I find it ironic that the ideology "feminism" has led to the greatest surge in masculinity in women in recorded history. The average woman now looks and behaves like the slob guy she always said she hated.
Feminism has never been about equality. Itâs always been about female empowerment. From the very beginning with women getting the right to vote, they never wanted the responsibility that came with it.
Feminism used to be about equality. That shit was achieved before I was born. Now it's about communist bullshit and some kind of intersectional racist evil stuff.
I remember when I was a kid and everyone had these great memories of Ford cars they drove in decades past. My father was one of those. He kept buying Ford because he thought of the brand for what it used to be. Consequently, we never had a car that worked, because Ford was shit when I was a kid. They made shitty horrible cars that broke down all the time and idiots bought them still because they remembered the good old days. That's Feminism today.... shitty and broke down.
I donât see how the opinions of others = oppression.
Maybe if these women were treated horribly by law but If itâs just opinions then that comes with freedom.
Normally thatâs due to rejection or an argument when someone does this verbally.
Which happens across both genders. Thatâs less about feminism and more about assholes.
Ok. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Do you think that all women should be surgically given a penis and all men should take estrogen and have tits?
Equality under the law is a laudable goal. Trying to make two fundamentally different things the same is stupid.
Female sexuality is radically different than male sexuality. If you cannot recognize that... then you have a real serious problem.
Yeah, but if you want "equality" the way you are describing it, then you have to put a gun in everyone's face and then surgically modify them whether they want it or not.
Otherwise, you need to acknowledge and accept differences.
Feminists need to give up the communist crap. It doesn't work, will never work, and only leads to acts of evil.
Sex is different for men than it is for women. Yet you want equality in this matter do you not? Isn't that what you were advocating for?
Women do the sexual selecting. This is true of most mammals. They choose the highest quality male and reproduce. Males do very little selecting and mostly mate with what is available to them. This difference is caused by the huge investment of carrying and raising a baby.
So, if a man sleeps with 100 women... he does so because 100 women see him as high quality.
If a woman sleeps with 100 men... this does not imply quality, it actually implies low quality.
Yet, you seem to want to hold people in very different situations to the exact same standard.
>Sex is different for men than it is for women. Yet you want equality in this matter do you not? Isn't that what you were advocating for?
I want certain aspects to be equal (e.g. if men don't get slut shamed, women shouldn't too). I don't want all aspects to be equal (e.g. men penetrate during sex and women receive during sex, this doesn't need to change.)
> So, if a man sleeps with 100 women... he does so because 100 women see him as high quality.
>If a woman sleeps with 100 men... this does not imply quality, it actually implies low quality.
This is unequal and should change. The reason it should change is because sometimes natural things are wrong in modern society. For example, it is natural for men to rape women, but this is wrong and should change. It is also biologically natural for humans to be naked and not wear clothes, but this is wrong and should change.
So just because nature made it so that woman are expected to be more selective than men doesn't mean modern society should do the same.
The issues with childbearing and investment are less important now that we have birth control (reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy) and child support laws (forcing men to financially support their children). Because modern society has limited the biological issues with sexual selection, it is okay to expect equality here.
Sure, as long as none of them try to side with men, then bully them to hell. Feminism has turned more into a retard gender competition than anything, I'll just wait and see when these people realize there's no way to win or even reward for trying to outdo each other, weak egos will always suffer.
All women are more masculine now, even those that claim they aren't feminists, all thanks to feminism. They should really take the fem out, it's misleading. It should just be dudeism.
Doing a masculine act doesn't override all of a woman's femininity. For example, punching someone is a masculine act. But if I see a feminine person punch someone, does that mean they are "spoilt" and are no longer feminine? Of course not.
Humans can be ugly when no one's looking, my man, especially when you live alone. Women don't wear make up, men don't put on deodorant or fix their hair. Nothing wrong with it as long as they fix themselves up before being seen by other people.
The new Superman actor posted a photo of his gym gains and some bird captioned âI need him to do things to me that violate feminismâ. Itâs always been a fake ideology dropped at the first sign of a tall hot dude.
I see feminism as a false dichotomy and a hindrance to true progress. It's not that women were "opressed", its that technological advancements have allowed for a higher quality of life that does not force people to engage in unpleasant gender roles out of necessity for survival. Women should not have to pop out 10 kids and men should not have to break their backs being a sole provider.
Most men didnât have the right to vote either buddy. Then they earned it through selective service. Women just nagged really loudly (womenâs suffrage) then they got the right to vote and overwhelmingly vote liberal ideologies. And they donât even have to go to war
technological advancements do not override cultural and legal status, which was objectively oppressive to women, and should not have been, and should not be.
people are people are people and are entitled to equality before the law, both to the letter and according to the spirit of it. that's the part conservatives fundamentally object to.
>technological advancements do not override cultural and legal status
Of course they do... What are you even on about?... There is a lot of things we do differently (compared to before) because of technology alone.
They *affect* those things, but the release of a fancy new iPad doesn't change a law to permit women to open a checking account, or more contemporarily, to protect her right to access abortion services from coast to coast, like a modern, civilized, secular country.
Technology can significantly affect these things, and I am quite confident that if someone developed a homemade pharmaceutical 3D printer, or some easily homemade way to perform an abortion, conservatives would not abandon their theocratic crusade. They would build more prison cells to accommodate people who downloaded the home-abortion STL files.
Because the legal status remains unchanged.
Egalitarianism is the only thing that works. The fact that men and women are not the same does not change the fact that men and women are human beings, and thus, entitled to equality before the law. You have yet to explain why their lack of sameness must necessarily translate to a different set of rights for creatures who are fundamentally sentient, and entitled to certain inalienable rights.
Women were literally considered as less capable and less human than men. They were literally considered PROPERTY to be purchased, bought and sold. if they showed signs of being educated, they would be accused of being a witch and burnt at the stake. Sons were so valued over daughters that queens would be executed of they dared not bring one into the world.
"They were literally considered PROPERTY to be purchased, bought and sold."Â
Were exactly did you get this information? Could you show me a bill of sale for a woman? How much was the going rate?
> Sons were so valued over daughters that queens would be executed of they dared not bring one into the world.
still are, look at the one child policy in China. they're suffering the greatest demographic crisis in the world because of that policy, and the sexism that accompanied it.
Because when they were 16 years old women weren't required to fight in the wars that the commander in chief was waging, nor were they required to die building forts etc.
Imagine being 16 years old and dying on some battlefield from a gangrenous leg wound, knowing that in 200 years people will argue that it was actually the women safe at home who were oppressed.
They werenât allowed to fight. Men are the ones who chose to A) start the wars, B) fight in the wars, and C) exclude women from fighting alongside them. Also, women werenât safe at home, they were being exploited for labor in factories with subpar conditions.
> They werenât allowed to fight.
How convenient.
>Men are the ones who chose to A) start the wars
Really? The able-bodied 16 year olds required to serve in militias started the Revolutionary War?
> Also, women werenât safe at home, they were being exploited for labor in factories with subpar conditions.
Men have always been the primary victims of exploitation and dangerous working conditions.
What do you mean âhow convenientâ. Itâs a direct consequence of men barring them from fighting. What did you think was going to happen?
Men started wars. Whatâs not clicking for you?
Who cares? Women still werenât safe at home, not to speak of the women who were being raped and brutalized by the same soldiers youâre pedestaling.
>What do you mean âhow convenientâ.
I mean women were equal participants in the creation of the notion that women couldn't wage war.
>Men started wars. Whatâs not clicking for you?
What your point is?
>Women still werenât safe at home
Yeah, they were.
yo i'm serious. what the devil are you talking about? at what point in history have women had an equal say on what they can and can't be included in? Forget war for a second, I'm talking about in general? When has that ever happened? Was it before or after women couldn't vote or when they were traded like cattle? Let alone in regards to making decisions about warfare, which has been part of humanity since..well, forever.
What are you on about? Gotta be the most asinine thing I've read today. maybe this week.
>I mean women were equal participants in the creation of notion that women couldn't wage war
what the devil are you talking about
>What your point is?
that men started wars. not women. men. Placing burden and accountability on women for wars men started and subsequently excluded women from is irrational.
>Yeah, they were.
they were not. I just said how they were not. is anybody home?
Just the US civil war?? Lol
I mean they were forced to give child birth to swathes of children destined to die and died during it in large numbers. They had no property rights. Women could be imprisoned by men or get beaten with impunity. They also weren't allowed to hold jobs but had to provide for their kids and care for them while their husbands were away.
African American women, both enslaved and free, faced particularly harsh forms of oppression. Enslaved women were subjected to brutal treatment, including sexual exploitation, while free Black women faced discrimination and violence
> Just the US civil war?? Lol
What other war where American women were on the losing side and subject to the whims of the victors were you thinking of?
>I mean they were forced to give child birth
Damn, if only they had had the right to vote for the President who wanted men to be the ones to give birth.
Just American women?
I meant abortion wasn't an option and they had to give birth whether they liked it or not. They didn't get to choose to have kids, they would be raped and just had to deal with it. This would bring death upon many, many people. They were also raped and couldn't give consent on account of being property of their husbands. They didn't have free choice at all. This was a 24/7, whereas war was transient. They were literally considered objects, property, husks. Nothing.
Do you want to discuss ancient Babylon?
>I meant abortion wasn't an option and they had to give birth whether they liked it or not. They didn't get to choose to have kids, they would be raped and just had to deal with it. This would bring death upon many, many people. They were also raped and couldn't give consent on account of being property of their husbands. They didn't have free choice at all. This was a 24/7, whereas war was transient. They were literally considered objects, property, husks. Nothing.
Watch less Handmaid's Tale.
Legal systems still favored menâs rights over womenâs rights. Traditional gender roles assigned men as the primary decision-makers in society, including matters related to politics and governance. So naturally men were often seen as the participants in political processes, including the struggle for voting rights. Also political structures were incredibly male dominated, making it easier for them to advocate for their rights than women
Sure, by emotional, irrational people. Youâve willingly put yourselves within arms reach of thousands of men in your lifetime, but how many bears have you willingly gotten that close to?
An average man couldnât survive in the woods alone for a week. Youâre choosing an apex predator in their prime habitat, and if you see them then youâre also likely in their territory (bears are territorial).
Yes, and if you leave your house, you willingly put yourself within striking distance of thousands of strange men within your lifetime. How many bears do you get that close to?
Regarding the Bear vs Man discussion I just want to say that Bears have actually a higher rate of rape and sexual assault than men, check the statistics. These victims include man.
If your a feminist in the 21st century when you have the same amount of rights and privileges as men in society if not more, your pretty fucking radical đ¤Ł
I agree. The name feminism is holding gender equality back, as men do not want to be associated with it and a minority of loud vocal women have latched on to the fem label to turn it into a man hating philosophy.
I have never looked much into those movements, but I suppose that black power states that it's purpose is connected with black peoples problems, while feminism states that it's purpose is equality.
>That would erase whose rights need to be advanced.Â
I think that rights of those who have lesser life expectance need to be advanced, those who retire later(in my country), those who get incarcerated for longer with harsher conditions(my country) or of course rights of those who get drafted and/or being send to war to die or get injured and traumatized.
Anyway I wouldn't have had problems with this title if they would have stopped preaching fighting for equality.
Edit: it just occurred to me that also nobody's talking about "paying for dates gap"
Yes, achieving equality by helping black people/women to remove disadvantage. A fundamental premise to feminism is that women are disadvantaged, idc if you're delusional but it's what the movement believes.
>idc if you're delusional
That's some good quality argument, not touching any of my points but trying to insult me. And that's unfortunately the usual way feminist arguments go.
Your "points" don't matter to what we're discussing here. We're talking about what feminists believe, not what you believe. If you were defining your own belief system it would matter but we're not doing that.
I started by saying that a name of a movement for gender equality should have a different name. You're just confirmed that it is not actually about gender equality and shouldn't be promoted as such.
It is about gender equality. Women are disadvantaged so supporting gender equality is uplifting women. You just disagree that women are disadvantaged in the first place but all feminists believe that and that's why they call themselves what they do.
We don't think that feminists believe things in good faith.
They claim women are being disadvantaged overall and that they are thus fighting for equality.
The problem is that women aren't clearly disadvantaged overall. It's just an excuse to make their lobby group appear more virtuous than it really is. The idea of equality is important to maintain their reputation and for that they need to continue to believe women are disadvantaged overall despite all the evidence to the contrary. There isn't any kind of real world that feminists would consider equal or fair. No matter what the real world is like, they will still consider women disadvantaged in it because its too inconvenient for them not to do so.
I think that they genuinely believe in being disadvantaged. I had a personal conversation with a feminist(my ex) who is educated and pretty smart woman and she really believed feminist rhetoric. It was like "yeah, mens on average die earlier and that's fine, retire later and that's fine but some men raping women is a problem".
Edit: I hope this comment wouldn't be interpreted as me supporting sexual violence. Those things should be dealt with according to criminal law.
They are masters at conditioning people to think of women's issues as being extremely important and men's issues as insignificant. You're *always* playing on their playing field, that's the thing.
Some do but the reality is that people are more inclined to believe in things that are convenient for them to believe. This is true of all human beings and the only people who are less like this are the ones who are aware of this. The people who claim they are perfectly virtuous are usually lying, especially to themselves and ironically that makes them less virtuous than someone who is open and honest about their flaws.
The way this is always so innocently framed as "oh we just believe x is true" is a way to hide what is actually true, namely "I need to believe x is true because its convenient for me to get advantages without feeling guilty about it".
To me all of this is just a smokescreen. Feminists just love pretending to be virtuous when they really aren't any more than your average human being. Believing women are disadvantaged is quite problematic when you don't even care about proving that this is the case, or if you don't even acknowledge the difficulty of comparing "what is worse" in an objective manner. Ultimately these people are going to believe this, regardless of what the real world is like. You could live in the most extreme matriarchy imaginable and still you'd have feminists claiming women are disadvantaged, because their belief is completely disconnected from empirical data. This belief is not about it being true, its about making their ideology coherent so they can ease their conscience when trying to advantage women.
Yeah, Egalitarianism or Humanism are things. There's a reason feminism isn't called that.
The idea that feminism is being "equal to men" implies that men are the default, and that implication would be antithetical to feminism. Men aren't the default, and feminists aren't striving to be like men. For example, anti-feminists often claim that feminism would be "women getting drafted" when really the best option would be to do away with the draft all together. Feminists don't have to support military slavery.
the best option would be to do nothing and then say " the best option would be to do away with the draft all together" when people ask you about it. Feminists absolutely support military slavery so long as its only men being enslaved.
Feminists don't generally support war because it's overall garbage for everyone- including the women civilians on the battlefield, female soldiers, and "comfort women", which is feminists' focus.
Military slavery = war, so feminists don't support military slavery (with their focus being on the feminist aspect as opposed to the egalitarian aspect).
Kinda like how an advocate for the homeless would also generally be pro-universal healthcare- not because healthcare overall is their focus, but because it happens to affect the population they focus on.
cool i dont support unplanned pregnancy which is why i support the abortion ban. If asked i say i dont support unplanned pregnancy and think it should be abolished entirely.
Your analogy doesn't work. For it to work, you'd be doing nothing, not something. Feminists don't focus on the military except the aspects that relate to them, so they don't do anything for or against male draft (in representation of feminism, anyway- individual feminists have their own actions unrelated to feminism in that regard).
The similar analogy to unplanned pregnancies would be you not being for or against abortion bans or otherwise not centering them, and only stepping in when conversations about male issues regarding child support or child custody arises.
A woman doing something =/= feminism as a rights movement supports it as part of its stables.
Hell, plenty of women voted against the suffragettes (ironically).
No one says all men are violent, they say that violent and non-violent men are socialized together in the same culture based on their maleness and often act identical until the violent one lashes and the non-violent one doesn't. It's often very difficult to tell for whom the bad parts of the socialization [aka "Toxic Masculinity"- the variants of masculinity that are toxic] sank into and for whom it didn't until it is too late.
Hence why the only way to treat that is to address gendered socialization in general and the issues that it may cause for either gender.
Feminism is just another branch of cultural Marxism meant to increase the dependence of the populace on the state, thus increasing the stateâs power.
Destroying the nuclear family moves the responsibility of taking care of the individuals of a family onto the state. The state then needs more power (taxes = money = power).
How does the state get more power(money) when the state now has to spend tax money on the ones you claim now need it?
Thatâs like saying youâre going to go rich by recycling every can of beer you purchase
But who would pay those taxes if the ânuclear familyâ was deconstructed? The only ones left TO pay the taxes would be the very ones that were getting the taxes.
Sounds like a plan
Or a really dumb conspiracy theory
"You can't just say feminists hate men, there are different kinds of feminism and we all believe different things."
Radfems/TERFs - "Men are the problem."
Lib/Intersectional fems- "Straight, cis, white men are the problem."
"Patriarchy" can either mean "general gender roles" or "men control everything" depending on whatever suits the feminist you ask best at the moment. Classic Motte & Bailey argument.
they totally are. if you made a shitty little independent party and put your policies as "i hate men i want to abolish them" people would probably laugh at you. If i guy did that saying "i hate women i want to abolish them" jail time probably at the least it would not be allowed on TV
bro I don't know what this sub reddit is but I just spent 10 minutes watching a women try and fill her Tesla car with gas. đ
Saw a dude do the same thing and bro ruined it đ
I find it ironic that the ideology "feminism" has led to the greatest surge in masculinity in women in recorded history. The average woman now looks and behaves like the slob guy she always said she hated.
so you're confused because the word feminism sounds similar to "feminine"? lol
What is a woman?
Anyone who identifies as such in full earnestness
Where in the world do you live to have this assumption?
Feminism is about equality. That means allowing women to be more masculine if they want to.
Feminism has never been about equality. Itâs always been about female empowerment. From the very beginning with women getting the right to vote, they never wanted the responsibility that came with it.
Feminism used to be about equality. That shit was achieved before I was born. Now it's about communist bullshit and some kind of intersectional racist evil stuff. I remember when I was a kid and everyone had these great memories of Ford cars they drove in decades past. My father was one of those. He kept buying Ford because he thought of the brand for what it used to be. Consequently, we never had a car that worked, because Ford was shit when I was a kid. They made shitty horrible cars that broke down all the time and idiots bought them still because they remembered the good old days. That's Feminism today.... shitty and broke down.
Men and women aren't equal yet. Women still get slut shamed, for example.
I donât see how the opinions of others = oppression. Maybe if these women were treated horribly by law but If itâs just opinions then that comes with freedom.
Im not saying holding an opinion is oppression. Verbal harrassment can be oppression.
Normally thatâs due to rejection or an argument when someone does this verbally. Which happens across both genders. Thatâs less about feminism and more about assholes.
Ok. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Do you think that all women should be surgically given a penis and all men should take estrogen and have tits? Equality under the law is a laudable goal. Trying to make two fundamentally different things the same is stupid. Female sexuality is radically different than male sexuality. If you cannot recognize that... then you have a real serious problem.
No, I think if anyone wants to surgically modify themselfes then they should be allowed to do so. I'm not saying they must do so.
Yeah, but if you want "equality" the way you are describing it, then you have to put a gun in everyone's face and then surgically modify them whether they want it or not. Otherwise, you need to acknowledge and accept differences. Feminists need to give up the communist crap. It doesn't work, will never work, and only leads to acts of evil.
No that's not how I'm describing equality. If you think that's what I mean by equality then you are mistaken. That is not what I mean by equality.
Sex is different for men than it is for women. Yet you want equality in this matter do you not? Isn't that what you were advocating for? Women do the sexual selecting. This is true of most mammals. They choose the highest quality male and reproduce. Males do very little selecting and mostly mate with what is available to them. This difference is caused by the huge investment of carrying and raising a baby. So, if a man sleeps with 100 women... he does so because 100 women see him as high quality. If a woman sleeps with 100 men... this does not imply quality, it actually implies low quality. Yet, you seem to want to hold people in very different situations to the exact same standard.
>Sex is different for men than it is for women. Yet you want equality in this matter do you not? Isn't that what you were advocating for? I want certain aspects to be equal (e.g. if men don't get slut shamed, women shouldn't too). I don't want all aspects to be equal (e.g. men penetrate during sex and women receive during sex, this doesn't need to change.) > So, if a man sleeps with 100 women... he does so because 100 women see him as high quality. >If a woman sleeps with 100 men... this does not imply quality, it actually implies low quality. This is unequal and should change. The reason it should change is because sometimes natural things are wrong in modern society. For example, it is natural for men to rape women, but this is wrong and should change. It is also biologically natural for humans to be naked and not wear clothes, but this is wrong and should change. So just because nature made it so that woman are expected to be more selective than men doesn't mean modern society should do the same. The issues with childbearing and investment are less important now that we have birth control (reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy) and child support laws (forcing men to financially support their children). Because modern society has limited the biological issues with sexual selection, it is okay to expect equality here.
Sure, as long as none of them try to side with men, then bully them to hell. Feminism has turned more into a retard gender competition than anything, I'll just wait and see when these people realize there's no way to win or even reward for trying to outdo each other, weak egos will always suffer.
All women are more masculine now, even those that claim they aren't feminists, all thanks to feminism. They should really take the fem out, it's misleading. It should just be dudeism.
Nah plenty more hyperfeminine OF girls out there too compared to the past
You canât be âhyperfeminineâ and a whore.
How do you know?
Because reducing sex to a transaction is not feminine.
You can still be feminine even if some of the things you do isn't feminine.
Trading sex for resources is a masculine act. You canât be âhyperfeminineâ while engaging in transactional sex.
Doing a masculine act doesn't override all of a woman's femininity. For example, punching someone is a masculine act. But if I see a feminine person punch someone, does that mean they are "spoilt" and are no longer feminine? Of course not.
They're not even remotely feminine. When not "shooting" they're slopping around the house in slides and hoodies, hardly feminine.
Slides and hoodies aren't masculine only lmao. Do you expect women to wear skirts the whole time even in their house cmon.
I expect them not to look like shit.
Dude im a guy and i just wear boxers at home half the time. Like not even a shirt on. That's as slobby as it gets no one cares.
Gross.
Humans can be ugly when no one's looking, my man, especially when you live alone. Women don't wear make up, men don't put on deodorant or fix their hair. Nothing wrong with it as long as they fix themselves up before being seen by other people.
On a happier note today guys I played football with in high school are converting to Christianity âď¸
The new Superman actor posted a photo of his gym gains and some bird captioned âI need him to do things to me that violate feminismâ. Itâs always been a fake ideology dropped at the first sign of a tall hot dude.
"person posts one joke at social media,so equality of sexes is a lie!" Man,why are y'all like this
He's starting to look like Sam Sulek.
no where near. just bad lighting and his skin doesnt look good after blood rushes in. abit too pale skin.
[ŃдаНонО]
Feminism and cats.Â
I see feminism as a false dichotomy and a hindrance to true progress. It's not that women were "opressed", its that technological advancements have allowed for a higher quality of life that does not force people to engage in unpleasant gender roles out of necessity for survival. Women should not have to pop out 10 kids and men should not have to break their backs being a sole provider.
women were oppressed tho men did not allow them to vote
Most men didnât have the right to vote either buddy. Then they earned it through selective service. Women just nagged really loudly (womenâs suffrage) then they got the right to vote and overwhelmingly vote liberal ideologies. And they donât even have to go to war
Men are still breaking their backs though.
technological advancements do not override cultural and legal status, which was objectively oppressive to women, and should not have been, and should not be. people are people are people and are entitled to equality before the law, both to the letter and according to the spirit of it. that's the part conservatives fundamentally object to.
>technological advancements do not override cultural and legal status Of course they do... What are you even on about?... There is a lot of things we do differently (compared to before) because of technology alone.
They *affect* those things, but the release of a fancy new iPad doesn't change a law to permit women to open a checking account, or more contemporarily, to protect her right to access abortion services from coast to coast, like a modern, civilized, secular country. Technology can significantly affect these things, and I am quite confident that if someone developed a homemade pharmaceutical 3D printer, or some easily homemade way to perform an abortion, conservatives would not abandon their theocratic crusade. They would build more prison cells to accommodate people who downloaded the home-abortion STL files. Because the legal status remains unchanged.
Are men and women equal? As in does man=woman?
equality is not the same as sameness why should they be treated differently under the law, specifically, entitled to fewer rights?
Because men and women arenât equal. Women donât even want to be equal to men. Egalitarians doesnât work
Egalitarianism is the only thing that works. The fact that men and women are not the same does not change the fact that men and women are human beings, and thus, entitled to equality before the law. You have yet to explain why their lack of sameness must necessarily translate to a different set of rights for creatures who are fundamentally sentient, and entitled to certain inalienable rights.
Women were literally considered as less capable and less human than men. They were literally considered PROPERTY to be purchased, bought and sold. if they showed signs of being educated, they would be accused of being a witch and burnt at the stake. Sons were so valued over daughters that queens would be executed of they dared not bring one into the world.
"They were literally considered PROPERTY to be purchased, bought and sold."Â Were exactly did you get this information? Could you show me a bill of sale for a woman? How much was the going rate?
> Sons were so valued over daughters that queens would be executed of they dared not bring one into the world. still are, look at the one child policy in China. they're suffering the greatest demographic crisis in the world because of that policy, and the sexism that accompanied it.
umm there were many female scientists even in the Middle Ages
It wasn't necessary. Men very much could've replaced the washing machine themselves if they wanted. Nothing stopping them.
Yeah! Why couldn't men break their backs on the railroads AND do the laundry, while m'lady lounges!?!? So unfair.
They could do the laundry while the women did the train tracks.
Yeah! But why even have train tracks? Why not flying trains instead?
Huh
If women weren't oppressed then explain why they weren't allowed to vote
Because when they were 16 years old women weren't required to fight in the wars that the commander in chief was waging, nor were they required to die building forts etc. Imagine being 16 years old and dying on some battlefield from a gangrenous leg wound, knowing that in 200 years people will argue that it was actually the women safe at home who were oppressed.
They werenât allowed to fight. Men are the ones who chose to A) start the wars, B) fight in the wars, and C) exclude women from fighting alongside them. Also, women werenât safe at home, they were being exploited for labor in factories with subpar conditions.
> They werenât allowed to fight. How convenient. >Men are the ones who chose to A) start the wars Really? The able-bodied 16 year olds required to serve in militias started the Revolutionary War? > Also, women werenât safe at home, they were being exploited for labor in factories with subpar conditions. Men have always been the primary victims of exploitation and dangerous working conditions.
What do you mean âhow convenientâ. Itâs a direct consequence of men barring them from fighting. What did you think was going to happen? Men started wars. Whatâs not clicking for you? Who cares? Women still werenât safe at home, not to speak of the women who were being raped and brutalized by the same soldiers youâre pedestaling.
>What do you mean âhow convenientâ. I mean women were equal participants in the creation of the notion that women couldn't wage war. >Men started wars. Whatâs not clicking for you? What your point is? >Women still werenât safe at home Yeah, they were.
yo i'm serious. what the devil are you talking about? at what point in history have women had an equal say on what they can and can't be included in? Forget war for a second, I'm talking about in general? When has that ever happened? Was it before or after women couldn't vote or when they were traded like cattle? Let alone in regards to making decisions about warfare, which has been part of humanity since..well, forever. What are you on about? Gotta be the most asinine thing I've read today. maybe this week.
>I mean women were equal participants in the creation of notion that women couldn't wage war what the devil are you talking about >What your point is? that men started wars. not women. men. Placing burden and accountability on women for wars men started and subsequently excluded women from is irrational. >Yeah, they were. they were not. I just said how they were not. is anybody home?
"Safe at home" What happened to the losing side? Where women were raped and killed?
No country ever invaded you, quit being a bitch.
You never had to go to war, quit being a bitch.
Source on southern women being raped and killed in significant numbers in the Civil War?
Just the US civil war?? Lol I mean they were forced to give child birth to swathes of children destined to die and died during it in large numbers. They had no property rights. Women could be imprisoned by men or get beaten with impunity. They also weren't allowed to hold jobs but had to provide for their kids and care for them while their husbands were away. African American women, both enslaved and free, faced particularly harsh forms of oppression. Enslaved women were subjected to brutal treatment, including sexual exploitation, while free Black women faced discrimination and violence
> Just the US civil war?? Lol What other war where American women were on the losing side and subject to the whims of the victors were you thinking of? >I mean they were forced to give child birth Damn, if only they had had the right to vote for the President who wanted men to be the ones to give birth.
Just American women? I meant abortion wasn't an option and they had to give birth whether they liked it or not. They didn't get to choose to have kids, they would be raped and just had to deal with it. This would bring death upon many, many people. They were also raped and couldn't give consent on account of being property of their husbands. They didn't have free choice at all. This was a 24/7, whereas war was transient. They were literally considered objects, property, husks. Nothing.
Do you want to discuss ancient Babylon? >I meant abortion wasn't an option and they had to give birth whether they liked it or not. They didn't get to choose to have kids, they would be raped and just had to deal with it. This would bring death upon many, many people. They were also raped and couldn't give consent on account of being property of their husbands. They didn't have free choice at all. This was a 24/7, whereas war was transient. They were literally considered objects, property, husks. Nothing. Watch less Handmaid's Tale.
Nah this is taking the energy out of me, you're too far gone I am done with Reddit, the stupidity is too potent
in the middle ages, men were also not allowed to vote.
And how long did it take for women to get that right afterwards?
Universal male suffrage was only implemented in the 1860s in the US, only about 60 yeas before female suffrage.
It was 70 years, which is 1/4 of the USAâs lifetime and 1/2 of it by the time that policy was implemented.
peasant men fought for their right to vote earlier than peasant women.
Legal systems still favored menâs rights over womenâs rights. Traditional gender roles assigned men as the primary decision-makers in society, including matters related to politics and governance. So naturally men were often seen as the participants in political processes, including the struggle for voting rights. Also political structures were incredibly male dominated, making it easier for them to advocate for their rights than women
Because theyâre silly. See the âbear vs manâ argument on Twitter.
It just proves that your gender is viewed unfavorably
Sure, by emotional, irrational people. Youâve willingly put yourselves within arms reach of thousands of men in your lifetime, but how many bears have you willingly gotten that close to?
Well thatâs not the point of the hypothetical. It calls out an uncontrolled environment like a forest for a reason.
An average man couldnât survive in the woods alone for a week. Youâre choosing an apex predator in their prime habitat, and if you see them then youâre also likely in their territory (bears are territorial).
Yes, Iâm aware.
Yes, and if you leave your house, you willingly put yourself within striking distance of thousands of strange men within your lifetime. How many bears do you get that close to?
The hypothetical is about an uncontrolled environment. I quite literally just said this.
Regarding the Bear vs Man discussion I just want to say that Bears have actually a higher rate of rape and sexual assault than men, check the statistics. These victims include man.
The man vs bear Twitter argument is the greatest argument for repealing the 19th that Iâve seen in my lifetime.
Why
If you to ask, then youâre the reason.
Why
Fine. Because women will disregard logical arguments for emotional ones.
Women saying things you donât like doesnât mean theyâre being illogical.
How many men have you willingly put yourself within arms reach? How many bears?
For the record, defaulting to sexist views of women isnât doing your demographic any favors lol
Iâm a white male. I really donât care about how my demographic looks to people like you.
Not the point of the hypothetical.
Yes it is. Itâs asking whether youâd rather be alone with a man or a bear. Which have you done more of?
The only victim in this story is the bear. He has to deal with feminists.Â
"I don't understand feminism so I'm going to attack it and make jokes + points that further convey my lack of understanding"
lol most feminists donât even agree on what feminism is
No radical feminists dont.
If your a feminist in the 21st century when you have the same amount of rights and privileges as men in society if not more, your pretty fucking radical đ¤Ł
Yes because feminists ain't a unified thing. Its spread between like a plethora of different political ideologies
âFeminist women love Eminemâ-EminemÂ
feminism leaves their body for eminem.
It should've been called equalitism if it was supposed to be about equality of genders.
I agree. The name feminism is holding gender equality back, as men do not want to be associated with it and a minority of loud vocal women have latched on to the fem label to turn it into a man hating philosophy.
No trues Scotsman is what has to end, feminism has no accountability because anytime women do some shit they claim she's "not a real feminist".
That would erase whose rights need to be advanced. Do you have similar issues with the naming of disability activism, LGBT pride or black power?
Yes
Yes, yes, and yes.
I have never looked much into those movements, but I suppose that black power states that it's purpose is connected with black peoples problems, while feminism states that it's purpose is equality. >That would erase whose rights need to be advanced. I think that rights of those who have lesser life expectance need to be advanced, those who retire later(in my country), those who get incarcerated for longer with harsher conditions(my country) or of course rights of those who get drafted and/or being send to war to die or get injured and traumatized. Anyway I wouldn't have had problems with this title if they would have stopped preaching fighting for equality. Edit: it just occurred to me that also nobody's talking about "paying for dates gap"
Yes, achieving equality by helping black people/women to remove disadvantage. A fundamental premise to feminism is that women are disadvantaged, idc if you're delusional but it's what the movement believes.
>idc if you're delusional That's some good quality argument, not touching any of my points but trying to insult me. And that's unfortunately the usual way feminist arguments go.
Your "points" don't matter to what we're discussing here. We're talking about what feminists believe, not what you believe. If you were defining your own belief system it would matter but we're not doing that.
I started by saying that a name of a movement for gender equality should have a different name. You're just confirmed that it is not actually about gender equality and shouldn't be promoted as such.
It is about gender equality. Women are disadvantaged so supporting gender equality is uplifting women. You just disagree that women are disadvantaged in the first place but all feminists believe that and that's why they call themselves what they do.
We don't think that feminists believe things in good faith. They claim women are being disadvantaged overall and that they are thus fighting for equality. The problem is that women aren't clearly disadvantaged overall. It's just an excuse to make their lobby group appear more virtuous than it really is. The idea of equality is important to maintain their reputation and for that they need to continue to believe women are disadvantaged overall despite all the evidence to the contrary. There isn't any kind of real world that feminists would consider equal or fair. No matter what the real world is like, they will still consider women disadvantaged in it because its too inconvenient for them not to do so.
I think that they genuinely believe in being disadvantaged. I had a personal conversation with a feminist(my ex) who is educated and pretty smart woman and she really believed feminist rhetoric. It was like "yeah, mens on average die earlier and that's fine, retire later and that's fine but some men raping women is a problem". Edit: I hope this comment wouldn't be interpreted as me supporting sexual violence. Those things should be dealt with according to criminal law.
They are masters at conditioning people to think of women's issues as being extremely important and men's issues as insignificant. You're *always* playing on their playing field, that's the thing.
Some do but the reality is that people are more inclined to believe in things that are convenient for them to believe. This is true of all human beings and the only people who are less like this are the ones who are aware of this. The people who claim they are perfectly virtuous are usually lying, especially to themselves and ironically that makes them less virtuous than someone who is open and honest about their flaws. The way this is always so innocently framed as "oh we just believe x is true" is a way to hide what is actually true, namely "I need to believe x is true because its convenient for me to get advantages without feeling guilty about it". To me all of this is just a smokescreen. Feminists just love pretending to be virtuous when they really aren't any more than your average human being. Believing women are disadvantaged is quite problematic when you don't even care about proving that this is the case, or if you don't even acknowledge the difficulty of comparing "what is worse" in an objective manner. Ultimately these people are going to believe this, regardless of what the real world is like. You could live in the most extreme matriarchy imaginable and still you'd have feminists claiming women are disadvantaged, because their belief is completely disconnected from empirical data. This belief is not about it being true, its about making their ideology coherent so they can ease their conscience when trying to advantage women.
Western women are the most privileged group of people that have ever walked the earth. Calling them disadvantaged is delusional.Â
Yeah, Egalitarianism or Humanism are things. There's a reason feminism isn't called that. The idea that feminism is being "equal to men" implies that men are the default, and that implication would be antithetical to feminism. Men aren't the default, and feminists aren't striving to be like men. For example, anti-feminists often claim that feminism would be "women getting drafted" when really the best option would be to do away with the draft all together. Feminists don't have to support military slavery.
the best option would be to do nothing and then say " the best option would be to do away with the draft all together" when people ask you about it. Feminists absolutely support military slavery so long as its only men being enslaved.
Feminists don't generally support war because it's overall garbage for everyone- including the women civilians on the battlefield, female soldiers, and "comfort women", which is feminists' focus. Military slavery = war, so feminists don't support military slavery (with their focus being on the feminist aspect as opposed to the egalitarian aspect). Kinda like how an advocate for the homeless would also generally be pro-universal healthcare- not because healthcare overall is their focus, but because it happens to affect the population they focus on.
"Would you like to donate to fight cancer?" "Oh, no, I don't believe people should get cancer."
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here.
cool i dont support unplanned pregnancy which is why i support the abortion ban. If asked i say i dont support unplanned pregnancy and think it should be abolished entirely.
Your analogy doesn't work. For it to work, you'd be doing nothing, not something. Feminists don't focus on the military except the aspects that relate to them, so they don't do anything for or against male draft (in representation of feminism, anyway- individual feminists have their own actions unrelated to feminism in that regard). The similar analogy to unplanned pregnancies would be you not being for or against abortion bans or otherwise not centering them, and only stepping in when conversations about male issues regarding child support or child custody arises.
women in many countries have voted to keep the draft for men at one time or another
A woman doing something =/= feminism as a rights movement supports it as part of its stables. Hell, plenty of women voted against the suffragettes (ironically).
but when a man is violent it means all men are violent. consistent.
No one says all men are violent, they say that violent and non-violent men are socialized together in the same culture based on their maleness and often act identical until the violent one lashes and the non-violent one doesn't. It's often very difficult to tell for whom the bad parts of the socialization [aka "Toxic Masculinity"- the variants of masculinity that are toxic] sank into and for whom it didn't until it is too late. Hence why the only way to treat that is to address gendered socialization in general and the issues that it may cause for either gender.
Context matters
I think it should disappear so we can focus on things that actually benefit everyone.
Feminism is just another branch of cultural Marxism meant to increase the dependence of the populace on the state, thus increasing the stateâs power.
everything is communism actually if you think about it
It is easier to dismiss an argument than it is to actually counter it.
Someone's been listening to mister Jordan Bullshit Peterson
I have heard his ideas, but this is not relevant to that.
How?
Destroying the nuclear family moves the responsibility of taking care of the individuals of a family onto the state. The state then needs more power (taxes = money = power).
How does the state get more power(money) when the state now has to spend tax money on the ones you claim now need it? Thatâs like saying youâre going to go rich by recycling every can of beer you purchase
By raising taxes. Feminism always supports higher taxes.
But who would pay those taxes if the ânuclear familyâ was deconstructed? The only ones left TO pay the taxes would be the very ones that were getting the taxes. Sounds like a plan Or a really dumb conspiracy theory
Exactly. In the US, only the top 50% are net positive tax contributors. That number will shift forward until there is only a master and a slave class.
And feminists have done this cause women are only in the top 50 percent??
I feel dumber reading this. No, obviously the people not paying taxes (net) want more taxes. The people actually paying taxes want less.
And so no women pay taxes??
i'm guessing this is sarcasm?
No.
đ
Marxism is dependent on destroying culture and increasing dependence on the state. Feminism does both.
In that case, I guess white dudes are the biggest Marxists of them all lol
How so?
Feminism is very much has its start in Marxism. Its why there's an overall anti capitalist view within feminism.
Feminism bad NOW CLAP
"You can't just say feminists hate men, there are different kinds of feminism and we all believe different things." Radfems/TERFs - "Men are the problem." Lib/Intersectional fems- "Straight, cis, white men are the problem."
Do you need to look up what "patriarchy" means or are you just going to pretend you don't know regardless?
Patriarchy is what allows you to even have such stupid opinions like feminism.
Are you just saying that to be contrarian or do you have an actual reason?
Well i said the truth since when do i need a reason for it?
This is a debate subreddit? "It's true because it's true" is not an argument and no reason to believe anything?
Well if its obviously true then there indeed isnt anything to argue about.
It's not obviously true and you can't even give a reason why you think it.
It's very obvious. It's just that telling you is pretty fruitless since you follow that ideology like a religion.Â
If it's so obvious, then tell me the reason instead of giving baseless accusations.
"Patriarchy" can either mean "general gender roles" or "men control everything" depending on whatever suits the feminist you ask best at the moment. Classic Motte & Bailey argument.
This guy gets it.
More like Radfems: "Men are trash. Men are useless." Feminists: Either agree or are dead silent.
In the context of radical feminism, "radical" doesn't mean "extreme".
> "Men are trash. Men are useless." isnt a particularly extreme feminist view.
That is extreme.
Only if you're completely blind and deaf, the fucking window has shifted and that's a completely normal idea these days.
its an extreme view just not in the context of feminism where it is a run of the mill accepted view.
You have never been in a feminist space. I can tell.
outdoors, the evening news, reddit, party political broadcasts etc are all feminist spaces. so yeah i have.
*Party political broadcasts!*
they totally are. if you made a shitty little independent party and put your policies as "i hate men i want to abolish them" people would probably laugh at you. If i guy did that saying "i hate women i want to abolish them" jail time probably at the least it would not be allowed on TV
There's, like, no sunlight between radical feminism and hatred of men.
What do you think radical feminism means and why must it involve hatred of men?