dasein Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Men being harmed by feminism is a lie ORly? How's the marriage rate doing, the divorce rate, the single parent household rate, the incarceration rate? Isn't it a funny coincidence that the beginning of all these social problems intersects with the rise of feminism? I suppose that's just coincidence. Men's social condition is over and above due to the choices of their fellow men. The worst choice men have made in the last 60 years was accepting feminism at face value. Who drafts them into war, who sends their jobs overseas, who raises our taxes, who obliges them to work in substandard conditions... and on and on. Add one more lie to the mix, That the genders are polarized and conveniently separated for blaming and shaming purposes, yet somehow all one for good things achieved in the world, is a lie. Real women don't lie. Sorry. We can't all be your mommies and make life nice and warm for you. Many women do try though. Perhaps we are being ingrateful for your invention of electric light, birth control, refrigeration, roads, fire, the wheel, the alphabet, antibiotics, railroads... Oh but wait, I think I can see what's next, for purposes of BLAME, your penis makes you part of the club, but for purposes of CREDIT, just because you have a penis doesn't make you special. I think I see how that works now. In short, ALL blame, NO credit. I see. Just another lie.
Metis Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Great point: "You can have it all" is a lie. Of course it is. You just conveniently forgot to mention how it's a lie with respect to both genders. Men are frequently told they can have it all, and it's a lie too. ORly? How's the marriage rate doing, the divorce rate, the single parent household rate, the incarceration rate? Isn't it a funny coincidence that the beginning of all these social problems intersects with the rise of feminism? I suppose that's just coincidence.First of all, a correlation does not imply causation. Second, the divorce rate peaked in the late 1970's and has been declining ever since. Historically, divorce and marriage rates fluctuate, and it's more a function of population trends than social trends. Thus, the glut of divorces in the 1970's is a follow-up to the explosion of marriages in the 1940's and 1950's. What is curious, however, is that while older women have lower marriage rates, they also have lower divorce rates; and college-educated women have lower divorce rates than less educated women. So it seems to me, the traditional method of upbringing is not particularly conducive to building healthy, lasting marriages. The single parent household rate has declined since the legalization of abortion and the pill -- feminist issues, by the way. Besides, if you claim that in the good old days, all men worked outrageously dangerous jobs with no safety precautions and fought in wars all the time, while women sat on their asses and popped bon-bons, single-parent household rates must have been through the roof. But it wasn't a problem then, somehow? The rise in the incarceration rate: attributable predominantly to the War on Drugs, as well as "tough on crime" laws, passed predominantly (though not exclusively) in traditionally conservative, Bible-Belt states, where feminism has the least influence over policy. Even if you legalize rape and domestic violence, that would not significantly alter incarceration rates. While I would agree that the rate of incarceration in this country is a legitimate men's issue (together with prison conditions), it is hardly the fault of feminism. Perhaps we are being ingrateful for your invention of electric light, birth control, refrigeration, roads, fire, the wheel, the alphabet, antibiotics, railroads... Oh but wait, I think I can see what's next, for purposes of BLAME, your penis makes you part of the club, but for purposes of CREDIT, just because you have a penis doesn't make you special. I think I see how that works now. In short, ALL blame, NO credit. I see. Just another lie. Today 11:29 AMIsn't that the way you regard women? Assign blame on the basis of gender, yet refuse to assign credit that way? Hey, if you are so superior to us, why don't you set an example and clean up your act first? (Or was that "shaming language"?)
xxoo Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Not picking on you specifically, but no one, male or female had any "careers" in history. Work was not some daily place to go, but a matter of do it or starve nearly instantly. Men weren't going off to fulfilling enriching jobs with interesting people, but to dangerous places where they could be killed at any moment. Most men, in addition to whatever they did to earn money, had a second involuntary job of going out on a battlefield and risking being hacked or gored to death. The kitchen and home were the best places to be in a nasty world (but still sucked admittedly LOL), and men willingly gave that position of safety to women. This is a small part of the "lie of male oppression" also. Don't go back that far, then. Look at modern history, post industrial revolution. The "lie of male oppression"???? I don't even know where to start with that one Male oppression is alive and well in many parts of the world.
Metis Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Don't go back that far, then. Look at modern history, post industrial revolution. I know, it seems conveniently forgotten that women and children entered the work force in record numbers in the wake of the industrial revolution. Women staying "in the home and in the kitchen" was actually a luxury that only the middle and upper classes could afford. In fact, some of the most famous labor riots of the 19th and early 20th century were triggered by industrialists hiring women and children over men, so that they could pay them less for the same work.
dasein Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 First of all, a correlation does not imply causation. I'll keep that in mind the next time I hear a feminist blithely stating some bogus statistics as gospel. Isn't that the way you regard women? Assign blame on the basis of gender, yet refuse to assign credit that way? Hey, if you are so superior to us, why don't you set an example and clean up your act first? (Or was that "shaming language"?) How does the claim that most all feminist tenets are lies lay any blame at all on women as a gender? It doesn't. Fail.
dasein Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Don't go back that far, then. Look at modern history, post industrial revolution. What's your point? How many men died in combat fighting real oppression in the 20th century? See, the bald assertion game can be played two ways. You can describe as many post industrial revolution trends as you like, though, none contain any kind of oppression of women that wasn't equally perpetrated on men if not moreso. The "lie of male oppression"???? I don't even know where to start with that one Male oppression is alive and well in many parts of the world. Oppression may be alive and well wherever, women certainly don't hold a monopoly on being the victims of it though. Worldwide, men are oppressed just as much as women, moreso if you count conscription and incarceration.
Metis Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 How does the claim that most all feminist tenets are lies lay any blame at all on women as a gender? It doesn't. Fail. Well, one of the tenets of feminism is that women have worth as individuals no less than men. You claim that all feminist tenets are lies. Ergo, you claim that women lack worth as individuals.
Metis Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 What's your point? How many men died in combat fighting real oppression in the 20th century? Oh, please. Men also died in combat promoting oppression.
findingnemo Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 you forgot the most important lie of all... the notion that women can have independence, career, husband, kids all at the same time is a lie. part of being an adult is making decisions and living with the consequences. part of being a spoiled child is sitting around bitter thinking that you're owed your fantasy life. The statement in bold is so true. The Superwoman notion is a lie, a falsehood, and a quick means to get addicted to Ritalin. Career women are so busy these days that they probably need wives themselves to help them get through all the work at home after a bloody long day at the office. But I do agree with Metis that there is a lot of pressure on a woman to get married and have kids. Feminists gave us the ability to vote, get educated and work in any career we want. What's missing is that we still have many of our traditional duties to perform on top of all that. We need more acceptance for SAHDs. Societal pressure works both ways. Men are under so much pressure to make more and more money to provide for the ever growing family. The buck usually stops with the man. Even if the W works, if there's a financial decline, the primary responsibility falls to the man to ensure there's food, clothing, housing, etc. Society has a set definition of what being a man means and that hasn't changed much in the last few centuries. With women getting empowered with education, jobs and wealth, men are becoming more and more confused about what their role is exactly in the family. Women still see men as the ultimate safety net regardless of all our achievements. We make loads of money, sometimes more than the man. However we also know that should push come to shove, we can at any time opt out and leave it all to him. Men don't really have that luxury. By their very definition, they can't opt out of anything without looking like wimps. No wonder they ask, "What's a real woman?
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 How's the marriage rate doing, the divorce rate, the single parent household rate, the incarceration rate? Isn't it a funny coincidence that the beginning of all these social problems intersects with the rise of feminism? I suppose that's just coincidence. Feminism is responsible for a rise in the INCARCERATION RATE?? Is the incarceration rate higher since "the rise of feminism" because now there are lots of women police officers, detectives, judges and lawyers to help capture and lock up a greater quantity of the baddies? Dude! You are the king of just making up any old thing to back up whatever point you are trying to make. Also, of refuting any person or argument that does not back up whatever point you are trying to make. Which is always the same point: You hate women and think that the demise of western civilization began when women won, or were granted equal rights to men, as full fledged members of society. We get it, already! And you know what? I don't even care. I mean, you can be aggravating, but so can a housefly. Peace out!
dasein Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Well, one of the tenets of feminism is that women have worth as individuals no less than men. You claim that all feminist tenets are lies. Ergo, you claim that women lack worth as individuals. That isn't a tenet of feminism but of the "rule of law," it is indeed unfortunate that the whole basket of rights for all people didn't immediately spring into existence at the inception of Magna Carta, but them's the breaks for all of us. It took some time, and as I've posted elsewhere, the difference in world historical time between identical rights attaching to women as men is the span of a gnat's turd, historically inconsequential.
dasein Posted November 10, 2011 Posted November 10, 2011 Oh, please. Men also died in combat promoting oppression. ... and those oppressive interests were every bit as supported by their women at home. The greatest crime of feminism is falsely polarizing the interests and experiences of the genders as being distinct and counter to each other. The end of that crime is blessedly nigh, but all men and women have had to suffer unduly in the interim.
Metis Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 That isn't a tenet of feminism but of the "rule of law," it is indeed unfortunate that the whole basket of rights for all people didn't immediately spring into existence at the inception of Magna Carta, but them's the breaks for all of us. It took some time, and as I've posted elsewhere, the difference in world historical time between identical rights attaching to women as men is the span of a gnat's turd, historically inconsequential. Nice attempt to muddle the issue. Law or not, women were historically and to some extent still are, regarded as less than human. It is a tenet of feminism that women ARE human beings. You claim that every tenet of feminism is false. Therefore, you are claiming that women are less than human.
Metis Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 ... and those oppressive interests were every bit as supported by their women at home. The greatest crime of feminism is falsely polarizing the interests and experiences of the genders as being distinct and counter to each other. The end of that crime is blessedly nigh, but all men and women have had to suffer unduly in the interim. Feminism does not polarize the interests and experiences of the genders -- but anti-feminism certainly does. An example of that would be you claiming that men deserve special credit as a gender for fighting oppression, the implication being (since you love implications so much) that men all fought oppression imposed, of course, by women. It's similar to when misogynists claim women should be grateful to men, as a gender for protecting us from rape.
Woggle Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 People forget that the issue is not feminism but the things that some women promote while hiding under the umbrella of feminism. They hide behind it the way some people hide behind religion.
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 How does the claim that most all feminist tenets are lies lay any blame at all on women as a gender? It doesn't. Fail. Nice attempt to muddle the issue. No muddle at all, the above is what I posted, I could have said, most, many, nearly all, instead I said most all, which is not the same as "all," proabably a typo on my part with "al" missing from the front of "most." still are, regarded as less than human. No they are not regarded as less than human, or if there is some remote backwash where they are, go and convict the guilty parties, not "men" generally. It is a tenet of feminism that women ARE human beings. That's not a "tenet" of anything, merely a truism. You claim that every tenet of feminism is false. Therefore, you are claiming that women are less than human. The syllogism is actually valid, will give you that. The premises are not true, though, so still fails.
Metis Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 No they are not regarded as less than human, or if there is some remote backwash where they are, go and convict the guilty parties, not "men" generally. Unlike you, I am a believer in free speech. I don't go around pontificating about what people should or should not be "allowed" to say, as you have done here, and I do not have the aim of convicting or suing people for saying something I don't like, no matter how disgusting it is. Still, AS a believer in free speech, I reserve the right to call them on it. That's not a "tenet" of anything, merely a truism. But, feminists say it, therefore, according to you, it's false. The syllogism is actually valid, will give you that. The premises are not true, though, so still fails. Does your definition of "shaming" include being patronizing? Bet not. Anyway, congrats on reading the MRA glossary an' all, with its half-assed and misdefined list of fallacies, but you don't get to lecture me on formal logic.
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Feminism does not polarize the interests and experiences of the genders -- but anti-feminism certainly does. An example of that would be you claiming that men deserve special credit as a gender for fighting oppression, the implication being (since you love implications so much) that men all fought oppression imposed, of course, by women. It's similar to when misogynists claim women should be grateful to men, as a gender for protecting us from rape. If you can't quote or even paraphrase what I post honestly and accurately, please just use the site's functionality and refer to my actual words. We should all be grateful that men and women have fought against oppression to the extent that you and I don't experience it. Polarizing by suggesting that the "oppression of women" took place or takes place in a vacuum where men were or are not equally oppressed right alongside is the rotten core of the "oppression of women at the hands of men" lie. Feminists are all too happy to rail against generalizations of women, and that women should be treated as individuals when it suits them, but then when it comes time to hide a lie behind a generalization or obtain some political benefit, the generalizations, "oppression of women," "women's issues," "women's studies" etc. suddenly become just fine and dandy. Quite an amazing contortion.
Metis Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 If you can't quote or even paraphrase what I post honestly and accurately, please just use the site's functionality and refer to my actual words. You should be one to complain. We should all be grateful that men and women have fought against oppression to the extent that you and I don't experience it. Polarizing by suggesting that the "oppression of women" took place or takes place in a vacuum where men were or are not equally oppressed right alongside is the rotten core of the "oppression of women at the hands of men" lie. Oh, I see. Feminists are not allowed to even mention the fact that women were deprived of certain rights simply for being women without launching into a book-long disclaimer about how "men were oppressed too, and you know what? **** that subject of women being denied rights for being women, let's just talk about men instead." Furthermore, feminists don't claim that women were oppressed at the hands of men, but by the patriarchal system, so your complaint that feminists deny men's individuality is clearly inaccurate. Nor were men equally oppressed. To say that because men were oppressed, they were equally oppressed is akin to saying that racial, ethnic and religious minorities, who were historically oppressed FOR being in those groups did not suffer greater oppression than the majority because hey, not every white guy owned a castle. Feminists are all too happy to rail against generalizations of women, and that women should be treated as individuals when it suits them, but then when it comes time to hide a lie behind a generalization or obtain some political benefit, the generalizations, "oppression of women," "women's issues," "women's studies" etc. suddenly become just fine and dandy. Quite an amazing contortion.Nice strawman. I have no problem with "men's studies" (though I think having that field is a big mistake, just like "women's studies", as opposed to "gender studies"), and I have no problem with addressing the oppression of men or men's issues.
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Unlike you, I am a believer in free speech. Huh? You say women are still thought of as less than human, I say they aren't, and if they are somewhere, go convict the wrongdoers, not "men" as a gender. What on god's green earth does that have to do with "free speech?" But, feminists say it, therefore, according to you, it's false. I specifically listed some of the lies of feminism, doesn't equate to claiming that anything a feminist says is false. Does your definition of "shaming" include being patronizing? Bet not. Is there a rational point in there? Bet not. the MRA glossary I don't know what that is. When I google it I come up with "Marketing Research Association" and "Magnetic Resonance Angiogram." "Mountain Rescue Association?"
Metis Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Huh? You say women are still thought of as less than human, I say they aren't, and if they are somewhere, go convict the wrongdoers, not "men" as a gender. What on god's green earth does that have to do with "free speech?" Conviction of wrongdoing generally occurs in the context of the criminal justice system. Suggesting that people should be criminally convicted for saying something is in line with your insinuation in another thread that women shouldn't be "allowed" to say certain things. I specifically listed some of the lies of feminism, doesn't equate to claiming that anything a feminist says is false. You said every tenet of feminism is false. Now, you can get into arguing about the definition of "tenet", as opposed to what a feminist merely says with regard to gender, but that would be splitting hairs. Moreover, when you listed those "lies", you violated your own professed standard -- threw it out there as something that people are required to agree with, without any substantiation or analysis. Is there a rational point in there? Bet not. Sure there is, you just don't have the capacity to grasp it. I don't know what that is. When I google it I come up with "Marketing Research Association" and "Magnetic Resonance Angiogram." "Mountain Rescue Association?"Don't try to be cute. You aren't any good at it.
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Oh, I see. Feminists are not allowed to even mention the fact that women were deprived of certain rights simply for being women without launching into a book-long disclaimer about how "men were oppressed too, and you know what? **** that subject of women being denied rights for being women, let's just talk about men instead." If "mentioning it" were all feminists did, as opposed to beating us over the head with the lie for 60 years, you might have a point. Time for another POV to be heard, yay for free speech! Hearing feminists go on and on about "the oppression of women" has the same logical consistency as hearing someone go on and on about apartheid and its terrible effects on men only, the evils of pogroms against children only, the persecution of gypsy women only. None of those makes sense outside the inclusion of the others affected, and neither does "oppression of women." Furthermore, feminists don't claim that women were oppressed at the hands of men, but by the patriarchal system, so your complaint that feminists deny men's individuality is clearly inaccurate. That's like claiming "He wasn't arrested by the police, it was the cops who did it!" The "patriarchy" is another big load. Didn't exist, doesn't now. For every good or bad thing any patriarch did, there was a matriarch right there beside him. Note that I graciously say "good and bad." Things don't get done for good or evil in the world without the participation, complicity or actively of BOTH genders. The rising anti-feminist tide realizes the simple, inescapable fact of history that both genders do things together in the world, neither victimizes the other. The main victims are of politically power grabby groups like feminists and their ilk. Nor were men equally oppressed. To say that because men were oppressed, they were equally oppressed is akin to saying that racial, ethnic and religious minorities, who were historically oppressed FOR being in those groups did not suffer greater oppression than the majority because hey, not every white guy owned a castle. Men haven't been historically oppressed as much as women? White men too? Go to Arlington Cemetery and tell people putting flowers on graves that. Go to Stirling, go to the Bastille, to Bastogne, go to the Tower of London, go to Dachau, go to the gulag. Tell anyone who had family die in any war that. Go stand on the beach at Normandy and say that. Tell thatone's Irish ancestors that, tell a black man that, tell any Jew that. Tell an Italian American man that, tell a Native American man, tell a Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, British,Australian, Finnish, Ugandan... man that. Go read some actual history written without a political axe to grind and come back here and say that. The warm bed you sleep in at night, your right to speak freely on the internet, the clothes you wear, the rights you enjoy have all been bought and paid for with the blood of men, and the suffering of women who lost those men. Neither gender and no race has a monopoly on oppression. Human beings have a checkered past and we are all responsible for the good and the ill. ALL of us.
dasein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 insinuation in another thread that women shouldn't be "allowed" to say certain things. Online communities have rules, the only thing I've EVER said about people not being allowed to say things is that they shouldn't be allowed to freely break the rules they agree to when they sign onto a moderated community. Your distortions of my posts are becoming nastier and nastier. Ironic also in that feminists' primary tactic of "discourse" is shouting the other side into silence. You're getting real close to that. You said every tenet of feminism is false. Where? Quote me? Apparently the quote I posted a few posts back isn't good enough for you? Then cite where I said such. I didn't. I listed the lies, why not talk to those specifically? Moreover, when you listed those "lies", you violated your own professed standard -- threw it out there as something that people are required to agree with, without any substantiation or analysis. Professional standard? I don't get paid for this, you get me free of charge, what a bargain! I'm not requiring anyone to do anything. And will be more than happy to offer substantiation or analysis when faced with a substantiated opinion accompanied with appropriate analysis. You see, people haven't had to listen to dasein lie about oppression, glass ceilings and wage gaps for 40 years, they have had to listen to feminists though. The time has come for feminist doctrine to be pulled out of the comfortable darkness and into the light of day. It has begun to stink and needs a whole bunch of airing out.
NXS Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Both men and women make decisions at least in part due to social pressure. However, social pressures do not affect them the same way. Also, social pressure isn't just "men". How is social pressure different for men and women? How do you know the homeless man on the corner didn't choose to be homeless because he likes living on the street? That it's a lifestyle choice? I don't know, NXS, I don't claim that there isn't SOMEONE out there who likes being stabbed in the eyeballs. Comparing lifestyle choices to economic/mental health issues is disingenuous. Most men who are homeless have addiction, mental health problems or are just experiencing temporary financial problems. For some though it is a lifestyle choice, they no longer want to participate in society. However, what we are talking about here is a woman working her ass off for 20 years in college and graduate school, building a career, spending sleepless nights studying and working ... then flushing it all down the toilet in order to have more time for washing poopy diapers, making steak and keeping the baby from being a nuisance to its father. Have you ever actually asked other women why they work part-time or give up careers? I work in a government job that has approx equal numbers of men and women. About 40% of the women work either part-time or on a reduced working year (3/4 months off). Most of them have husbands who work full time or get other state benefits which allows them to take time off. None of them are the "oppressed victims" of social conditioning you're going on about. I suspect the reason why most of them chose to work in a government job is because it allows them to work part-time. On the other hand I've only ever met one man who doesn't work full-time, and is on a 4 day week. So much for choices eh? Men's choices are: work like a pack-mule for 40+ years or drop out of society. The underlying rationale is that the husband's convenience, leisure and aspirations are infinitely more important than hers, and that her accomplishments, no matter how impressive and promising, have no value simply because she is a woman. Is undergoing this kind of rank degradation a "lifestyle choice"? Are there girls who just DREAM about throwing the fruit of many years' efforts away and becoming a cook and a maid? Perhaps. That's what Hollywood movies (made almost invariably by men) tell us, in all those stories about "high-powered" women whose awesome jobs keep them from having a "life". But it is counterintuitive, and it's contrary to my own experience and the experience of women I know. If women want to keep their careers going and have children then they should do what men do - marry men that have jobs that allow them take time off or be stay at home dads. In other words work as many hours as possible to be the breadwinner and hand over your paycheck, that's what most men do. Most men are not stupid enough to believe they can marry a woman of equal position or higher and expect them to give up a career so perhaps women should make the same choices. I'm not saying it's a "conspiracy", but pointing to social pressure is a less ridiculous explanation that the one that you suggest, that men freely pick career over family because you are all so damned virtuous and perfect. Yeah when a man makes a decision there's always some sinister agenda at foot. I don't think that's a proven fact, nor am I familiar with the concept of people who have less money having more "spending power" than people with more money. That's because they don't have less money. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2005/nf20050214_9413_db_082.htm As for advertisements being geared towards women, I got two words for you -- confirmation bias. You see an advertisement geared towards women and you react "ah-huh! Bitches spending men's hard-earned money on Murphy's Oil!" Here is what I see: advertisements for household cleaning products are geared towards women; advertisements for obscenely expensive cars are geared towards men. Maybe if you pulled your head up from your latest women's studies bible for a few minutes you'd see that the majority of advertisements right across the product/service range are geared towards women.
ThsAmericanLife Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 My opinion is that: The wage gap is a lie. The glass ceiling is a lie. The patriarchy is a lie. That women are socially pressured to have children is a lie. That there is any double standard in how men and women are judged for their sexual behavior is a lie. Real women don't lie. you sound like those folks who believe... ...the holocaust never happened ...the moon landing was an elaborate Hollywood hoax ...there is an alien being kept in Area 51 ...climate change can't possibly be influenced by human beings ...the world was literally created in 6 days etc, etc There are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who believe the above. Like them... You are welcome to have your opinions of course. If you sound silly for having those opinions, don't be surprised at the reaction you get from people who prefer objective evidence over wishful thinking. The only sad part for you is that you are wasting so much of your energy being angry at the wrong people. Your choice.
Recommended Posts