1750Texan
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,780
- Reaction score
- 1,606
- Location
- Southcental Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ummm, yeah, you just keep thinking that. :lamo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
No demographic is so stupid and evil that they need to be controlled by another.
SmokeAndMirrors said:Men certainly aren't any more than women are.
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.
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.
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 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.
Islamofacism; Thugs/Gangs/Drug dealers. .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?