"How Feminism Destroyed Real Men"

[alphamale]

If not for the good belly laugh I got from reading that one, I may not have been able to muscle my way through the gag reflex.

[Sup]

PLEASE STOP MISUSING THE TERMS FEMINISM AND FEMINIST!

 

A feminist is defined as a supporter of feminism. Feminism is a social movement to promote equality of the sexes!

 

Feminism is not a social movement to promote superiority of women at the expense of men. Men do not become less equal when women gain equality. It is not a zero-sum game!

 

Or did you mean that you have met some women who are just as, or more competitive, than men and you formed a bad impression of what you are calling feminists?

 

Would you loathe your ex-fiance's behavior just as much if it came from one of your male friends? If he always had to win an argument, and always had to come out on top? If so, then acknowledge that you loathe the character trait that can be found in both men and women, and it has nothing to do with feminism.

 

 

Tell THAT one to my sister! She's a Feminist's Feminist, and I'm NOT kidding you about that, she degrades and devalues men, I know, because I've seen it. I don't even want to be around her much. And oh, I not cracking on her, but, she's still single.....

[InsanityImpaired]

Tell THAT one to my sister! She's a Feminist's Feminist, and I'm NOT kidding you about that, she degrades and devalues men, I know, because I've seen it. I don't even want to be around her much. And oh, I not cracking on her, but, she's still single.....

But do you call a Republican, who always talks about morality, only a Republican when he has had no exposed affairs? Or are that the bad ones?

[norajane]

Tell THAT one to my sister! She's a Feminist's Feminist, and I'm NOT kidding you about that, she degrades and devalues men, I know, because I've seen it. I don't even want to be around her much. And oh, I not cracking on her, but, she's still single.....

 

That makes her a misandrist, not a feminist.

 

Being a feminist does NOT mean that you are a man-hater. Simply hating men does not turn you into a feminist, nor vice versa.

 

There are feminists that do hate men, but they do so because of their own personal reasons, and do not represent feminism.

 

Often men get defensive when they meet a woman who calls herself a feminist. There is really no reason to. A feminist does not want to put men down in order to pull women up. What she wants is to create awareness of the fact that women deserve equal rights and opportunity as men.

[BARBGURL]

The early feminists decided that women are oppressed because bearing and raising children is a severe limitation and liability. What makes women different from men equals weakness. The next step was then to overcome that difference so that women could be just like men. The invention of birth control pill helped fuel that illusion.

Later, feminists thought was that women were not just equal to men, but they were better than men. Spawning famous quotes like Gloria Steinem's "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Sadly, male- bashing became a sport of the 90's.

 

Radical feminist thought despised much of what it means to be a woman - to be receptive and responsive and relational, and yes - to treasure marriage and family. Only masculine traits and behaviors and jobs were deemed valuable. Nevertheless, many young women are confused by the messages thay are getting from the culture. They find themselves feeling guilty and confused for finding themselves still longing for marriage and family when they are supposed to be content without them.

 

The legacy of feminism is the refusal of the natural role of men to be the initiator, protector, and provider. The natural role of the woman to be the responder, nurturer, and helper is equally disdained. The consequence of this rebellion is relational confusion, especially in the home. The rebellious belief system has had some disastrous effects on our culture and society.

 

 

There are going to be problems between men and women, especially abuses of power. Men and women are different. Equality is an illusion. Biology is a fact. The balance is in respect and honor, not only for chosen roles, but for individuals.

 

Bottom line: Opinions are like a**holes, everbody has one!!

[InsanityImpaired]

Equality is an illusion. Biology is a fact.

Please show me where in biology it is implied that men should have voting rights, if they were not slaves, and women not? And why those genes responsible for that could only have been activated after a Revolutionary War?

And also, do show me were in biology it is implied that married women cannot do meaningful work outside of the home, as that has been forbidden in most western countries for the first half of the twentieth century?

And would you be so kind to agree with said biology to return your equality, as it is a mere illusion, and to agree again with your biology? .

 

Someone clearly does not understand the concept of equality.

[BabyPhoenix]

When women get too much power and independence then they will be physically bombed into submisson by men worldwide....not unlike what the US did to Iraq.

 

Whatever potentially valid points you may actually make or have made are totally de-legitimized by this. Seriously, ALPHAMALE. You disappoint me.

 

Women are taking jobs away from men and that isn't right. .

 

Which ones? Where are you getting your statistics from? There certainly isn’t an upswing in the male unemployed pool.

 

Actually, no, men are not breaking the doors down to get into nursing and teaching. They will always be a small minority in female dominated fields. .

 

Actually, no. There is no truth to the above comment. In both fields, entrance of male students in on the rise. In fact, males are sought after in both fields in order to narrow the gender inequity.

 

Judging by how harshley you replied to her, I would say your probably one of those "overboard independant types" who thinks she doesn't need a man for anything. Just because the poster chooses to live her live the way nature intended it to be, doesn't mean she is pathetic. Now if the man abuses his power and treats her like ****, that's a whole different story. Otherwise, keep snide comments to yourself.

 

This was not a snide comment, nor did I feel it was written harshly. I seriously believe that the comment was pathetic. I feel sorry for anyone who lives their life for another person, be that a man or a woman.

 

Are you friends with God, or the Creator, or whomever designed “nature” as such? Are you an expert in human evolutional behaviour? Please explain exactly how “nature intended it to be” and cite references to your original published research, or even the research of others.

 

That's because women were/are just as or more promiscous that men, and the men that loved the women didn't even know who their natural father was (probably caused lot's of domestic problems). Social structures where in turmoil so they came up with the best solution at the time. Before women were subjucated as you put it, they were like 5 dimestore hookers on a Saturday night in San Franciso.

 

This makes no sense. Please apply thought, grammar, logic, or any of those, to make sense of this rambling. (I hope sincerely that you were drunk when you wrote this.)

 

I think we can all agree that before the womens movement came along, family structures were a lot more stable.

 

They were only stable because women couldn’t get out of marriages. I guarantee you that if they lived in today’s society, those same family structures which appeared so stable would be no different from today’s family structures.

[BARBGURL]

There is no scenario that anyone could come up with that would bring about "equality" between men and women unless no distinction between man and women was actually being made.

[Trialbyfire]

There is no scenario that anyone could come up with that would bring about "equality" between men and women unless no distinction between man and women was actually being made.

I completely disagree. Equal but different.

[norajane]

There is no scenario that anyone could come up with that would bring about "equality" between men and women unless no distinction between man and women was actually being made.

 

Biological distinctions have nothing to do with equal rights and equal protection under the law.

[alphamale]

Biological distinctions have nothing to do with equal rights and equal protection under the law.

That's funny...then why were blacks in the US not allowed to vote until 1965? Still....to this day, equal rights and protection are an illusion.

[bab]

I am in total shock that there are people out there that think that violence against women is deserved. I have always disagreed with alpha on his views on women, but was able to respect his opinion. I have now lost all respect for someone who believes that violence is an acceptable tool for a marriage relationship, and I'm done with this thread.

[BabyPhoenix]

My views are always complicated, as anyone who's read enough of my material here on the Shack.

 

Yes, I know. And I will also add that whether I agree with you are not, your responses to other posts are mostly well reasoned and thoughtful. Which is why your responses to this particular thread perplex me so.

 

 

On the one hand, I would agree that we evolve and that some changes are necessary in an effort to identify some of our more harmful behaviors and to create a society that is more human and egalitarian. I believe in basic egalitarianism, which is to say that I believe that, roles aside, a man should always regard a woman as his equal otherwise. Exactly what that means is difficult to describe, but I generally think that it starts with a basic modicum of respect. It means no violence against women. It means if a man is horny, a woman can be horny too. If a man cheats, a woman can dump him, or even cheat him in return. I believe in empowering women to protect themselves and their identity. I believe that a woman should be with the man of her choice, not of her parents' choice or someone she feels she has to 'settle' for. .

 

See, logical, well thought out, well written.

 

As it applies to career and education, I totally want a woman who can look after herself and who pursues her own interests - that's attractive to me...to an extent anyway. If a woman wants to be a doctor or attorney, fine by me (how white of me, right?).

 

Now the illogic enters: why “to an extent”? It is like you have issues with this, and I am not sure what they are. It sounds like you respect women in general, but you can’t quite do it 100%. Why?

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't want to spend time with a woman who feels like she's got something to prove. If I've taken the time to select her as a potential mate, she's got nothing to prove other than that she's exactly who I thought she was when I first met her. She doesn't have to remind me that women have rights, or that she can beat out some guy in a competition or that she's smarter than any man.

 

Fair enough. You are entitled to choose those traits in whomever you wish to spend time with. But why do these personal choices suddenly turn into broad, sweeping statements against women’s equality in our society?

 

 

It has been said here before but I'll say it again: many times "I'm a strong woman" is code-speak for "I'm a bytch". And "You just can't handle a strong woman" is code for "Why can't you just accept me for being a bytch?"

 

Now you branch of into the totally illogical – or something that sounds like a personal grudge at best. Why would you make a statement like this?

 

Not only playing sports designed for men, as in the WNBA; I'm talking about women who actually think they can step onto the field and play WITH the big boys. Oh sure, yes, there have been cases where girls have beaten high school boys in the 115-pound city wrestling tournament, or some over-sized girl who actually plays on the varsity high school football team. Go find me a woman who's actually ready to play NFL football. Go find me a woman who could run with even the worst players of the NBA. Go find me a woman who could step in the ring and taken Tito Ortiz or even a middle weight in the UFC. Get serious here! Men are biologically wired to be more dominant and assertive.

 

I may not totally agree with you, but I can understand the argument.

 

Look, you want to find a girl who can actually hang with guys and play guy sports as well as a guy can, that's her choice - I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of a woman who wants that. But I'm just saying she probably wouldn't be considered very 'womanly' in the eyes of most men, and there is a very good reason for that - women and men are attractive based on their basic gender roles. I didn't grow up dreaming of marrying some butch. I didn't grow up looking at my bikini calendar or the SI Swimsuit issue because they had buff looking women on the cover; I bought it (and wanked to it as a horny teen-ager) for precisely the opposite reason - cause I'm a guy and they were hot-bodied women. Most guys I know are the same exact way; the ones who aren't or either very effeminate and don't get much, or they're just straight-up gay.

 

See, now there you go off on a strange path. Since when, and to whom, are men and women attractive based on gender roles? And what are these gender roles and how and why were / are they defined? I think you need to think about where these roles came from historically. I know that you are the type of person who can really think about this rationally and without emotion.

 

Also, I think it is unwise to group people into “most.” I think it is foolish to group the majority of an entire gender in an opinion for which I believe you have very little evidence other than your own experience.

 

Conversely, last time I looked, women don't want men who act gay. They don't want men who behave like women. They don't want men they can run roughshod over. Women don't get off on guys who can count their ribs whenever they take off their shirts and go on about how they went to a shop last Friday to manicure their nails.

 

Again, you are grouping an entire gender into this statement – a statement which I might add is based more on societal pressures and unrealistic expectations than anything which likely represents the spectrum of people and their likes and dislikes.

 

respect female athletes if they are able to retain their femininity - Mia St. John, for example...of course a lot of other women immediately dis her because she managed to keep her femininity while pursuing her competitive interests.

 

So, I interpret this to mean that if a female does not retain her femininity, you will not respect her as an athlete? That does not sound like something you would subscribe to.

 

Women have half the money in this world and all the p-ssy.

 

Really now. I can’t believe you made a statement like that.

 

They also usually get the overwhelming majority of parental rights almost automatically.

 

Which, as I have said before, is a sexist policy against men, which I find offensive and totally out of accord with equality of the sexes.

 

Again, women have their roles, men have theirs. What we have now, though, is political correctness creating mass confusion for a generation of people who are increasingly unsure about what these roles are.

 

I think that these gender roles you are referring to have been developed in societies where women have been oppressed and subjugated for most of their history. As such, it would be foolish to think that any such roles are natural or healthy for a society, let alone subscribe to them. I don’t think that this tendency is a result of political correctness. I think that this is rather people coming to terms with the past, and realizing the error of past ideologies and practices.

[norajane]

That's funny...then why were blacks in the US not allowed to vote until 1965? Still....to this day, equal rights and protection are an illusion.

 

They were WRONG back then, just like they were wrong when slavery was allowed, and just like they were wrong when women couldn't vote.

 

Changing those wrongs is the point, fighting for equal protection is the point.

[alphamale]

fighting for equal protection is the point.

what's your definition of "equal protection" NJ? Is it equality that almost always the mother gets the kids after a divorce?

[norajane]

what's your definition of "equal protection" NJ? Is it equality that almost always the mother gets the kids after a divorce?

 

No, that's not equality. And I fully support the fight for equality where men are not treated equally under the law.

[johan]

How is it that male-dominated judicial and legislative systems determined to award custody of children to the mother as a rule? In the days when divorce became so prevalent, women didn't have anywhere near the resources to provide for children's material needs like men had. So why would it become a standard to award the children to the woman, and then just make the man pay?

 

I'd like to understand the history of that.

[norajane]

How is it that male-dominated judicial and legislative systems determined to award custody of children to the mother as a rule? In the days when divorce became so prevalent, women didn't have anywhere near the resources to provide for children's material needs like men had. So why would it become a standard to award the children to the woman, and then just make the man pay?

 

I'd like to understand the history of that.

 

That male-dominated judicial and legislative system assumed that men didn't want to care for children and that was the mother's role.

 

I don't believe that men were jumping up and down to quit their jobs and stay home with the kids when a divorce happened. Nannies and daycare are a more recent phenomenon that came into play when women started working outside the home more and more and two-income families became more standard.

[pricillia]

Originally Posted by Ailec1987

Just wondering, where you learned it was acceptable to beat up a girl?

 

Quote AlphaMale

i learned that at the same time women figured out it was OK to emotionally beat up men.

 

I think there is some truth to this some women use thier emotional strength (per say) to take advantage of a man....

 

they use guilt or whatever means they can to manipulate the situation.

[Trialbyfire]

That male-dominated judicial and legislative system assumed that men didn't want to care for children and that was the mother's role.

 

I don't believe that men were jumping up and down to quit their jobs and stay home with the kids when a divorce happened. Nannies and daycare are a more recent phenomenon that came into play when women started working outside the home more and more and two-income families became more standard.

Agreed to an extent. Don't forget the societal role-playing that was hardcore in the past. Women were considered better able to take care of the children due to their day-to-day connection with the children and their ability to nurture. I'm not saying I completely agree with it but that was the "Leave it to Beaver" family structure mindset.

[Woggle]

Somebody made a point about feminism making women feel guilty about natural human urges. It is perfectly natural for both men and women to crave relations with the opposite sex and some of us the same sex but feminism has made women feel like they are weak for even wanting a man in their life. I have known some women who have it all but want somebody to share it with and they genuinely feel they are weak because they feel that way. To top it off feminist leaders like Gloria Steniem are a bunch of hypocrites. She goes around preaching all that men are useless and fish need a bicycle stuff but then she goes and gets married. She is yet another zealot that does not practice what she preaches. To me she is no different than these conservatives who preach morality but try to sleep with their male teenage pages. Gloria Steniem is the Mark Foley of the women's movement.

[Trialbyfire]

Somebody made a point about feminism making women feel guilty about natural human urges. It is perfectly natural for both men and women to crave relations with the opposite sex and some of us the same sex but feminism has made women feel like they are weak for even wanting a man in their life. I have known some women who have it all but want somebody to share it with and they genuinely feel they are weak because they feel that way.

 

No, feminism didn't make women feel guilty about natural human urges, society has viewed women in a negative light if they are the type to sleep around. This has been the case since the Bible was corrupted by men, to devalue matriarchial societies.

 

As for making women feel weak about wanting men in their lives, I'll disagree again. Perhaps for the hardcore feminist but many women such as myself want financial and personal independence but value men as someone to enrich our lives. In my opinion the same should hold true for men, in relation to women.

[Woggle]

No, feminism didn't make women feel guilty about natural human urges, society has viewed women in a negative light if they are the type to sleep around. This has been the case since the Bible was corrupted by men, to devalue matriarchial societies.

 

As for making women feel weak about wanting men in their lives, I'll disagree again. Perhaps for the hardcore feminist but many women such as myself want financial and personal independence but value men as someone to enrich our lives. In my opinion the same should hold true for men, in relation to women.

 

Trust me I grew up in a house with a hardcore feminist who used to hold meetings and they always used to tell women that they were being tricked into thinking they were happy with the men in their lives. Any woman that was happily married or happy in a relationship was being brainwashed by the patriarchy in their eyes. I have seen aspects of the feminist movement that almost no other man has seen.

[alphamale]

No, that's not equality. And I fully support the fight for equality where men are not treated equally under the law.

Is it also equality that if a woman gets pregnant by accident that she can choose to abort the fetus or have the baby but the man who knocked her up has little if no choice in what she does??

[BenThereDunThat]

Is it also equality that if a woman gets pregnant by accident that she can choose to abort the fetus or have the baby but the man who knocked her up has little if no choice in what she does??

 

Of course that's not fair. But possession is 9/10 of the law. Not much you can do about that.

 

Alpha, you seem to have a deep-seeded hatred of women. I tend to take your posts with a grain of salt but this thread has completely changed that.