Feminism is Anti-male

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Bob]

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.

[Gloominary]

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.

Or were men oppressed, because they couldn't stay home, cook and clean while women chopped wood, coal mined, farmed, policed and soldiered?

Women had to stay home, we weren't permitted by the Abrahamic religions to practice infanticide, and abortion, and while we had contraception, from lambskin condoms to pulling out, it wasn't nearly as effective.
Additionally, the infant morality rate was much higher, you had to give birth to 6 kids just to have 3 make it to adulthood.
Women were giving birth to 5, 10, 20 kids, half the time they were pregnant and weening.
Furthermore, jobs were more dangerous and physically demanding, and politics, and even business were more cutthroat, ruthless.

Consequently the vast majority of women neither labored, nor were educated as much as men, and their efforts in laboring and education weren't taken as seriously, just as stay at home dads, or gigolos with sugar mamas weren't taken as seriously, well they're still not.
This wasn't oppression, it was pragmatism, feminism could not exist in the dark ages.

The world was a more frightful place in many ways, and on top of that, women were handicapped, pregnant and weening half the time, consequently the vast majority of them had to be protected and provided for, and men risked life and limb doing just that, reducing their own life expectancy in the process.
And what appreciation does mankind get?
Absolutely none.
Instead they got guilt tripped and shamed for bringing forth a civilization from rocks, trees and dirt, amidst wild beasts.

And if women still aren't taken as seriously in politics and business as men, men still aren't taken seriously as fathers, which's why family courts award women custody the overwhelming majority of the time.

And women were always protected, by men collectively from being raped by men individually, except during warfare, so I don't know what you're getting at.
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.

[Bob]

Go and take a long run off a short pier ...

You have no intention to discuss, so forget it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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]

Men and women each have strengths and weaknesses.
It, should go without saying, but recognizing differences that are there, isn't the same as misogyny, or misandry for that matter.
When it comes to intelligence, as far as cognitivists can measure, men and women seem to be roughly equal, men tend to be somewhat visual-spatially smarter, women tend to be somewhat linguistically smarter, and they're roughly equal when it comes to other intelligences, at least the ones measured.

However, physically and emotionally, there are significant differences relevant to this topic.
Men's physical advantage is they're stronger, women's physical advantage is they can give birth, and while women might be more emotionally intelligent in some ways, in identifying and expressing emotions, men's emotions are more stable, they're arguably better at redirecting and repressing them when need be, not allowing themselves to be overwhelmed by them, and they're better at dealing with dangerous, highly volatile situations, at remaining calm in a crisis.
Women have evolved to avoid, or flee from such situations, in the main, relatively.
While there are exceptions, some women who're physically and emotionally stronger than many men, the world, and jobs were more physically demanding and dangerous hitherto, and men were better at dealing with it, and them, consequently women had to be sheltered more.
Furthermore, women were handicapped by being pregnant and weening half the time.

It is only now, that our world has been made less physically challenging and safer, by men, now, that we have better contraception methods, thanks to men, now, that we're recognizing overpopulation is a problem, again thanks to men, that women are able, and willing to have fewer children, and can participate in the economy and politics more.
And even now, the vast majority of dirty, physically demanding and dangerous jobs are done by men, even tho we have lowered our standards so women can do them too.
And you don't hear femininists complaining too much about that.
Of course they want all the cushy, high paying jobs and none of the grunt work men still by and large do themselves to this day.
Not only when it comes to construction, firefighting and so on, but even tho women are probably just as capable of understanding human anatomy as men, still the vast majority of surgeons, and EMTs are men, because arguably men are better at keeping their cool in a crisis than women, and/or don't mind dealing with life/death situations on a regular basis, where as women tend to shy away from that sort of thing.

My counternarrative is that women always, at least in the west, had rights, the right not to be physically and sexually abused, the right to be protected and provided for by their fathers and husbands, who had a duty to protect and provide for them.
Men and women had different roles because they are different, and these differences were more relevant back then than they are today, which's not to say they're completely irrelevant today, just less so.
As these differences started mattering less, women were granted more rights, and men less duties, to have to take care of them, proportionately.
The west, as in Europe since Rome and its offshoots (the USA and so on), have mostly tended to maximize the amount of freedoms given to women, and minimize the number of duties given to men, as opposed to say the middle east, which have mostly done the opposite.

Was it men who first demanded that women needed to be coddled (assuming that's what men were doing, coddling women), or was it women?
Is coddling someone harder on the coddled, or the coddler?
Throughout history, men wrote the majority of the books, but women may've been content with their station in life, I think it's contentious to presume they weren't.

[Gloominary]

Today, thanks in large part to feminism, there are no social, legal or financial ramifications for women falsely accusing men of rape.
Men are presumed rapists until proven innocent, and even after being proven innocent, few will ever look at them the same way, most of the damage has already been done by the accusation alone.
Women, on the other hand, are presumed helpless, hapless victims.
Men are warned time and time again, not to misread the signals women put out, or there will be dire consequences, but women aren't warned not to mislead men, just so long as they feel they've been harassed, they have been, what they mayn't, or may've done to bring on men's sexual advances, they're taught, is irrelevant.

And of course women would never, ever voluntarily use their sex to gain unearned favor over their colleagues in the workplace, and then cry wolf about it years, or decades later, in order to garner sympathy, reparations and publicity they don't deserve.

Meanwhile, female on male rape isn't taken seriously, most are not even aware of its existence, and there's probably just as much female on male domestic violence, it just goes underreported, because men are never, ever victims, only perpetrators.
If a man calls 9-11 and says, my wife or girlfriend is attacking me, they're still far more likely to arrest the man than they are the woman, because again, men aren't victims, only perpetrators.
And a man cannot publicly defend himself from being assaulted by a woman, without some naïve, sexist morons attacking him, further enabling her anti-social behavior.

These are just a few examples of how sexism goes both ways.
Often sexism favors women at men's expense.

[Gloominary]

Objectification and sexism goes both ways.
if there's a tendency for some men to use women for sex, there's a tendency for some women to use men for money.
If there's a tendency for some men to view women as dumb, crazy, emotionally unstable and helpless, there's a tendency for some women to view men as boorish, selfish, sadistic, savage brutes, domineering, aggressive and impulsive, it's just we don't hear women's sexism and objectification of men criticized and condemned on college campuses, in the media or political arena, on the contrary, they encourage it, because they've long since been taken over by radical feminists, who's only real interest is in exploiting men.

[Arcturus Descending]

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.

Please do not read much into this but this post deserves a kiss on the cheek.

Reading it was akin to walking in a cool gentle rain on a warm day ~ bare-footed ~ on the grass ~ very affirming toward women.

Who wants half the human race, and close loved ones, to have their brains and abilities treated like bonsai trees?

I did not quite understand this at first so I looked up the meaning of Bonzai (they are beautiful by the way) and I read this:

The word “Bon-sai” (often misspelled as bonzai or banzai) is a Japanese term which, literally translated, means “planted in a container”. ... The ultimate goal of growing a Bonsai is to create a miniaturized but realistic representation of nature in the form of a tree.

Perhaps you were referring to the "planted in a container" phrase where the Bonsai's growth would have to necessarily be *stunted*. But at least there, though miniaturized, it is a realistic representation of nature.
Bonzai's are truly awesome to behold in my estimation.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Gloominary]

There's sociobiological reasons why men typically valued youth more than women did.
Women's fertility plummets in their 30s, and is virtually nonexistent by their 40s.

[Gloominary]

There's no question young women, and men for that matter are generally more physically attractive, and healthy than older women, and men.
Personally there's things I like about young women, and things I like about older women.
If more men value women for their beauty, health and vitality than women value men for said qualities, so what?
They have every right to select the women they want, for whatever reasons they want.

People tend to construe it as older men wanting to take advantage of young women, but it can just as easily be seen as older men wanting to take care of young women, in more ways than one: financially, mentally and emotionally.
Older men typically have more money than young men, and a lot of young women are more than happy to take advtange of their wealth and resources than date their peers, it goes both ways.

There's a lot of women getting a 'free ride' (well that's not really how I see it, but it can be construed that way), who have little-nothing to offer financially, intellectually and emotionally, who're being taken care of, on account of their (youthful) beauty.
How many older, richer women would do the same for young men?
Not many.

That's how things work in our society, women tend to get taken care of, by men individually, or by the state.
There are fewer homeless women, fewer women in prisons and psych wards, more money spent on women's health, battered women's shelters and on, and on, men have a lower life expectancy, drink more, commit suicide more, take all the dangerous and physically demanding jobs, etcetera.
If you place a male, and female beggar on the street, who do you thinks going to get more handouts?

[Gloominary]

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.

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, in others they've promoted their interests at the expense of men's, and even children's.
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.

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.
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.

And I completely disagree with you on this, women in 21st century NA and the EU are in absolutely no danger of being subjected and subordinated to 'patriarchy', no it's the other way round, if we follow the path we're on to its logical conclusion, men's status won't be much better than that of slaves, or beasts of burden.

[Thanathots]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

Right now my latest one is 23, I'm about to be 39. I didn't hit on her or anything. She just came along and basically made it clear by grabbing me by the crotch and then keeping in contact and coming over to bang in her spare time. So maybe it's not always older guys going for younger women, but the other way around.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

I should add that I am also con-feminist. There are many feminists and feminist positions I am against. But when one dismisses all they have done and been for and against, it is just silly and binary where there is complexity.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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,

Great, I would even word it the same way.

in others they've promoted their interests at the expense of men's, and even children's.

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.
This has included way to much focus on controlling how people communicate, rather than getting us to where everyone can be expressive, even when it is unfair, so we can hash stuff out.

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.

Yes.

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.

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.


But I still see a lot of areas where women are treated like shit in ways men are not and these are norms.

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.

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.

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.

[Thanathots]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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]

Karpal Tunnel that's off-topic but wow man you're brutal. I'm just here taking it one step at a time, but you wanna get to gassing Jews and their traitorous puppets and accomplices immediately. Slow down, man.

Maybe we don't need to exterminate them all. Maybe we can just remove these subversive degenerates from power peacefully.

But I guess you just want this and there's no stopping you.

Karpal Tunnel for the next fuhrer?

There's just no stopping him.

[Gloominary]

@Karpel

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.

If men are sometimes perceived as being more competent at work, women are often perceived as being more competent at everything else, at managing domestic affairs, at health, at relationships, at staying out of trouble, essentially at being life smart.
I mean are you saying women and society don't have any, or many 'negative' perceptions of men, or that these negative perceptions don't hinder men, in any way?

In popular culture, if men are depicted as heroes more, they're also depicted as villains more, as gangsters and thugs, as drinkers and drug addicts.
Look how men have been depicted in sitcoms from about the 80s onward, comparatively.
The male characters, from Al Bundy, Tim Taylor, Ray Romano, Dough Heffernan, Homer Simpson to Peter Griffin are depicted as well meaning idiots at best, hapless and helpless without the aid of the women in their lives, and at worst, downright psychopathic.
Men are often depicted as loud and obnoxious, mentally and emotionally stunted, socially inept, perpetually adolescent, preoccupied with base things like drinking, sex, junk food and sports.

Now you could say: well men earned that reputation.
Really?
In some cases they didn't, and in others, well maybe that's only because they've been socialized into being as such, just as women have, apparently been socialized into being stay at home moms, instead of ambitious and career driven, so perhaps if women, and men started seeing men in different light, they would change...not that that's what I want, really I don't give a damn, I don't care either way, if men, or women change, but it's a double standard, to attribute all of women's, 'shortcomings' to discrimination and socialization, and all of men's, perceived 'shortcomings' to biology, or freewill.
'Well that's just the way they are, they're inferior'.
What's good about women is intrinsic, what's bad is extrinsic.
Conversely what's good about men is extrinsic, what's bad is intrinsic.

And these attitudes we're permitted to hold towards men, I wonder what implications they have for the following:

Women are more likely to win custody in family courts.
Women are more likely to take men to the cleaners.
They're less likely to be homeless.
They're less likely to be incarcerated, even for committing the same crimes, with the same criminal history.
Much more attention and money get poured into women's health issues.
So called 'couples therapists' typically side with women over men.

These're just a few examples of areas where men are disadvantaged, and women overprivileged, at least in part, because of societal prejudices.

If there're more men at the top echelons of society, in politics and big business, there are more men at the very bottom, making up the majority of homeless, incarcerated and institutionalized.

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.

And what about injustices men face?

If a woman accuses a man of physical or sexual abuse, he's automatically perceived as guilty, if he's been exonerated by the courts, well, he's still kind of guilty, somehow, in any case many wouldn't want to be associated, or do business with him.
If a man accuses a woman of physical or sexual abuse, at best he is laughed at, and at worst, well, he's guilty, he must've deserved it, he was cheating on her, or mistreating her somehow.
If a woman murders someone, well, she was crazy, someone or something drove her to it, if a man murders someone, he's a coldblooded psychopath.
If a man gets attacked by a woman in public, *shrugs, if he defends himself from her attacks, he runs the risk of being lynched by a mob.
Female genital mutiliation happening in Asia, big problem, male genital mutiliation happening in NA, the EU and Australia, *shrugs.

And there are virtually no social, or legal consequences for women caught lying about being raped, when they ought to be imprisoned, ostracized and shunned.

And there is no 'rape culture'.
A few isolated individuals with archaic beliefs, or a few sociopaths hardly constitutes a culture.
I have never met someone in person who condoned rape under any circumstances.
If someone walked around town, handing out flyers that said: 'it's okay to rape women under certain circumstances, like if they're scantily clad or drunk', he would not make it out of town in one piece.
98% of men don't think rape is okay.
Not a majority, not a significant minority, only a tiny minority of scattered individuals, most of them social lepers and outcasts, do.

That's hardly culture.
The closest thing I can think of that comes to rape, counterculture is gangsta rap, which's promoted by the progressive media, mind you, or the radical Islamists we've been importing, who's very existence is ignored, if not denied by progressives, the very ones lecturing us about 'rape culture'.
If they're really concerned about it, perhaps they should be addressing gangsta rap and radical Islam, but they don't give a fuck, probably because their agenda is as much or more about attacking white men, as it is about defending women.

And there's a lot of drug dealing, murder and theft going on out there, but we don't refer to it as murder culture, or theft culture.

And In our culture, it's still primarily men who're expected to be sexually outgoing.
Sometimes they come on too strong, on the other hand, sometimes they get slapped in the face for just trying to be nice, or express interest.
Sometimes women are coy, adding to, some men's confusion.
Sometimes women play head games, feign interest, only to use them for sexual, financial or other favors.
I wonder how women would do if the shoe was on the other foot?
Women by and large, are the selectors still, they have more power in many ways, in relationships.
It's men who put themselves out there, to be accepted, or rejected, who take the risks.

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.

Population groups are never going to be equal.
Do you know why?
Because they're not equal, not in talent, nor tenacity.
Jews and some Asian immigrants outperform whites economically and educationally, they also have lower homeless and incarceration rates, and women are now outperforming men educationally, and have always had lower homeless and incarceration rates.
While part of the inequities we face are probably due to discrimination, they're also due to biological differences between groups, and cultural differences, as well as different choices individuals within groups happen to make, and so on.

If Askhenazi Jews culturally value academia and banking over drugs and crime, and have higher IQs than the mean, why would we expect them to be equal to other population groups?
It's absurd.
There's always, always going to be differences between groups, however 'big', or 'slight'.

While women seem to be as intelligent as men, as far as iQ tests are concerned, and as far as iQ tests are presently designed, perhaps they're less intelligent in ways we can't, or aren't measuring, or perhaps they're less ambitious, or just aren't interested in the sorts of high playing jobs, like STEM, taking on leadership roles in academia, business and politics, as men are.
Who cares?
No one would so much as bat an eye at the suggestion that women make better parents than men, that that's why they're awarded custody more, or women are less antisocial, that that's why they're incarcerated less.

Studies have indicated while there are more male geniuses, there are also more male idiots, proportionately, so perhaps that's at least part of the reason why more men are found in both the upper, and lower rungs of society, whereas more women are found in the middle.

But none of this should come as a shock or surprise, progressivism is after all an ideology, first and foremost, it's not science, altho like conservatism, it sometimes make use of, or abuses, manipulates and masquerades as science.
Some say it's about promoting equality between population groups, but there's nothing necessarily scientific, or reasonable about wanting to do that, in fact, in some cases it's damaging, or impossible to, but read in between the lines, it's not just about promoting equality, it's about women, minorities and their useful idiots getting 'revenge' against white men.

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.

Arguably, males and females have always had it about equal, we just had different roles.
If you measure value solely in terms of how many individuals from your group are leaders in politics, business and academia, than yea, white men are number one, but oddly enough, that in itself is kind of...patriarchal way of measuring value to begin with, in a sense.
Ironic, isn't it?
If you measure value more in terms of health and safety, women live longer and are healthier today than men, less so today in fact than they were in the 19th century, for as long as records have been kept, they've been living longer.
What population of slaves can say they're being taken care of in many ways, better than their masters?
No population of slaves at all, that's what.

Again there are less homeless women, less incarcerated and institutionalized women.
Women are more likely to receive help from men and society when they ask for it, etcetera.

Is it better to have more members of your group in positions of power and prestige, or would you rather have more support from your community and the state?
Friends and family you can confide in, especially in times of mental and emotional distress?
One of the reasons why men drink more, is because there's fewer outlets for their release.
Perhaps it's one of the reasons why men commit suicide more, too.
Because society doesn't sympathize with male grief, or poverty, sickness and so on.

What is quality of life, and which population group really has it?
While men may've had more power than women historically, and contemporaneously in some ways, and while sometimes, some men may've abused this power, many more men have been fair, and generous with women.
If women have had less power, they've been valued by society more.
Again, it's, women and children first, when disaster strikes.
To this day it's predominantly men who take the dirtiest, most dangerous and physically demanding jobs.

And furthermore, insofar it really existed, how much was patriarchy just as much or a product of women's attitudes about themselves, and what they couldn't do, and weren't willing to do?

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.

If things are about just as fucked up for both sexes, or more fucked up for men than women, in a lot of ways, than what does that tell you? Perhaps power doesn't matter so much, at least when it comes to relations between men and women, because men care about their mothers, sisters and daughters, just as much, or perhaps even more at times, than they care about themselves, their fathers and sons, and so their power, shouldn't be as suspect, as feminists are making it out to be.

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.

Again, this is a very overt, simplistic and ironically, masculine way of defining power.
For centuries, women have been the power behind the throne.
Women have always had power, it's just been exercised more, discretely, indirectly, by manipulating those with overt power, which they're very good at.
If men are physically stronger, and in more positions of official political and economic power, women are experts at manipulating them.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
There's a tendency in males to downplay their pain and suffering, with women it's just the opposite, there is a tendency to shout it from the rooftops, to blame everyone and everything else instead of taking responsibility.
Men tend to feel more shame for crying, for being a burden.

If men are violent (statistically far more towards themselves than women, mind you) bastards, than women are vindictive bitches with a forked tongue, and they know just how to wield it and what buttons to push to get their way.
Women's emotional and verbal violence is in fact all more dangerous in many respects, because a man's is easily recognized for what it is.
A woman's is all the more fiendish and insidious, for it dresses itself up in sheep's clothing.
Instead of attacking it accuses, blames, cries, denies, redirects.

There's a kind of false machismo that says: men can't be hurt by women, and if they are, it's their own fault, because hey, we're men, we're strong, but when the police and family courts are on her side, you damn well bet your ass, she can.
Women want to be able to give vitriol without receiving any in return.
Well I want to say enough is enough, I am sick and tired of the double standards.

You know what, I don't even give that much of a fuck about men's issues or women having it better in some ways, I am just sick to death of all the bitching and complaining feminism does on the behalf of many, but not all, women.
If anything, I guess I'd rather see more acceptance of the way things are in society, the good, bad and ugly, but if there's going to be a women's movement than there needs to be a men's and/or a genuine equality movement too, because you know with some women, and femininists especially, it's never enough, you can never, ever please them.
I am tired of the media bashing men, of the one way sexism.

[Gloominary]

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.

Actually, this is an excellent post, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Feminism has been and still is a secondary, even a tertiary issue for me, my main interest is this dehumanizing corporatocracy we live in, and how it's subjugating working class men, women, liberals and conservatives alike, and ruining the environment on which we all depend.
They do have us fighting over scraps and crumbs from their table, by design.
While liberals and conservatives disagree over solutions, ideally at least they ought to be able to come together on the problem: society is rigged by and for the 0.01%, and drastic measures need to be took, but unfortunately they can't, because mainstream liberalism and conservatism are themselves, rigged.
I don't identify as liberal or conservative,I would never box myself in like that,I am,whatever makes sense to me

[Gloominary]

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.

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.

[Thanathots]

Just because a population group is physically weaker, doesn't mean it's inferior

It does. Superiority and inferiority are established through conflict.

, or of less value

In the above sense of dominance and superiority, it indeed does. There are, of course, other kinds of value.

, or it can't attend to its own needs, and ours, better autonomously than it can shackled.

A separate argument but you're wrong about this too lol.

[Thanathots]

Feminism itself can be considered an incomplete accounting fallacy, as it only ever complained about the downsides (costs) of being a woman and rarely if ever acknowledging the upsides (benefits), while doing the reverse for men and only pointing out the upsides of being a man and refusing to acknowledge the downsides. Gloominary here is doing nothing more than trying to complete the accounting.