Goodbye Feminism

Started by angryharry, Aug 21, 2005, 10:17 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr Benn

I think the way some American women have treated Iraqi men is shameful.

ww.CoolTools4Men.com

bluegrass

Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "DLove"
I read the entire thread lkanneg and I am asking you, for you to please give me some better examples of women being oppressed. Please help me understand just what the widely used term "oppressed women" means and some valid examples. Now when one speaks of slavery...now that is oppression, being forced to work with no pay or being savagely beaten or even killed with no legal recourse...yeah I think would be considered oppression. My thanks to you in advance.

DLove


Okay, here I am (finally, sorry, lol).  

For the definition of "oppressed," let's look at my friend Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: opĚpress
1:  to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority  

I think the key phrase here is "abuse of power or authority."  Which means, in order for women to be oppressed by men, (a) the men had to have power or authority over them and (b) the men had to abuse that power/authority.  

"Power or authority" is most commonly granted, and easiest to see when it is granted, legally.  So the question would be, were there laws that (a) granted men power/authority over women and (b) was that power/authority abused?  

I think this post is getting unwieldy so I'll just pick one example, from the past...how about marital rape?  Until VERY recently in the past, there was no such legal concept as "marital rape."  The legal outlook on this was, once a woman consents to marriage, she can never refuse to have sex with her husband.  The legal definition of rape was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent." So, men were granted complete sexual power/authority over their wives...and when that authority was abused, she had no legal recourse at all.


I think my biggest problem with most feminist doctrine is that it so often presents circular logic:

person 1: "Men oppressed women in the Western world."

person2: "How so?"

person1:  "Unitl recently, women didn't have the same legal rights as men, such as with ownership of property."

person2:  "Why was that?"

person1:  "Because men oppressed women in the Western world."

So I'd like to ask lkanneg -- as an academic exercise -- what else do you know about English Commonlaw and its evolution?  How'd it start?  How were property disputes and legal disputes handled?

It just seems to me that most people know precious little else about historical context other than a small bit of detail which supports their initial assumption.


A good book on the subject is "1215:  the Year of Magna Carta."
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

bluegrass

Here's a page with lots of relevant stuff regarding women and English common law:

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/english_common_law.html
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

DLove

Thanks lkanneg, I proposed to you a difficult question for most feminist to answer and although you chose to marital rape as the only 1 example to prove your point of how women were oppressed, I find it a poor example. No one really knows what transpires behind the closed door of a bedroom in the 18/19th century and just because modern law has expanded the legal definition of rape to include a wife that receives unwanted advances from her husband, this 21st legal definition can not be used in a debate that says "since women (wives) did not have a 21st century law and recourse for said unwanted advances (even if it was never needed) therefore they were oppressed (abuse of power or authority). The idea of a husband forcing himself on his wife is a visual; image used by feminist to demonstrate a mans power, however in reality, as a man you know that if you injure or hurt your bed mate you will suffer many, many unpleasant nights in the future. I believe you can do better than that.

DLove

D

Quote from: "lkanneg"


I care about lots of issues, not just feminist issues...why do I care about "issues" in general?  Um, that would be a really long answer, full of philosophical ruminating....not sure you actually *want* me to go into that kind of detail, lol.


Oh, so evade the question.  Okay.  

Quote

That's a strange point of view.  I agree that the *act* of marital rape is anti-marriage, but the act of attempting to eliminate it certainly isnt.  A marriage without rape is a much stronger marriage than a marriage with rape, wouldn't you think?


It's not a strange point of view.  It's right on target to the intended purpose.  The issue isn't brought up to eliminate it at all.  None of the issues feminists have brought have been eliminated.  Even when their proven wrong they go out of their way to mislead us yet again to keep the racket going.  

If the stated goal in the very beginning was "Marriage must be done away with", than everything after that has led to that ends.  

It's the constant focusing on the negative aspects.  The constant power play within the dynamics of marriage.  It's all very incremental.  It's conditioning.

Quote

Oh, now, that's silly.  My biology does not subordinate me to men.  It makes me *different* from a man, but not *less* than one.  I don't really know what Moses thought about biology and I bet it wasn't anything useful in the 21st century, lol.


Sure it does.  I don't think you're less than a man by any means, but to day you're subordinated to men I think is quite accurate.  Women depend on men, they always have and they always will.

I don't make this statement because of sexism, or mysoginy or any other reason than objectivity.  

Genesis really knew what it was talking about.  Women by nature are dependants.  The whole feminist movement states that fact each and every single day.  Even though I don't for a second think feminism as it is today has anything to do with women specifically other than a means to an ends for a select few.

My real feelings are that women and men are two halves of the same pea, and were meant to be together.  Thus counterbalancing eachother's points.

Russ2d

Ikanneg's views are classic feminism-

She wants to redefine nature from what it is to what she thinks it should be.

Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.

A cursory examination of our hormones and our cells reactions to said hormones on the brain and the body clearly show this.

Feminism is all about pretending that there is no order to the world, and then they seek laws and rules to force everyone to conform to this rather pathetic illusion.

D

Quote from: "Russ2d"
Ikanneg's views are classic feminism-

She wants to redefine nature from what it is to what she thinks it should be.

Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.

A cursory examination of our hormones and our cells reactions to said hormones on the brain and the body clearly show this.

Feminism is all about pretending that there is no order to the world, and then they seek laws and rules to force everyone to conform to this rather pathetic illusion.



Other's call it 'Darwinism'.  

Communists/Socialists etc... like this because they believe they can mold the world into their desired image.  Since those movements have failed they threw in feminism to try again.  I wonder if this is their last leg.

Russ2d

As far as I can tell they are winning...


There is a true backlash alive and kicking but it is going to be hard battle

Tigerman

Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Sounds about typical. Its called 'enjoying their independance'. What it mostly boils down to is enjoying their ability to wind almost any man around their little finger and obtain 24/7 clitoral pampering. Its one big ego-trip mind-game. What kinds of mothers and wives would such womyn make? Its not a pretty thought.


These are largely the same women who indulge heavilly in 'binge drinking' - unfortunatley for them their livers are not as robust as ours and in about twenty or thirty years *POW* - men will have to drink a LOT more just to close the gap back to parity in death rates! The 'sisters are doing it TO themselves'!

Tigerman

Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Galt"
That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.


Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.


Oh it is always easy to cherry pick from another culture what *you* don't like about it whilst hypocritically remaining blind to the glaring faults in ones own culture.

D

Quote from: "Russ2d"
As far as I can tell they are winning...


There is a true backlash alive and kicking but it is going to be hard battle


I agree.

My perception is that when the eugenics programs ramp up they will nullify male ingenuity, rebelliousness and create all around apthothetic individuals as slaves.

I'm sure women will have certain roles, either way it will still be gender roles,  but we'll be far more placated as a society.  I'm sure history books (if there are any) will make it all out to be 'advancement' in society.  The end of barbarity.  Designer 'serfs' if you will.

Hey, I think I just came up with a great idea for a porno.

D

Quote from: "Tigerman"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Galt"
That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.


Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.


Oh it is always easy to cherry pick from another culture what *you* don't like about it whilst hypocritically remaining blind to the glaring faults in ones own culture.



Not to mention the full story within that culture.  ie the disregard for male hardships.

Tigerman

Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
I would like to study closer the voting rights though.  Why women's votes were revoked.


Well, somebody mentioned New Jersey as a place where, for a time, women had the vote--here's the info I found on the web:

Did you know that New Jersey women voted in the 1790s?
by Bob Blythe

Everyone knows that American women first got the vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Right? Wrong! Some New Jersey women voted as early as 1776. Historians argue about just what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues meant when they declared "that all men are created equal." Did the founders mean males only or were there some situations when "men" could mean all humans? What natural or political rights, in their view, did women possess? The unique case of women voters in New Jersey offers some clues.

The framers of New Jersey's first constitution in 1776 gave the vote to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds ... and have resided within the county ... for twelve months." The other twelve new states restricted voting to men. Although some have argued that this gender-neutral language was a mistake, most historians agree that the clear intention was to allow some women to vote. Because married women had no property in their own names and were assumed to be represented by their husbands' votes, only single women voted in New Jersey. But, in the 1790s and 1800s, large numbers of unmarried New Jersey women regularly participated in elections and spoke out on political issues.

In 1807, the state's legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes. This was largely a result of the Democratic-Republican Party's attempt to unify its factions for the 1808 presidential election. A faction within the party wanted to deny the vote to aliens and the non-tax-paying poor. The liberal faction within the party gave way on this, but also took the vote from women, who tended to vote for the Federalist Party. In this way, New Jersey's 30-year experiment with female suffrage ended-not mainly because of opposition to the idea of women voting, but for reasons of party politics. A renewed focus on the importance of women in the home (as opposed to the public realm) may also have been a factor in the change.

Some historians have viewed the New Jersey episode as evidence that the founders entertained the possibility that women could have political rights. The emphasis on liberty and natural rights in the Revolutionary period brought previously excluded groups into the political process. For example, women took the lead in organizing boycotts of British goods in the disputes over colonial rights that led up to the Revolution. The writers of New Jersey's 1776 constitution took the natural rights sentiment further than other states were willing to go. Pretty clearly then, the idea of some women voting was considered one possibility among others in the Revolutionary era. By 1807, Revolutionary fervor was a distant memory, and New Jersey fell into line with the practice of the other states.

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html


Are you aware that civilisation as we know it didn't just fall out of the sky?
Every flagstone of civilisation was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears mainly of men. It has been a very difficult birth and in historical terms women were granted the privilege of the vote in hardly ANY TIME AT ALL and without having to pay the full price in blood.
:roll:

D

Quote from: "Tigerman"


Are you aware that civilisation as we know it didn't just fall out of the sky?
Every flagstone of civilisation was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears mainly of men. It has been a very difficult birth and in historical terms women were granted the privilege of the vote in hardly ANY TIME AT ALL and without having to pay the full price in blood.
:roll:



Come on.  To say women weren't there labouring and sacrificing so insignificantly is delusional.  I know feminists paint a false picture, but geez, we don't have to cut women out of the picture completely.  It was a joint effort and if it wasn't it wouldn't have survived.  Without balance things fall over.  Think about it.

lkanneg

Quote from: "neonsamurai"

I'm sure that there are a lot of Saudi Men who think English men are treated shamefully.

The question is now, whose culture is correct?


That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct."  JMO
quot;Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Something which we think is impossible now is not impossible in another decade."
-- Constance Baker Motley

"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got."
--Janis Joplin

Go Up