The official feminism thread [Merged threads]

[Sexy_Malibu]

Originally posted by MVPlaya
So what feminist theorists have you read, Malibu?

Why do I feel as though I'm walking into a trap?

I wouldn't necessarily call each of these writers "feminist theorists"... but... if you ever lower yourself enough as to read any of them, you'll see why I've listed them here:

Angela Davis, Sara Evans, Mary Daly (she's kind of wacked though), Naomi Wolf, Mary Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, Emma Goldman (anarchist), Margaret Mead (anthropologist), Susan B. Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Stanton (suffragists), Gloria Steinem, as well as my former college professors who don't have the 'name-recognition' of these women.

(Just a sampling off the top of my head, since I don't have my library in front of me, lol).

 

[Bonhomme]

Not the same for everone

It's obvious to me that feminism means a lot of different things to different people, and nobody here is writing about quite the same thing the next one is.

The interesting thing to me is that feminism -- which has come to embrace a lot of nonsense -- originally started out as an inti-bullsh1t movement that stood for causes like voting rights, equal pay for equal work, and freedom for women to openly express their sexuality.

 

[BGMan]

I never said that sexuality was "buried" until the 1960's. I just said that it got totally out of hand at that time. Certain passages of the Bible could give any guy a boner if they aren't careful. (Remember, in the Bible, very often, especially in Genesis, "know" = "fvck")

Also, the Kinsey report was done on criminals and perverts, so it wasn't accurate at any rate. One-third (37%) of men like gay sex? I don't think that's true even today.

BGMan

 

[Sexy_Malibu]

Re: Not the same for everone

Originally posted by Bonhomme
It's obvious to me that feminism means a lot of different things to different people, and nobody here is writing about quite the same thing the next one is.

The interesting thing to me is that feminism -- which has come to embrace a lot of nonsense -- originally started out as an inti-bullsh1t movement that stood for causes like voting rights, equal pay for equal work, and freedom for women to openly express their sexuality.

That's exactly it. All of those so-called-feminists I've listed above (I'm not sure they'd all necessarily call themselves 'feminists')... they ALL have such different viewpoints. Some focused on ONE issue (e.g. suffrage) and a lot of them outright disagree with each other. That's why "feminist" is a BS term. It has no meaning. (So any woman who answers "so tell me something about yourself?" with "I'm a feminist" is likely not a feminist, but a moron).

And for the record, I don't necessarily agree with all/any of the opinions of the writers I listed. I read, and I think, and I have some opinions/ideas... but I don't "believe" or "follow" ANY ism.

 

[BGMan]

Re: Re: Not the same for everone

Originally posted by Sexy_Malibu
That's exactly it. All of those so-called-feminists I've listed above (I'm not sure they'd all necessarily call themselves 'feminists')... they ALL have such different viewpoints. Some focused on ONE issue (e.g. suffrage) and a lot of them outright disagree with each other. That's why "feminist" is a BS term. It has no meaning. (So any woman who answers "so tell me something about yourself?" with "I'm a feminist" is likely not a feminist, but a moron).

And for the record, I don't necessarily agree with all/any of the opinions of the writers I listed. I read, and I think, and I have some opinions/ideas... but I don't "believe" or "follow" ANY ism.

When I think "feminist" I think of radical feminazis who want all women to have careers, think all men are evil, oppressive scum and even preferably for as many women to be in lesbian relationships as possible. I think it's ironic that certain lesbians such as Andrea Dworkin and Bella Abzug claim to speak for all other women when they aren't even sexually attracted to the same thing. Also, Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda (although they're straight).

BGMan

 

[Sexy_Malibu]

Re: Re: Re: Not the same for everone

Originally posted by BGMan
When I think "feminist" I think of radical feminazis who want all women to have careers, think all men are evil, oppressive scum and even preferably for as many women to be in lesbian relationships as possible. I think it's ironic that certain lesbians such as Andrea Dworkin and Bella Abzug claim to speak for all other women when they aren't even sexually attracted to the same thing. Also, Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda (although they're straight).

This is a prime example. Jane Fonda basically made her living making other women feel bad about their bodies (and let's not forget that through all her workout hype, she's gotten a TON of plastic surgery to look the way she does). There are a lot of people who would argue that that is NOT what feminism is about. They might argue that a feminist shouldn't worry about how she looks because looks aren't the most important thing. (I'm not saying I agree with either position, I'm not into extremes). But it just proves my point, that no two feminists are alike.

It's sad that people DO immediately get the image of an evil ugly butch lesbian man-hating psychopath by the term "feminist". I'm sure there are some who fit that description, but obviously that's an unfair generalization. Most women who do consider themselves "feminists" (whatever they mean by that) are not like that.

My opinion is:

*Women should have careers if they want careers. (That is, there's nothing WRONG with WANTING to be a housewife or something, the only problem is if women are told that they HAVE to because it's their only option).

*All men are not the same. Some of them are evil, some are not. Quite a few of them are oppressive, but many are not. Mostly my ex-boyfriends are scum.

*Lesbians should be in lesbian relationships. Women who are not lesbians should not be in lesbian relationships. Women who are bisexual should have lots of hot threesomes with DJs.

 

[englishman]

I like femenists because they like to take it up the a*s while doing the dishes after cooking me a nice meal...

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Phoenix reply to TesuqueRed (italics):

What do you see as "...the damage they can cause..."

See ogre's post here!

Anyway, if you're talking about the divorce rate or the so-called broken families...

No divorce! I'm talking about the dating game and the effects of dating/marring feminists!

Show me societies with the lack of feminist movements or that have successfully frustrated such that are politically or economically advanced.

Well, I'm amazed in how some of you turn the subject into a political view. That's NOT the point of my thread!

... people who trot out "feminist", "liberal" or "nazi" usually raise a red flag for me. Why? Because I hear Orwellian double-speak going on, where someone has defined a political agenda and re-labeled these words with other than their original meanings and uses it to manipulate. The words are robbed of their meaning and all that's left is "spin" or manipulation. Those that use it (with all due respect, blue...) are 2nd rate intelligences or decent people who got suckered into someone else's manipulation.

Oh yeah! The same way if you say someone is gay, you're being manipulative and being a "low intelicenge" creature!
Feminist is a type of woman, the same way gays are a type of "people that are attracted to the same sex". This is just a definition based on "behavior" and thinking.

The key red flag for me here is that when I see someone using one of these 3 words, I feel my intelligence being insulted.

Well, that's just how you feel. Just because you feel like that, it doesn't mean that it's the truth! Feminists will always be feminists no matter how offended or "insulted" you feel!

 

[BGMan]

Well, back to the topic...

I think that the most radical feminazis aren't very good dating prospects, so they should only date each other.

The regular women who call themselves feminists are probably best for STRs or ONSs, and those who don't call themselves feminists for LTRs. Although of course these are generalizations.

BGMan

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Originally posted by alboh
1. I read it (total half-truths and stereotypes). Then I looked at the front page and found this:

2. Now that I have emerged from the hormonal haze at age 55, I can see that sex is a fraud and really a minor part of life. Sexual frustration is used to distract us while they establish a police state. People wouldn't be frustrated if they got married at a young age as they did in the 1950's and started families. Women should marry and have kids before going to university; men after beginning their careers.

3. TesuqueRed, I am relieved to find I'm not the only guy on this forum who doesn't find feminism vile. It's hillarious how half these guys call feminists "angry man-haters" while they simultaneously hate on women who want to do more with their lives than serve their husband.

4. There seems to be this mass delusion that pops up here intermittently that there was a time when "men were men, and women were women". I can't believe people buy into that simplistic Disney fairy tale sh1t -- the Kinsey report all the way back in 1948, for example, found that 37% of all men had had a homosexual experience. Turns out that people back then were just as much adulterers, perverts, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, etc etc as there are now. The only difference was that society was so repressive these people kept their activities in the closet and under a heavy layer of shame.

5. At the same time, straight guys were being taught that jerking off gave you hairy knuckles and made Jesus cry, that marijuana made you homocidally insane, that Communist agents were lurking everywhere, that sex before marriage was wrong and you should be ashamed for even desiring it, etc.

6. The sexual revolution changed all of that. Turns out women like sex just as much as we do, for one thing. But the deal is that everyone gets to live with their sexual identities without some assh0le trying to make them ashamed of themselves (be they calling them a sinner, a f-g or a sl-t).

Phoenix's reply:

1. In this same "flawled" site we can see:

a) "To surrender power for love is feminine. When men try to do it, women lose respect. Unconsciously women seek to be overwhelmed by a man. So when a man puts her on a pedestal (because he wants sex or love) he is defeating himself.

b) "A man can keep a woman's respect by providing responsible firm leadership. He should avoid showing weakness. If she proves difficult, he should cut his losses. If you want to get a woman's attention, show her the door."

Now tell me, is that bul$hit too?

2. Just because he's more focused on marriage it doesn't mean he's wrong, he just have a different point of view! Even on Sosuave you can see some contradictions. No website is perfect!

3. In this same site we can see:

By "feminism" I am not talking about women receiving equal opportunity (in fact, they often receive preferential treatment.) I am talking about a bogus gender ideology that the financial elite is using to destabilize and depopulate society. This ideology denies the natural differences between men and women, encouraging women to behave like men and vice versa. The natural order of things are neglected. This is the same as saying it's ok for men to be gays!!!

I think you didn't read the article. Have you ever dealt with a feminist to begin with?

4. I don't even understand why did you go there! It's out of topic!

5. Again, this is out of topic. This is more concerned to "religion" and to the kind of "education" a person had. Nothing to do with feminism!

6. "The sexual revolution changed all of that. Turns out women like sex just as much as we do, ...". Again, I'm not refering to how horny women are. Feminism is much more than just "having sex with whoever they want"!

 

[xblitz44x]

It all started going downhill when we gave them the right to vote.

 

[Mack Bishop]

"so you're a feminist eh? that's cute and everything, but this is grown-up time, and i'm the man."

 

[seize_the_pattern]

In our culture, women rights are doing fine compared to other cultures. There are many countries where hell is upon those women because of their gender and this knows many forms. The thing is: feminism is growing there too and what comes out of that might be just a slight different than the western version of it.

 

[TesuqueRed]

Originally posted by BGMan

BGMan

Take what you will of Kinsey
Take what you will of Freud, for that matter

I have read little enough of both to wade into a discussion of either, but I suspect that they were both products of their past (read that as the normal supressions, religious indoctrination etc.) with something they didn't know quite what it meant or the implications of it -- sifting through that remains more an art than a technique.

Something I will note note of the divorce rate: I don't think it has changed substantially between 1920 and 1990.

Or 1750 and 1990.

The divorce rate was ***lower*** in 1920. What ISN'T recorded are when someone just up'd and left -- no divorce, they just left and started a new life somewhere else. You don't hear much of it today, but guys would step out for a pack of cigarettes and disappear. Turns out they had enough and just left.

Divorce? No. Today we'd call it that, but back then it didn't get recorded like that.

Or someone would take a mistress and - so long as they were reasonably discreet - it was tolerated.

Divorce? No. Call that a marriage? Statistically (sp?) - sure, but not really. Today both parties would take that step of getting a divorce, get the finances settled, other arrangements made etc. In the old days they'd do what they'd do but it wouldn't get recorded as such. Often that meant some arrangement that we'd find unnacceptable today (imagine two hateful adults remaining in an abusive relationship raising a couple of kids and using them against their partner -- acceptable? or is divorce preferred?)

Here's the point: divorce is a legal and financial means whereby the daily concerns of a failed relationship are handled. It's done through the courts today whereas they didn't do it through the courts before.

Could it be handled better than through court? Sure, but court attempts to foster the least common denominator to set the base line for justice. Is anyone in charge? Not really, but eventually a consensus emerges and law and justice is (roughly) established. People handle it better without the courts all the time - but if that can't be done, last resort are the courts--and they'll give you something, even if it isn't justice or fairness, you'll get something.

Say what you will about the courts, it is that which the western societies have settled upon for resolving disputes. It is isn't perfect, but it's a damn site better than most other societies have used when stepping forward into the 20th and 21st centuries (a quote of Winston Churchill's springs to mind about democracy...)

The divorce rate is higher, yes -- the rate of failed relationships probably hasn't shifted a decimal point.

What counts here? A divorce statistic? It's all in how you measure 'what' and by 'how' is relevant. My argument is that the escalating divorce rate only recognizes what has been going on for -- no, not centuries -- mellenia -- but now we have a better means of tracking it whereas before we merely had "polite fictions".

The escalating divorce rate is one of those polite fictions. It hasn't escalated. We merely have a means of working out and recognizing failed relationships that have always been there. Before there would be abandonment, abuse, mistresses, separate lives, murder, etc. -- but no "divorce" per se.

It was a misleading and meaningles statistic.

Side comment (just for fun): gays have no responsibility for the divorce rate, us hets have fvcked that up all on our own. My guess is that if they're given the right to marry, the divorce rate probably won't move much.

Part of my argument against feminist bashing is that it feminist bashing is off point -- it mis-identifies and simplifies the argument and comes to erroneous conclusions. Kissing-cousins of those arguments are the ones that cite the divorce rate escalating as if it is proof of their arguments. I say that the **real** divorce rate is as it has ever been: unchanged. The measurable statistic that is cited merely recognizes a more honest means of recognizing failed relationships and resolving the resulting problems of dividing up the property, custody, etc.

 

[00Kevin]

Originally posted by TesuqueRed

Part of my argument against feminist bashing is that it feminist bashing is off point -- it mis-identifies and simplifies the argument and comes to erroneous conclusions. Kissing-cousins of those arguments are the ones that cite the divorce rate escalating as if it is proof of their arguments. I say that the **real** divorce rate is as it has ever been: unchanged. The measurable statistic that is cited merely recognizes a more honest means of recognizing failed relationships and resolving the resulting problems of dividing up the property, custody, etc.

I think that there is a higher divorce rate. The reason for it is that people are very confused today and get married for the wrong reasons. It is for most women, some kind of fairy tale concept. Men and women just don't have enough confidence to do their do diligence and put their mate to the test.

Every guy on this site that is interested in getting married should ask himself a simple question. "What are the qualities and traits I should look for in a woman?" Not many people even do that anymore. They get caught up in lust and love and not reality.

In the past we really didn't have to put each other to the test. There were economic reasons to get married and most people where conditioned in a manner that fostered a reasonable relationship.

I know a guy who asked that very question and he is quite pleased that he did. He is married to decent woman who respects him. He also realized that he couldn't answer the above question on his own. He consulted his religious leader on the matter and found the wisdom he needed. In otherwords, he rejected anything he heard from popular media and was very successfull because of it.

Most guys on here simply blame feminism for confusing the natural order of men and women. I don't however think they blame feminism for all the problems with marriage today. They do however, realize that when feminism blurs the differences between men and women our relationships become confusing.

My personal opinion is that feminism is a small american style religion. Every man just needs to be told that he doesn't have to belive in it. Even if you want many wives that cook and clean for you, you can have it.

The more feminism makes life harder for american men, the more men are going to look toward toward other countries for prime pu-ssy. This is already happening. Women from other countries give more and have the qualities that men want and need. Wives are simply going to be outsourced in the future because feminism is pricing women out of the market.

 

[Double]

Wives are simply going to be outsourced in the future because feminism is pricing women out of the market.

haha that made me laugh...but there is much truth in it, and it would be a good solution for all the AFC's.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I'd say a 'market' so-to-speak does exist on this topic.

Because we men know there exist girls who give into sex easily and freely, what reason do you settle down?

Most of us guys living on our own have our own defined lifestyle, can cook, clean, shave, shower, do laundry, fix our cars, pay the bills and then some, and enjoy life. What 'value' does a woman present, when men are conditioned to ALWAYS be seeking the highest echelons of society and not rely on a woman's income?

Same goes for women...as long as women know men will be there at their beck and call, guys who don't are valued, and sometimes respected. However, because men with money exist, and will buy women, the expectation is now created that future men should do so. That a husband, in many cases mean, a "life-style supporter." And if you can't uphold that, then you aren't fit to be her man.

We think back to when women were in the kitchens, managing the household, life was simpler. People got by on less. Then men started bytching, and women started bytching about who does what, now both parties got what they wanted, and neither is very happy. Some girls go to college, expense 100's of thousands of dollars, to only be a secretary, working until 45 to pay this off. And some go with outlandish expectations of what's possible and what's not. Women have placed more importance on their own looks since the 50's, 60's, etc, men got what they want, and now many decry "why do women have nothing to offer?"

Is it possible because that's what we asked for?

The movie Breast Men with David Schwimmer shows how Breast Implants were pretty revolutionary, how women usually only considered them for medical, not for superficial reasons. THEN, Schwimmer realizes there's a whole segment of women who want large boobs. Now we have the epidemic of "breasts implans, plastic surgery, lipo" etc. Why? Because men said they wanted it and women generally feel insecure. Is there a medium point?

Think of us men. If we focused so heavily on our own looks, would we build ourselves up in other areas? Probably not. We'd get tired and go to bed.

I know not enough Feminism to make a point of it, nor do I have any interest in it. What I do know is, if people desire something of equality, seek it. Equality could be, being a housewife, raising the kids during the day, tending to the home, while the husband works. She's not getting it for free. It's a partnership. OR, maybe she works a job as well. Whatever the case maybe.

What I do know is, you can't separate the cart from the horse. Women being as they are is as much the result of what men have done and desired as they are of their own free will. The system itself works together and cannot be separated. All are to blame, and none are to blame.



A-Unit

 

[DJDamage]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/mathscience/2005-01-18-harvard-prez-babbles_x.htm?csp=34

Harvard president criticized for remarks on gender
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — The president of Harvard University prompted criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.
Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic conference, also questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities.

The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins — a Harvard graduate — to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.

"It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way," Hopkins said later.

In a statement released Monday night, Summers said his remarks were misconstrued as suggesting that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science.

"I did not say that, nor do I believe it," he said.

Summers said he is deeply committed "to the advancement of women in science."

Five other participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research conference, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were offended by the comments. Four other attendees contacted afterward by the Globe said they were not.

Summers said the comments were made "in the spirit of academic inquiry" and his goal was to underscore the need for further research to understand a situation that is likely due to a variety of factors.

Conference organizers said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official.

The two-day, invitation-only conference of the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research drew about 50 economists from around the country to discuss women and minorities in science and engineering.

Summers declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but he did describe comments to the Globe similar to what participants recalled.

"It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said. He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are things that need to be studied."

He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were dolls.

It was during such comments that Hopkins got up and left.

"Here was this economist lecturing pompously (to) this room full of the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.

Summers already faced criticism because the number of senior job offers to women has dropped each year of his three-year presidency. He has promised to work on the problem.

hmmm intresting scenerio. It was probably not wise for the Harvard President to make those comments because saying that does not help anybody. However to dismiss completly his argument is another example of Feminism that blasts through things it deems sexist. Funny if you would make that statment in reverse and in favour of women, you won't hear a peep out of the feminists thats for sure. Science is always wrong when you don't agree with it.

 

[raven_82]

Check out this really good article. http://www.nationalreview.com/blyth/blyth200501190744.asp

 

[affliction]

This guy, Henry Makow, is a bit of a crack pot with his Illuminati conspiracy theories, but his articles on feminism and homosexuality are spot on. I would recommend these articles to EVERY guy, no matter what.

Really good stuff here. He knows his sh*t.

http://www.savethemales.ca/archives-subject.html

Although not necessarily related to feminism, one specific article I would recommend is this one:

http://www.savethemales.ca/000713.html