Toxic Feminism

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Whoops...not only did I miss this post I may have missed your point on personal motives... I'll say though that I am usually in agreement with the things you say and was aiming that at a different poster (or had a different poster's comment in mind).

I think the social is an extension of the personal, in a nutshell

- - - Updated - - -

You mean Will Ferrell.

He looks vaguely like Warren Farrell

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

He looks vaguely like Warren Farrell

Stars in this feminist masterpiece.

 

[anticlimatic]

These traditional roles you guys idealize were just as much a prison for men as they were for women.

C'mon, haven't you read any Warren Farrell?

I think most people who support what some people might call traditional roles are really just supporting a particular culture. In the west it's a kind of christian apple pie americanna, which is just as rich and nuanced as latino or middle eastern cultures, all of which have gender roles of their own. Why does a small subset of fading american culture face all the ridicule while the gender roles of other nations are celebrated for their romanticism? It's true that roles are imprisoning, but many people prefer that choice. Sometimes a prison is more inviting than a cold and confusing exile into unknown lands.

 

[jixmixfix]

I think most people who support what some people might call traditional roles are really just supporting a particular culture. In the west it's a kind of christian apple pie americanna, which is just as rich and nuanced as latino or middle eastern cultures, all of which have gender roles of their own. Why does a small subset of fading american culture face all the ridicule while the gender roles of other nations are celebrated for their romanticism? It's true that roles are imprisoning, but many people prefer that choice. Sometimes a prison is more inviting than a cold and confusing exile into unknown lands.

Gender roles arent imprisoning they helped the species survive.

 

[Mole]

Gender roles arent imprisoning they helped the species survive.

I have adopted the role of Mole to help the species survive. Mole is a one of nature's gentleman, exquisitely displaying deference to those he respects, such as the Water Rat, Badger, and even Toad; and displaying dominance towards those lacking any of the qualities of a gentleman, such as the Weasels and Stoats.

 

[jixmixfix]

I have adopted the role of Mole to help the species survive. Mole is a one of nature's gentleman, exquisitely displaying deference to those he respects, such as the Water Rat, Badger, and even Toad; and displaying dominance towards those lacking any of the qualities of a gentleman, such as the Weasels and Stoats.

you mean troll? seriously though the reason wht your socialist eutopia will never work is because people are still bound to their own nature and follow their own self interest.

 

[anticlimatic]

I've never believed in gender roles per my own independent nature; or rather I've never believed that roles shape people. I think, rather, that people shape roles. Nobody can really agree on this distinction, which is annoying. Most of the feminists I know believe that the role comes first and people conform to it. Conformity is barely possible for me, so I have only the weakest vicarious understanding of this concept- and very little sympathy for the types of people who do. Prior to the industrial revolution there were very few gender roles- even right when it started there were still very few. Men and women both piled into the factories- it was the feminist dream come true. So what happened? Women started getting hurt at a greater rate than men due to their natural disadvantage regarding spatial skills, so restrictions started getting placed on them for their protection. At the same time they realized that piling everyone into the work force all the time left no one to raise children and keep a sanitary home. Women, due to their biological advantage of having one additional orifice to protect from invasion, had a lower threshold for disgust than men and were thereby more effective at sanitizing an environment, as well as possessing two large biological feeding sacks to nurture their young. Given these natural advantages for both sexes it's no wonder work was divided the way it was.

Alternatively, there may have been a great patriarchal conspiracy revolt that sprung to life during the industrial revolution; "I know we have been effectively working side by side for most of history in cottage industries, but now that we are working in massive factories with other families I just can't be seen doing it!"

It just sounds so silly and illogical given the accrual of all the little distinctive facts, but if that's the angle you take on gender distinctions the idealized steps towards a just reckoning are going to sound just as silly unless you're also taking that angle. You can't impose social constructs or culture. People do what makes them happy; what they're good at. You don't need to worry about them outside of giving them freedom- which they have. And just because most women x and most men y, it doesn't mean it's a product of a conspiracy that needs to be rectified. If you try, all you end up doing is imposing your will against people's personal choices to the detriment of the majority for the sake of the minority. That's as toxic as it gets.

 

[jixmixfix]

I have adopted the role of Mole to help the species survive. Mole is a one of nature's gentleman, exquisitely displaying deference to those he respects, such as the Water Rat, Badger, and even Toad; and displaying dominance towards those lacking any of the qualities of a gentleman, such as the Weasels and Stoats.

This story just shows how backwards you think. Traditionally men were more chivalrous toward women. It's today men have abandoned chivalry.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

This story just shows how backwards you think. Traditionally men were more chivalrous toward women. It's today men have abandoned chivalry.

I used to think chivalry was stupid, and inferior to bushido. CS Lewis helped dispel that notion for me:

The ancients weren't as stupid as the enlightened atheists might think. They were not much different than we are.

 

[Starry]

This story just shows how backwards you think. Traditionally men were more chivalrous toward women. It's today men have abandoned chivalry.

What would your ideal relationship look like jix?

 

[jixmixfix]

What would your ideal relationship look like jix?

One where there is as little conflict as possible.

 

[Starry]

One where there is as little conflict as possible.

And you believe the traditional gender role system will provide the structure needed to make this happen? I get that (if that's what you believe). That makes sense.


^^It's not supported by science though if science is your thing. I know this because *I* myself questioned it and kinda went full board researching it. Please, please look into it because I fear you may be going down the wrong path of understanding.

Did marriages stick together in the past? Yah...because if you divorced not only were you most likely going to hell according to whatever religion you subscribed to...you were frowned upon by society...and yah...even the menfolk.

That's an entirely different concept though than "conflict". These relationships were often very violent on both sides...not just husband to wife but wives too! Wives often beat the shit out of their husbands (to say "often" may be a little strong...but it was far more common than history allows). Power struggle/power imbalance is the number one predictor of conflict and violence in a relationship.

Science has long since recognized that the more equal a partnership is...the lesser the conflict. <-Will the relationship last? Ask your God for only he knows. But it will have less conflict.

 

[jixmixfix]

And you believe the traditional gender role system will provide the structure needed to make this happen? I get that (if that's what you believe). That makes sense.

For the most part, I understand today it isn't practical for women to be stay at home moms all the time. That is mainly due to technology which has replaced many of the chores in the household.

^^It's not supported by science though if science is your thing. I know this because *I* myself questioned it and kinda went full board researching it. Please, please look into it because I fear you may be going down the wrong path of understanding.

Please show me your data and buzzfeed ins't considered science.

Did marriages stick together in the past? Yah...because if you divorced not only were you most likely going to hell according to whatever religion you subscribed to...you were frowned upon by society...and yah...even the menfolk.

It's much more than that, a women without a husband would be considered poor because she would have no one who would take after her and her children. This is why divorce was frowned upon, marriage in many ways benefited the women more than the man. Especially in the latter years of a woman's life because men tend to attracted to youth and beauty and women's youth and beauy declines over time.

That's an entirely different concept though than "conflict". These relationships were often very violent on both sides...not just husband to wife but wives too! Wives often beat the shit out of their husbands (to say "often" may be a little strong...but it was far more common than history allows). Power struggle/power imbalance is the number one predictor of conflict and violence in a relationship.

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.

Science has long since recognized that the more equal a partnership is...the lesser the conflict. <-Will the relationship last? Ask your God for only he knows. But it will have less conflict.

Actually the opposite is true the more unequal a partnership is the lesser the conflict and I've seen this first hand and experienced this. When a man and a woman follow traditional gender roles their marriages tend to last longer than say a man who becomes a stay at home dad and takes care of the children while the wife goes out and works.

 

[Mole]

you mean troll? seriously though the reason wht your socialist eutopia will never work is because people are still bound to their own nature and follow their own self interest.

It's true, when backing a horse in a race it is wise to back the horse called Self Interest because we know it is trying to win.

On the other hand, I must protest that I don't support socialism in any shape or form, rather I support liberal democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Mole]

I used to think chivalry was stupid, and inferior to bushido. CS Lewis helped dispel that notion for me:

The ancients weren't as stupid as the enlightened atheists might think. They were not much different than we are.

Rather the past is another country.

And Bushido bombed Australia, at first with a force larger than the force that bombed Pearl Harbour, then Bushido bombed Australia down the East Coast then down the West Coast, even sinking ships in Sydney Harbour, and bombing Sydney suburbs.

And chivalry comes from Feudalism where it was natural to regard women as inferior.

 

[Starry]

For the most part, I understand today it isn't practical for women to be stay at home moms all the time. That is mainly due to technology which has replaced many of the chores in the household.

Please show me your data and buzzfeed ins't considered science.

It's much more than that, a women without a husband would be considered poor because she would have no one who would take after her and her children. This is why divorce was frowned upon, marriage in many ways benefited the women more than the man. Especially in the latter years of a woman's life because men tend to attracted to youth and beauty and women's youth and beauy declines over time.


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.


Actually the opposite is true the more unequal a partnership is the lesser the conflict and I've seen this first hand and experienced this. When a man and a woman follow traditional gender roles their marriages tend to last longer than say a man who becomes a stay at home dad and takes care of the children while the wife goes out and works.

Whoops..I didn't make it clear that I didn't really need a response as I could anticipate what it would say. If what you truly want is a conflict free relationship...please look past what you notice irl as looks...especially superficial looks from the outside "in"...are extraordinarily deceiving. Please look beyond MRA articles as well because I've read some of those and holy fuck you are smarter than that jix.

buzzfeed wtf? I'm not even sure I know what that is. Here's something to begin with...

The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships

 

[jixmixfix]

It's true, when backing a horse in a race it is wise to back the horse called Self Interest because we know it is trying to win.

On the other hand, I must protest that I don't support socialism in any shape or form, rather I support liberal democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights do not exist, they are either privileges given to by the government and tax dollars or they are earned through hard work, dedication and commitment.

 

[jixmixfix]

Whoops..I didn't make it clear that I didn't really need a response as I could anticipate what it would say. If what you truly want is a conflict free relationship...please look past what you notice irl as looks...especially superficial looks from the outside "in"...are extraordinarily deceiving. Please look beyond MRA articles as well because I've read some of those and holy fuck you are smarter than that jix.

buzzfeed wtf? I'm not even sure I know what that is. Here's something to begin with...

The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships

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.

 

[Mole]

Human rights do not exist, they are either privileges given to by the government and tax dollars or they are earned through hard work, dedication and commitment.

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.

 

[jixmixfix]

The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships

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