high street, school, council, library, GP's etc. They didn't want to be far away from the kids.

                              Feminism has kept building for working class women reasons for them to fear their males. It has attacked and undermined the working class movement of men by undermining the homes that was the reward for working a job and having family. Never understood that from working class women's perspective, I've studied local local working class women activist. No doubt they were strong, determined and capable. They ran their own groups, fought for their own issues, had their own identities. They didn't hate working class males, they aimed to struggle alongside them. I look at this as characterised by the difference between Sylvia Pankhurst, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

                              Feminism is and was too artifice constructed, it reeks of a middle class dilettante female jealous of the fact that the middle class men she was expected to be beautiful for in order to hook, didn't actually work very hard for a living and had status and praise passed to him for arrogance and ordering others about.

                              Since then it's evolved and grown into a whole range of jobs for middle class women that make them feel like saviours and let them preach to working class women. Before schooling was handed over to feminist influence, I'd characterise working class women's response to feminism by one I witnessed, where a feminist was going on and on to a woman working in textiles. Saying she was underpaid, abused and used, the worker started laughing at her. The feminist didn't give up shifted over to promising to get her more money, to which she got the reply 'that'll be okay, more money is good, but I won't hold my breath" laughed then went back to her work.

                              Feminism has largely been an upper-middle class thing. Working women have to work and don't have the time. Upper class women don't care. They have power. It's never been about "Patriarchy" anyway, it's been about money all along. Which is one of the reasons why Feminism is so fucking wrong.

                              I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
                              FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                              It's time to call it out for what it is.



                              The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

                              http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Dee, welcome back!
                                ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                                virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                                It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                                AVFM Mission Statement
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X