I am the Patriarchy

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I posted it to see what your equal rights feminism will do to help him. Can you answer?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
What can we do to stop you hating humanity?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
What can we do to stop you hating humanity?

What can we do to keep you on topic? LesMis is not the topic, feminism/patriarchy is.

a reply to: AfterInfinity
No the topic is a human said that they did not need LM to hold the door open and he was so annoyed he dropped the door.
From this event, LM came up with a thread about him versus women.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

When a man opens the door for me, I say, "Thank you, sir". And I'm about as staunch a feminist as you'll find.

Same here. I have no problem with someone holding the door for me, regardless of their gender. It's just a nice thing to do for another human being. I am a feminist who was raised by a feminist mother, and I know she also has no problem with a man (or a woman) holding a door open for her.

There are extremists in every movement. The Op shouldn't let that color his opinion on the validity on the whole movement.

I see exceptions made for females all the time. "I wouldn't hit a woman" "You shouldn't say that to a woman" "Let it go, women are like that" "help her, she's a woman".

I see no reason to make exceptions based on the fact that she has a vagina. If I'm going to be nice to her, help her with groceries, watch my language, or otherwise modify my behavior for her, I have to do it for everyone or I am setting a double standard based on sex. And that is discrimination. Everyone hates discrimination until they get the sweet end of the deal. Funny how that works, huh?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AfterInfinity
No the topic is a human said that they did not need LM to hold the door open and he was so annoyed he dropped the door.

And you turned that into hating humanity, which implies that you either didn't read the OP or didn't care. Anyway, moving on...

a reply to: AfterInfinity
Lesmisanthrope is a misanthrope!
Maybe you have never read his name and noticed what it is saying and seen how it relates to his attitude.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

How is obliging someone's concerns and requests equate to me hating humanity? I let go of the door because she made it quite clear she didn't need me, a man, to hold it open for her.

Cmon BDBinc. Still grasping for straws?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity


I see exceptions made for females all the time. "I wouldn't hit a woman" "You shouldn't say that to a woman" "Let it go, women are like that" "help her, she's a woman".

I see no reason to make exceptions based on the fact that she has a vagina. If I'm going to be nice to her, help her with groceries, watch my language, or otherwise modify my behavior for her, I have to do it for everyone or I am setting a double standard based on sex. And that is discrimination. Everyone hates discrimination until they get the sweet end of the deal. Funny how that works, huh?

Feminism was originally about women having equal citizenship rights, like being able to run a business, or own property, or vote in an election or to have certain divorce rights. These were things that women were not allowed, by law. Men had all those rights, but women did not. The original feminists (men AND women) got those laws changed. Since then, feminism has been hijacked somewhat by extremists. I am for equal legal rights for women, but I am a girly girl who shaves her legs and wears high heels. I don't feel the need to try to dress like a man, or talk like a man, or "spit like a man." But I'm smart enough to run a company, if I wanted to. And I'm smart enough to vote in any election. Thank God the early feminists worked hard to get me to the point where I can do those things.

When you talk about not hitting a woman, that's usually because it wouldn't be a fair fight. Same thing with punching a child. Do you advocate a 25-year-old man getting into a fist fight with a 6-year-old boy? Would that be a fair fight? Same thing with a woman. That's not about a vagina.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Exactly so. Before women were excepted as peers, there was no equal opportunity for women. But now that there is equal opportunity (at least in the western world), a fuss is made when there isn't an equal outcome. It isn't just one gender that creates gender roles. It also isn't just one gender that subjugates from positions of power.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: LittleByLittle
I am referring to ACADEMIC studies of gender equality, and feminism as it's true description as GENDER EQUALITY, not the EXTREMISM you mentioned.

Feminist "academics" actually admit, as I linked to earlier, engaging in biased support of topics. That means they are not being unbiased or objective while letting the data speak for itself. They intentionally pursue presentations of a certain light to support their agenda.

"Academic" feminism is essentially reduced to nitpicking over verbiage of textbooks and producing studies with extremely biased methodology and uncritical interpretations.

Feminist Empiricism
www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43564_2.pdf

The point of feminist science criticism must, in the end, be to change science, and changing science requires changing the practices of scientists. Hence, scientists must be brought into the dialogue. Since scientists are empiricists, that dialogue will have to make room, at least in the beginning, for empiricists and for, at least as a topic of discussion, empiricism. (Nelson, 1990, pp. 6–7)

Appealing to the traditional empirical valuation of experience and logic provides a strategic advantage for feminism. Yet, feminists must rework empiricism and our understanding of what constitutes scientific standards in order to account for the role of sociopolitical values, as must the not-specifically feminist promoters of the empiricist tradition.

Please tell me how that is not completely insane?

Since I asked another poster about the 'power trip' theory and they did not answer maybe you will. Do you have any links to literature or empirical data demonstrating the concept accepted and touted by feminism that men only hold doors open or 'hit on' women to express their dominance over them?

Thanks

-FBB

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
What does your equal rights feminism do to help your husband?

I'm not going to go into my husband's personal life as that should come from him, not me.

But for men in general, true equality would include the "male abortion", equal custody and child care rights, the freedom to SHARE in the burden of providing for the family, the freedom to be emotional and vulnerable without being cast as a "wuss", equal rights and treatment in the military, all of which I support. A woman who has equal rights is an equal partner in the relationship.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
What does your equal rights feminism do to help your husband?

I'm not going to go into my husband's personal life as that should come from him, not me.

But for men in general, true equality would include the "male abortion", equal custody and child care rights, the freedom to SHARE in the burden of providing for the family, the freedom to be emotional and vulnerable without being cast as a "wuss", equal rights and treatment in the military, all of which I support. A woman who has equal rights is an equal partner in the relationship.

But that doesn't explain how feminism fights for the male half of that agreement. By definition, feminism would cease its battle at the line between the two, because that's where it ceases to be "feminism". If this is incorrect, please correct me.

Those that think of the gender gap as being non existent in the western world need some education.

Go check out the links I have posted all through this thread, some are US specific, some are global, go look, go check the stats.

As for the academic studies, they are based on unbiased observations and international statistics.

The UN is addressing global inequality because it exists, look at the map I posted a few pages back, read about places and their practices.

Seriously do some research, if any of you are humanitarian they you should also be feminist.

Patriarchal societies are also responsible for social strata that has victimised men and boys also, it is a pyramidal structure that serves a few.

I seriously suggest those with any real inclination for humanitarian purpose and the bettering of humanity and redressing the balance for GENDER EQUALITY read these links, I especially suggest reading this as it addresses how patriarchal structures are generally destructive to humanity.

withloveandjustice.wordpress.com... -gender-inequality-across-all-cultures/

Speaking of gender inequality, here's some more info on the subject:

A Voice for Men

I seriously suggest those with any real inclination for humanitarian purpose and the bettering of humanity and redressing the balance for GENDER EQUALITY read this link.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
withloveandjustice.wordpress.com... -gender-inequality-across-all-cultures/

This paper is full of buzz words and a whole lot more BS.

They literally define racism as white supremacy . . . GTFO are you kidding me?
withloveandjustice.wordpress.com... er-inequality-across-all-cultures/

“The most common mistake people make when talking about racism (white supremacy) is to think of it as a problem of personal prejudices and individual acts of discrimination. They do not see that it is a system, a web of interlocking, reinforcing institutions: political, economic, social, cultural, legal, military, educational, all our institutions. As a system, racism affects every aspect of life” (Martinez, Solnit pp. 52).

www.merriam-webster.com...

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Ironically the paper later cites merriam-webster for a definition . . .

I do agree with some of the ramifications hinted at in the paper, but the rampant misrepresentation is appalling and borders on hate speech to be honest.

-FBB

PS
Located any papers on that whole 'power trip' of holding doors and hitting on women being an expression of male dominance yet?

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

If you believed in true gender equality then you would be a Humanist, not a feminist. Feminism is about the focus on women's issues and rights - whether they come at the expense of men's rights (e.g. gender quotas) is of no paramount concern. Since the rights of men are of no concern, how can you seriously claim it is about "equal rights"?

Um no, I didn't accuse you of lying or having an ulterior motive. I think you truly believe the "Feminism is about equality" myth and therefore are not necessarily lying. However,I do believe you have been indoctrinated to think in this way.

My opinions are formed from a combination of research, real-life interaction with those who identify themselves as feminists and general life experience.

You said this:

I am a woman and I believe in GENDER EQUALITY (google it) which by definition makes me a FEMINIST (google it).
Because of this you basically accused me of lying about my beliefs and having an ulterior motive and sinister agenda instead.
Presumably you aren't being headhunted by the CIA for detective work or for your powers of deduction (or lack of).
Did you get such an opinion from the ''Revised version of women's opinions and reality- the Satan version''?

(Your last sentence is humorous. A staunch feminist with a sense of humour? Who would have imagined?)

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Assumptions and gross generalizations of your own aside, I'll give you this one. I will concede that making such implications about the mental state of someone who is not here to defend herself was wrong and I can see why it would make you angry (although, not as angry as you are expressing.) Also, it could be that he winked at her or said something lewd. However, I have to trust to a point that he is giving us a factual accounting of what happened, and if that is the case she was out of line and it was a darned strange and confrontational thing to do. To insinuate that he is not telling us the truth about the nuances of the circumstances and that this lady must have been provoked is not only illogical but assumptive as well when there really is no proof. We are left with his narrative, use what you have to work with.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

So many possibilities yet you also jumped to a conclusion.

You might want to watch how far you are jumping to get to your own conclusions. As follows...

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

Have men become crazy or is this the blinkered misogynist thread?

I'm a girl.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Now from your post I could say a whole load of stuff about you, I could call you ''psychologically damaged, narrow minded, egotist, harbouring delusions, hatred for women and an Oedipus complex''. Would you think that as okay, you know forming strong opinions of others based on, well a post, in a forum, or perhaps because you were mentioned in a post on a forum, you know in the style you just did, let's call it: ''instant psychology by conspiracy forum - get your analysis here''

I think that the vitriol inherent in the above is a completely inappropriate response to what I wrote. I did not attack you, or even insult you, your ideology, your dog or anything else. However, it is likely you are exaggerating for effect, but having said that, because I am here to defend myself:

I am psychologically damaged. I am a gang rape victim that was physically abused for two years by my first husband with an violent alcoholic father. Most people are psychologically damaged, everything is a matter of degree however.

I am judgmental but not narrow minded, but I would be forced to concede on "egotist".

I am curious about what delusions you may think I harbor however. I don't hate women, once more I am female and I would add that I prefer the company of women for the most part (in large part because of the "psychologically damaged" bit).

I'm not sure how you would back up an Oedipus complex (which is largely a discarded concept within the psychological community) but I am fascinated in hearing your theory on that. I think that your answers on this would say a great deal more about you than me, as do your assumptions.

I have been victimized in ways that tell me that patriarchy does exist and some men do these things and get away with it; so no, I can't agree with the OP that the patriarchy doesn't exist. Nor can I agree with many of his own assumptions and conclusions that he comes to because of them. He leaps pretty far and lets resentment, anger and fear color his judgment. However, I still have the presence of mind to recognize that there is a growing prevalence in feminism to look down on men and treat the entire gender as the enemy.

I think either you got hung up on the first part and either just stopped cold and didn't bother with the rest or let your outrage color your perspective. This tirade of yours is illustrating my final point. Both sides get so entrenched in their position they just get defensive and angry and won't bother to look to how they are making the whole situation into an epic She said He said knock-down-drag-out battle of the sexes.

So, in the end, I'll take your point on my psychoanalysis of someone I don't know who isn't here to address that opinion. It was irresponsible and mean. However, regarding assumptions as an overarching theme... Stones and glass houses... Take off your own blinkers.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
But that doesn't explain how feminism fights for the male half of that agreement.

Really? Because the way I see it, the more equality we experience, the less the man has to "do it all". Used to be, the man had 100% responsibility for providing for the family. He had to bear all the stress, perhaps one of the reasons women live longer in general? Also, the more equality we experience, the more men will be treated equally in divorce and childcare agreements.

By definition, feminism would cease its battle at the line between the two, because that's where it ceases to be "feminism". If this is incorrect, please correct me.

I have no idea what that means.

a reply to: redhorse


Women are capable of misogyny also, I was brought up by a female misogynist.

As for the psychological analysis of you, it wasn't, it was a parody, I was mocking your rash psychological analysis of the alleged human being /woman of the thread writers first post on the thread.

I was making the point that such rash and illogical ''instant analyses'' are best avoided, I made this clear after the mock analysis of you.