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


page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:48 AM
Feminism is a false debate, it is a smokescreen to hide the real questions. Tell me, what do these two women have in common : one spends 10000 a day as she has a lot of money, and the other has 3 kids and she lives alone with them, she has a job but she is indebted and her situation has led her to have suicidal thoughts. Do you think these two women have the same preoccupations in life ? What would the 2nd woman answer if someone was to ask her "what is your most important problem in life ?". Do you think she would answer "men peeing on the toilets, sexist remarks on the streets or on television" ? No, she would answer that her first problem is of economic nature, and she would be right. Men and women are not separate social classes. Who has the most in common with the 2nd woman : a man who is in the same situation as her (indebted, problems due to stress, etc.), or the 1st woman who spends 10000 a day ? Despite the fact that she is a woman like her, that doesn't make her an ally in her day to day struggle. But despite these facts, feminism wants the 2nd woman to believe that men are her real enemies, that if she is in a really bad situation, that must be because of what men are doing. That's a lie. Feminism wants equality between men and women, but it's hiding the fact that men are not equal between men, and women are not equal between women. It's divide and conquer, and make sure that those who should be natural allies never make peace between them.

It is a smokescreen to hide the real questions and debates in which the common people don't have a say. Bankers, billionaires, big companies, they all want to keep you busy with unimportant and/or false questions, while they handle the important things as they see fit for their own interest. They have the power and the politicians are their puppets, but they are smart and they let politicians make the show over societal questions, like same sex marriage for example, which by the way concerns 0.1% of the population, but they talk about it again and again to make you believe that 1) it's the most important question and 2) that they have the power to change things. Other than that, economic questions are not debated, we don't have a say in it, and we don't have a say when 'politicians' decide that this or that country needs to be bombed, and we don't have a say when it comes to energy production, or electric cars, etc..

I can make a parallel with the following question : why do TPTB seem to support extremists around the world ? Because that's what they do, they don't care about the people, they don't care about how well they live, they don't care about societal questions and they let the extremists and dictators do what they want about those societal questions, as long as they decide over important questions. They support extremists and dictators as long as it is in their interest. But that is not only a third world problem, the same is happening in Europe or the US.

You could also read that

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:51 AM
Feminism is only something people with too much time on their hands worry about. The rest of us (men and women) are just trying to survive. If it wasn't feminism it would be something else. People seem like they NEED something to get upset about.

(post by skunkape23 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:36 AM
Feminism is predicated on the idea that women don't need men.
That's fine.

The happiest people I know are married couples with good relationships and families.
So maybe it's worth hating or not needing or being better than a man. I don't have any idea.
I do know about families though.
They are worth it.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:43 AM
It's about to usher women into war draft if they keep pushing top get into combat arms for rank.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:46 AM

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
It's about to usher women into war draft if they keep pushing top get into combat arms for rank.

I think the US should have women in combat.
All female units, infantry, armor, artillery, scouts, snipers, the whole ball of wax.
They don't need to mix men and women in combat units.
Too much drama.

Pilots and support troops are a different animal.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 02:39 AM
I'm against all X-isms, that's just not helpfull, focussing on differences instead of personal growth and backgrounds.
I agree with the OP, women are doing it to themselves, jealousy and courtship behaviour. The pill might have been invented too soon, not only are we causing hormonell disturbances in fishes by our waste, it also distracts us from our natural role. Women are the holy grale and act like challenge Cups.
There are beautiful and smart women all over the world and they have to fight on more than one front every step of their way, when they want to achieve succes. Objectivied by men, hated by dumber, uglier, or lazier ladies they are the true aliens.
But that's something very hard to overcome, a human problem, just because it is easier to point fingers and call someone bitch, instead of freeing ourselves: grow and learn and be the best one can be no matter what others say. There are men facing that problem too, because we somehow still hold on to very outdated role models.
Just my opinion based on experience and observations, no proof, so stone me.
edit on 26-10-2014 by Peeple because: sunday morning, need more coffee

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 02:42 AM
I do not feel very attached to feminism, personally. I don't have to face such issues on a daily basis- it is not one where I live.

On the other hand, living in a culture which is opposed to my native one on this (it is maternalistic) I became much more aware of the paternalistic influences in our culture and how they effect us deeply- so I understand that for women still within that, it is a valid issue.


I think the issue is one that needs to address women themselves, and their internal mechanisms, not the societal systems.

The women who has the better financial situation may have something to share with the woman in the less advantageous one. She didn't end up there on accident- apparently she had something different going on deep in her head that took her on a different life path. She did not have three kids and end up divorced and working a low paying salary.

So what happened? Where do their choices split?

I perceive there are values and morals that are deeply ingrained in our culture, that are changing, but it takes each individual some effort.

For example:
Young women who dream of their big important marriage as a life goal- that is still a part of our culture!

I was faced with another one in which marriage is of minor importance to women. Couples choose to live together, have children, and maybe get married later, maybe not at all.. it doesn't mean much to them. My daughter has been with her boyfriend for six years, they have a great relationship, they announced their intent to have a child (and it has now been concieved).

My american relatives all asked, uh-oh... so when's the wedding?

I am stuck here having to ponder- how do I explain this to them?
How do I explain- there is no wedding plans, and this is not an accident, and their french relatives are all celebrating!

They ask- why doesn't she want to get married???
She sees no reason to. She is secure in this relationship, and even if they were to break up, she has a good education, which led to a great job, with paid maternity leave (up to three years), with a system that provides public preschool starting at two years of age.

This contrast is striking. While some young girls are dreaming about prince charming and a big wedding dress,
others are dreaming of going to college, of what kind of house they want to buy for themselves one day, what kind of car... no prince charming is necessary. If a regular guy, who is nice and makes a fun partner comes along, that's a plus- not the meaning of life as a woman.

These are the thoughts that it might be good to ponder for a woman. The self proclaimed feminist mother who assumed this was a mistake, and that they would have to marry, is completely unaware that she is holding a sexist moral and concept that she is passing along to younger women in her life... she is part of the problem she opposes!!!!

My own mother was a feminist, and yet she got pregnant twice in order to get a man to marry her, the first one, she didn't even love- but she desperately wanted security and her belief system was that you can't have security unless you have a husband. Of course, the loveless marriage ended in divorce, being a poor student again, with guessed it... three young chldren.

Yes, I believe sexist principles were at the base of her situation.

Though when I see men getting all defensive about feminists, as if they are being targetted, I want to say- just stay out of this, it is between us. We have the power to change sexism, but we need to interact amongst ourselves and learn how to disengage from this long tradition of paternalism individually... then the society shall naturally reflect that balance as more individuals are able to achieve that.

edit on 26-10-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 03:12 AM
Same sex marriage only concerns .1% of the population? When there are dozens of times more gays/lesbians in the population? And besides that, their friends and family don't care?

Just a "which by the way".

Economic questions that people want to debate can't be debated because politicians are talking about other issues? Some of it seems sort of loosely connected together..

edit on 10/26/2014 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 05:13 AM
I think feminism serves two purposes. On a lower level it is a power tool, not of the feminists, but of politicians, bankers etc.

On a higher level it serves a spiritual purpose. It's part of a wider package of leftist policies. They all serve to alienate people and make their ego grow. Make people less emotionally intelligent, autistic. This is where humanity is heading anyway inevitably, however there are ways to speed up the process. Great minds control lesser minds, which is necessary because the lesser minds will think they are doing what's right in their limited perception even if they are doing something that they wouldn't do had they had greater minds.

I think the purpose of these leftist policies is to elevate people above the corporeal, to end the wheel of birth, making use of the suffering the useful idiots inflict on themselves inevitably.

It leads down a path to where you have no dreams, nothing in the material world appeals to you. And you hate.

Eventually you become a free-floating atom in space. The state that Buddhism talks about when it talks about observing the world without emotional attachment. It is solitary confinement mentally.

This is when you begin to see through conditioning and people around you begin to appear like empty holographic projections running a script sent from higher location. A sign you are being initiated and are ascending.

In this life, there are three kinds of men, just as there are three sorts of people who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest class is made up of those who come to buy and sell, the next above them are those who compete. Best of all, however, are those who come simply to look on. The greatest purification of all is, therefore, disinterested science, and it is the man who devotes himself to that, the true philosopher, who has most effectually released himself from the 'wheel of birth.'
History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell

Those who aren't ready to be initiated take antidepressants and remain among the proles.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 07:47 AM

originally posted by: Bluesma

Though when I see men getting all defensive about feminists, as if they are being targetted, I want to say- just stay out of this, it is between us. We have the power to change sexism, but we need to interact amongst ourselves and learn how to disengage from this long tradition of paternalism individually... then the society shall naturally reflect that balance as more individuals are able to achieve that.

Stay out of it? We wish we could.

As a man, here's what I see concerning this: Women do need to get together on this issue and come to a majority type conclusion so us men know just how to approach you. You want us to open the door for you or not? Make up our minds already.

You're right though, you women have more power over things than most of you realize. The problem I see is that you women are so competitive with each other over who gets the best provider, I don't see you guys coming to a general consensus about ANYthing in the near future. You want to be your own person but you want a man to provide for you. Get it straight ladies, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Even a general consensus about whether feminism is actually a workable and productive idea for both you and the society you live in, would be a good start.

I've been around for a few decades now and I see a divide between men and women, about how they understand, communicate and get along with each other, that I didn't used to see. Things have changed and not for the better. Men and women used to be able to talk to each other about things a lot easier and a lot more amicably than they seem to be able to now. Women just seem to be so uptight about things that men are left walking on eggshells so they don't say the wrong things. One big reason for this, I think, is that women are starting to realize that feminism was a bad idea to begin with, but they want so badly to be empowered in some way, that they don't want to admit it.

The notion that being at least 60% responsible for how a human life turns out, their children in other words, is one of the most empowering acts a person can do........seems to be an antiquated notion at this point. As if the family structure means nothing at all. It's sad really the way things have turned out, but you women have the power to turn that around. Why you don't is beyond me.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:09 AM
People equate feminism, or being a feminist with misandry.




noun: feminism

the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.




noun: feminist; plural noun: feminists

1. a person who supports feminism.


adjective: feminist

1. of, relating to, or supporting feminism.

edit on 26-10-2014 by superman2012 because: added feminism meaning

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:23 AM
I suppose that people would see me as a feminist. I believe in equality for men and women in the political, social, and economic departments. My Significan other and I were together "out of wedlock" for 18 years. We had two children (girls). Nice little tidy life. We supported/support each other as equally as possible. There were past times that he was unable to find work and times that I couldn't as well. I was "established" when we met. He was also. I never felt that I needed him for financial security. I still don't. We decided about two years ago to adopt a sibling group. We were married last year because the state that we live in has a law that unless we were legally married only ONE of us could adopt. That got me to thinking. I needed ALL of my children to be entitled to death benefits (they are on our life insurance policies) and anything else that they may someday be entitled to as our heirs.
I have always tried to instill (my girls say I preach) self sufficiency through education and hard work. I was a late bloomer and really hope that my children don't wait as long as I did to get it together, so to speak. I see so often, at my work especially, young girls who have made a choice to have a child with a shiftless adolescent or young man who maybe didn't graduate high school and she didn't either. Well, NOW you have to take whatever job you can get. They complain that he doesn't hold down a job and they are struggling with bills and housing and how they are going to feed themselves. Maybe they are thinking about going back to school but, it is too hard with the job and the baby, etc. I see it from the other side as well. Young girls having the baby but, don't want to work, go to school, or think about the future struggling on food stamps that do not offer enough to feed them. The young man is left to take whatever menial job he can get and maybe have time and help from family to go back to school.
My Mother's goal in raising me was to make sure I knew how to cook, clean, and sew. Education was not important to her as she came from a place where you needed to secure a husband so that your future was intact and comfortable. I knew from a young age that was not for me. I wanted a partner, not a provider. When I left home, that became my job, to provide for myself.
I think that Mothers today have to begin to teach our daughters that you cannot depend on anyone but yourself. What if my husband goes rogue and runs off....I will be fine financially. THAT is what I want to teach my daughters about feminism. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts!
Apologies! I just realized how long winded I was!
edit on 26-10-2014 by TNMockingbird because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2014 by TNMockingbird because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 08:32 AM
a reply to: TNMockingbird

I teach my daughters the same thing. Hold no one accountable for your life and your choices but yourself. I also hope they don't follow their fathers footsteps as a "late bloomer"! By giving them every opportunity and letting them succeed, and learn, or fail, and learn, they are going to be a couple steps ahead of the kid that gets everything handed to them and never forced to accept responsibility for their own actions. I feel so sorry for those types of children.

Equality above all else.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:42 AM
When I think of feminism, I think of something like:

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: TNMockingbird

Equality above all else.

It doesn't get any more equal than that.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:51 AM
The OP was on to something with 'not all men are created equal' so how can women (created equally unequal) claim inequality?

Almost every single posts on here is claiming a different definition of 'feminism' or arguing some different facet of this 'issue' rife with pseudo-examples and self proclamation of a moral high ground.

As far as staying out of it, what is "it"? "It" is such a broad morass of disparate perceptions, half-truths, feelings, agendas, and bluster, how can any discussion even remotely close to these topics avoid being sucked in before anything of value is generated?

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:57 AM
a reply to: smithjustinb

Oh NO!!!!!!!!
THAT certainly is NOT what I picture.
It IS funny though, I like to think I am much more "feminine"! ROFL although,
it does bear a slight resemblence to my S.O. haha
edit on 26-10-2014 by TNMockingbird because: darn grammar!

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: ABNARTY
Anything other then the actual meaning of the word, has nothing to do with feminism.
If I had to pick one label for myself, I would prefer Humanist to feminist though.

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:21 AM
a reply to: ABNARTY

I think any kind of policy concerning equality is delusional. There is nothing whatsoever inherently good with equality. My opinion is that all forms of equality policies are for the purposes I described in my post. It is a form of subversion that people are too stupid and conditioned to understand when they support it. But I also believe there is another dimension to it that I talked about too. It has to do with correction of sin. I think the whole thing is very deep and a vast majority of people wouldn't be able to comprehend much of what it really is about if they were told, so instead we are fed some nonsense that people buy and follow as the sheep they are. Nothing against sheep or shepherds though. People were always divided into sheep and shepherds.
edit on 291031Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:29:13 -0500201413pAmerica/Chicago2014-10-26T10:29:13-05:0031 by introspectionist because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:25 AM
a reply to: superman2012

...and I have no problem with that. Probably a better track anyway.

However, just look at this thread as a microcosm of the discussion everywhere else. While there may be a definition somewhere, who keeps the discussion within those confines? What exactly is 'social equality' anyway? How does one quantify this? What do we measure it by? I have no idea

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in