"Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots."
The Telegraph has a decent debate on gender today entitled "Are men victims of obnoxious feminism?":
Discriminated against, underpaid and worked to the bone. That's the lot of the modern man, an MP claimed yesterday. So is time for men to burn their briefs? Here, he defends himself, while a feminist reveals a surprising view....
Earlier this week I wrote that from cradle to grave, men are getting a raw deal. Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women. I also noted that while some say we should be less precious about light-hearted banter between the sexes, you can’t have it both ways. If sexism is wrong, the same standards apply to men and women. On the other hand, if you buy into the whole Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venustheory of gender difference – with all its pseudo science - you can’t complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions.
Labels: Male Bashing, male rights
posted by Helen at 6:41 AM
36 Comments:
Feminists are NOW among the most obnoxious bigots? When, during the past forty years, haven't they been?
Ern,
Agreed, but the new thing is that men are finally fighting back.
When, during the past forty years, haven't they been?
LOL
Feminists started out calling men, all men, "male chauvinist pigs" then "progressed" to "angry white male" and beyond. Sure signs of bigotry.
You know, all bigots are obnoxious. The problem with feminists is that they feel so justified and comfortable with their sin. It is like the arrogant attitudes of Southern slave owners or the KKK. There is no shame to their bigotry.
Can you imagine how much damage it is doing to our country?
Trey
I suspect feminists would argue that they can't be bigots because they lack power, just as some people claim minorities can't be racists. Both assertions are bullshit.
my wife`s daughter is still convinced that she`s a better soccer player than i am.
she got that idea along with the "boys lie and kind stink" jingle from her mother. the badge is still on the fridge.
of course femininsts are bigots.
remember; those behind you are losers, and those in front are assholes.
"I suspect feminists would argue that they can't be bigots because they lack power...."
The most hilarious such feminist assertion that I've encountered is that women have a mystical, supernatural connection to the earth--I mean Gaia--a connection that gives them wisdom and moral authority that men inherently lack.
Yes, a Blut und Boden argument.
Amazing.
Anyone who says that women have no power was never married to one.
Trey
Just a bit of a thought. Men are and are not victims. We are if you think ill will and attempts to undermine certain natural laws creates a victim. And, to some degree, that may be true. But more, we are not victims. If we were, or thought we were, we would be feminists... give or take. Just... saying.
As well, that is probably why all women are not feminists. Those women who are not feminists have chosen not to be victims (of the reality of their design, the way things work, or other real things which in no way should develop a victim mentality).
An interesting phenomenon is the reaction of women to troubles with men. If a guy can't get a date, he usually worries about what he s doing wrong. If a girl dumps him, he has a similar reaction.
If a woman has trouble finding a mate, the reaction is "all men are bastards," like the girl in the movie French Kiss. If a woman gets dumped, same reaction.
It makes it easy to explain male-female problems. Men are to blame. Men and women agree on that.
The exception is what happens when men get divorced and have children. Then, it is another story because they really are getting screwed. I know of a case where a doctor friend got divorced. He was a GP and hadn't been very busy, partly because he was so distracted by the divorce. The judge assigned alimony on what he estimated the doctor's income SHOULD be. He assumed the guy was dragging his feet to lower the alimony, except he wasn't.
Well, if he created the Fat Ass Who Wouldn't Work, then he has to pay for her. Either him or me (as a taxpayer), and I choose ... him.
Things in life cost money, including bragging about how you are able to support a total lard-ass. Well, then support her.
Doom, good point about the victim mentality and feminism. I minored in African American studies as an undergraduate, and the focus in every class I took was the strength and courage of black people in dealing with and standing up to bigotry and oppression. There was nary a touch of victimhood.
That is in such stark contrast to the Jackson and Sharpton victim mongers. America could sure use another Booker T. Washington who focused on black business ownership and strength rather than the current crop of pied pipers who are identified as black leaders.
Trey
@Tether,
How about option 3. Fat Ass takes care of herself, like an adult? An no one else is on the hook?
The problem there, is that she can choose to create herself, and he could have no say so on it. He's screwed either way.
After 20-25 years, your garden-variety housewife has no skills at all, she has no more capacity for any sustained work at all, and she is most likely bossy as hell.
It would be like putting a small child out in the world, except a small child is curious, it can learn, and it is not bossy as hell.
The reality is that they are absolutely useless, and it's either the taxpayers or Mister Very Important Husband.
And I have told live-in girlfriends who suddenly quit work to leach off me that either they find a job or I'm not going to be with them anymore. And I absolutely left one woman for that. So you DO have a choice.
And while I'm at it ...
In all of the admonitions I have seen for women to work in a marriage, they are all based on the fact that she shouldn't be dependent on the husband.
I have never seen the argument that she has a moral obligation to help out in the marriage and to not sit on her fat ass.
I really never see the latter argument, from men or women. Why not?
If women aren't equal ... then they friggin' shouldn't be equal in society. One or the other, not both sides against the middle with a smirk as to how stupid men are.
If you actually want to fight feminism in a low risk, no-cost, low-effort way :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html
Read this. It is a sequel to 'The Misandry Bubble.'
Then go out, and DO it.
If you actually want to fight feminism in a low risk, no-cost, low-effort way :
Read this. It is a sequel to 'The Misandry Bubble.'
Then go out, and DO it.
How about option 3. Fat Ass takes care of herself, like an adult? An no one else is on the hook?
A needy pedestalizer like Tether is incapable of holding a woman to the same standard of conduct he would hold a man too.
Of course, he thinks this will get him laid, even though any true knowledge of female attraction triggers would reveal that such supplication makes him repulsive to women.
Tether is the type of 'conservative' who would rather destroy families than risk the disapproval of a woman.
TMink,
Feminism is a hundred times worse than anything Jackson or Sharpton have done.
A black cannot just toss a white person in jail based on a false accusation of rape, in violation of due process rights.
A black cannot get 80% of a white person's assets on a no-fault basis.
A black does not have the ability to commit violence against a white and get the white victim jailed, rather than the black perpetrator.
But women can do all of these things to men.
Pedestalizing, needy Republicans have had a hand in creating this disaster. A Republican will support any and all socialism as long as it is packaged as 'chivalry'.
Good to see you picked up on this Helen. I am now taking the position of calling any man who will NOT denounce the 'vast majority of western women as liars and hypocrites' as a man-hating, white-knighting, mangina apologist.
Thomas Matlack seems to be taking my criticism of him quite to heart. GOOD!.
I propose men attack the MEN who are white knights and simply ignore the women as the irrelevancies they are. You excepted of course... ;-)
PS. Hope you don't mind me now posting in my own name. I am guess you will not.
JG said...
"After 20-25 years, your garden-variety housewife has no skills at all, she has no more capacity for any sustained work at all, and she is most likely bossy as hell."
This is true now. It was not true as recently as my mothers day. I left home at 18 and my mum was 43. She had this dream since she saw the Queen in 1953 (she was 14) that she would one day go to Buckingham Palace. She always talked about 'one day I will go and see the queen'. So when I left she asked my Dad about how to do this. His position was that he worked for the family to provide what was needed and small luxuries. World travel was something he was not interested in so mum had to 'get a job'.
She did. She took work where he skills were best. She worked in a local hotel cleaning the rooms. I'd argue her skills as a housewife were well suited to cleaning hotel rooms.. ;-) And I would argue that it was a useful job. I stay in hotels all the time. I think the cleaning ladies to a valuable job. Indeed, I had my cleaning lady come do my apartment just yesterday and I am very happy with the job she did.
My mum also took job cleaning newly built houses before the fixtures and furnishing were put in. This was a job she had done when I was little and I would go and help her. It take two days to clean a house properly that has just had the builders finished. All the paint splashings have to be removed. Often there are nails sticking out that need to be found and hammered down. My mum could even swing a hammer. I think, in the end, she went around the world 4 or 5 times on her very humble job at the hotel.
Today? Forget it in the west. The women don't know how to spell W-O-R-K.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
kmg, I stand corrected. Good points.
Trey
TMink,
Thanks. Read 'Feminist Gulag' by Stephen Baskerville.
No other group (blacks or otherwise) has gotten this far in transforming the entire judicial system to suit their goals.
Scary. The NAACP is to feminism what a pea-shooter is to a gatling gun.
Conservatives like Tether above are a large part of the problem, as they think a woman should be supported by another, period. Thus, they are happy to put a man in slavery in order to move support from the taxpayer to the man.
You're misinterpreting my statements, kmg.
There's a difference between "should" and "is" (desired state and actual state).
Women should get off their behinds and work. In reality, women who don't work will either get supported by the taxpayers (welfare) or by the ex-husband. I don't think women should be supported, I think they will be supported.
kmg, I must support Tether. There are two things you can count on with him, he is really up on misandry and the anti-male aspects of our culture and he usually goes a little nuts when I comment on something he has written.
Trey
{Flailing arms and going nuts}
Well, maybe you can prescribe something with your Master's degree, Trey. You know I have nothing but infinite respect for you and your intelligence.
Sorry, doctorate. But I am sure you are right about everything else. 8)
Trey
Tether,
I don't think women should be supported, I think they will be supported.
OK.
Then we should fight to make sure she supports herself (as a man would have to).
But moving support from the taxpayer to the hapless, abandoned husband is wrong, and a violation of constitutional prohibitions against slavery.
And let's be frank : If a man has to live off of just 20% of his income, and would be jailed for non-payment of alimony, even if that alimony was inflicted on a NO FAULT basis, that is far closer to slavery than anything the US has seen in the past 140 years.
Let's confront feminism for what it is : Demands for equality where women are behind, but demands for special treatment in areas where they can get away with it.
Feminism is the new Jim Crow. I say that in all seriousness.
I agree kmg.
The solution: DON'T FUCKING GET MARRIED and don't get her pregnant.
That is the only solution that exists today. I don't believe that new legislation is going to favor men, at least not in the foreseeable future.
But still, men don't get it. DON'T FUCKING GET MARRIED. You will become a slave, whether it is ordered by the state (divorce) or not (you continue in the marriage).
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't even think divorce is the worst problem. For many MEN it is a godsend, even with all the alimony and inequitable-property-division crap. An end with terror is better than terror without end.
I see so many men today who are just waiting for death. They are stuck in a marriage with some ungrateful cow and working, working, working, while she bitches, bitches, bitches and consumes, consumes, consumes.
I would hop a steamer to Australia under an assumed name. I would fake my own death. I would hide out on a mountain in Kentucky. GET AWAY FROM THE BITCH; is that all your life is worth?
Cue the music to "My Wife" by the Who.
Tether,
I agree.
I still say marriage is OK with a properly done pre-nup, as well as other conditions being met (i.e. her parents are not divorced, she is not quick to utter the word 'misogynist', she has a low number of sexual partners prior to meeting you, etc).
But yes, this means that only 30-40% of men are in a situation where marriage has an acceptably low risk. Way too many men are entering a gamble of terrible odds.
I take back the negative things I said about you before.
The problem with divorce is what happens to the kids. The adults can take care of themselves, but it typically hurts the children deeply.
Then you have boys and girls growing up with a father, and that leads to another entire generation of problems.
While I agree with the problems, pratfalls, and pits inherent in modern marriage, the knowledge just pushed me into being very careful in my choice of a wife.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home