Is new age feminism getting out of hand?

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
1) Why have women allowed themselves to be dominated by men for thousands of years?

Just because they were didn't mean they "allowed" it to happen, they had little choice. The blacks also had little choice in coming to America as slaves but did that mean they wanted it to happen?

From very early on it actually had been met with resistance, but no large scale movement was able to overturn the dominate ideology of the era. Even feminist literature can be found dating from the middle ages.

2) Why did it take women so long to rise up in a collective voice and push for social change?

Same question could be asked of many issues. The world was changing, ideas could spread further, print media enlightened the masses, and people were no longer facing the death penalty from oppressive rulers for minor misdemeanors. It seems easy to have a feminist protest in this day and age, but try doing it under an oppressive dictator like a king. Even today you can find a lack of feminism in countries which still have oppressive dictators, or an indoctrination into an ideology of women's oppression, or laws such where husbands can legally bash their wives and such. Women are still being shot just for not wearing burkas, imagine if they tried to rise up in a feminist movement!

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
3) Why do women rely on gender quotas to succeed in the fields that men tend to excel in, but men do not rely on the same in areas women tend to excel in?

Actually they do, not sure what country your in but here some quotas work both ways. I don't think they should work both ways, I think only women should be given an advantage so they can close the gap of inequality at a more rapid rate. Its been a century since suffrage as we are still talking about this, things are going too slowly.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I acknowledge that you made some good points in your last response to me. I'm just curious about your belief system. You mentioned you don't subscribe to religion or war so are you an atheist, humanist, pacifist, etc...? I am not a believer in any religious ideologies however the bible is a book full of otherworldly wisdom if you know what to look for. I talk about the bible but most of my ideas come from Kabbalah, the classical and conservative interpretation. This knowledge of course cannot exist without the Hebrew bible, so be it.

And just because I want to continue my purpose of trying to discredit all your views...

You said:

Well, we got into the industrial age and suddenly things had changed again. Men and women were working side by side in the mills - But women were getting paid less. Women were being denied opportunities to move up the ladder due to their sex.

It is true women were getting paid less for jobs that were only available to them because the guys were away. But the obvious elephant in the room is that those men were drafted to fight in World War 2. What is a little pay difference matter when you get to be at home safe and sound.

So basically, you would take pay inequality just in case there's a war so you dont have to fight it? Have you not seen the picture's of cities being bombed to #? Ive already listed the civilian death toll of WW2 and its staggering. I for one would expect equal pay, because in the event of war, many women ended up going into the factories to make the good's for war, they simply didnt cower somewhere and wait for the boys to finish. Im not sure the women who worked in those factories have been properly thanked for their contribution.

And you can't use that civilian casualty excuse you used before. No civilians living in America were killed or in danger.

Oh okay, i guess if no one in america was hurt i cant quote the Europe civilian death toll because, oh yeah, only america matters? Im British btw.

In fact, all women in this country are protected by the government while men are seen as disposable.

I would agree that american women got it easy in WW2, they were lucky. The men, Not so much.

You know if World War 3 started tomorrow all us guys would be forced to fight or be thrown in jail, regardless, while you could take whatever jobs were left for us and lament making a few bucks less.

With respect, i don't agree with the draft and i think any free american would oppose it fiercely (Unless their country was directly under attack) (But who's stupid enough to attack a country who spends so bloody much on war-fare when they're not even at war!)

reply to post by polarwarrior


That may be the case but in some areas men are better and other women. Simple as that.

Talking about equality, men still do things for women, that women expect and do not think about. Holding a door open for a lady on a hot summers day, waring business clothes, the lady nice and cool in her summer dress and the men in their buttoned up trousers, shirt, tie, suit sweating and uncomfortable.

Its not the same as getting (or not getting) a job due to your gender, but it is driven into the souls of all men and women that they are in fact different like it or not it effects everything we do or say every day.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by eletheia

I support that a woman should have every right to an abortion just like I support men to have every right to get a vasectomy.

And if you want to talk about responsibility how is it that men are getting stuck paying child support for children that are not their own?

How are women much less likely to pay child support if a man has custody of the children?

Why are men so much more likely to be viewed as sexual deviants and women are blameless for their sexual irresponsibility?

How can a woman cheat on her husband, instigate a divorce, and get half his stuff because the legal system favors women?

# Abortion and vasectomy are two very different things. Vasectomy prevents a conception

and an abortion is after a conception. I don't get your correlation??


# No man needs to pay support for a child that is not his. DNA??


# Women are not more likely not to pay child support. FACT is they probably pay less

But that is because (as has been discussed on this thread ) they earn less


# Do you actually know the meaning of sexual deviant?? And in the end a woman whether

she likes it or not does get to take responsibility for her sexual irresponsibility unwanted

pregnancy? STI's? reputation?


# The answer to the first part of your question is The same way as a man And

the answer to the second part The legal system does not favour any sex. My

experience is that the same situation recounted by two people invariably never

sounds the same, always biased on the side of the teller. No one else ever knows what

goes on behind closed doors

Originally posted by Schillinger
I'm not going to argue, I just want to say that I'm deeply sorry for all the brainwashed women out there. Feminism is one of the reasons the western world's birth rate is so low to the point that we're not even replacing ourselves anymore. It's a shame, all they're doing is ruining the traditional family, but that's the point of eugenics I suppose.

Yeah it doesn't really matter about women who dont want to have kids in their late teen's/early 20's, all that really matters is demographics.

You're banging on about birthrates like a women has a duty to produce 2+ kids. With the way things financially stand, couples cant even afford the roof in which to raise a family under. That's not down to feminism, that's down to the man shipping well paid jobs abroad so he can make a few billion.

reply to post by Biigs






Men still do things for women like holding a door open?


I'm a woman and I do that on a daily basis to both men and women!! That doesn't

come under the banner of doing things That's simply "GOOD MANNERS"

and I do agree there's not enough of that these days by either sex!

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Is that before or after she drinks the blood of a new born?

After of course she will be thirsty after her days work of beating the man in submission.

Originally posted by Biigs
Talking about equality, men still do things for women, that women expect and do not think about. Holding a door open for a lady

Holding a door open for someone is consciously recognized in many cultures as a sign of dominance. There is some famous video footage of two world leaders who got into a fight about who will walk through the door first, neither wanted to be the submissive one. (I think it was Israel and Palestine)

I know we don't consciously think of it that way in the west, but it is still subconscious. The strong able one holds the door open for the one needing assistance. There are other subtle displays of dominance in dating, often the man will drive, meaning he is in control and the woman is just along for the ride.

Dating practices such as these which developed during a sexist era simply reflected the times. These things are so ingrained in our culture due to this long history of sexism that many of us don't think of it as sexist at all, we just consider it the normal thing to do

Personally I think the person who approaches the door first should just hold it open for the other, irregardless of gender, that is just polite.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


You and eletheia's vjayjays seem to be perfectly in sync. You both cascade this thread at exactly the same time like some femi-crazed tag team.

The fact is men have historically been objectified by being forced to fight in war and die for other people's profit. They were objectified as labor slaves and workhorses to support the lives of females. They asked little in return.

All your opinions reek of western materialist spin. The West, where 80% of all consumerism is done by females. But apparently somehow women aren't getting paid fairly yet advertising executives and marketing professionals only cater to the buying power of women. The entire consumerist economy of the west was created for women. How is this possible if women don't, in reality, have most of the buying power? Or is the media machine just that gullible to sell stuff to people who can't afford it, those people who somehow perpetuate through taxation and buying power such a diseased system?

reply to post by eletheia


Just because you use copious amounts of emoticons doesn't mean you are making valid points. Your dramatic symbols expressing sarcasm and irony are just being used to trick people into thinking you are making a persuasive argument. I should send you some card board paper and markers so you can pictogram your way through such persuasive feminist diatribe...

Do you really not see the connection between abortions and vasectomies? If you can't see that I don't see any foundation for us to have a meaningful dialogue. But I suppose you understood your partner in crime, SLI, perfectly when she said abortions and circumcisions were like the same thing. Right?

Men actually ARE forced to pay child support for children that are not theirs based on DNA testing.

Do I know the meaning of sexual deviant? Let's see, I have a degree in psychology. I have worked in the fields of health-care, mental illness, and addictions research. I furthermore have taken academic coursework in abnormal psychology and deviant behavior. I'll give you a hint as to sexual deviancy: it is based solely on the majority perception of a given society. On another note, you seem to not understand simple concepts I present to you so is there something off in your reading comprehension skills?

The legal system does not favor any sex? You must either not be from America or you live under a really really big rock.

reply to post by polarwarrior


But if men expected women to hold the door open for them somehow it would be construed as men (the ones walking through the door) dominating women (the ones holding open the door). That is an obvious double standard and your pseudo psychology does nothing to change that fact.

Somehow everything a man does, even a perfectly innocent and benevolent gesture, is seen as harming women...

Wow. Just wow.

Also, that whole subconscious dominance thing for people who open doors for other people... When I go to a hotel the porter carries my bags and opens my door. Are they dominating me? The CEO rides in a limousine around town his driver opens his door, all the expensive restaurants or stores he goes to people open the door for him, are they dominating him?

Your spin is ridiculous.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

But if men expected women to hold the door open for them somehow it would be construed as men (the ones walking through the door) dominating women (the ones holding open the door).

Actually that would be women dominating men.

Originally posted by djr33222
That is an obvious double standard and your pseudo psychology does nothing to change that fact.

That's not a double standard, but on that topic I definitely support double standards when it favors women as that can accelerate equality.

Somehow everything a man does, even a perfectly innocent and benevolent gesture, is seem as harming women...

Wow. Just wow.

Boo hoo

Clearly NOT EVERYTHING a man does to a woman is seen as harming them, how could you possibly think that? Do you have any relations with people of opposite gender at all? How defeatist and pessimistic could you be to make such a generalization?

Wow. Just wow.

^ I concur

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

You and eletheia's vjayjays seem to be perfectly in sync. You both cascade this thread at exactly the same time like some femi-crazed tag team.

Except im not a feminist, i just deny ignorance a lot

The fact is men have historically been objectified by being forced to fight in war and die for other people's profit. They were objectified as labor slaves and workhorses to support the lives of females. They asked little in return.

The fact is historically women have been objectified, forced to work for low wages, deal with wars and die when their husbands left them destitute. They have been made to get married in fear of being outcast, support their husbands by being house-slaves and raise up to 5+ children, never being able to pursue education or gain worthwhile employment. No one's had it easy.

All your opinions reek of western materialist spin. The West, where 80% of all consumerism is done by females.

Women buy more often, men buy infrequently but expensively.

But apparently somehow women aren't getting paid fairly yet advertising executives and marketing professionals only cater to the buying power of women.

I never said that the modern day women was not getting paid fairly, every time ive talked about wage inequalities it has been in reference to the past.

The entire consumerist economy of the west was created for women.

That is absolute BS. And you know it. No company or business is only going to have women as its target audience. They target people with disposable income.

How is this possible if women don't, in reality, have most of the buying power?

Women dont have most of the buying power, they buy differently compared to men.

Or is the media machine just that gullible to sell stuff to people who can't afford it, those people who somehow perpetuate through taxation and buying power such a diseased system?

From the way you're sounding, its almost as if you are suggesting that men get less than women?

reply to post by djr33222







Or could it be that as we are in the same country and same time zone that we are on line

at the same time?

Am in a hurry will get back on your other points later ... x

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by luciddream

 

Quote "Men are more logical and less emotional when world safety is on the line. I want

less emotional as possible during decision making"

Name me one woman who has started any war in the last 2,000 years?

Maggie Thatcher.

reply to post by polarwarrior

Clearly NOT EVERYTHING a man does to a woman is seen as harming them, how could you possibly think that? Do you have any relations with people of opposite gender at all? How defeatist and pessimistic could you be to make such a generalization?

How could I possibly think that? YOU made the argument that men holding doors for women was a subconscious way to dominate over women, while I contended that it is a benign gesture of helpfulness. Your opinion is asinine. You obviously don't realize how dense you are sounding. Take your pseudo psychological women-can-do-no-wrong-but-all-men-are-evil fantasy elsewhere.

Do you have any relations with people of opposite gender at all?

No. I am a troglodyte who lives in a cave. When I leave my cave the winds whisper in my ear tales of male debasement and terrible wars where women seek to castrate men and use their bones for witchcraft. I prefer to steer clear of these demons from the abyss.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Except im not a feminist, i just deny ignorance a lot

Sure. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a pig...

You want to say you are not a feminist but when I politely asked you about your belief system in a previous post you completely ignored me. I now will label you whatever I choose to since you seem incapable of doing that yourself except to try and disagree with me.

The fact is historically women have been objectified, forced to work for low wages, deal with wars and die when their husbands left them destitute. They have been made to get married in fear of being outcast, support their husbands by being house-slaves and raise up to 5+ children, never being able to pursue education or gain worthwhile employment. No one's had it easy.

I agree with this statement. No one has had it easy.

Women buy more often, men buy infrequently but expensively.

The "more often" part is what banks and corporations care about. It is what inflates the GDP. So still women are being catered to for their purchasing habits/addictions.

I never said that the modern day women was not getting paid fairly, every time ive talked about wage inequalities it has been in reference to the past.

In the past women had to sit back because they physically couldn't perform the back breaking work that had to be done. You know, plowing, paving roads, building houses and factories, forging and crafting metal, mining the earth, curbing lawlessness through force, defending borders by building walls and engaging in combat, etc... Is the fact that women can't pass the strength and agility test for firefighters mean men are discriminating against them? Nature made women not suitable to certain tasks and that is why, historically, they received little for their labor. Men have a surplus of labor, women don't.

If this was the case in the past and in the present there is no wage inequality than what is the gripe?

Women dont have most of the buying power

They do have significant buying power which is increasing every year. In addition, they are the biggest purchasers of consumer goods. Because of this the system will cater to the needs, wants, and desires of women.

From the way you're sounding, its almost as if you are suggesting that men get less than women?

We got a decent deal in the past but now we are getting screwed so we're going on strike.

reply to post by bates






She didn't actually start it.

Argentina started it by invading and occupying the Falkland Islands (a British dependant

territory)

That would make Argentina the aggressor, Britain under Margaret Thatcher simply

defended what was and still is British territory and it's people..

British task forces were sent there to retake the island and Argentina surrendered

which returned the island to the British.

I'm not getting into the politics of the falklands on this thread

she did actually start the war though.

where do you feminists stand in terms of men hitting women?

are you all for a man being able to spark a woman out cold if she starts the fight?

Those types, are probably insecure and because of that they overcompensate by being tottaly out of control and making horrible points and setting females back a few years.

reply to post by bates


I guess you probably won't want my opinion because I'm a man, but I'm also a feminist, so whatevs.


I'd answer... it depends. If a woman starts hitting me... if anyone starts hitting me, I have no problem dodging and roughly shoving them out of the way to end things quickly. I'm tall and built, so it's pretty simple.

Weapons or otherwise deadly implements? Yeah, you're getting sparked if you're coming at me.

Does that make me a misogynist? No. I just know a threat to my life when I see one.