Fantasy

The Myth of Women’s Oppression

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.

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and monthly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Eincrou

    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.

  • zz9000

    Your lack of knowledge of history is staggering and this amounts to nothing more than armchair logic.

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    Originally Posted By zz9000

    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.

    • jatkoroikka

      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.

      • Paul Elam

        “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?

        • jatkoroikka

          “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.

          • yinyangbalance

            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.

  • http://denisspaceeh.spaces.live.com Denis

    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.

  • http://www.pornstream.fr redtube

    WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. ;)…

  • Linda

    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:

    • sdrake

      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!

      • scatmaster

        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.

    • Simon Jester

      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.

    • Y

      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…

    • Kimski

      /Coughs:*Bullshit!*

  • The White Rider

    “They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears.”

    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.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      “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.

  • Pingback: O mito da opressão feminina | Canal do Búfalo

  • Pingback: The Continued Pussification of the American Male | | BOLD & DETERMINEDBOLD & DETERMINED

  • B.A.

    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.

  • Pingback: [Vídeo] O mito da opressão feminina | Canal do Búfalo

  • MGTOW-man

    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.

  • another_voice

    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”?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      That’s it. I give up.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        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….)

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      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.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        Thank you.

  • scatmaster

    Potential, potential

    Not counting my roosters

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    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.

  • MGTOW-man

    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!

  • liam613

    I’ve spoken to feminists and sometimes they say things that make a lot of sense. 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). So apparently feminists care about that shit, too. So it’s not all about man-hating and seeking special treatment and all the stuff I’m seeing in this article and the comments.

    Someone also sent me this, and I think it’s pretty cool, actually, and addresses what someone said about women pointing the finger and accusing men of rape as an exercise in power.

    http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/4663/54014751731843831055782.jpg

    I consider it a part of being a good man to be able to respect women as I would expect women to respect me. And actually, sometimes that means not being such a bro all the time. Maybe I’m on the wrong blog or something, but that’s part of who I decided to be, and it’d be nice if it was OK for me to be that dude, just as you guys think it’s OK to be the kind of dude who seems to want power over women.

    [EDIT] Apparently, it’s not OK for me to decide to be that guy, because my comments are being censored. Looks like this isn’t so much a blog for men as a blog for a certain type of men that are considered acceptable.[/EDIT]

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      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.

      • Liam

        I really don’t feel that I’m the one who doesn’t have the guts to be challenged. Seems to me that I just challenged you in a pretty mature and reasonable way, and you basically just told me to shut the fuck up. I don’t exactly understand how you can assume I know nothing about patriarchy just because I’ve familiarized myself with how it’s portrayed on this site and I don’t totally agree with it.

        And, actually, I doubt you’ve heard these things, even though people have said them to you, because I’m pretty sure I’ve just said them to you and you definitely didn’t hear me.

        But you know what? Keep on threatening to rape women to put them in their place. I reiterate: I see I’m not the right kind of man to be welcome here. I’m going elsewhere so I can have mature conversations about these things, including why I’m not considered welcome on a blog that’s “a voice for men”.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          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.

    • Bombay

      LOL. How often do you beat your girlfriend? Feminism can help you stop.

    • Theaverageman

      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.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

        “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.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

      “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.

  • St miracle

    that’s ture,men never opress women ,the only opression is that today,women opress men

  • RealLife

    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.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      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.

      • Kimski

        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??

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          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?

          • Kimski

            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.

        • RealLife

          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.

      • RealLife

        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.

    • Turbo

      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.

      • http://gravatar.com/dekimski Kimski

        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.

        • RealLife

          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”.

          • Kimski

            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.

          • RealLife

            @Kimski: I do not need to enlist to make my point valid. In fact, all the things that women are now allowed to do, but were not allowed to do until not so long ago, already does that. Have a look at the number of women who go to war nowadays. There’s more than you seem to think.

            Did you know? Just a few days ago was a law abolished in France, forbidding women from wearing trousers. Granted, no one had been paying attention to it for a while now, nevertheless, it existed until recently. For 214 years… This might sound ridiculous, but I don’t see a law forbidding men from wearing dresses. Men had it harder than women in the past? You must be joking… Tell me of one law (apart from the ever returning war example that is starting to get very unoriginal as it’s the only one I’m ever told of) that oppressed men and favoured women. Keeping in mind the list of examples I’ve already given you in my first post.

            It’s so easy to assume things when one knows nothing about the other person. Fyi, I have never attended the classes you claim I did. On the contrary, when making statements, I make sure they are true before I post them. For that, I use whatever information I have at my disposal. That includes the 5 floor library around the corner from where I live, as well as the internet. Unfortunately, assuming things the way you do, does not show a great deal of intelligence…

      • RealLife

        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.

        • Turbo

          “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.

          • RealLife

            Not being allowed on the battelfield may not be oppression, but it doesn’t change the fact that they now can and men don’t have to anymore. At least not where I come from.
            But forcing men to go to war is not an oppression by women. It is an oppression from men on men, which is not the same as an oppression of men on women, as it long has been. So, you can’t blame women for men having to go to war. You can only blame men for that.

            A slave man is oppressed even if his master is a man, yes. But you cannot blame the woman for that, which is my whole point. Also, simply because men were forced to do things (that women were forbidden of) does not make female oppression any more untrue. That is another point I am trying to make. If you will remember the story of Mulan (you may use the Disney version, if you wish), who went to war disguised as a man, because as a woman, she was not allowed to: She did not fight for her own life, but instead to protect her father. So, you cannot assume that women would not fight to protect their loved ones.

            I also know enough history to tell you that some young men were so desperate to go to war that they even faked their age. So, obviously, you can’t generalise and say ALL men were forced to go to war.

          • Turbo

            @ RealLife

            “Not being allowed on the battelfield may not be oppression”

            In your earlier post you claimed it was, thank you for admitting you were wrong.

            “but it doesn’t change the fact that they now can and men don’t have to anymore. At least not where I come from”

            So what ? Irrelevant to the discussion, and not strictly correct anyway. American men still must sign up for selective service, women do not.

            “But forcing men to go to war is not an oppression by women”

            Never said it was, once again irrelevant.

            “It is an oppression from men on men”

            No it is not, it was an obligation, or oppression if you like, on men by society through government. That society was made up of people, men and women equally.

            “A slave man is oppressed even if his master is a man, yes. But you cannot blame the woman for that, which is my whole point”

            Never said it was, once again irrelevant.

            “So, you cannot assume that women would not fight to protect their loved ones”

            I did not assume anything of the sort. I made the comment that if women were conscripted they would not be fighting for their husbands and sons because they would be too young to have them. I did not say women would not fight for their loved ones. Stop trying to project that offensive crap onto me.

            “So, obviously, you can’t generalize and say ALL men were forced to go to war”

            Never said that either, though many certainly have been over many wars.

            You are labouring under the illusion that men controlled everything up until a few years ago. Incorrect.

            For every one of the disadvantages (note I said disadvantage not oppression) placed on women by society (not just men) there were equal disadvantages and obligations that were placed on men. Most advantage was gained by class, not gender.

            You have commented om many things that I didn’t say, but there is one thing you did not comment on that I did say.

            “And if you think that only men have sent men to war you have no idea of history.”

            Start with Margaret Thatcher and work backwards if you want to learn the truth, not the feminist revision.

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          “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.)

          • Gordon Wadsworth

            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.

          • Gordon Wadsworth

            Written by a mother during the American civil war. So yeah, you’re right. Humanity is capable of heinous things, both men and women.

          • Gordon Wadsworth

            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. :D

          • RealLife

            As I just told Kimski, the white feather campaign was founded by a man. I think that says enough on the subject, don’t you think?

            You all keep coming back with this ONE SINGLE example of men being oppressed by BOTH men and women (originated by men, btw., who were the ones making up the rules and laws, as I’m sure you’re aware of). What about all the examples I gave you in my original post? Or, the french law forbidding women to even wear trousers (which was only abolished a few days ago)? Dothey not count, then? Because, like it or not, they DID happen… Until women fought to get rid of them. You know, you really can’t blame a woman for a man’s actions (ie laws). Even if some women then make use of these actions for their own purpose. You can say it’s not fair for men to have to go to war, but since it was NOT a woman who made that decision, but a man, it would be correct to blame whoever these men were.

            Also, while you seem to think men deserve more rights than women, I do NOT think that women deserve more rights than men. I think both genders deserve EQUAL rights. That includes women being allowed to have the complete independence men always had (work, owning property, opening bank accounts, same wages, being allowed to wear whatever they want without men thinking they are asking for anything, having sex before marriage, and the list goes on), as well as men being allowed things that they didn’t always have (not being forced to go to war, being allowed a paternity test when there is doubt about whether he really is a child’s father, equal chances of gaining custody over a child, etc.). With the difference that I don’t go around insulting people in the process.

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            Women as a class have never ever been oppressed by men as a class. Women as a class have always been protected, supported, and catered to by men as a class. You’re full of shit.

        • Near Earth Object

          “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!

          • RealLife

            Oh, how very original… I invalidate a point and all you find to do is make fun of it and insult me in the process, for no reason, and without even making a point yourself. In contrary to you, though, I will stay polite (and thereby not lower myself to yours) and suggest you follow your own advise of getting a life. Mine is actually quite fulfilled and busy, thank you very much.

        • Near Earth Object

          • Kimski

  • Never Blue Again

    “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 ?

    • RealLife

      What the hell are you talking about? You don’t make any sense. That’s all I have to say to your reply. Way to go comparing apples and pears. You people are complaining about men being forced to go to war and putting the blame on women in the process. What you don’t seem to realise is that it was NOT a woman who made up this rule. It is a man. So, go complain about the MEN who forced other MEN to do things. In the case of things women were not allowed to do, it was ALSO men who made up these rules. A woman would never forbid another woman to go to university. Men did. So, women are complaining about men making up these rules, which are sexist.

      By the way, I am not goint to lower my self to your level by insulting you. I hope, though, that my explanation was simple enough so that even you can understand it WITHOUT misunderstanding it. If you are still going to try and turn it in a way that suits you, then I can’t help you either.

      • Kimski

        “What you don’t seem to realise is that it was NOT a woman who made up this rule. It is a man. So, go complain about the MEN who forced other MEN to do things.”

        What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant moron??! Go check out the “White Feather”-campaign of WW1, just as an example, to get your facts straight about what women were doing during that era, besides sending their alleged “loved ones” off to die on the battlefields of Europe. A very effective campaign, btw, that eventually ended up killing and maiming young men without the ability of voting, in the hundreds of thousands. The FIRST generation of men that were allowed to vote, mind you, if they could get away from the trenches. Which they couldn’t…By the way..
        Women have been shaming men as cowards for not putting their lives on the line since the dawn of mankind. There’s nothing new about that fact, but apparently you were sound asleep during that history lesson.

        And, btw, I have no problem with lowering myself to your level of insults, when you come in here to peddle your rewritten feminist puke, seemingly without knowing the first thing about the subject you choose to post about.

        Which leads to another subject that you also seem willfully ignorant about, or at least deliberately continue to overlook: None of the shit back then has ever impacted your life in any way, shape or form, and I don’t hold any women personally responsible for their continuing shaming men to enlist, even though that behavior has killed my gender in the millions.
        Perhaps you should start showing present men the same courtesy, hmm??

        • RealLife

          Ok, so you asked me to look up the white feather campaign of WW1. It’s interesting to see how you put the blame on women, when it was a man who founded the whole thing. It’s obvious that radical feminists would then make use of it. But again, you’re forgetting that the origin of it was a MAN, not a woman.

          Also, you keep giving me one single example: men forced to go to war. Not only is that one single example in cotnrast to the many I gave you in my original post, but it is a law made by men, forbidden to women. Nowadays, it is not forbidden to women anymore and as such, there are now women in the army. In many countries, men also do not have to go to war anymore. Please also keep in mind the number of young men wh olied about their age, in order to be allowed to go to war. In fact, one of my ancestors did just that – just to give you a live example. And no, he did not die in the war, btw.

          My level of insults? Considering I have not insulted you, your point is, again, invalid. It is rather I who is not lowering myself to your level. I’d rather refute your statements using logic, instead of insults. Let me guess: you’re now going to say I’m not using logic and then insult me again. Sorry to disappoint you, but any intelligent person will agree that I indeed am using logic. I also take the time to look up things instead of blindly, stubbornly and one-sidedly sticking to one side of the story, as you are.

          • Kimski

            Please explain which difference it makes that it was a man that came up with the idea, when it was being shamed by women that proved effective, and they took up the task at hand with great pleasure?
            If a man had tried to shame another man into enlisting, he’d probably end up getting his ass kicked, and rightfully so.

            It’s actually the exact same thing we see with feminism today. Some very rich men in the top started pouring money into Women’s lIb, and just like mindless sheeps women bought into the idea that they were more ‘oppresseed’ than everybody else were in the past, and it is women that keeps driving that rhetoric today.
            The sole purpose of feminism has always been to keep the ones in the top provided with more money, while dividing the rest of us. And thanks to women like you, they’ve been extremely succesfull in pushing that agenda through, and keeping themselves on top.

            I’ll consider your kind of equality legit, the first time a woman comes to collect my garbage or fix my toilet. I’m not holding my breath, though.

  • RealLife

    @Suzanne McCarley: Oh, yes they have! And JUST because YOU don’t like it or don’t want to believe does NOT make it any less true! I have given you examples. If you simply REFUSE to acknowledge them as what they are, the TRUTH, then I can’t help you, either. Go ahead. Continue on with your delusioned life.

  • RealLife

    @Kimski: The difference, is that the women obviously did not come up with the idea themselves. A man created the campaign, and as campaigns usually worked, there will have been propaganda, lobbying, etc. behind it. Considering the time, people will have believed and followed just about everything they were told, if it had been told by an influencial person. How did you think Hitler later gained so much support? Same system, other people, later time, same results. If a man holds a the end of a pistol into your face and gives you the choice between dying right there and then, and enlisting, you too, would have enlisted. Rather harsh example, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was how many men at the time felt, before enlisting.

    Considering feminism started in the early 1800s and has gained women many rights that rich men would have very much liked to keep them away from, I very much doubt there are rich men these days doing what you say they are doing. Especially when said feminists go and occupy/damage the property of said rich men. Then again, rich men pour money into all sorts of controversial things. Perfect example: Berlusconi. But there are others and it’s getting off-topic.

    Now, I ask you: how would you feel not being allowed to go to university, have a job, own property, manage said property, open a bank account, express your political opinion, obtain a license for copyright, generally be independant, if you were not taken seriously after you had finalised some complicated research, etc? You wouldn’t be too happy, would you? Well, THAT’S the exact reason why feminism was created. So, it’s not people like me who keep the rest of us separated, it’s people like you who absolutely refuse to achkowledge this as oppression. Even nowadays, women are still being oppressed. Or do you think it’s normal that a women in certain countries have to wear the burka, are STILL not allowed to vote or drive cars, are STILL considered at fault when they are raped, STILL need a dowry in order to get married. Of course, these kind of examples are not so much the case in Europe or the US anymore, but they are still very much a reality for many women on this very planet, in this very century. And as long as women are being oppressed SOMEWHERE on the planet, there will be feminists, whether you like it or not.

    Ok, well, if you actually called a female plumber, then you would get one. Because, I just spent 3 seconds googling female plumbers, and immediatly found some. In my neigbourhood, we also have women collect the garbage. What you need to keep in mind, though, is: do you not have any, because they didn’t apply for the job, or because they were simply not hired? Also, the day men become secretaries, you can start pulling that kind of expectation. Since that’s not going to happen, I wouldn’t if I were you. Especially, since there’s more and more women in all sorts of jobs that were once considered “for men”. Yes, even the not so fancy ones. Btw, men fought to be able to become nurses, which was considered a woman’s job. Now, we have male nurses. How about that?

    • Kimski

      Just spent 2 hours writing a massive reply to your latest rant, and then my browser went off line before I was able to post it.
      Crydiego covered most of the bases, but far from all, and I’ve been having this discussion on more occasions during the last 3 years, than I care to think about.
      I’m really tired of it, to be quite honest..

      You seem to think I have a problem with equal rights for women, while you persistently choose to refrain from looking at the responsibilities and accountabilities that comes with it. I don’t. I have a problem with the kind of feminism that defines women as perpetual victims, even though they are quite capable individuals, if only the gender ideologues who wants to keep their jobs would stop making them believe otherwise.

      Let’s leave it at that, ’cause I’m done wasting more time.
      How about that?

      • Turbo

        Hey Kimski,

        Just a suggestion for you. If you are planning to do a larger post, do it in a word processor like “Word” or “Notepad” etc. then copy paste to the comments when you are finished.

        This what I do now because I sometimes use my Laptop to comment and it has a mind of its own when on the net and I have lost many comments.

        Cheers :-)

        • Kimski

          Thanks, Turbo.
          It’s a bitch to write such a long reply, especially between the hours of 2 and 4:30 AM, just to see it all go to waste.

          I’ll look into your suggestion, but I’m still done with RealLife.

          Even her choice of name is pissing me off now, it’s that bad..
          ;)

        • RealLife

          For some reason I can’t reply to your answer to my post, so I’ll just use this one to reply to you.

          Ok, not being allowed on a battlefield may not be oppression by definition. To a person who actually wants to actively fight (so save or protect whoever), not being allowed to do so, simply based on one’s gender is still extremely frustrating. It is then made even more frustrating when others then use it as an excuse to make it seem like you’re the bad guy. Ok, so men had to go to the battlefield, even if they didn’t want to. Well, women were not allowed on a battlefield, even if they DID want to, and considering the rising number of women in the army nowadays, I don’t doubt a second that there would have been women who would have grabbed a gun and rushed out to onto the battlefield right next to their father, brothers, husbands or whoever. So, turning the fact that men had to go to war onto women and saying it was a discrimination against men really is not fair at all, considering that women were discirminated against in just the opposite way. And saying it was for their own protection is just an excuse as it obviously doesn’t apply anymore and hasn’t done people any harm by it.

          How is the fact that women can now go to war irrelevant, when I keep getting bombarded about “how unfair” it is, that women didn’t go to war. Well, now they do. And as for American men having to sign up for selective serving, well America is not the world. In France, for instance, both genders have to do spend a day of what they call “call for the national defense” and in Germany you now only have to go to the army if you want to. In the UK, there is neither, as far as I know. Same for Italy, Spain, Greece, Norway, and many other European countries. I don’t know about China, but highly doubt there is anything of the sort (as none of my Chinese friends have ever said anything about it) and neither is there in Japan. So, yeah, just get rid of it in the States and be done with it. I never understood why guys could be called into the army at 18, but not drink alcohol until 21, anyway. That’s just stupid. And many women have that exact same opinion. So, using that as an excuse to bash women is really not fair.

          ““But forcing men to go to war is not an oppression by women” – Never said it was, once again irrelevant.”
          –> well, then stop using the argument that men were forced to go to war.

          ““It is an oppression from men on men” – No it is not, it was an obligation, or oppression if you like, on men by society through government. That society was made up of people, men and women equally.
          –> Nowadays there might be women in governments, but most certainly not before WW2. At least not in Europe. Men were the ones in governments and men were the ones making decisions and creating laws. Women were generally regarded as stupid and brainless and if a woman wanted to go to university, she was considered an oddity. A good example is Beatrix Potter, or all the women who ended up using male pen-names in order to have a chance at getting their books or articles published. The best examples you can get are probably monarchs: only men could become heirs. In the UK, women could, but only if there was no man in the direct line. Otherwise the woman was skipped. It might have changed now, but it was only granted because the decision-makers had to acknowledge that the female British monarchs always had strong reigns, whereas the men didn’t necessarily. So, they couldn’t use that excuse anymore. But that aside…

          “A slave man is oppressed even if his master is a man, yes. But you cannot blame the woman for that, which is my whole point” – Never said it was, once again irrelevant.
          –> why bring it up in an attempt to refute my argument, then?

          “So, you cannot assume that women would not fight to protect their loved ones” – I did not assume anything of the sort. I made the comment that if women were conscripted they would not be fighting for their husbands and sons because they would be too young to have them. I did not say women would not fight for their loved ones. Stop trying to project that offensive crap onto me.
          –> Well, someone did, or I would not be making a point about it. People here use the argument to speak about men in general, regardless of their age. So, I do the same. If a man of 40 is forced to go to war, then a woman of 40, who would go to war, would very likely have a husband and son. But the age really isn’t relevant to the point that at he time, if women could fight for their loved ones (even if it’s just mother, sibblings and father), they would have. Maybe not all of them, but there would.

          You are labouring under the illusion that men controlled everything up until a few years ago. Incorrect.
          –> Until a few year ago, no. Until about 200 years ago, they most definitely controlled the majority of things.

          For every one of the disadvantages (note I said disadvantage not oppression) placed on women by society (not just men) there were equal disadvantages and obligations that were placed on men. Most advantage was gained by class, not gender.
          –> Disatvantage? So, you call being forbidden to access knowledge, own property, work, open bank accounts without permission of your father or husband, manage your money, vote, etc. disadvantages? They are clearly oppressive laws as they result in women being kept neatly at home, without the chance of independance or the possibility of developing herself. Her only role was to look nice and bear children. For ther things, she was expected to shut up in public and not express any intelligent opinion. What’s left? Gossip. That goes especially for middle class and higher up women. Lower class women, as lower class men, weren’t considered worth much, anyway.
          So, what are those disadvantages and obligations on men, since you claim that there are so many. Until now I have seen only one.

          Margaret Thatcher comes waaaaay later. Most of my comments are based on 1800s-1930s and before, because the 1800s were the beginning of feminism. What most people nowadays call feminism is NOT feminism. They are the few radicals, who seem to be anti-men, when feminism is NOT about being anti-men at all. Unfortunately, they are getting all the attention. It’s like saying “most terrorists until now have been Muslims, so all Muslims are terrorists and bad”. And don’t say it’s not, because it is. And for the last time: I am NOT using feminist articles and papers as base for my arguments. Can you people STOP assuming that, please?

          • Deucalion

            “Nowadays there might be women in governments, but most certainly not before WW2. At least not in Europe.”
            So I guess Queen Elizabeth of England and Isabella of Spain dont count, right? Or Catherine the Great of Russia either? Or how about Elizabeth II, who was the queen at the time of WWII… And how about Cleopatra (Admittedly not European, but still…)? Go back to school child, your ignorance is showing!

        • RealLife

          I seem to have lost the massive comment I was writing you and I can’t be bothered repeating it… In any case, to get my point without all the irrelevant side arguments and stuff (from both sides, mind you), please read the last message I addressed to Kimski, which is also a loooot shorter.

  • crydiego

    You seem to be a voice for women’s rights and I don’t think you will get much argument here on that until you tie it to feminism. Also I don’t think you will get a lot of push back on why feminism was started; -women’s rights.
    You see, what I have found here on AVfM is a belief in human rights and on individual responsibility.
    When I look at what feminism has become, verses women’s rights, I see little resemblance anymore. The feminist movement stole the civil rights movement by having women perceived as a minority when in fact they are not. Feminism became a voting block of a majority which meant enormous political power. Feminism is now forcing laws to be passed that give extra privilege and protections to that majority.
    You are not fighting the patriarchy, it died some time ago; you are helping it. You are helping to keep it alive to use as an enemy! Replace the word patriarchy in your writing with the word Jews and you may begin to see what I’m saying.
    I don’t remember seeing any post against women’s rights on this site. There may be some but it is definitely the minority. What I have seen here are people sounding the alarm about a political movement that has gone mad with power.
    I don’t fear women’s rights but feminism should be worrying everyone.
    Just my thoughts on it.

  • RealLife

    Same here, I just finished a post that doesn’t seem to have been posted. Whatever.

    What you don’t understand is that the “feminists” that you people keep talking about, are NOT feminsts. They are the few anti-men who are hiding behind the shield of feminism, making the whole group look bad. It’s like saying all Muslims are terrorists, just because msot terrorists until now happened to be Muslims (yes, I’ve actually heard that before, so it’s not even far-fetched).

    My original post wasn’t even about feminism at all. It was about the general refusal on this blog to acklowdged that women in the past used to be oppressed, because of which feminism was created. And please don’t get started on that again. I have given enough examples that are clearly examples of oppression. And again, don’t assume that just because that wasn’t the case in the US, that it didn’t happen, like that Suzanne obviously assumed.

    Yes, so responsibilities and accountancies come with rights. I know that. No need to tell me I don’t, because it’s not true. So what? Women can deal with them just as well as men can.

    All I wanted here, is for people to acknowledge that women were oppressed before feminism managed to give them more rights (which they now have). Now, if you want to say that feminism today has changed and has become something completely different than what it originally was, that’s fine with me. I don’t care. I don’t belong to any of those groups. All I care about is that men acknowledge women as what they are: their equals. Not second class citizens that are there for having kids and taking care of the house. Unfortunately, many men still think that is all women are useful for.

    • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

      After reading your post I don’t think I would trust you to look after the house.

    • Bewildered

      ” It was about the general refusal on this blog to acklowdged that women in the past used to be oppressed, because of which feminism was created. ”

      THIS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL LIES that 21st century female brats have bought into wholesale.
      When you have courses like ‘Women’s Studies’ teaching people utter nonsense,this has to be expected I suppose
      BTW a schizophrenic feels oppressed by noises in his head but that doesn’t mean his oppression is real.
      The problem is nowadays people tell him that his condition is normal instead of treating his condition. I would say that’s very oppressing for sanity!
      Feminism came about because drug abuse became very fashionable [anti-establishment,blah!blah!] and people were too stoned to realize what was happening.

      Yes there’s a particular class of women who feel oppressed in the 21st century—white,middle /upper class privileged women.
      The main cause for their oppression is their own delusions.
      There’s a good old fashioned cure for this ……..

  • RealLife

    Feminism started off as a way to fight for the missing women’s rights. Now, whether that is still the case or not, I don’t care. What I take issue on is two things:
    1) the generalisation of feminism as a bad thing, when feminism is the reason women nowadays have a lot more rights now than before. If people were to say “feminism in the 21st century is about giving women more rights than men”, then I wouldn’t say anything. Generalising and saying feminism in the 1800s and 1900s was about giving women more rights than men is just historically wrong. Per definition feminism is about giving women equal rights to men. Not more rights. Any woman claiming to be feminist, but demanding more rights than men, is NOT a feminist.

    2) the refusal to acknowledge the oppression of women before feminism started. No matter what people say here, the examples I gave in my original post are historical facts and (by the very definition of the word) examples of oppression against women. Until the creating of feminism, women were considered less important than men in all things and had a lot less rights, the right to vote or go to university (ie acces knowledge) being one of the many.

    I was once told that if innovation and inventions were left to women, the result would be 0. That is very insulting because it implies women are stupid and incapable of complex mental thought. The truth of the matter is that the number of actual female innovation and inventions is unknown, because men often took credit for it, because women couldn’t protect it through patents or the idea was stolen and the case never pursued because a woman was considered not capable of such creations. So, for many things, women were not given credit where they were due. This is one of the things that resulted in the creation of feminism. The refusal to acknowledge things like this and the comments saying “women had it better than men, women had more power than men”, which is not true, is just extremely annoying, insulting and frustrating, because no man would have left himself be treated the way a women used to be treated for centuries until it started to change in the 1800s. The most infuriating thing is that there are still men, even today, who continue to expect just that.

  • RealLife

    Oh? And why is that? I fail to see the correlation, especially since I’m not the only one who has given up re-typing a massively long response text, for which a lot of time has been used, that I’m not even supposed to be using, because I’m busy with more important things than arguing with unknown people on the internet.

    • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

      Then keep it short you stupid girl.

      • RealLife

        When you don’t know what you’re talking about, just be quiet. The comment I was answering to was extermely long. There was no way my answer to that could have been short, stupid boy. Mind your own business and conversations, will you?

        • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

          Mind your own business and conversations, will you?

          No.

          • RealLife

            Well, that’s your problem, then. I, for one, don’t need to waste my time with you, just because you’re seeking attention.

          • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

            @RealLife

            Well, that’s your problem, then. I, for one, don’t need to waste my time with you, just because you’re seeking attention.

            Please don’t abandon me. I enjoy reading the drivel of a twelve year old.

          • RealLife

            lol Twelve year old? You must be talking about yourself. In any case, I’m done with you. Unless you have anything constructive to contribute, which you clearly don’t.

          • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

            @RealLife

            Unless you have anything constructive to contribute, which you clearly don’t.

            We’re two of a kind.

  • Deucalion

    Am I the only one who doesnt think “Real Life” has any idea what “Real” means?

    • RealLife

      If you think that women were never oppressed but, on the contrary, were treated better than men, throughout history, then I’m sorry to inform you that you are the one who doesn’t know what “real” means. Treating someone as a child, never taking them seriously and forbidding them many things (e.g. voting, going to university, getting patents for ideas and inventions, not being allowed to wear trousers, etc.) does NOT constitute treating them better.

      • Deucalion

        Yes, poor women. So sad that they were conscripted by the thousands for unjust wars under threat and duress. Poor women, that they were (and are) used as the primary (disposable) labor force. Poor women, having to earn the right to vote through selective service… Oh wait, that was MEN!
        Yes, the patent thing is unfortunate, but guess what? Men have been oppressed in many of the same ways. The difference is, we wielded major economic and military power and were able to leverage it to our advantage, such as franchise (The right to vote and decide the policy of the nation). I will admit, sometimes women didn’t have it very well, but in many ways they had it better. Women aren’t, and never have been (even today), told “Well, we’re going to war. Show up for training and deployment or we’ll throw you in jail!”. Until they are,until women have their children ripped away by the courts in the same numbers as men, until there are as many DV shelters for men as for women, until women are all viewed by society the same as men (Which right now would be as potential rapists, killers and molesters) feminism is nothing more than a grab for more, more, more and little/none of it deserved or earned.
        And guess what, what happened in the past is the past and has little bearing on modern events. Otherwise the Vatican would be tried for (And likely convicted of) crimes against humanity for the 9 crusades (fought by men, many of whom were conscripts) the Inquisition and a dozen other horrible things they did, both directly and indirectly. For that matter, the US would have to answer for the mass genocide of the American natives (As would the Spaniards). Many groups would have to answer for many things that, guess what, they did not do.
        So bitching about what once happened is about as futile as bitching about what COULD have happened. It’s not helpful, it’s not going to solve anything, and mostly it’s just going to piss people off.
        So instead of barging in here, howling like a she-ape about “wimminz opresshun!” how about YOU go do something constructive?

    • http://gravatar.com/philipstocking pjanus

      Fuck, you’ve started her off again about men not being allowed to wear skirts….or something.

      • RealLife

        Fyi, men ARE allowed to wear skirts. They just don’t want to. Oh wait! In Scotland they wear something akin to a skirt – it’s called akilt. And in Sweden they have been wearing skirts because they were not allowed to wear shorts. As soon as they permitted shorts again, though, all of them switched over again. Try again.

      • Deucalion

        Yeah, sorry about that… “B-b-but women couldn’t wear PANTS!!! PATRIARCHY! PATRIARCHY!”
        Do some of these idiots even KNOW how petty their arguments sometimes (Most of the time) actually are?

  • crydiego

    In Reply to realLife

    In a past post you said:
    Per definition feminism is about giving women equal rights to men. Not more rights. Any woman claiming to be feminist, but demanding more rights than men, is NOT a feminist.

    I’m sorry but that definition has already been taken; it’s called “Women’s rights or civil rights or human rights, not feminism.” Feminism has only given lip service to any of these rights because its agenda is political power. It maintains this power by gaining privileges, supplied by the government, to its base, The truly chilling part is that their base is made up of a majority. Many of this majority are people like you, the “I’m not that kind of feminist, feminist!
    So what happens when a majority starts voting itself privileges? Look back to racism in America when blacks were second class citizens. By the way, I was alive then and I got the privileges, but I wasn’t that kind of racist.

    • RealLife

      Taken or not, this is the definition according to the Oxford dictionary (you can’t get any more official than that): “the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.” Nowhere does it say anything about superiority of women. So, a woman vying for female superiority is NOT a feminist.

      • http://hyperskeptical.wordpress.com robertcrayle

        One of the most consistently amusing things about the modern day person is they think that dictionaries are “official” arbiters of what language means. It’s no more coherent than saying a scientist is an “official” arbiter of facts. All hail the masters of language! ALL HAIL OXFORD!

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        There’s more than one dictionary definition I’m afraid, and when experience and usage shows that dictionaries are not fitting common usage–and the particular entry you use does not–then the dictionary needs updating.

        Either that or most people calling themselves feminists aren’t real feminists. Because by the dictionary definition? Guess what? Almost all of us here are feminists. So what do you think the problem is? Oh, because we’re not using the definition you want us to use.

        Perhaps we can fix this for you by creating a definition as commonly understood by millions of people, which is what dictionaries are SUPPOSED to reflect but the OED entry you cite is obviously missing here?

        • http://hyperskeptical.wordpress.com robertcrayle

          Dictionaries aid understanding – they are not a box that language can never leave and were never intended by Dr Johnson to be anything of the sort. People who retreat to dictionary nitpicking have abandoned even the pretence of argumentation or interest in reality. They have descended so far from reality that it cannot intrude into their beautiful mental mythology of themselves. One might as well argue with the tides…

      • Stu

        Feminism is, what feminism does. Now don’t waste anymore of your time. You aren’t going to say anything that everybody here hasn’t heard a zillion times. We are here, because we know it’s bullshit, and hearing it again from you isn’t going to make a dent at all.

  • crydiego

    Reallife
    You are obviously knowledgeable about women’s conditions back in the 1800s. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could time travel back to say 1850 -1890 and really take a close look at a typical American family and judge them in the environment they lived in. Not just from the view of the woman or the man but on living and raising a family. I’m not sure what you may think of family but if we are going to look at typical people I think it’s a good place to start.
    1850: No telephone, no refrigeration, no running water, no electricity, no cars, and the sewing machine was just invented. Life expectancy for whites 40, blacks, less than thirty. Women lived a little longer than men but not much. The average work week for factory work, 65 hours, and farm work was longer or shorter base on the time of year but no work meant no pay. Women had an average of five or more children, depends on whose reporting, let’s just say a lot.
    1861 Civil war, 600000 soldiers died, most men get the right to vote.

    What I’m getting too is that this wasn’t so much oppression as life; harsh and short. The changes around women and men came about because of changes that lifted some of this weight off them. Feminism blames men and makes it look like our great, great grandfathers were privileged good ole boys and then rolls them all up into patriarchy to make an oppressor to show young women in collage. Now they are calling them rapist, dead beat dads, and violent woman beaters.
    When you do some looking into, life in the day, instead of just history 101 you get a different view of the world.

  • RealLife

    So? I don’t see how that changes the fact that women are NOT the property of men, they are NOT second class citizens and thus should NOT be treated that way. I know all the things you just posted. I’ve taken them into account, but it doesn’t change the fact that actively preventing women from acquiring knowledge through university and therefore actively participating in the finance through the work that they would then be able to do is oppression of women. It is active prevention of female independence and as such can be compared to keeping them as slaves, or brood mares, if you prefer.

    They couldn’t even get patents for research, whereas men could. Men ended up getting credit for it, and no female researcher was taken seriously when presenting her research proposal or research findings. Beatrix Potter’s work was only acknowledged some 50 years later. How sad is that?

    “Now they are calling them rapist, dead beat dads, and violent woman beaters.” <– yes, some surely do (I know none, though). Those who get all the attention. Most women are not like that, though. Besides, women get called all sorts of names, too, so men are not the only ones.

    • Deucalion

      Do you honestly think that all men, or even most men, viewed their wives as property? As things? As not fully human? Some did, religious nuts mostly. But the fact is, most men likely loved and honored their wives, they weren’t all cruel slave-owner minded brutes like you seem to so ardently think.
      Why couldn’t women work, you might think (And probably have, without much luck digging up a decent answer that doesn’t involve the oppression of women by men… Because you’ve been trained to suspect that as the primary cause of a vast majority of all women’s problems.) Well guess what? Society was against such things. And guess what? A man cannot control society. He cannot say “Well, it’s illegal for you to work because the royalty that rules us says so, mainly because you lack my upper body strength and as such I make a naturally superior warrior and brick hauler. But I don’t care, you can work if you want. It’s not like you’ll get in trouble and, say, burned at the stake.”
      And guess WHY women weren’t “Allowed” (Expected) to work? Because we men are just built to be stronger, with greater long term endurance and a higher resistance to physical injury, Not saying women aren’t strong, my fiancee is quite physically capable. But the average man has greater upper body strength than the average woman. As such, when castles needed to be built, when moats needed to be dug, and when enemies needed to be slaughtered they called upon us men, who’s only true advantage in the world is might and muscle. It was how we evolved. Do you think hunting mammoth, buffalo, stag and such was EASY? No, first you had to find the thing. Then you had to kill it. THEN you have to hack it apart and drag back as much as possible for the tribe. And who did that? Men did that.
      As for the lack of education, do you think all men went to school and all women didn’t? If you do, you’re a moron and not worth anymore keystrokes. Men were educated just enough for us to do our jobs in most cases. Until the end of the middle ages even most men in the west were completely illiterate! What does a laborer need letters for? Nope, just teach him how to set the stones, apply the mortar, dig the moat, mine the ore, kill the enemy and have done with.
      So guess who REALLY oppressed women? The royalty, the nobility, basically the government. And as we proved already, unless you read only selectively, there were female leaders who were quite happy with this status quot, and are as guilty as you attempt to make men seem.
      So don’t come in here and get all high and mighty with us, we do know what we’re talking about, after all. We’ve looked at this from angles that, with your current social/psychological programming have not, and possibly can not.

  • crydiego

    In reply to RealLife

    YOU: It is active prevention of female independence and as such can be compared to keeping them as slaves, or brood mares, if you prefer.
    CD: Slaves, but of course, all men were rich slave owners. How I long for that carefree life again. This must be the logic behind feminism stealing the civil rights movement and making it about Slut Marches.
    YOU: Besides, women get called all sorts of names, too, so men are not the only ones.
    CD –Names! You call “active oppressor”, and “slave owner” names? These are more like criminal acts.
    What if I said there is nothing about that on the word “men” in the Oxford dictionary. I don’t know of anybody like that and anyone doing that is not a man, so I don’t want to hear it. Look it up! Also look up bigot!

  • crydiego

    To RealLife

    The truth is and I’ll admit it, I wish you were right and feminism is now only about equal rights. I wish sometimes I could go back to my blue pill days and trust that feminist believed like you and I could stand aside and let you do what needs to be done. At one time I would have called myself a feminist, but those were different times.
    What you may not see is that feminism outgrew your dreams of equal rights. It made political friends, it developed voting blocks, and it harnessed your zeal into political power. Then it used that power for money and more power. Feminism is becoming a political party. A political party with the power to crush and imprison its enemies and richly rewards those that help raise it higher. Politicians fear it, companies fear it and now religions are being brought into line. It is running our schools and anything else funded by tax dollars.
    They can’t call themselves feminists you say. Tell them that and see what you get as a response. Power corrupts, -open your eyes and see the power, watch it destroy people and see it elevate others. You and other women that care about human rights think they own feminism, you don’t, it owns you and it may soon own us all.
    As for me, I believe in human rights and it’s not tied to a gender. But on that, I guess we will never agree

  • August Løvenskiolds

    The female rulers of England (in Europe) since 1550 and before WW ONE:

    Queen Mary I: ruler 1553-1558 (over 5 years)
    Queen Elizabeth I: ruler 1558-1603 (over 44 years)
    Queen Mary II: co-ruler 1689–1694 (over 4 years)
    Queen Anne: ruler 1702-1714 (over 11 years)
    Queen Victoria: ruler 1837 – 1901 (over 63 years)

    Total number of ruling Queens: 5.
    Total years of rule: over 127 years.

    Total number of lies from RealLife – oh, we are just getting started.

    Oh, BTW – the entire foundation of your lying points has just been demolished. Fuck off, and grow up,

  • Kimski

    Amount of people dying from famine and wars during their time at the throne: Millions.

    Amount of equality for any gender under their rule: None.

    -But of course the world would be a better place if women ruled…

  • Kristina

    Women are not oppressed! That’s bullshit! If I’m not oppressed then why do I have to fear for my life whenever I’m walking home late at night alone? Walking as fast as I can because of the fear that I might get raped. I get whistled and hollered at and I have to pretend I enjoy it because if I don’t I’m a bitch. I’m supposed to like getting whistled at by strange, creepy men, it should be an honor! Or when a strange man puts his hand on my thigh, or squeezes my butt, I’m supposed to like it, and if I resist I’m a frigid bitch. So, then what if I decide to sleep with a bunch of men? Then I’m become a filthy whore. But when a man does it, it’s okay! Women in this society get raped, and then get blamed for it. “Look at the way you were dressed! You were asking for it!” School dress codes limit girl’s dress because it “distracts boys” and of course we must do anything in our power to protect our poor boys! Boys will be boys after all! Women are constantly objectifed and sexualized in society today, and are seen as mere sex objects. Women are seen as weak and inferior to men. Women and men no doubt have the same equal rights in this new day and age, but that does not mean they are necessarily seen as equals. Women will never be fully equal as men. Men will always be seen with more respect than women.This is a male dominated society. Oppression is more than having the right to vote, dear.

    • Stu

      Go look up the figures for who is attacked the most in the street. I have far more to fear then you walking anywhere at anytime. The reason you are afraid, is because you have been lead to believe that it is you that is more at risk. And tell me who will take any complaint I make about a woman doing anything to me seriously. You woman can slap us, kick us, chop our cocks off, and the world does nothing but laugh. Before you go complaining about your broken fingernail, look around and see how many men have broken necks.

      On top of that, there is 100 knights in shining armor for every man out there that would harm you. Me, nobody gives a fuck. If every woman in the world lived in solid gold palaces and every man slept in the gutter, women like you would still be claiming to be oppressed because there weren’t enough jewels embedded in your gold palaces.

      • Kristina

        First of all, I believe any type of abuse towards woman by a male is absolutely wrong. I also believe any abuse done to a man by a woman is also absolutely wrong. Yes, it is really sad that when a man is abused by his wife it is not taken seriously. But unfortunately that’s the society we live in.

        Before I go complaining about my broken fingernail?! Are you serious?! Yes, because that’s all women care about! Do you really believe women are that shallow?! And I don’t give a fuck about about jewels and gold palaces I want to be RESPECTED. I want to wear whatever I want. I want to sleep with whoever I want. If I get raped I don’t want to get blamed for it. I don’t want men looking down on me, or anyone for that matter.

        Listen, this is what I have to say. Maybe we’re all oppressed. We all internally oppress each other.In rare care cases I guess misandry exists…I’m sorry you can’t cry without being seen as weak. But misogyny is a lot higher.

        And please don’t talk to me like I’m some kind of snobby princess. Rid yourself of your misogynic attitude. I’m not complaining about a broken fingernail here…

        • Robert Crayle

          I find this interesting Kristina:

          “Women have problems? SOCIETY WIDE OPPRESSION! We must work tirelessly to change society until women have no more complaints!”

          “Men have problems? That’s really sad but unfortunately that’s the society we live in.”

          You unimaginative clown. Do you even see this as a contradiction? How stupid do you think others are?

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          You want to be respected? Well, you could take the time to earn it. And you could start by learning what people actually do respect. Lots of feminists claim to “respect” slutty women, while cutting them to shreds behind their backs. Lots of men want to have sex with slutty women, but they don’t want to share their assets with slutty women, and they certainly don’t want their children raised by sluts. Figure out whose respect you want, then figure out what they respect. Then become what they respect. Or do you think you deserve respect simply because you were born? Barney the Dinosaur may have told you that you are naturally entitled to respect, but Barney lied. You aren’t.

    • Stu

      Don’t waste anymore of your time with your rehashed victim bullshit. We have been hearing it all our lives, and we are sick of it. So fuck off.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I resist a lot these days, but today I am in a mood. So, here we go.


      Women are not oppressed! That’s bullshit! If I’m not oppressed then why do I have to fear for my life whenever I’m walking home late at night alone?

      Being afraid of crime is not oppression. Start with a dictionary.


      Walking as fast as I can because of the fear that I might get raped.

      I got mugged once and beaten really badly. It was not oppression. Neither is being raped. Get a dictionary.


      I get whistled and hollered at and I have to pretend I enjoy it because if I don’t I’m a bitch. I’m supposed to like getting whistled at by strange, creepy men, it should be an honor!

      Being whistled and hollered at is uncomfortable for some people. It is not oppression. Get a dictionary


      Or when a strange man puts his hand on my thigh, or squeezes my butt, I’m supposed to like it, and if I resist I’m a frigid bitch.

      People touching you is not….get a fucking dictionary.

      So, then what if I decide to sleep with a bunch of men? Then I’m become a filthy whore. But when a man does it, it’s okay!

      Women in this society get raped, and then get blamed for it. “Look at the way you were dressed! You were asking for it!”

      Men in this society get raped, too. And they get blamed for it, for real. Like “If you did not want to get raped, you should not be in prison.” It is not oppression, it is a crime. Maybe a lack of a dictionary is not the problem here. Maybe there is a fundamental absence of something else. Like a brain.


      School dress codes limit girl’s dress because it “distracts boys” and of course we must do anything in our power to protect our poor boys! Boys will be boys after all!

      Speaking of schools, have you ever been to one? Or was it your school that taught you that a dress code was oppression?

      Women are constantly objectifed and sexualized in society today, and are seen as mere sex objects.

      Then tell women to quit objectifying themselves. What the fuck happened to your brain that it can make you deduce that women spending billions of dollar a year on cosmetics, fashion and cosmetic surgery, in an attempt to make themselves sexually attractive is a form of oppression against them. Free yourself, woman! Stay out of the fucking mall!

      Women are seen as weak and inferior to men.

      Nope, just women like you.


      Women and men no doubt have the same equal rights in this new day and age,

      Wait, aren’t you oppressed?

      but that does not mean they are necessarily seen as equals. Women will never be fully equal as men. Men will always be seen with more respect than women.This is a male dominated society. Oppression is more than having the right to vote, dear.

      Thanks for tying it all together with your most nonsensical string of bullshit. You are not oppressed, lady. Just stupid. Which is too bad, because oppression can be overcome.

      • ali

        Paul, if she is not oppressed then how can’t she leave a comment without being opposed? And she is supposed to like it, because if she doesn’t she is a bitch.

  • Kristina

    Whatever. I can’t take any of this seriously because it honestly seems like you don’t even have much respect for women. Not to mention half your arguement does nothing but call me stupid. Which is quite rude. Not all women are the same, you know. Not all feminists are man-haters. And I honestly do not respect feminists who hate on men, because then they become hypocritical. I do my best to respect both genders. I recognize that not all males are rapists, not all males beat their wives…etc. If you’re going to fight for misandry, which is totally fine, you shouldn’t have such a negative view on woman. And maybe you don’t! Maybe I’m just getting the wrong message. But I’m not going to argue anymore because there is no use. We are two people with entirely different opinions. Continue to fight for what you believe in, but make sure in the process you are being respectful to everyone. In the end, I think men and women should respect eachother, as humans, not because of gender. Good day.

    • Robert Crayle

      “Whatever. I can’t take any of this seriously because it honestly seems like you don’t even have much respect for women”

      Do yo think respect is not calling out silliness bluntly? Thinking you would crumble at being called idiotic for saying idiotic things? Why do you think kid-gloves and childlike deference is “respect” for a grown, presumably-educated adult?

      You come into this forum, saying things that are easily argued down, then start equivocating and damselling when no-one apologises for treating you like an adult – up to and including the consequences of childish non-thought. And think we owe you more respect than you were given. You disrespected us all right from the get-go. Good day to you as well.

      • http://www.genderratic.com Typhonblue (Asha James)

        She means deference to her woman-skin not respect for her self–which would include consequences for her actions.

        She doesn’t realize that this is her first ever opportunity as a woman to earn real respect.

        Ah well.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I don’t know what the fuck you just said, but if it means you are leaving then I agree with you.

  • annie12

    This is a very thoughtful piece, however I have a few objections. Way before America was founded, women were “oppressed” in a social sense. It was often the view of society that men were intellectually superior to women. Yes, most people were uneducated, but among the educated, this view was very prevalent. Is that not some sort of oppression?

    Second, not all women *want* to be protected or provided for. Throughout the article I got a sense of “silly women! You had all this going for you!” Yes, it’s ridiculous to compare the state of women to the state of slaves. It’s also ridiculous to say that today’s Western women are “oppressed”. But oppression, at least in my view, implies some sort of constriction, and women back then were very constricted by their roles. So were men, so in a sense, men were oppressed, too. The idea that “men are strong protectors” and “women are weak homemakers” was harmful for both genders: men were treated as though they were dispensable, women as though they could not make a decision by themselves. I just wonder, if feminism hadn’t come about, would these gender roles be even more prevalent than they are today? Without feminism, women would have many less opportunities than they do now, and I think that’s something to take into consideration. Unfortunately “feminism” has morphed into this horrible thing which demonizes men, and that part I don’t agree with.

  • Kate Stella

    I can’t believe that anyone thinks that not being able to vote, to have a say in who leads you in a representative democracy, is not oppression. I think this author does not even know what the word means. What he mentions as oppression, gas chambers and torture, are tools of genocide, of death. Oppression literally means, “unjust treatment”. Being told that you’re voice is not rational enough to contribute to the common good is most definitely oppression. Not being able to own land for yourself is definitely oppression. Not being able to divorce your husband if he beats you is oppression, the fact that he could beat you is oppression and so is not being allowed to choose who you marry. Being told that you are too weak and fragile to contribute to society in any way besides raising the next generation is oppression.

    I am not a feminist. I believe there are many jobs, like combat operations and some emergency service positions, that the average woman has no place participating in because we are simply built different than men. I even argue that women are not currently oppressed because we have access to all the same educational, work, land, and political opportunities as men. But for hundreds of years, you denied us places in government and the workforce and told us our voices were too drenched in emotion to be relevant to the world. We were literally property that was bartered for between our fathers and those that wished to marry us- most of us didn’t even choose who this person was, our fathers did. For hundreds of years you didn’t even allow us to ride a horse the same way you did. You can gloat on and on about how you used to protect us and how benevolent you were, but what is protection if you have no freedom to make choices for yourself?

    All in all, and this is coming from your everyday woman who has nothing against men. this website is absolutely, positively fucked. Good luck to this author in ever finding a woman dumb enough to cohabitate with him, let alone marry the sorry son of a bitch.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

      You say you’re not a feminist, yet you seem to think in the same us-vs-them, black-and-white terms as feminists.

      You also seem to forget that, but for the 50 years — not hundreds — between 1870 and 1920, being male wasn’t a sufficient qualification to have the vote (in the US, at least), or that, for men, a condition of getting the vote was to volunteer to serve in the armed forces. Prior to around 1830, you had to be white, male and landed in order to vote. The point is that access to the franchise was afforded to men and not women for a very small proportion of the long history of democracy, and that lots of people were discriminated against, including most men, on all sorts of grounds.

      It’s undoubtedly true that women lacked certain rights in the past, but if you want to argue that women were second class citizens relative to men, you need to justify the privileges uniquely available to women and also the obligations owed by men to women attendant on their “privilege” (read up about the doctrine of couverture). I think most men, left to themselves, would rather than women look after themselves and pull equal weight in life. Thankfully, women now have the right to their own property, career and personal autonomy in respect of marriage, children and sex etc. It’s about time all women accepted the responsibilities that go with those rights. (To be sure, some do, and kudos to them.)

      Paul covered all of this in his article, which makes me wonder whether you actually read it carefully (if at all!)

      Women are not now oppressed any more than men are. Neither you nor I have any idea of what true oppression is relative to what men and women suffered in times past, and if historic oppression is ground to claim that modern men owe modern women, then men can make a good case that women owe men for their historic obligations to women.

      You’ve not given this article (nor this site) a fair reading because, at the very least, you’re interpreting it through a gynocentric lens (if not a feminist one), and what we have to say is a direct challenge to both gynocentrism and to feminism alike.

      If you’re unwilling to justify your priors, then the problem lies with you rather than this site.