Femtheist Divine Law (1 Viewer)

[1750Texan]

Let's look a few facts: Here are portraits of the presidents (sans Obama),

Look at the pre-suffrage (1920) portraits vs post-suffrage. Notice anything different? Pre-suffrage, most of the presidents are geeky uggo's. Hired for their skills, not their looks. Not saying it's good, not saying it's bad.

Now look at America's world GDP ranking. Keeping in mind, Wiki says women's voting participation rate took a while to kick-in after 1920.

Notice how and when the country began to decline. Not saying there's any correlation, but it is interesting to note that as women began to vote, the country began its long decline. Because, America's decline also correlates with the rise of progressivism (liberalism), so progressivism could just as easily be the cause of decline. ...unless, women voting and progressivism were somehow related? But, that's not possible, is it?

We must give women credit though, as we walk the personal hygiene aisle recently, we notice condoms are exactly where they were six-years ago. At least women have preserved the industry from those bad old Republican's who were about to banish all contraceptives from the planet. Good job ladies.

Radical Muslim's were given nukes and are about to nuke us, Al Qaida has taken control of no less than seven countries within the past six-years, the economy continues to decline, but at least we still have contraceptives. Whew, that was a close one, wasn't it ladies?

I don't begrudge women their vote, but ladies, please think where you're taking this country. Are contraceptives really the top issue? Were contraceptives really under threat? Why let liberals manipulate you like that? And do we always have to elect the best-looking candidate? Can't we select the smartest or the one in America's best interest, regardless appearance? Surely ugly people have some purpose, some value, some reason they stayed indoors and studied all those years? Look at Ted Cruz. He is far and away the smartest candidate. And he's been exactly correct on every issue for many years. Even when the mob turned against him, Ted Cruz stuck to his principles and he turned out to be correct. Liberal Alan Dershowitz called Ted Cruz, "the smartest student he ever taught" (Dershowitz's taught at Harvard for fifty years). Notice, he did not call him the best-looking student he ever taught nor the most poised. Wouldn't we rather have a smart president (who will release his transcript), than a pretty one?

So are you saying Rick Perry is a metrosexual because he is pandering the female vote?

 

[_Sal]

Theory only: most psychopaths do not kill...but they do easily rise to the top in leadership positions simply because they will do whatever it takes to get the job done with zero thought for it's impact on others in the work place.

Women rising to the top in male dominated companies, must out perform males. They are not a part of the boys club and circle jerks and usually do not get the same breaks.

It would follow that women at the same level would be more ruthless. Not always of course, but many times.

I worked for a few wicked women, if they feel the least bit threatened...you're toast.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Oh Jeez, I hope to God not. We think things are bad now, just put the entire society into the hands of solely women, and we're screwed. I've worked with predominantly women most of my adult life. Men can't beat them on the scale of brutality toward their own.

Mostly because of the differences in how women think and reason. We are usually more emotionally driven, we tend to be more devious and manipulative than our male counterparts, and we prefer a more passive approach to being aggressive. I'm not knocking the fact that we have these traits, as they are some of what makes us great moms, but after dealing with primarily women in the workplace for 30 years now, I'd prefer to work with men. I find men to usually more straightforward and honest, and they usually just don't give a **** about all the little minutia.

I prefer living in a political climate where men and women both have some power, as it's more balanced, and the strengths of one can make up for the weaknesses of another.

Uh-huh. This is why most random and crazed assaults are male-on-male, right? This is why I once had a guy that I was seeing (very, very briefly) freak out over me going to a friend's Halloween party, right?

How exactly would being spiteful, irrational, and cruel contribute to being a good parent (assuming that was even true of women)?

Women are not hateful bags of emotion who are incapable of rational thought -- or even any less capable. In fact, you've as much as said it's women who are more "calculating" (and in a system where women have more to lose, I actually think you're right -- but not because women are "manipulative," and not by "nature" -- more simply to keep themselves safe). And yet they simultaneously have poor reasoning ability? This stinks of the standard baseless sexist put-down to me.

I get really tired of women who rest their own self-esteem on having to tear down other women and claim that they're "not like that" and that's why they "only hang out with men," trying to heighten themselves above other women, because they can't find a way to shrug off all the negative connotations of womanhood they've grown up with. It's a sign of internalized sexism, and a discomfort with one's own gender, rather than any basis on truth.

You're exactly the problem you're complaining about. A woman tearing down other women.

I used to do that too, when I was a kid. Coming to better grips with myself and losing the need to put down others to keep my psyche safe has diversified my pool of loved ones, and with more women in that pool has come a lot of great things.

I don't know who you're hanging out with, but I have no more "drama" in my life than when my pool was predominantly male. Being surrounded by older, wonderful women who were friends of my dad has helped me a lot in working through my grief process. I can only hope to be half as competent and brilliant as any one of them when I get into middle age. Being a young professional in a city, most of my workplaces have also been dominantly female and they've been very laid back indeed.

Maybe it helps that this is the kind of city culture where people aren't constantly smacking down women's intellectual and emotional capabilities, and women don't attack each other trying to preserve their own egos as a result. Dunno.

Women are just human beings. Whatever reconciliation problems you're having have nothing to do with reality.

 

[lizzie]

My dear departed was an RN, ICU heart recovery. She always thought her environment was much more passive than that of mine. But I know what you mean, after TV I worked in film production with female producers and models. I suspect that may have had a non-conscious affect on my decision to go into computers, where there are still few women.

Mine was an RN, medical ICU. He saw what I'm describing in detail. The last unit he worked in was a medical ICU with a crew of all males. They were an excellent team. I am now working in home health, where I pretty much have full autonomy out in the field. I'm enjoying it.

 

[beerftw]

You may have heard of a Youtube channel known as Femitheist, a revolutionary Southern woman who wants to bring about a new world order, one where women rule:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJUwzfA4r4&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA

I seem to be noticing a trend of viral female supremacy, being used as a scare tactic of sorts to make men look into women studies, much like this Goddess Coral meme that has been going around which preaches the ideals of female supremacy/male enslavement:
HAIL YOUR GODDESS - Off-Topic - Comic Vine

Have women been backed into a corner, and now they're going to fight back, and oppress males?

i dont know where your noticing these trends.the feminist movement peaked in the 90's and fell fairly flat after.

which each passing year,i notice more and more women becoming less dependant.alot of it is changing attitudes over time,combined with economic issues.but lets me just say the current trend going is younger women expect to be treated like crap,insulted and made felt inferior,and seem to think any man who does less isnt manly at all.which is odd because two decades ago the mentality was far different.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Oh Jeez, I hope to God not. We think things are bad now, just put the entire society into the hands of solely women, and we're screwed. I've worked with predominantly women most of my adult life. Men can't beat them on the scale of brutality toward their own.

I think a woman ruled society would end all wars.

 

[Anomalism]

If it means role reversal and I get to choose from the hoards of women throwing themselves at me, count me in.

 

[lizzie]

I think a woman ruled society would end all wars.

Ummm, yeah, you just keep thinking that. :lamo

 

[vasuderatorrent]

No. Just the internet being the internet. Feminist extremism is actually pretty rare nowadays, compared to previous decades.

If you go on that corner of the internet, you will find more stuff like that. Just like if you search for "white supremacy," you'll suddenly be flooded with hits of racist websites. Or, in direct counterpart to feminist extremism, if you search for some of the wackier MRA stuff, you'll be inundated with anti-woman extremism.

That doesn't mean it has any significant foothold in reality. In reality, mainstream feminism of the 21st century is probably the most cuddly it's ever been. There's even a case to be made that it's a little patriarchal -- I tend to get rejected from the biggest schools of thought for being childfree.

I'm very interested in this topic but I am not smart enough to grasp the pillars of feminism. It seems so vague in nature. Do you recommend any books such as, "Feminism for Dummies" or something like that. The extremist are very helpful because they use strong language. With their help it's easier to see the goals of mainstream feminism.

All I can find is "fairness to women", "equality", "rainbows and sunshine" and "an end to rape". I wish I could read one book that would tie it all together in one neat little package.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Ummm, yeah, you just keep thinking that. :lamo

Mary Daly observes that all historical events are references to beating someone. Males view their lives as meaningless and mundane. The only memories that bring joy to a male is a memory of beating someone.

As a male I think it would be easy to plead guilty. From my observation women find joy in finding a cool shoe, their co-workers new dog, this cool family with 21 kids, a new type of diet or the type of grass planted in the front yard. My wife bores the s*** out of me with mundane details of life. My favorite topic of conversation is how I will finally stick it to the man or become independent from the burden of the powers that be. Life is more joyous to women. There is no doubt about that. If that logic is sound then death is more joyous to men than it is to women.

Do you know any men to assess on this standard?

Example: When I outsmart credit card companies I gloat with joy and keep that memory forever. When a credit card company outsmarts me I feel like an idiot and suffer a mild form of depression for several weeks afterward. My wife says, "Don't worry about that. It's no big deal."

 

[vasuderatorrent]

No. Just the internet being the internet. Feminist extremism is actually pretty rare nowadays, compared to previous decades.

If you go on that corner of the internet, you will find more stuff like that. Just like if you search for "white supremacy," you'll suddenly be flooded with hits of racist websites. Or, in direct counterpart to feminist extremism, if you search for some of the wackier MRA stuff, you'll be inundated with anti-woman extremism.

That doesn't mean it has any significant foothold in reality. In reality, mainstream feminism of the 21st century is probably the most cuddly it's ever been. There's even a case to be made that it's a little patriarchal -- I tend to get rejected from the biggest schools of thought for being childfree.

I have heard that a patriarchal society causes men to be obsessed with female genitalia. Without patriarchy men would never even think about sex at all. The men who are vulnerable to being rapist would be unable to develop his weakness in a female ruled society. Surely this is radical feminist thought. :shrug: That sounds a little crazy to me.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm very interested in this topic but I am not smart enough to grasp the pillars of feminism. It seems so vague in nature. Do you recommend any books such as, "Feminism for Dummies" or something like that. The extremist are very helpful because they use strong language. With their help it's easier to see the goals of mainstream feminism.

All I can find is "fairness to women", "equality", "rainbows and sunshine" and "an end to rape". I wish I could read one book that would tie it all together in one neat little package.

To be honest, most of my concept of feminism comes from just being involved in women's issues for the better part of a decade. I've read works here and there, but my own idea of where I fall in feminism doesn't fit cleanly into any educational model.

As a general over-arching thing, feminism in general is supposed to be the business of addressing bigotry against women, and addressing the mechanics of patriarchy in society.

In practice, it's more complex than that, and those two goals are not always in tandem.

Extremists in the literal sense are radical feminists. In pop culture, this term is used to refer to basically anyone with a militant feminist tone, but that's not the word's actual meaning, and I would argue that radfem ideology is almost totally divorced from most other branches of feminism. Radical feminism is almost sort of post-gender. It is occasionally supremacist, and frequently denies the legitimacy of other oppressive systems. It can also be elitist -- a lot of radfems deny the legitimacy of trans people, or trans women's place in feminist and gender discussion. It's extremely woman-centered to the extent of basically ignoring the complexity of patriarchal systems, and denying the agency of other people, in my opinion.

I would argue the OP is sort of an off-shoot of radfem thought, but in a way that could only happen in America; sort of a weird intersectionality of religious fanaticism and female sex.

Mainstream feminism in 2014 is totally different. I would argue it's not a form of feminism at all.

In practice, mainstream feminism today is more about defining what is a woman than about anything else. This is why I don't fit in (and don't want to fit in) in mainstream feminism. There's sort of been this weird call for a return to hyper-genderized norms that you might hear from traditionalists, but it's been dressed up as being an "earth mother" rather than a "housewife," for example. The reason they don't accept people like me is because they think I am "denying my woman-ness" by opting out of having kids, and viewing myself as highly feminine even though I prefer to exist in non-traditional settings. They don't think I'm woman enough, basically.

It seems to me this trend is largely being driven by slightly older women coming to maturity at the cusp of the third wave who have some kind of guilt over not radding it up as much as they imagined they would when they were teenagers. They have problems owning their lifestyle choices, because they kind of think that if they're more traditional, it must be sexist. So they have to kind of "reclaim it."

Me? I consider myself to be a feminist throw-back who has the most in common with the general essence of the first wave, minus all the weird social Darwinism and virtue stuff.

I see feminism reaching a point where it has to start merging with other gender/sex movements -- LGBT, trans, etc -- because at a certain point, the system we're trying to get out of is not just about what it does to women. It's about what it does to men and what it does to everyone who is non-gender conforming. Patriarchy also defines what men are supposed to be, some of which is quite harmful. Patriarchy as we have it in the West is ultimately related to the even bigger concept of our superstitious history, from which comes most of the bigotry we see against gays, trans, and queer people. At some point, when we get the issues whittled down to a sufficiently small level, all of these issues become the same thing.

In that discussion MUST be a conversation about awareness of responsibility as we all experience increasing rights and thus increasing impact on the world. A sense of ownership -- which includes a sense of gravity and seriousness about one's choices -- is absolutely essential to creating a fully functional free person. Mainstream feminists hate when I talk about this -- they're enjoying the benefits of a half-broken patriarchy system, because it makes them feel like they're getting back at someone for whatever unfairness they've dealt with.

There has to be conversation about how we dialogue with other genders -- and this is especially important for straight feminine feminists with their male partners, who often have problems reconciling all the pressures on their relationships because they appear to be more "normal" than, say, a gay couple, and thus they have certain expectations put on them by society. It's not good enough for a woman to be free in society if she is incapable of having good communication with half the rest of the population, likely including her own partner.

I think the focus right now has to be on self-ownership and empathy, whereas the mainstream -- both feminist and anti-feminist -- is still about trying to one-up each other, deciding who to blame, and arguing about whose life is worse.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I have heard that a patriarchal society causes men to be obsessed with female genitalia. Without patriarchy men would never even think about sex at all. The men who are vulnerable to being rapist would be unable to develop his weakness in a female ruled society. Surely this is radical feminist thought. :shrug: That sounds a little crazy to me.

Well, not exactly, no.

Men and women will think about sex lots, always. But in less patriarchal societies, they are more respectful of "time and place." Part of being a sexually mature grown-up is that you notice other people who are attractive. That's fine. But if it's your colleague, you think to yourself, "Snap back to reality -- this isn't a sexual situation."

The way we tend to sexually objectify and villainize women is what causes a permissiveness of things like rape. Ultimately, sexuality is contextual. Humans have many, many ways of communicating sexual interest, verbally and physically -- and of course, some physical signs are automatic and meant to be highly visible, such as erections and changes in the breasts. And in a respectful society, we're capable of understanding the body in context.

In this society, we still believe women's bodies have to have an implied "use" all the time. We're kind of ok with mothers breastfeeding openly, because at that moment, her "use" is "mother," which is considered to be non-sexual.

But in any other situation, even if a woman is just walking around looking at trees, we see breasts as overtly "sexual." We have this need to find a use for women relative to someone other than herself, and it tends to be either "mother" or "sexual." We can't just accept that sometimes a woman is just being a human being. This is related to both the shaming of female sexuality (since if she's not "mother" she's always "sexual"), and men feeling entitled to women's bodies (women always stand relative to their use to other people).

In less patriarchal societies, a woman just walking around without a top doesn't really turn heads, because they have a properly aligned sense of sexual time and place, and accept that women don't need to have a "use" all the time. That doesn't mean a guy might not think "Wow, she has nice breasts." Hell, I think "Wow, he has a nice jaw line" on guys all the time. Adults are sexual. But it does mean that he is less likely to think it's ok to objectify her or rape her, and will limit his sexual advances to appropriate times.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

To be honest, most of my concept of feminism comes from just being involved in women's issues for the better part of a decade. I've read works here and there, but my own idea of where I fall in feminism doesn't fit cleanly into any educational model.

As a general over-arching thing, feminism in general is supposed to be the business of addressing bigotry against women, and addressing the mechanics of patriarchy in society.

In practice, it's more complex than that, and those two goals are not always in tandem.

Extremists in the literal sense are radical feminists. In pop culture, this term is used to refer to basically anyone with a militant feminist tone, but that's not the word's actual meaning, and I would argue that radfem ideology is almost totally divorced from most other branches of feminism. Radical feminism is almost sort of post-gender. It is occasionally supremacist, and frequently denies the legitimacy of other oppressive systems. It can also be elitist -- a lot of radfems deny the legitimacy of trans people, or trans women's place in feminist and gender discussion. It's extremely woman-centered to the extent of basically ignoring the complexity of patriarchal systems, and denying the agency of other people, in my opinion.

I would argue the OP is sort of an off-shoot of radfem thought, but in a way that could only happen in America; sort of a weird intersectionality of religious fanaticism and female sex.

Mainstream feminism in 2014 is totally different. I would argue it's not a form of feminism at all.

In practice, mainstream feminism today is more about defining what is a woman than about anything else. This is why I don't fit in (and don't want to fit in) in mainstream feminism. There's sort of been this weird call for a return to hyper-genderized norms that you might hear from traditionalists, but it's been dressed up as being an "earth mother" rather than a "housewife," for example. The reason they don't accept people like me is because they think I am "denying my woman-ness" by opting out of having kids, and viewing myself as highly feminine even though I prefer to exist in non-traditional settings. They don't think I'm woman enough, basically.

It seems to me this trend is largely being driven by slightly older women coming to maturity at the cusp of the third wave who have some kind of guilt over not radding it up as much as they imagined they would when they were teenagers. They have problems owning their lifestyle choices, because they kind of think that if they're more traditional, it must be sexist. So they have to kind of "reclaim it."

Me? I consider myself to be a feminist throw-back who has the most in common with the general essence of the first wave, minus all the weird social Darwinism and virtue stuff.

I see feminism reaching a point where it has to start merging with other gender/sex movements -- LGBT, trans, etc -- because at a certain point, the system we're trying to get out of is not just about what it does to women. It's about what it does to men and what it does to everyone who is non-gender conforming. Patriarchy also defines what men are supposed to be, some of which is quite harmful. Patriarchy as we have it in the West is ultimately related to the even bigger concept of our superstitious history, from which comes most of the bigotry we see against gays, trans, and queer people. At some point, when we get the issues whittled down to a sufficiently small level, all of these issues become the same thing.

In that discussion MUST be a conversation about awareness of responsibility as we all experience increasing rights and thus increasing impact on the world. A sense of ownership -- which includes a sense of gravity and seriousness about one's choices -- is absolutely essential to creating a fully functional free person. Mainstream feminists hate when I talk about this -- they're enjoying the benefits of a half-broken patriarchy system, because it makes them feel like they're getting back at someone for whatever unfairness they've dealt with.

There has to be conversation about how we dialogue with other genders -- and this is especially important for straight feminine feminists with their male partners, who often have problems reconciling all the pressures on their relationships because they appear to be more "normal" than, say, a gay couple, and thus they have certain expectations put on them by society. It's not good enough for a woman to be free in society if she is incapable of having good communication with half the rest of the population, likely including her own partner.

I think the focus right now has to be on self-ownership and empathy, whereas the mainstream -- both feminist and anti-feminist -- is still about trying to one-up each other, deciding who to blame, and arguing about whose life is worse.

It sounds like a battle of idealism versus realism. Is that kinda right?

A preference to create what should be instead of embracing what can be.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It sounds like a battle of idealism versus realism. Is that kinda right?

A preference to create what should be instead of embracing what can be.

Well, I dunno. I see a lot of rad fem and mainstream feminist thought as simply coming from frustration. Falling down on their own principles, really, because they feel they've been through enough and they want to make life easier on themselves rather than being better for everyone.

This is common to all civil rights movements, in my experience. We're even starting to see it in the gay movement, which is increasingly trying to white-wash gay people who don't want to be "traditional." The highly visible LGBT organizations are trying to paint themselves as "We want the white picket fence just like you do, and we condemn everything else just like you do," in the hopes that it will make people like them better. But in the process, they're shaming and maligning gay people who aren't like that, just like we do in heteronormative society.

Ultimately, movements are always composed of human beings, and will be subject to the foibles of same -- including emotional exhaustion. And that's what tends to create these kind of unhealthy conversations within movements.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Well, I dunno. I see a lot of rad fem and mainstream feminist thought as simply coming from frustration. Falling down on their own principles, really, because they feel they've been through enough and they want to make life easier on themselves rather than being better for everyone.

This is common to all civil rights movements, in my experience. We're even starting to see it in the gay movement, which is increasingly trying to white-wash gay people who don't want to be "traditional." The highly visible LGBT organizations are trying to paint themselves as "We want the white picket fence just like you do, and we condemn everything else just like you do," in the hopes that it will make people like them better. But in the process, they're shaming and maligning gay people who aren't like that, just like we do in heteronormative society.

Ultimately, movements are always composed of human beings, and will be subject to the foibles of same -- including emotional exhaustion. And that's what tends to create these kind of unhealthy conversations within movements.

I have been watching you for a while. I knew you had a lot of information to share but I have never been able to get it out of you. I guess I am finally learning to ask good questions or I caught you on a good day. Thanks for the post. I really appreciate. This is a topic with which I want to become familiar. I want to create a feminist religion. I already have but it really sucks.

A+ for you tonight. Thanks for the input. I always knew you had it in you.

 

[Your Star]

No. Just the internet being the internet. Feminist extremism is actually pretty rare nowadays, compared to previous decades.

If you go on that corner of the internet, you will find more stuff like that. Just like if you search for "white supremacy," you'll suddenly be flooded with hits of racist websites. Or, in direct counterpart to feminist extremism, if you search for some of the wackier MRA stuff, you'll be inundated with anti-woman extremism.

That doesn't mean it has any significant foothold in reality. In reality, mainstream feminism of the 21st century is probably the most cuddly it's ever been. There's even a case to be made that it's a little patriarchal -- I tend to get rejected from the biggest schools of thought for being childfree.

Yeah, most people are against a straw-feminist they made up in their mind. It sucks because when they meet feminist's in the real world or come to a point where they have to tackle gender issues in the real world they are coming from such a ****ed up place about the whole thing it nearly poisons the well from the get go.

 

[Goshin]

You may have heard of a Youtube channel known as Femitheist, a revolutionary Southern woman who wants to bring about a new world order, one where women rule:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJUwzfA4r4&list=UUsEq_XHRKHP1_b5ZM58B6AA

I seem to be noticing a trend of viral female supremacy, being used as a scare tactic of sorts to make men look into women studies, much like this Goddess Coral meme that has been going around which preaches the ideals of female supremacy/male enslavement:
HAIL YOUR GODDESS - Off-Topic - Comic Vine

Have women been backed into a corner, and now they're going to fight back, and oppress males?

Extremist fringe types. Low threat... highly improbable to generate more than a trivial following. In brief, ignore.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I have been watching you for a while. I knew you had a lot of information to share but I have never been able to get it out of you. I guess I am finally learning to ask good questions or I caught you on a good day. Thanks for the post. I really appreciate. This is a topic with which I want to become familiar. I want to create a feminist religion. I already have but it really sucks.

A+ for you tonight. Thanks for the input. I always knew you had it in you.

Thank you. I'm glad you found it helpful.

But I can't say I'm on board with you -- we're not going to stop having these problems until it doesn't become an issue of men or women, religious or atheist. People just need to be people. There's no physical thing to attack, and trying to turn the tables on men does nothing but hurt innocent people. This is the larger society we live in, and we need to deal with each other as the individuals we are -- as equals who can explain for ourselves what defines us and be respected for that. No demographic is so stupid and evil that they need to be controlled by another. Men certainly aren't any more than women are.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

No demographic is so stupid and evil that they need to be controlled by another.

I'm sure you can think of some demographic that fits into this criteria if you watch 5 minutes of the news.

Men certainly aren't any more than women are.

It's not that but men might be able to thrive in a subordinate capacity. To my knowledge it has never been attempted unless military counts but in that environment they are subordinate to other men rather than being subordinate to women.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm sure you can think of some demographic that fits into this criteria if you watch 5 minutes of the news.

It's not that but men might be able to thrive in a subordinate capacity. To my knowledge it has never been attempted unless military counts but in that environment they are subordinate to other men rather than being subordinate to women.

No, I can't. My experience in this world is that people are products of a combination of their experience, and their sense of responsibility for themselves -- not always in equal parts, and not always completely within their control. But there is certainly no group I have found more prone to stupidity and evilness than any other, relative to those factors. There are, however, some demographics that have bad experiences more than others due to the demographic they fall into.

It should never be attempted. No society which has ever tried to oppress any group of people of any demographic has ever been a good one to live in. No group of people does well having their lives dictated to them and limited. Speaking of the military, you do realize that because of how intense their training has to be and how deeply that subordination sometimes goes, they often have problems functioning in civilian life even if they never saw combat? That's a little taste of what happens to men in this kind of situation -- which is no different than what happens to any other demographic when subordinated.

No one has the right to tell other people how to live within the limits of causing harm to others. No person thrives under involuntary subordination.

 

[Goshin]

I'm sure you can think of some demographic that fits into this criteria if you watch 5 minutes of the news.

Islamofacism; Thugs/Gangs/Drug dealers.

It's not that but men might be able to thrive in a subordinate capacity. To my knowledge it has never been attempted unless military counts but in that environment they are subordinate to other men rather than being subordinate to women.

Highly doubtful. I have no interest in being subordinate to anyone, any more than I can avoid. I prefer to choose those persons and causes to which I will sacrifice (subordinate) some of my desires in favor of supporting their interests, which is a voluntary association and entirely different from being forcibly subordinated to a class of people.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Thank you. I'm glad you found it helpful.

But I can't say I'm on board with you -- we're not going to stop having these problems until it doesn't become an issue of men or women, religious or atheist. People just need to be people. There's no physical thing to attack, and trying to turn the tables on men does nothing but hurt innocent people. This is the larger society we live in, and we need to deal with each other as the individuals we are -- as equals who can explain for ourselves what defines us and be respected for that. No demographic is so stupid and evil that they need to be controlled by another. Men certainly aren't any more than women are.

I like to consider myself a radical feminist in practice. In my household all of my property is in my wife's name except the house. Once I figure out a way to take my name off of the house I will do that. I am driven to give my wife success and wealth. She is more motivated with preserving that wealth than I would be. I can focus on creating and risk taking. Another thing I consider is that a broke man is safer than a broke woman. Traditionally men have been the owners of property which I find to be ass backwards. Women are naturally more vulnerable than men so they should be held in a higher status in society for their own protection. Men should aid in that effort. Women are disproportionately impoverished. I don't even think that's a close race. I think the gap is significant. I think if this type of inequity was reversed it would be less harmful to mankind. I am radical enough to advocate an end to male's capacity to own property. I may even go as far as allowing higher status women to have multiple husbands for economic purposes. I'm not sure how to feel about the practice of making eunuchs of males as practiced by the Amazons. I wouldn't be closed to the idea. Males can be so much better than they are. I believe a matriarchal society could utilize that potential of males to a greater capacity than exists today.

 

[Goshin]

I like to consider myself a radical feminist in practice. In my household all of my property is in my wife's name except the house. Once I figure out a way to take my name off of the house I will do that. I am driven to give my wife success and wealth. She is more motivated with preserving that wealth that I would be. I can focus on creating and risk taking. Another thing I consider is that a broke man is safer than a broke woman. Traditionally men have been the owners of property which I find to be ass backwards. Women are naturally more vulnerable than me so they should be held in a higher status in society for their own protection. Men should aid in that effort. Women are disproportionately impoverished. I don't even think that's a close race. I think the gap is significant. I think if this type of inequity was reversed it would be less harmful to mankind. I am radical enough to advocate an end to male's capacity to own property. I may even go as far as allowing higher status women to have multiple husbands for economic purposes. I'm not sure how to feel about the practice of making eunuchs of males as practiced by the Amazons. I wouldn't be closed to the idea. Males can be so much better than they are. I believe a matriarchal society could utilize that potential of males to a greater capacity than exists today.

Good lord man, surely you aren't serious? You're all but advocating men be slaves to women.


Not to mention most of that Amazon stuff was myth.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Islamofacism; Thugs/Gangs/Drug dealers. .

That's kind of what I was thinking but I guess that really isn't a demographic. Would drug addict be considered a demographic?