Toxic Feminism

[jixmixfix]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by the people of your country and mine in 1948, and we can tell our enemies by their rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For instance, the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC), comprising 57 Islamic States, has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of Sharia.

And our rights are slowly but surely being taken away from us.

 

[Starry]

I'm not looking for a relationship you asked me a question and I gave you the answer. What "MRA" articles did you read? I'm not an MRA because mras believe in equality much like feminism I do sympathize with MRAs though. I don't believe in equality because equality does not truly exist, the only form of equality you can achieve for a society is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcomes leads to the destruction of a society.

You're right...I was drawing conclusions based on things I've seen you post in the past...some of it quite a while ago too and I do recognize that people's positions change.


MRA articles...nothing I kept track of. But like I mentioned further up...I definitely noticed an overall message that would often look something like "I believe in equality...but don't women like to be raped because they sexually selected aggressive alpha males?" <-Not even much of an exaggeration there.

 

[Starry]

Just the mere fact that this doctor believes that we still live in patriarchal society shows how deeply feminism is embedded in our education system and way of thinking. WOW

I actually didn't get that from what was being said. I also liked that it acknowledged woman on man violence.

 

[jixmixfix]

You're right...I was drawing conclusions based on things I've seen you post in the past...some of it quite a while ago too and I do recognize that people's positions change.


MRA articles...nothing I kept track of. But like I mentioned further up...I definitely noticed an overall message that would often look something like "I believe in equality...but don't women like to be raped because they sexually selected aggressive alpha males?" <-Not even much of an exaggeration there.

Silly stuff, a lot of MRAs are actually women as well as men and many don't believe in raping women or any of that propaganda shit you are fed by the media. Cassie jay interviewed a ton of MRAs for her documentry "the red pill". I suggest you watch this interview and there are many other that are extremely insightful/informative. Cassie Jay was also a feminist at the time.

 

[jixmixfix]

I actually didn't get that from what was being said. I also liked that it acknowledged woman on man violence.

The Dr. sties a lot of feminist publications about Patriarchal household. So she is getting her information from feminist sources.

 

[Mole]

And our rights are slowly but surely being taken away from us.

Our rights are protected by our Parliament while your rights are protected by your Constitution. It can be argued that your rights are more strongly protected than ours, on the other hand, we are happy with our Parliamentary protection, and are happy to leave our Constitution to regulate the powers between the Federal Parliament and the Parliaments of the States.

And it is true that as Islam continues its jihad against us, we will inevitably limit some of our rights and freedoms. However war is being waged against us, and as in most wars some of our rights are sacrificed until we defeat our enemy, then we return to normal.

There is no need to be paranoid. We know Americans are prone to paranoia, particularly against their own democratic government, but this is an unrealistic obsession arising out of your war of 1776 against lawful authority. You can't of course admit your revolution was wrong, so instead you maintain a ritual paranoia against your own lawful, democratic government.

You guys are kinda weird but don't know it.

 

[Starry]

The Dr. sties a lot of feminist publications about Patriarchal household. So she is getting her information from feminist sources.

This may be true. Most of the stuff that's online and free to access is "free to access" for a reason. The library has all kinds of other studies though that I have read saying the same. (that's the thing about science...is it isnt considered fact until it is replicated over and over.)

 

[jixmixfix]

There is no need to be paranoid. We know Americans are prone to paranoia, particularly against their own democratic government, but this is an unrealistic obsession arising out of your war of 1776 against lawful authority. You can't of course admit your revolution was wrong, so instead you maintain a ritual paranoia against your own lawful, democratic government.

You guys are kinda weird but don't know it.

I'm not American BTW. However America is one of the freeist nations of the world because it is skeptical and criticizes it's government. I find the rest of the west to be very snobby against Americans this usually stems from jealously and a disdain for individualism. However collectivist thinkers aren't anymore different than a herd of sheep following one another though.

 

[Mole]

I'm not American BTW. However America is one of the freeist nations of the world because it is skeptical and criticizes it's government. I find the rest of the west to be very snobby against Americans this usually stems from jealously and a disdain for individualism. However collectivist thinkers aren't anymore different than a herd of sheep following one another though.

Independent critics of the USA, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, are struck by the conformist quality of American life. This is because American life has conformed to print from the very beginning, while other nations have a rich spoken and aural traditions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Not sure where you are getting your info from but wives did not beat the shit out their husbands, lol the husband was considered the authority figure in the household and was well respected by his wife and his children.

Wrong. You seem to have a very simplified, Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best interpretation of family dynamics throughout history. There's been a lot of misinformation about DV from both feminists and traditional conservatives alike.

Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence by Malcolm George
Eugen Lupri: Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse

Kudos to [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] for mentioning the other side of domestic violence.


I think the CDC findings suggest DV is largely reciprocal. The number of female victims is slightly higher but we're basically talking 60-40, and who knows what the actual percentages may be, given that a lot of male (and female) victims might not be reporting it out of shame, lack of resources, and in the case of men, fear that they will be the ones carted off to jail when they call the police. I suspect the percentage of male and female victims may be closer to 50-50 in cases of DV.

My personal hypothesis is that people with violent tendencies tend to be attracted to other people with violent tendencies, and so they feed into one another's weaknesses and provoke each other to violence. A caveat--I'm not saying this is true in all cases, in some cases it's only one partner doing the violence, and I just want to clarify that before someone jumps on me.

 

[jixmixfix]

Wrong. You seem to have a very simplified, Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best interpretation of family dynamics throughout history. There's been a lot of misinformation about DV from both feminists and traditional conservatives alike. Riding the Donkey Backwards: Men as the Unacceptable Victims of Marital Violence by Malcolm George Eugen Lupri: Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse Kudos to [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] for mentioning the other side of domestic violence. I think the CDC findings suggest DV is largely reciprocal. The number of female victims is slightly higher but we're basically talking 60-40, and who knows what the actual percentages may be, given that a lot of male (and female) victims might not be reporting it out of shame, lack of resources, and in the case of men, fear that they will be the ones carted off to jail when they call the police. I suspect the percentage of male and female victims may be closer to 50-50 in cases of DV. My personal hypothesis is that people with violent tendencies tend to be attracted to other people with violent tendencies, and so they feed into one another's weaknesses and provoke each other to violence. A caveat--I'm not saying this is true in all cases, in some cases it's only one partner doing the violence, and I just want to clarify that before someone jumps on me.

Dv is closer to 50/50 today but I dont think dv was 50/50 100 years ago. Please try and understand the context of my point first.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Dv is closer to 50/50 today but I dont think dv was 50/50 100 years ago. Please try and understand the context of my point first.

On what info are you basing this assumption? As anti-feminist as you are, I can't help but thinking your own misconceptions on this issue are at least in part due to the feminist narratives over the last 50 years. I'm not saying "all feminists" but feminism in general emphasized the plight of female victims in something that affects both sexes at roughly the same numbers. So a lot of people have that narrative etched into their minds and by default overlook or fail to even consider both sexes as victims in the equation. I think we naturally assume a woman if we hear the words "domestic abuse victim." This assumption itself is a form of sexism ingrained in a lot of people, regardless of whether or not they're feminists, anti-feminists, liberals, conservatives, et al, and I think feminism in part has fed into it, however it would be unfair to blame feminism entirely, and yes I understand some feminists acknowledge the problem is not faced exclusively by one sex/gender. I would also suggest a lot of these perceptions and narratives were already ingrained in our cultural mind prior to modern feminism: The Unknown History of MISANDRY: Society’s Acceptance of Domestic Violence? We have this narrative that domestic violence has always been tolerated in our society, but not quite. The Rule of Thumb has nothing to do with wife beating. Lies the feminists told me.

Either way, the point you made wasn't as much a statistic-based fact as it was a statement about a general ideal held by society in the past. Yes, you're correct that what people considered ideal would have been respect and obedience toward husbands and fathers, but we both know society's ideals, at any given time, don't necessarily get reflected 100% of the time in reality.

 

[anticlimatic]

I don't believe in equality because equality does not truly exist, the only form of equality you can achieve for a society is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcomes leads to the destruction of a society.

This is one of those hard irrevocable truths that is impossible for people on the left to even see, let alone understand. Doing so completely kicks the linchpin out of all of their favorite ideas, so if you ever try to bring it up or have a discussion about it, they will look at you like you just said something in Klingon for a second before forgetting that it ever happened at all, then move on to a different subject. It's curiously bizarre the lengths that the human mind will go to to preserve its own delusions.

 

[Amargith]

What about a combination of meeting the needs of each animal/person for them to thrive , and giving them equal opportunity afterwards?

Why is it so hard to combine these two ideas to where there is a basic standard that everyone's has a right to (as defined by what a species needs to thrive, amongst others the 5 freedoms which have been proven to be universal to all species) and that any surplus is open to equal opportunity?

Both sides and both ideas have merit. And both should be used together to create the optimal society, imho

 

[Jaguar]

When Billie Jean King won the Italian Open in 1970, her prize was $600. Her male counterpart, Ilie Nastase, was awarded $3,500, nearly six times that. Two years later, King and Nastase both won the U.S. Open. This time, he received $15,000 more than she did.

After King threatened to boycott the U.S. Open in 1973 over pay disparity, it became the first major tournament to award equal prize money to its male and female champions. Wimbledon, the oldest tennis tournament in the sport’s history, was the last Grand Slam event to follow suit in 2007, after Venus Williams led the charge for equal pay.

Today, thanks to the advocacy of King and other female players’, tennis is one of the few global sports that pays its men and women the same amount in major tournaments.

Equal pay for equal play. What the sport of tennis got right | PBS NewsHour




Equal pay. It's the end of the world. Run.

 

[jixmixfix]

This is one of those hard irrevocable truths that is impossible for people on the left to even see, let alone understand. Doing so completely kicks the linchpin out of all of their favorite ideas, so if you ever try to bring it up or have a discussion about it, they will look at you like you just said something in Klingon for a second before forgetting that it ever happened at all, then move on to a different subject. It's curiously bizarre the lengths that the human mind will go to to preserve its own delusions.

Agreed its refered to by psychologists as cognitive dissonance.

 

[jixmixfix]

On what info are you basing this assumption? As anti-feminist as you are, I can't help but thinking your own misconceptions on this issue are at least in part due to the feminist narratives over the last 50 years. I'm not saying "all feminists" but feminism in general emphasized the plight of female victims in something that affects both sexes at roughly the same numbers. So a lot of people have that narrative etched into their minds and by default overlook or fail to even consider both sexes as victims in the equation. I think we naturally assume a woman if we hear the words "domestic abuse victim." This assumption itself is a form of sexism ingrained in a lot of people, regardless of whether or not they're feminists, anti-feminists, liberals, conservatives, et al, and I think feminism in part has fed into it, however it would be unfair to blame feminism entirely, and yes I understand some feminists acknowledge the problem is not faced exclusively by one sex/gender. I would also suggest a lot of these perceptions and narratives were already ingrained in our cultural mind prior to modern feminism: The Unknown History of MISANDRY: Society’s Acceptance of Domestic Violence? We have this narrative that domestic violence has always been tolerated in our society, but not quite. The Rule of Thumb has nothing to do with wife beating. Lies the feminists told me. Either way, the point you made wasn't as much a statistic-based fact as it was a statement about a general ideal held by society in the past. Yes, you're correct that what people considered ideal would have been respect and obedience toward husbands and fathers, but we both know society's ideals, at any given time, don't necessarily get reflected 100% of the time in reality.

Because 50-100 years ago men had more authority over the family unit. Todat that isn't the case however as women can basically beat up their husbands and claim that she was hit and the police would put him in jail.No one gives a shit about men and men today are still required to be providers to women while women can have their own careers and any contribution to the household or their man is considered "oppressive".

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because 50-100 years ago men had more authority over the family unit.

That doesn't really address my question. It sounds like circular reasoning.

Todat that isn't the case however as women can basically beat up their husbands and claim that she was hit and the police would put him in jail.

I don't think we're in disagreement here. I'm just wondering how you jumped to the conclusion that there were less male domestic violence victims back then.

No one gives a shit about men and men today are still required to be providers to women while women can have their own careers and any contribution to the household or their man is considered "oppressive".

Guess what, no one gave a shit about the majority of men back then either. Have you read Warren Farrell? He suggests we've been looking at gender relations in the past wrong. Rather than looking it as an absolute case where one oppressed the other, he suggests considering how both sexes were bound by their own unique responsibilities. It was a trade off for either sex. Why are his books not on gender studies reading lists? I do not know. It's a different perspective than the usual narratives, but he does as good a job as any feminist theorist in making his case and backing it with data and statistics.

 

[anticlimatic]

What about a combination of meeting the needs of each animal/person for them to thrive , and giving them equal opportunity afterwards?

Why is it so hard to combine these two ideas to where there is a basic standard that everyone's has a right to (as defined by what a species needs to thrive, amongst others the 5 freedoms which have been proven to be universal to all species) and that any surplus is open to equal opportunity?

Both sides and both ideas have merit. And both should be used together to create the optimal society, imho

Depending on how one might define "thrive," everything suggested here could be easily filed under equality of opportunity. Outcome and opportunity with finite resources to balance the two always come at the expense of the other. Too much equal outcome diminishes potential opportunities and leads to stagnation and ultimately collapse. Too much equal opportunity expands potential disparity, but while some collapse others at least have the chance to thrive. Right now the US is a combination of both, steadily moving in the equality of outcome direction- and look what's happening to us.

 

[Starry]

I feel like the members arguing for some kind of dog-eat-dog, "survival of the fittest" purge/thinning type world...really shouldn't be.