I can show evidence that *blacks* are lazy, watermelon eating bums, but that does not mean every person who is black (or even a significant percent of them) is lazy, likes watermelon, or is a bum. I can show that *jews* are tight fisted and moneygrubbing and that they are taking over many areas like jewelery making and finance, but that does not mean all or even most jewish people are that way, nor does it mean there is some conspiracy. I can find *evidence* of anything. However, rarely can one truly *prove* bigotry in an objective way.
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.
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.
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.
There is NO way you can prove that. Not only is it bigotry, but it is unsupportable. It is very feminist of you to say things like that, then claim you have proof. Sounds reminiscent of the "all men are rapists" line. They could *prove* that too. You claim to be only against feminism, but I call bullsh*t on that. Your words say another story.
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.
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?
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).
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?
How many women from the 19th and 20th Centuries were willing to confront the feminists? 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. 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.
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.
Here is the thing. Right here on this board, we have several women who are not "selfish and immoral". Typhon and I both are honest women who put men's rights as a high priority in our lives. She runs a blog and I am editing the NCFM~GNY newsletter. Contrary Mary has stood by a man falsely accused and been the object of fear and hatred and ostrasization because of it. How about Christina Hoff Summers, Reena Sommers Marsha Blackburn,Tammy Bruce, Wendy McElroy, Phyllis Schlafly, Trudy Schuett, Teri Stoddard, all women who speak out openly in the media on behalf of men? We have just proven your objective observation false.
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.
You 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.
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?
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.
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*.
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).
The women basically saved themselves ahead of the children, and that shows that even back then, they were selfish and immoral.
In other words, the women were willing to put the lives of children at risk, just so that they could save themselves. Only an immoral, self-centred and evil beast would place the needs of itself ahead of the safety of a child.
All the children in first class were saved, but not all the women. You cannot even say that these women were selfish, because their children were saved at a higher rate than they were (and it wasn't their choice anyway). The way the boat was designed, they could not have done anything for the children in the third class, which is where the most children were. I think the idea that men OR women were shoving the kids aside so that women could be saved is ridiculous. You may have had a few men and women who did that, but the vast majority of people wanted the kids saved first. That is human nature, and that is what happened. The life boats were being sent off with a fraction of the people they could hold.
The whole thing was a debacle. You cannot say the women were solely responsible for the way the lifeboats were filled, because in all likelyhood they had little say, other than refusing to get on. Social roles, for better or worse, were that women would have followed the orders of the men running the evacuation, and the men would have put women and children first.
I wanted to talk about THAT, the social structures which made men put the safety of women first, and what benifits and responsibilities and difficulties each sex got from those social roles.[/quote]
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.