Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries. Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message. In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands every since.
They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place. You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion. Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close.
I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was. And lucky for me I was 13 in a time when people still knew what it wasn’t.
Oppression has some pretty obvious tell tale signs. Like torture and death; like bullwhips and chains; gas chambers and death camps. Oppression is a roadmap of scars on the back of a field hand that was purchased at an auction. It is the rope that gets strung over a tree branch in broad daylight and used to choke the life out of someone convicted of being the wrong color.
It is an indelible stain on humanity, void of compassion, dehumanizing to both the oppressed and the oppressor. And the evidence of it is so offensive to modern sensibilities that we preserve proof of it as lessons for the coming generations.
Now, when we compare those things to the historical world of women, which was largely one of being protected and provided for, we get an entirely different picture. It is a portrait not of the oppressed, but of the privileged. And it begs a good many questions that need to be answered.
For instance, how many times in history did we have slaves with the first rights to a seat in the lifeboat? Which slave masters were compelled to go off to war to protect the lives of their slaves? How many oppressors tore their own bodies down with brutal labor so that they could provide food and shelter for those they oppressed?
Zero sounds like a good answer.
It also makes one wonder, or should, how many slave masters had to get on their knees before their prospective slaves, bearing gold and jewels to ask permission to be their master? How many slaves could say “no” and wait for a better deal?
How about another goose egg?
It’s not coincidental that feminists pointed to marriage as an oppressive institution. Pointing at nothing and making a lot of noise has worked pretty well for them. And so, in a collective fit of neurotic activism they attacked the one institution that had served as the source of more support and protection for women than any other in history. They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears. You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates.
“Hey!” some feminists are shrieking by now, “What about voting rights? Women were not allowed to vote! That’s oppression!” Well, no, it’s not. And all we need to do is look at the history of voting in America to prove it.
In the beginning, almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a few older white males who owned land, which left almost all men and a lot of other people out of the picture. This doesn’t say anything particularly special about women. So if this constituted oppression, then it meant that nearly everyone was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch on to that one because they were too busy celebrating their new found freedom.
Anyway, as time passed, because men of good values wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to the men who didn‘t own land, then later to other ethnic groups, then still later to women. Even further down the road the voting age was lowered bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today we are debating the voting rights of illegal aliens. Formerly oppressed hamsters may be next.
And we should consider that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Like exclusion from combat and men compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors and to die for them at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, mainly to the men. But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny.
The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to…for a while, anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that it was men who had to have land on which to build women homes, or perhaps they figured that men who were expected to face bullets in order to protect that land might be better, more deserving keepers of it. Who knows what insanity plagued us before feminism restored us to reason?
Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long lived. Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage, and the phallocentric, linear thinking alleged tyrants that they married.
I am old enough to remember well the older rules for men. Work hard and take care of your woman. Be prepared to lay down your life for her. Watch your mouth in the presence of a lady. Offer her your seat, even if she is a stranger. The same for opening doors and lighting smokes. Disrespect her and risk a beating. Touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man.
This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benefit from these kinds of standards. Royalty. We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason.
With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the gold standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put the brakes on doing a lot of things out of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot. Accidents happen, especially self inflicted wounds, to people that play with guns when they don’t know what they’re doing.
Still, I have to hand it to feminists in their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skullduggery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would have buckled under the oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.
Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in every aspect of life. Women are now more educated than men and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggests this is going to do anything but favor women even more in the future. All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.
I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work and a job well done, but winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.
Tags: explorer
660 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Roderick Roderick:
Hippie Redneck:
Jay:
harrywoodape:
GQuan:
Paul:
If the feminists had changed two letters and described the female condition as “repression” in some aspects, there would be a valid case for that, in my opinion. It’s plain to see that women (as a distinct class) were never systematically oppressed. Not by the measure of an analysis taking into account the full history of the human experience.
Even then, I limit what I consider repression to be unfounded discriminatory dragnets that forcibly disallowed women to engage in certain activities. Feminists now push the boundaries of the bullshit we’ll accept by calling fundamental circumstances based on natural, logical, or biological factors “oppression” or “discrimination.”
If we refused to have government extract the wealth of fathers in child support, they would call that lack of coercive support oppressive, even though the default state is that no such program would exist.
The immediate effect of this subsidy to to create the moral hazard of women choosing and managing their relations with men with less caution. Child support is an insurance policy that women have to mitigate the risks of sexual freedom; specifically with regards to relating with dangerous men, or inability to maintain a relationship. The fundamental idea is actually NOT that fathers must take care of “their” children. The tacit principle is that women should be shielded from the burden and responsibility of controlling their reproductive capacity.
Because child support, contraception and abortion exist today, modern people thoughtlessly take them for granted and as such can’t for the life of them figure out why female sexuality would have been “repressed” in the past if not for malice.
The sad thing about all this is that I don’t think the conclusion of all this will be the majority of women in a state of non-artificial independence from men. I believe the “independence” of women would still be a massively expensive endeavor for society even without all the unjust government programs dumping valuable resources into superfluous programs to elevate women. Expensive not only economically, but socially.
From what I can tell, the immutable fact is that men want to shower women with privilege, and women want to be recipients of it. Without government provided artifices propping up women, I can’t see the bulk of women suffering the pains of equality when men would be willing to protect them from it. As long as this an organic meeting of interests, I consider it fine and dandy.
As a result, I speculate that eventually society will once again impose controls and duties on women, and they will be told that limitless freedom and Utopia cannot come in their lifetimes. I hope that somebody will tell the people of the future who will rebuild: if men and women both work hard right now, perhaps our progeny can have the quality of life the foolish people of the West wasted so much trying to contrive.
Your lack of knowledge of history is staggering and this amounts to nothing more than armchair logic.
Well, normally, I would expect someone making such a statement to offer some rationale and support for what they are saying, but that, too, is a function of logic.
I suppose all logic appears armchair to those who don’t comprehend the concept to begin with.
I would have to agree with the zz90000 a little here, despite the fact that zz90000 was perhaps a little rude.
If men were denied vote and were not allowed to purchase land, would you call that oppression? I would, even if men were offered other privileges. It is a serious restriction, a serious limitation if only applied because of gender. As it was.
Also, your point “Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage” is a little tricky. Not all women were allowed to choose who they were provided by.
Moreover, I would argue that marriage was more oppressive for women. For instance, they lost all control of their property (at a time, were not even allowed to have any) and earnings – to their husbands.
“The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/370
Of course providing for the woman in these circumstances may be burdensome, but I would choose the role of the provider at any time. With its freedom and personhood. But YMMV.
This is just a tiny example of things you choose to ignore in your post. It is all well and fine that you express your opinion, but as a person who claims to comprehend and respect logic, I would like you to… take a moment and for a moment imagine that the historical position of women under state legislation was instead the history of men.
Does this change your views of the situation? Would you consider men oppressed if an all-female government chosen by all-female voters denied some of your basic rights?
If the Supreme Court had ruled that a state has the right to exclude a married man from practicing law in 1873 instead of married women?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_United_States
Again, this is just a tiny example.
“If men were denied vote and were not allowed to purchase land, would you call that oppression?”
Men were denied the vote, for nearly as long as women, because it was not based so much on sex as it was land ownership. Was it unfair? Sure. Was it oppression? Not compared to slavery and genocide it wasn’t. And those were the comparisons I was making in the piece.
There are thousands of example of discrimination throughout history. Some of them remain today. Are they all oppression? If so, everyone is oppressed. Sort of dilutes the meaning of the word if you were a slave or in a concentration camp, does it not?
“If men were denied vote and were not allowed to purchase land, would you call that oppression?”
“Men were denied the vote, for nearly as long as women, because it was not based so much on sex as it was land ownership.”
While your answer raises a valid point, you do not address the fact that women were indeed also rendered unable to purchase land which indeed was one of the prerequisites of having a vote. I also have a small issue with language here. Men were not denied the vote: poor white men and African-American men were. The only class with political power (with any ability to influence legislation involving them) was all-white, all-male and relatively wealthy (not always).
For all non-male, non-white and poor people this was at least unfair, as you say. But the difference between poor white men and African-Americans/women is significant. While it is difficult to change one’s socioeconomic position, it is outright impossible to change one’s gender or skin-colour.
Whether you decide to call this unfairness oppression or just discrimination is up to you, of course. It is partially a value judgment as you argue. Compared to genocide and slavery, few things can indeed be considered oppression. And if you do define oppression as slavery and genocide, then I must admit that women were indeed never oppressed – at least by this new definition of the word.
However, if oppression is defined as “arbitrary and cruel exercise of power” (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oppression) instead of slavery and genocide, the issue is of course more complex. Clearly, only people with power (with the vote, with the money) can exercise that power. But I agree with you on that not having political power does not necessarily mean being oppressed, as in the case of the hamster or children. And “arbitrary and cruel” is a value judgment.
So I revise my point (thank you for pointing out the flaws): if men were denied land-ownership and therefore any ability to ever acquire a vote and any influence in legislation involving them, it would not necessarily mean oppression. But in this position they would be very, very vulnerable to oppression by women having that power.
Now we can then look at legislation involving women, African-American people and poor white men historically in the USA and make our own calls on whether or not we would the power exercised on them “cruel and arbitrary.” A value judgment.
Would you call legislation that made men eligible for only one career path – that of a husband – cruel and arbitrary? What if in this singular career they were expected to take care of domestic labor, refused any protection from rape or violence by the woman they were married to and were completely subjected to her whims regarding reproduction. Would it make this exercise of power seem more “cruel and arbitrary” to you if men could also die from giving birth and suffer from many other health-related, possibly permanent problems?
I don’t know if this seems cruel to you, but it does seem cruel and unthinkable to me – and addresses some issues MRAs are very concerned of today. In my opinion even if men, in this position, were given privileges… it would not make the power held by the ruling class women any less cruel. From men’s position as nonhuman property of their female partners (at least in the eyes of law), these privileges are arbitrary and can be given or taken away by the ruling class at whim. If a man in prison is given special treatment by the guards, this clearly does not negate the fact that he is in jail.
You also raise the point that men died in wars in your text. Which is a great injustice, certainly. But it was all-male, all-white legislators and leaders that caused this (not that I think African-American or female leaders would have acted differently). Even the more unfortunate men going to wars had some modicum of power because of the fact they could vote and hope to get rich so that they, in turn, could someday command armies instead of fighting in them. This is unfair, certainly, but so is the fact that only women died giving birth (this unfairness however dictated by nature). If women fought and died in wars and also died giving birth… Well, any leader desiring long-term success would rather keep women home, breeding. In this case the leaders were male.
But, fundamentally, whether women were oppressed in the past does not change the way legislation treats women today. And that is what this movement, in my opinion, is all about. So I don’t feel like any of the other MRAs’ issues are any less relevant just because I think that women were previously oppressed. It is a chapter in human history I would not like to see repeated for any gender/race/socioeconomic class… and that is a big part of why I want to contribute on this website.
jatkoroikka, I take some issue with your points.
For one, being denied ownership of land and being denied the right to purchase land are two different things.
Where i live for example, the biggest land owner (whom aquired the land through a lot of corruption I might add) in the 1800′s married a wealthy mexican woman as another way to get land, for she owned land too and he inhereted hers through marriage (and she inhereted his vice versa). When he died, all of his land (more than his wife ever owned) passed down to his wife. She became probably over night the richest woman in California. She subsequently donated a lot of the land back to the county which we can thank her for, or we would not have parks if it werent for her. Her children then sold the rest of the land to the US ARMY.
About Women and career path, saying that women could only be wives before Feminism is a flat out lie. Although I do not doubt there were proponents that wanted to limit women to being wives only throughout history, they have always been unsuccessful, the fact is this type of thinking never took over any society. History is proof of this, just around the corner 100 years ago there were many female business owners. Not to mention all those female figures that Feminism slaps a Feminism logo over. The very frustrating thing is Feminism’s interest in overwriting history with tales of oppression, and how they backdate their so-called movement. Today, every woman in USA has been taught that before the 60′s women were confined to the kitchen. For some this may have been true, and no doubt you can dig up stories on that, but for the vast majority of people this was not true at all and for many was a wish only to never come true (to be married, not have to work, stay home raise kids etc).
Things like sports in history too, Feminism says how women weren’t allowed to play sports etc its a complete lie. The only way that I know this is because I had a grandmother whom told me about her life growing up (I still have her year book showing women’s basketball, tennis, swimmng etc along with men’s), having to work because her husband died of black lung disease (another thing that was male only relating to male sacrifice) and how her mother came to this country and was FORCED to go to work because they became instantly poor once they came to the “land of opportunity”. She sold everything of value to come here, gave up talent too (like playing piano because she sold it). When she arrived in USA, she saw dust fields, fell to her knees and cried “I left my beautiful country for this?”
That said, regarding the elderly, isn’t it interesting how Feminism from the very beginning was rejecting the old? In my point of view, this was designed to silence those that would disagree with the feminist version of history (because some people actually lived it), as well as designed to isolate their recruits. Sounds a lot like a CULT to me.
On the topic of extreme societies, the only societies that are attempting to enforce such a thing as women not allowed to work, only stay home etc are those that have puppet regimes setup, like Alqeida which is finally coming out that it never really existed it was a creation of USA (a feminist society). Although no doubt we are going to have war mongering Feminists on here yelling at me saying “how dare you say terrorism doesnt exist” yadda yadda, those types of accusations are for another debate, but I would like to point out the USA/CIA/Western Industrial War Complex connection with these types of societies.
And you bring up race A LOT. I’m a person of color, mixed actually, and I find myself HAVING to point that out on the internet quite a bit when the topic of race comes in. Call it a race card, the fact that I can pull that out in discussion is pretty significant. If I don’t pull that card out, I’m immediately called a racist, white supremacist etc. But the fact is, your race correlations are in fact racist as well. To say that it is the whiteness, especially male whiteness, that brings about all the wars is totally WRONG. I reject those types of racist views, and they are racist because it judges based on race, not history or circumstance. It is no different than those “white” racists that wanted to rule the world, that same racism seems to persist but in the reverse role now. Let me ask you, is it perfectly fine to have the Black Panther leaders call for the murder of white babies? Go look it up, its the latest rage, and it seems to be perfectly OK and non racist to do so. That is wrong, racism is racism it needs to stop. All this is the other side of the same coin, an ugly coin I might add that needs to be tossed back in the well.
Women’s oppression is just more feminist Newspeak.
Historically, men died in wars. Men died working in dirty and dangerous conditions to support their families. Men died in the service of women.
Look at those pictures, they’re mostly boys:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312764/Britains-child-slaves-New-book-says-misery-helped-forge-Britain.html
Even today in third world countries, boys are forced into slave labour conditions or are indoctrinated to become child soldiers, but only girls issues get attention.
WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait ..
…
You should read chapter 6 of A Peoples History of the United States. Anyways women were oppressed it seems that you don’t have the right definition of the word. Women have always been inferior to men since the beginning of time. Men used this vulnerabilty to their advantage and pushed women down. During the 19th century women had to work in factories for a salary that wasn’t even enough to sustain their faimlies. BUT a man was able to work in the medical field. If you ask me women were put down and debased, which SAYS there were OPPRESSED!!!
op·press (-prs)
1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
2. To weigh heavily on:
Dear Linda:
Several other posters on this message board and I have recently gathered to discuss the terrible oppression you clearly suffer as an American woman. We are pleased to inform you that in an effort to relieve you of your plight, we have taken up a collection on your behalf for the purchase of a burka and one-way air-travel to a randomly-selected country in the Middle East.
As an added favor to you, we will forward to Middle-Eastern authorities your flight information and a transcript of your recently-posted comments on men. Hence upon arrival, you will likely be received by scores of males who will undoubtedly be anxious to engage in dialogue with you concerning gender issues. It is comforting to know you will finally enjoy a region where you may live and speak freely without fear of persecution.
There is no need to thank us for our gesture, as we feel this is the very least you should be afforded as compensation for the amenities denied you as a U.S. female; privileges which are instead enjoyed by U.S. males such as generous and biased support from the media and family courts, Affirmative Action, the Rape Shield law, reproductive rights, government-funded research for gender-related diseases, nationwide shelters for domestic violence victims, federal funding for study centers and gender-favored grants for college tuitions.
We hope you will enjoy your stay.
Best regards,
sdrake
P.S. Please remember to send us a postcard!
lol
It has now been nearly two years and we haven’t heard from Linda.
How is that non-oppression over in the Middle East working out for ya? Bitch.
This is a place for men. Women are tolerated, but not welcome. You are exhausting my tolerance, though I won’t presume to speak for any of the other men here.
I’ve actually read “A Peoples History of the United States” and I seem to recall a lot of men being killed, enslaved, shuffled off to fight in wars they didn’t start, being killed in factories, being killed by the factory “goon squad” if they dared to protest their piss poor working conditions and many many more injustices faced almost exclusively by MEN.
Some women did have to endure these things but for the most part these were hardships men endured (and I would add they endured them to support their wives and children!).
Your definition of oppressed doesn’t even come close to how the reality of how women (especially white women) were treated in this country.
Also, white women were able to have black men executed just by pointing a finger and saying, “He raped me!” or “He whistled at me!” or “He LOOKED at me!”. Tell me that isn’t true power…
/Coughs:*Bullshit!*
Ah, but don’t you see? They’re correct in a manner of speaking, a twisted one that goes back to animal behavior, mating behavior in particular. Women, but feminists in particular, are ruled by emotion– just like animals. Not thinking or any kind of logic. To them, being married to a man who isn’t the top dog, or an “alpha male” if you will, is “oppression.” It’s something that they will not accept. They would rather be part of a harem just like primates in nature.
Within the confines and fair rules that marriage laid out for men and women, they aren’t allowed to fulfill their desired animal behaviors of mating with the man they want yet still have the material resources they crave from another man, as even feminists know that none of the small percentage of highly sexually attractive men have the material resources to pay for what all of these women want.
Of course, feminists realized that in make this so they would need to attack the marriage and legal institutions and upend it so that men could be legally cuckolded and forced to pay for bastard children and forced to pay even after the woman voided her part of the marriage contract. Why do you think women initiate 3/4 of the divorces and often for vague reasons that are an excuse for the fact that she wants another man?
Look at the percentage the DNA laboratories have been putting out? Almost 1/3rd of their tests come back saying the man tested is NOT the father of his purported child. This combined with hate indoctrination of feminist ideology is why they’ve attacked marriage, an institution that has by and large been for the benefit of women and children and at the expense of men. Now they have made it entirely untenable and entirely at the expense of men. Just look at how the system handles paternity fraud– it’s absolutely disgusting.
“To them, being married to a man who isn’t the top dog, or an “alpha male” if you will, is “oppression.” It’s something that they will not accept. They would rather be part of a harem just like primates in nature.”
I have come to precisely this same conclusion. In a very real way, this whole drama can be boiled down to an expression of the female promiscuity drive. Females now can cuckold freely, in Nirvana as a harem with their larger than life Silver Back- the State- at the helm. Equality- totally, bitches.
I highly recommend Jack Donovan’s work.
Mr. Elam, I salute you for putting the female privilege and pampered status into such an eloquently coherent perspective. My own southern upbringing indoctrinated me to enable their sense of entitlement, and it has been a slow, shocking revelation that I and other men like me have played no small role in the current state of affairs.
For too long honorable men, led to believe that their actions were correct and civil, have been supporting a dishonorable cause. It is well past time that we champion an honorable one. For true equality and fairness to prevail, we must first cast off the shackles that we have for generations worn with pride. We must accept that our continued support of enabling behavior weakens not only us, but the women we foolishly though required our aegis of protection. To truly see equality, we must level the playing field and insist that everyone play by the same rules. Only then can women descend from their pedestals, throw away their juvenile assumptions of entitlement, and learn to behave in a responsible manner by understanding what we males have always known; that each is responsible for the consequences of their actions, and that projection of blame on others to conceal your own shortcomings resolves nothing.
My eyelids have been slowly lifting for years, but sites like this have helped to wash away the matting gunk that blurred my vision. I only hope that other men, and women, will experience such an awakening as well.
Brilliant!
This may be an older post by Mr. Elam, but it is a very succinct, accurate, and witty one nonetheless.
I commented on another site the other day in which someone said that it is “inarguable that women were oppressed.” I responded in return with “Oh yes it is arguable, because comparatively, males have been disposable once they have met the utility of women, discriminated against too, and being a man wasn’t then or now, no glamorous thing. Misguided feminists were just mad that nature didn’t make them male, so, blaming men instead of nature, they set out to have what males have but without all the responsibility, accountability and sacrifices.
So, not only did white women have it better than men then, they still do. The old stereotypical adage, “women will never be satisfied” really rings true when it comes to feminists’ misbehavior. Sometimes stereotypes really fit, and this one does!
Generally speaking, feminists are oblivious and men are customers now. Feminism was never about pursuit of equality; it was about women wanting superiority. It is just that(those kind of) women can’t see it, (those kind of) men don’t want to see it, so men pretend they do not notice how wrong women are.
In my opinion, those men are cowards or they are stuck in a time warp, thinking they are living back in the day. Probably a curious mixture of both.
Our job as MRA’s is to get men to see how foolish they are acting, for them to not care more about their own sex—even in a world gone horribly mad at the hands of disorderly women.
They will be sorry for their traitorous actions…and their heads will be hung in shame.
This article shows me a lack of knowledge among some men and women about women’s oppression. I myself took my role in society as a given until recently.
I cannot speak about what has happened to women in the past. I can only give my own testament, but perhaps it can shed light on the issue of women’s oppression.
And just because I agree that women are oppressed in society today still, does not mean that men have more rights or have it better. There are aspects of US law and culture that are detrimental to either sex.
I am a woman. I grew up with two older brothers. They were encouraged to play any sport they liked. They were injured from time to time, but it was okay and not a factor that would limit their role in sports. They continued to play the same sports even after losing a front tooth in baseball that had to be replaced with a fake, permanently injuring shoulder ligaments, and after numerous sprains and broken arms. I, on the other hand, was first discouraged, and then disallowed from playing my favorite sport, football. Instead, my parents told me I was fast and should join track instead. I did so, along with my brothers. I did enjoy track, but I always regret not playing football because I truly love the sport and would have enjoyed the camaraderie of a team sport. Why was it okay for my brothers to be injured, but it was unthinkable for me? My parents subtly impressed upon me the idea that I was weaker and vulnerable and that I wouldn’t be able to stand the pain or the difficult practices. This is oppression. But don’t think about whether my parents were right to “protect” me. Instead, put yourself in my shoes. Think about one of your favorite things to do as a child. Then think about how you would feel if you weren’t encouraged or even allowed to do it, and yet your siblings were. How would you feel?
Another piece of my childhood that irks me is the freedom my brothers were allowed. Our public library was on the same street as my house, just a half mile down. I was not allowed until high school to go there alone. This was a difficult rule because I loved reading books and I would go through quite a few at a time. The issue was made worse because my brothers were allowed to go even before middle school because they were “big” and because “no one would mess with them”. It would have been fair if the same rule applied to my brothers and that no exception was made because they were bigger. This just showed me that I would be limited by my physical weaknesses.
I think of women’s oppression as a sneaky shadowy thing that is hard to pinpoint. But think about this. We use the term “mankind” and “man” to refer to “humanity” and “people”. This kind of language is usually used when referring to great accomplishments. Think about “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” during the first steps on the moon. This is part of our culture to imply that it was man’s accomplishment alone. I actually do feel inferior to men from time to time when I think about all the great accomplishments in history and about who thought of or invented them or made them happen–invariably it is some man. Sometimes I debate with myself whether men are truly more intelligent, better leaders, or stronger in general. Are women only good for supportive roles? These are horrible, depressing thoughts, that I may be less of a person because of my sex. Always during these internal battles, my mind reaches a point where I begin to compare myself to actual men I know. At that point, I can reassure myself that men and women are indeed equals. If I can compare myself to men and reassure myself convincingly that they are not better, than why do I still feel inferior? It is a subtle thing that creeps around our society, this oppression of some and advertisement of others. It is in our language, in the way we treat each other, in our cultural heritage. But I have hope that with greater understanding of the small instances of oppression here and there, that eventually women will feel equal. Until women can feel equal, we cannot truly be considered so. The things that oppress us are too obscure and indistinct for even women to realize their presence at times. Please encourage the rooting up of these obscurities when you come across one–whether it be a thing that oppresses a certain sex, race, or belief. Put yourself in the place of the person and ask yourself how you would feel. How would you feel if instead of “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” it was written down in history as “One small step for people, except for you, One giant leap for the rest of us, you excluded”?
That’s it. I give up.
It’s an asymptote (look it up). So close, so very close, centimeters, millimeters, maybe even nanometers to making it just to the line, and not quite reaching it.
Someone might want to point out the notion that including “woman” in “man” it makes women automatically share in men’s accomplishments and could therefore be said, if we wanted to, that it diminishes the accomplishments of males. But we don’t do that, because we don’t think of females as inferior.
And someone might also point out that there are multiple other languages which don’t even have male and female gender pronouns at all, yet gender roles still exist, so obsessing over language is futile.
But oh so close to getting it, another_voice. Oh so close. Stick around. You show potential. I hope. But the first thing I would suggest is, listen more, and stop making it about you. You have endless places where your perspective is already heard, everywhere in the culture. Try this: just listen to men, another_voice. Listen to them. Try hard to understand.
(At least she’s trying. E for Effort. Getting close. No shaming language, and only a healthy dose of gynocentrism, not too overbearing. Potential, potential….)
Man was the gender-neutral way of referring to all humans of either sex. How would you feel if you had no identity unique to you? Man may include woman, but women does not include men. Therefore a woman is both a woman and a man but a man is just a man.
You see how you took something that could be viewed as equally victimizing men and saw only how you, as a woman, are the victim of it?
You feel inferior because you are programmed to see yourself as a victim and not recognize the vulnerability of men.
Thank you.
Potential, potential
Not counting my roosters
Another_voice sounds to be about my age and I can well relate to what she’s saying.
I seem to have thought things out a bit more than she, so please allow me to answer a few of her quiries.
As far as your football career? Your parents didn’t want a BOY to injure you or knock your teeth out. Boys don’t hit girls, remember? Did YOU encourage or allow YOUR daughter to play football?
I’m sure if you were in high school and a kindergarten boy wanted to play football with much larger, stronger ladies – HIS parents might not have allowed it, and you ladies probably would not have felt “Camaraderie” with someone too physically inadequate to be anything but a detriment to the sport and the team.
When the body count of boys dying in Vietnam droned incessantly on Huntley-Brinkley every night after night, after night, did you feel the same ardor to join those young men being drafted and forced against their will to die a profoundly terrible death as you did wanting to play football with those same boys and their missing teeth?
Did your brothers face the draft? Did you?
When the “crazed Vietnam Veteran” dominated TV and social talk, did you wish to join those outcast and shunned young men in their wheelchairs and missing body parts?
Did it ever bother you that your brothers were expected to fight and die while you weren’t?
My father was a tyrant about not letting me go places by myself as a kid. He said “Girls can get pregnant, boys can’t”, when I didn’t even know what the word “pregnant” meant.
He taught me it was MY fault if a boy was disrespectful toward me – that I hadn’t presented myself as “a lady”, that I had given the boy the “wrong idea”. “Boys just want one thing!” “Never trust a boy”.
Nonsense, of course, but I listened to my father and abided by his advice until I was old enough and wise enough to see for myself what situations were safe and what boys could be trusted.
…which was his intention all along. I can gratefully say I was never “used” or put myself in a situation I later regretted.
My husband’s father routinely used to tell him “go beat up that kid across the street, or don’t come home”. My own father used to encourage my brother to fight.
I’ve never hit another person in my life, nor have I ever fought another girl. I think I would suck at it, so I’m glad it never fell on me to be beaten on.
It why boys play football – to learn to take beatings, injuries and pain, to defend their wives, their daughters, their mothers, their country.
Why didn’t YOU organize a girl’s football team, another? Why didn’t YOU learn to beat up others? Why didn’t YOU join the military?
…instead of waiting around for a man to accomodate you?
Amelia Earhart didn’t. Belle Starr didn’t (a distant relative of mine). Annie Oakley. National Velvet. Katherine Hepburn.
There were many spunky, independant women around in those days.
My mother in law was in a Big Band and sang on the radio and at USO shows during WWII. My Aunt was a NYC concert pianist, my Grandmother played piano for silent movie theaters. Another Aunt a fashion columnist in Sacramento, another an infamous bootlegger. My older sister left home to join a hippie commune while
I was the first women to enlist in the military in my entire county, and served during Vietnam, which was UNHEARD of.
I think maybe you might just be a dud. Instead of admitting it to yourself, you blame your brothers. You blame your parents. You blame society.
Women like another_voice (A_V) are helping make the case for MRA’s. When they illustrate how oblvious they are to the reality that exists independent of their feelings, they prove us right all the time. She has said to the world, so much…that we could never say it as good. Pity, she doesn’t realize this fact.
Not all women are alike, of course, but A_V is very much like the feminists as a whole. They really believe their feelings superimpose, in priority and importance, that of commonsense things that have enabled a better survival for humans and did the most good, for most people, most of the time, about most things—an admirable and noble pursuit indeed.
What if A_V and her feminist cohorts could put herself (and themselves) in the shoes of males? They’d see the so-called “privileges” that males have are actually trials, duties, responsibilities, and accountability—things that the feminists’ movement has yet to realize must accompnay any real, honest pursuit of equality—that is, unless they think getting special, preferential treatment and other princess-perks— in which “proper” men aren’t supposed to notice, (wink, wink)— sort of take the place of TRUE equality.
The truth is that women will never be truly equal to men as long as they continue to receive so many perks just for being women. When we get it pounded into us all the time, how much help women and girls get, all it really does is remind and reinforce in our minds the obvious. In other words, the truth will always speak louder than any and all feminists combined.
Now if we can just get men to unplug their ears, then like smart beings, instead of dewitted, coralled and controlled copycats, then pay attention to what they hear! That is our task!
Flash to A_V… you don’t really want to be treated like a boy, do you, unless you can omit the bad parts and rake in the “benefits.” Figures!
Being a man has never been glamourous: Thus, the myth of women’s oppression and the ignoring of men’s.
However, unless we can get the average man out there to really take note of the discrepancies that spell out a plethora of lies, twists, omissions, misguided oblivion of some women, etc, coming from the feminist camp, and care enough about their own sex, then they will continue to operate unwittingly as customers. This means that women like A_V will get their way. Men and boys will lose.
Message to observing-but-apathetic men reading this: put your daughters aside for a minute because they get plenty of help with just about everything. Take your boys, look them in their eyes, and tell them that being a real man doesn’t require them to protect their own sex.
Do it!!
Tell them!! Why not?!!— You do it every day, nearly every example, every time you refuse to man-up to quit being irresponsible about the truth that you know in your heart and soul exists, and does so completely irrelevant of anyones feelings.
Truth is not hatred; but the truth is hated!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Welcome to the place where you will be educated if you choose to be.
Really fucking ignorant poster on multiple levels by the way. Start with the lie on “Patriarchy” and move on to learn more from there, if you can, and have the guts to be challenged.
By the way all initial comments get moderated until we know someone’s not a troll. Here’s a strong suggestion; read the introductory articles here before you start lecturing people, and start learning something about this movement before mouthing off about it and trying to school people on shit they’ve already heard.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The difference between ignorance and bigotry is that ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance is the decision not to fix your own ignorance.
You believe in the hateful irrational stupid concept of Patriarchy. We can help you unlearn that vicious bigoted hate, but if you want to cling to your bigoted ignorance–and bigoted ignorance is what it is–it’s your problem.
See ya later.
LOL. How often do you beat your girlfriend? Feminism can help you stop.
It’s ironic FEMINISTS believe all those things about men it’s not the result of the ” patriarchy”.Feminists assign the actions of a few individuals as proof that ALL men are oppressors.To feminists any man who commits a crime is part of the “patriarchy”.There are many different factors at play and feminists reduce it down to a a conspiracy of which are men are collaborators in a ploy to oppress wimmenz/other men.
We don’t want power over women,you’ve been fed bullshit.
“We don’t want power over women,you’ve been fed bullshit.”
Indeed.
What we want is for everbody, male and female, to be treated as responsible citizens, not stupidly characterised as either an overgrown toddler or a murderous, lusting ogre.
“For example, one chick I know has this project going that’s studying discrimination against men who don’t fit stereotypes of what men should be (think of a man who liked to watch chick flicks or something).”
How FANTASTIC.
Were there any projects set up to counter the stereotype that feminism creates, that all men are rapists? Because THAT would seem to be slightly more important to me than some nonsense about “chick flicks”.
How about something set up to counter the stereotype (that feminism creates and nurtures) that domestic violence is a gender issue? Is THAT important? Or are we still worried about chick flicks?
How about the stereotype of the “privileged white male” – feminism creates and nurtures that stereotype, BTW – which results in males everywhere being ignored and or at best not treated as fully human? Is THAT an important stereotype to counter?
What about the stereotype that our society exists in some sort of “rape culture” (feminism creates and nurtures this stereotyp, BTW) where rape is seen as acceptable? What do you think that this lie says about men?
Or are we still bothered about this “chick flick” horseshit?
Feminists and their drones have their heads so far up their asses they think MHRAs give a shit about “chick flicks”?
Let’s just get this straight.
Men are dying on the streets (90% of the homeless), are forced to the draft, have no parental rights, have no divorce rights, have no reproductive freedoms, retire later, die sooner, are demonised by asshats constantly in the media, have no protections in law against false rape accusations, lose contact with their own children with NO recourse, commit suicide at a rate roughly four times that of women (must be our “privilege” making us so suicidal!) and you think we worry about “chick flick stereotyping”?
You’re on another planet.
that’s ture,men never opress women ,the only opression is that today,women opress men
The definition of oppression, according to the Oxford dictionary, is the following: “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority”. Do you notice that it contains “prolonged unjust treatment”, as well? Not being allowed to vote IS an unjust treatments, so yes, when women were not allowed to vote, it IS an oppression of women. The same goes for the men who weren’t allowed to vote. They were oppressed, too.
Also, think about all the other things women were not allowed to do:
- attend university (the few who ended up making their way there anyway couldn’t get credit for it and had to stand in the corridor)
- own patent rights
- go to war (yes, they were actually forbidden from going to war. So, even those who might have wanted to, were not allowed to)
- own any possessions (all the supposed possessions of a woman were actually her husband’s. A woman did not “own”), or manage what would have been a possession.
- get a job (for a long time, women were not allowed to work, even if they wanted to)
- get a divorce (it was fine for a man to cheat on his wife. But she was never allowed to get a divorce because of it. Only men were allowed to file for a divorce and they didn’t need a reason for it)
- Have any rights to their children (until maybe a century or two ago, women had not rights to their children. They were basically her husband’s property).
- refuse her husband (if a husband raped his wife, it was not considered rape. Nowadays it is). Indeed, in Sweden, for instance, husbands were allowed to abuse their wifes, until it was forbbiden in 1864.
- In some cases, women could not choose their own husband. And naturally, if they did not have a dowry, they could not get married. Keep in mind that once married, the dowry became the husband’s possession. So, if a woman married a stingy man, she had to be careful with the few things he would allow her to have, because he would not give her money for more.
- women couldn’t inherit. Inheritance would always got to the male descendant, or (if there was none) to the closest male heir.
- a woman’s word did not equal that of a man’s. So, for instance, if a woman said a man raped her, and the man said he didn’t, then the man was acquitted.
- Many women who showed independence of spirit were tortured and killed. Many through witch hunts.
- women were not allowed to open a bank account in their own name, or have a trade license
- Women were not allowed to act as witness in a civil court
- women did not have legal majority
- Later, women were allowed to own, but not control property in their own name
I could continue, but if this is not enough to convince you that women were being oppressed (because this belongs into the category of oppression), then you are simply being stubborn and closed-minded.
Wow. You are an idiot. Women as a class have never been oppressed by men as a class. EVER. Indeed men have always been required, by law and by custom, to protect their female family members, from every possible harm. Just because some women weren’t haaaapy about it, doesn’t mean they were “oppressed.”
In the US, men did not win “universal” suffrage until 1870. Between then and 1920 when women gained the right to vote, MOST women did not WANT the right to vote, until they were promised that voting rights would NOT be accompanied by the obligation of conscription. Only then did a majority of women demand the vote. Most American men were obligated to fight in wars, without the right to vote, since the Revolution, then fifty short years (and continued exemption from conscription) later, women were given the vote. When women wanted to vote, women got the vote.
Pretty much everything else you listed is either patently untrue, or done for the well-being of not only women, but CHILDREN. (Since you’re obviously a feminist, the concept of children being anything but assets and income/status generators for women, is foreign to you.) Divorce for no reason? Pft! No. Since we instituted no-fault divorce, that’s what we have now, and mostly initiated by women.
Women not allowed to divorce their husbands, or to withhold sex from them? Bullshit. Women WERE allowed to divorce, and one of the valid reasons was “marriage not consummated.” That’s right. If a husband withheld sex from his wife, she could divorce him. Bet that’s not mentioned in your Women’s Studies textbooks, is it?
Every “right” women have demanded, has been granted to them *when the majority of women agreed that they wanted it.* It has been women themselves who socially enforced (and demanded legal enforcement of) every single “restriction” ever put on them by “those oppressive males.” “Patriarchal Oppression” has always been committed on behalf of women, at the behest of women, and has been strictly enforced by women (footbinding, acid attacks and FGM included.) If women have ever been “oppressed,” it was by OTHER WOMEN, not by men.
Go dump your bucket of shit somewhere else. Nobody here is impressed.
Idiot is extremely mildly put, Suz.
I really appreciate your attempt at giving RealLife here the RL version of history. But since there is not other way to view this, but an attempt to sell womens studies 101 on a men’s human rights site without any actual proof, beyond the usual BS rewritten version of history, made up to fit an ideology of hate.
-And furthermore, no provided reason why men of today should pay for what completely unknown persons did to other completely unknown persons of the past, it would be my pleasure to take care of this Ignoramus Gigantus for you with a single click, if you want me to.
I have at my disposal a nice little time savior known as a “Spam” button, and I really don’t understand why the spambot didn’t catch this one, since AVfM is not normally in the business of buying crap from outsiders.
Especially from delusional ideologues, pendling the usual “Women-As-Victims” stuff.
Just say the word.
P.S. Geesh! Don’t they teach kids history in schools anymore??
Thank you Kind Sir, but no. I nearly whipped out my own Ban Hammer but it’s actually kind of rare to see so many feminist talking points laid out in such a neat little checklist. The more clever feminist will make her points appear “intellectual” by burying them in rhetorical mud, so I feel kind of sorry for RL; her ability to communicate with clarity will not serve her well as a feminist. They’ll have to silence her in order to prevent normal people from understanding what feminists actually mean when they blather on.
I know she’s probably ineducable, and I almost stopped after “…idiot.” But I didn’t want to make a statement and not back it up, so I tossed in a few facts for the hell of it.
Quite a piece of work, isn’t she?
Oh, indeed she is.
Tell you what. I’ll just let her ramble on, to make others able to see what we’re up against. Hopefully someone will be able to recognize the insanity of compairing chastity belts of the middle ages, something that only happened to a very very small minority of women in the very top of the food chain, to being the most priviledged gender to ever walk the Earth nowadays.
In her own, somewhat rewritten words: “Only years later did people actually start seeing feminism for what it was really worth: Not a whole lot!” (- Beyond bitching about a past that has no relevance to most people of today.)
But a fine example of identifying so much with a particular group, that you completely let go of rationality.
Oh, so I’m the one making up history to fit into an ideology of hate? I think you must have gotten something mixed up, here. I’m not the one who hates men. You are the one who seems to hate women. Fyi, when there are cases in which men are treated unfairly, I voice my opinion just as loud as I do for women being treated unfairly. But historical facts remain historical facts, whether you like them or not.
Also, no one said anything about men of today having to pay for past person’s actions. That in itself is just stupid. What this IS about, though, is given women more equal rights than men. If there is something you feel women are allowed to do, but men not, feel free to fight for it. But simply whining over the unfairness of women fighting for more equal rights and going all aggressive over whoever defends them really is NOT the solution.
Btw, what outsiders? This is the internet, so there is NO SUCH THING as an outsider. If you’re not happy about strangers coming into the discussion, then keep off the internet.
In reply to your ps: You might want to revise your history yourself, before making such unwarranted claims.
You know, just because some things didn’t happen in the US, doesn’t mean that they didn’t happen at all. The US isn’t the center of world, so you might want to be a bit more open-minded to that fact. You calling me an idiot for stating historical facts isn’t going to make them untrue, either. So, before going all aggressive on me, you might want to check up those facts, because evry single one is true. Yes, even the one about men being able to divorce their wife for whatever stupid reason they wanted, while women were forbidden to do so for a veeeeeeery long time.
Also, please do not interpret things into my words that I never said. I never said women were not happy, I’m sure some of them were very happy to spend their days knitting and making calls. Basically doing nothing worthwhile. But that’s a matter of taste. Some people nowadays still do not do anything worthwhile with their lifes, so that is really just beside the point.
Now, back to things that you claim didn’t happen in the US. I will not go through all the things I listed, but for instance the patent issue: the first woman who was granted a patent was Marie Kies, in 1809. Now, even though the US apparently only passed its first patent law in 1790, very few women asked for a patent on their invention, because many states didn’t allow women to own property in their own right if they were married. Now, whether you like it or not, but that falls under the definition of oppression.
The same goes for voting rights: in France, women only received the right to vote after the second world war. They were also not allowed to fight. So, what some women did, was go to the front to act as nurses, while others worked hard in factories building the bombs and guns that the men would use. By the way, a woman is responsible for saving many lives, thanks to her invention of Kevlar, which is used to make bulletproof vests. That, too, is somehting you might want to look up.
Also, think of all the women who had to use male pen-names, because writing as a woman was frowned upon and having a male pen-name made it easier to get the book published. Being looked down as “just a woman”, for which reason people think one can’t do this and that, also belongs in the same category. You cannot deny this.
Have you ever heard of chastity belts? Yes, yes, they did exist. What do you think they were for? If you now tell me it’s to protect the women from being raped, then you really are pushing it. If a man cannot keep it in his pants and blames the woman for his lack of control, then it is simply the man’s lack of respect for the woman. Not the other way around.
To finalise this answer, let me just mention Beatrix Potter and her research about funghi. Did you know that, since she was a woman, she was not allowed to hold a speech at a university about it? She had to give her paper to a male professor, so that he could read it out to the students. Only years later did people actually start seeing the paper for what it was really worth: a lot! Regardless of Mrs. Potter being a woman. And this is just one example out of many.
Unfortunately for you, these things falls under the definition of “oppression”, and just because YOU and some other idiots don’t like it, doesn’t make it any less so. Neither does it make me a feminist (the definition of which you might also want to look up, because the people you lot like to label as feminists, most definitely are not, by the true definition of the word). When there are cases of injustice towards men, I am just as loud at voicing my thoughts. For instance, even though men used to have full rights over children and women none, now it seems to be the opposite case. I do not agree with this 180° reverse either. It should either be the child’s choice, or custody should be given to the parent most apt and capable at taking care of the child/children. Depending on the situation, that can be either the man or the woman.
ROFLMAO !!!
So women were oppressed because they were not allowed to
“- go to war (yes, they were actually forbidden from going to war. So, even those who might have wanted to, were not allowed to)”
So all these women were oppressed because they were not allowed to enter the battlefield and be slaughtered. Wow, that is some serious oppression.
Would you say that men were / are oppressed when they are FORCED to go to war?
Were they being oppressed when they had cowardly “white feathers” pinned on them if they had not signed up yet, by the very same women who were prevented from going to be killed?
Forget it, it’s rhetorical question.
Yes, that was exactly where I abandoned all hope on this one, Turbo.
Women actually have a long and substantiated history of being participants in wars, dating back at least 3-4000 years.
The troops landing in Normandy during WWII feared only one thing above the German 88 cannons more than anything else. Female french snipers, defending their german lovers.
Yes, which makes the excuse of “protecting the women and therefore not allowing them to go to war” even more stupid. It still doesn’t make it any less true. You might want to look it up. But not being allowed to enroll as a soldier still wouldn’t keep some women from fighting in their own way – be it as a nurse, in a factory, or any other way they could think of.
Before putting me off as an idiot, you might want to check on the facts I listed. Because, like it or not, they are all historical facts and belong into the category of “oppression”.
By all means, do us all a favour and enlist, risking the possibility of sudden painful death on a distant battlefield, defending the enemy, if that’s what you want.
I’m certainly not going to stand in your way.
FYI, history happens to be one of my favourite subjects of reading, and I’ve probably read more history books than you have ever seen.
I have, however, never attended a womens studies class, where you seem to have picked up most of your knowledge on the subject, which would explain the difference in our perception of that past.
I never questioned that women had a hard time in the past, because ALL people did, but compaired to the lives of the average man back then, I’m pretty sure most men would have traded in a second.
You really are good at nitpicking, aren’t you? Fyi, nowadays many women go to war (since now they are obviously allowed to do so). That in itself already invalidates your point. Considering no one at the time knew what it was really for each other’s side (censoring, etc.), and that most women would give their lives to protect theirs sons and husbands, if they could, yes, I know that those who wanted to do all they could, would even have gone to war. Unfortunately, that was not possible.
As I also said to Suzanne, when there is injustice towards men, I also voice my thoughts. It is wrong to force ANYONE to have to go to war. Most especially children (because yes, there has been time in which even children were sent to war. Basically as canon fodder). So, to answer your question, in a way, a man forced to go to war, is oppressed. Except that those people who forced them to go to war were men, too, thereby making it a completely different matter, entirely. There is also the issue of propaganda. You don’t seem to be aware of the strength of propaganda in brainwashing people. Why do you think Germans sided with Hitler so quickly, before the second world war? Yes, propaganda.
“You really are good at nitpicking, aren’t you?”
No just telling you some truths that you missed.
“Fyi, nowadays many women go to war (since now they are obviously allowed to do so). That in itself already invalidates your point.”
No it doesn’t invalidate my point, because I did not say that women would not go to war.
I said that being prevented from going to be slaughtered on the battlefield is not oppression, that remains true.
By the way, if we had had conscription for women as we had for men, those women would not have been fighting for their husbands and sons but for their own lives, because they would have been far to young, as most of the young men who were conscripted. But I digress.
So you think that “in a way”, which is to say only “sort of”, men who were forced to go to war were “sort of” oppressed. But then you backtrack immediately by saying this doesn’t count because it was men that sent them. Good grief.
So a slave man is not oppressed if his slave master is a man. Do you understand how stupid you sound at this point.
And if you think that only men have sent men to war you have no idea of history.
Not sure I buy the propaganda excuse for the white feather stuff, but I wasn’t there, just as you weren’t.
“Except that those people who forced them to go to war were men…”
Bullshit. “Come back with your shield or on it,” was the mantra of the MOTHERS of Spartan warriors. And look up the original White Feather Campaign. Patriarchy, my ass.
We are extremely aware of the strength of propaganda in brainwashing. However you, apparently, are completely unaware of the propaganda-based brainwashing which is vital to the continued existence of feminist ideology. Feminist dogma simply does not hold up to logical or reasonable scrutiny, because it is based ENTIRELY on lies like, “Women as a class have always been oppressed by men as a class.”
I know you think you’re revealing something fresh and insightful to the unwashed masses here in the Manosphere, but believe me: it’s old, old news. Earlier today I saw a comment either here or on Youtube, pointing out a “progression” that NEVER reverses itself:
Childhood → Feminism → MHRA
Obviously, relatively few people complete that particular journey, but becoming aware of men’s issues is the logical next step after becoming aware of women’s issues. Unless you believe that women are inherently deserving of more rights and privileges.
Most of us have either been feminists or have at least acquiesced to feminism. We know the drill and we’re sick to death of it. We simply reject the notion that anything could ever justify the expansion of women’s rights and privileges at the expense of men’s rights. (I would include men’s “privileges” in that statement, but men’s privileges fall into only two categories – those they share with women and those they earn.)
My boy must never bring disgrace to his immortal sires—
At Valley Forge and Lexington they kindled freedom’s fires,
John’s father died at Gettysburg, mine fell at Chancellorsville;
While John himself was with the boys who charged up San Juan Hill.
And John, if he was living now, would surely say with me,
“No son of ours shall e’er disgrace our grand old family tree
By turning out a slacker when his country needs his aid.”
It is not of such timber that America was made.
I’d rather you had died at birth or not been born at all,
Than know that I had raised a son who cannot hear the call
That freedom has sent round the world, its previous rights to save—
This call is meant for you, my boy, and I would have you brave;
And though my heart is breaking, boy, I bid you do your part,
And show the world no son of mine is cursed with craven heart;
And if, perchance, you ne’er return, my later days to cheer,
And I have only memories of my brave boy, so dear,
I’d rather have it so, my boy, and know you bravely died
Than have a living coward sit supinely by my side.
To save the world from sin, my boy, God gave his only son—
He’s asking for My boy, to-day, and may His will be done.
Written by a mother during the American civil war. So yeah, you’re right. Humanity is capable of heinous things, both men and women.
One more thing.
“Childhood → Feminism → MHRA”
I think this is really true, and let me explain why I think this. I would have called myself a feminist when I was a teenager. And I’d have sworn up and down how much women’s equality mattered to me etc. etc.
But the simple truth was that at the time I didn’t respect women as my equal. I was the champion of women’s equality, I was necessary for feminism to succeed. This is narcissism, but it’s something deeper still.
There’s a process of relinquishing responsibility as a man. I think men will make the transition from feminism to MHRA as they relinquish the personal responsibility they’ve been trained to feel for every bloody thing. It’s when you can respect women as fully realized adults that you no longer feel personally responsible for them. That’s when you start thinking about your own humanity more.
I’ll be submitting an article in the next couple days that sort of touches on this. If it passes muster you’ll get to read it.
“You really are good at nitpicking, aren’t you?”
“nitpicking” … hmmmm … what a negative word choice from a downbeat deadbeat person (read: feminist), to describe Turbo’s critical thinking skills, which she secretly desires, yet desperately wants and needs to arrest, that she will resort to subtle shaming tactics.
Fuck You, RealLife… And get one while you are at it!
“So, to answer your question, in a way, a man forced to go to war, is oppressed. Except that those people who forced them to go to war were men, too, thereby making it a completely different matter, entirely.”
If a women kills another women we shouldn’t give a fuck then ? should we ?
People please….. The murderer is a women !! She is oppressed as fuck. So, it is justified for her to kill anyone she wants. Why don’t we give every women one AK-47 to help to reduce their frustration … ?? And we need a “women killed women court” too. Because some stupid shit thinks it’s a different matter entirely.
By they way is there any ingredient called stupidity in your DNA ?