Feminists are ruining men.

[123321]

Are you talking about real Europeans? The women who were born and raised there?

 

Yes, real maybe it's a generational thing.

Edited April 3, 2012 by 123321

[FrustratedStandards]

Yes, real

 

Hmmm..

 

I'm not gonna lie, this is very surprising, because I don't know one European woman like this.

 

This is what my friends and I would call "westernized" women. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

[123321]

This is what my friends and I would call "westernized" women. But whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

Partial list, every one was pretty insistent on paying her share:

 

28, surgeon, Germany

24, receptionist, originally Hungarian visiting from Australia

35, business admin, from UK by way of Tokyo

[FrustratedStandards]

Partial list, every one was pretty insistent on paying her share:

 

28, surgeon, Germany

24, receptionist, originally Hungarian visiting from Australia

35, business admin, from UK by way of Tokyo

 

Hmmm. Okay I see it now.

 

I think I should have been more specific. Eastern Europeans.

 

And "originally Hungarian" doesn't count as European. She is from Australia so I see her as westernized.

[123321]

Hmmm. Okay I see it now.

 

I think I should have been more specific. Eastern Europeans.

 

And "originally Hungarian" doesn't count as European. She is from Australia so I see her as westernized.

 

She was in Hungary until she was 19, how old should she have been when she left? My best friend is Hungarian, I've met a lot of Hungarian friends and family.

[TaraMaiden]

wow... this thread has sure moved on from "when men went to war....":D

 

We're talking about several different factors, aren't we?

 

Equality

common decency and manners.

traditional roles

 

The quick-fix society we have nowadays, has accelerated all forms of existence to the point that people are having trouble keeping up with one another, and thus see that the only interests worth serving are their own.

Life was so much simpler with just radio, black & white TV, and no computers, mobile 'phones or skype.....

People had time to enjoy at their leisure, instead of constantly being pressured by the weight of modern living.

all the things that have striven to make our life so much more convenient, have their downside.

 

People have lost the handle on manners, because they've the can't find the time to teach it to their children.

 

Their children are stuck in front of computers and Xboxes, playing war games, Assassin's creed and WoW.

All of which must, surely, have an effect on how they interact with adults - and one another.

My step-son is a case in point, but that's a different thread....

 

Courtesy has become a form of polite social behaviour, practised by civilised people - when they can be bothered to find the time.

[Professor X]

Hmmm. Okay I see it now.

 

I think I should have been more specific. Eastern Europeans.

 

And "originally Hungarian" doesn't count as European. She is from Australia so I see her as westernized.

 

From my personal experience you are wrong (She's Bulgarian), and she never wanted to be paid for.

However, I did insist on paying her regardless.

 

Besides, FS, you sound like you're demanding to be paid for... You can't demand it.

[Taramere]

I think many European LS posters would have a bone to pick with this statement. You can't speak for all European women, and I have it on pretty good authority that it is customary nowadays in many European cultures for people to split the bill on early dates. I will let our Euro posters chime in on that and if I'm actually wrong, I'll gladly admit it.

 

Europe is such a mixture of cultures that I don't know if anybody could really speak with much authority on what the "European approach" to dating is unless they'd spent their adult life living and dating in a series of different European countries..

 

My general impression of the Southern European cultures has always been that they tend to be more traditional. My dating experience is Northern European (UK, Scandinavian, Dutch, German) and it's been a fairly egalitarian thing...though some men do like to take that "It's my treat and I'm paying" approach.

[namenottaken]

I have a question. In the ‘idealistic’pre-feminism world, who supports the unwed woman?

 

Is she relegated to living with relatives her whole life, or forced to marry so she doesn’t starve? I guess her other option would be to become a nun.

 

I don’t understand why some men are angry because women wanted to be treated equal in the workforce.

 

If men had been denied equal rights because they were under a certain height, and considered inferior because of it, those men would justifiably have fought to be treated as equal too.

 

You can’t control what height you’ll be, anymore than you can control what gender you were born as.

 

When I am working, I want to be treated as a professional.

 

When I am with my BF, I want to be treated as a woman.

 

The same applies to him.

 

These are two completely different relationships that some people try to blend/blur.

 

As for feminists ruining men, I disagree. I think that’s just an excuse very few men will use. Unfortunately, or not surprisingly, they are the ones frequenting dating sites

Also, let me make another point here:

 

Gentlemen don't make a habit of doing things solely for women. They do things for EVERYONE. Because it is in their nature to be kind, it's not even a conscious action, it's a mandatory gesture that isn't given an afterthought.

My sentiments exactly.

 

Now, I’m off to work so I can pay my bills, and not be forced to marry someone so I can have the luxury of eating.

[Dusk1983]

I don't see "woman" and "lady" as the same.

 

"Woman" is a statement of truth. I am of the female gender. "Lady" has a lot of social and economic implications. One must act a certain way to be considered a "lady." It also has historical overtunes of class.... a lower class woman was not a "lady" due to her lack of proper birth and breeding. Words have power, and "lady" still calls to mind certain behaviors and mindsets.

 

The very idea of "lady" and "gentleman" is still seeped in sexist ideas. (I mean sexist in the strictest sense... that men should act like this, and women should act like that.)

 

I don't want to act like this. I want to act like me. I don't want to be a lady; I want to be myself. Who I am is a woman (because that is my gender), but I don't want it to define me any further than that.

 

If a guy is paying for my dinner BECAUSE I'm a woman, that's a problem. If he's paying for it because he thinks women and men act in a certain way (to be a "gentleman" he should pay, and to be a "lady" I should accept it) that's an even bigger problem, because of all the baggage that comes with the mindset of what being a "gentleman" and a "lady" means.

 

I do not understand why "woman" and "lady" must be connected. That to be seen as a woman, you need to act like a lady. Doesn't that suggest that to be seen as a woman, you have to follow some arbitrary standard of behavior: be this, act like that, don't do this? That is not an attitude I want to encourage.

 

I find the idea that I need to act a certain way to be seen as a woman by men, rather offensive. Whatever happened to "be yourself"? That assertion wipes out decades of progress towards equality; it means that dating-wise, we are still stuck in the 20's.

 

Should I daintily wave my fan, and call for my smelling salts at the faintest provocation as well?

 

And as far as the social obligation goes... how the heck do I ever know that I'll see this person again, that I can bake him cookies or give him a gift or whatever? With those examples, you're actually proving that there IS a social obligation to letting him pay: that I see him again. By letting him pay for my dinner ("act like a lady"), I am giving up my free agency to decide if I want to interact with him again.

 

Best post in this entire thread by a mile and, as usual for LS, it went completely ignored by both 'sides' in favour of petty squabbling.

 

Add the fact that it came from a women, and it's probably THE most satisfying and refreshing contribution to this furiously-debated topic that I've read.

[Emilia]

Umm...that's all of Europe.

 

No, it's Eastern Europe. There is a huge difference between Eastern and Western Europe in terms of emancipation. I was born in the former and live in the latter, much prefer it.

[dasein]

The stupid expression "feminazi" was popularized by Rush Limbaugh, and since you repeat it like there is no tomorrow as well as parrot many of his views, I naturally assumed you were one of his fans.

 

What group were the Nazis feeling oppressed by?

 

I don't use the term "feminazi" but since it gets automatically dismissed because of its origin, let's make some comparisons:

 

1. Nazi policy towards the jews began with polarization. The german people were brainwashed into a solidified political bloc via propaganda suggesting that the german people were victims of the jews. Jews were painted in the media as always the lowest common denominator, the greedy pawnbroker, the dishonest merchant, the oppressor via homogenous religious belief of being the "chosen people."

 

Feminism begins, by definition with polarization. Women were brainwashed into a solidified political bloc via propaganda suggesting that women were victims of men. Men were/are painted in the media as always the lowest common denominator, the rapist, violently criminal, the oppressor via a homogenous condition of patriarchy.

 

2. Once an attitude of "victimhood" is established, otherwise sane, rational people can be convinced to discriminate freely against the "oppressor" class, creating a legal discriminatory environment because "they deserve it." Jews were subject to discriminatory laws concerning where they could live, what trade they could practice, where they could gather.

 

Feminism perpetuates a discriminatory legal environment against men. In reproduction, men have no rights, and are beholden to either see children they want deemed "parasites," or children they don't want applied as a yoke of involuntary servitude for 18 years, all at a woman's whim. Discriminatory affirmative action laws in education and the workplace persist despite the reasoning for such was faulty from the start, and in any event, aren't necessary now. Criminal legal treatment of men is much harsher than of women. Domestic courts are thoroughly biased in women's favor. Men are guilty until proven innocent in rape, and if a woman makes a false claim, she is given a wrist slap if that. Otherwise sane, rational women, the voting majority, perpetuate this discrimination because of the feeling of being a victim, that men "deserve it."

 

3. Once polarization, victimization and a discriminatory legal environment are implemented, the next step is the theft of property. The nazis began a massive transfer program from jew to german, simply nationalized jewish assets and wealth, stole property with the complicity of foreign bankers. Normal german people, otherwise normal, as part of polarizing victimization culture, were convinced that the massive wealth transfer was merely redress for past theft by the "oppressor" jews.

 

The U.S. federal government, in part, has become a massive wealth transfer mechanism from men to women. This takes place by a disproportionate amount of government research and medical spending on women, their children, and "women's issues. Also takes place via a discriminatory domestic court system and its outlandish child/wife support policies. The government effectively subsidizes single motherhood, which has become a cottage industry, removing men from the family unit and so from political power.

 

4. Concurrent with these things was the indoctrination of children. Control the youth, control the political future.

 

The U.S. accomplishes this via biased public schools, portraying "male bad and violent, female good," together with creating generations of fatherless offspring, compliant and easily moldable within the political bloc.

 

5. Next in nazi practice was incarceration, sending jews to prison and labor camps with little or no justification.

 

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than Uganda, Libya, Yemen, higher than every single one of the nations perceived as oppressive. Solidifying the female political bloc behind a senseless, tremendously expensive, ineffective and overreaching "War on Drugs," the "War on Drunk Drivers," the "War on Deadbeat Dads." This incarceration kills several birds with one stone, denying voting rights to men, removing the male from the family, transfering yet more political capital to the false "victims," perpetuating dependency, creating waves of truly hardened career criminals perpetuating the view of man as lowest common denominator.

 

Who knows what the "final solution" will end up being in the U.S.? It will only take another succession of severe economic downturns or domestic terrorism to find out. Without even approaching the depression and social problems facing the german people after WW1, we have gone pretty far in a time of relative peace and prosperity. How far will things go when the going gets truly rough?

 

The above is not intended to compare german jews to men, nor what U.S. men undergo to the holocaust, but is simply a comparison for the purpose of describing whether the term "feminazi" is reasonable or not.

 

All socialist means of social control end up being "feminazi" in the end. Create a victim class with propaganda, solidify the voting bloc, deny rights to the "oppressor." The supreme ignorance of most street level feminists is that their education is so narrow, their indocrinated minds so coopted, that they can't see the historical pattern of socialist political control that repeats over and over and over, whether done by Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or the left in the U.S. The methods are identical, cause social chaos, and enrich only the puppet masters, who are laughing behind their hands at the dupes and how easily they were duped.

Edited April 3, 2012 by dasein

[joystickd]

I look at this thread and say its one of the factors but not a big contributing factor. There is a lack of respect with both genders. I look at the person that wrote this thread and wonder why she dislikes feminism.

[Woggle]

Seriously?

 

So then how are you "the man" in the relationship?

 

I am the man because I have a penis and a woman is the woman because she has a vagina. Everything else is just social construct. If a woman wants the traditional roles then fine but take everything that goes along with it. I much prefer an equal relationship but the way I see it is that if I have to play the traditional male role I should also get the traditional male privileges. You don't want that then embrace equal roles.

[Woggle]

Also independent women who prefer equality tend to make better wives and girlfriends. Not to stereotype stay at home types but in many cases it is the housewives who are out cheating on their husbands while he is at work because they feel unfulfilled then sucking a man dry when she wants the divorce and blames him because he works too much to support her.

 

The independent women who have a spent a lot of time in a man's world tend to have a much more partner based we are in this together type of approach to relationships. You have a true friendship with them as well as a romantic connection and if worst comes to worst you won't lose much in a divorce.

 

So all you guys who want a traditional woman this is the baggage that goes along with it. Don't overlook a woman just because she is successful because at least you know why she is with you when she doesn't need you from a financial standpoint.

 

I never thought I would see the day where men got flack for actually preferring equal partnerships.

[dasein]

I have a question. In the ‘idealistic’pre-feminism world, who supports the unwed woman?

 

Without the government perpetuating the single motherhood industry, there simply weren't that many. The illegitimacy rate in the U.S. was tiny prefeminism. If the answer to your question was "the family," then why does that necessarily relegate the woman to being a nun or starving? You are viewing the past through lenses of the socially dysfunctional present inaccurately.

 

And no one "starves" in the U.S. this is a political urban legend too long perpetuated. The only people who might starve in this country are those so mentally ill that they can't care for themselves in any capacity.

 

I don’t understand why some men are angry because women wanted to be treated equal in the workforce.

 

Equality is the -last- thing feminism seeks. Men generally aren't angry about equality, that's just another of feminism's convenient strawmen. Men who are angry are angry about discrimination.

 

If men had been denied equal rights because they were under a certain height, and considered inferior because of it, those men would justifiably have fought to be treated as equal too.

 

Feminists didn't "fight for" anything. Learn real history and you won't be so easily fooled.

[verhrzn]

I am the man because I have a penis and a woman is the woman because she has a vagina. Everything else is just social construct. If a woman wants the traditional roles then fine but take everything that goes along with it. I much prefer an equal relationship but the way I see it is that if I have to play the traditional male role I should also get the traditional male privileges. You don't want that then embrace equal roles.

 

That's kind of my take on it too. I don't want a guy who subscribes to traditionally "masculine" behaviors... I want a guy who behaviors like himself, masculine, feminine, whatever. I also want to act like myself, without worrying about whether I'm acting "lady-like." It's just so much easier when we treat each other as individuals and leave the gender roles out of it.

 

But there are women who get upset when guys don't treat her in a specifically-gendered way, just like there are guys who got upset that I wouldn't let them pay for my dinner. Takes all kinds.... but yeah, the existence of both types is weird to me.

[RachR]

I went a little extreme with the title, but I figured it would get your attention.

 

The right to vote, the right to work, the right for education. Yes, all good things and I would have fought for them myself.

 

However, there are those women who don't like it when a man holds the door for her. "I can hold it myself". They don't let a man pay on dates "I can pay for myself" among other things.

 

These are the extremes of course, and not all feminists are like that. HOWEVER, these women are ruining men. Chivalry is dying because of this.

 

All this "I can do everything myself" attitude has turned men into losers who don't know how to be gentlemen. How many times have I heard guys say they don't do something anymore because they got yelled at or rejected for doing it (kissing a girl on the hand, or holding the door open for her for example).

 

These types of women are ruining it for the rest of us. I don't blame men that chivalry is dead. I blame the women.

 

I would consider myself a feminist and I enjoy all of these things. Feminism isn't about man-hating, it's about social and economic equality. Maybe you should do your research on a topic before you start bashing it.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Well that's you, it merely means to accept someone elses leadership.

 

To be fair, Woody Allen () used Castro's Cuba as his example. The Cubans didn't exactly have a choice about whether to "accept" the "leadership" of Castro or not.

 

Leadership and dictatorship are not the same thing. Right?

[FrustratedStandards]

I am the man because I have a penis and a woman is the woman because she has a vagina. Everything else is just social construct. If a woman wants the traditional roles then fine but take everything that goes along with it. I much prefer an equal relationship but the way I see it is that if I have to play the traditional male role I should also get the traditional male privileges. You don't want that then embrace equal roles.

 

Who said I'm not okay with staying home and cooking and cleaning? If I have to pay for myself, then I won't do these things for a man. But I would rather he live up to his role, and I will reciprocate.

 

That's kind of my take on it too. I don't want a guy who subscribes to traditionally "masculine" behaviors... I want a guy who behaviors like himself, masculine, feminine, whatever. I also want to act like myself, without worrying about whether I'm acting "lady-like." It's just so much easier when we treat each other as individuals and leave the gender roles out of it.

 

Hmmm... okay well I think differently.

 

I don't want a feminine man. I want a masculine one.

 

I would consider myself a feminist and I enjoy all of these things. Feminism isn't about man-hating, it's about social and economic equality. Maybe you should do your research on a topic before you start bashing it.

 

I'm not bashing it, i'm talking about the extremists who put men down. Did you even read the post?

[RachR]

 

 

I'm not bashing it, i'm talking about the extremists who put men down. Did you even read the post?

 

To be fair, I was a little hasty in my reading and I did try to go back to edit but it was too late. My apologies.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I don't use the term "feminazi" but since it gets automatically dismissed because of its origin, let's make some comparisons:

 

Well, dasein, it's no secret that from my perspective, you have a very ill informed and prejudiced concept of feminism, its history and its role in the world. Your diatribes (which I sometimes read - I did read this one) are not going to convince anyone who is not already embracing the same ignorance and prejudices that you do. You are "preaching to the choir," which evidently is something you love to do.

[dasein]

I would consider myself a feminist and I enjoy all of these things. Feminism isn't about man-hating, it's about social and economic equality. Maybe you should do your research on a topic before you start bashing it.

 

Maybe you should do your research on a topic before supporting it.

[dasein]

Well, dasein, it's no secret that from my perspective, you have a very ill informed and prejudiced concept of feminism, its history and its role in the world. Your diatribes (which I sometimes read - I did read this one) are not going to convince anyone who is not already embracing the same ignorance and prejudices that you do. You are "preaching to the choir," which evidently is something you love to do.

 

Note, readers, the lack of any substantive response, just insults and conclusory dismissal. Feminism despises being hauled out into the light of day, and becomes powerless when we know what it is and where it came from.

 

Despite there only being 50-100 regular posters here Chaucer, probably 5-10 times as many read it. Hearts and minds. I don't have time to go out and "preach," so do the best I can here. I encourage readers not to become anyone's choir to be preached to, but to make up your own minds and do your own research. Start here with the link below and decide for yourselves.

 

THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY by ERIN PIZZEY

[Woggle]

Who said I'm not okay with staying home and cooking and cleaning? If I have to pay for myself, then I won't do these things for a man. But I would rather he live up to his role, and I will reciprocate.

 

 

 

 

At least you are consistent and fair about it but I still prefer an equal partnership. I do think men and women can appreciate our differences and I do tend to be attracted to women with a more feminine personality which is not odds with being independent and strong but I don't buy into the one person makes the money and one person does the housework thing.

 

I will open doors and be chivalrous on dates but money does not grow on trees and I am not spending big money until a woman proves herself. I will spend money on my wife without a thought but for a first date if I do pay it is something cheap and affordable. I actually had a woman on a first date get mad at me because I wouldn't take her shopping in New York. How absurd is that?