It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

I've. Had. It. With. Feminism. (Part One - The Tattoo)

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 01:59 PM

originally posted by: monkofmimir

originally posted by: olaru12
I wonder why so many men have their masculinity threatened by extreme feminists? Seems pointless and retarded.
If you are secure in your own sexuality; this shouldn't even be a consideration.

that is irrelivant to the problems most people have with feminism.

Where are your qualifications to speak for "most people"?

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:04 PM
a reply to: KaDeCo

I've told my daughter I am not a fan of FEMINISM. (Please note capitalization.)

She of course felt that this made me no better than a racist. That my generation really didn't understand FEMINISM.

She sometimes is an idiot. Puffed up on self-importance and possessing the wisdom of the ages, I expcet that she thought I would wilt from her scorn.
Bite me!

I actually was in college during the more bumpy times of the late 60's and early 70's. Everybody, every faction, every politically dispossessed segment of American society were stumping for 'US not THEM'. Being a middle class white guy I decided to choose how to proceed through this mashup of causes. So I did.

I just want to be fair. I do not want to favor YOU because YOUR distant relatives got screwed. I do not want to favor you because YOU are incompetent. I do not want to carry your burdens forever. How can I feel this way and still be fair?

Simple, I will help anybody that needs it. Not because of your race, religion, sex (or lack of it) or any other distinguishing external signature. If you are being worked over by the system, let's stop that. I have no comprehension as to how this country actually has more than one court case concerning any of these issues.
It should have went like this, "It's not constitutional. Now get out of my court."

Back to FEMINISM-Like every other self-appointed set of victims, they are led by a coterie of highly successful individuals from their ranks. Uniformly they rankle the greater society through misrepresentation and hyperbole. Instead of attempting to join the greater whole they prefer to gather about their totems and pray for deliverance from their benighted existence.
You have MLK as a sterling example of how to go about pressing a case. But FEMINISM actually got it's start to allow corpserations (SIC) to control those who were hidden by house dresses. Lower wages, more worry, a more right leaning electorate, etc. were the aims of the ELITE. (Rockerfellers/CIA)

The fact that my daughter knows this to be true and still thinks that because I wish to be fair instead of favoring, that I am wrong, is an issue that annoys the crap out of me. Screw everyone who thinks they are deserving of anything because they just do. They are contemptible and disposable. To be fair (I GOTTA!), they may be redeemable but they got to buy into the process of becoming full adults or admit to just wanting to be pampered like children.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:24 PM
Well it is a free country so you can make up definitions to words but you can't really expect other people to accept your definitions.


a reply to: KaDeCo

So I do mean what I say. I've had it with feminism.

Thank you again for your note.
- OP

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 06:00 PM
Dear o.p.
Sweet little missy, you need some chocolate and a midol..
SERIOUSLY just kidding.
It seems roles just switch over time. If you watch an old Twilight Zone, it's almost offensive the things that are said and done. (I must admit however, I wish I was from that era, not because women were the "weaker sex", just simpler times.) Afro Americas suffered for many generations and I feel there are many that want nothing more than to turn the tables. Almost that being equals (not saying we're there yet) isn't enough.
I do believe this is partially the unconscious desire of some feminists. They need to belong to sex that has the "upper hand" and not singularly, that would be just them being that uber strong anomaly. They want the word women to signify so many things ironically it DOES already stand for.
I liken feminism to short mans disease. There almost is too much over compensation. Again, sorry about the midol remake, just couldn't help myself.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 01:25 PM
I dated a woman once, and I knew it was over when she got the word FEMINISM tattooed in pretty little script on her pelvis. Don't get me wrong, I loved this girl, but if that was how it was going to be, I knew it wouldn't last long. We had an argument that night about what the word FEMINISM means. She'd say "It's about empowering women, I don't need a man. That doesn't mean I don't want you." I'd reply "FEMINISM isn't about women's rights, it's not about equality." Anyways, you can see the point.

So over the next few weeks things started changing. If she woke up in the middle of the night, she'd insist on waking me up to maybe make her some tea. Being argumentative, stubborn, whatever word you want to describe it, I'd tell her I couldn't because of FEMINISM. Well, then she'd want me to do all these things for her, which I had done for the few previous months before the tattoo with a smile, but in public it was "FEMINISM!" Hypocrisy, trying to fit in at college, who knows.

Then I think the mentality really took over. I could no longer even get her something out of the cabinet above the stove. I'm 6'4", she's 5'2". I'm not better than her all around, but I am more suited to the task of getting things out of an almost ceiling high cabinet. (Different but equal, right?)

I'll spare you any more details of that, I'm sure you all get the picture. The relationship crumbled shortly after that, maybe because I was argumentative, maybe because I can't stand the FEMINISM thought process.

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: Excallibacca
You may not want to read all of my post but see the concluding paragraph.

Many are short in ways that aren't merely physical.

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:27 PM
Feminism was a ploy by the Rockefellers to break up the family, expand the tax base, and get children into the state-run education (brainwashing) system faster.

Don't believe me, believe Nick Rockefeller's friend Aaron Russo

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: JonButtonIII

Feminism as a concept of equality for females has been around way before the USA was around.

The term ''feminism'' has been around since the 1800's at least.

Women moaning about feminism should rethink, sans feminism they wouldn't be allowed an education or the right to vote, nor would their property ever be their own.

There might be new style militant or corrupted groups but essentially real feminism is about equality and only fools wouldn't agree to that.

The terms "feminism" or "feminist" first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872 (as les féministes),[13] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1904.[14][15][16] The Oxford English Dictionary lists 1894 for the first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for "feminism".[17] The British Daily News introduced "feminist" to the English language in a report from France.[12][when?] Before this time, the term more commonly used was "Woman's Rights".[citation needed] One professor of government uses the term feminism to label women's rights partisanship including that prior to the word feminism coming into vogue in 1913.[18]

Early feminism[edit]

People and activists who discussed or advanced women's equality prior to the existence of the feminist movement are sometimes labeled protofeminist.[8] Some scholars, however, criticize this term's usage.[6][19][why?] Some argue that it diminishes the importance of earlier contributions,[20] while others argue that feminism does not have a single, linear history as implied by terms such as protofeminist or postfeminist.[12]

Around 24 centuries ago,[21] Plato, according to Elaine Hoffman Baruch, "[argued] for the total political and sexual equality of women, advocating that they be members of his highest class, ... those who rule and fight".[22]

French writer Christine de Pizan (1364 – c. 1430), the author of The Book of the City of Ladies and Epître au Dieu d'Amour (Epistle to the God of Love) is cited by Simone de Beauvoir as the first woman to denounce misogyny and write about the relation of the sexes.[23] Other early feminist writers include Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Modesta di Pozzo di Forzi, who worked in the 16th century,[24] and the 17th-century writers Hannah Woolley in England,[25] Juana Inés de la Cruz in Mexico,[26] Marie Le Jars de Gournay, Anne Bradstreet, and François Poullain de la Barre.[24]

One of the most important 17th-century feminist writers in the English language was Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.[27][28][29]

18th century: the Age of Enlightenment
The Age of Enlightenment was characterized by secular intellectual reasoning and a flowering of philosophical writing. Many Enlightenment philosophers defended the rights of women, including Jeremy Bentham (1781), Marquis de Condorcet (1790), and, perhaps most notably, Mary Wollstonecraft (1792).[30] Other important writers of the time that expressed feminist views included Catherine Macaulay[31] and Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht.

Educational reform[edit]
Main article: Female education
The interrelated barriers to education and employment formed the backbone of 19th-century feminist reform efforts, for instance, as described by Harriet Martineau in her 1859 Edinburgh Journal article, "Female Industry".[clarification needed] These barriers did not change in conjunction with the economy. Martineau, however, remained a moderate, for practical reasons, and unlike Cobbe, did not support the emerging call for the vote.[citation needed]

The education reform efforts of women like Davies and the Langham group slowly made inroads. Queen's College (1848) and Bedford College (1849) in London began to offer some education to women from 1848. By 1862, Davies established a committee to persuade the universities to allow women to sit for the recently established Local Examinations,[clarification needed] and achieved partial success in 1865. She published The Higher Education of Women a year later. Davies and Leigh Smith founded the first higher educational institution for women and enrolled five students. The school later became Girton College, Cambridge in 1869, Newnham College, Cambridge in 1871, and Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford in 1879. Bedford began to award degrees the previous year. Despite these measurable advances, few could take advantage of them and life for female students was still difficult.[clarification needed]

In the 1883 Ilbert Bill controversy, a British India bill that proposed Indian judicial jurisdiction to try British criminals, Bengali women in support of the bill responded by claiming that they were more educated than the English women opposed to the bill, and noted that more Indian women had degrees than British women at the time.[71][clarification needed]

As part of the continuing dialogue between British and American feminists, Elizabeth Blackwell, one of the first American women to graduate in medicine (1849), lectured in Britain with Langham support. They[who?] also supported Elizabeth Garrett's attempts to receive a British medical education despite virulent opposition. She eventually took her degree in France. Garrett's very successful 1870 campaign to run for London School Board office is another example of a how a small band of very determined women were beginning to reach positions of influence at the local government level.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

That's absolutely true.

However, in this case, I'm referring to the distorted US paradigm of "feminism," which the Rockefellers and other elite organizations co-opted and corrupted to benefit the state at the expense of humanity... kind of like they did with pretty much everything else.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:40 PM
a reply to: KaDeCo

"I've. Had. It. With. Feminism."

Is this supposed to be 5 sentences?...I don't understand why people do this with the period at the end of each word for's just annoying. I didn't even bother reading your post because of your title with the periods...if you had just made it one sentence, I probably would have given your post a shot.

Just food for thought.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 06:44 PM
a reply to: KaDeCo

I'm a Masculist. I'm hairy, I eat meat. I like scotch, beer, enjoy violent sports, loud cars, jeans that don't try and squeeze my nuts and T-shirts.

No, I don't want to watch your sitcoms, I do not enjoy smelling candles and shopping for decorations. If you mention paint, my colour pallet includes, blue, black, brown, red and white # yellow, and there's another one like the forest.

I'm intelligent, but I don't flaunt it to impress anyone. I can build you a dog house, shed, derby car, fix your brakes, change your oil no I'm not paying someone to do it for me that's a waste of money.

I respect women and their decisions, I support my family, mother and father when they need me as well.

I will not drink latte's, eat low fat ice cream, or margerine and vegetables are great.... next to meat.

Live your life, don't let anyone tell you how.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:05 PM

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

That's absolutely true.

However, in this case, I'm referring to the distorted US paradigm of "feminism," which the Rockefellers and other elite organizations co-opted and corrupted to benefit the state at the expense of humanity... kind of like they did with pretty much everything else.

The idea that "Feminism is a tool of the Elite" is a right wing talking point that makes no sense. They're just trying to vilify Feminism because they want people to go back to the 50s style nuclear family in the hopes this will lead to the breeding of more consumers.

If you think this over it's clear. What is the difference if 1 person (a "Traditional Father") makes $100K or if two working people make 50K each? Either way - they collect the same amount in taxes and the people spend the same amount.

However - if they can get women OUT of the workforce - they might breed and shop more. What else do they have to do? BREEDING CONSUMERS is what TPTB want. It's simple logic. Educated women breed less, not more.

Male and Female should read about Marxist Feminism. It delineates clearly how the system 'works'. And how women have so much more unpaid work then men. And who benefits? The Fat Cats.

This isn't about men, it's about not getting trapped in the system. I frankly don't understand why more men aren't FOR this. Why should YOU work to support kids? And once you do have kids - you kind of have to work for a big corporation for the pay and insurance. Then they got you, they make money off of your back while you raise the next generation of consumers. Or, your Traditional Wife raises the kids for NO pay and works 16 hours a day at it.

Why should a man have an 8 hour job but a woman 16? And this is true whether she works outside the home or not. The wife has to do the 'second shift' in the home while the man relaxes. Why is this? That's not fair.

And that's why I, and plenty of women like me, are Feminists, and also said NO to kids. Its too much work. And for what? What's in it for me? I don't do anything for anyone else unless there's something in it for me. Kids are gross and mean, who wants that?

That whole "Suburban Family Lifestyle" looks quite depressing to me. What kind of life is that? Who would want to be a "traditional homemaker"? It's just TOO BORING. And taking care of kids? Um, no. I'm educated - I don't do maid's work. And they want you to do this for NO PAY yet!

Men are equally exploited under this system - fewer of them recognize it though. Women spotted it first. Men should take note of these things too - why should they be slaves to the fat cats? But men are easily blinded by sex and appeals to ego such as "you'll be the MAN of the house!" "The King of the Castle!" In the same way they fall for "titles" such as "Manager". Don't be fooled, check your ego. You, Mr. Supervisor are the same as those grunts you supervise, you are *nowhere near* any type of Executive - be careful what you fall for.

Read about Marxist Feminism, Engels "Origins of The Family" is interesting too. MEN need to read this stuff. It isn't YOU - it's "The System". You are screwed just as much as women, don't worry about it. I personally am not adverse to Capitalism either - however - one really needs to understand just what they're getting into. Don't fall for what you see on TV.

In my opinion - one of the best and easiest ways to circumvent this system is to REFUSE to breed! That's what they WANT - more consumers. Please don't be fooled by twisted Fascist rhetoric attempting to blame Feminism on some 'elites'. Are you kidding? These people WANT all to go back to the many child nuclear family. Hello - why do you think they're anti Feminist, anti birth control - hell they wanna *outlaw* birth control! Because - consumers. Why do you think they put the Duggars and Teen Moms on TV?

Feminism is GREAT! Because it makes you FREE! You don't have to live in Suburbia, drive a minivan, deal with brats who - lets face it - most people regret - and all that's involved with them is BORING. This is a boring life pitched to people with low intelligence who operate off of their emotions and believe what the TV tells them.

Anti Feminist rhetoric is coming from the Corporate Overlords on the Right who want YOU to breed more consumers.

edit on 21-9-2014 by FalseMove because: typo

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 08:29 PM
Wait there's more! My last thoughts were largely dictated by a friend of mine that's here drinking with me. Yes beer. Yes some of us gals drink beer!

She's more 'into' some of this stuff than I am. Or reads more about it. I'm the sort where I feel - I'm going to do WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT TO DO - and that's it and that's all. I'm not going to be a Suburban Housewife, PERIOD. She reads more on these things and is also more active in the CF (that means Child Free) community. Others here may want to look into that too, just Google Child Free. Our numbers are growing, we've seen through the LIES.

Also - someone here mentioned "God" a few pages back - that's another LIE. Religion is FALSE and The Overlords KNOW IT. It's to keep you sheep in your place. And to scare women into breeding. And you're DAMN RIGHT! I'm intolerant of it because it's ANTI WOMAN. And is obviously FALSE. YOU WILL NOT FORCE YOUR CRAZY FALSE BELIEFS ON ME!

Crack open a History book - all of Christianity is a LIE invented by the Romans to control people.

Now - I did want to address an idea stated multiple times here - along the lines of "women want equality but still want men to do stuff for them."

There's an error in logic here - which is conflating two separate subjects. Or, it's making the assumption that the person demanding equal opportunity - is also honest. Just because someone wants equal rights that doesn't mean they're honest. Bank robbers want a close parking spot by the bank too - that doesn't mean they're there to open up a new account.

This is why people have difficulty with this angle - you're mixing separate things together. The same goes for men - a man may want equal opportunity to break into work on Wall Street - hey - just because he went to State U and not Harvard - he wants his chance too. But that is *one issue*. A *separate issue* is - just because he gets in there - that doesn't mean he's going to be honest. He might be looking for equal opportunity *swindling*.

Just because you want a foot in the door - that doesn't automatically equate to an 'honest hard worker'. Don't conflate the two. There are separate issues here and people are not parsing them out. I see this repeated often with Feminist topics and the problem with it is that separate issues are not being parsed out.

Try this: Big Strong Manly Man is Self Sufficient and doesn't need any "help". OK. But he still may want a glass of water offered to him. Just because a person is 'one way' - that doesn't mean you can form a whole construct around them, or that they wouldn't appreciate some help too. Hell, the guy might even be a My Little Pony fan. And - SO? Just because a guy is a Big Tough Guy - why can't he have other interests as well?

Same with women. I might like to have a job breaking rocks in the hot sun all day - that doesn't mean that I wouldn't appreciate a kind gesture.

Don't conflate unrelated things. Many people are complex and don't follow any type of 'template' you may have in your mind - which was probably put there by advertising anyway.

I'm going to echo my friend here, with the ideas of Corporations dictating to you - that's where you're getting a lot of this rhetoric from. The same with the ideas that "men and women are different". Uh, NO - we're all Human Beings. Individuals have differences. That's another dead giveaway that it's Propaganda coming from Our Overlords - they WANT you to believe that men and women are different because they have WORK PLANS for you! And things to sell you. They WANT you to conform to their marketing so *they* can sell to you - is all that is. Don't fall for it. And a big part of it is trying to corral women into breeding - this is why they're telling you "women are different". They've got to heard the females into the breeding pen to make more consumers!

It's all pretty obvious to me, you don't even need to do any research. Just stop and think over these things. The lack of any logic or proof is apparent. Just like "the elite" are trying to do away with the "Nuclear Family". That makes NO SENSE because they *make money off of consumers*! They ABSOLUTELY do WANT the Nuclear Family - think too why "the 1950s" is so often brought up in these discussions - that's when THEY were making money!

And it's another example of conflating things too - many think the US economy was doing so well then - because "the women stayed home". But - they ignore the facts that the US had NO industrial competition at the time (since other industrial areas were bombed flat during WWII), and the corp. tax rates were much higher insuring investment in infrastructure. But no - people just immediately jump to blaming women for 'the demise of The Family'. Uh, NO.
That's just Fascist Right Wing BS aimed at the stupid.

Wise up before you find yourself in a world of misery. THINK. Things are more complex then they appear on the surface.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in