Gloominary wrote:Throughout much of European history at least, women were not in any reasonable sense, oppressed.
Bob wrote:Gloominary wrote:Throughout much of European history at least, women were not in any reasonable sense, oppressed.
This argument is much like the way Nazis defended the historical oppression of Jews. There were many Jews who, despite their oppression, rose to high positions and became Professors or experts in their field, but they were all the same oppressed. In the same way, women have in European history been at a disadvantage, despite having contributed in many ways to the development of society. However being “the other half”, albeit smugly called “the better half”, but not having a say because women were deemed emotionally unstable or associated with similar derogatory attributes is a kind of oppression under which many women suffered. This is especially true in households where the man was a drunkard, a bigot, a brute or just simply an idiot, but remained “head” of that household, despite the woman being the only hope for the children born into such a relationship.
It all has to do with biology. Most men are attracted to women in a way that they have to learn to control if they are not to be considered depraved idiots by their peers. This is because the instinct that nature gives them is to get their genes reproduced. Women, at least in young years, have all the attractions that nature gave them to ensure that the species survives, and the very sight of a naked woman has rendered men unable to think of anything else. Of course in a modern society, it isn’t acceptable for people to go around copulating and making children, indeed, due to progress, it isn’t necessary because more children survive to become adults.
With this in mind, women can, of course, use this advantage to influence men and almost always do. Sometimes the results are not what they expect or wish, very often because they do not understand what they are doing. This is very often the case with young girls who have reached full-blown puberty. Whilst society must protect these young women, with time most women learn to use their influence to their advantage. Of course, after the fever has dropped, men realize how their drive has been used by women to get what they want, and the men start to resent this. This is particularly so when it becomes apparent to others and is one reason for the insecurity amongst men.
To defend their ego against such insecurity, men devise various approaches. One that seems to contribute to their attractiveness in some cases, is to pretend they don’t care. This has complications, however, and with time wears off. Many try to take command of the situation, and as long as the women accept this control it can go well, as long as the insecurity of the man doesn’t get the better of him. Then they turn into the brutes I mentioned above. Some retreat because they notice how little they attract a woman, and are left to “love themselves”. Others, apparently a minority, are able to overcome their insecurities and find a soul-mate with whom they harmonize and have a happy life.
It becomes clear then, that Feminism is not an attack on the last group of men, but more against the brutes that think that the only way to stay in control, is to prevent women gaining influence and do so by ridiculing, reducing them to sex objects and generally oppressing them. I think more men should understand this because it could lead to a better co-existence of women and men, and a sharing of the particular attributes each sex has to contribute to the problems that we are facing.
There it is, right in there. Amazing how a whole philosophical position can be built on the rage and hurt tucked into an image, an image taken for reality.Gloominary wrote:Now we've gone to the other extreme, if a modern man so much as glances at a woman, he's raped her, well unless he's Brad Pitt or Matt Damon, than it's okay.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think one excellent thing feminism has done is that it combatted the idiotic images of women (and to some degree men) that were prevalent before the 20th century and continuing up into certainly the 60s as rules. That women were childlike and incapable of all sorts of things - in science, physical activities, working class type skills, various types of research and intellectual abilities, etc. IOW it was considered almost a rule that women could not do all sorts of things that they can in fact do. I do not believe men and women are the same. Nor am I saying everyone should work, etc. But we had as a norm a hallucinated image of women, what they were capable of, what they were interested in and what their temperment must be. I think it is invaluable to have realistic ideas about humans and there were confusions, lies, and idiocy and it is excellent that this has been challenged by amongst others, feminists. Men also have been put in little boxes, but not to the same degree. They were generally seen to have a wide range of temperments, skill potentials, interests, wider anyway than women.
Perhaps some people thing it is a noble lie to tell women and men that women cannot do all sorts of things we now take for granted they have the ability to do or learn to do. IOW ok, they can do these things, but they shouldn't, so let's keep that noble lie in place. I think that's just BS.
I prefer it that the woman I am with was not infantalized and limited. That it was assumed she could do all sorts of things, that many people still refuse to think they can. Her not being boxed in entails that the person I live with can challenge me with a complicated intelligence and confidence.
Just like the middle-aged morons who seem to think that sleeping with a 17 year old virgin is some kind of lottery win, I think people who want to go back to the way women were throught of an treated have a very low sense of self. Like its really fun to play a sport you are good at with someone with no experience. Like it's great to have discussions with someone who has never really thought about much. That seems to be the attraction of having sex with virgins. Maybe those men just ain't got game. And then to raise this to a whole lifetime. To want to be close to someone who has been told and has believed they are not capable of all sorts of things they are capable of.
Sure we can jump back to pagan societies, but pagans and indigenous groups often allowed women a greater range of roles that so called civilized societies. Fucking Abrahamic judgments of women, humans, nature.
Before feminism in the West, middle class women and up were treated like poodles. Working class and poorer women like oxen at best.
Who wants half the human race, and close loved ones, to have their brains and abilities treated like bonsai trees?
And the rage aimed at them to get them back in their boxes, it is never personal, it is always presented as logical. It never has to do with the lives of the people, this rage for women to go back to pretending they are retarded spazes who should be treated like dried flowers.
No one pushing for them to get back in boxes ever, every is willing to admit their fear.
Who wants half the human race, and close loved ones, to have their brains and abilities treated like bonsai trees?
Fixed Cross wrote:It's done great and necessary work.
Among the first feminists were the sexual-psychological liberators, the first women that revealed their dreams and fantasies.
Of course equal rights are a basic value to us now, and rightly so.
It will only go wrong when it keeps pushing for the dishonouring of men. Before we know it women will be possessions again. Its up to women to put a stop to the proliferation of the idea that women are morally superior to men. It won't end well otherwise, I can see that decades in advance.
The techniques of postmodern deception, taken together, allow their practitioners to “hack” the “marketplace of ideas” so that the good ideas don’t win. The good ideas, the nuggets of truth and wisdom, are surrounded by so much bullshit that hardly anyone can find them. And the bad ideas are protected by feminine coercion so that people fear to challenge them; all as they are blasted out on all channels, and all frequencies, all the time.
The root problem is that people can bullshit faster than anyone can shovel. Lying can be very cheap and easy. Truthfulness is expensive, demanding, and difficult. So the only way for truth to prevail is for the truthful to take their shovels, not to the bullshit, but to the bullshitters. Make it costly to lie and people will stop. Make it cheap, and even if you don’t fall for the lies, the liars can just go lie at someone who will and come back with enough strength and numbers to beat you. “Free Speech” was a noble idea. But it failed.
This seems like an abandoning the field of discussion. It would apply to all arguments, it seems, with those you disagree with who are on the left.Thanathots wrote:So still only falsehoods, bad arguments, and shaming from the pro-feminist side.
I'd argue with you, but you know...The techniques of postmodern deception, taken together, allow their practitioners to “hack” the “marketplace of ideas” so that the good ideas don’t win. The good ideas, the nuggets of truth and wisdom, are surrounded by so much bullshit that hardly anyone can find them. And the bad ideas are protected by feminine coercion so that people fear to challenge them; all as they are blasted out on all channels, and all frequencies, all the time.
The root problem is that people can bullshit faster than anyone can shovel. Lying can be very cheap and easy. Truthfulness is expensive, demanding, and difficult. So the only way for truth to prevail is for the truthful to take their shovels, not to the bullshit, but to the bullshitters. Make it costly to lie and people will stop. Make it cheap, and even if you don’t fall for the lies, the liars can just go lie at someone who will and come back with enough strength and numbers to beat you. “Free Speech” was a noble idea. But it failed.
Great, I would even word it the same way.Gloominary wrote:Feminism is an ideology, movement and organization(s) dedicated to promoting women's interests, not equality.
In some cases they've promoted their interests fairly,
This has happened. I would say more often the problem was that it promoted hardened lines, from which problems for all parties would continue to eminate.in others they've promoted their interests at the expense of men's, and even children's.
Yes.And increasingly it's been more a case of the latter, than the former.
We cannot expect a movement ran predominantly by women, for women, to uphold the interests of men and boys, which's why there either needs to be (a) more prominent counter movement(s), or there needs to be a movement promoting equality between the sexes in all areas, across the board, not only when it benefits women.
There are also huges spaces, bot private and public where women as still seen as emotionally infantile, for example, and the women in those spaces have to perform better than men to be taken seriously. Or make more noise, etc.It's no longer occasionally, it's all day long now, we're being bombarded with misandry, by academia, the media and politicians.
There's a small, but growing backlash against it.
FAir enough, and I've been in a situation where I have had to tell feminists, for example, that in a discussion of sexual abuse of Children, it is not OK to refer to the victims as she all the time or the perpetrators as he. And if they then argue that this fits statistics, I tell them that this is a staff meeting, we have to be here, and at least one of us experienced it the other way around, and out of respect for him and any others, they should be empathetic and professional. This is not Always the result.Men, and women increasingly are taking note of the injustices being committed against men and boys, and increasingly growing sick and tired of the media belittling and demeaning them.
Now I want to see a positive, just response, not a reaction to all this, that corrects inequities feminism has committed, without adding to them.
There are also huges spaces, bot private and public where women as still seen as emotionally infantile, for example, and the women in those spaces have to perform better than men to be taken seriously. Or make more noise, etc.
There are still a lot of spaces where a woman without a male gardian is seen as inviting sex, and either this should allow it or is a bitch, if not worse.
A turning Point for me around this issue was when I Heard from women how many times men have shown them their penises in parks, how many men walk up to them and say fucked up shit, in daytime, how much they HAVE TO be Cold in these situations
and yet if they are Cold when there unwanted advances
they are called cunts
or other names
and not just by some weird old pervert on the street, but via gossip channels that affect work, social lives and more.
If I read your post it's like things were basically equal, then feminism keeps pushing things and now men are viticims more than women.
I see it as, yes, feminism is going too far in a number of areas and this can be really fucked up. There are even some environements where men have the lower hand.
I still see men in most of the Power positions, so if things are fucked up, it is still primarily coming from the decisions of men.
So it would be odd to blame women for the problems of post-modernity or current society. Even weirder to blame a subset of women, feminists, for making the modern World fucked up. Most of what we face is due to the decisions of men.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:The rich are getting richer. I just read a book about a trend in society where the rich and powerful, the elite, are no longer seen as legally punishable. Even the supposedly liberal media does not like when rich and powerful people might be sentenced to prison. Suddenly judges, prosecutors and the media begin to talk about putting it behind us, about how harsh the shift from freedom to prison would be for a hedge fund director or a politician, how it must be political. IOW it is not just that the rich and powerful can hire much better legal representation. It is that the US no longer is a land ruled by law. The law is no longer applicable to the rich and powerful. Of course there are exceptions, but there is now a systematic no longer even charging people with crimes, if they have positions of power in the private or the public sectors, then dropping the cases, giving probation, pardoning them, etc. Not simply because their lawyers are better, but because of how the judges, prosecutors and the media view a rich and or powerful person going to prison. And this can be for precisely the same crimes. Drug crimes, violence, whatever.
The US has not been a democracy for a long time. It is an oligarchy. Now the rich are not held accountable for crimes.
So I see a thread like this in which feminism is given so much power. You are fighting over scraps. It is nto the feminists who are taking away your power.
It is the elites.
And while republicans and democrats and feminists and anti-feminists and antifa - and alt. right demonize each other and scuffle and blame eachother for the end of the good society,
the people with real power giggle there way in and out of the banks that they own and that own us.
Specific issues with specific policies and ideas in these various groups are great to argue about. There is a lot of fucked up shit out there,even created by people with relatively little power. That feminists have created some horrendous policies and demonized people who should not be demonized....agreed. Each of those groups I mentioned above has proposed some good stuff and some bad stuff and some horrendous stuff.
But they do not have the power (some democratic and republican politicians have soem power, though most as just fronts in debt to peopel in real power).
But when someone want to blame any one of those groups for most of the problems, paint them as THE threat, they are confused and worse, they are helping the people who are fucking us all over. People who do not give a shit about either side of any of those splits into groups above. People who love that these groups exist and joust with each other.
There are still facets of society that need a feminist challenge. There are areas where feminism has fucked things up. Likewise each of those groups.
but saying that the white man in Europe will become a slave because of feminism, is radically not noticing that feminists and all the others with relatively little power will be slaves also. And already are.
Thanathots wrote:Feminism isn't necessarily wrong. If men are such a bunch of weak, low-testosterone, cuckold faggots that they would permit women to be feminists, then women deserve to rule over them, and the weak men deserve to suffer all the consequences of their weakness, the ultimate one typically being getting conquered by a more virile, patriarchal group.
The only problem I have is that I live in the same society as these weak men, and so am forced to share in the consequences of their decisions. I could give less of a fuck if some faggot in another group is so weak and stupid that he can be convinced by a woman to give her power. In fact, having men in other groups be weak is probably even a benefit to me, for obvious reasons.
So how about we have different societies. One society for non-feminists and one society for feminists.
Feminism in society is the political manifestation of weakness in men. Patriarchy is therefore the opposite, the political manifestation of strength in men. Of course, there are outliers, so if you are a patriarchal-minded man in a 90% feminist society, tough shit, and if you are a feminist in a 90% patriarchal society tough shit, but a political regime can only be in place if enough people agree with it, and men can only agree with feminism if they are weak, especially mentally, but typically physically too.
And needless to say, all other factors equal or approximately equal, a patriarchal society defeats a matriarchal (feminist) one every time.
Gloominary wrote:Just because a population group is physically weaker, doesn't mean it's inferior
, or of less value
, or it can't attend to its own needs, and ours, better autonomously than it can shackled.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Peter Kropotkin