The Feminist Movement—Ruining The Image Of Men

a reply to: Annee

Ok I get it. You've apparently experienced some negative things for women in the past. And it's fine to support equal rights. However, I think it's skewing your view of reality. To be clear, I literally have no problem with equal rights for both genders. However, there is a problem when 'equal rights' means women get the privilege and men are disposable. And I assume, that if these things that happened to/were done to women were so terrible, that you wouldn't wish anyone to suffer for it, including men.

Doesn't matter what you think feminism is or should be. In reality, right now at this very moment, it is acting as a devastating force, dissolving women from responsibility by blaming it all on the men and making the men pay for all the mistakes that women make. Women are being overprotected and men are being under-appreciated. It is creating a huge disconnect between the sexes, which if left unchecked, will cause the fall of humanity as a whole. No joke.

I'm in a video spamming mood Just to give you an idea, of how women are overprotected.

originally posted by: RedCairo
Gender feminism is what some call the type that pursues their philosophy through aggressive attacks against men. They consider men the cause of keeping da woman down. Some men do.

That's bullying. Bullying has nothing to do with gender.

A woman who feels she is being kept down by a man -- bullied -- has the choice not to be. Same with men.

That was interesting. I watched the vid and at no time did the guy mention the woman might have been with obama. And that her child IS obamas? That event is very significant.

a reply to: vasaga

a reply to: vasaga

"There's no such thing as a benevolent 'true feminism'."

the original feminists began working to free the slaves before themselves. they help get those freed black slaves the right to vote before themselves.
they wanted the WORKING WOMEN of their day to be able to have control of the money THEY earned instead of having to place it in the hands of men who would then proceed to use it as they saw fit. and too many times these men weren't too benevolent when it came to how the money was spend!

women aren't evil, men aren't evil but when the power lays solely in the hands of one person that power tends to corrupt!

feminism was started before socialism came into being
it was just an extension of the same movement that
removed the kings from power - I doubt that any man or women believes it would be better to have king proclaiming his power to rule with absolute authority given to him from god!

freed the slaves

delivered to us the holy scriptures so we could see where the priests were lying and learn about god on our own

ya there are still problems when it comes to finding true equality but to deny the freedom and equality that has been accomplished by any one group is to also deny the freedom that was accomplished for you also!

Ugh another feminism thread.

Feminism was good when it first started for its original cause and i do agree on some of its views. Problem is feminism is not a single group its various groups with different views so it is highly disorganized these days so you have a lot of idiots going around. You have these feminazis these days making things bad for men and women alike in their attempts to make women conqur all. Then there are feminists who actually do help women and just focus on that. Of course there is also the people who are nothing but people who like to call themselces feminists for no real good reason. There are some good feminists who try to help males and females but this type seems invisible among the other types.

Most feminists or at least the kind who like to talk about it a lot seem to care more about the label feminist than any cause. If someone supports equality but does not agree with feminisms methods be prepraired to be insulted and called a sexist.

Feminism started affirmative action for women which even some feminists at least sane ones agree its harmful. Affirmative action legally assignes women as less capable than a man so much they need special protection. Affirmative action makes males more likely to despize females for special treatment they get and the jobs they steal if they would normally be unqualafied.

I dont agree on the idea they try to demasculanize men but they do sometimes try to make them feel guilty for things they did not do personally and try to make them feel bad for being men so they can be more easily manipulated.

a reply to: Aural
I see affirmative action as something that isn't so much bad as it it something that has been made no longer needed. same with the idea that women should always get custody of the children when things fall apart. there was a time when that was appropriate since in most men earned much more than their wives did and them not having custody freed them to earn the money that was needed. it's not so much that it was bad as it is outdated.

I really don't get why people claim that feminism started out as benevolent, when there's clear documentation and even admittance by Gloria Steinem, that it was funded by the Rockefellers and supported by the CIA as a way to destabilize society.

a reply to: vasaga

CIA - created in 1947

Gloria Steinem - born 1934

Rockefellers - couldn't find an exact date of when they first started becoming prominant but wikipedia says:

A trademark of the dynasty over its 140-plus years has been the remarkable unity it has maintained

so that would place the start of their dynasty at around 1874

they are talking about Elizabeth Stanton here:

Her Declaration of Sentiments, presented at the Seneca Falls Convention held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, is often credited with initiating the first organized women's rights and women's suffrage movements in the United States

en.wikipedia.org...

and there were earlier women who were actively trying to change things before her including Abigail Adams!!!
I don't know maybe the Rockefellers had a time machine at their disposal??

originally posted by: vasaga
I really don't get why people claim that feminism started out as benevolent, when there's clear documentation and even admittance by Gloria Steinem, that it was funded by the Rockefellers and supported by the CIA as a way to destabilize society.

"funded by the Rockefellers"?....ok, maybe...but, "supported by the CIA as a way to destabilize society"...I need to see the proof on that for verification, or else I don't believe it.

a reply to: jimmyx

Aside that it came from Nicholas Rockefeller himself... Have fun reading:

www.rense.com...

rense.com...


a reply to: dawnstar

Women's rights & women's suffrage =/= feminism.

a reply to: vasaga

fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character. Origin: 1890–95;

dictionary.reference.com...

don't think so..

and I would venture to guess that if there was any conspiracy going on in the 1970's it was a conspiracy to convince women that they were being given equal rights when in fact they were given something far different. The movement of the 1970's was a failure in that it did not result in the ERA being passed..

Upon its introduction, the Equal Rights Amendment stirred up debate about the direction of the ideology and tactics of the women's movement. The National Woman's Party supported the amendment, arguing that women should be on equal terms with men in all regards, even if that means sacrificing certain benefits given to women through protective legislation, such as shorter work hours. However, opponents of the amendment believed that these gender-based benefits protected women as they entered new spheres, such as the work industry, and that the loss of such protection would not be worth the supposed gain in equality. In 1924, The Forum hosted a debate between Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton concerning these two perspectives on the proposed amendment.[4] Their debate reflected the wider tension in the developing feminist movement of the early 20th century between two approaches towards the equality of gender. One approach emphasized shared similarities between the sexes and demanded rights based on women's humanity. The other approach emphasized women's unique experiences and how they were different from men to obtain recognition for their specific needs.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

so you see instead of passing the ERA, which was by the way was introduced in every congressional session between 1923 and 1970 they instead threw women a bone and all those pesky things that men don't like were brought about instead.. and women still found themselves thought of as less than equal and for the most part still dependent if not on the husband then on the gov't.

the ERA:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. "

a reply to: dawnstar

Maybe I should rephrase.

Women's rights & women's suffrage =/= modern day feminism.

The first two and a half minutes will perfectly describe what feminism has turned into, and actually was designed to turn into by Steinem (or the Rockefellers rather, Steinem was the pawn). But I obviously would suggest watching the whole thing.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I can't say I feel oppressed by them, however I do observe arguements between married males and females and I can see this "empowerment" that affects thier psyche.

Women havent tried to feminise men, it's just that most of us dont live in societies where lumberjack types are useful. Males and females naturally look for good mates, and i think most of us would agree that a lumberjack is going to do you no good when you live in an urban society. you want somebody who is socially able and has a brain.
i do think though that males are cannibalises their own sex, i'm a manly man, and i cant believe all these silly womenfolk are going after this softy metrosexual man!
Why shouldnt that man have every right to find a women, like the lumberjack does?
Why does the lumberjack man feels he's more entitlted than the chic geek?
This is why really we've gone off lumberjack types, they not ony want to criticize women for not wanting them, they also want to critisise the men they do want. jealosuy much?

a reply to: vasaga

okay I listened to about 14 minutes of it.
can't say that I can relate much to what she is saying though.
and well I got a feeling that I am not alone in that one.

women and children eat first?? okay. but I spent quite a few months eating one mean every other day to ensure my hubsand and sons had enough.. didn't hear my hubby complaining about it!

men don't ask for help?? na... my husband is quicker to ask for help than I. and well I am not apt to ask anyone for help anymore since I learned it really doesn't do much good!

I'll just say this:
dependency=servitude
if a women is put in a position where she has to be financially dependent on someone else she more than likely is not free! the someone else more than likely feels that he is owed something because he goes out and works to earn money and she just stays home plays with the kids and house all day! and well some can get quite demanding!

and I will also say this:
a pampered slave is still just a slave! when we teach the little boys and the little girls just what they need to know to take on their preordained roles we are limiting them! so what if the women are pampered and the men aren't- they are still just slaves trained up to take on their roles, even if it would be in fact more realistic for them to switch those roles a bit or a whole lot.

During the revolutionary war, during both world wars and more than likely during every war since the beginning of time women were left to take care of society while men went off to fight. and there was one western state that granted women the right to vote long before the rest did women were consistently demanded by the conditions to take on both roles and be provider protector and nuturer as well as keepers of the home either along side the men or alone while the men were far away for long periods of time. And many times even with th e men present women still had to work to provide for the family also. when the going gets tough it seems men have no problem shifting the burden onto women! it's just that when things aren't so tough they are willing to pamper their slaves.

in many parts of the world there are cultures where men eat first and women last..
and where men work harder than the women
and women in saudi arabia are denied many priviledges "for their protection"...

like I said the ERA had been presented to congress since 1923. many times it was never even considered and it has never passed. it probably never will be. it's the upper classes that take charge of political movements as well as within the gov't. ya rich women can be pampered and live in their big homes with their many servants and never have to worry about going hungry.
they make a mistake though when they think that everyone else should be living like they do and then try to instill it into the society as the norm.
most women I think would rather take a job themselves than to see their husbands working themselves to death trying to hold two jobs to earn enough for the family. and throughout history they have picked up the slack when allowed to!! and many times if they weren't well the husband suffered, the wife suffered, and the kids suffered far more with proverty!

and since the corps can now have the same rights as granted to men by the constitution and are free to practice that religion within the basic policies of the business. I have to wonder...
If the corp decides that they don't want to hire women because of their beliefs just how would that turn out??
would the constitutional rights of that corp trump a law that says makes discrimination against women illegal??
It's time to bring the ERA back into the picture I think!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Illuminawty
I suppose you wouldn't see a problem if the grass is always green on your side of the fence.

Being that I grew up in the 50s, and came of age in the 60s ---- means I have 1st hand real experience of how women were treated prior to the women's rights movement.

That gives me more credibility then your lame statement.

That gives you no credibility at all. I don't know you, and there's no proof how old you are here. Hey....I am 227 years old and I was there when the Constitution was signed.....I believe that means that I should have more freedom that you.
That said...in reality I wasn't there in the 60's and don't give one iota as to what happened. All I know is that I didn't do a thing to women and there's no reason why I should have to pay for it. That is true equality. Burying everything in the past and putting women and men on an equal footing....starting all over. So your credibility means squat to me. Besides, this is 2014 and I suppose anyone could go back in history and find something to complain about, but everyone living in THIS generation, has no knowledge about such archaic days. When time dies, it needs to stay dead...or there's never any positive change. This is why feminism is so evil and corrupt today.....because it is fanning the old, dead embers of the 50s and 60s trying to light a fire of hate and contempt for men....once again. Feminism is a male hating organization, therefore an organization of hate, which by the definition of Homeland Security is a t3rrorist group. Its true, whether anyone wants to admit I or not. If Christians are a t3rrorist group...then certainly feminism, which is based on hate for men, would be.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: vasaga

women and children eat first?? okay. but I spent quite a few months eating one mean every other day to ensure my hubsand and sons had enough.. didn't hear my hubby complaining about it!

It was still your choice whether to give it to him or not. I you didn't want to, what then? You wouldn't easily be seen as bad for not feeding him, especially if you have children. If he took it by force, he would be seen as the abuser. If we switch the roles, as in, it's up to him whether you eat, he would still be considered an abuser for not giving you anything.

originally posted by: dawnstar
men don't ask for help?? na... my husband is quicker to ask for help than I. and well I am not apt to ask anyone for help anymore since I learned it really doesn't do much good!

He will ask you to maybe help him do something. He will probably not ask you for help regarding his health or emotional troubles. And if he does, he's an exception. We're talking generally here. I get that not everyone is the same. Not every woman is out there to extract a man's wealth, but over 90% of them probably are. Is it a struggle to let your husband go to the doctor for example? Was it a struggle at the beginning of your relationship?

originally posted by: dawnstar
I'll just say this:
dependency=servitude
if a women is put in a position where she has to be financially dependent on someone else she more than likely is not free!

What about the one who is forced to financially provide? Not doing it will result in jail time or death. Are you forgetting that part of the equation? They are even LESS free than those women that are financially dependent.

originally posted by: dawnstar
and I will also say this:
a pampered slave is still just a slave! when we teach the little boys and the little girls just what they need to know to take on their preordained roles we are limiting them! so what if the women are pampered and the men aren't- they are still just slaves trained up to take on their roles, even if it would be in fact more realistic for them to switch those roles a bit or a whole lot.

Pampered slaves are still better off than unpampered slaves.

originally posted by: dawnstar
During the revolutionary war, during both world wars and more than likely during every war since the beginning of time women were left to take care of society while men went off to fight. and there was one western state that granted women the right to vote long before the rest did women were consistently demanded by the conditions to take on both roles and be provider protector and nuturer as well as keepers of the home either along side the men or alone while the men were far away for long periods of time. And many times even with th e men present women still had to work to provide for the family also. when the going gets tough it seems men have no problem shifting the burden onto women! it's just that when things aren't so tough they are willing to pamper their slaves.

Yes. Men's lives are worth nothing, so they are sent off to die, while the women can live on. So are you actually saying that the burden of having to be provider, protector and nurturer is actually worse than the burdens of participating in a war?

originally posted by: dawnstar
in many parts of the world there are cultures where men eat first and women last..
and where men work harder than the women
and women in saudi arabia are denied many priviledges "for their protection"...

That is true... But... From someone who has actually visited the middle east... Watch from 12 minutes onwards. Of course if you can spare the time, everything leading up to that is genius ^_^, including her Part 1. In fact, I don't think you'll get her point by just watching from 12 minutes onwards... The Part 1 is the best introduction to feminism I've ever seen. And Part 2 is talking more about gender roles, and what she observed in the middle east.
.

As you see, I do love posting videos lol xD

originally posted by: dawnstar
like I said the ERA had been presented to congress since 1923. many times it was never even considered and it has never passed. it probably never will be. it's the upper classes that take charge of political movements as well as within the gov't. ya rich women can be pampered and live in their big homes with their many servants and never have to worry about going hungry.
they make a mistake though when they think that everyone else should be living like they do and then try to instill it into the society as the norm.
most women I think would rather take a job themselves than to see their husbands working themselves to death trying to hold two jobs to earn enough for the family. and throughout history they have picked up the slack when allowed to!! and many times if they weren't well the husband suffered, the wife suffered, and the kids suffered far more with proverty!

and since the corps can now have the same rights as granted to men by the constitution and are free to practice that religion within the basic policies of the business. I have to wonder...
If the corp decides that they don't want to hire women because of their beliefs just how would that turn out??
would the constitutional rights of that corp trump a law that says makes discrimination against women illegal??
It's time to bring the ERA back into the picture I think!

I have nothing to say to this.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I can't say I feel oppressed by them, however I do observe arguements between married males and females and I can see this "empowerment" that affects thier psyche.

Women's "empowerment" is nothing but an illusion. When things go bad for them, they huddle together and cry and share empathy for each other...convincing the female who was offended that men are evil...even if SHE cheated on him and he left her...you can bet the GUY is a real jerk to all women that she speaks with. What women's empowerment REALLY is......is a small frail woman, with a big ego and a 1000 pound government dragon standing behind her, protecting her every step. Cops, courts, the state etc. They all favor women over men, and would rather than men be dead. Why? because if men can be emasculated by women, and the government just lets them run roughshod all over us. Then the government will be able to install this police state so much easier. This is the REAL reason for feminism. If men can't stand up against even a woman, he will definitely not have the will to stand against a government with a military or militaristic police force. This is why women feel so untouchable....because they are. Its as simple as government favoritism.

It's kind of funny you have brought this up today we had a diversity training done by HR esposining all the benifits of diversity. The only problem I see is that HR is all women no men how diverse is that?

a reply to: vasaga

"He will ask you to maybe help him do something. He will probably not ask you for help regarding his health or emotional troubles. And if he does, he's an exception. We're talking generally here. I get that not everyone is the same. Not every woman is out there to extract a man's wealth, but over 90% of them probably are. Is it a struggle to let your husband go to the doctor for example? Was it a struggle at the beginning of your relationship? "

not sure if there is a typo in this or not but the last time I suggested he go to the doctor he bit my head off so that should answer your question as to weather or not I have trouble letting him seek medical care. why would I????

"What about the one who is forced to financially provide? Not doing it will result in jail time or death. Are you forgetting that part of the equation? They are even LESS free than those women that are financially dependent. "

I would rather be in a position where I can help him out in that respect. I get what you are saying and I tried to relay that very thought. To me both husband and wife should be adept at both roles..

"Yes. Men's lives are worth nothing, so they are sent off to die, while the women can live on. So are you actually saying that the burden of having to be provider, protector and nurturer is actually worse than the burdens of participating in a war? "
ain't no one fighting our wars not that didn't volunteer to?? and no I was't saying it was worse.. But it does prove the fact that we have been required to handle both roles when necessary. And since it is likely that it will be necessary at some point in our lives maybe it would be better to practice and prepare for event?? instead of allowing ourselves to be protected and pampered or worse allow laws and culture to prevent us from being able to when it is needed?

My marriage in no way falls into the norm. Since I lost my last job and have been unable to find one that I can physically do I don't earn money. And well I allow him to make the decisions with the money and if it's not enough I will take the brunt of the backlash. I wouldn't dream of stopping him from seeking medical care or buy want he wants with his money.. Unfortunately when I am working and I spend a little money well all of a sudden I am wasting his money..
Oh well I am old enough to remember what it was like before the women's rights movement of the 70's also.
Which means I don't really have that much time in the world anyways. But I have to tell you. There were many women working then including my mom. They had to to make ends meet. Women's lib didn't convince them to venture into the workforce economics did! And I also remember alot a very large families back then before birth control. I am pretty sure that if birth control was available for those moms they wouldn't have had that many kids..
not to mention child support was basically a joke far more than it is today!