Toxic Feminism

[StrawberryBoots]

They had different roles and responsibility and were required to work according to their ability. A women is not as competent as a man especially when it comes to physical labor. Women and men both have strengths and weaknessess biologically. The sooner you realize this the less brainwashed you will become.

I think so too. I'd love to, but I couldn't safely wield a chainsaw if my life depended on it. Put me on a ladder with a chainsaw and everybody better stand back.

 

[Mole]

fighting against biology does not do you any favors when it comes to survival.

In prosperous societies today we are no longer surviving, we are thriving. And an important part of prosperous thriving is freeing slaves, freeing women from biology with the pill, and freeing women from domination by misogynists, and freeing children from child sexual abuse.

But even in prosperous societies there are those who are just surviving, and deeply resent those who are successfully thriving.

And here we are seeing this resentment openly expressed.

 

[Amargith]

^This.


It's interesting and a little off topic but,...
Too many people seem to be focused on surviving, and like want go back to living in a cave just to prove how tough they are. That stuff is like riding a horse now - a hobby, not a necessity of life. It certainly can be a fulfilling and useful hobby.

Meanwhile, thriving requires more than just the ability to stay alive by subduing anything that comes your way. It requires the ability to NOT do that. To know when it is actually to your(and others detriment) to do so and adjust accordingly - to trust, be vulnerable and take the risk with the knowledge that if things do go badly, you ll be fine and it isnt some big shame/stain on your ego/honor.

Funny thing is that that very feat of strenght, of thriving to the point where you can take such risks, gets attacked and called weakness by those that are terrified of such vulnerability and trust, those stuck in survival mode due to trauma or other circumstances. They somehow confuse the fear they hold with a virtue - a point of pride, making that much more a part of their ego and the fear that much tougher to face now it can disguise as 'smartness'.

It is like Scrooge with money - it is an irrational fear of not having enough resources that drives him to be so frugal while constantly amassing more, often to the detriment of himself and others. The same is true for other resources like sex, connection to others(fear of rejection), territory, property, etc.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

In prosperous societies today we are no longer surviving, we are thriving. And an important part of prosperous thriving is freeing slaves, freeing women from biology with the pill, and freeing women from domination by misogynists, and freeing children from child sexual abuse.

But even in prosperous societies there are those who are just surviving, and deeply resent those who are successfully thriving.

And here we are seeing this resentment openly expressed.

^This.


It's interesting and a little off topic but,...
Too many people seem to be focused on surviving, and like want go back to living in a cave just to prove how tough they are. That stuff is like riding a horse now - a hobby, not a necessity of life. It certainly can be a fulfilling and useful hobby.

Meanwhile, thriving requires more than just the ability to stay alive by subduing anything that comes your way. It requires the ability to NOT do that. To know when it is actually to your(and others detriment) to do so and adjust accordingly - to trust, be vulnerable and take the risk with the knowledge that if things do go badly, you ll be fine and it isnt some big shame/stain on your ego/honor.

Funny thing is that that very feat of strenght, of thriving to the point where you can take such risks, gets attacked and called weakness by those that are terrified of such vulnerability and trust, those stuck in survival mode due to trauma or other circumstances. They somehow confuse the fear they hold with a virtue - a point of pride, making that much more a part of their ego and the fear that much tougher to face now it can disguise as 'smartness'.

It is like Scrooge with money - it is an irrational fear of not having enough resources that drives him to be so frugal while constantly amassing more, often to the detriment of himself and others. The same is true for other resources like sex, connection to others(fear of rejection), territory, property, etc.

Too many people are focused on surviving...? Forgive me, but it looks like y'all are talking to hear yourselves talk. Do you realize Mole is misunderstanding Jixmixfix and you're expounding on it, as if you're passively lecturing someone?

Could Jixmixfix be any braver and more vulnerable than he has already been in this thread?

I wish y'all would take the time to apply your own words of wisdom to yourselves.

 

[Amargith]

Too many people are focused on surviving...? Forgive me, but it looks like y'all are talking to hear yourselves talk. Do you realize Mole is misunderstanding Jixmixfix and you're expounding on it as if you're passively lecturing Jixmixfix?

Could Jixmixfix be any braver and more vulnerable than he has already been in this thread?

I wish y'all would take the time apply your own words of wisdom to yourselves.

For me, it wasnt about jix, actually, just the point that mole made. And im not trying to lecture - im just going slightly of topic about a pattern that Ive picked up on and toed in with mole's point.

I ll admit that i didnt follow the entire conversation. And yes, of course it takes an admirable kind of strength to really speak your mind about what worries you. Its why, no matter hoe much of a clusterfuck these threads are, they allow people to return, speak their truth and find themselves hopefully along the way as they figure things out

It was in no way meant to be any kind of attack or lecture.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

For me, it wasnt about jix, actually, just the point that mole made. And im not trying to lecture - im just going slightly of topic about a pattern that Ive picked up on and toed in with mole's point.

I ll admit that i didnt follow the entire conversation. And yes, of course it takes an admirable kind of strength to really speak your mind about what worries you. Its why, no matter hoe much of a clusterfuck these threads are, they allow people to return, speak their truth and find themselves hopefully along the way as they figure things out

It was in no way meant to be any kind of attack or lecture.

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't been actively reading and participating on the forums in a long time, so I wasn't sure what type of relationships have developed, meaning, friends and enemies. For me, understanding relationships, helps with interpretation.

 

[jixmixfix]

In prosperous societies today we are no longer surviving, we are thriving. And an important part of prosperous thriving is freeing slaves, freeing women from biology with the pill, and freeing women from domination by misogynists, and freeing children from child sexual abuse. But even in prosperous societies there are those who are just surviving, and deeply resent those who are successfully thriving. And here we are seeing this resentment openly expressed.

With a national debt of over 10 trillion dollers owed to the government "we are thriving". When fewer and fewer of the countries own citizens are having children while government are pushing for immigration to fill those population gaps and low end jobs. It's actually called societal decline and it's on the verge of economic collapse. However to leftists and socialists like you this is considered thriving because you hate men and your own culture so much.

 

[jixmixfix]

Too many people are focused on surviving...? Forgive me, but it looks like y'all are talking to hear yourselves talk. Do you realize Mole is misunderstanding Jixmixfix and you're expounding on it, as if you're passively lecturing someone? Could Jixmixfix be any braver and more vulnerable than he has already been in this thread? I wish y'all would take the time to apply your own words of wisdom to yourselves.

Mole hates religion so much but ironically has replaced his faith with socialism the biggest death cult known to man. So any opposing view is disguarded as wrong think.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Too many people are focused on surviving...? Forgive me, but it looks like y'all are talking to hear yourselves talk. Do you realize Mole is misunderstanding Jixmixfix and you're expounding on it, as if you're passively lecturing someone?

Could Jixmixfix be any braver and more vulnerable than he has already been in this thread?

I wish y'all would take the time to apply your own words of wisdom to yourselves.

I think you are overlooking the fact that some people here aren't Americans.


In other words it has become normal to shoot at American survivalism since it is becoming obvious that this worldview will destroy America.
Because by forcing individualistic survival you don't send enough people into certain higher levels of education and desire to protect everyones beliefs has created permament status quo in many issues, which togather are leading to loss of economic competitivness and pilling up the debts. This in the end is perhaps the main reason why you have something like 600 billion trade deficit with powerhouses of Eurasia, which all seem to be observably better at work division, country wide planning and changing paradigms along the way.



Btw. both Mole and Amargith are from countries that are indeed thriving for the most part.

 

[Totenkindly]

With a national debt of over 10 trillion dollers owed to the government "we are thriving". When fewer and fewer of the countries own citizens are having children while government are pushing for immigration to fill those population gaps and low end jobs. It's actually called societal decline and it's on the verge of economic collapse. However to leftists and socialists like you this is considered thriving because you hate men and your own culture so much.

...man, Mole's not even American.

This thread is just a bunch of extremes exploding off each other.
Pretty much how we all assumed it would go.

Good job, team! Our work is done here. Close thread?

 

[Lark]

...man, Mole's not even American.

This thread is just a bunch of extremes exploding off each other.
Pretty much how we all assumed it would go.

Good job, team! Our work is done here. Close thread?

I just think its hilarious that someone whose username is an apparent reference to heroin dependency has the nerve to blame liberals and immigration for cultural decline.

Like so many fans of small government and untrammeled capitalism I dont know why they stay in someplace like the US which has abandoned it and dont up stakes for a country which hasnt, like somalia or serra leone or some other UN designated stateless backwater, maybe they're just talking shite after all.

 

[anticlimatic]

Good job, team! Our work is done here. Close thread?

Close feminism...?

After thinking about it, I think if feminism was honest about what it was- that it advocated for women, rather than "for equality," it would attract a lot more backing. Including backing from me. By trying to pander to people it assumes won't participate unless it dupes them into thinking feminism is for everyone, it creates a logical inconsistancy that ends up driving even more people away from it.

Things don't need to be FOR everyone for everyone to get behind it. Everyone has a mother. What healthy adult wouldn't support empowering women when able?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Close feminism...?

After thinking about it, I think if feminism was honest about what it was- that it advocated for women, rather than "for equality," it would attract a lot more backing. Including backing from me. By trying to pander to people it assumes won't participate unless it dupes them into thinking feminism is for everyone, it creates a logical inconsistancy that ends up driving even more people away from it.

Things don't need to be FOR everyone for everyone to get behind it. Everyone has a mother. What healthy adult wouldn't support empowering women when able?

I would agree on the bolded. I might even say I can be a rabid feminist when the situation warrants. Just as I am a proponent of men's rights in certain areas. I think sometimes feminists (generally speaking) want to have it both ways and be both advocates for women specific issues whilst simultaneously saying they're advocates for absolute equality of the sexes. That's not always possible, for instance in the area of dealing with treatment of female prisoners. It's fine if feminists focus specifically on bettering conditions for female inmates, however it isn't actually working towards equality and may in fact increase some existent inequalities. I'm not saying they should divert their resources and attention to male inmates (who already serve longer sentences for the same crimes, on average) as that would spread those feminist organizations' resources thin and make it more difficult to achieve better conditions for female inmates, but let's also not pretend they're living up to the sacred dictionary definition they love to quote, in such instances.

I'm not so naïve to think there's not still some systemic sexism lingering in society. I think it affects both sexes, depending on where you look. sometimes feminists and MRAs alike like to pretend only one side of the sex spectrum faces any injustices and that the other side always benefits at the expense of the opposite sex. It's never been that simple and I'd argue that throughout history there were hardships and problems unique to either sex, as well as benefits and perks unique to either. Generally speaking, I don't think it was ever as much an issue of oppression as it was an issue of unique responsibilities held by each sex. Luckily technology is reaching a level where I think both sexes will no longer be a slave to the old paradigms and systems.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'm not so naïve to think there's not still some systemic sexism lingering in society. I think it affects both sexes, depending on where you look.

I see sexism as a form of prejudice- which I see as a consequence of human intelligence paired with self awareness divided by the inherent limitations of both. We can recognize patterns and make projections based on them for the sake of self preservation, but we are limited in how accurate or objective the "meaning" we assign those projections can be. The ironic reality is that prejudice sexism and bigotry are not rooted in stupidity, but rather intelligence! To go to war with them is not going to war with ignorance, but rather with an incomplete logic that the limited human mind is nigh incapable of completing. It's a noble but nearly impossible task, yet such tasks are always at the root of our finest endeavors. Christians chide sinners, but first and foremost acknowledge that they themselves are sinners as well. The Leftist Religion, in its current infancy, hasn't yet earned the wisdom and awareness that everyone- including themselves- is prejudice by nature, and that Religions are a service to their members- not everyone else in the world BUT their members, as the Spanish Inquisition christians and current political zealots tend to be. Anyone who wishes to combat prejudice by proxy of sexism needs first to combat it within themselves.

On another note, I believe that feminists who think that the disparity between the general interests of adult men and women stem from sexist social conditioning as children and a lack of encouragement at a young age are on the right track towards truth, but they don't follow it far enough back to quite get there. At the very very bottom, and studies back this if common sense isn't enough, boys and girls have slight hardwired differences in preferences regarding what they want to accomplish. This is pivotal in garnering confidence in particular avenues of life, as the first step in confidence is CHOOSING to attempt something. It can't be forced upon someone, the way self esteem was attemptedly forced on millenials via participation awards. A boy might choose to try flattening his plastic ball with his plastic hammer, while a girl might choose to pick out three flowers that look good together and stick them to the wall. Fast forward 20 years and that boy is fully confidant flattening trees with a chainsaw, while that girl is fully confidant designing interiors. Huge differences in outcome, but a product of their CHOICE, influenced by their biology, not a product of a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women from all the fun crappy paying man jobs.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

I think you are overlooking the fact that some people here aren't Americans.

Let me guess, they're from Canada, Norway, and Australia?

In other words it has become normal to shoot at American survivalism since it is becoming obvious that this worldview will destroy America.

I'm American and I've never heard of the American Survivalism movement you speak of that's destroying America. Do you mean, Naked and Afraid? Americans like to go on vacation and sometimes we like to rough it.

Because by forcing individualistic survival you don't send enough people into certain higher levels of education and desire to protect everyones beliefs has created permament status quo in many issues, which togather are leading to loss of economic competitivness and pilling up the debts.

Would you be more specific about who is doing the forcing (i.e., specific laws). I don't know what you're talking about.

Btw. both Mole and Amargith are from countries that are indeed thriving for the most part.

Data?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Maybe once upon the time the practitioners of feminism sought justice with a fair understanding, but most of the current practitioners just use the pretense of equality to discriminate whom they want and to have government money allocated for their NGO's.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Let me guess, they're from Canada, Norway, and Australia?

Throw away Canada and you got it right.

I'm American and I've never heard of the American Survivalism movement you speak of that's destroying America. Do you mean, Naked and Afraid? Americans like to go on vacation and sometimes we like to rough it.

That is because it isn't a movement. Your whole country is based on very strong individualism and surviving as individuals, however that may be hard to fully grasp in scale or depth if you live your entire life in the states. All this individualism and have the right to think whatever you want is nice, however the problem with this is that most debates are never settled and almost nothing is ever fully closed and decided. What allows many other countries to take the initiative since they work much more as a team and they in general have much less dilemmas.

Would you be more specific about who is doing the forcing (i.e., specific laws). I don't know what you're talking about.

Forcing is perhaps too strong world but your culture, media and politics seem to generate the state of mind that individualism can't have bad sides. I have nothing in particular against individualism it is just that overdoing it can produce unwanted problems in making a solid strategy for the country. Which is needed since many other countries have one as well and you need to counter that with "something" concrete. I have no fantasies that you will not change your lifestyle at all due to my words, it is just that I think that US is going in direction of serious problems if it doesn't get things clearly decided more often. Since your geopolitical positions are being challenged from a number of directions and that will require stronger collective response. (since the pressures are of collective nature)
In political subforum you have more details about all those claims.



However I have remembered this post just so that you get the picture of my thoughts.

1. China: it don't even hide that it wants to take America's place, it is sucking out jobs, commits cyber attacks, turns nations against US, buys resources around the world. Trade suficit is around 350 billion $.

2. Russia: Russia is openly anti US basically since WW2.

3. Saudi Arabia: the whole terrorism thing has a center/source in this country

4. Iran: It has very open anti US rethoric for decades and when there is opportunity it moves against US.

5. Japan: With 70 billion in trade suficit with US and requests for more support against Asia ... it is in a way destabilizing factor.

6. North Korea: Decades of open hostility and provocation that drain time and resources.

7. Turkey: Turkey is going against US for years in the Middle East, recently it even openly turned away from democracy and closer to Russia and China.

8: Serbia: Russian pawn and fairly strong hater of US due to historic reasons and Kosovo. It often does dirty stuff for Russia and has "an army of internet trolls".

9. The whole mass of militant groups and dictators in Africa.

10. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia: far left governments but they don't have too big direct impact. But they drain resources, challange economic interests etc.

11. Mexico: constant tensions, refugees, unability to control the drug cartels and 50 billion in trade suficit with US. Not exactly an ideal neighbour.

12. EU: even if it is technically US Ally for the most part the block is slowly but surely driffting away. Plus it suddenly made a huge economy that is big as American and Euro is challenging dollar on plenty of ways.

13. All environmental organisations are anti US when you observe the final impact. Since in general US is anti environment protection and therefore clash is basically inevitable.



US is crumbling exactly since it pilled up a huge number of opponents with it's completely missed policies and overrated self-confidence. Even the internal struggles are often just a consequence of the fact the country is losing on external level and there is just not enough money and resources for "business as usual". I am not joking with my claims that US will collapse in the near future if there wouldn't be some radical changes in paradigms, since the country is under fire in basically every aspect. However its political system is so inert and overconfident that just about nothing will be done about this until it will be too late. (what is perhaps already the case)

But ok, this converation is clearly off topic. Consider this to be friendly advice from an ally country.

 

[Starry]

It doesn't make any sense unless you actually consider the idea that patriarchy doesn't benefit men and then you can't have the idea of women being oppressed by men through the patriarchy.

Thanks for the response.


Yah...I don't see things as being "all black" and "all white" like you seemingly do. In any set of circumstances I think a person can benefit in some ways and not in others. I think a person can benefit in the short term but not over the long haul... To me these things are far more complex than you are considering which does make it more understandable to me why your opinions are what they are.

Anyway, all I was attempting to do was explain why men are not to blame for women's suffering. No biggie. I kinda get the sense you need to believe feminists/women are man haters anyway.

Why not it's an open discussion forum where I wish to practice my freedom of speech.

I think it's fine too. It has been interesting to me. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a strange choice though.

I'm sure they influenced it one way or another, women had the vote so at the time women were now a major factor in politics that couldn't be ignored.

Feminists are way more powerful than I had ever imagined.

Protected men how?

Affirmative Action is nothing new. It's been used all over the world for hundreds of years under it's better known name of "Employment Equity" (women did not create this system no...God I wish people would know their history prior to casting blame). JFK was especially concerned at the time with veterans being turned down for work <-and not just visibly disabled veterans either but veterans in general (although I don't remember exactly what the problem was here...why veterans were not being hired...). Black men, Jewish men... basically, the only people getting hired at the time were young White Protestant males...and it was becoming a serious problem.

Again...this was considered a way to protect men regardless of the fact the feminists are getting blamed for it today ...(good thing we're used to being scapegoated.)


But I would be interested in how you would have taken care of this problem since you see Affirmative Action/Employment Equity as a cancer. I'm asking because I'm against AA and am always interested in people's alternative solutions.

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION] - when you're on top, everyone wants a piece of you. I think Rome had a lot of enemies and detractors back on the day. I think there is a cycle and things go up and go down. US maybe has been advantaged due to a lot of natural resources, an entrepreneurial culture and the fact that it hasn't been damaged by any major wars. Also, women being equal in the workforce has added significant productivity benefits as well as compared to some other countries.

 

[jixmixfix]

Thanks for the response.


Yah...I don't see things as being "all black" and "all white" like you seemingly do. In any set of circumstances I think a person can benefit in some ways and not in others. I think a person can benefit in the short term but not over the long haul... To me these things are far more complex than you are considering which does make it more understandable to me why your opinions are what they are.

In what ways is it complex though? patriarchy theory pretty much lays it out right in front in you that men are to blame for pretty much all of the worlds problems including every single bit of women's incompetency in just about every aspect of life.

Anyway, all I was attempting to do was explain why men are not to blame for women's suffering. No biggie. I kinda get the sense you need to believe feminists/women are man haters anyway.

I seriously question whether feminists ever consider what the world would actually be like without any men. I don't think any of them thought this through.

I think it's fine too. It has been interesting to me. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a strange choice though.

It's a politics forum where am i suppose to debate then? and why can't I debate?

Feminists are way more powerful than I had ever imagined.

When it comes it structuring societal laws they are extremely powerful because women hold the majority of the voting population.

Affirmative Action is nothing new. It's been used all over the world for hundreds of years under it's better known name of "Employment Equity" (women did not create this system no...God I wish people would know their history prior to casting blame). JFK was especially concerned at the time with veterans being turned down for work <-and not just visibly disabled veterans either but veterans in general (although I don't remember exactly what the problem was here...why veterans were not being hired...). Black men, Jewish men... basically, the only people getting hired at the time were young White Protestant males...and it was becoming a serious problem.

Again...this was considered a way to protect men regardless of the fact the feminists are getting blamed for it today ...(good thing we're used to being scapegoated.)


But I would be interested in how you would have taken care of this problem since you see Affirmative Action/Employment Equity as a cancer. I'm asking because I'm against AA and am always interested in people's alternative solutions.

Simple, there is no problem. The free market decides who is right and wrong for the job. Someone with "x" amount of talent regardless of their color, sex or race would be hired if they showed enough competency because any company that decides not to do so will lose out productivity and financial growth. It's only a problem if you believe that the free market is a problem.