The official feminism thread [Merged threads]

[sexual_intellectual]

Originally posted by ketostix
Well you're right, but that's just exactly what feminism really is, women using what they got (and any tactic) to get as much as they can. Feminism, gender equality or any other label is just a pretext for that. Now, women deny they're feminist but if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..But there's radical vocal feminism and I can see where you make a distinction.

With due respect Keto, I disagree - if Feminism is just women exploiting what they have, then Feminist thought is nothing new. Do you call Marie Antoinette, Cleopatra and other women who used both their power and their beauty to achieve their ends feminists?

I consider Feminism a western philosophy born in the late 18th century (I'm thinking of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792) that started off arguing that male and female aren't as different as was thought at the time and that women should be allowed to do things that previously only men could do. (There are parts of this original philosophy that I have time for.)

In its development, it became more aggressively anti male, to the point where today men are attacked at any opportunity for no good reason.

Though I've just found out about another branch of Feminism today: "Equity Feminism" Cathy Young has written a book called "Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality" - it seems worth reading, gonna look for it in the library.

 

[ketostix]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
No, you're not describing feminism...you're describing human beings who want the best life they can have and take advantage of their assets to reach their personal goals.

Feminism was originally about equality...which wasn't a bad thing at all. However, at some point feminism became about giving women an unfair advantage over men while discriminating against and blaming men, therefore making things much worse for men.

Feminism (I assume you mean the 60's movement) in N. America was never about equality. That presupposes there wasn't equality in N. America prior and I don't agree. Do you forget that men then asked the female out, paid for dates, were obligated to support their wives and family, could be sued for breech of contract if they promised to marry her and didn't. Women always had equality in N. America. I'll agree that things might've been a little more patriarchial than should be.

Men and women aren't identical, but you can have equality without identical roles. I don't believe you can have true equality with identical roles. I use to be more open to the concept of "feminism" until I spent several years at university in a female dominated major. Let me just say I learned there was a good reason for the way things were.

I'm never going to agree with you Wyldfire. You're claiming feminism is something else besides the present situation and the present attitude of women. I say it's not, it's one in the same. I think you should read the book I've mentioned from a guy who worked in the feminist's camp.

 

[ketostix]

Originally posted by sexual_intellectual
With due respect Keto, I disagree - if Feminism is just women exploiting what they have, then Feminist thought is nothing new. Do you call Marie Antoinette, Cleopatra and other women who used both their power and their beauty to achieve their ends feminists?

I consider Feminism a western philosophy born in the late 18th century (I'm thinking of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792) that started off arguing that male and female aren't as different as was thought at the time and that women should be allowed to do things that previously only men could do. (There are parts of this original philosophy that I have time for.)

In its development, it became more aggressively anti male, to the point where today men are attacked at any opportunity for no good reason.

Though I've just found out about another branch of Feminism today: "Equity Feminism" Cathy Young has written a book called "Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality" - it seems worth reading, gonna look for it in the library.

Don't want to beat this into the ground but your post is thought provoking.

if Feminism is just women exploiting what they have, then Feminist thought is nothing new. Do you call Marie Antoinette, Cleopatra and other women who used both their power and their beauty to achieve their ends feminists

I would consider those women feminist because they most likely had the same mindset as modern day ones, except they just acted on their own behalf as opposed to pushing for widespread social change to benefit other women, so no they're not exactly like modern feminist either.

Well my point is now in N. America just being a female means you're given preference, entitlement and a favorable playing field (which was the goal and the outcome of the type of feminism you're describing). This is at the expense of males. Now women claim they're just doing what they can to get what they want, and that's not feminism. Well, my point is feminism is now ingrained and de facto, giving women an unfair advantage. Now women support this unfair advantage, and continuously seek more advantages. Just the fact that they're competing against men within an unfair system makes them feminist. Women would label all men chavuanists within a "good ol boy network", yet refuse the label feminist in their girl network. I think that's why a guy has to be a DJ to get ahead and women get ahead just by showing up with their hands out.

I don't want to discuss this anymore, but my experience is that most women are in fact feminist operating in a feminist system.

 

[Duke]

I agree with ketostix and Luveno.

Female entitlement complex is a byproduct of feminism, and the only way to combat it is to call women on their bullsh!t and be disciplined enough to refuse their ridiculous demands.

"I have a pvssy, so buy me a car, go get the mail, and make your plans according to my schedule."

Uh, how bout NO.

-Duke

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by ketostix
Feminism (I assume you mean the 60's movement) in N. America was never about equality. That presupposes there wasn't equality in N. America prior and I don't agree. Do you forget that men then asked the female out, paid for dates, were obligated to support their wives and family, could be sued for breech of contract if they promised to marry her and didn't. Women always had equality in N. America. I'll agree that things might've been a little more patriarchial than should be.

Men and women aren't identical, but you can have equality without identical roles. I don't believe you can have true equality with identical roles. I use to be more open to the concept of "feminism" until I spent several years at university in a female dominated major. Let me just say I learned there was a good reason for the way things were.

I'm never going to agree with you Wyldfire. You're claiming feminism is something else besides the present situation and the present attitude of women. I say it's not, it's one in the same. I think you should read the book I've mentioned from a guy who worked in the feminist's camp.

You're beginning to sound nucking futs....

Feminism began because women wanted the right to vote and own property...which WAS about equality. Dude...learn your history before posting about a subject. You really are completely clueless about where feminism came from. It wasn't a bad thing when it started. It changed somewhere along the way into an entirely different monster. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that hasn't bothered doing any research on the subject. If I said women typically have two tits you'd argue that they have three just because you'd rather be dead wrong than admit that I'm right. That's pretty weak...

 

[ketostix]

Repeal the 19th ammendment! hahaha. Women couldn't own property? Hmm. not exactly George Washington married a wealthy woman, also plenty of women shared in their husband and families wealth just as today...you need to read your history, and not the revisionist feminist version. I sound nuking futs or is you sound like a feminist LOL (isn't that what you chastize rgreere for using feminist tactics)? Let it go.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by ketostix
Repeal the 19th ammendment! hahaha. Women couldn't own property? Hmm. not exactly George Washington married a wealthy woman, also plenty of women shared in their husband and families wealth just as today...you need to read your history, and not the revisionist feminist version. I sound nuking futs or is you sound like a feminist LOL (isn't that what you chastize rgreere for using feminist tactics)? Let it go.

keto...I had an actual point to my post. And it's true that women were not allowed to own property (land) in the US. Ownership of land was granted only to men, along with the right to vote. Feminism was born to fight to give women the same rights as American citizens as men had. So yes, when it began, the cause was just and admirable. However, as time progressed it has gone terribly wrong. Anyone who knows the history understands that. Your definition of feminism is totally whacked. By your definition, even church girls who no one in their right mind would call a feminist would fall into your definition by simply pursuing whatever their goals are. That is some messed up thinking, keto. It sounds to me like you just read some literature written by radical men's rights activists and got angry instead of giving yourself a more balanced look into things. It would explain the disturbing behavior that I have mentioned previously, too. You need to educate yourself more about this subject and steer clear of the radical reading material. That stuff is bad news. Not only will it turn you into a miserable, bitter and unhappy person, but it will make it impossible for you to relate to women in a healthy way because you are viewing them all as enemies.

And saying you're sounding nuts while giving a clear and cohesive explanation why I think you sound a bit touched is not the same thing as saying "you're schizophrenic and need medication." I don't think YOU are crazy...I think you're parroting the views of writers you have read who ARE, though.

And honestly...believing that all women are feminists is just, well...stupid. Most posters here know full well that I'm not a feminist, especially the long time members. They've seen my rants about feminism. But hey, everytime you (or anyone else) insists that I am a feminist you just take away more and more credibility from yourself. Eventually no one will even bother listening to what you post because it will become clearer and clearer that you judgement ability isn't working properly. But hey...it's your reputation.

 

[Luveno]

Guys,

theres a HUGE difference between feminism and "feminism".

Real feminism states that there be no social inequalities based on gender alone. Thus, it tries to correct the notion that someone does not get said job or can't buy said car because they are of the undesired gender. By Wyldfire saying she isn't a feminist, she is saying that she is against social equality, because that's what feminism is.(I'm not accusing you Wyldfire, I'm just making a point that feminism is not what most people think it is)

"Feminism" isn't really a theory at all. It's more of an excuse that women use to get what they want. It's an offshoot of greed. What is does is allow women to use whatever they can to their advantage, no matter how unethical. Since most guys want to have sex with hot women, they use that. Hence, the 60% divorce rate and all the slu tty things that North American women do are things they use to get attention and $$$. It's kinda like prositution in a way.

A lot of people are getting feminism confused with those mullet women that hate men and want to own them. Those people aren't worth thinking about because they have no social worth. They are usually fugly, so the only people who heed their words are other, fugly mullet headed women( you rarely see attractive women socializing with fugly women from a non-business standpoint). They do not factor into societies current equation - in essence, one can say that if they had beauty, they wouldn't be complaining about how hard it is to be a woman.

What DOES factor into the current equation of society is the little "pwincess" type-girl who thinks she deserves everything she wants because shes a girl. Since in the US most people are fat., the not-fat girls basically get waited on hand and foot by AFCs(theres no competition in the US, so the rare good looking girls basically think they run the show, and AFC men let them).
Media spreads this: Sex and the City, anything Paris Hilton is in, commercials(that swiffer one was a good point fuzzx), Chick flicks, etc. AFCs and North American pwincess women believe the media, and thus perpetuate the pathetic current social construct.

I wouldn't say that "feminism" is anti-man. What I would say that it is a selfish female excuse to do whatever it takes to get what they want. Weakening the man isn't the goal - the money and whatnot that he has is, as is the attention that the weak man will give the pwincess.

All I know for sure is that: 1. I'm never getting married. 2. If I end up in a real long term relationship, its gonna be with a girl from a culture that respects committment and equality- not a North American woman.

 

[Wyldfire]

Luveno...sorry, but I have to say that referring to the human desire to use your assets to your advantage to reach your goals as feminism is not only silly, but totally off the mark. By that reasoning, then EVERY person on the planet, regardless of gender is a "feminist". The act of utilizing your personal ASSETS to make gains is NOT feminism or "feminism" (using quotation marks around the word to change the definition is dumb). The act of using unfair advantages made available due to feminism's influence in society is what the problem is and what you should be upset about. A woman using her looks to her advantage isn't feminism. Men who have good looks do the same thing.

 

[Luveno]

Wyldfire,

using ones personal assets to succeed in life is called success. Using ones personal assets to leech what you want from fools is called exploitation. Of course, I am not saying that the AFC guy is any less at fault than the venomous female, he may be even more deserving for blame. However, these actions are thrown together with the moniker of feminism, which it seems makes it ok.

Yes, men do do the same thing albeit to a much lesser degree, due to the current social and media climate. I still never said it was ok for men to do this. Anyone leeching things from people is trash. However, women are classically more interested in social status in a male. You haven't seen any good looking homeless men with astonishing wives, have you? I bet you've seen plenty of fat lawyers with fit wives though.

Also, replying to my post with comments like "using quotation marks around the word to change the definition is dumb" only makes one believe that you are at a loss of words for this discussion, and thus cannot reply with anything more than insults based on grammatical "errors".

Your post has convinced me of nothing. I still stand by the fact that selfish female entitlement is not feminism, but is being called that in today's world. If anything, your blatant lack of consideration for my point of view has convnced me even more that my point of view is sound.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Luveno
Wyldfire,

using ones personal assets to succeed in life is called success. Using ones personal assets to leech what you want from fools is called exploitation. Of course, I am not saying that the AFC guy is any less at fault than the venomous female, he may be even more deserving for blame. However, these actions are thrown together with the moniker of feminism, which it seems makes it ok.

Yes, men do do the same thing albeit to a much lesser degree, due to the current social and media climate. I still never said it was ok for men to do this. Anyone leeching things from people is trash. However, women are classically more interested in social status in a male. You haven't seen any good looking homeless men with astonishing wives, have you? I bet you've seen plenty of fat lawyers with fit wives though.

Also, replying to my post with comments like "using quotation marks around the word to change the definition is dumb" only makes one believe that you are at a loss of words for this discussion, and thus cannot reply with anything more than insults based on grammatical "errors".

Your post has convinced me of nothing. I still stand by the fact that selfish female entitlement is not feminism, but is being called that in today's world. If anything, your blatant lack of consideration for my point of view has convnced me even more that my point of view is sound.

You are NOT describing feminism. You are describing a situation where a guy gives a girl gifts, buys things for her and acts like a friend ONLY because he hopes that she will eventually have sex with him just because he was "nice" to her. In most instances the girl doesn't even ask the guy to do any of those "nice" things. He has a devious plan in his mind and makes the choices to be a lunkhead. Basically...he is trying to buy a piece of tail. So how is the guy any better? He is treating the girl like a two-bit wh*re by operating on the assumption that the gifts will buy him booty.

Now, IF a girl is asking for gifts, favors and money from a guy, then she is a user and a piece of pond scum...but she's not a feminist. If a guy pretends to want a relationship with a girl only to get sex and then dumps her once he got sex, then he is a user and a piece of pond scum, too...but he's not a feminist, either.

If a guy voluntarily buys things for a girl he's not having sex with then he has no right to complain if he doesn't get sex out of it...because it was HIM who talked himself into thinking he'd get what he wanted. If the girl didn't promise him a relationship in return for gifts and whatnot then he has no justification in complaining. And the girl is not a feminist, the guy is just an idiot. Likewise, if a girl spreads her legs for a guy who has not promised a commitment to her, she has no right to complain when he doesn't want a relationship with her. She was the one who told herself that if she had sex with him he'd be her boyfriend. The guy isn't a feminist in this case, the girl is just an idiot.

What you appear to be doing is trying to excuse the idiotic behavior of guys who are stupid enough to think buying things for girls will get them laid by calling the girls in this situation feminists. They are just girls who are not attracted to and don't want to have sex with the bonehead who insists on spending his money on her. And as a woman who has had a couple of these kinds of guys try to pull this crap with me, I can assure you that even when you tell them NOT to buy you gifts, they act all offended and hurt if you attempt to refuse the gift and they DON'T LISTEN and keep right on trying to buy more gifts.

Stop labeling females feminists just because they happen to become targets of the man's version of the not-so-nice "nice guy" who think that if the price is right and the gifts are plentiful enough that all women are prostitutes.

 

[DJDamage]

If a guy voluntarily buys things for a girl he's not having sex with then he has no right to complain if he doesn't get sex out of it...because it was HIM who talked himself into thinking he'd get what he wanted. If the girl didn't promise him a relationship in return for gifts and whatnot then he has no justification in complaining.

Since the dawn of time women always gave sexual favours for guys in exchange for something, so its not entirely the guy's fault because this action of buying gifts also work on some women. If however a woman accepts gifts and hints on promising a relationship with a guy intead of returning the gifts from the get go and stop feeding him false hope then she is a user as well. If the girl did not promise him a relationship then she should be obligated to return the item and tell him as quickly as possible she is not intrested. The fact that they continue to accept gifts and act all naive about it, then stupid guys have every right to complain! Its a vicious cycle, that will not end unless both sides act like mature adults.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by DJDamage
Since the dawn of time women always gave sexual favours for guys in exchange for something, so its not entirely the guy's fault because this action of buying gifts also work on some women. If however a woman accepts gifts and hints on promising a relationship with a guy intead of returning the gifts from the get go and stop feeding him false hope then she is a user as well. If the girl did not promise him a relationship then she should be obligated to return the item and tell him as quickly as possible she is not intrested. The fact that they continue to accept gifts and act all naive about it, then stupid guys have every right to complain! Its a vicious cycle, that will not end unless both sides act like mature adults.

I agree with you about what people SHOULD do. My post was an attempt to illustrate to some of the guys here that the behavior I mentioned is the behavior of a USER, NOT a feminist. In fact, actual feminists don't usually even let a guy buy her gifts because she automatically assumes that every overture from men is a ploy to use her for sex. It's more the girly girls who let guys keep buying them stuff...and anyone with half a brain cell knows that girly girls aren't feminists.

 

[Luveno]

The main point of my post is that what North American women do is act selfishly and call it feminism. Their selfish and base actions are justified, to themselves, as "women getting ahead"

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Luveno
The main point of my post is that what North American women do is act selfishly and call it feminism. Their selfish and base actions are justified, to themselves, as "women getting ahead"

No, they don't call that feminism. In fact, just the opposite is true. Feminism ideology discourages women from allowing men to treat them like that. Feminism attempts to make the "girly girl" extinct. It is girly girls who are the ones who take advantage of the not-so "nice guys".

Ask every man on this forum which girls he tried the gift buying tactic on...girly girls or feminists. I can almost guarantee that the vast majority will be "girly girls".

 

[DJDamage]

I think Wyldfire what Luveo is trying to say is that, there are types of women out there who take the feminists idealogy of "equality and *women getting ahead" and twist it in such a way that they can act in a bad manner and proclaim that they have every right to because its about liberation and women power.

The problem is that every time a woman acts in a disrespectful matter they can point it to feminism as a justification for their actions. They may not be feminists at all but use that excuse to continue acting selfishly and think its a good behaviour.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Well, in a perfect world the Moms would always stay at home with the kids when they are little. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Now, if my ex husband wants to actually pay child support like he's supposed to I could work less than I do. But he doesn't think he is supposed to help provide for the kiddos. Since I'm the sole support in our family...I have to work. I don't send my 4 year old to daycare, though...her older sister stays with her and she's never been watched by anyone other than family. If I had to pay for childcare I'd have to get a second job to afford it. And honestly, even in two income homes...sometimes both adults HAVE to work. Unless you're a parent you just have no idea how much money it takes to raise them. Unless the guy makes six figures, it's most likely both parents will have to work.

And what did people do for a good chunk of the 1900s (mainly before 1970) when very, very few women worked and the man was almost the sole provider? I'm sure not all men back then made the equivalent of a 6 figure income today. How did they get by?

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by DJDamage
I think Wyldfire what Luveo is trying to say is that, there are types of women out there who take the feminists idealogy of "equality and *women getting ahead" and twist it in such a way that they can act in a bad manner and proclaim that they have every right to because its about liberation and women power.

The problem is that every time a woman acts in a disrespectful matter they can point it to feminism as a justification for their actions. They may not be feminists at all but use that excuse to continue acting selfishly and think its a good behaviour.

Yes, I get what he's saying...but it still isn't feminism...it's just high-maintenance biotchy girls thinking they should have everything handed to them on a silver platter. Yes, those girls should be avoided because, well, they are miserable. But just because they excuse sh*tty behavior by claiming it's about "equal rights" still doesn't make it true. And honestly, by repeating that belief all it does is enable those types of girls to continue using it as an excuse. I'm one to look at the facts, so when I hear this kind of nonsense I correct it. Amd honestly, if guys are supposed to be so logical and rational then why on earth are they allowing self-serving spoiled brats to re-define things? That's silly.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by TillTheEndOfTime
And what did people do for a good chunk of the 1900s (mainly before 1970) when very, very few women worked and the man was almost the sole provider? I'm sure not all men back then made the equivalent of a 6 figure income today. How did they get by?

Times were different. Kids didn't beg and plead for $200 sneakers, $100 jeans, $300 video game systems, stereos, frequent outings to the movies, going out to eat. There weren't washing machines and dryers, big screen tvs, computers, satellite tv, cell phones, pagers, etc...

In today's society, maintaining the lifestyle people expect to have takes A LOT of money when you have children. Kids no longer entertain themselves by playing hide and seek in the corn field.

Unless you have raised a child to the teenage years (I have 3 teenagers) you have NO CLUE how damn much it costs just to keep them fed and in clothes.

 

[California Love]

QuoteTime!

Check these out; they are well worth the time -

[The Equal Rights Amendment is part of a] feminist agenda [that is not about equality but] about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
Pat Robertson

Wondrous hole! Magical hole! Dazzlingly influential hole! Noble and effulgent hole! From this hole everything follows logically: first the baby, then the placenta, then, for years and years and years until death, a way of life. It is all logic, and she who lives by the hole will live also by its logic. It is, appropriately, logic with a hole in it.
Cynthia Ozick

Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them.
Ian Fleming

It is not in giving life but in risking life that man is raised above the animal; that is why superiority has been accorded in humanity not to the sex that brings forth but to that which kills.
Simone de Beauvoir

A woman who thinks she is intelligent demands the same rights as man. An intelligent woman gives up.
Colette

In the highest society, as well as in the lowest, woman is merely an instrument of pleasure.
Leo Tolstoy

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals -- most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men -- that's their problem.
Jerry L. Falwell