Do you like feminism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2016, 05:30 PM
RE: Do you like feminism?
(05-05-2016 04:22 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(05-05-2016 12:27 PM)Dom Wrote:  Fireman, policeman, I couldn't care less about semantics. There are actual real issues still to be solved.

Once that is done, we can retire feminism and whoever wants to worry themselves about semantics can do so without me.

With social change it's win some, lose some. With gay pride we won. With cannabis we are on a winning streak. With feminism I find myself explaining the same thing to this generation that I had to explain to a generation born 80+ years ago. All people can now think about when they hear feminism is misandrists. It's not about that. It's about equality. And creating equal opportunity for women happens to also solve the divorce/child rearing issues men's groups complain about.

It's most disheartening that I find myself still explaining the same shit....

The reason that most often feminism is associated with misandry is that the action of the many many high profile feminists are misandrist. They are not the fringe, moderates like Ms Hoff-Summers are the fringe.

When the publications like The Guardian and The Washington post run articles about how air-conditioning is sexist towards woman, when the response from feminist and mainstream publications in the wake of the New Years attacks in Cologne and other places, is to vilify ALL men as potential rapists who should do more then yes Feminism = Misandry.

When the usual feminist response to an argument or criticism is to shout Misogyny! and Sexism!, instead of addressing the actual argument feminism = misandry.

Feminism has done good, but it has also done massive harm, for instance the proliferation of the statistic that US campuses have higher rates of rape and sexual assault than Somalia.

That it lead to the introduction and adoption of the Duluth Model of domestic violence, where if a man calls and is being abused by his female partner HE gets arrested.

You know the one where the author of it came out and said: "By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

I have yet to meet a feminist activist who will admit when their pet religion has caused harm, or just been flat out wrong. Until that day comes, where feminists such as yourself and those in the world admit to the fact that it is not perfect, does not have all the answers and does cause harm, even if unintended, I will have no time or respect for the cult of victimhood it has become and been for the last 30 odd years.
I'm not sure why you desire massive group connections upon trends but when the main news story sources run stories, that generally represents that news source. Not every element or statement is some overarching representation of a message.

It seems those who are heavily against the come as if there is some grand or this notion of a potential purity in the world of anything. Perhaps some are the types of people who fondly value the notions of purity/sanctity in things. I wouldn't know from limited action but also see no reason to correlate any idea into other aspects of larger ideas. Not everything needs to represent something else.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: Do you like feminism?
(05-05-2016 04:23 PM)julep Wrote:  Absolutely wrong in my experience. Both my husband and myself have careers. Both of us have arranged and rearranged our schedules over the years so that we can take care of our kid. Neither of us considers ourself a "stay-at-home" parent (we just call ourselves parents).

I must be in a rather large cake-having/cake-eating bubble, because many of our friends have kids and two parents with careers (like lawyers, doctors, engineers, computer programmers, architects, college professors).

I know a lot of dads who are involved with their kids and with running their households in a much more meaningful way than the dads of a generation or two back. It's sad that that seems so impossible to you. The men I know seem to be happy to be involved in their kids' lives, to be married to women with professional accomplishments in addition to beauty and fertility, and to be less stressed financially because there are two good incomes. It sure was helpful in our household, when my husband got laid off from his systems analyst job and was out of work for a year, that I was making decent money and our bills still got paid.

Plenty of two-job (rather than career) households, too, where the child care duties are shared. It's true that there are couples where the woman works a full-time job and then handles virtually all of the child care. Fuck that, I'm not living that way.


I don't care about anecdotes, provide data that almost a(or at least 50%) that women can hold something of a mixture between

(05-05-2016 04:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Child care has varied tremendously in time and in culture. The idea of women at home taking care of children while men work is mostly a characteristic of to the post second industrial revolution Western civilisation and those influenced by it. Before that, it was mostly a trait of the urban elite not the common of people. Once upon a time, when absolute poverty was common place, child labor a necessity, school a luxury, taking care of children was a much more equally distributed task. 80% of the population were subsistence farmers who worked, lived and trained their children together each to their own task depending on their age and gender. In some culture farming was a men activity like in the occidental world while it’s a women activity in many part of South East Asia. The list goes on. No two culture have the exact same gender roles. Some are very similar like those of East Asia and the Western world while other are completely opposite on certain aspect. I would recommend taking a class on the history of the family in comparative history or reading the excellent books of Anne Campbell or Ann Belt Walter on the subject.

My man epron how have you been?

Alright now here is the problem. I am not saying that men do not care for their kids. I was just mentioning that when it comes to the stay at home parent job, men are less likely to take it.

(05-05-2016 04:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  That's why so many children make the Freudian slip of calling a teacher mom or dad once.

I have done this before Tongue
(05-05-2016 04:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Is there some genetic variable that can predispose women more than men to devote time and care to their family? Perhaps. In fact, I would be surprised if it wasn't the case. But in no way would a hormone or gene be capable of stimulating the exact behavior or reaction a person has in front of child of his own.

Well....... Eh No. Now I get were you are coming from but let me break it down like this. Men are very competitive and risk taking. This is thanks to things like testosterone and vasopressin. Now this is the biological factor. Now the social factor does in fact, those are the expressions of our biological factor. So In short, countries have different cultures, but the pattern of how they work is the biology. I.E america watches football while japan watches sumo wrestling. Both are very different, but both satisfy the violence men(and some women) like to watch. And on the children thing, hormones do play a role, hell testosterone lowers in men when around children. I remember showing you a study the showed that women were faster to respond to a child crying and men were more annoyed by the crying.


(05-05-2016 04:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We are «programmed» for bigotry up to a certain point, yet it has recoiled massively thanks to cultural shifts at various point in history and in some society.

Well recoiled isn't the right word. We just have put it into other people. I wouldn't say xenophobia and sexism are gone, they are just towards whites and men, something nobody sees as a problem.

(05-05-2016 04:49 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We are built to adapt, to use creative thinking and insight and correction. As such one of our greatest advantages was our capacity to revolution our behavior and methods to adapt to a new environment and I see no good reason to not make the necessary steps to build a society in which men and women would spend as much time, money and passion in raising their children no matter their gender. While men collectively might be less present in the lives of their children than women, they are much more present then they used to be. In fact the time spent by men with their children has doubled in 30 years. In about 30 years, at this rythm, they will be pretty much equal to women at that point. This can only bring more justice and good news for men, women and children in the future.

My problem isn't that it is a bad idea, but how it can happen. Again this would require natural selection, and women would have to choose men who are willing to live in a stay at home dad for the most part. Until then, you are fighting a useless battle.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Do you like feminism?
@Metazoa Zeke

We pretty much all called one of our teacher mom or dad at some point or at least know someone who did. In fact it happenned to me twice...yesterday and I my students are almost adults Tongue.

Your views are far too entrenched in the realm of biologie and lead you to a hardcore form of biological determinism. If men aren't interested in taking care of their children as much as women how come they did it so frequently and consistently in numerous historical period or in several cultures? There is no such thing as multiple races. Men from Africa aren't biologically fundamentally different than men in Europe. It didn't took natural selection for man to stop crying in public (which they did frequently and openly before flegmatism was enshrined as a core virtue for man in late 18th centurie England). Men staying home more often and doing more house choir is increasing. It's already happenning. You don't need to change someone's biologie to make them change behavior. You only need to teach them the behavior, give social incentives for it to be done and repeat it until it becomes socially acceptable (or not).

We are living in a society that is far less sexist and racist than ever before. Women and ethnic minorities are still victims of oppression in the occidental world, but much less so then in the past where women were considered too stupid to read or black to primitive to live in society. Yes, it has recoiled tremendously. Even hatred of white men has reduced significantly. We don't consider white men as blood drinkers like it was in numerous slave towns of southern USA and Carabean. We don't consider men as inept when it comes to taking care of young children than before. We don't consider men «inproper» to charity work anymore. Men's right have progressed tremendously in last hundred years, from their right to be gay to their rights to be carring tender father (a source of shame before), from being nerdy to having jobs like nurses or elementary school teachers. These are things that would have led to social exclusion 70 years but don't anymore. Do white men still face sexism when they «intrude» in the women sphere of power? Yes of course they do, but much less then before. Do they still face the fear and resentment of the communities they formerly oppressed? Yes they do, but much less then before. I don't understand how you cannot perceive those massive advances and instead see that hatred augmenting in the last century or so. It would be like if feminists widely clamored that women have it worst than ever and those who do say that are considered idiots by anybody in their right mind.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
05-05-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: Do you like feminism?
(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Your views are far too entrenched in the realm of biologie and lead you to a hardcore form of biological determinism.

Now if I said social constructs don't exist you would have a point, but I didn't. I understand that social structures change over time, it is why I didn't refute what you said on cultures being different. What I am saying is biology plays as much of a role as social.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If men aren't interested in taking care of their children as much as women how come they did it so frequently and consistently in numerous historical period or in several cultures?

Well just because they were not as interested doesn't mean that they weren't interested. It is like fans of a franchise. One will be less interested in the franchise than the other. This doesn't mean because one is less interested he is not interested.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  There is no such thing as multiple races. Men from Africa aren't biologically fundamentally different than men in Europe.

Said culture not race.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It didn't took natural selection for man to stop crying in public (which they did frequently and openly before flegmatism was enshrined as a core virtue for man in late 18th centurie England).

Well this is again a bit of biology, a bit of social structure. Now I can't really refute or except your claim, as you didn't link me to anything for it. But men tend to cry less because of, again, vasopressin. In fact women cry more thanks to prolactin and oxytocin. So yes there is a biological reason men tend not to cry as often, and why we have the social aspect of men not crying.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Men staying home more often and doing more house choir is increasing. It's already happenning.

By how much? Is it significant? Is it a world wide phenomena(or at least in free societies)? Because even Sweden can't get men to become stay at home dads without forcing them.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You don't need to change someone's biologie to make them change behavior. You only need to teach them the behavior, give social incentives for it to be done and repeat it until it becomes socially acceptable (or not).

Well you do if you want it to become common place. Unless you are saying humans have transcended biology? Again, every country that tried the it is only social aspects that effect human behavior, has failed. This is why again sweden no matter how gender neutral they are, still fail to make boys and girls 50/50 without taking away some peoples rights.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We don't consider white men as blood drinkers like it was in numerous slave towns of southern USA and Carabean.

Yeah they do. Ever here the words cis white male? Common place in gender studies, equivalent to Satan there. Ever here of the BHI? It is a religion centered around thinking white people are evil. Hell if I were to kill a white person for his race, I would get arrested, but it wouldn't be considered a hate crime because I am black and he is white. White people are still considered evil, that is why I can be racist towards white people and it not be called racism.


(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  their rights to be carring tender father (a source of shame before),

Even back then they told to be a man you must help raise a family and care for kids. How do you have the right to do something that if you didn't do it then you would be shamed in the first place?

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  from being nerdy

Men were always aloud to be nerdy. It was never illegal. And nerds are still picked on today. yet again, define nerd.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I don't understand how you cannot perceive those massive advances and instead see that hatred augmenting in the last century or so.

That isn't my argument. What I am saying is that no matter how hard you try, you can't change men and women. You can't socially make men want to be stay at home dads unless you play to their competitive spirit. However, it isn't really as competitive as a sport, or being a CEO, or even being a scientist. There is nothing appealing to most men about being a stay at home dad. It is like when they tried encouraging more male nurses in Norway. It was going on there for years and years, and yet it has failed. Now this isn't to say there are no stay at home dads or nurses. But they make up so little of the male population that they can't dismiss the rule. My argument isn't against the advancements, but for the fact people don't want to admit, biology plays as much of a role a social factors, and because of this, what we are fighting for is pointless for now. Maybe in the future dads more willing to be stay at home dads will be chosen by women more than men who won't. Don't get me wrong, dads have always taken care of kids. They will feed them, cloth them, given advice, thrown the foot ball, protected them from danger.


But the way men and women raise kids for the most part are different. We should just except that. Instead of trying to encourage stay at home dads, why not make it so moms can take their babies to work, so while they work they can spend time with their kids? I

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It would be like if feminists widely clamored that women have it worst than ever and those who do say that are considered idiots by anybody in their right mind.

Good thing I don't think anyone here is an idiot. I am just not convinced social structures play a much larger role in human behavior than biology. As far as I see it, it is 50/50

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2016, 06:09 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2016 06:18 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Do you like feminism?
(05-05-2016 09:51 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Your views are far too entrenched in the realm of biologie and lead you to a hardcore form of biological determinism.

Now if I said social constructs don't exist you would have a point, but I didn't. I understand that social structures change over time, it is why I didn't refute what you said on cultures being different. What I am saying is biology plays as much of a role as social.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If men aren't interested in taking care of their children as much as women how come they did it so frequently and consistently in numerous historical period or in several cultures?

Well just because they were not as interested doesn't mean that they weren't interested. It is like fans of a franchise. One will be less interested in the franchise than the other. This doesn't mean because one is less interested he is not interested.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  There is no such thing as multiple races. Men from Africa aren't biologically fundamentally different than men in Europe.

Said culture not race.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It didn't took natural selection for man to stop crying in public (which they did frequently and openly before flegmatism was enshrined as a core virtue for man in late 18th centurie England).

Well this is again a bit of biology, a bit of social structure. Now I can't really refute or except your claim, as you didn't link me to anything for it. But men tend to cry less because of, again, vasopressin. In fact women cry more thanks to prolactin and oxytocin. So yes there is a biological reason men tend not to cry as often, and why we have the social aspect of men not crying.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Men staying home more often and doing more house choir is increasing. It's already happenning.

By how much? Is it significant? Is it a world wide phenomena(or at least in free societies)? Because even Sweden can't get men to become stay at home dads without forcing them.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You don't need to change someone's biologie to make them change behavior. You only need to teach them the behavior, give social incentives for it to be done and repeat it until it becomes socially acceptable (or not).

Well you do if you want it to become common place. Unless you are saying humans have transcended biology? Again, every country that tried the it is only social aspects that effect human behavior, has failed. This is why again sweden no matter how gender neutral they are, still fail to make boys and girls 50/50 without taking away some peoples rights.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We don't consider white men as blood drinkers like it was in numerous slave towns of southern USA and Carabean.

Yeah they do. Ever here the words cis white male? Common place in gender studies, equivalent to Satan there. Ever here of the BHI? It is a religion centered around thinking white people are evil. Hell if I were to kill a white person for his race, I would get arrested, but it wouldn't be considered a hate crime because I am black and he is white. White people are still considered evil, that is why I can be racist towards white people and it not be called racism.


(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  their rights to be carring tender father (a source of shame before),

Even back then they told to be a man you must help raise a family and care for kids. How do you have the right to do something that if you didn't do it then you would be shamed in the first place?

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  from being nerdy

Men were always aloud to be nerdy. It was never illegal. And nerds are still picked on today. yet again, define nerd.

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I don't understand how you cannot perceive those massive advances and instead see that hatred augmenting in the last century or so.

That isn't my argument. What I am saying is that no matter how hard you try, you can't change men and women. You can't socially make men want to be stay at home dads unless you play to their competitive spirit. However, it isn't really as competitive as a sport, or being a CEO, or even being a scientist. There is nothing appealing to most men about being a stay at home dad. It is like when they tried encouraging more male nurses in Norway. It was going on there for years and years, and yet it has failed. Now this isn't to say there are no stay at home dads or nurses. But they make up so little of the male population that they can't dismiss the rule. My argument isn't against the advancements, but for the fact people don't want to admit, biology plays as much of a role a social factors, and because of this, what we are fighting for is pointless for now. Maybe in the future dads more willing to be stay at home dads will be chosen by women more than men who won't. Don't get me wrong, dads have always taken care of kids. They will feed them, cloth them, given advice, thrown the foot ball, protected them from danger.


But the way men and women raise kids for the most part are different. We should just except that. Instead of trying to encourage stay at home dads, why not make it so moms can take their babies to work, so while they work they can spend time with their kids? I

(05-05-2016 07:12 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It would be like if feminists widely clamored that women have it worst than ever and those who do say that are considered idiots by anybody in their right mind.

Good thing I don't think anyone here is an idiot. I am just not convinced social structures play a much larger role in human behavior than biology. As far as I see it, it is 50/50
This notion of forcing is strange as any argument or point of anything.

The fact you'd even attempt to connect well boys do girl things in effort abd vice versa is highlighting awareness which makes it likely to horribly fail. It's not sensible least of all because their culture is still influencing them elseways. They aren't seperate from knowing how their parents/elders act or massive amounts of social influence from media as well as peers goes. Attempting to do something so simply and limited in scope has little effect.

Some people these days have a fucked up premise that post industrial revolution & 20th century social structures is the "normal" of human existence and how things are biologically set as if the social evolution within culture isn't a factor. It's a problem that's horribly illogical data utilizing. Now it's not easy to combat that way in some conscious social effort; though, faulure at attempts to shift that culture doesn't make thst culture more legitimate biologically or anything of the sort.

To add a weak anecdote of the mindset I have a friend who joined Facebook only to conclude this concept of knowing those you went to school with later is abnormal. You're supposed to move on and never see them again... though I had to tell him that supposed to era is just largely his parents and grandparents generations. Before trains spread the majority of people never left 15 miles from where they were born, so it was normal to know who you grew up with into adulthood. Societies change, that's an immovable force of events.

You can change men/women or behavior socially, yet doing it by forcing change for 2/20 things that causes the trend is going to be meaningless. That however doesn't equate to some impossible shift static notion of sex roles though.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2016, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2016 07:30 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Do you like feminism?
@Metazoa Zeke

To give you a bit of perspective. Men today are spending on average 3 times more time with their children and 50% more time doing house choirs. It varies according to the financial situation of the familly unit, the culture of the person and even their political leaning and sexual satisfaction (sexually satisfied men who identify as feminists tend to be the champion of house work in the occidental world). No it's not worldwide (unfortunately). It touches only specific portion of our society too (unfortunately). It's the same thing for the bullying of nerds and other non conformist men. Also The key word was carring and tender father, that's the new breed of father that we see emerging for a society that made fathers only disciplinarian and technical teachers. There is even monoparental fathers, a think deemed ridiculous putside of being widowed 70 years ago.

Yes, I now the word cis gender male. Remember that I thought a class of Family hisory at the gender study departement of a local college? Your impression that feminist consider men as «the great Satan» is largely missinformed. From a distance, reading Twitters and Tumblr blogs can give you that impression very legitimately. I consider it a mistake caused, not by radical feminist epistemologie (or multiculturalism), but by mass communication. The quantity, and often vitriolic, critique of the social structure that allowed the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ are getting so numerous and constent that it might be perceived as an assault on those who benefited the most from and built those social strucutres. Yet, all these screams aren't directed at white men directly but at the social structure their ancestor built and maintained and their position of power. I would say it's an unintended consequences of mass communication. The idea that feminism or multiculturalism is facing a threatening backlash is also due to this illusion caused by mass communication that emplifies all voices until they turn deafening and threatening. As a final note, the only point where white men could feel genuinly oppressed that isn't caused by the distortion of mass social media would be in the «moral superiority status» given to women in our society, a thing that I considered inherited from the time where almost only women were conducting charities and other carring activities exclusively. It's an inheritence of the time where women were virgins (a great thing), mothers (a good thing) and whores (a bad thing) all at the same time, the classical expression of feminity in the victorian culture. Feminism, especially amazone feminists, are working on knocking down this altar too despite the best effort of Christian feminist to keep it alive. The «great Satan» of feminism isn't men. As a men in feminist circles, I am constently surrounded by them and despite being a white men heterosexual born in a diplomatic family (I am born with a silver spoon), I have faced very little attack based on my sex and sexuality (I mostly comes of as snobish and I am sorry if I come of like so right now). The «Great Satan» of feminism to me remains sexism, and more perticularly in occident, sexism as expressed in the patriarchal culture that dominated our cultural history from Antiquity to the turn of the century and even more specifically in North America, the influence of the victorian brand culture of machismo. Note that this culture attack men's right about as often as women. The only difference is that men who follow the rules and codes of this culture have power, respect and authority while women don't.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
06-05-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Do you like feminism?
(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  To give you a bit of perspective. Men today are spending on average 3 times more time with their children and 50% more time doing house choirs.

A. Source

B. You assume it won't fall.

C. You also assumes that men spending more time with children will become stay at home days in the future.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  No it's not worldwide (unfortunately). It touches only specific portion of our society too (unfortunately).

Well it isn't just men, but women. Women choose men who are hard working. Even when a women earns more, then man tends to work as hard, if not harder. So women choose men who are competitive(in some form or another). Now women also look for men who can take care of kids. They always have. Now women are breeding with men who will care for children even more.


(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Also The key word was carring and tender father, that's the new breed of father that we see emerging for a society that made fathers only disciplinarian and technical teachers.

Well men still do this for the most part. Now they just hug their kid longer while doing it.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  There is even monoparental fathers, a think deemed ridiculous putside of being widowed 70 years ago.

Except in the hood Tongue

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Your impression that feminist consider men as «the great Satan» is largely missinformed. From a distance, reading Twitters and Tumblr blogs can give you that impression very legitimately.

Well where the hell do you think they learn it from? It didn't just pop on tumblr one day. These people learned it and believed it? But from where. Universities. And which class? Gender studies, as it is the only one to teach about the things that people on tumblr. In fact these ideas existed before both. So many do believe in what they believe, but they just aren't as loud.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  I consider it a mistake caused, not by radical feminist epistemologie (or multiculturalism), but by mass communication.

Why not both.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The quantity, and often vitriolic, critique of the social structure that allowed the oppression of racial minorities, women and LGBTQ are getting so numerous and constent that it might be perceived as an assault on those who benefited the most from and built those social strucutres.

At best I will grant the racial minorities something, but women and LGBT have gotten what they need, for now they are just wanting to have power with no responsibility if they complain.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Yet, all these screams aren't directed at white men directly but at the social structure their ancestor built and maintained and their position of power.

Well they are. It is why when you are a white male they go "Your a white male!" in order to dismiss the argument being made. Hell I think the only reason tumblrites listen to me is because I am black. You can be a white male who likes women and be a good person to 3rd wave feminist. So yes it is white men, it is the belief that the crimes of the grandfather apply to the son.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The idea that feminism or multiculturalism is facing a threatening backlash is also due to this illusion caused by mass communication that emplifies all voices until they turn deafening and threatening.

After seeing the Muslim immigration problem and the people who accepted them, I think it is safe to say they won't succeed.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  , a thing that I considered inherited from the time where almost only women were conducting charities and other carring activities exclusively.

Two words, Christian church. You do know christians churches had charities right?

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/History_of...in_America

This means yes men where conducting charities through out history. So I don't know where you got the idea that only women cared back then from.



(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Feminism, especially amazone feminists, are working on knocking down this altar too despite the best effort of Christian feminist to keep it alive.

Well it has failed. Maybe because there could be something wrong with feminism today. Maybe it is because women have rightsConsider

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The «great Satan» of feminism isn't men.

Well they are. They are blamed for being men. In fact everytime a man acts like a man he is deemed evil to them.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  As a men in feminist circles, I am constently surrounded by them and despite being a white men heterosexual born in a diplomatic family (I am born with a silver spoon), I have faced very little attack based on my sex and sexuality (I mostly comes of as snobish and I am sorry if I come of like so right now).

A. You conform

B. Don't worry, I don't get offended so you can be snobbish all you want Big Grin

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The «Great Satan» of feminism to me remains sexism, and more perticularly in occident, sexism as expressed in the patriarchal culture that dominated our cultural history from Antiquity to the turn of the century and even more specifically in North America, the influence of the victorian brand culture of machismo.

The patriarchy is the Illuminati of feminism. Two things that used to exist but don't anymore, but are still used in order to push an agenda that will never work. F

First machismo doesn't hurt men, at least not in the aspect of who they can be. Unlike women, who can easily do things men can do and not be bothered, men are not as easily swayed by feminine things, and when they are it is usually to get laid. Which of course is men being men by trying to get laid.

(06-05-2016 06:56 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Note that this culture attack men's right about as often as women. The only difference is that men who follow the rules and codes of this culture have power, respect and authority while women don't.

No it doesn't. If anything, men rights issues have been a recent phenomena. If anything feminism damages men more than helps. That is why boys are drugged when acting like boys, because the behavior of girls is held as a higher standard. It is why male suicide will barely get off the ground, but anita sarkisian can go to the U.N for feeling uncomfortable. Feminism has done nothing for men. Most of the things that men have won during feminism they pretty much had. Men where always aloud to share their emotions, they just choose not to. As explained before, men don't really cry thanks to hormones. Now I am not going to say that when feminism was needed it hurted men, the same as the civil rights movement in the 60's didn't hurt whites. But feminism today hurts men, as it teaches them being masculine is toxic and that they by their nature of existing hurt women. This has been influenced in governments before, and now even boys suffer to being boys. If anything, what is hurting men is masculinity or machismo, but lack thereof.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
06-05-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Do you like feminism?
What is being masculine? Or being boys? Or being feminine/girls for that matter?

Who is the arbiter of what these labels are?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2016, 09:57 AM
RE: Do you like feminism?
Mens rights activist Karen Straughan everybody (Trigger warning: Woman with internalised misogyny):



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gilgamesh's post
06-05-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: Do you like feminism?
(06-05-2016 09:57 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Mens rights activist Karen Straughan everybody (Trigger warning: Woman with internalised misogyny):




Which bathroom does she use?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: