Feminism is Anti-male

[Gloominary]

I'm not claiming All feminists are anti-male, they're not, nor am I claiming feminism hasn't made necessary (in light of modern technological advances, and other modern social advances (or subvances) changes to women's role more directly, and men's role more indirectly, in society, both the public, and private spheres, it has.
However, what I am claiming is: feminism as a whole, in the abstract is anti-male.

Feminism has manufactured an arguably false narrative they've used to vilify, and subsequently exploit men.
Feminism is an attack upon men, and masculinity.
Even if you believe this attack is justified, which it isn't, that it's more of a counterattack or defense than initiatory, it is still nonetheless an attack.
Therefore, at its core, feminism is a fundamentally antagonistic, divisive movement, and that alone ought to make it somewhat suspect.

The narrative goes something like this: somehow, perhaps through some combination of men being more malevolent, physically stronger, at least in terms of brute strength, and willing and able to organize ourselves, and women being more, I don't know, agreeable, say, they're not clear, men individually, and institutionally have oppressed women, by routinely sexually, physically, emotionally and mentally abusing and exploiting them, and depriving them of having as many social, political and economic rights and freedoms as men, for millenia, up until even the present day.
They call this systematic oppression of women, patriarchy.
They liken it to other forms of oppression, class, racial, religious and so on.

This thread then is for challenging this narrative, and attempting to come up with a counternarrative, or narratives, from which to defend men and masculinity.

Feminists, and many modern women, but certainly not all modern women, like to talk at length about the evils of men.
They talk about our supposed penchant for violence, drug and alcohol abuse, for our supposed inability to listen and our emotional unintelligence, etcetera, etcetera, you know the score, we've all been beaten over the head with it a million times before.

They don't just criticize men when they victimize women, they criticize masculinity, or their percpetion of it, itself.
All day long in the media, and at universities they talk about our supposed weaknesses, or minimize our strengths.
While men and women each have their strengths and weakness, this is perhaps one of women's biggest weakness.
At the very, very least, men don't have a movement solely dedicated to sexistly bashing and denigrating women, or certainly nowhere near as prominent as that of feminism, and the men's rights movements that exist, on the fringes of society mind you, are arguably much more dedicated to authentic, genuine equality, and anyone who's done their homework with a clear, unbiased mind, devoid of pre and misconceptions can plainly see it.

It is hurtful, hateful, unfair and imbalanced, to men, and the women, who actually care about them.
I want men and women to have equal rights, and responsibilities.
Since we can't expect feminists to champion men's rights, they're busy doing the very opposite, there needs to be a countermovement, or at least more consciousness raised about men's rights and issues.

Well either that, or an inclusive gender/sex rights movement, dedicated to championing the rights of both women, and men, and the rights of those who're androgynous, instead of just women's.
It's unjust, that academia, the MSM and politicians claim that, men have no real issues, that they dismiss all talk of men's issues as intrinsically misogynist, but of course we can't expect society, women, or men for that matter to be unselfish.
Justice is often, if not always something you have to fight for, uphill.

[Thanathots]

Sargon, is this you? This is some YouTube skeptic/anti-feminist tier silliness. "genuine equality" come on man.

You don't go nearly far enough in your criticism of feminism. This text contains a good and concise example of how it's done, parts of it about feminism in tabs below.

https://propertarianism.com/2018/03/29/ ... li-harman/

untab

Feminism

Much could be, and has been, said about feminism, enough to fill volumes. I have already addressed the issue of feminine coercion above.

What has to be understood is that feminism originates primarily with inferior women, women who cannot obtain what they want from men in exchange because they have little of value to exchange (whether because they are fat, old, infertile, ugly, lazy, obnoxious, or what have you.)

Their aim is twofold:

First, to obtain what *they* want from men at a discount using the feminine means of coercion (nagging scolding, shaming, rallying, gossip, etc…)
Second, to sabotage their competition, women of value to men, by filling their heads with destructive nonsense, and induce them to throw away their value in exchange for nothing.

Seen in this light, much that is incomprehensible about feminism makes sense. Do they really think they can “redefine” men’s “standards of beauty”? Maybe, maybe not. One thing they DEFINITELY can do is persuade other women to take less care of their own, and that makes them look better in comparison.

A lot of people think that feminism started out alright but it has “gone too far.” Well it started out using feminine coercion to obtain the franchise. Feminine coercion is dishonest and parasitic. But it’s also trivially easy to show that women’s suffrage is a long term existential impossibility. That argument depends on only a few, fairly obvious, points.

1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men, and the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.

All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.

There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence. The more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, as they see them, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build, and it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.

But we don’t actually HAVE to do either. We can do the opposite.

Women obtained the vote on the back of the lie that their former exclusion had been arbitrary and baseless, and therefore unnecessary and unjust, and that is the lie it is now necessary to debunk. But that lie stems from an ignorance (perhaps deliberate) of context.

In fact, women had been excluded from politics because political institutions had been created by men, as a compromise and an alternative to warfare, which is a male domain.
Voting and politics can be an economical alternative to warfare, as long as the winners do not seek either to take, or to impose enough to make warfare preferable for the losers.

It can be a win-win, the winners win more, and the losers lose less, than they can by warfare, because they do not have to try the matter by a contest of arms, and politics, therefore, can be stable and productive, so long as it remains within those bounds.

Women do not participate in warfare (and it is best that they do not) so it was never necessary to cut them in on the spoils of politics, and doing so is to grant them a great and unearned boon; a benefit that they could not obtain by other means. It was a pure indulgence, and an expense with no countervailing benefits. Women’s violence did not need to be bought off because they don’t threaten violence.

Because they are ignorant of the context, and of the domain, having never, historically, participated, and because they do not understand that warfare is the alternative, and politics only a means of avoiding warfare, and can always return to warfare, women recognize no limits. They always demand more. They always seek to impose more.

Further, women bring no spoils to the table, they only make off with them. They contribute nothing, they risk nothing, and they threaten nothing. Therefore it is only right and proper that in this arena, they get nothing.

Past generations of men thought they could afford to indulge women in this way, but the expense has only ever grown, and only ever will. Now, we can no longer afford it, even if we wanted to. The price would be our civilization and our future, and that is too high a price to bear.

The further the results of elections continue to diverge from the likely results of war -and women make those results diverge -for they participate in elections but not in warfare -the greater the incentive for those with the means (men) to stop playing democracy and start playing war. That’s a game we can win, and if all we need to do to win is switch games, then sooner or later we will switch games. It is a foregone conclusion.

That is why, and that is how, women’s suffrage shall end. It is inherently unstable, and fleeting. But men must know why they must fight.

When men vote, we’re saving each other money, saving each other’s lives, by not fighting about shit. When women vote, they’re getting something for nothing. Soon we will have nothing left to give, but plenty to take, our own way.

untab

Feminine Coercion

Feminine rhetorical devices and feminine rhetorical strategies, such as nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms , and so on and so forth, have no special utility for discovering or propagating truth. But they have great utility for spreading and propagating self-serving lies, because they have no built-in error testing or correction. So when nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc, are used by women, and by other effeminate creatures; we classify them, not as good faith participants in debate, but as lying, totalitarian, parasites.

Their aim in employing nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc., is not the mutual discovery of truth, but simply to GET THEIR WAY. The manner in which they accomplish this is by imposing costs, social costs, psychic costs, energy costs, time costs, until you simply relent and give them what they want. The reason they employ these means is to avoid the high cost of offering VALUE in exchange for what they DESIRE. That is why we call nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc… The feminine means of COERCION, for they are analogous to the masculine means of coercion (namely violence.)

But the masculine (violent) means of coercion are not inherently duplicitous or parasitic. They require strength to employ, and the strong are always able, and often willing, to offer something of value in exchange instead. Violent means MAY be used for parasitic ends and MAY be directed by lies or aim at sustaining lies. BUT the greatest strength REQUIRES truth and cooperation. Lies and parasitism sap strength, while cooperation builds strength, and truth is a logical requirement of cooperation (it is not in the interests of others to cooperate with self-serving deceivers.) No individual or group who spurns truth and cooperation can ever be truly strong in comparison to ones who embrace them.

In contrast, the feminine means of coercion are the implements and the refuge of the weak. The weak are intrinsically less able, and less willing, to offer value in exchange, and weakness has no lower limit. Parasitic lies make people weaker, which only makes them likely and liable to employ even more parasitic lies.

The proliferation of the feminine means of coercion, and the concomitant proliferation of parasitism and lies, are attributable mainly to one factor; women and other effeminate creatures are less subject than they once were, to violent retaliation and suppression using the masculine means of coercion.

[Gloominary]

Sargon, is this you? This is some YouTube skeptic/anti-feminist tier silliness. "genuine equality" come on man.

You don't go nearly far enough in your criticism of feminism. This text contains a good and concise example of how it's done, parts of it about feminism in tabs below.

https://propertarianism.com/2018/03/29/ ... li-harman/

untab

Feminism

Much could be, and has been, said about feminism, enough to fill volumes. I have already addressed the issue of feminine coercion above.

What has to be understood is that feminism originates primarily with inferior women, women who cannot obtain what they want from men in exchange because they have little of value to exchange (whether because they are fat, old, infertile, ugly, lazy, obnoxious, or what have you.)

Their aim is twofold:

First, to obtain what *they* want from men at a discount using the feminine means of coercion (nagging scolding, shaming, rallying, gossip, etc…)
Second, to sabotage their competition, women of value to men, by filling their heads with destructive nonsense, and induce them to throw away their value in exchange for nothing.

Seen in this light, much that is incomprehensible about feminism makes sense. Do they really think they can “redefine” men’s “standards of beauty”? Maybe, maybe not. One thing they DEFINITELY can do is persuade other women to take less care of their own, and that makes them look better in comparison.

A lot of people think that feminism started out alright but it has “gone too far.” Well it started out using feminine coercion to obtain the franchise. Feminine coercion is dishonest and parasitic. But it’s also trivially easy to show that women’s suffrage is a long term existential impossibility. That argument depends on only a few, fairly obvious, points.

1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men, and the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.

All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.

There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence. The more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, as they see them, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build, and it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.

But we don’t actually HAVE to do either. We can do the opposite.

Women obtained the vote on the back of the lie that their former exclusion had been arbitrary and baseless, and therefore unnecessary and unjust, and that is the lie it is now necessary to debunk. But that lie stems from an ignorance (perhaps deliberate) of context.

In fact, women had been excluded from politics because political institutions had been created by men, as a compromise and an alternative to warfare, which is a male domain.
Voting and politics can be an economical alternative to warfare, as long as the winners do not seek either to take, or to impose enough to make warfare preferable for the losers.

It can be a win-win, the winners win more, and the losers lose less, than they can by warfare, because they do not have to try the matter by a contest of arms, and politics, therefore, can be stable and productive, so long as it remains within those bounds.

Women do not participate in warfare (and it is best that they do not) so it was never necessary to cut them in on the spoils of politics, and doing so is to grant them a great and unearned boon; a benefit that they could not obtain by other means. It was a pure indulgence, and an expense with no countervailing benefits. Women’s violence did not need to be bought off because they don’t threaten violence.

Because they are ignorant of the context, and of the domain, having never, historically, participated, and because they do not understand that warfare is the alternative, and politics only a means of avoiding warfare, and can always return to warfare, women recognize no limits. They always demand more. They always seek to impose more.

Further, women bring no spoils to the table, they only make off with them. They contribute nothing, they risk nothing, and they threaten nothing. Therefore it is only right and proper that in this arena, they get nothing.

Past generations of men thought they could afford to indulge women in this way, but the expense has only ever grown, and only ever will. Now, we can no longer afford it, even if we wanted to. The price would be our civilization and our future, and that is too high a price to bear.

The further the results of elections continue to diverge from the likely results of war -and women make those results diverge -for they participate in elections but not in warfare -the greater the incentive for those with the means (men) to stop playing democracy and start playing war. That’s a game we can win, and if all we need to do to win is switch games, then sooner or later we will switch games. It is a foregone conclusion.

That is why, and that is how, women’s suffrage shall end. It is inherently unstable, and fleeting. But men must know why they must fight.

When men vote, we’re saving each other money, saving each other’s lives, by not fighting about shit. When women vote, they’re getting something for nothing. Soon we will have nothing left to give, but plenty to take, our own way.

untab

Feminine Coercion

Feminine rhetorical devices and feminine rhetorical strategies, such as nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms , and so on and so forth, have no special utility for discovering or propagating truth. But they have great utility for spreading and propagating self-serving lies, because they have no built-in error testing or correction. So when nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc, are used by women, and by other effeminate creatures; we classify them, not as good faith participants in debate, but as lying, totalitarian, parasites.

Their aim in employing nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc., is not the mutual discovery of truth, but simply to GET THEIR WAY. The manner in which they accomplish this is by imposing costs, social costs, psychic costs, energy costs, time costs, until you simply relent and give them what they want. The reason they employ these means is to avoid the high cost of offering VALUE in exchange for what they DESIRE. That is why we call nagging, scolding, shaming, rallying, emotional appeals, popular appeals, insults, ridicule, gossip, moralisms, etc… The feminine means of COERCION, for they are analogous to the masculine means of coercion (namely violence.)

But the masculine (violent) means of coercion are not inherently duplicitous or parasitic. They require strength to employ, and the strong are always able, and often willing, to offer something of value in exchange instead. Violent means MAY be used for parasitic ends and MAY be directed by lies or aim at sustaining lies. BUT the greatest strength REQUIRES truth and cooperation. Lies and parasitism sap strength, while cooperation builds strength, and truth is a logical requirement of cooperation (it is not in the interests of others to cooperate with self-serving deceivers.) No individual or group who spurns truth and cooperation can ever be truly strong in comparison to ones who embrace them.

In contrast, the feminine means of coercion are the implements and the refuge of the weak. The weak are intrinsically less able, and less willing, to offer value in exchange, and weakness has no lower limit. Parasitic lies make people weaker, which only makes them likely and liable to employ even more parasitic lies.

The proliferation of the feminine means of coercion, and the concomitant proliferation of parasitism and lies, are attributable mainly to one factor; women and other effeminate creatures are less subject than they once were, to violent retaliation and suppression using the masculine means of coercion.

Firstly, Sargon, huh?

Secondly, what do you mean by, 'come on man'?
There's nothing silly about wanting equal rights for men and women.

Thirdly, the OP was meant as an introductory, there's going to be some follow up critiques.

[Gloominary]

Lastly, is that from your blog?

If not, that's pretty lazy, going around, posting stuff from other peoples blogs on forums without at least filtering any of it through your own head.

[Gloominary]

Let me be clear, by gender equality, I meant equal opportunities for men and women, not necessarily equal outcomes.
Of course men and women have differences in abilities, and preferences, and some of these differences are biologically determined and virtually impossible to alter.

[Thanathots]

Hey, I've given you a clue in case you're actually interested in advancing beyond the "I'm not a feminist, I want true equality" phase. The rest is up to you.

Here, another clue:

http://dailystormer.name/feminism-a-jew ... emininity/

by gender equality,I meant equal opportunities for men and women

So surely then you wouldn't trample on men's opportunity to apply violence to dominate women and take away their rights, because women have an equal opportunity to do so to men, they just lack the ability, cause as you stated, men and women are different in ability:

Of course men and women have differences in abilities, and preferences, and some of these differences are biologically determined and virtually impossible to alter

There is no basis for equal rights between men and women, because rights are ultimately based on violent enforcement, and men are the ones who supply (or refrain from supplying) almost all violence.

Women can only obtain rights by lying and manipulation (feminine coercion) to obscure this fact, and their keeping of these rights is thus parasitic.

[Zero_Sum]

Oy Vey, the fascists and alt-rightists are taking over ILP with their hate thoughts against women along with everybody else. The future of the world along with the west is matriarchal, stop fighting against progress you hate mongers!

[Thanathots]

Oy Vey, the fascists and alt-rightists are taking over ILP with their hate thoughts against women along with everybody else. The future of the world along with the west is matriarchal, stop fighting against progress you hate mongers!

Actually, I'm just sarcastically mocking these evil fascists and alt-rightists by pretending to espouse their clearly false and delusional beliefs.

In reality, I am a full on supporter of the ZOG, a progressive, leftist, a feminist, and a proud cuckold, just like you.

[WendyDarling]

Modern feminists are insane.

[Gloominary]

Hey, I've given you a clue in case you're actually interested in advancing beyond the "I'm not a feminist, I want true equality" phase. The rest is up to you.

Here, another clue:

http://dailystormer.name/feminism-a-jew ... emininity/

by gender equality,I meant equal opportunities for men and women

So surely then you wouldn't trample on men's opportunity to apply violence to dominate women and take away their rights, because women have an equal opportunity to do so to men, they just lack the ability, cause as you stated, men and women are different in ability:

Of course men and women have differences in abilities, and preferences, and some of these differences are biologically determined and virtually impossible to alter

There is no basis for equal rights between men and women, because rights are ultimately based on violent enforcement, and men are the ones who supply (or refrain from supplying) almost all violence.

Women can only obtain rights by lying and manipulation (feminine coercion) to obscure this fact, and their keeping of these rights is thus parasitic.

Pffft, spare me the condescension.

Rights aren't 'ultimately based on violent enforcement', they're based on a combination of ethics, and groups organizing themselves to protect their self-interests.
Violence is one of the ways we defend the rights of ourselves and others, another is talking people out of violating them.
Perhaps violence is one of the most affective ways of upholding rights in the short term, but not always in the long term, sometimes it's necessary, other times it can do more damage.
Violence is a means, rights are an end, an end rooted in our social psychology.

It sounds like you believe all people are amoral psychopaths...which's a very peculiar belief, at odds with mainstream psychology.
Which's not necessarily a bad place to be, I hold a few beliefs that're at odds with mainstream psychology, and science myself, but just so you know, you're fighting an uphill battle here, against not only psychology, but common sense, what most people say they know about themselves, their friends and family, and how they feel.
Unsubstantiated declarations and condescension will get you, nowhere.

Some people are psychopaths, perhaps you are, but I, and many others, are not.
People are social, and antisocial animals.
Few people are wholly antisocial, and no one is wholly social, most are some combination of the two.
This may come as news to you, but empathy, sympathy, guilt and shame are real emotions, and having a conscience is a thing...but so is sadism, and indifference to peoples suffering.

If men, and people in general, were incapable of experiencing these feelings, or of having a conscience, women wouldn't be able to ask men for more rights than were and are given to slaves and cattle, let alone than are given to themselves.
Both men and women have some capacity to care for one another, and many women still do, in spite of the damage caused by feminism, which's why it needs to abolished.
We need a movement that upholds the rights of both sexes, or none at all.

[Zero_Sum]

Oy Vey, the fascists and alt-rightists are taking over ILP with their hate thoughts against women along with everybody else. The future of the world along with the west is matriarchal, stop fighting against progress you hate mongers!

Actually, I'm just sarcastically mocking these evil fascists and alt-rightists by pretending to espouse their clearly false and delusional beliefs.

In reality, I am a full on supporter of the ZOG, a progressive, leftist, a feminist, and a proud cuckold, just like you.

I don't believe you, you're a fascist agent of destruction sent to destroy our global social utopia with your hate mongering.

[Zero_Sum]

Hey, I've given you a clue in case you're actually interested in advancing beyond the "I'm not a feminist, I want true equality" phase. The rest is up to you.

Here, another clue:

http://dailystormer.name/feminism-a-jew ... emininity/

by gender equality,I meant equal opportunities for men and women

So surely then you wouldn't trample on men's opportunity to apply violence to dominate women and take away their rights, because women have an equal opportunity to do so to men, they just lack the ability, cause as you stated, men and women are different in ability:

Of course men and women have differences in abilities, and preferences, and some of these differences are biologically determined and virtually impossible to alter

There is no basis for equal rights between men and women, because rights are ultimately based on violent enforcement, and men are the ones who supply (or refrain from supplying) almost all violence.

Women can only obtain rights by lying and manipulation (feminine coercion) to obscure this fact, and their keeping of these rights is thus parasitic.

Pffft, spare me the condescension.

Rights aren't 'ultimately based on violent enforcement', they're based on a combination of ethics, and groups organizing themselves to protect their self-interests.
Violence is one of the ways we defend the rights of ourselves and others, another is talking people out of violating them.
Perhaps violence is one of the most affective ways of upholding rights in the short term, but not always in the long term, sometimes it's necessary, other times it can do more damage.
Violence is a means, rights are an end, an end rooted in our social psychology.

It sounds like you believe all people are amoral psychopaths...which's a very peculiar belief, at odds with mainstream psychology.
Which's not necessarily a bad place to be, I hold a few beliefs that're at odds with mainstream psychology, and science myself, but just so you know, you're fighting an uphill battle here, against not only psychology, but common sense, what most people say they know about themselves, their friends and family, and how they feel.
Unsubstantiated declarations and condescension will get you, nowhere.

Some people are psychopaths, perhaps you are, but I, and many others, are not.
People are social, and antisocial animals.
Few people are wholly antisocial, and no one is wholly social, most are some combination of the two.
This may come as news to you, but empathy, sympathy, guilt and shame are real emotions, and having a conscience is a thing...but so is sadism, and indifference to peoples suffering.

If men, and people in general, were incapable of experiencing these feelings, or of having a conscience, women wouldn't be able to ask men for more rights than were and are given to slaves and cattle, let alone than are given to themselves.
Both men and women have some capacity to care for one another, and many women still do, in spite of the damage caused by feminism, which's why it needs to abolished.
We need a movement that upholds the rights of both sexes, or none at all.

There is a moral and just application of violence then there are other forms that are not, the trick is general social consensus......

[Gloominary]

Oy Vey, the fascists and alt-rightists are taking over ILP with their hate thoughts against women along with everybody else. The future of the world along with the west is matriarchal, stop fighting against progress you hate mongers!

Ah, at last an honest lib.
That's exactly what modern liberals want, matriarchy, they just don't have the cojones to come right out and say it, congratz.

[Zero_Sum]

Oy Vey, the fascists and alt-rightists are taking over ILP with their hate thoughts against women along with everybody else. The future of the world along with the west is matriarchal, stop fighting against progress you hate mongers!

Ah, at last an honest lib.
That's exactly what modern liberals want, matriarchy, they just don't have the cojones to come right out and say it, congratz.

It is man's inherit violent and primitive competitive nature that is holding us back from a technological futuristic social utopia, men in some way need to be neutralized so that they don't endanger the progress of civilization itself. Thank God (Elohim) for feminism, women will lead our future to global progress and men should learn from them.

[Thanathots]

Gloominary, every single point you made that was relevant was addressed in the text in the first post I made to you. So no reason for me to waste time arguing. I didn't link it for shits and giggles, you know?

Those who are genuinely interested in the truth tend to find it on their own.

[Gloominary]

Women weren't historically oppressed the way slaves were, instead they were treated like big children, with fewer freedoms, and responsibilities and burdens than men.

[Gloominary]

In the 19th century women couldn't vote, but at the time, the benefit of the vote came with the cost of the draft.

There were fewer job opportunities for them, but this just meant men had to provide for both them and themselves.
Women's work certainly wasn't easy, but at least it was safe, whereas some men's work, such as coal mining, policing and soldiering took years, or decades off their life expectancy, and most of men's work was backbreaking, which's at least part of the reason why women averagely outlived men by about five years in 19th century USA.
Women don't outlive men by as much as they did yesteryear, but because jobs are less dangerous and physically demanding than they were a century ago, not because women are shouldering much more of the burden, by and large they still shy away from such jobs.

[Gloominary]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/smart-living/why-do-men-need-women-to-smile/ar-BBL3tVb?ocid=spartanntp

I would never ask a woman, or anyone for that matter to smile.
It's just not my style.
The author of this article seems to think this is something only men ask of women.
While I know women ask their boyfriends to smile, and I'm sure some women occasionally ask their male colleagues to smile, perhaps it is something men ask more of women than vice versa.
So because some men expect certain things of women, some times, this is evidence 'the patriarchy is alive and well', apparently.

And do many women not have expectations of men?
Do many of them not expect us to shave?
I'm sure women have said to their male colleagues, gee, you would look way more handsome if you shaved, or cut your long hair, it's just not documented by the MSM, which's demonstrably ruled by female supremacists.
Do many women not expect us to handle mice, spiders and other vermin, or burglars, and when they do, do we think to ourselves, gee, I guess the matriarchy is alive and well?
Do many women not expect us to pick up the check, fix the car, the drain and so on and so forth?

What the MSM has been suggesting since about early 1970s, when female supremacists took it over, is that only men have expectations of women, just because they're women, on account of their sex, and women needn't fulfill any of them.
But the reality is women have about just as many expectations of men.
And it's only fair that the less men can expect from women, individually and collectively, the less women can expect from men.

The reality is, there was never such a thing as patriarchy.
Society and women always expected about just as much from men, or perhaps even a hell of a lot more, than they do from women.
Whatever powers men were given, were given to them with the expectation they would use them to protect and provide for women and children, and when they started showing signs they couldn't or wouldn't fulfill this obligation, they lost them, and everything with them.

[Fixed Cross]

In fact, women had been excluded from politics because political institutions had been created by men, as a compromise and an alternative to warfare, which is a male domain.
Voting and politics can be an economical alternative to warfare, as long as the winners do not seek either to take, or to impose enough to make warfare preferable for the losers.

It can be a win-win, the winners win more, and the losers lose less, than they can by warfare, because they do not have to try the matter by a contest of arms, and politics, therefore, can be stable and productive, so long as it remains within those bounds.

Women do not participate in warfare (and it is best that they do not) so it was never necessary to cut them in on the spoils of politics, and doing so is to grant them a great and unearned boon; a benefit that they could not obtain by other means. It was a pure indulgence, and an expense with no countervailing benefits. Women’s violence did not need to be bought off because they don’t threaten violence.

Because they are ignorant of the context, and of the domain, having never, historically, participated, and because they do not understand that warfare is the alternative, and politics only a means of avoiding warfare, and can always return to warfare, women recognize no limits. They always demand more. They always seek to impose more.

Further, women bring no spoils to the table, they only make off with them. They contribute nothing, they risk nothing, and they threaten nothing. Therefore it is only right and proper that in this arena, they get nothing.

Most interesting post Ive read on ILP in years.
Very well argued.

[Gloominary]

Here's an incomplete list of female privileges:

When a man criticizes women, it's sexist, when a woman criticizes men, it's feminism.
Women have a movement championing their rights and issues, men, by and large, do not.
Feminists run colleges, universities, the media and have rewritten the laws in women's favor.
Men are made to look idiotic, immoral and irrational in movies and on television, especially sitcoms.
Women are now significantly outperforming men in education, even tho women and men's iQs are averagely equal.

Women win the majority of custody battles.
If it's a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, or to be its mother, if she chooses to have the child, shouldn't it be solely, or at least primarily her responsibility?
A woman can make you pay for child support for a child proven not to be biologically, genetically yours, so long as she conceived it while she was married to, or even just cohabiting with you.

Generally we feel more sorry for women than we do for men.
In relationships, and in general, women are encouraged to be needy, men are encouraged to be needless.
Women's life is valued more than men's, hence when disaster strikes, it's women and children into the life raft first.

Men are discouraged from hitting women, even when women hit men first.
A woman's word is worth more than a man's, apparently, hence the 'me too' movement'?
Generally men do more time for the same crime, even when they have the same criminal history as women.
There's thousands of battered women's shelters in the US but not a single battered men's shelter, even tho there are thousands of battered men.
Female on male domestic violence isn't taken seriously, by society, nor the state, even tho in all probability it occurs just as frequently as male on female domestic violence.

It's men who pick up the tab for everything.
It's Wives who take their husbands 'to the cleaners'.

Women live longer than men.
Women commit suicide less than men.
Women's health issues matter more than men's.
Men take the majority of the dirty, back breaking jobs.
Men work about an hour or two more than women per day averagely.
It's mainly up to men to fix and maintain everything, from automobiles to plumbing.

I bring all this up not to say men always get the short end in male/female relations, the way feminists say the reverse, but just to say both sexes face discrimination and a unique set of challenges, but perhaps men more so, because feminism has blinded both women, and men to men's issues.

[Gloominary]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/smart-living/why-do-men-need-women-to-smile/ar-BBL3tVb?ocid=spartanntp

A male asks his female colleague to smile...how awful.

We're at a point now where the slightest 'infraction' committed by men against women makes national headline news.
And we're suppose to believe women and society have absolute 0 expectations of men...none whatsoever.
A man asks a woman to smile, meanwhile millions of women are asking men to bail them out financially, 'defend their honor' from other men/come to their aid and rescue, pick up the tab, or not bitch and moan as much as many of them do, to man up, it's just not making headlines, because the media unambiguously does not give two shits about men, which's part of the reason why more and more men, and people in general are turning away from it.
The MSM just does not represent working class, white men.

Feminism ought to be designated a hate movement, because that's all it does, 24/7 around the clock is hate on men, on college campuses and in MSM.

Meanwhile, in the middle east:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHtLNWkPsZ0

Sigh, first world problems.

That being said, it's not as if men aren't stoned to death for committing adultery in West Asia, they are, you just don't hear about it, because patriarchy, right?
Gotta maintain the narrative.

Oh and by the way, the media criticizes parts of West Asia for practicing female genital mutilation, but what about the millions of infant boys who're having their genitals mutilated AKA male circumcision in our own backyard?
Again, more proofs college campuses, the media, politicians and society as a whole, does not give two fucks about men's rights and issues.

If something affects women or people in general?
Great, let's look into it.
If something affects men alone?
Fuck em!

[Gloominary]

I wonder what working class white men are guilty of today?
Better check the headlines, I can't wait.

I guess the patriarchy owns the press too, if it was really impartial, 98% of its content would be dedicated to slamming stupid white men, instead of the paltry 75-80% we get now.

[Gloominary]

Classical Roman law did not allow any domestic abuse by a husband to his wife,[88] but as with any other crime, laws against domestic abuse can be assumed to fail to prevent it. Cato the Elder said, according to his biographer Plutarch, "that the man who struck his wife or child, laid violent hands on the holiest of holy things. Also that he thought it more praiseworthy to be a good husband than a good senator."[89] A man of status during the Roman Republic was expected to behave moderately toward his wife and to define himself as a good husband. Wife beating was sufficient grounds for divorce or other legal action against the husband.[90]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome#Domestic_abuse

[Gloominary]

Throughout much of European history at least, women were not in any reasonable sense, oppressed.
In the Roman Republic/Empire, they were legally and socially protected from physical and sexual abuse, and albeit socially protected from mental and emotional abuse.
They were free to divorce their husbands and remarry whomever they chose.
They were free to own property, engage in business, and live and travel independently.
They were educated nearly as much as boys, and could take just about any job, except for jobs in the military, politics and a few others, because these jobs were perceived as being especially masculine activities, and in the case of the military at least, they were probably, objectively right.

In the modern, western era the bar has been lowered to admit women into the military, so perhaps the Romans had the right idea, the bar shouldn't be lowered in order to accommodate them, as doing so makes our military less effective, consequently costing lives.
And politics, at least for the Romans, was perceived as an extension of the military, or vice versa, and thereby also a strictly masculine domain.
Politicians gave the orders and laws, and the military carried them out.
The bar shouldn't be lowered for firefighting and policing for that matter either, or any other job where women collectively have a significant, objective disadvantage, most especially jobs where lives are on the line.
There is such a thing as taking equality to absurd lengths.
And the same goes for men too, should we find something women are substantially better at.

While there were many jobs available to women, from the likes of waitressing, acting, to the likes of scribing, many women were encouraged to be stay at home moms...but there's reasons for that.
Altho contraception and abortion existed in Ancient Europe, because it wasn't nearly as effective, and because infant morality was significantly higher, women spent much of their lives being pregnant and weening small children at home, and so the vast majority of them simply did not have the time, energy or skills to be as career driven as men, at least if they wanted a family, which most of them did, and were encouraged to, just as most men did, and were encouraged to.
And likewise men were discouraged from being stay at home dads/encouraged to be the sole or primary bread winners.
Still many Roman women worked when they could, to help support their families, or to better themselves.

So even tho only men were legislators, officially anyway, clearly they were legislating with their mothers, sisters and daughters welfare in mind, in addition to their fathers, brothers and sons welfare.
And of course the wives of rich, powerful men were able to privately influence what they did in public.

Without contraception and abortion methods improving in the early-mid 20th century, most 21st century would have to be stay at home moms as well, no matter the ideolog(ies) in place.
And staying at home isn't all bad, on the contrary, it was much safer and in many ways, and less physically demanding, which's part of the reason why women outlived men by a few years.
And men were also equally if not moreso discouraged from being stay at home dads.
Women also had 24/7, around the clock access to the household and its contents, like food, drink and access to the hearts and minds of their children, slaves and other members of their household, which they could poison and blacken against their men, if they so desired, a kind of domestic power men lacked.

Now Ancient Greece might be another matter, the way they treated women was in some respects more Asiatic than properly European, which makes sense, given they were in closer proximity to West Asia, which has a appalling track record of infantilizing women/treating them like invalids.
But throughout much of Europe and European history at least, women were never oppressed.

The feminist narrative is a fallacy, one that demonizes men and has damaged male/female relations for decades, perhaps centuries to come.
Mainstream feminism isn't equality between the sexes, we've always had that in the west.
Men and women's roles may've differed to some extent, but not as starkly as in other regions of the world, and women's abuse was rarely, if ever permitted, they were never treated like children, invalids or worse, slaves, not remotely.

Feminism is, or at least has gradually become cancer.
It is the tyranny of women over men, masquerading as equality.
Feminism is a reaction to a collective crime that was by and large, never committed, at least not on European soil, and isn't being committed, they then use as a justification, a pretext to oppress men.
There never was a patriarchy, or even if there was to some extent, it was largely benevolent towards women.
But today we live increasingly in a matriarchy that demonizes, and subjugates men.

[The Eternal Warrior]

or, it's getting better and it's only anti-male because it's pro-male in a savage garden. It's a movement of strong women in the pursuit of social-engineering strong men.