It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Stop complaining about "Feminists" you probably are one

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


Maybe it will never happen, but it's still what I believe in and advocate. I'm not claiming it's that way now. It's not.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by DuceizBack
 


I don't think a real feminist would argue the woman shouldn't get the same treatment by the penal system.

But you're absolutely right, the system is flawed at present to allow an unfair advantage to women in this particular instance.

When LEO comes to a domestic call they will pick up the man 99% of the time regardless of the complaint. This is because in reality men are stronger and more physically able than women. But this is an inequality that should be fixed. Women should suffer the same consequences for assault that men do.

In reality any man that gets beat up by a woman is a weenie. But that is neither here nor there...



Lolz @ this, he just may not want to hurt a woman.

LoL @ a woman who lets a man beat her is "a strong, enduring woman".

A man who does it is a weenie.. il holla



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Okay I keep seeing people complaining that feminists are this evil group that is trying to destroy the planet and they hate all feminists.


Pretty broad, could you share some specific examples? Do you mean here on ATS or in real life?




Granted there are several extreme and vocal feminist groups that do hate men, but target them, don't target the ideal unless you really do believe women should be subservient and controlled by men as lesser creatures.


Can you please tell us what the name of these feminist groups are, please? And what are we supposed to target them for?




If you truly are not a feminist and you're a woman get off the computer and back into the kitchen, you're a hypocrite and shouldn't respond here. If you're a man and not a feminist than I will entertain your argument.


Of course. Here we have the money shot, folks, and we can now conclude we have anther garden variety woman hater, or misogynist, here on ATS. A true feminist knows that to put labels on females is to deny them their full rights. What does being in the kitchen have to do with not being a feminist? As a feminist, I believe women have the right to be where ever they feel the need to be, kitchen or boardroom. Here we have the OP proclaiming that us kitchen dwelling stay at home housewives are not worthy to wear the label feminist.

Anytime we have this dynamic, we have someone bashing women, here it is under the guise of OP telling us what defines a feminist.

Thanks for the education this afternoon.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My husband and I both call ourselves "feminists", but lately, I'm thinking a more accurate term would be "Equalist" or "Equality Advocate", because like Sherlock Homes, I believe in equality for all.


I think people who complain about feminists are actually complaining about man-haters, who are not feminists at all.


you know i use the exact term ' equalitist' when people ask me what i believe in.
im a firm believer gender, and genitals do not constitute what people are good at or there personality. yes some people do fall into the 'gender' sterio types but thats them.
some women are good at mechanics, or building some men are amazing cooks and parents.
gender has nothing to do with it.

i do feel women have a long way to go before they are completely equal but i also think maany women hold us back, look at some of the women girls look up to and think thats how women should look ie jordonkatie price in the uk.
i think its shameful that when i couple splits up the children automatically go to the woman just becuse you have a vagina does not make you a good parent.
i think inequality goes both ways.

i do think feminism has been destroyed by false hoods and extreme fringe groups.
like the myth of bra burning it never happened like that just look it up.

i do class my self as an equalitist like i said above but i would never be ashamed and never am when and if some one called me one.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
When LEO comes to a domestic call they will pick up the man 99% of the time regardless of the complaint. This is because in reality men are stronger and more physically able than women.


Granted that physical attributes of the male anatomy would make it easier to physically abuse a female. However, there is also the cultural historical aspect of marriage, with the wife being the property of her husband, allowing him permission to do whatever he wanted to his private property.

Up until about three decades ago, LEOs would not intervene in domestic violence, because, well, violence towards the wife was up to the husband, and he was "king" in his "castle". The wife had the problem (not submissive enough, a nag, can't please the husband, can't keep the house clean, etc), he didn't.

Now that we understand domestic violence to be more than punishment meted out, that abuse is about control, we can include husbands as victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately for men, as long as society deemed the husband lord of the household, men who suffered from an abusive wife kept silent or were seen as not capable of carrying out his manly lordly duties.

Good, strong men can indeed be victims of domestic violence, and they should no more need to suffer than female victims. A husband with the strength to overpower his wife may use his strength to fend off a knife attack without causing injury to his wife. He may choose to not react with violence.

The legacy of the feminist movement can do as much good for men as it has done for women, liberating both from ignorant or unfair constraints placed upon individuals by society.

One more thing, there is nothing wrong with women taking on traditional roles. The point of feminism was about choice, women could freely choose. In turn, men should likewise be allowed to choose to take on nontraditional roles, without being labeled. Secretary and boss roles should not be assumed to be female and male, for ex.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

Pretty broad, could you share some specific examples? Do you mean here on ATS or in real life?


So ATS is now populated by bots and nothing here comes from real people?

But to answer your question directly: I can but won't and Both. I don't care for your attitude and won't go out of my way to provide evidence. Feel free to look though there are plenty of examples.



Can you please tell us what the name of these feminist groups are, please? And what are we supposed to target them for?


I would say any Feminist group that seeks specifically to exclude men and is obviously working towards a matriarchal society. Reading at least some of the historic literature there is a sense of "Boys drool girls rule" mentality. Primarily the radical feminist movement which is focussed on the underlying change skirts pretty close in a lot of what they have to say. Yes even NOW comes awful close often.




Of course. Here we have the money shot, folks, and we can now conclude we have anther garden variety woman hater, or misogynist, here on ATS. A true feminist knows that to put labels on females is to deny them their full rights. What does being in the kitchen have to do with not being a feminist? As a feminist, I believe women have the right to be where ever they feel the need to be, kitchen or boardroom. Here we have the OP proclaiming that us kitchen dwelling stay at home housewives are not worthy to wear the label feminist.

Anytime we have this dynamic, we have someone bashing women, here it is under the guise of OP telling us what defines a feminist.

Thanks for the education this afternoon.


Here is where I don't care for your attitude and makes me not interested in engaging you in a debate with any kind of intelligence. First off you're a self professed Feminist so it didn't apply to you. Secondly it was simply to illustrate the point that before feminism women weren't really permitted to have opinions.

I fully believe that if a woman decides with her husband that she would like to stay home and run the household she can be independent and a feminist. This is in opposition to the woman who had no choice and is essentially given the option of who to marry (if she is lucky) and spend her days doing as he says.

If you think my definitions in anyway bashed women I suggest you read again and please clarify exactly how. If you're just offended because a man has something to say on gender and feminism than just go away I have no interest in debating with a man hater.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A true feminist is not a man-hater. You're talking about man haters.
Feminism is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. There's nothing about hating men in there.


Source


A true feminist believes in furthering women's rights infinitely, chiefly aiming to acquire preferential rights to the detriment of men. A feminist wants what's best for her and her ilk, regardless of whether it's just or not.

Women align themselves to this warped ideology because they are ''man-haters''. They are after control and ''getting their own back'' at men in general because of their bad personal experiences.


edit on 1-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I do believe there are many who use the flag of feminism to further their man-hating agendas. This doesn't make make feminism inherently bad.


Feminism is about gaining preferential rights for women at the expense of men.

The reason why some women adopt feminism as their ideology is because they want to gain control and ''get their own back'' at men.

You're carrying on with your premise that feminism is something other than a group with an indiscriminate focus on women's rights. This is where you're wrong.

Feminism, by very definition, is about furthering women's rights, not about equal rights.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
The distinction is as I alluded to in my OP. We would rarely go out and say we hate the baptists because they are out protesting soldier's funerals. We would in general qualify it as Westboro. I would expect the same consideration for feminism. I am all for railing against many claims by extremist feminist organizations and as usual the argument is primarily semantics.


In fairness, your Baptist analogy is poor.

To my knowledge, there is no ideological tenet in Baptism that requires its adherents to protest at soldiers funerals.

The fundamental basis in feminism is to campaign for women's causes.

Feminism is akin to racist movements such as the KKK or Black Panthers. ''Look after our own and to hell with rest''.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
As an example the "Glass Ceiling" many women experience and many feminist groups fight against is in my opinion false. While any moron can easily see women in general make less money than men we need to examine root cause instead of making the assumption it is simply because business leaders dislike women. The root cause goes deeper from the feminist groups I've spoken to and worked with. There is consensus among the actual working feminists who aren't as vocal and aren't plastered in the media that women make less money because they are not as assertive in general as men. This is not as sensational as simply blaming business men, doesn't make a good headline, and doesn't feed into the victim culture the media is selling us. Do you hear about it? Nope.


I agree with your points about this so-called ''glass ceiling'', but I doubt that the women who are making a logical and rational judgment on why women earn less, are actually feminists.

The reason why women earn less is quite a complex issue, ranging from the fact that the average man has a larger selection of jobs that he is suitable for, to the fact that men have a greater variance in logic and reason capacity, to the fact that, as you mention, women are more likely to be deferential, lacking in self-confidence and are generally less assertive.

The most important fact to remember is that it is illegal to pay someone less for doing the same job, just because they are a woman. That is that. Any complaints about unequal pay do not hold water and are nothing other an adoption of the victim-mentality, not acknowledging one's own failings, and an attempt to hop on a free ride.

If a woman is not earning the same as a man for doing the same job, then it is her fault for not standing up for herself when negotiating pay and/or reporting a discriminatory employer to the relevant authorities.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
I had it summed up for me by a woman well respected in international feminist circles: (paraphrased) "The work of the feminist movement making policy and law in the US is done, if they keep blaming others they will lose their gains, now it is the woman's responsibility to take advantage of the equality they were given."


I very much doubt that she was ''well-respected'' in feminist circles; in fact, I bet they cursed her for talking some semblance of sense ( and I bet they cursed her even more if she was pretty and popular with men ).

Feminists are still blaming men, though, so I guess that this is why the movement is going the way of the dinosaurs.

However, there will always be bitter, disaffected and bile-ridden women, so, rest assured, feminism will never die.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
I watched this same woman lecture a group of feminist women for being stupid for not including men and working for equality. They were annoyed when I showed up working as her assistant instead of a woman. Apparently they let men join their group afterwards.


What ?!

You mean that there are some ''men'' actively trying to join a feminist group ?
What kind of odious, obsequious, snivelling wretch of a ''man'' would want to become a ''feminist'' ?

These ''men'' must be into all that fem-dom kind of weirdocity. I hope those stiletto indentations are truly worth it, you perverted wussies.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
I do believe there are many who use the flag of feminism to further their man-hating agendas. This doesn't make make feminism inherently bad.


Feminism is about gaining preferential rights for women at the expense of men.

The reason why some women adopt feminism as their ideology is because they want to gain control and ''get their own back'' at men.

You're carrying on with your premise that feminism is something other than a group with an indiscriminate focus on women's rights. This is where you're wrong.

Feminism, by very definition, is about furthering women's rights, not about equal rights.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
The distinction is as I alluded to in my OP. We would rarely go out and say we hate the baptists because they are out protesting soldier's funerals. We would in general qualify it as Westboro. I would expect the same consideration for feminism. I am all for railing against many claims by extremist feminist organizations and as usual the argument is primarily semantics.


In fairness, your Baptist analogy is poor.

To my knowledge, there is no ideological tenet in Baptism that requires its adherents to protest at soldiers funerals.

The fundamental basis in feminism is to campaign for women's causes.

Feminism is akin to racist movements such as the KKK or Black Panthers. ''Look after our own and to hell with rest''.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
As an example the "Glass Ceiling" many women experience and many feminist groups fight against is in my opinion false. While any moron can easily see women in general make less money than men we need to examine root cause instead of making the assumption it is simply because business leaders dislike women. The root cause goes deeper from the feminist groups I've spoken to and worked with. There is consensus among the actual working feminists who aren't as vocal and aren't plastered in the media that women make less money because they are not as assertive in general as men. This is not as sensational as simply blaming business men, doesn't make a good headline, and doesn't feed into the victim culture the media is selling us. Do you hear about it? Nope.


I agree with your points about this so-called ''glass ceiling'', but I doubt that the women who are making a logical and rational judgment on why women earn less, are actually feminists.

The reason why women earn less is quite a complex issue, ranging from the fact that the average man has a larger selection of jobs that he is suitable for, to the fact that men have a greater variance in logic and reason capacity, to the fact that, as you mention, women are more likely to be deferential, lacking in self-confidence and are generally less assertive.

The most important fact to remember is that it is illegal to pay someone less for doing the same job, just because they are a woman. That is that. Any complaints about unequal pay do not hold water and are nothing other an adoption of the victim-mentality, not acknowledging one's own failings, and an attempt to hop on a free ride.

If a woman is not earning the same as a man for doing the same job, then it is her fault for not standing up for herself when negotiating pay and/or reporting a discriminatory employer to the relevant authorities.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
I had it summed up for me by a woman well respected in international feminist circles: (paraphrased) "The work of the feminist movement making policy and law in the US is done, if they keep blaming others they will lose their gains, now it is the woman's responsibility to take advantage of the equality they were given."


I very much doubt that she was ''well-respected'' in feminist circles; in fact, I bet they cursed her for talking some semblance of sense ( and I bet they cursed her even more if she was pretty and popular with men ).

Feminists are still blaming men, though, so I guess that this is why the movement is going the way of the dinosaurs.

However, there will always be bitter, disaffected and bile-ridden women, so, rest assured, feminism will never die.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
I watched this same woman lecture a group of feminist women for being stupid for not including men and working for equality. They were annoyed when I showed up working as her assistant instead of a woman. Apparently they let men join their group afterwards.


What ?!

You mean that there are some ''men'' actively trying to join a feminist group ?
What kind of odious, obsequious, snivelling wretch of a ''man'' would want to become a ''feminist'' ?

These ''men'' must be into all that fem-dom kind of weirdocity. I hope those stiletto indentations are truly worth it, you perverted wussies.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
Finally; I do agree the name should be changed.

I would like to see a single group called "Equalists" And one could focus as a Gender Equalist or and Ethnic Equalist. But that just isn't as sensational and will never catch on.


There's absolutely no need for a name change; ''feminist'' tells us exactly what their agenda and motivation is.

Speaking as someone who believes in equal rights for all, I find the term ''equalist'' to be rather naff and cringe-making.

If we ignore the problems with the term equalist, then I'm absolutely fascinated as to why you would think that there should be ''gender equalist'' and ''ethnic equalist'' specialists ?

Like with all rights groups - whether that be men, women, black, white, gay or straight - the problem lies with the fact that they are lobbying for one particular ''group'', and ignoring or underplaying any inequalities outside their group.

There should be no special-interest ''rights groups'' - just equal rights groups.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Wow I suppose there is no doubting your opinion at least.

I simply don't see a group attempting to rectify an inequality for a group of people as seeking to dominate. Granted there will always be overtones and factions in said group which do seek superiority. A quick peek at NOW's (National Organization for Women) will reveal a lot of good and some distinctly suspicious.

Now I am all for women's rights and equality, and would have no problem aligning myself with a feminist group that is working towards gender equality. I did study the anthropology of Gender in depth in college and belonged to groups that were interested in it. I was specifically asked to attend by the faculty advisor for these "Women's" clubs as it was her belief that equality can't happen with separation. (Separate but equal is a myth).

I met quite a bit of resistance and really got into heated debates. Back in those days I was better equipped for this as the knowledge was fresher in my head. Hell they even tried to elect me as president of a club specifically designed to teach leadership skills to women. I had to decline but did get the focus of the club changed to be Gender neutral and thus no longer sexist.

In my mind feminism is the ideal that women are equal to men. And I would happily associate with any group that wishes to further this. In turn I wouldn't become opposed to being deeply involved in a group that was trying to push a severe feminist agenda. From within you can effect change and help the group to obtain it's moderate goals which are good and keep suppressed the extreme goals which will cause the group to fail and the moderate gains lost.

I don't want to live in a world with weak subservient women. I can't be dominated and am myself very dominant and need a partner who is strong enough to be independent and keep me from dominating.

If I wanted the BDSM lifestyle I am really good at making floggers and leather restraints they would be glad to have me...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Okay I keep seeing people complaining that feminists are this evil group that is trying to destroy the planet and they hate all feminists.

"feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings."
Cheris Kramarae


Do you believe women should be able to vote? You're a feminist.

Do you believe men should get in trouble for abusing their wives? You're a feminist

Do you believe women should have the option to have a career and work? You're a feminist

Do you believe women should have a say in their lives? You ARE a feminist

We tend to forget quickly that women had no say in their lives for a long time being controlled by their fathers and husbands. Granted some women could rise above, but only if their men allowed it.

Saying all feminists hate men and are anti family is ridiculous. This would be like saying all Baptists are protesting soldier's funerals.

Granted there are several extreme and vocal feminist groups that do hate men, but target them, don't target the ideal unless you really do believe women should be subservient and controlled by men as lesser creatures.

Again I will say that I recognize this wasn't how it always was, but any man that chose who got a father's cooperation could completely control any woman's life in the past.

If you truly are not a feminist and you're a woman get off the computer and back into the kitchen, you're a hypocrite and shouldn't respond here. If you're a man and not a feminist than I will entertain your argument.

This is much shorter than planned because I am going fast due to hitting enter rather than tab too early....
edit on 1-5-2011 by Jinglelord because: (no reason given)


1)This is so sad how ignorant people are. It was the SUFFRAGETTES(read what they thought of feminist's) who got the women the vote along with Republicans.

2) I believe that no one should have to face domestic abuse, man or woman. So again it is obvious the feminism is nothing more then the radical notion that men aren't human beings too.

3)Women are humans beings and should be able to do as they wish as long as it doesn't enslave another. But nor should they be given special treatment because of their gender. Single fathers aren't receiving special treatment(heck most don't even get child support as the vast majority of non-custodial mothers are dead beats) so neither should single mothers.

4)It is called self determination, it has been around a while. The only difference is that feminist's demand that men give up our rights to self determination.

5) What a load of BS, women always had control of the family dating back to the revolution(which is one of the reasons Adam's was hesitant to give women more power). The concept of an all powerful male dominated household that makes up feminist mythos traces back to the Kennedy family(JFK's dad was a complete control freak psychopath that had his daughter lobotomized because she was an embarrassment, hence the reason why the Kennedy's support feminism as a form of revenge against dad/grandpa).

I suggest you look up "Mothers of the Republic" women's rights movement of the 1800's that fought for the right to stay at home and where the ones responsible for the discrimination other women experienced in employment and higher education.

Feminism is very much a female supremacist hate movement. Look up gender feminism(the ideology of feminist's that have power in the movement) and feminist jurisprudence and try and tell me that it ain't hateful.

Also your sheer ignorance of history and different cultures is pathetic at best and at worst.. well let's just move along.

feministhate.tripod.com...

Heck look up old family pictures from the 1800's of old couples. In almost every single one the guy has a look like he really, really doesn't want to be there and the lady is beaming with happiness. Look up feminist's themselves. In the 50's they complained because of boredom and in the late 60's-70's is when the feminist's began to rewrite the past to justify their hate movement.

It isn't surprising as a few of the founders of the NOW(National Organization of Women) where leaders in the WKKK(Women's Klu Klux Klan).

That means feminism as it exists now has it's origins in the white female supremacist movement of the early 1900's.

www.dadsnow.org...
------------
Some more links about the lovely equality minded feminist's

www.mrausa.net...
fembothunter.blogspot.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
The silly things westerners come up with to argue over... amazing...
*shakes head and walks out of post*



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
The silly things westerners come up with to argue over... amazing...
*shakes head and walks out of post*


If this could happen to you, you wouldn't think it silly:

hiphopwired.com...
www.theinsanityreport.com...

www.karenselick.com...

Over 20%(could be as high as 40%) of men paying child support are paying child support for kid's that aren't theirs(meaning the woman lied about paternity).

Feminist's across the nation are doing everything in their power to further enable paternity fraud.
edit on 2-5-2011 by korathin because: changed over to of



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
Wow I suppose there is no doubting your opinion at least.


You say opinion, I say conveying facts and home-truths.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
I simply don't see a group attempting to rectify an inequality for a group of people as seeking to dominate. Granted there will always be overtones and factions in said group which do seek superiority. A quick peek at NOW's (National Organization for Women) will reveal a lot of good and some distinctly suspicious.


You're falling for the feminist myth that women were the only sufferers of gender-based inequality.

I'm not belittling the lack of choice that many women had several decades ago, because they were confined to a strict gender role in Western society, but so were men. Men are/were killed and maimed in their millions, conscripted to fight in the social elite's needless wars, purely because they were men.

Even as late as the Vietnam War, men were still forced to fight because of an accident of birth.

As it wasn't socially acceptable for women to become coal-miners, engineers and electricians, it was men who had to take part in these dangerous, life-threatening and health-hazardous occupations, just so as they could put bread on the table ( if you'll excuse the cliched and hackneyed phrase ).

Even now, men are required to serve on the front-line because of their gender, and while that's not that bad, considering the fact that military service is voluntary in countries such as the US and the UK, in a SHTF scenario, it will be men who will be conscripted and forced to fight on the front-line.

Gay men were ostracised and discriminated against, because they didn't fall into the gender paradigm that was forced upon people by societal norms.

Feminist revisionism will try and portray the movement as a campaign for equal rights, but, in reality, it was a ''me me me'' movement that campaigned for women's rights, at the expense of men.


As for the ''National Organization for Women'' ? I think the name says it all.


There is no need for these divisive, special-interest groups in a fair and modern society.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
Now I am all for women's rights and equality, and would have no problem aligning myself with a feminist group that is working towards gender equality. I did study the anthropology of Gender in depth in college and belonged to groups that were interested in it. I was specifically asked to attend by the faculty advisor for these "Women's" clubs as it was her belief that equality can't happen with separation. (Separate but equal is a myth).


I don't blame you for aligning yourself with these groups if it was to further your education and your chance of gaining a qualification.

However, I don't accept the phrase ''feminist group that is working towards gender equality.''. Feminism is about women's rights, not equal rights. That's about as succinctly as I can put it, and I may well use that phrase again and again.



Originally posted by Jinglelord
I met quite a bit of resistance and really got into heated debates. Back in those days I was better equipped for this as the knowledge was fresher in my head. Hell they even tried to elect me as president of a club specifically designed to teach leadership skills to women. I had to decline but did get the focus of the club changed to be Gender neutral and thus no longer sexist.


From your own personal experience, you found these ''feminist groups'' to be anti-male and sexist, yet you still will insist that some are honestly interested in equal rights between genders. Crazy !


Originally posted by Jinglelord
In my mind feminism is the ideal that women are equal to men.


''In my mind'' being the operative phrase here.


I need to reiterate - largely for effect - that feminism is about women's rights, not equal rights.

There are no innate or self-evident rights. ''Rights'' are subjective, and what somebody may believe constitutes a set of rights will differ from person to person, and, in reality, more importantly, between society and society, and between culture and culture.

While some people may argue that there are finite rights from a religious or philosophical perspective, that doesn't really apply to ''rights'' that are awarded in relation to equality, which are largely societally and culturally based Civil Rights.

Therefore, there is no limit to one group's rights, and there are many feminists who believe in the sly and surreptitious approach of gaining ''women's rights'' incrementally, and, before you know it, women's rights will consist of a huge set of societal and legal advantages towards women.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
And I would happily associate with any group that wishes to further this. In turn I wouldn't become opposed to being deeply involved in a group that was trying to push a severe feminist agenda. From within you can effect change and help the group to obtain it's moderate goals which are good and keep suppressed the extreme goals which will cause the group to fail and the moderate gains lost.


You come across as a decent person, but it's people like you that are used as pawns in their man-hating game.

If you still believe that feminism is about gender equality, then, with respect, I would suggest that you take a deeper, more objective, look at this warped ideology.

There are no ''moderate goals'' in feminism. The group's modus operandi is to further women's rights, regardless of whether these rights are fair and just.


Feminism is about control and subduing men.

Most women who are drawn to the feminist movement are ugly and/or fat, and want to get their own back on men, just because of life's genetics lottery draw.

There is the other group of women who align themselves to this movement, and they are the ones who have had horrible and unpleasant experiences at the hands of some ''men'', and, as a coping mechanism to deal with their trauma, use the entire male gender as an outlet for their emotional pain and anger.

It's this latter group of feminists that I genuinely feel sympathy for.


Originally posted by Jinglelord
I don't want to live in a world with weak subservient women. I can't be dominated and am myself very dominant and need a partner who is strong enough to be independent and keep me from dominating.


I don't want to live in a world full of weak subservient women, either !


Originally posted by Jinglelord
If I wanted the BDSM lifestyle I am really good at making floggers and leather restraints they would be glad to have me...


I know that my fem-dom comment may have been interpreted as me being facetious, but I am genuinely serious about it.

I've heard about some wussy ''men'' declaring themselves as feminists, but for these weirdos to actively seek out a man-hating feminist group, is just something that can't be rationalised.
They must get some perverse ''turn-on'' by being dominated by women.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
The silly things westerners come up with to argue over... amazing...
*shakes head and walks out of post*


The silly things that Easteners may argue over, such as whether a woman should have her 8-month-old unborn baby forcibly aborted by the authorities because she had previously given birth to a child.


You see how ridiculous it is to create these barriers ?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I will go away when I choose to do so.

I did not expect you to answer my direct questions, thank you for proving my post correct.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


And some of us just hate to see female oppression anywhere in the world.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Maybe I just missed the part where I was propagating woman hating misogyny. I do see where you are simply offended that a man has an opinion on Gender and your anger seems misplaced as I'm pretty sure our basic premise is the same.

I think you got caught up in the part where I think any woman who thinks the feminist movement is BS should refrain from having an opinion without first checking with her husband, father, or other owning man. This isn't being a woman hater this is plain and simple that it is the feminist movement and woman's suffrage that acknowledged that women are equal and able to have opinions.


If you just want to make feminism a woman's only club I'm sorry but then everything Sherlock said is correct and I am wrong.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
You put it right on. I see my self as a feminist, not because I hate men and want to be above them, because I believe in real equality. I love men of course. Those women who claim to be feminist that hate men and want to put themselves above them, I see them as provokers and want to discredit the whole equal rights movements. I think they were put in by the elites to anger people and keep a lot of people oppressed and cause people to hate anyone who want equal rights. Those men haters do disgust me.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I am not angry. That would indicate I cared about you beyond a debate on a website, which I do not.

Some of us wimin folk can actually debate without getting all het up about things, you know. That is, those of us wimmin not in a kitchen.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join