Fantastic video: Woman slams the injustices of feminism!

Originally posted by Aeons
Look, I consider myself a feminist.

I do not hate men. I do not want men to suffer. I do believe women should be required to have the same level of standards (not arbitrary ones only meant to bias.)

I do not believe that there are "alternate" feminism, where the burka is freedom or a cliterodectomy is a form of female empowerment or other such nonsense.

Due to the acceptance of this sort of rhetoric, I consider myself in the original style of feminism - a Suffragette. My vote is equal. My OPPORTUNITIES are equal. If you and I are in the same gym working out, frankly how much muscle I put on is none of your business and if I put some on it sure doesn't mean I stole it from you.

Thank you. That is great.

And I chose to be a stay at home mom. The point is I CHOSE it.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It does make you wonder, though, when, about 50 years ago, a man used to work long hours to provide for his wife and children, yet nowadays, the husband and wife both work long hours to provide for their children.

Simple supply and demand.

Between technology development and the workforce shift after WW2, we have had a massive oversupply of workers. That has driven the value of the worker down.

There are multiple theories on this and feminism and how feminism received funding from parties interested in creating this effect, but they usually ignore the technological aspect that coincided with it.

Originally posted by ScorpioRising
Overall women these days, particularly in the western world, have the same rights as men if not more. We have our right to vote, to work, to move about unaccompanied etc and that is great. Why, then, do we still insist on being 'looked after' as and when it suits us? Women want it all ways and god forbid a man goes against that or tries to point out the hypocrisy of it. The poor guy is deemed a woman hater, a misogynist or other such nonsense.

Obviously men and women will never be equal on a biological level, in most cases anyway, as we are built differently. So things like lugging house bricks around a building site is usually more suited to a man. Yes some woman can do that job but very few and yet if they apply and get turned down they yell 'sexism'.
Society just needs common sense.

My partner gave up work to look after our children while I went back to work as I could earn more money than he could. He had no end of abuse while I got either sympathy (really?!) or told I was not a REAL mother if I was able to go to work instead of raise my kids. Yet he is just as capable of being a good parent as me and I am just a capable of providing for my family as he, as a man, is expected to be. How was that fair?

The equality issue is not as black and white as people make out.

Nothing is fair in this world and when people accept that big secret,we will be better for it.I do totally agree with everything you said though.some people want to be singled out regardless,they want special treatment,the question is is why?In my mind if a job requires special skills,say upper body strength and a woman applies lets say all five foot and 95 lbs,why would this person hire her?especially when another applicant was a 6'4" 200 lbs and yet they scream inequality should that employer be allowed to turn her down?in my view yes absolutely,what about the skinny 120lbs male he was turned down as well,what is he gonna yell?

I've always heard the old saying barefoot and pregnant,I stayed home when we had children,and if things were different my husband would have stayed home with them if needed,does that make me less of a woman because I chose this role to play?Am I not the modern woman?People do what they have to do to survive,you make it work no matter what role you play.What happens when we have gays,lets say two males,who gets the role of domestic goddess?or two women?Who is being discriminated?Common sense should be dolled out in large doses,if there was a pill for it everybody would be on it.

What about the southeren Baptist?they still believe that a woman should be second to men?Silent if Iam correct?Well they chose this lifestyle,as everyone choses and if you find yourself in a situation that isn't what you want ,change it don't scream inequality.People need to get a grip and realize we all make choices on how we view and live our lives individually,not in the collective and treat each other as human beings,with respect.

These are all life lessons that should have been taught to us as children,respect,taking responibility for what you do,don't blame others,treat others the way you want to be treated,don't ever expect fairness it doesn't exist,I could go on and on but....Like I said the feminist movement was to get more tax revenu,not to give women equal rights,we would have evolved to where we are now without it...Of course this is all my opinion...
HAPPY 2012 EVERYONE!!!!btw,I have a healthy respect for what she said in the video

Originally posted by TWILITE22,what have we really progressed to with the feminist movement?seriously,where has it brought us?

If your husband dies, and you have children, you are legally able to work and earn a reasonable wage to support yourself and your children.

There are no limitations on your role - you may not do X job because X job is a job only for men because....well just because.

You want to learn? You are allowed to go to school. Any school, in any thought group and practice it when you get out.

These things are all good things. These are things women did not have. These are things that many MEN during the same era did not have as well. Their roles were often reduced due to a solidified class/caste structure in the society.

So while women could not become doctors, usually only men whose family were doctors were allowed to become doctors. So most men were experiencing forms of this too.

The fight was not with men solely. The fight was with a solidified limiting fossilized caste structure, and frankly if women were the front-line soldiers on that field of battle I'm happy about it.

Originally posted by Aeons
If your husband dies, and you have children, you are legally able to work and earn a reasonable wage to support yourself and your children.

Has never been illegal. Frowned upon? Yes. Illegal? No. Has, is and will continue to happen on a regular basis.

There are no limitations on your role - you may not do X job because X job is a job only for men because....well just because.

There are currently more 'female dominated' industries than 'male dominated' industries....hmmm. Times will change, but we must be willing to accept that certain industries will stay this way regardless of external pressures (nursing, teaching, engineering, etc all come to mind - all are dominated by a single sex and none have ever legally barred the other sex from entry).

You want to learn? You are allowed to go to school. Any school, in any thought group and practice it when you get out.

Was legal in my country long before 'feminists'. See the next entry.

These things are all good things. These are things women did not have. These are things that many MEN during the same era did not have as well. Their roles were often reduced due to a solidified class/caste structure in the society.
So while women could not become doctors, usually only men whose family were doctors were allowed to become doctors. So most men were experiencing forms of this too.

Not true at all. These are things that were never illegal. There were societal norms, nothing more nothing less.

In fact, the first female doctor in my country occurred prior to the suffrage movement based on the simple fact that the medical schools could not deny her. There was no rules or laws on the books for them to deny her with.
Which she pointed out (and was highly publicised), with much relish I imagine.

The fight was not with men solely. The fight was with a solidified limiting fossilized caste structure, and frankly if women were the front-line soldiers on that field of battle I'm happy about it.

edit on 2011/12/30 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

The fight has been imaginary since day one. They specifically cherry picked industries that were male dominated to show case the 'plight' of women and the sheople lapped it up. As with most things, the fight was a good distraction from what the classes above were doing.

Kind of sad really.

The fact is that while it was not illegal, there was a concerted attempt to make these things so.

A good example of this happened in Canada, where when women started to move into these paths they tried to change the law to make women not Persons under the law.

While women pushed this limitation, I will point out that it was men in positions of legislative / judicial power who agreed that this interpretation was flawed.

The language of the law was certainly interpreted to not include women in many areas of society.

The "plight" was real - it simply wasn't just women who were its victims. Caste structure was, and I think we should be happy to fight that it not reinvent itself in a new form.

Corporatism for example.

Originally posted by Aeons
The language of the law was certainly interpreted to not include women in many areas of society.

So what?

In most Canadian laws, there is no reference to 'man' or 'male' either.

Should we rewrite every law to be inclusive to both?

Or are only woman special enough for the distinction?

And, btw, the reason none of the things you presented were passed is due to the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledging that by not having 'man' in the legal wording implied that it held for all citizens not just men.

So we have come to the point where all women were equal to men, in Canada any ways, in 1919.

What has the current feminist movement in Canada been about then? If all the legal 'equality' was achieved in by 1919, what is the rest? Simple entitlement and control.

reply to post by Aeons
but my whole point was would we have evolved to these positions naturally just as a human society without and kind of movement?

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Aeons

 

but my whole point was would we have evolved to these positions naturally just as a human society without and kind of movement?

Human cultural stories change based on those who challenge them. I have yet to find a case of slow progression where a cultures story changes because of some slow form of mutation towards a betterment of individuals. If you find one, let me know, I'd like to learn about it.

reply to post by peck420


You are being intentionally provocative to see if you can force me into a duelling stance when I have presented all my views in a cooperative format.

Lobbying against societal constraints is a form of control, that is fighting another form of control.

The very real forms of constraint limiting women are a legitimate cause of concern.

Where injustice might be in the system enacted against you, I'll be happy to campaign with you against it.

I think that this is still a big problem in our society as a whole human race. We constantly divide ourselves into groups of female, male, black, white, this religion, that religion. What makes it worse is all these free rights groups, which instead of fighting for equal rights for everyone, they fight for BETTER rights for their group whatever it is. The fact is, it doesn't matter if your white,black, male, female, this religion, that religion, we all face some kind of discrimination. Now we have all these groups that are making it so, people are afraid to hire a white guy versus a black woman, even though the white guy has more experience and is more likable by all the employees. Now this has nothing with race, or sex, but suddenly when the woman decides, or realizes that she might not get the job, all she has to do is pull out the race or sex card, or both. This provides them with power nobody else has, and this is not right. It takes both men and women to create children, and we need to stop abusing this power. We all judge ourselves in the end, and make sure you never have to look back at yourself and be absolutely disgusted. Abusing power like this, is just as racist if not more than anything else.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
Feminism means being able to beat a husband and kids without paying a price.

That would be bullying.

Its non-gender.

No. It is all about gender. No shelters for men and their kids-- and no jail for women. I lived it. I know. And don't you dare say otherwise. You are not in a position to contradict me.

I am sick to death of being told I must have deserved it-- that I must have done something to be treated by her the way I was. Nope.

Now, why don't you respond by saying, "My God, it must have been awful for you!" because I haven't heard a single women say it. You know why? I know why. Because you and your ilk are motivated by hate-- you are pleased that it happened to me.

That makes you my enemy and the enemy of my children. It makes all feminist activists liars and dangerously sub-human. You get it?

Your tone is disturbing to say the least. Perhaps you should see a shrink.

Originally posted by quietlearner
therefore it would not be a big jump to assume that the difference in average salaries is not only due to male oppression but could also be due to what jobs have better pay and what those jobs requirements are.

This is absolutely correct.

The truth of the matter is that, in a truly meritocratic society, the average male wage will always be higher than the average female wage, due to the average man's physical advantages over the average woman.

Here's my ''gender economics for dummies'' lesson for today:

There are 100 job vacancies, 50 in entry level office work, paying £7 p/h, and 50 in entry level construction work, paying £8 p/h.

100 people are out of work (50 men and 50 women), and they all apply for the higher paying construction jobs. The 50 construction jobs are filled, on merit, by 40 men and 10 women, leaving the remaining 40 women and 10 men to fill the office jobs.

Therefore, making the average wage for men in this group, £7.80 p/h, and the average wage for women in this group, £7.20 p/h.

The men in this group earn 8.3% more than their female counterparts on merit.

Repeat this situation thousands of times over, where the average man has more of a multifaceted job range than the average woman, and you'll see why the wage gap between men and women is fully logical, understandable, fair and wholly justifiable.

Originally posted by andersensrm
What makes it worse is all these free rights groups, which instead of fighting for equal rights for everyone, they fight for BETTER rights for their group whatever it is.

You have hit the nail firmly on the head here, and you echo my views entirely.

All that these ''rights'' groups are doing is angling and pitching for the best deal for their particular group, regardless of the fairness or morality of such a deal.

If a feminist says that she is interested in gender equality, then she is telling a porky pie. It beggars belief that femipigs think the ''equality'' spiel will seriously wash with anyone who possesses a semblance of intelligence.

If you want equality between the sexes, then why on Earth would you name this movement, and identify yourself, by a name which refers exclusively to one of the sexes which you claim to support equality for ? It's contrary to any kind of logic.

Those who genuinely wish for equality wouldn't be seen dead identifying themselves with one of these groups with vested interests and far from equal agendas.

I, for one hate the feminist movement for making it impossible to NOT have to work, se NOW because two income households are the norm, I m,ust work, too, because now it is so inflated from there being two income households that it is impossible to do it on one income!!! Thanks so much feminazis...oh the worse part we still don't get the same pay as much as we bust our a$$ so why the hell bother our income just ends up going to childcare for the msot part. I hate the bra burning itches!

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I, for one hate the feminist movement for making it impossible to NOT have to work, se NOW because two income households are the norm, I m,ust work, too, because now it is so inflated from there being two income households that it is impossible to do it on one income!!! Thanks so much feminazis...oh the worse part we still don't get the same pay as much as we bust our a$$ so why the hell bother our income just ends up going to childcare for the msot part. I hate the bra burning itches!

Naw, theres more to how that happened then woman demanding to join the workforce. Silly to think its that black and white.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
Feminism means being able to beat a husband and kids without paying a price.

That would be bullying.

Its non-gender.

No. It is all about gender. No shelters for men and their kids-- and no jail for women. I lived it. I know. And don't you dare say otherwise. You are not in a position to contradict me.

I am sick to death of being told I must have deserved it-- that I must have done something to be treated by her the way I was. Nope.

Now, why don't you respond by saying, "My God, it must have been awful for you!" because I haven't heard a single women say it. You know why? I know why. Because you and your ilk are motivated by hate-- you are pleased that it happened to me.

That makes you my enemy and the enemy of my children. It makes all feminist activists liars and dangerously sub-human. You get it?

Your tone is disturbing to say the least. Perhaps you should see a shrink.

If you are not disturbed by bone breaking, bloody and regular violence being called "bullying" when a woman does it to a man and her children (me and mine, for example), and "violence" when a man does it to a woman-- then you need to be disturbed more often.

You are not angry because it did not happen to you.
You are not angry because it was not your children.

But if it was you, and if it was your children, then you would be angry-- not needing a shrink-- you would just be angry; and I would understand. So, thank you very much, but I win the sanity test.

And I guarantee you that if you said what you wrote to my face, I would make you understand the experience of anger and outrage so fast your teeth would rattle.

One of us sees straight and thinks straight. The other is “disturbed” by my tone.

PS: And as for Annee, to whose defense you have rushed-- she can "man-up" and apologize for speaking way out of line to me and minimizing my trauma and my children's trauma as "bullying." That "bullying" woman I married killed a man before I met her. She forgot to tell me until married six years.

Oh, and she was young and pretty, so spent not a day in custody. Not a day. But then, I guess, why should anyone be punished for "bullying" a man... to death?

No one deserves to be treated in such a manner, and the perpetrator being a woman in no way makes it more acceptable or justifiable.

The woman in that video was also minimizing women's responsibility for this behaviour. So you are getting it from all sides.

Defending violent and disturbed individuals under the guise of women's rights is a problem. Manipulative people are very good at getting people who cannot imagine a horror to believe that they are victims. Please consider that some of the good women who are trying to do the right thing have been hoodwinked.

There are many women who simply cannot fathom violent people, and violent women in particular. The concept in no way ever touches down in their brain. It is an odd experiencing talking to them. They truly are not trying to defend bad people, and often believe that the non-confrontational holding hand with the disturbed is the only option.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Those who genuinely wish for equality wouldn't be seen dead identifying themselves with one of these groups with vested interests and far from equal agendas.

There are many areas in the World where women and children suffer from laws and traditions which are directed only at them. Having people working specifically on their behalf is not a terrible thing.

It is also not what most feminists are working for.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


That's fine. I'm fully capable of working most of those construction jobs, and so long as I'm not left out solely on the basis of the ownership of a uterus I really don't care.

And yes I know from experience that I can do quite a few construction / physical jobs. I've pulled wire, and hauled sheetrock, and carried heavy equipment upstairs over and over in loud plants.

Simple as that. Want more money, take more responsibility. That's the way it works. Prefer an easier position - male or female - then the reduction in income is your decision.