Anyone familiar with my blog is fairly familiar with my take on feminism. My assertions are often countered by women proclaiming that feminism isn’t really bad; that the things I relate are only representative of a small, extreme, fringe element, are taken out of context or, the ultimate denial, that they are simply not a part of feminism. I addressed this contention in my post The Truth About Feminism. Despite the plethora of supporting evidence to my position presented in this post, I continue to receive comments from self-proclaimed feminists denying the dark and insidious nature of feminism.
I’m often astounded by how little these women actually know and understand about the movement they support. I can’t imagine choosing to label myself something without an extensive knowledge and understanding of that label, yet, women continue to label themselves feminists while refusing to accept or believe what feminism really is.
There seems to be a perpetual attempt to reinvent and reclaim feminism….something tantamount to trying to reinvent and reclaim Nazism in my eyes. It doesn’t matter how you repackage or try to sell it…it’s never going to be anything more than a hate movement. Anything built upon a foundation of hate and lies will always eventually fall back to the invidious roots that support it.
Feminism was never a peaceful, loving movement interested only in equal treatment and opportunity for all. Even with today’s attempt to package it up to appear more palatable, feminists still fail to make even the merest pretense of caring about the rights or concerns of anyone besides women. When was the last time you saw a feminist say, “Holy crap! Women are falsely accusing men of rape right and left….we need to do something about this!”? How many feminists have you heard express concern for the disproportionate number of men committing suicide or sitting in jail? How many feminists concern themselves with the rights of men to have access to their children?
Feminists go so far as to justify and even celebrate injustices and misfortunes that befall men if they believe those miseries will somehow benefit women. It’s “good” for a man to be raped because then he will have more empathy for the plight of female rape victims. It’s acceptable for innocent men to sit in jail, wrongly accused and convicted, if it means eliminating the odd chance that an actual rapists goes free.
Feminists could care less about men, families, children, society….unless it somehow directly affects or benefits women. They could care less about any injustices suffered by men…because feminism is built on a foundation of hatred and lies; hatred for the natural differences of and the bonds between men and women; lies that women have been perpetually abused and oppressed by men.
Feminists have no concern for men because they believe that men deserve any injustices that befall them. They want men to pay and to suffer for abuses allegedly perpetrated against women. At heart, they are destructively jealous of masculinity and loathing of femininity.
Feminism refuses to acknowledge or recognize the sacrifices of men. Women were not oppressed by men. They were cared for, loved and sheltered by men. Men fought, bled and died for their wives and children. The greatest love of all is to lay down one’s life for another…and this is what feminists have dubbed “oppression”….effectively twisting and vilifying tremendous love and sacrifice.
Feminism is not and never was a movement for the majority of women. It was engendered by a small subset of women, predominantly lesbian, who truly sought and desired for the sexes to be separate. The average woman’s idea of Utopia is in no way parallel to that inspired by feminism. A world where the bonds between men and women have been broken is not a world that most women want. Women have allowed feminists, a group that in no way represents their interests or desires....to represent their interests and desires.
So feminists, please, spare me the rhetoric about the "true nature" of feminism. I know, far better apparently then you do, the true nature of feminism. Feminism is a hate movement. It is only concerned with expanding it's own perverse and fallacious concept of the interests of women....expanding them at the expense of everyone and everything else. I'm not interested in trying to distort the truth in order to make it more palatable. Feminism is the rattle snake on the mountain....I know what it is and I'm not interested in picking it up.
Posts
61 comments:
"Feminism was never a peaceful, loving movement interested only in equal treatment and opportunity for all"
THAT is an inaccurate statement; feminism was begun by wives and mothers who wanted the vote and jobs. There's nothing wrong with that and it does NOT compare to Nazism. It was after the original movement gained its desires that various women like Simone de Beauvoir and Margaret Sanger hijacked it and rapidly turned it into a nightmare that's reigned ever since.
Feminists could care less about men, families, children, society….unless it somehow directly affects or benefits women. They could care less about any injustices suffered by men…
We had a young lady like this where I work. She was a hardcore feminist who was sure of her beliefs. Until she had twin boys a few years ago. Then all of a sudden it was like a light-bulb went off in her head. All those horrible things she said and believed about men now applied to her boys.
She actually apologized for some of the things she'd said, and had accused me and other guys of doing.
I guess that's what it takes for people like that, to see that their words and actions have consequences. And that eventually they'll have to look at it from the other side.
"feminism was begun by wives and mothers who wanted the vote and jobs"
LOL
You live in a dreamworld. Even the sufragettes were terrorists and most of their opponents were women.
Anon0550,
Feminism was a hate movement; it is a hate movement; and it will always BE a hate movement. Sorry, but that's what you support. Saying that there are good feminists is like saying that there are good Nazis. Sorry, but there's NO SUCH ANIMAL...
Oh, and spare me this tripe about women wanting the vote like men had. News flash-men didn't have the vote en masse until 1918, you moron! Prior to that, it was only property owners who had the vote. To get the vote, men by the millions had to suffer and die in WWI; men had to suffer the horrors of gas warfare, which was so bad that it's never been repeated! Meanwhile all you chicks did was throw a hissy fit, saying you didn't have the vote like men did. We didn't HAVE the vote until 10 years before you did! Give me a break! Why don't you study your history and know what you're talking about before you open your dumb mouth?!
MarkyMark
They're more interested in defending the reputation of their chosen identity than actually investigating the meaning of that identity.
They drank the KoolAid, and now want to convince everyone they're not evil harpies for doing so.
Feminism in the guise of liberty for women has destroyed social and cultural fabric of Europe, United States, Russia and other developed countries. In Islamic and oriental societies, women performed a critical function of stabilizing the basic unit of society called family. Women are the crown of creation. Feminism stripped them of all the crowing glory that God bestowed upon them.
The ultimate goal of feminism has been stated very clear - to attack the root of society, that is, the family and destroy it! Below are extracts of statements by well-known feminists.
THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY BY FEMINISTS
“Destroy the family,” as Lenin said, “and you destroy society.” Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society — with the State as the ultimate father — could be constructed.
“How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”
— Female Liberation, by Roxanne Dunbar.
Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience. - Catherine Comins, Vassar College
To be male is to be a kind of idiot savant
- Germaine Greer
All men are rapists and that’s all they are
- Marilyn French
still,feminists say that”they are not doing anything harmful”.
it’s time to not to believe in feminism anymore.
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” – Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” – Marilyn French, Author, “The Women’s Room”
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” – Robin Morgan
“And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism–the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group–skin color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism–the oppressed have no alternative–for they have no power–but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men–but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women–kill your fathers, not your mothers.” – Robin Morgan
“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.” – Marilyn French, in “The Women’s Room”
Great post. At the risk of sounding fruity,articles like this make me want to hug you.You are doing a great service for both men and women. I am convinced your words will be the best medicine for women,ultimately, even though they may fight it at this time. Giving up one's entrenched power is a scary concept, but women will have to do just that if they truly want to join with men as equals.
"THAT is an inaccurate statement; feminism was begun by wives and mothers who wanted the vote and jobs. There's nothing wrong with that and it does NOT compare to Nazism."
There were many women at the time who opposed feminism,and they didn't come right out and condemn this desire,but nevertheless acknowledged in their retort that they understood feminism to be a bid to obtain more power over men.
One woman said "Be content that you have power over men when they are babies and in old age."
I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it. Women of the time understood feminism to be a plan to get votes for females and then use the political process to control men.
In which case, it was class warfare and very much akin to Nazism, or its ugly cousin,good old fashioned socialism as opposed to national socialism.
Mark, calm down. I don't support feminism at all, but I'm not going to lie about its original members. It was not a hate group when it began and yes, they did want the vote.
"Meanwhile all you chicks did was throw a hissy fit, saying you didn't have the vote like men did"
If they had been able to fight in wars, they would have. Now we are able to fight in wars, and I've heard you speak against this. Can't have it both ways.
I don't live in a dreamworld at all, Deans. Everytime I speak of feminism, I speak against it. But the suffragettes had every right to a vote and many WERE married and raising children. We deserve to have jobs, get educated, and have a legal say in the country; in fact, I've heard some men actually complain about women being hateful leeches because they DON'T have jobs and just want to be home-wives. Such men have early feminism to thank for the fact that we now have that option.
Perhaps if the suffragettes had never spoken up, things would have changed for women anyway. The one fact that doesn't change is that women should have the opportunity for jobs if they wish.
Thank you for those compelling words, Men's. It's good to see you know the difference between women and feminists, rather than hating both.
To be just a mite more subtle about this. . .
Feminism could not continuing existing as anything OTHER THAN a hate movement.
Feminism would need to reinvent itself SO completely that it would make a complete historical break from its own origins. It would no longer be the same "animal"!
Not even if the word 'feminism' was still being used. That would be like washing out the bottle and pouring something completely different into it.
Consider the following sequence of letter groups:
ABC BCD CDE DEF EFG ...etc..etc.
Notice how those clusters share a 'family resemblence' due to the gradual transition, where each group has letters in common with the one before it. But after a certain point, the common elements disappear: DEF has nothing in common with ABC; EFG has nothing in common with BCD, and so on. . .
So that explains the present situation of feminism. If it does not hang onto its "ABCs", then it will have no stable identity.
And so feminism must develop a split personality and 'hide its ABCs', or else turn into something that is no longer feminism except in name.
Predictably, I have no patience with people who want to keep using the WORD feminism -- no matter how good their intentions are!
(I mean, okay, sure, it would be possible to use the word "nazi" for something completely new and different, maybe even something cool, but the question is . . . WHY??)
So, feminism the word has got to be shunned and demolished right along with feminism the thing.
Understanding that there is a difference between "feminism" and "equal rights" was something that took me a long time to understand, and something our educational system--for what are now very obvious reasons--fails to make clear.
I do not believe women should have to suffer discrimination or abuse. And to me it seemed obvious that men should not have to suffer those things either, and that what is in the interests of one should be in the interests of the other. That is to say, if I believe that women should not be victims of rape and domestic abuse, then men must be entitled to the same protections and treatment.
In my head there was a difference between what I considered "feminist" (simply wanting women to have an equal shot at life according to a fair assessment of qualifications...which does NOT guarantee equal OUTCOME), and what I considered "femnazi" (man-hating).
I've since come to learn that one who truly espouses equal rights for all is not and CANNOT be a feminist. Even the word by its nature asserts superiority of one gender over another.
One of the things that woke me up to the wrong definitions in my head...I realize it may sound stupid, but I was reading a book called A Working of the Stars, and in the book, a female character took advantage of a male character's wounded, barely-conscious state to arouse him physically and allowing him to believe that he was with his lover and not this other woman. I read that and was immediately horrified: what happened there was a textbook case of rape. If a man had done that with roofies to a woman, that's absolutely what it would be called. And when the book went on and this act of rape was never acknowledged as such, and everyone went on like this was this wonderful and OK thing...it was very clear something was badly wrong if society had managed to define "rape" such that men could not even RECOGNIZE that they had been raped...that was very scary.
To me, awareness of how horrible it is when a woman is raped should have immediately brought about reciprocal awareness and help for men who are victims of such crimes.
But the disregard for such experiences--that's what told me that "feminism" was not about "EQUAL" rights. The more I've learned, the more I've become clear that I am not and never could be a feminist.
Perhaps we could suggest "egalitarian" to those who truly are for equal rights for ALL.
Fidel and Evers, I totally agree! Precisely. The term feminism never garnered anything good for me, and I finally realized it was not either worth defending or something I wanted any part of. An egalitarian is EXACTLY what I call myself now, and what all people wanting equal rights should go by.
"Women of the time understood feminism to be a plan to get votes for females and then use the political process to control men"
Yick. There are radicals in every group that was once repressed: gays, blacks, and women. Terrorist tactics are inexcusable, though it doesn't change the fact that the group in question deserved equality.
Maybe it was silly to say that the claim of feminism never being peaceful was inaccurate; they were quite aggressive. Regardless of whether I agree with all their tactics, I do agree with their original goals.
"But the suffragettes had every right to a vote and many WERE married and raising children."
No they didn't. The conditions for voting were being of legal age to fight in a war to defend your land and owning land. These women didn't fight in the Revolutionary War and they didn't own land. So they had,strictly speaking, no such right.
As for the "if we could have fought we would have",at that time,you absolutely could have picked up rifles and formed militias to defend ONLY YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS/local area if you wanted to, but you did not. No one was threatening to kill you,only the men who fought on the frontlines. There was no law against women using rifles and many of them had them for hunting My great-grandmother was an avid hunter and taught my grandfather to shoot.
So don't give me that crap.
Women did not earn the vote, men just gave it to them.
Should they have it now? That remains to be seen.So far most of the legal maneuvering of women tends to be focused on padding their own nest and disenfranchising men.
History will not look favorably upon enfranchised women unless they start doing more for men like we always did for you,without being asked.
Sure, anon. Women have never done anything. That kind of logic says it all.
So obviously, many women DID shoot, as your grandma's proof of. Women have been helping men for centuries, by being their wives, raisers of their children, and comforting partners. They've helped men defend their property in the West for years, and yes, with guns. They raise the next generation, they've served as nurses in the military, and they've done this without being asked; they DO deserve the vote. And your logic, anon, is horrible. Having a job and fighting in the military are the only things making one worthy of having a legal say in this country? Many women DO fight in the military now, but some men don't like that (others like you are ignoring it) so some women don't fight; some raise the children of the men who do, or try to save the lives of soldiers brought to them; the claim that women do nothing, or nothing to deserve the vote, is pathetic. You blatantly ignore every other accomplishment women have made, the different work they've done as women to help men, so don't give me that crap. Your thinking is selective and uninformed.
Anonymous--how can a TRUE solution be to simply swing the pendulum the other way? As long as we keep swinging between forms of gender superiority, we aren't going to get anywhere.
Women HAVE committed some very destructive acts of manipulation in the courts. I totally agree on that. But I think the solution is for us to understand--men and women alike--that our rights are inextricably tied together. No TRUE gains ever come unless there is a reciprocal gain. And as long as we keep focusing on acts of revenge as some kind of "solution" (and I am including EVERYONE in this regardless of gender), we aren't going to ever solve the problem. Fierce legal opposition? You bet. But to in effect deprive either gender of the vote? That is simply adding injustice to injustice.
As to the original suffragettes, i think you had two groups collaborating with each other at the time: you had the egalitarians, who simply believed that all people were children of God, loved equally by Him, and deserving of identical rights (and these are the ones you actually hear about in school), and then you had the feminists. And the feminists have, to my mind, completely usurped the legacy and the good conscience of the egalitarians and used it to cloak themselves. Wolves in sheep's clothing, essentially. But to then turn that around and act as though the egalitarians didn't exist...I don't agree with that.
I think that what we need to do is get the terminology straight, as a society, so that we can understand that anyone who puts an "-ist" on the end of their name is after superiority, not REAL, MEANINGFUL equality.
Awesome, Evers.
Early Feminists weren't nasty horrible people my ass!
For instance, Suffragette icon Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (and avowed Eugenicist and member of the WKKK).
The idea of tying the Vote to military service or land ownership was NOT about sexism, it was about limiting the vote to people who had a horse in the race. The system was set up that way to avoid the very situation the U.S. finds itself in right now...along with the rest of the West...namely, the rule of the 'mob' voting themselves more and more entitlements.
Not having skin in the game means you have no appreciation for the effects of your actions. Feminists have been progressing from the stance that women don't have skin in the game, so to speak... or put another way, that 'it's not a Zero-Sum game'....which, of course, it is.
Which is why women are finding out rather rudely these days that no, you can't continually dump on men throughout all of your attractive years, then count on them being there for you when you're too old and tired to pick up the 'best and brightest'. Women in general will find this problem is going to grow for quite a few years before it gets better, even if we reverse things right now.
And frankly, speaking as a White Male (designated oppressor), I have absolutely no sympathy for any of you, or what you and your daughters are going to experience.
In fact, I hope this entire generation of young women hate their mothers passionately for what they've done to men and society.
But I do hope we can rectify this so that the generations to follow can have a shot at a stable society.
"So obviously, many women DID shoot, as your grandma's proof of."
Yes,they shot...SQUIRRELS AND RABBITS.
"And your logic, anon, is horrible. Having a job and fighting in the military are the only things making one worthy of having a legal say in this country?"
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.
For the last time. If you cannot or will not defend your freedoms with your OWN LIFE,you do not deserve freedom.
How many times do I have to say it?
Any idea how many men have died to defend your freedom so far? Any idea at ALL?
It's in the tens of millions,I'd bet. If you put women's deaths or sacrifices ANYWHERE near that number you are DELUSIONAL.
"the claim that women do nothing, or nothing to deserve the vote, is pathetic. You blatantly ignore every other accomplishment women have made, the different work they've done as women to help men, so don't give me that crap. Your thinking is selective and uninformed."
Oh really? You think raising a kid is on par with putting a bullet in a person who wants to take your rights away? Are you shitting me? Obviously this is a joke.
Our Founding Fathers picked up their guns and repelled the British, that is the reason why ANYONE has a vote in this country. Without military action by MEN, we would be owned by the British right now and probably have NO rights. Go ahead and tell me that we have the right to vote because women raised babies,so everyone can see the whites of your lies.
"Women have never done anything."
Name one woman who has ever founded a democratic country.
Yeah. Thought so.
"But to then turn that around and act as though the egalitarians didn't exist...I don't agree with that."
Perhaps you're too close to the issue. The idea that a group of good women existed who granted you your rights out of benevolent egalitarianism is too central to your core beliefs.
The fact is that men gave you your rights. The same men that feminists have been telling you were your oppressors. Men gave them to you because we thought it would be a nice thing to do, and women turned around and have been stabbing men in the back for over 100 years since that time.
That is the ugly truth, and believe me, I find it just as distasteful as you do, but it is necessary to witness this ugliness and to testify to it, so it doesn't happen again.
That's what history is for, to keep people from repeating the same mistakes.
I just wanted to add that I love women. I really do. But I am not going to pretend that they had the RIGHT to vote,because technically speaking, voting is not a "right" but a privilege earned with bravery and blood.
Every time you go to the polls you are cashing in the blood of millions of men who thought that people in this country ought to be able to vote. It is not a "right".
Lovely person you are, Factory, if you care nothing for daughters. In any case, you're forgetting the clear fact that men, too, gained the vote eventually, even if they had no "skin in the game". I hate what modern feminism has become, but putting them into the same category as all the early ones won't fly. Not all people were like Margaret Sanger, just as not all anti-misandrists now hate all women.
"Men gave them to you because we thought it would be a nice thing to do, and women turned around and have been stabbing men in the back for over 100 years since that time"
Yeah..not nearly so simple. Many men acted horribly at that time; you think they would have budged if women hadn't pushed? Implying that men just gave women the vote like a nice little gift package with no pushing, out of the goodness of their hearts? LOL There are radiation companies who didn't improve their safety standards (not to mention countless factories) until people demanded they change. So who really gave us the current safety standards? The protestors, not the company owners. The men who did show respect and kindness to women are to be respected, and so are the grand majority of men today. Feminists today are not the same women who fought for the vote while raising kids, so your implication that the same hateful tide of women have been attacking men ever since is faulty.
Anon, your logic is beyond sad. Women DID risk their lives by defending their homes, going in the military (as they are AGAIN doing right now), and being close to war by trying to save the lives of wounded men. Many of the great men in history would never have accomplished what they did without the help and support of their wives. As for raising kids, you really have no idea the impact of forming future men and women, do you? Very sad. Your logic is pitiful and your mind very ignorant.
And btw, Anon, women do have jobs now in case you've forgotten. THAT'S why the feminists fought, and what they fought for. You're speaking against the very same women who fought to have what YOU say is the only thing giving anyone a right to a say in this country. Yours is a no-way street, honey.
(Sorry if posted twice--please only post 1. ;-) )
If you applied that argument to race, then there are those who might say that because they don't agree with what Obama has done to this country to wreck the economy, then white people should never have given black people the benevolent kindness of a vote just like every other human being. He and those who have favored his extreme and destructive policies have to be held accountable at the ballot box. But if I took it a step further and said that black people should lose the vote, as though it's some nice little gift I gave that they don't deserve--then that would make me a bigot. I don't want to be that; I don't want to be consumed by hatred even though I believe Obama and his political cohorts are doing us terribly wrong.
Frankly, I want to be the bigger person...especially since he and his comrades have been the ones making the nastiest, most incendiary and hateful remarks towards the majority of the population as though the past oppression they suffered somehow "justifies" a hateful attitude.
I have been the victim of black-on-white racism. I know EXACTLY how nasty and hurtful it is. I come from a city that has suffered and continues to suffer the absolute worst pain from its racial history that you could possibly imagine. I KNOW what it is like to be part of a majority that is then dumped upon by members of a minority.
Yet even with that, even with being in a place where the prevailing culture constantly tells me I am evil and an oppressor (when I most certainly did not do anything to merit such labels), I am going to judge each individual person by the content of their character, as I want done towards me.
This is something I believe all men and all women deserve as well: to be judged as individuals. I do believe there were those who simply believed in equal rights for all. I believe, though, that the feminists have USED those people's good will as a disguise for their own agenda. What good women need to do is to quit allowing feminists to use them as a "front" to lend a veneer of legitimacy to their activities. They also need to realize that the only way for us to move forward is to realize that our interests--men and women both--are completely and totally linked to each other and to see it as anything less is to end up with somebody getting shafted.
We should not, for instance, speak of mothers' rights anymore--but parents: it is good that women can get maternity leave, for instance, but to act as though the father's role is less important and not deserving of the exact same consideration is inhuman to my mind. If the mother-child bond is SO important in that critical time, then so too is the bond with the father! (And that's just ONE example in the parenthood arena...I could name many.) Nor should we speak of "women's crisis centers" anymore--ANYONE who is a victim of violent crime, sexual abuse, or any such crime should receive the utmost in respect both in private AND in society, and should not have to be the butt of humor at their expense. And the criminals have to be addressed and PUNISHED as such regardless of their gender. A criminal is a criminal, no more--no less. And marriage should be an institution of total respect and total consideration and dare I say submission by both parties...women should not be chattel and they should not use the courts to treat men and children as chattel: for we are not purchasers of beings to play with and then sell back when we're through.
For feminists it's all about what THEY want and what THEY think they deserve. To my mind, as a Christian it should be all about what EACH AND EVERY one of God's children deserves, for we are all created and loved by God. And that is where my closeness to the issues comes from: I can't look at anybody who suffers, whatever the reason, and sit there and act as though it's right. I won't be ashamed of that or step back.
"For the last time. If you cannot or will not defend your freedoms with your OWN LIFE,you do not deserve freedom"
So anyone who's physically unable to join the army doesn't deserve freedom?
As others have pointed out, women ARE IN THE ARMY NOW. They've been successful leaders of countries, often cleaning up the messes male leaders left behind. And if they haven't ruled as often as men, who's fault is that? Who designed the system of inheritance, wether money or monarchy, to go only to male heirs? The first feminists fought to do what women do now, have jobs and fight in the military (though women have had different kinds of jobs for centuries) which according to you, is the only thing making someone worthy of the vote, yet you condemn them for it. Seems like you think women should just shut up, not vote and be grateful to the almighty males who allowed them to live in "their" country. You're the best argument I've ever seen yet for the feminist movement.
Leslie
Mr. Anon should be aware that only 1 in 6 families now have a non-working wife. Most women work, even in home businesses, and those who don't work outside the home help their husbands by devoting their full time to raising their children and taking care of their home. Many, many non-working moms don't work because they're homeschooling as many as five to ten children in the Christian community.
"Every time you go to the polls you are cashing in the blood of millions of men who thought that people in this country ought to be able to vote"
You mean MALE people? I don't think they fought just for males. So why should you?
I'm glad you love women anon, but you sound so mad at them. I hope you consider all the words here, about the different ways women have fought, how many are LITERALLY fighting now and that this labor, this fighting was part of what the first feminists fought for, the right to WORK for, and in, their country. Many women lost fingers and gained cancer in risky factories and work places, some of which were the only places they were allowed to have jobs. I think their deaths and hard work are deserving of the vote, and they fought to be able to work even more.
Voting is a right, of people who work and/or fight for this country. Speakers and writers fight for it; thousands of NON-military men and women work for it. And women, again, now physically fight for it too; you are cashing in the blood of women now, and many women even then. Trust me, Anon: I honor the men who die for us so much. I can't IMAGINE what they go through, nor can I imagine being the kind of she-monster who rags on these men and puts them down in any way. And I'm not even trying to compare it to other roles in this country, because there's no point; everyone has a different place, a different role. But just because not everyone CAN fight in war, or in wars of the PAST which really can't be changed, doesn't mean those who work and pay and live in this country, in whichever venue they have, don't deserve the right to have some kind of say in what goes on here. I knew Obama was a fraud; my sex and physical history have nothing to do with that, and thank God I and millions of other women (and men) whether military or not were able to say so in a ballot. In times like that, we need all the educated voices we can get, combat or otherwise.
Evers, you're a Christian! That explains perfectly your balanced views.
Anon, you may wish to check out a film on Youtube called "The Monstrous Regiment of Women". You see, the makers of that film strongly oppose feminism, in every aspect. They also oppose women in the military. Why? They claim that such women are a handicap, are in danger, and can cost civilians (and their male partners) their lives. On the other hand, there's a book called "The Manipulated Male", which claims women should, even must join the military because they're tougher than men and can help. I find both sides interesting here, and both with valid points. My personal opinion is that a woman should be allowed in the army if she fits the requirements; otherwise, she is a handicap; we can't help our physical design, anon. Of course, women are also now pilots of fighter jets and astronauts, both things they weren't formerly able to do. I think it's important to get a well-rounded view of things; not all men WANT women bleeding and dying in the military, for a myriad of reasons. Should we always push ourselves in then, to earn our vote, even if our soldiers already there don't like it? It's just not a simple issue, and never has been.
My intent was never to make a contest between men and women, to see who died the most or who's the most noble (a ridiculous and pointless thing to do anyway). It's been a biological and historical fact that men die sooner, often from hard work. My feelings were never to dishonor such men, simply to point out the vital fact that there are different kinds of sacrifices and work, many bloody and many not, that I believe earns the privilege to vote, to have a say in who runs the country our families and future generations live in.
Jennifer--I wish that it always did, but I have seen people twist the Bible in both directions to serve their purposes. That is something we always have to be careful of, I believe.
But I do very much believe that in Christ there are not gender or race or status distinctions--that we must honor everyone. I am planning on a pair of posts soon where I will address gender issues, but I don't have them written yet.
I'm not going to address any of your hateful anti-male replies to me as at this point much of it would be me refuting points that you say I made that I never,in fact,said.
What I said was this: WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. NEITHER DO MEN. DEMOCRACY IS A PRIVILEGE PAID FOR BY MEN'S LIVES.
I won't debate this point with you,it only shows how ignorant you are by arguing with me because you don't like the sound of the truth.
None of you are even half-assed aware of how much in your lives depends on men. But you will be in time. You will live to see a day where men no longer protect you,provide for you, produce for you or associate with you.
I want you to remember your disrespectful comments about men on that day. Your lack of any respect for anyone but yourselves is the reason you will no longer benefit from men's sacrifices.
One ought to question the widely held but generally uncontested assumption that it was a form of "oppression" to deny the franchise to women.
Modern polemicists who make that assertion are guilty of retrojection.
On the subject of the military--I have nothing but the deepest respect for veterans, and have many veterans in my family. The first job I ever remember wanting, when I was little, was to join the Air Force and follow in my father's footsteps.
Unfortunately, as I got older, a physical condition became apparent that would most likely make me ineligible for the service despite all of my desires, or if I were able to get in under the radar, cause me to go out on medical discharge very quickly. That was a sad thing for me to come to understand. I am able to function well in daily life, thank God, but even three years in a physically demanding civilian occupation did damage. Under some of the logic I am seeing, someone like myself who has a physical condition preventing military service would not be permitted to reap the benefits of their more physically-able counterparts.
I had always understood the point of military service to be that of giving of oneself for the sake of those who cannot, not simply giving for one's own sake.
Now, I would like to see more women in the military, so long as the standards of performance are not compromised by allowing it (because clearly I do not want to increase the risk to those who are currently serving). I think the Israelis have the right idea by requiring both men and women to serve when they come of age, and were the draft to go into effect again, I do not think it should be a male-only thing: if a woman is capable, she should be required as well.
Obviously caution would have to be taken to make sure that children still have a parent at home, but if the mother were drafted first, then the father should receive the privilege to stay home and care for his son or daughter. (And obviously the stereotype must be eliminated that he is any less capable in the single-parenting role than the child's mother, that a child needs him less.)
Our Founding Fathers picked up their guns and repelled the British, that is the reason why ANYONE has a vote in this country. Without military action by MEN, we would be owned by the British right now and probably have NO rights.
This is rubbish.
There are several modern western nations who were originally colonised by the British. Not one of them is as you describe here.
Just a quick reminder...I do my best not to publish comments that resort to name calling or personal attacks. Please feel free to express your opinion, but refrain from employing the aforementioned tactics while doing so.
That's precisely how I feel about the military, Evers. The claim that these men were dying for shallow women who didn't aprpeciate them is just bollocks.
>Women have been helping men for centuries, by being their wives
women got holidays when compared to what men have done over the centuries. They didn't so much help men as perpetuate themselves.
>raisers of their children,
Women raised their own children. They don't raise mens children, they raise their OWN children. Women are not doing anybody a favor and dont deserve any recognition for perpetuating themselves.
>and comforting partners.
Haragans and termagants. Have women as comforting partners built men homes to live in and roads to drive on?
LOL
>They've helped men defend their property
helped does not equal having defended.
>They raise the next generation
They raised the next generation because men were off doing important things. And look where we are now, women having raised the next generation.
>they've served as nurses in the military, and they've done this without being asked
weh-heh-hey. Women doing stuff without being asked. Wowzers.
>some raise the children of the men who do
They raise their own children. They dont raise mens children.
They aren't doing anyone a favor.
@Jenniffer
>those who don't work outside the home help their husbands by devoting their full time to raising their children and taking care of their home.
They dont help their husbands squat. They raise their own children, not the husbands children.
Taking care of the home, you mean taking care of the home that THEY live in?
Or is a home of squalor the female default when there isn't a husband around.
Heh.
Not that there'd even be a home.
Hi Kim,
Interesting Blog. You might want to know that difference feminism is on the rise. There are many of us who share your views. Perhaps you won't see Feminism as such a bad thing after all. Please visit my blog and stay in touch.
http://true-feminism.blogspot.com/
Hi Kim,
Interesting blog. There are different schools of feminism and difference feminism does exist. I do think we can find ways to get men and women to behave like real men and women, without resorting to destroying either side or turning things into an endless court battle.
You might want to check out my blog on Feminism.
http://true-feminism.blogspot.com/
Anonymous 1141 said...
That's precisely how I feel about the military, Evers. The claim that these men were dying for shallow women who didn't aprpeciate them is just bollocks.
That a fact? How about you do me a quick favor, Google the terms "order of the white feather WWI" for me would ya?
For those not in the know, in England during WWI women handed out white feathers to any man not in uniform to shame them into joining the army.
Here
Also here
And here
Anon, your logic is pathetic, as I've said before. Don't even bother trying to argue; it's a sad attempt.
"They raised the next generation because men were off doing important things"
LOL!!
jennifer..i AM in the army.and trust me i know stuff better than any writer or author out there.you see whenevr we have drills our seargent asks us to slow down as if we dont women will accuse us of showing our 'masculinity'...and women in the army are props and nothing else.go ahead and check out how many women died in the afghan war..you'll be surprised..you know why because..women write letters to their group leader to not send them into dangerous situations..
>Anon, your logic is pathetic
Projection
Hi Anon. This is exactly why I pointed out how certain men don't WANT women in the military, and how many aren't fit to join.
God bless you for your service.
I'm sorry Nick, I meant to address you with your name, not as "anon".
I might add that inspite of your words, there are some men who are still going as far as to suggest that women should register for being drafted.
Well, those women were sick, Tired. However, most women are clearly not like that now; THOSE women were impressed only by soldiers, while many women today are different.
I think that if women were required by law to register for selective service when they turned 18, while it might seem like a "symbolic" act, I think it would drive home the personal responsibility that you're discussing here, for this country and the blood that must be shed at times for its rights.
Israel takes what I consider to be a very sensible approach, in that everyone is subject to the draft, everyone MUST serve in the IDF, and that includes men and women.
As far as what has happened in the US, this is a very basic look on the Selective Service site as to various discussions about women and the draft:
http://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm
Personally, I think that women SHOULD be subject to the draft just the same as men. Knowing that you could be called upon to serve would bring a very different mindset, I think. We would have to be very cautious to avoid the garbage with deferrals that went on during Vietnam, but I think the law could be re-drawn to avoid that. If (for instance) you're going to have mothers exempted for a certain period of time after a child is born, then the fathers should receive the exact same exemption. (Because if your argument is that the woman's presence at that time in the child's life is that crucial, then the man's is equally crucial; I can't see how it could be otherwise.) That's just one example. A lot would have to go into it, but I think that if we looked at how the Israelis do it, we might be able to come up with something more equitable than what we have now.
Still, though, even if something like this happened--I haven't seen an answer from those saying that only those capable of and willing to fight deserve rights: what about those who have a physical condition that would not allow them to fight? As mentioned before, I wish I could have joined the military, but would not be able to pass the physical requirement. Does that mean I don't deserve rights?
I have one more source about the women and the draft issue--this one may be a bit more readable, though it seems to be written from a feminist perspective. (It still gets to the same ultimate conclusion I'm driving at, though--that women should be required to serve just like men.)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/258291/women_in_the_selective_service_time_pg4.html?cat=9
I visited Savia's blog, and immediately felt like I needed a shower.
There's a woman who goes by the name of Hortense there who openly advocates the following:
- Men submitting to compulsory gender-changing hormone therapy.
- Men being forcibly made to lactate via various medical means.
- Eugenics programs that promote womb implantation, I assume into men.
- Wholesale destruction of masculinity.
Savia's response?
"Welcome to the blog!"
This is the face of the enemy. She claims to tell the truth about feminism. It sounds like the same Nazi-esque philosophy that has been promoted for decades.
But, at least Savia and the filth that contributes to her blog are wearing easily spotted colors.
I can tell you that no man will be saying "Heil, Fuehrer" to these sad excuses for human beings any time soon.
I think it interesting to note that the very first presidential election that took place in which women voted was for Warren G. Harding. It wasn't because he was that effective in convincing them that he would look after their interests, but because they fell for his charm. He himself had often credited the women for his ascendency.
Of course, he was the most corrupt president in history, until Nixon came along. He cheated on his wife as well.
But hey...he was a dashing sort and quite alluring. So much for women being truly informed of the issues. They deserved to vote, alright.
It's never surprising when people aren't well informed that they make bad choices...that's HUMAN nature, not female nature. But you're practicing circular logic here.
1) A group is poorly educated
2) That group is given power and makes a poor decision
3) Therefore that group should remain poorly educated
That just perpetuates the problem without actually addressing the root cause. I'm sorry, but all human beings are capable of being superficial and are more likely to do so without a good education.
Ironically, the reasoning some people drew from the Bible to justify inequality was the exact same thing. Women were ignorant, then blurted out in church because they were ignorant. What else do you expect if you don't give people an education? The response we get from Paul is that they should ask questions and learn from their husbands--which was in contrast to the prevailing attitude of the day that women should not even be permitted to learn. The trouble was that no one paid attention to that part for another 1900 years...all they heard was "be silent," not "get an education."
Seems to me that you're employing the same kind of reasoning, which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The key is quality of education, not gender here.
These days, though, I think that ALL people--men and women alike--need a media education course that would make them more aware of advertising and political trickery, because I see men and women alike make the most boneheaded of decisions based on some sound bite off of TV. But does that mean I think those people are peons? No, I think they are unaware and that situation needs to be corrected.
I was reading your blog with quite some admiration until I hit this line: "Women were not oppressed by men. They were cared for, loved and sheltered by men. Men fought, bled and died for their wives and children. The greatest love of all is to lay down one’s life for another…and this is what feminists have dubbed “oppression”….effectively twisting and vilifying tremendous love and sacrifice."
How does it all work out? We can blame the entire world of women for the wrongs they have committed (in the name of feminism) but we (and justly so, I agree with you that stereotyping is naughty) go the other way when it comes to men, completely disregarding the fact that some men have indeed oppressed women. And I'm not citing some silly statistics here or claiming that movies portray an accurate picture of our society, but I go by my own experiences and those of loved ones.
I don't believe any group of people should take the blame of the wrongdoings of a minority within that group. Same goes for women. What purpose ar eyou hoping to serve by badmouthing women in general? I am aware that you attempt to make distinctions between feminist brats and real women like yourself, but that is still villifying a large group of women who may simply be misguided.
When I read this blog I slowly realized why so many women are allowing themselves to be brainwashed with feminist ideas--it's because of morals like your own, they want to break free from that. In my family, my husband and I are trying hard to break free from the notion that good comes out of sacrificing oneself for the common good (which ironically sounds a lot like communism), a legacy left behind by the generations before us. And we find that the greatest joy comes to us and the kids when each person fulfills his or her own true bliss. So self-sacrifice is not only unnecessary but damaging because by not following your inner guidance (and instead some distant guru of morality) one person does the most damage to the whole unit (family, group or society). You can only disrespect others if you disrespect yourself.
Cruelty knows no gender boundaries. We are all alike. My mom was abused by her mom, and then abused by her husband who was abused by his grandparents and father. Damaged children, whether girl or boy, grow into damaged adults.
Why many women think they are feminists -- and why they are wrong
I believe the pool of women that could be on the side of the anti-misandrist is far greater than the total number of women and men who are misandrist.
Most women, on the sidelines of the feminist agenda, will hold onto feminism rather than reject the advantages it has brought to women.
-- And who can blame them, until they realise the damage it does?
Excellent post, Douglas.
This is a clip talking about how feminism got started. I had no idea. I wonder if modern day feminist know this. Although I don't dislike feminism completely, I do have many problems with it, and its nice to know I am not the only one dislikes it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NbS9yyQ2HQ&feature=related
Post a Comment