Toxic Feminism

[jixmixfix]

Feminism is not a religion. It is a Western social movement growing out of liberal democracy and the limitation of power, in this case, the limitation of the power of men over women. It is world wide social movement primarily in the West, in which women gained the vote for the first time in history in South Australia in 1894. And just as slave owners were corrupted by the power they had over slaves, so men are corrupted by the power they have over women, and just as paedophiles are corrupted by the power they have over children.

Except men never traditionally had power over women, they had authority over women in exchange for their provision and protection. Feminism came about to take away men's rights when women were given the vote without the draft. World governments loved this idea as it allowed more women to enter the workforce and pay taxes.power corrupts indeed but only when there is s lack of responsibility.Liberal democracy a collectivist cult that justifies it's existence to redistribute wealth throufh government force and coercion.Got it now.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think of all the men here, your outlook is probably the most healthy and has the least amount of under the surface agenda. I think feminism can be an ideology for some women - so can the virulent hatred of it by some men. I still feel that taking the word at it's definition is something that shouldn't have to be explained, it shouldn't have any -ism attached to it at all. Picking and choosing is how ideas form and progress is made. The people that complain about that method are the people who can't do it for themselves and need to be told what to believe.

I don't have any under the surface agenda I'm aware of. My agenda is understanding. I can't speak for other members. Do you believe these men truly have an under the surface agenda to return women to the kitchen barefoot or something? I'm not trying to be contentious, what are your thoughts here?

 

[anticlimatic]

Feminism is not a religion.

It's not literally a religion, more like a religion substitute. Mankind has a natural unconscious inclination towards aspects of it (dogmatic certainty, faith in an idealized future outcome, a moral framework, a sense of community) and if we don't get those aspects through proper ones we will make a religion out of something else.

The problem with using feminism as your religion rather than, say, Christianity or Islam or Paganism, is that it was too recently pulled out of someone's ass and only VERY recently molded into a religious shape, mostly by millenial morons with the collective wisdom of tantrum prone 5 year old. Older religions have much more polish and integrity.

Also is it cool with everyone if I use Mankind instead of humankind, and men instead of human? I'm sure we are all less interested in what mankind does than what it's called, and it saves me a syllable.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's not literally a religion, more like a religion substitute. Mankind has a natural unconscious inclination towards aspects of it (dogmatic certainty, faith in an idealized future outcome, a moral framework, a sense of community) and if we don't get those aspects through proper ones we will make a religion out of something else.

The problem with using feminism as your religion rather than, say, Christianity or Islam or Paganism, is that it was too recently pulled out of someone's ass and only VERY recently molded into a religious shape, mostly by millenial morons with the collective wisdom of tantrum prone 5 year old. Older religions have much more polish and integrity.

Also is it cool with everyone if I use Mankind instead of humankind, and men instead of human? I'm sure we are all less interested in what mankind does than what it's called, and it saves me a syllable.

I'd be curious to see if there's a "faith gene" playing a part in peoples' devotions to certain ideologies, as been hypothesized might be the case for religious people.

God gene - Wikipedia

Regarding use of human vs man, I always interpreted "mankind" to encompass both sexes anyway. It's actually very interesting to look at the etymology of words like man, woman, boy and girl. Girl for instance originally referred to a young person or child, not necessarily a female child. Boy commonly referred to a servant, which might explain it being carried into the American Slavery period as a term for male slaves. Man originally encompassed women and men in old english.

 

[Starry]

I pretty much agree with this. It is some kind of bizarre fabrication like the talk of communists in the 50s. I'm sure it makes sense to some segment of the population. People just follow these absurd ideas like sheep going off a cliff together.

What else do you agree with highlander?

They were just discussing things like...how women are not as intelligent as men and should have their rights taken away.... Do you agree with those things as well? I think a lot of female members here would be interested in knowing your take on those issues...

 

[Starry]

Oh whoops I never voted in this poll.

Prior to this thread...I probably would have voted "generally positive". Today...I'll be voting "adamantly for it". Thank you Feminism. Thank you.

 

[Coriolis]

Regarding use of human vs man, I always interpreted "mankind" to encompass both sexes anyway. It's actually very interesting to look at the etymology of words like man, woman, boy and girl. Girl for instance originally referred to a young person or child, not necessarily a female child. Boy commonly referred to a servant, which might explain it being carried into the American Slavery period as a term for male slaves. Man originally encompassed women and men in old english.

I prefer "humanity" vs. "mankind", but that is a subjective preference based mainly on a certain cosmetic consistency. In practical terms, as long as the terms "man" and "mankind" are always used to include all people, that is fine. So, when we say, for example, that men over the age of 18 are required to register for the draft, that includes everyone of that age. Same principle would apply to those Fraternal Orders of Police that now include women officers. We would then need to use words like males and females when we did want to specify one sex only.

What else do you agree with highlander?

They were just discussing things like...how women are not as intelligent as men and should have their rights taken away.... Do you agree with those things as well? I think a lot of female members here would be interested in knowing your take on those issues...

I suspect quite a few of our male members would be interested as well. Those whose posts suggest they oppose women's having the same rights and opportunities as men can be very vocal here, even strident, but from what I have seen they are in a small minority.

 

[jixmixfix]

women don't have the same rights as men though they currently have more rights than men. However feminists will always say they have fewer rights because it relies on victimhood in order to be funded by taxdollers.

 

[Starry]

I suspect quite a few of our male members would be interested as well. Those whose posts suggest they oppose women's having the same rights and opportunities as men can be very vocal here, even strident, but from what I have seen they are in a small minority.

You are absolutely right...and as a person that has always said "Feminism doesn't happen without men"...I'm irritated with myself for not having mentioned men and their concern in that post as well.

I think what happened in this instance was my personal experience of being insulted became the sole focus (as someone that works in science I'd be more than happy to test against any one of these gentlemen in this thread).

Thank you for catching that.

 

[Starry]

women don't have the same rights as men though they currently have more rights than men. However feminists will always say they have fewer rights because it relies on victimhood in order to be funded by taxdollers.

I honestly don't think this way jixmixfix. Also what I wanted to mention about Patriarchy <- is the term is to acknowledge that it is a system caused imbalance...not men themselves (men are not to blame). I'm not asking you to agree but did want to at least highlight that.

 

[highlander]

I imagine you would have no problem with talking about power politics, or even power race relations, but you do have a problem talking about power gender relations. Of course power is not the only parameter by which we can analyse gender relations, there are many more, which you may find more congenial, but it seems to me that the very idea of the patriarchy is about the parameter of power.

Power does make many of us uncomfortable, not realising we have been grappling with power for many centuries, and through political struggle and reflection we we settled on liberal democracy, based on the limitation of power. And finding the limitation of power in one sphere, we have extended it to other spheres, such as slavery, the emancipation of women called feminism, and the prosecution of child sexual abuse in prosperous countries.

I don't think about power, politics or race much at all (other than disliking our current president). So I don't talk about those things. There was a time when affirmative action was a bigger thing. I was very against it because it openly discriminated against people like me. It's still an issue in certain areas. You get preferential treatment if you are considered a minority in admission to colleges, have more opportunities for scholarships, etc. it just seems rather unfair.

 

[highlander]

What else do you agree with highlander?

They were just discussing things like...how women are not as intelligent as men and should have their rights taken away.... Do you agree with those things as well? I think a lot of female members here would be interested in knowing your take on those issues...

I don't think that obviously. Believe I've made myself clear on those things before.

To be honest, I've been so busy with work over the past few weeks that I haven't been keeping up with this thread at all.

 

[Starry]

I don't think that obviously. Believe I've made myself clear on those things before.

To be honest, I've been so busy with work over the past few weeks that I haven't been keeping up with this thread at all.

This is what I thought...but since you jumped into the middle of that "women-are-inferior-to-men" bullshit and expressed agreement...I thought it would be important to make that very clear.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't think about power, politics or race much at all (other than disliking our current president). So I don't talk about those things. There was a time when affirmative action was a bigger thing. I was very against it because it openly discriminated against people like me. It's still an issue in certain areas. You get preferential treatment if you are considered a minority in admission to colleges, have more opportunities for scholarships, etc. it just seems rather unfair.

Yes, this sort of affirmative action is the wrong thing, done too late. We need to reach out to those underrepresented groups much earlier, while they are still in school, and by that I mean K-12 school. That way, they can be exposed to opportunities they might otherwise not have considered, based on their circumstances, and can gain the skills and knowledge to compete on their own merits. This is part of why one of my main volunteer activities is STEM education.

 

[jixmixfix]

I honestly don't think this way jixmixfix. Also what I wanted to mention about Patriarchy <- is the term is to acknowledge that it is a system caused imbalance...not men themselves (men are not to blame). I'm not asking you to agree but did want to at least highlight that.

Of course men are to blame, if men aren't to blame than who is? who is feminism going to use in order to extract resources? did you know domestic violence is a muli billion doller industry? did you know divorce is also another multi billion doller industry? Who is going to make these lawyers rich if there is a stable family unit? In terms of true patriarchal societies they seem to be the most balanced actually. If you look at traditional american societies and Muslims societies today the family is still intact. The family is really the best way to determine whether a society is balanced/healthy or not. A stable family goes a long way to raising healthy children and when the family unit breaks down (thanks to feminism) chaos, violence, emerge. We live in a immoral society today not due to patriarchy but due to feminism, cultural Marxism and liberalism. Japan is another example of a traditional/patriarchal society and their crime rates are extremely low only problem is they are suffering the same fate as the west as fewer people are having kids. Their society is slowly turning feminist/ anti male and men find it easier to opt out of relationships due to extreme societal pressures to provide.

 

[Coriolis]

Of course men are to blame, if men aren't to blame than who is? who is feminism going to use in order to extract resources? did you know domestic violence is a muli billion doller industry? did you know divorce is also another multi billion doller industry? Who is going to make these lawyers rich if there is a stable family unit? In terms of true patriarchal societies they seem to be the most balanced actually. If you look at traditional american societies and Muslims societies today the family is still intact. The family is really the best way to determine whether a society is balanced/healthy or not. A stable family goes a long way to raising healthy children and when the family unit breaks down (thanks to feminism) chaos, violence, emerge. We live in a immoral society today not due to patriarchy but due to feminism, cultural Marxism and liberalism. Japan is another example of a traditional/patriarchal society and their crime rates are extremely low only problem is they are suffering the same fate as the west as fewer people are having kids. Their society is slowly turning feminist/ anti male and men find it easier to opt out of relationships due to extreme societal pressures to provide.

Men and women are both to blame. In feminism, women and supportive men stop being part of the problem and work on solutions. Domestic violence is a crime, not an industry. A man who will abuse a woman (or a child) does not deserve one. Lawyers are getting rich through the general litigiousness of our society, not through divorce. This means we need tort reform (and universal health care), not denying women equal rights. The family stability you reference is the stability of a dictatorship. We wouldn't tolerate that as a nation, nor should anyone tolerate it as an individual. The divorce rate is due in large part to still being in a time of transition, when people of both sexes often enter relationships with unreasonable expectations and too little maturity. Forbidding marriage until the age of 25 makes more sense than anything else in this regard. If society as a whole is immoral, that is due to a combination of greed and popular culture. Much of this involves selling women on the idea that their appearance is critical to their happiness, that sex is the way to be liked, and that they must be liked at all costs. Put an end to that, and we make headway on several problems at once, but we can't, of course, because "free enterprise". We still do need women to have kids, something you appear to discount, so Japanese women have figured that one out. Perhaps American women will need to as well.

You are on the wrong side of history here. You are not alone, but fortunately your compatriots are dwindling.

 

[jixmixfix]

Men and women are both to blame. In feminism, women and supportive men stop being part of the problem and work on solutions.

Solutions to what exactly?

Domestic violence is a crime, not an industry. A man who will abuse a woman (or a child) does not deserve one.

You literally just said men and women are both to blame yet like a knee jerk instrict you already blamed men for demestic violence. This is comical.

Lawyers are getting rich through the general litigiousness of our society, not through divorce. This means we need tort reform (and universal health care), not denying women equal rights.

Lawyers are getting rich essentially off of big government so your solution is even bigger government by adopting universal healthcare. LMAO

The family stability you reference is the stability of a dictatorship. We wouldn't tolerate that as a nation, nor should anyone tolerate it as an individual.

So japan is a dictatorship? 1950's america was a dictatorship? you really ought to study your definitions a little further.

The divorce rate is due in large part to still being in a time of transition, when people of both sexes often enter relationships with unreasonable expectations and too little maturity. Forbidding marriage until the age of 25 makes more sense than anything else in this regard.

People in the 1900's got married by 18 so why today are people getting married at 30? are we less free today than we were in the 1900s? it seems so.

If society as a whole is immoral, that is due to a combination of greed and popular culture. Much of this involves selling women on the idea that their appearance is critical to their happiness, that sex is the way to be liked, and that they must be liked at all costs. Put an end to that, and we make headway on several problems at once, but we can't, of course, because "free enterprise". We still do need women to have kids, something you appear to discount, so Japanese women have figured that one out. Perhaps American women will need to as well.

I kinda agree with you here but you fail to see that greed comes in all forms. For example a form of greed would be ask doctors to give up their private practices and work for government in the form of universal healthcare. A form of greed comes from socialists wanting to redistribute the wealth of those who make over 50K a year. You get the point?

You are on the wrong side of history here. You are not alone, but fortunately your compatriots are dwindling.

Nothing could be further from the truth actually nationalist/libertarian sentiments are growing while socialist/ feminist sentiments are falling. You do know that Donald Trump is your president right? what trends in popular culture could have possibly caused that to happen? hmmmmm.

 

[Starry]

Of course men are to blame, if men aren't to blame than who is? who is feminism going to use in order to extract resources? did you know domestic violence is a muli billion doller industry? did you know divorce is also another multi billion doller industry? Who is going to make these lawyers rich if there is a stable family unit? In terms of true patriarchal societies they seem to be the most balanced actually. If you look at traditional american societies and Muslims societies today the family is still intact. The family is really the best way to determine whether a society is balanced/healthy or not. A stable family goes a long way to raising healthy children and when the family unit breaks down (thanks to feminism) chaos, violence, emerge. We live in a immoral society today not due to patriarchy but due to feminism, cultural Marxism and liberalism. Japan is another example of a traditional/patriarchal society and their crime rates are extremely low only problem is they are suffering the same fate as the west as fewer people are having kids. Their society is slowly turning feminist/ anti male and men find it easier to opt out of relationships due to extreme societal pressures to provide.

I appreciate you asking me questions instead of 'telling me what I think."


It doesn't even compute in my mind to blame men. Systems emerge and take on a life of their own (they operate independently of the people). This is why it can be said that there are ways in which Patriarchy oppresses men...and ways in which women uphold Patriarchy in spite of claiming it oppresses them. You can say the system is to blame...or that men and women are equally to blame (an example I often use concerns organized religion. What is more Patriarchal and discriminatory towards women than organized religion? Yet in every nation woman are far more likely to be devout and to drag the men in their lives to church...insisting the men in their lives be good organized religion participators.) I hate to break it to yah...but no. I don't blame men.

Likewise, I missed the part where being a feminist means you believe in extracting resources from men. Perhaps I'm a bad feminist because I'm 100% against doing that. I am probably more against Affirmative Action and entitlements than you are and I mean that literally. I remember hearing of this as a child even and knowing it was a terrible idea and would cause precisely what is occurring now. While I have no interest in dedicating my life to it...if I could put an end to it myself I would do so in a heartbeat. I shutter at the thought of some dead beat dude with half the intelligence I have blaming women and minorities for what is rightly his own incompetence and inability to obtain/sustain a job. I will go to my grave insisting things should have been done differently.

As for the rest of what you wrote...I agree that things are pretty fucked-up in some ways...possibly better in others though. But I disagree that things were heavenly prior to 1920...and only then became immoral because of feminism. Yah no...I just don't buy into that.

 

[Mole]

I don't think about power, politics or race much at all (other than disliking our current president). So I don't talk about those things. There was a time when affirmative action was a bigger thing. I was very against it because it openly discriminated against people like me. It's still an issue in certain areas. You get preferential treatment if you are considered a minority in admission to colleges, have more opportunities for scholarships, etc. it just seems rather unfair.

Three hundred years of institutional slavery, including sexual slavery, has led to affirmative action.

 

[anticlimatic]

You are on the wrong side of history here.

You might want to scrub that line from your repertoire.
Obama and the Wrong Side of History - The Atlantic