Feminists are ruining men.

[betterdeal]

I still can't get my head around going for dinner as a way to meet someone. What I want after dinner is a nap.

 

Have sex first, then have dinner.

[Nikki Sahagin]

I think feminism has really been twisted out of context.

 

True feminism was about enabling women to be free to work and be educated which enabled women to not have to be dependent on a man or anyone else for their financial wellbeing. This freed up a lot of women forced into marriage or domesticity to make a choice.

 

Feminism created that choice. There are still women that choose to be married, or not go to university or to have children or be a housewife. The difference is now, if a women doesn't want children or does not want a husband, she can choose to do so.

 

All the rest of it; i.e. the lack of manners etc, well those things are all personal preferences.

 

I have my own job and earn my own money and I went to uni and consider myself educated, but I love a man who holds a door open for me or kisses my hand.

 

I think feminism was a very honourable and noble thing to have happened. It stopped women being slaves. But with that lots of other changes have occured, and I don't believe they are all the result of feminism.

 

Society in general seems to have lost respect not just for women, but for men, the elderly, children etc.

 

I mean think about it...

* do you always give your seat up to an old person or acknowledge them in the street? Children used to *doff* their caps when they saw an old person pass by.

 

It's about a general lack of manners in society as a whole. You could argue that this stemmed from feminism, but I don't really see how/why it should have. Feminism was more about treating people equally, not about treating everyone like ****. Some feminists will use a feminist agenda to exploit people just like some terrorists will use religion, but it doesn't make feminism itself a bad thing.

[123321]

I think feminism was a very honourable and noble thing to have happened. It stopped women being slaves.

 

Describe slavery.

[Nikki Sahagin]

Describe slavery.

 

Perhaps I used the wrong word.

I mean that women had their place and if they didn't like it, it was tough. They were the property of their father and then of their husband, who was often chosen for them.

If they were lucky and liked their husband, life wasn't so bad. If they were wealthy women, maybe they had more options, but in general their life was babies with a man they didn't care for and housework.

[123321]

Perhaps I used the wrong word.

I mean that women had their place and if they didn't like it, it was tough. They were the property of their father and then of their husband, who was often chosen for them.

If they were lucky and liked their husband, life wasn't so bad. If they were wealthy women, maybe they had more options, but in general their life was babies with a man they didn't care for and housework.

 

At the time this was true, can you describe what life was like for non-wealthy men?

[betterdeal]

I've known a few women who've read a bit too much Charlotte Brontë and want to be someone's chattel so that they can then rail against the injustice of it all.

 

People are complex.

[Nikki Sahagin]

At the time this was true, can you describe what life was like for non-wealthy men?

 

Oh don't get me wrong. Men had just as much of a boring life; work, work, work with no protection and let's be straight - men lived in adject poverty too.

 

I do think this is something often overlooked. But I don't think men were ever owned by their mothers or fathers or forced onto a wife they didn't want. Also, although poor men couldn't vote or be educated for a long time too, they were allowed to be long before women were.

 

But don't get me wrong, I am not saying men didn't have awful life's too.

[123321]

Oh don't get me wrong. Men had just as much of a boring life; work, work, work with no protection and let's be straight - men lived in adject poverty too.

 

I do think this is something often overlooked. But I don't think men were ever owned by their mothers or fathers or forced onto a wife they didn't want.

 

I'd beg to differ, but let's look at this objectively. One party stays relatively much safer, indoors a lot more, seldom dies while defending the home or nation, seldom dies while feeding the family, whereas the other routinely has to endanger themselves for wife, queen, family, or country just to stay alive and keep the wife and kids alive.

 

Which one is the slave again?

 

By the time life improved for men, it improved for women too so get off your high horse Sally.

[Woggle]

I think the misandrists have done to feminism what Rick Santorum and Jerry Falwell have done to christianity. They took a positive thing and turned it into something ugly and hateful.

[Nikki Sahagin]

At the time this was true, can you describe what life was like for non-wealthy men?

 

I've just described it above.

I've acknowledged men were poverty stricken and uneducated.

They were not however the property of their mothers or fathers.

[Nikki Sahagin]

I'd beg to differ, but let's look at this objectively. One party stays relatively much safer, indoors a lot more, seldom dies while defending the home or nation, seldom dies while feeding the family, whereas the other routinely has to endanger themselves for wife, queen, family, or country just to stay alive and keep the wife and kids alive.

 

Which one is the slave again?

 

By the time life improved for men, it improved for women too so get off your high horse Sally.

 

I'm not on a high horse, or at least I don't intend to be. Sounds like you're on one though.

 

The word slave was inappropriate for me to use.

 

All I can say is I am glad that today I have more options that women had before me, and I'm sure you can say the same as a man living today.

[123321]

They were not however the property of their mothers or fathers.

 

In some societies they were, but in the ones you are probably thinking of, the woman wasn't owned so much as the responsibility for her well-being was. When the father gives away the bride, what he's really doing is perpetuating a tradition wherein she is no longer his to slave for, that duty has been passed on to another man.

[zengirl]

But without the maintenance, you describe yourself as "cute girl" and not a "hottie".

 

What happens when the trappings come off, and it is just you and the guy? Does he lose attraction?

 

Then we've come full circle. The 100s of dollars on makeup and clothing is unnecessary. Cute is easy-peasy, and cheap.

 

It may be easy peasy if you are cute.

 

Now, I'm a cute girl. Except for the hair de-frizzing, probably nothing of any note is needed, and I rarely pay a lot of $$$ for other services these days. I'm pretty wash and wear, though I do wear some makeup every day (Southern gal).

 

I definitely sympathize with women who have problem areas. My hair in the summer is the bane of my existence, and if I had multiple problem areas and whatnot, I would probably shell out money to mute them. It's easy for girls and women who've always been cute naturally to say, "It's easy to look good with little money," but I can realistically realize that beauty standards put an unnatural strain on women who don't have that luxury. And women naturally blessed with thin bodies and good skin and great hair and great teeth and so on talking about how "easy" it is only makes it worse for them, I'd imagine. I know that's how I feel when anything that seems harder to me is discussed as "easy" by people to whom it comes naturally.

 

I also think there are honestly guys -- usually Alpha types who I certainly never wanted to date, but people like the OP might -- who expect "hot and perfect" (I've met them and they've attempted to tell me the ways I could "fix" myself again -- not because I'm not naturally attractive, but because I don't do things like wear heels or get my nails done or whatnot) and not "cute and natural." Different guys like different things.

[musemaj11]

In some societies they were, but in the ones you are probably thinking of, the woman wasn't owned so much as the responsibility for her well-being was. When the father gives away the bride, what he's really doing is perpetuating a tradition wherein she is no longer his to slave for, that duty has been passed on to another man.

Exactly, traditionally women were seen as 'dependents', as 'children' who were supposed to be protected and provided for for they were perceived as not being able to survive on their own and as dependents, its also natural for the guardians to expect certain obedience in return.

[xxoo]

I also think there are honestly guys -- usually Alpha types who I certainly never wanted to date, but people like the OP might -- who expect "hot and perfect" (I've met them and they've attempted to tell me the ways I could "fix" myself again -- not because I'm not naturally attractive, but because I don't do things like wear heels or get my nails done or whatnot) and not "cute and natural." Different guys like different things.

 

But like RedRobin said earlier--every job is a volunteer job. Both men and women opt in to those kind of dating expenses (being the high maintenance woman, paying for the high maintenance woman's idea of a good date). They each have their reasons to do so, but then why complain about it? Talk about First World problems, lol!

 

If a woman needs to spend time and money dealing with problem areas to be cute, that is understandable. I still wonder how much is the men's perception of cute, and how much is the women's.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'd beg to differ, but let's look at this objectively. One party stays relatively much safer, indoors a lot more, seldom dies while defending the home or nation, seldom dies while feeding the family, whereas the other routinely has to endanger themselves for wife, queen, family, or country just to stay alive and keep the wife and kids alive.

 

Which one is the slave again?

 

By the time life improved for men, it improved for women too so get off your high horse Sally.

 

Still, in the hierarchy of society, men were afforded freedoms and privileges that women were not, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

 

Just because you evidently would prefer to stay indoors more and not go to a war does not mean that you should be relegated to that.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to fight in a war than to be "owned" by my father and then husband.

 

Also, if you want to assign "privilege" to the likelihood of dying in the execution of your assigned gender role, men seldom die in childbirth.

[dasein]

I think feminism has really been twisted out of context.

 

True feminism was about enabling women to be free to work and be educated which enabled women to not have to be dependent on a man or anyone else for their financial wellbeing.

 

Feminism, a socialist political doctrine invented in the 60s, had nothing to do with the rights of women to work and be educated. Both of my grandmothers had college degrees, obtained in the late 20s. Neither of my grandfathers had college degrees. One of my grandmothers worked her whole life because it was her choice to do so, and the other raised a large family because it was her choice to do so.

 

If feminism has been twisted out of context, it's the feminists doing the twisting.

[Dusk1983]

I'd beg to differ, but let's look at this objectively. One party stays relatively much safer, indoors a lot more, seldom dies while defending the home or nation, seldom dies while feeding the family, whereas the other routinely has to endanger themselves for wife, queen, family, or country just to stay alive and keep the wife and kids alive.

 

Which one is the slave again?

 

By the time life improved for men, it improved for women too so get off your high horse Sally.

 

From the standpoint of our biological purpose, every form of societal male oppression (labour, war and financial and legal culpability) is superficial compared to the oppression and partial extirpation of female sexual choice. Indeed it can be argued there have been few more wicked abberations in the history of human nature.

 

Female sexual selection drives evolution of advantageous characteristics in nearly all mammals. By fostering, legislating and maintaining a system where women would always be dependent on men for material resources we sought in effect to wrest this power away from them, for the purpose of ensuring access to sex and thus reproduction for almost every man regardless of his natural genetic fitness as a mate.

 

The sexual 'revolution' was only really a step back towards the natural mammalian reproductive configuration that served us perfectly well for millions of years.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Dusk1983

[Mme. Chaucer]

Feminism, a socialist political doctrine invented in the 60s, had nothing to do with the rights of women to work and be educated. Both of my grandmothers had college degrees, obtained in the late 20s. Neither of my grandfathers had college degrees. One of my grandmothers worked her whole life because it was her choice to do so, and the other raised a large family because it was her choice to do so.

 

If feminism has been twisted out of context, it's the feminists doing the twisting.

 

Haha! Feminists are often people who actually have knowledge about feminism. Probably more likely that they do than frightened ignorance mongers, at any rate.

 

My grandmother also had a college degree and considered herself a feminist. BEFORE the 1960's by a few decades.

 

Maybe you should break your onus against learning about something from sources that actually have the knowledge to impart. Or, at least quit your preaching of misinformation. It's kind of unacceptable, given that you are on a computer right this moment with access to all kinds of facts and information at your very fingertips.

 

One really has to search to find your sources that claim that "feminism is a socialist doctrine that was invented in the 60's." Yes, I know that it CAN be found, specifically on MRA websites - the ones with the anti-woman agenda.

 

There is plenty more historical misinformation, various fictions and hoaxes propagated on the Internet, too.

 

Fortunately, all here have the same vast resources afforded by the amazing Internet so there is little chance that any but the most lazy will buy what you are hawking.

[dasein]

Still, in the hierarchy of society, men were afforded freedoms and privileges that women were not, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

 

In the hierarchy of society, elites of -both- genders were afforded freedoms that commoners were not. Substantial rights of any kind attaching to common people of both genders is almost exclusively a political invention of the last 160 years in world history. Obligations, though, were not such a recent invention; common men have been obligated by military conscription since the dawn of time, women were not so obligated.

 

Just because you evidently would prefer to stay indoors more and not go to a war does not mean that you should be relegated to that.

 

Sending women to war, or even to many types of labor, would have been an extinction event up until the mid 20th century. I imagine some cultures made that decision though. Those cultures aren't around today for us to extol their enlightened views unfortunately.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to fight in a war than to be "owned" by my father and then husband.

 

It must have been empowering and thrilling for you to receive your manumission papers, do you have a pdf copy to post for us?

 

men seldom die in childbirth.

 

Which is another excellent reason why women, weakened by childbirth, were unfit for combat or many types of labor historically, and were relegated to the relative safety of home and hearth. Thank goodness the inventions of men have changed all that for us alive today though, right?

[RedRobin]

Feminism has become the big, bad boogey-'woman' for so many insecure men (and women too, looks like).

 

Every time they feel a teeny-weeny bit worthless, or insecure, or wishing for this or that, or angry at their lot in life... it is the feminist 'boogey-woman' to blame for aaaaalllll of their troubles.

[123321]

From the standpoint of our biological purpose ....

 

Humans are weak, thin skinned, slow, clumsy, slow to mature, we are lame mammals with the exception of one thing. Our over-sized brain. Some more than others. The "oppression" you whine on about was not something that worked against human survival, it was a system of social conventions that worked to help ensure the survival of the species. Indeed, that's why it continued while it was needed, because it worked. It was miserable and hard for everyone involved, not because they loved it miserable and hard but because survival was hard miserable work for everyone involved. Of course those who didn't embrace the workload soon didn't have to worry about it any more.

 

When industry and other advances removed the need for the social convention, it quickly went away.

 

You're welcome.

[Dusk1983]

The "oppression" you whine on about was not something that worked against human survival, it was a system of social conventions that worked to help ensure the survival of the species.

 

It's a bad sign if you're resorting so quickly to ad hominem in a friendly debate. We were surviving perfectly well for millions of years before a patriarchal system was devised to subjugate female sexual choice against the natural order of our species. And, besides, mere survival isn't enough, we need personal agency which women by and large didn't have, least of all in the sexual domain.

 

Indeed, that's why it continued while it was needed, because it worked.

 

No, it worked primarily for men, providing access to sex and the potential for reproduction to men that in a freely competitive sexual market would have been denied both. Their genetic lineage would simply come to an end, exactly as it would have done were they born at any other point during the last 8 million years.

 

Patriarchy, despite the undoubtedly massive burdens it placed upon men, was configured to give them the most important thing of all.

[dasein]

From the standpoint of our biological purpose, every form of societal male oppression (labour, war and financial and legal culpability) is superficial compared to the oppression and partial extirpation of female sexual choice. Indeed it can be argued there have been few more wicked abberations in the history of human nature.

 

Extinction would likely qualify as a "wicked aberration" in the history of human nature, wouldn't it? glad we avoided that by imposing whatever social and mating conventions and restraints that allowed our particular tribes and villages to -exist-.

 

Interesting you think of dying on the battlefield or languishing in debtors prison as "superficial" inconveniences in comparison to restraining female mate selection.

 

Female sexual selection drives evolution of advantageous characteristics in nearly all mammals..

 

That and the overwhelming brute force of male mammals with superior genes. Fine if you want to stay in "mammal land," I prefer "big brain" land myself when discussing human anthropology, social life and choices.

 

By fostering, legislating and maintaining a system where women would always be dependent on men for material resources we sought in effect to wrest this power away from them, for the purpose of ensuring access to sex and thus reproduction for almost every man regardless of his natural genetic fitness as a mate.

 

Or, in a climate of high infant and mother mortality where women were often partially if not wholly disabled by childbirth, we sought to protect them and thus... survive as a species. Half empty v half full. I like half full.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting that harem type arrangements are a sustainable social condition in tiny populations. They aren't. The males denied mating will simply vote with their feet, leave the village and take their resources and physical strength elsewhere, leaving the rooster and his hens quite vulnerable to both attack and inbreeding, a surefire way to get extinct fast.

[123321]

We were surviving perfectly well for millions of years before a patriarchal system was devised to subjugate female sexual choice ....

 

Feel free to go back to living in those imaginary conditions. Society as we enjoy it today is the product of advances made on the backs of men who labored to produce them and the woman and children who followed their lead.