While there will always be exceptions to the rule, one cannot dispute that it is almost unheard of for any demographic to possess an even 50-50 split between morally correct and evil persons.
I am not sure what you are trying to get at here.
T
he Biscuit Queen wrote:
You made a claim that western women were selfish and immoral, and without using "some" or "many" you by default have meant "all".
Now you're trying to make an assumption about my comment, by stating what you THINK I meant, however you cannot say with 100% conviction that you KNOW what I was trying to insinuate.
I will admit that I should have worded my statement in a more precise manner, and for that I apologise. However, if you BOTHERED to read my entire post - instead of taking it out of context - then you would see that I was trying to explain that the existence of a selfish and immoral woman DOES NOT seem to be confined to a Matriarchal society that is under *complete* feminist-socialist rule.
Apology accepted. That is just a rule around here, you must put "some" or "many" in front of general terms or it will be seen as "all", which is why you got a warning. Semantics, but it allows us to be clear.
A LOT of women from the 19th and 20th Centuries ALLOWED feminism to grow, and in my opinion, that is a sign that the pro-feminist women cared more about themselves than they did about their children and husbands/fathers/brothers.
A lot of men also allowed feminism to grow. You must also realize that early feminists were simply asking for the right to vote. You cannot use today's views and look apon yesterday assuming they all know what we do now. To those early men and women, asking for women tohave the right to vote and later work outside the home were laudable goals.
A LOT of the English women from the early 20th Century were shunning the men who refused to offer their services to the military during World War 1, and that shows that the women of that time were more concerned about a *Government Agenda* than they were about the welfare of men.
As Devia said, a lot of men were also shunning those who refused to fight. Also remember that women were not ALLOWED to fight. You cannot blame women for not fighting if they were not allowed to. I personally agree with you that the white feather movement was pretty horrible, but I also do not live in that time. Things were different then.
Based on that, I would like to ask you the following question:
1. Would a morally correct and selfless person stand in the safety of their country - and never set foot on a battlefield - and tell EVERYONE ELSE to give their lives up for their nation?
Oh, you mean like President Bush?
Old English Law ensured that women were given a LOT of legal impunity, as they were unable to enjoy the full spectrum of rights, however the early feminists felt that women should be *entitled* to both concepts. Men have always been required to take accountability for their actions, and during the implementation of Old English Law, the men were responsible for the actions that were performed by their wives (ie. If a woman spent her husbands money, he would serve time in Debtors Prison).
I agree those things are wrong. It is one of the reasons I feel that women were never oppressed in western society.
Based on that, I would like to ask you the following question:
1. Would a morally correct and selfless person support a movement that offers legal impunity and rights to women, while enforcing the belief that men should be held accountable for their actions?
I think that it is easy for us now to look back and see the flaws in the movement. I think that it was not so clear to the men and women who first supported feminism.
How many women from the 19th and 20th Centuries were willing to confront the feminists?
First wave feminists were not publicly asking for anything which needed standing up to.
During the 1960's, how many of the women were confronting the second-wave-feminists? It is only now that SOME women have began to stand up to the feminists, and usually it is because they have REALISED that it's in their OWN best interests to do so.
I agree that few women have stood up to second wave feminists. I think some of that is not biting the hand that feeds you, some of it is trusting the propaganda, and much of it is most humans are too busy living their lives to worry about social politics. Doesn't make it right, but there it is.
You have no idea why we chose to start standing up for men. You are making assumptions.
For the last 160 years, women have been trying to obtain the privileges of chivalry and feminism, and VERY FEW of them have ever stood up and defended the men of society.
As I said, this was a long time in coming, and early feminists in public were very reasonable. Men have benefitted in some ways by feminism, with loosening of social roles men are spending more time than ever in history with their kids. Overall, I think feminism has done far more damage than good, though, we agree there.
If you believe that I am a bigot, then that is your prerogative, however it doesn't worry me the slightest. I am friends with a woman who is the daughter of a Diplomat, and a woman who is in her 50's and she has her own family. Both of those women are anti-feminist, and they perform a LOT of good work for the Men's Movement, and I value their contributions. I have always defended their reputation when they were under attack from other men and women, and in the process it led to me enduring quite a bit of abuse from the feminists.
This seems pretty irrelevant to me.
While you MAY have good intentions, and while you HAVE performed some good deeds for the Men's Movement, I don't think you can compare tyhponblue and yourself to the hard-working women such as Christina Hoff Sommers. I have always lauded Christina Hoff Summers, Phyllis Schlafly and Wendy McElroy, as they have performed a LOT of good deeds for the Men's Movement.
I think that you have no idea what I do for the men's movement outside of what I told you. I never claimed I was of that inflence, but then again, neither are you. We all do what we can. I am not a nationally sindicated writer, so even if I put in as many hours as they, my influence will not be the same.
Y
ou on the other hand have admitted to being a feminist, and I am not convinced that your motivation in supporting *Men's Rights* does not stem from a personal agenda. You could be the most wonderful person on this planet, however I cannot know with certainty if that is the case. There is always the possibility that you COULD be the type of woman who has realised that feminism has reached it's peak. There is the possibility that you COULD BE looking out for your own best interests, by pretending to align herself with men, while defending the privileges that feminism and chivalry has offered women.
That is right, you do not know me. So until you do, perhaps you should refrain from making wild assumptions as to my motivations. You could try asking the men here who I have known for years, in some cases. Yes, years ago I was a feminist. It has been a long time. I am twice your age, you have to realize that who I was when I was your age is a lifetime ago.
typhonblue has made a few generalisations that are completely fallacious. I have offered a thorough refutation of her claims - http://www.mens-rights.net/forum/index.php?topic=104.0 - and to be honest, I think that she MAY be an attention-seeker who COULD be a *Female Supremacist*. Also, were you willing to chastise typhonblue for the bigoted, fallacious and illogical claims that were made by typhonblue?
I do call typhon on things I disagree with, and that is often. I do not agree with her much, and I do not even get along with her that well. However, I do respect that she trying to do, I do think after knowing her for years that she is sincere and passionate and doing what she feels is right.
In other words, I am trying to state that some of the women who declare themselves as *Anti-Feminist*, tend to be quite selfish and bigoted, and are merely looking out for their best interests.
You have no clue if we are selfish or bigotted. Nothing I have written could lead anyone to that conclusion that wasn't searching for it. Search for something and you can find anything.
Of course women are going to stand up to feminism, as it has led to them becoming extremely unhappy, but it doesn't mean they care about the plight of men. Where were those selfless women during the Vietnamese War, World War 2 and World War 1? They sure as hell weren't on the battlefields, nor were they standing outside Parliament House, in defense of men and the sexist nature of the *Draft*.
Women did not have the ability to be on the battlefield-they were and are forbidden from there. The great irony is that NOW and other feminist organizations support allowing women in battle, and many support either abolishing the draft altogether or adding women to it. It remains men who want women out. For good reasons, in some cases, I will not argue that point, I see both sides. But you cannot blame feminism for that, the military has been exclusively male in western society for centuries before feminism came along. There are I believe a few exceptions, as I think Russia had female soldiers.
The various editorials that are written about feminism tend to focus on the manner in which women are *unhappy* due to feminism, and try to insinuate that it is the most horrific injustice that exists at present. Those very same articles tend to ignore the fact that feminist ideology has led to an anti-male law system, which has caused men to lose their money as well as losing custody of their children, and being falsely accused of crimes they never committed. Those very same articles refuse to acknowledge the reason as to why 80% of suicide victims are male. They try to portray it as a *Crisis in Masculinity*, as they try to conceal the source of the problem (ie. That fact that the concepts of chivalry and feminism can be unbearable for some men).
You are absulutely right, preaching to the choir here.
Well I must admit that I never viewed the subject from such a perspective, so I will acknowledge that you're in the right. I apologise for not viewing the situation from a neutral perspective.
Yes, you are right about the Titanic, and it was unacceptable for me to have said the following; "The women basically saved themselves ahead of the children, and that shows that even back then, they were selfish and immoral."
So I apologise.
Bygones.
