I am the Patriarchy

a reply to: Bluesma
It is not women who wanted feminism.
Please check this out:

In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them. Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Rockefeller and Rothschild created feminism to poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government. Why? These bankers create money out of nothing and think they are God. "Cruel Hoax" shows the connection between feminism, Communism and 9-11. It examines male-female relations and shows how we can take back our heterosexuality.

www.amazon.co.uk...
Do you believe that women had no power before the word 'feminism' entered human language? And I don't mean power over or against men!!

Having both the male and female working makes twice as much tax for the 'power people' and when women were at home managing the household full time it gave power to communities and family unit. It is the children who suffer and that is the future for humankind - not mankind or women kind!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I suppose this IS a conspiracy site, so it is expected that there will be views of that sort.
I don't personally go that far as to assume it was a carefully engineered plan... I tend to see humans as basically making mistakes a lot- trying to fix one thing and screwing up another in the process. We're still learning and evolving as a species.


Though to answer your question- no I do NOT believe women had no power before feminism- I believe they had a different sort of power, and that the masculine sort of power became more highly valued in the culture, and that gave birth to feminism, as women sought to have that same masculine sort of power instead.

Yes, men, you can be feminists

Honest to God, it makes me want to get in a time machine, go back to a women’s rights movement rally in the ’60s, and tell everybody, “Not to be bum you out but your grandchildren are still going to be fighting over this stuff. Good luck!”

Back when it was relevant - not like now...

Whatever the human rights cause, we all can say, “My experience is not your experience and my struggles are not your struggles, but we can be allies.” Because in case you hadn’t noticed, our ongoing cultural hatred of women is not going so well for anybody. It manifests in shooting sprees and rollbacks on reproductive rights and wage gaps and all kinds of other ways. And if you’re scared of the discomfort of a label, I’d invite you to imagine what it’s like to be afraid just to walk to a toilet. Feminism isn’t always easy or polite or a choir full of heads nodding in assent. You get in fights. You maybe make enemies. I’m sorry, did anyone promise you that this would be like tea time at the American Girl store? You feel like banging your head against the wall when some jackass sends you a rape threat or George Will opens his dumb, privileged mouth. Because it’s hard, sometimes heartbreaking work. Every. Single. Day. Does that sound challenging? Intense? Welcome to feminism. It needs everybody. So the only real question is, are you man enough for that?

An amateur video depicting a mass sexual assault in Cairo’s Tahrir Square during a rally celebrating the inauguration of Egypt’s new president Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi has triggered a rare national discussion of endemic gender-based violence.

This is why it's still relevant Les - if you want to discount the sort of things that happen here in the totally equal and not gender-biased west - go ahead - it's easier to put your head in the sand here

Misandry is just another flavor of the same ole same ole. You want to try and sell it maybe as some kind of special, fresh and new form of bigotry, but it's so not

None of us is free until all of us are free. And I don't mean - just us women

a reply to: Bluesma
Power does not have a gender.

The minds that control others by use these divisive ideas such as "feminism" & "capitalism" want you to think its a conspiracy( and thats the ego thinking you are too clever and so are not controlled by your conditioned mind). Consider for a moment that it is not a conspiracy, that "divide and conquer" works. ATS is a conspiracy site and you are a member of a conspiracy site.

This thread was on LM shutting a woman in the door and telling everyone she wanted him to do it, this LM victim, a human being, was not a feminist. Falsely claiming she was seemed to LM to justify his wrong actions/violence .
It was made clear LM has unresolved "issues" with woman, relationship problems started with his relationship with his "feminist" mother, (but thats a whole new thread).

a reply to: BDBinc

The minds that control others by use these divisive ideas such as "feminism" & "capitalism" want you to think its a conspiracy( and thats the ego thinking you are too clever and so are not controlled by your conditioned mind). Consider for a moment that it is not a conspiracy, that "divide and conquer" works. ATS is a conspiracy site and you are a member of a conspiracy site.

This thread was on LM shutting a woman in the door and telling everyone she wanted him to do it, this LM victim, a human being, was not a feminist. Falsely claiming she was seemed to LM to justify his wrong actions/violence .
It was made clear LM has unresolved "issues" with woman, relationship problems started with his relationship with his "feminist" mother, (but thats a whole new thread).

You obviously have unresolved issues with me, based, likely, on your unintelligible reasoning, such as your imaginary causal connections between a phantom you call an "ego" and whatever other nonsense you use to shift the blame from your self. I mean that's fine, and actually quite common to people who remain in their self-inflicted little boxes. Saying I have issues with women is likely a projection of your own issues with women, or perhaps even people in general, once again, shifting your own responsibility onto other people to justify your own lack of reason. When you speak of people you do not know, it's obvious where the source of your information comes from—your own projections.

The thread was about something else, perhaps over your head and under your knees, but you've gone and rehashed it according to your own narrative as if you had the wherewithal to write your own. That's a whole new thread, except one we will never see because you'll never write one. But it looks like drowning in someone else's water, blaming the water for your demise, instead of your inability to swim, is the going rate of everything I've seen come out of you.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Whatever the human rights cause, we all can say, “My experience is not your experience and my struggles are not your struggles, but we can be allies.” Because in case you hadn’t noticed, our ongoing cultural hatred of women is not going so well for anybody. It manifests in shooting sprees and rollbacks on reproductive rights and wage gaps and all kinds of other ways. And if you’re scared of the discomfort of a label, I’d invite you to imagine what it’s like to be afraid just to walk to a toilet. Feminism isn’t always easy or polite or a choir full of heads nodding in assent. You get in fights. You maybe make enemies. I’m sorry, did anyone promise you that this would be like tea time at the American Girl store? You feel like banging your head against the wall when some jackass sends you a rape threat or George Will opens his dumb, privileged mouth. Because it’s hard, sometimes heartbreaking work. Every. Single. Day. Does that sound challenging? Intense? Welcome to feminism. It needs everybody. So the only real question is, are you man enough for that?

Rhetoric solves very little, and that is all feminism and the men’s rights movement really has to offer. The article is about men calling themselves feminists, even insisting that because we don’t adopt their ideology, we are a part of the problem. It’s pure propagandistic nonsense that would make Orwell blush. Her last resort is to try and shame me into calling myself a feminist… we know that’s not going to work.

A “cultural hatred of women”? Hopefully she realizes that 50% of the world population has just as much to do with culture as the other 50%. Shooting sprees? I’m assuming this is in regards to the Isla Vista killings where only two of the six fatalities were women? How misogynistic of him. Scared to walk to the bathroom? I’m assuming this has to do with the two girls murdered in India, as if two cases should make every woman in the entire world adopt an irrational fear of walking to the bathroom? While we’re at it, let’s never help a stranger because Bundy once killed someone one time. These are propaganda techniques, plain and simple. She’s politicizing real violence and real fear to promote her politics. Her feminism amounts to no more than doing nothing.

We should make haste with robotics that'll take over all jobs and then we can all sit down together and define eachother. How can one make up one's mind AND have a fulltime job these days? Am I the only one who can't make ends meet because of social issues I have to think about and spend time on. I'm all for talking and redefining society but don't expect me to be able to do my job. That can't be the goal of feminism, one can't have a job, wife and kids AND have a university level in social studies as a hobby these days. Which makes me wonder if there is a link with many western nations' debts. Can't we all go back to school or something. Surely one generation is getting the shaft with having to deal with so many social issues, there must be something the previous generation has to give.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


But similarly, you didn't kow the woman whom you let the door slam into and proceeded to tell us what she was thinking. I don't understand your reasoning now and why you chose to slam a door in a woman's face rather than explain your reasons for your actions to her.

a reply to: InTheLight

But similarly, you didn't kow the woman whom you let the door slam into and proceeded to tell us what she was thinking. I don't understand your reasoning now and why you chose to slam a door in a woman's face rather than explain your reasons for your actions to her.

I wrote what she said and what I was thinking, not what she was thinking. I also didn't slam a door in her face. You and others are continuing to confuse the narrative you have in your mind with what I wrote, which is the narrative I had in my mind. My scenario actually happened; your scenario you invented in a sort of delusion. My story is first hand; yours is about almost fourth hand by now.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

But similarly, you didn't kow the woman whom you let the door slam into and proceeded to tell us what she was thinking. I don't understand your reasoning now and why you chose to slam a door in a woman's face rather than explain your reasons for your actions to her.

I wrote what she said and what I was thinking, not what she was thinking. I also didn't slam a door in her face. You and others are continuing to confuse the narrative you have in your mind with what I wrote, which is the narrative I had in my mind. My scenario actually happened; your scenario you invented in a sort of delusion. My story is first hand; yours is about almost fourth hand by now.

It is your choice of thought processes in which we here on this thread are questioning and why her choice to not have the door held open for her (for her own reasons for which we really don't know the facts) affected you in the way it did (indignance). I am questioning why you do not respect a woman's desire to not have a door held open for her and why you did not make sure she had a hold of the door before letting it go. As well as speaking to her to relay the fact that you hold the door open for everyone?

a reply to: InTheLight

It is your choice of thought processes in which we here on this thread are questioning and why her choice to not have the door held open for her (for her own reasons for which we really don't know the facts) affected you in the way it did (indignance). I am questioning why you do not respect a woman's desire to not have a door held open for her and why you did not make sure she had a hold of the door before letting it go. As well as speaking to her to relay the fact that you hold the door open for everyone?

I did hold the door open for her. I let go of it as soon as she mentioned she didn't need a man to hold the door open for her. The fact that you have to invent such accusations as me "slamming the door in her face", which is delusion, is indicative of the fact that you have no argument against what I did, and that you have to imagine a scenario in your mind where I'm the bad guy.

The story is an anecdote. If all you see is the anecdote, then you've missed the entire point of the thread.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

It is your choice of thought processes in which we here on this thread are questioning and why her choice to not have the door held open for her (for her own reasons for which we really don't know the facts) affected you in the way it did (indignance). I am questioning why you do not respect a woman's desire to not have a door held open for her and why you did not make sure she had a hold of the door before letting it go. As well as speaking to her to relay the fact that you hold the door open for everyone?

I did hold the door open for her. I let go of it as soon as she mentioned she didn't need a man to hold the door open for her. The fact that you have to invent such accusations as me "slamming the door in her face", which is delusion, is indicative of the fact that you have no argument against what I did, and that you have to imagine a scenario in your mind where I'm the bad guy.

The story is an anecdote. If all you see is the anecdote, then you've missed the entire point of the thread.

You are choosing to skirt this issue as well as my question regarding why you chose an indignant reaction over a friendly explanatory reaction to her, since you claim you are the type of person that is helpful and holds doors open for everyone. Where did this friendly helpful person go during this event?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The story is an anecdote. If all you see is the anecdote, then you've missed the entire point of the thread.

The entire point of the thread seems to be to minimize the need for feminism and ignore the very real issues that women all over the world actually face -

Your OP is nothing but more rhetoric - it's just contrarian rhetoric - something you're personally trying to promote

You have to go pretty far out of your way to ignore the real problems of women - call them into question - deny them outright - all for what?

Shooting sprees? I’m assuming this is in regards to the Isla Vista killings where only two of the six fatalities were women? How misogynistic of him.

Scared to walk to the bathroom? I’m assuming this has to do with the two girls murdered in India, as if two cases should make every woman in the entire world adopt an irrational fear of walking to the bathroom?

While we’re at it, let’s never help a stranger because Bundy once killed someone one time. These are propaganda techniques, plain and simple.

She’s politicizing real violence and real fear to promote her politics.

And what are you doing? Dismissing real violence and fear - for what reason?

If you believe in equality for all (and that we are all equal) there's no need to pretend there is no problem to make your case

You need to be able to stand by your work Les

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did you know the human being that your shut in the door ? ( Nope)
...Or did you project the label "feminist" to make her something she was not just to validate your angry violence towards her and tell us a story about your fine character and how "she was asking for it" ?


Your narrative & projections certainly are revealing.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

C'mon Spira. We don't need to appeal to shame here—which is what the article you posted amounts to. There's no reason to pretend I am dismissing real acts of violence or struggles that people face, simply because I don't subscribe to your particular brand of rhetoric.

Yes I write hyperbolic, contrarian polemics representing my own views. But I'm not selling a certain brand other than my own. It's easy to dismiss if one so chooses. And I'll still be here still standing by my work.

I don't believe that we are all equal. Equal, in a any sense other than the humanist and feminist sense, states that two things are the same. Sadly, no two things are the same. Unfortunately any sort of egalitarian view based on reality simply doesn't make any intelligible sense and is basically doublespeak. So maybe a little clarity might be in order.

Feminists don't want equality—they don't want to be exactly like men. They want more power, more influence, more security and more capital for women, from a society that they claim is built, ran, and that favours, men. Is this not what a feminist is actually talking about when she says "I fight for equality"? If the men and women of, say, rural India, or any other area where women may be seen as lesser than men, those people will rise up as they always do in the face of tyranny. Men and women will stand together, and no amount of feminism will influence that. If you or any feminist feels compelled to go over there and put in some actual work, by all means. I would even go with you. It's actually really nice there, though a little too loud for my liking.

I know many women who have started their own businesses on their own accord with not a single man to help them. The pie is there for the taking if you choose. You have to take it. Literally no man is stopping you.

a reply to: BDBinc

Did you know the human being that your shut in the door ? Nope.
...Or did you project the label "feminist( mother)" to make her something she was not just to validate your angry violence towards her and tell us a story about your fine character and how "she was asking for it" ?

Your narrative & projections certainly are revealing.

Except I actually interacted with her in person. You on the other hand?

The only thing that is revealing is how far you're willing to project, without a single fact to deduce from.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BDBinc

Did you know the human being that your shut in the door ? Nope.
...Or did you project the label "feminist( mother)" to make her something she was not just to validate your angry violence towards her and tell us a story about your fine character and how "she was asking for it" ?

Your narrative & projections certainly are revealing.

Except I actually interacted with her in person. You on the other hand?
The only thing that is revealing is how far you're willing to project, without a single fact to deduce from.

Your "interaction" was that of your violence against her, the fact is she was not a feminist, and she did not ask you to shut her in the door.
You are so far away from facts. You told a story where you make up untrue labels pasted on human beings just to try validate your (violent) unhealthy (inter) personal reactions.

a reply to: BDBinc

It's ok Bdb,

Think whatever you want. But your little fantasy isn't going to make something true.

I interacted with the woman, and deduced from what I saw. I at least have something to base my conclusions on.

You weren't there, possess zero facts, and are imagining things, which, by the way, do not sound healthy, nor do they validate your personal reactions. End of story.

It would appear, by this article, LM, that you are very talented.

IT takes a real talent for overlooking the obvious to argue that women have achieved equality in contemporary America.

We tell ourselves that obstacles exist to be overcome, citing the handful of people who manage to overcome them as proof that everyone could if she chose. Moreover, in all fairness, some patterns of gender bias are genuinely hard to see: perhaps I, too, give my daughter a smaller allowance than I would give her if she were a boy -- but since I don't have a son, how can I tell? If you don't know how much your colleagues earn (a taboo subject in the American workplace), how do you know if you're being underpaid because of your sex?

To equalize the standings of men and women would cost billions of dollars, require the overhaul of many institutions, and destabilize many kinds of personal and professional relationships. It would threaten many men, and some women, with increased competition, while depriving men as a group of the important psychological bonus of feeling superior to women. There would be losers as well as winners. This would all be true whether or not people denied the existence of gender inequality, just as economic inequality exists independent of our fitful bouts of awareness of it. Denial is not an explanation of a social fact but an adaptation to it.

The problem is not so much, as Rhode argues, that people mistakenly believe the world is just; actually, only the privileged think that. It's that they believe they are powerless. And much of the time they're right.

Read the entire excellent article here:

www.theatlantic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

In recent years, Feminist Caucus breakout sessions at AHA annual conventions have varied in focus: “Women’s Rights as Human Rights” in 2008; “Humanism, Feminism and Women in Politics” in 2009; “From Nursery Tales to Contemporary Tech Influences on Kids and their Keepers” and “Varying Views on Porn and Prostitution” in 2010; “Health and Sexuality in Our 50s and Beyond” in 2011.[12] In 2012 the Feminist Caucus declared it would be organizing around two principal efforts: "Refocusing on passing the ERA" and "Promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[

a reply to: InTheLight

I don't know where this idea that "because women represent about 50% of the population, that they should hold 50% of positions in the fields of politics and business by virtue of their sex alone" comes from, but it's a grossly illogical philosophy.

It's like me saying "well men represent 50% of the population, why don't they hold 50% of jobs in the nursing and beauty industries?"

The truth is that men and women tend to show an interest in different careers and excel at different things. This explains the larger number of male politicians and businessmen, not an "oppression of women" as some would suggest.