I hope it's because it's a decent thing to do
And nothing to do with my gender.
If you buy me a drink,
Expect me to do the same for you.
I'll cook for you
(If you don't mind burnt food)
And I'll clean for you
(If you'll return the favour).
Not because I'm a woman,
But because it's a nice thing to do.
If you're nice to me,
It's not a ticket for sex.
If I'm nice to you,
Sex doesn't always come next.
If we go for a meal,
I want to split the bill.
I don't expect you
To sing to me,
Whilst climbing through my window sill.
I don't care if you've had sex or not,
As long as it's the same for me.
I don't want diamond rings,
Don't get down on one knee
I don't owe you anything
And you owe me nothing.
My gender is not entitlement,
And neither is yours.
If I'm drunk, I can't consent,
And I'll love you more for not doing it.
If you hit me, I'll leave you,
And if I hit you, it's just as wrong.
If I cry in front of you,
I don't expect you to fix everything.
If you cry in front of me,
I'll do everything I can to fix it.
If I wear 'too little'
Don't tell me to change.
You can wear whatever you want,
And I won't think it strange.
If I say no, that's what I mean,
And don't be scared to say no to me.
Understand that you don't own me,
We are people. We are free.
i've tried to write this poem maybe five times and it's never sounded right, but you got it perfect.
That is why we all have equal rights and equal laws protecting us and share the same burdens. We all have the same opportunities. All this talk does is throw false flgs around. It is like talking about how there are murderers in society and we do not know what goes on in their minds or which of us may be a murderer in their lifetime.
*LOOKS AT EACH OF YOUR USERNAMES AND WORRIES IS ANY OF YOU GOING TO GO POSTAL*
False threat narratives are what feeds Feminism.
Also, men can also be feminists (to be fair, if you value equal gender rights, you are a feminist, whether you like it or not), so some of your points don't really add up.
Still, I hope you can see how your first comment was offensive, especially to someone like me, who is a feminist. Also, if most people value both men and women, they could pretty much (judging by what you said) be feminists, too. Why would anyone want to court them?
You very literally implied that people wouldn't want to court feminists because they are, in fact, feminists. ...Can't you see how bad that sounds for you? I don't want to put you down, but I do hope you respect what I've said, and really do think about what you're saying in future before you talk out against a group of people, saying they're not wanted in relationships.
I personally don't agree with all the points in this poem, no matter whether the author is feminist or not (which I guess she is), so as you can see, even among feminists we have different views.
I literally implied that Feminists are not worth dating BECAUSE Feminists are not worth dating.
"to be fair, if you value equal gender rights, you are a feminist, whether you like it or not". No, this is simply untrue and IF you believe it is true, then you are ignorant, whether you like it or not.
Now I know that you can run to the dictionary and point to the dictionary definition of "Feminist" and quote it verbatim and jump up and down saying "Look here, it says..."
But there is a problem with this. IF this was ALL Feminism was, there would be virtually no backlash against it. MOST people are happy with females having the same rights and choices as men, and females do have this in Western societies.
Feminism is NOT about gender equality and never was. Not since the very early Suffragettes that shamed young men and boys off to a war (white feather campaign) that the ladies would never have to fight and die for and the early Feminist who invented the "Tender Years Doctrine" that men still suffer under.
Can you name ONE thing that Feminists have done exclusively for the benefit of men in areas of inequality of the genders, where the inequality favours the female? I will give you 60 years of Feminism (that is supposedly all for gender equality) to think about.
No? Really? Yet you tell me IF I DO believe in gender equality that I MUST be a Feminist?
Feminism is a poisonous ideology that is built around false victim narratives and feeds on fears, insecurities and ignorance. It is the biggest conjob of the last 100 years and I am supposed to value the people that promote it. WHY?
I value women enough to not pretend they are victims with little to no agency and with the inability to make constructive choices in their life. I value women enough to see them as individuals with no need to be condescended to and treated like children who cannot make their own way in the world, or as victims of systematic, oppressive culture of man on women abuse.
I value men enough to know that they are not the systematic bullying oppressors that Feminists paint them to be,
Equity Feminists (Those Feminists in name only that do believe in equality of gender, but serve only to give Feminism a good name and do not affect the social changes in response to Feminism), I have no time for, but are of not worth my notice. Radical Feminists that promote culling of men and whatever, are likewise not worth my time nor worth my notice. They are too crazy to be noticed.
The mainstream Feminists are the ones that effect social change and they are the ones that are dangerous. They paint society in ways that are misleading, dishonest and harmful and then base victim narratives around these erroneous conclusions and petition for change. THAT is not constructive.
So now, tell me how you imagine why I or anyone with any morality and brains and good taste WOULD want to court a Feminist?
And, anyone could want to court a feminist. I still find that offensive, and I still don't entirely understand why you even made that remark. Some people fall in love. (Actually, a lot of people do). Sometimes they fall in love with a feminist. It's simple as that.
Also, I'm not really trying to be aggressive or start some argument. I'm simply standing up for feminists, being one myself. Why shouldn't people want to love us? I've had boyfriends before. It's such an awful thing to say, and I hope you see that some people really can take that offensively.
Let me put it in slightly more pointed terms. Let's say I was to say "I am a member of the KKK. But don't worry, I am not one of those horrible racists that give the KKK a bad image and I know they have had a bad rap in the past, but I simply have a natural camaraderie with white people. I do not really object to black people, but I only date white people because I am attracted to white people and like hanging out with my white friends and the KKK allows me access to these people and to people that like white people", you would have EVERY right to think rather dismissively of me in respect to my attachment (however slight) to the KKK and their poisonous ideology.
Feminism, likewise, is poison.
You can call yourself a Feminist by all means, but there is nothing moral or good or nice about doing so. In the same way as there is nothing nice moral or good about calling yourself a member of the KKK.
You may be making the common error of believing that aligning yourself with Feminism is simply saying "I believe in equality of the genders". It isn't. It SO is not. In the same way, aligning yourself with the KKK is not about "hanging out with white people" or "supporting white people". You may not see the similarity and I am not sure it is my place to show you or to try to point out that calling yourself a Feminist or sticking up for them does not make me any better disposed to you. It does not make me dislike you, but makes you dismissible.
The thing with Feminism is not only is the dictionary definition of Feminism not one that works does not and has never worked in practice, but the radical Feminists are not the ones that are problematic.
Do you HONESTLY believe that ANYONE takes the radical Feminists seriously or that they are any problem? Really? The nutjobs who wrote the SCUM Maifesto or Valerie Solanus or the crazies that talk about "culling" 90% of men?
Who cares about them? Not any Anti-feminist I know.
They are beneath contempt or concern. I do not know why Feminists bring them up like they are a concern.
MAINSTREAM Feminists are where the problem lies. They are the ones who inform social change and who bit by bit hurt society through the men in society that they demonise and who shackle Females through a bondage of false oppression and victim narratives an inhibit agency in Females.
Equity Feminists who are the smiling face of Feminism who are just touting a worn out line of "I am a Feminist because i believe in gender equality" are of no impact or effect in the Feminist movement really ought to either get on board with Feminists and properly commit to the poison done their name OR join with Anti-feminists in exposing what is done in the name of Feminism. This playing at calling Feminism equality when around them things are done in the name of Feminism that are nothing about equality and them not doing anything makes Equity Feminists of no more consequence than the Radical Feminists.
Again, what exactly ought I feel bad about or apologise for.
For what it is worth. You seem nice enough, but I think you do not really appreciate the extent of Feminism and your friend in Feminism are not your friends. Better have someone like me tell you uncomfortable truths than comfortable lies.
I don't care about where it's been or where it's going. I have feminist friends who're lovely, and are loved by those around them. I suppose, by what you said, I'm an equity feminist. Yes, I do ignore the bad that comes from feminism. Why? Because I'm not part of that bad. Female sexists can do what they want.
I'd like to make a difference, but I'm merely one person. Judging by what you're saying, you're saying to be a feminist, you have to accept all those idiots and contribute with the movement and blegh. But I could believe in Christianity and not go to church. It's just my personal belief, and if feminism and equalist are the correct terms, I'll use them. I know it's had a bad reputation, but of course, there's also some good people there who I care for greatly. Saying people wouldn't want to love those people upset me, because I love them very much.
I'm not standing up for the idiots that you get in every community or group of people, I'm standing up for the goodies, you know?
At first I wasn't certain, but you don't seem like a bad person yourself. I want to use these terms, not because I want to join some crazy bra-burning, anti-men movement some people call it, but because it's the dictionary definition. It's the correct term, and I like it.
How do you figure? None of the things you stated are thought generally to be "entitlements". All of the things you mentioned could be said for either gender. It is not any real statement is it?
Pretty much everything you wrote here may be truthful BUT it is ONLY because they are self-evident.
But...some people may think that singing at a window or buying a date dinner is a percursor and entitlement to sex? WHICH PEOPLE?
It has NEVER been the case. So again you mentioning it like it is somehow needing to be reaffirmed is stupid. Sorry, but it is.
Now IF you are getting "being nice" and wanting to endear yourself to someone because you are sexually interested.
A) Men and women BOTH do this (though men have been socialised to be proactive pursuers, whilst women socialised to be pursued)
B) Women generally would not want to be the pursuers because it exposes them to rejection. Men are taught to be unemotional and handle rejections (a male's ability to handle rejection depends largely on the male) whereas the female needs to work out how much she likes the advances and the person behind the advances and can accept or reject at will. The male rarely gets this option. This is part of the reason for the stud/slut dichotomy - unfair as it may or may not be)
C) Sometimes being nice is wanting to further a relationship and whilst the person may Also be thinking about the person in sexual ways and hoping that things will progress, it is not solely for that end result. Thinking sexually about someone does not smear everything you do as a brazen attempt to get them to bed.
D) Sometimes the 1%'ers that are being nice to someone has the flow on effect of the other person thinking well of you. Maybe them thinking of you well for being nice may lead (Even if not by design) to sleeping with someone that you like.
But its funny you know, looking at your poem, none of this is kind of even alluded to.
It seems reaffirming self-evident truths thinly disguised as pretending to state that they are questionable and suggestive of an underlying problem that does not exist. You may say "But some guys are players". Yes and "Some women are gold diggers" but making a poem about them and trying to pretend it is a gender issue or a big social problem or a mindset that is widespread or trying to pin it to some poisonous ideology...is kind of dishonest.
So given the above....why did you write this?
Um, no shit it was because FEMINISM is often mistaken or MATRIARCHY. Have you been looking at male hate blogs on tumblr or something?
Although there are some bitchy women who call themselves feminists, they aren't true feminists.
The fucking term feminism was invented to target and suggest that women wanted special fucking privileges instead of the original "equality" idealism, making it hard to even bring the issue up without immediately having bias. This is included in the more modern term egalitarianism.
As for your B, you are saying that women can't handle rejection. No,you're talking about shy or unhappy women, who have either had bad experiences, don't know how to deal with life, or just don't value relationships that much. If a girl wants you, she will rip out a rival's throat out with her hands if she can. Middle school girls have killed for boys, and you think we can't handle rejection? abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines…
If we can handle the mental stress of murder, we sure as hell can handle rejections as well as any guy can.
Men aren't socialised to be active pursuers: they are taught to go after girls even to the point of fucking stalking. And yes, my friends have been stalked. Women aren’t socialized to be chased: they’re expected to wait to be chased, and ones who don’t are called sluts. Those who run are called prudes. Those who fucking complain about the system are bitches.
And you wonder why she wrote this poem? Because of losers like you, thank you very much.
Sexism is alive and well, thriving actually, in YOU.
I hope you recognize you can’t compartmentalize genders and sexes, and that in doing so, you are creating behavioral expectations and biases on genders.
Now I suggest there is exactly one of two reasons for this, either you are really ignorant or you are dishonest. Probably stupid to boot, in either case.
But let's go at this big pile of fail inno particular order.
WAS I saying that women CAN'T handle rejection OR was I saying that men have been socialised to spare women this by being the ones that have to pursue women?
These are VERY, VERY different things. I can tell you it was the latter and you say it was the former. Given exactly what I wrote, it informs the latter and does not even suggest the former. So why were you dishonest here. I mean you clearly were and it is an old tried and true Feminist debate technique. "Replace what was ACTUALLY said with something that wasn't said or implied, feign outrage and attack what wasn't said. This is called a Strawman argument. Bait and switch and caught.
Now why ARE men taught to be the pursuers? Probably the same reasons as men are the ones to expose themselves to harm or get women and children into the lifeboats, or answer a strange knock at the door late at night or otherwise expose themselves to risk. It is perhaps an outmoded outdated and unnecessary vestige of chivalry. Either way they are socialised to be men and part of "manning up" or "being a man" taps into these things.
Now here is your chance to say where I said that women "can not handle rejection". No, honestly, it's your big chance to prove that you were being honest.
Oh...Oh dear...you can't. Because I did not say or imply it. Damn, that must make you really dishonest. Sorry to expose that.
"The fucking term feminism was invented to target and suggest that women wanted special fucking privileges instead of the original "equality" idealism" No I am with you here sister. That is precisely the reason that Feminists own the term and have not repplaced it for the term since it was coined in 1837. I mean it is a horrible term and that is why Feminists have embraced it for over 100 years right, BECAUSE it is such a horrible loaded term. You do not need to convince me. You know who you may have to convince? FEMINISTS. (That was all too easy)
But you were saying something that a lot of Feminists say, it is pretty dishonest, but that is about par for the course.
"instead of the original "equality" idealism, making it hard to even bring the issue up without immediately having bias. This is included in the more modern term egalitarianism."
Really? OK now show that this is true and show me where in society where women are advantaged over men , that Feminists have tried to redress the situation (which quite often resulted from Feminist social policies in the first place). I will give you since 1837 to find examples. They can not be vague examples or righting a wrong, they have done or be a side benefit of trying to improve things for a woman. Just something for areas where men are disadvantged in society. Trying to be equal to both genders and in the name of equality.
They ARE there for equality right? No? Women's equlaity and not men's? There is a book called Animla farm with an apt phrase that says "All Animals are equal but some Animlas are more equal than others" I think this explains Feminism a lot better than being egalitarian or all for equality. Am I wrong? Show me.
"Although there are some bitchy women who call themselves feminists, they aren't true feminists."
"No true Scotsman" Fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_… (Hell, ironic considering your post really)
"Men aren't socialised to be active pursuers: they are taught to go after girls even to the point of fucking stalking. And yes, my friends have been stalked. Women aren’t socialized to be chased: they’re expected to wait to be chased, and ones who don’t are called sluts. Those who run are called prudes. Those who fucking complain about the system are bitches."
This is great. I am calling you a bold-faced liar and a complete misandrist to boot, BUT I am happy to reconsider this and apologise profusely IF you can show me where "Men aren't socialised to be active pursuers: they are taught to go after girls even to the point of fucking stalking". No, I think making strong claims is great, but when called on it you cannot say "Umm....well that is how i feel anyhow" (Your feelings and mine do not matter, this is a fact based rational argument). OR "Well, some men stalk some women".
Make a claim like this and you will have to show me that the ones who DID stalk were taught to do so and that this teaching was generally what men are taught.
Can't do it? Did not think so. That is because you are inherently dishonest, sexist against males and without credibility. Perfect Feminist really. Being stupid will help. Are you stupid? Certainly nothing you said is intelligent, but I reserve judgment.
I will give you a bit of advice about life. This ought not necessarily be confronting.
In life, some people are nasty to us, because they are nasty. Some people are murderers, rapists, thieves, stalkers, bigots (yourself for example apparently) and some bullies. For as long as you breathe and are a member of society, you will be at risk of exposure to such people. It is NOT systematic, or the norm or socially accepted. It is just a reality. As members of society we have to understand that there are elements in society that are no good for it, but we can only reduce our own risk to such exposure.
On of YOUR problems is that you are suggesting that these things are a result of being male when NONE of these traits is gender specific or taught. THAT IS SEXIST. Like it or not, or own it or not. Another problem is that embracing Feminism or any other ideology or stamping your feet or waving your fists or saying shitty things on a website comment section, will DO NOTHING to mitigate this.
Feminism will reduce murder how? What about bullying? What about theft? What about rape? What about bigotry?
It is childish to embrace Feminism for these reasons in exactly the same reason as it is childish stamping your feet over it.
"And you wonder why she wrote this poem? Because of losers like you, thank you very much."
No, you are very welcome. She wrote this poem because she is a big victim with too many feels and no agency to take care of shit herself and realising that life does not owe her. Big girl panties need to be put on and rainy-face needs to go away.
"I hope you recognize you can’t compartmentalize genders and sexes, and that in doing so, you are creating behavioral expectations and biases on genders."
I think you are wading into a pool too deep for you to be honest. Pretending what exists doesn't exist and refusing to listen when people report it happening is the white elephant in the room. It too is childish and dishonest. What you MAY do honestly is to say. "I think this exists BUT it is a problem that ought not be encouraged" That would be a case of "Welcome to grown up conversation". You can certainly pretend if you like that all men and all women are the same. You can pretend that all men and all women are not socialised differently. You can pretend that men do not behave differently than women and have exactly the same drives and motivations. You can complain that doing otherwise is compartmentalisation. That is fine but you just exclude yourself from the grown up table, and instead you will have people at the grown up table marvel and laugh at your infantile conversations.
I tell you this as a friend. I hope it is character building.
I need not point out the irony of you calling me sexist? No, I did not think so either.
I may have misunderstood your original post, and for that, I apologize. I did not spend enough time to analyze what was being said. However the claims about me lying are very incorrect. It is true that original feminists were "smart" and wanted rights without being allowed to risk their lives in war, etc. to obtain it. However, women fought for the right to fight, and we crossed that barrier.
The biggest issue I have is how people define feminism. Is it the opposite of patriarchy? Is it egalitarianism on a gender-based level? I used to consider it the former, but many people have defined it as the latter, so I accepted that definition.
Another problem I have is with gender. I know this may not seem related, but it may help explain my viewpoint. If gender is a mental perception of who you are and sex is the physical aspect, in my opinion, besides the mind about the functioning bits and physiology, there is no mental "gender." There are no masculine and feminine activities and hobbies-- people like what they are encouraged to do, work at, and become good at. Many gendered activities or symbols have swapped over the years (such as fedoras, computers, and medicine), and is one of the reasons why I don't believe in mental gender.
Perspective and environment make you think differently and have different solutions and ideas about issues.
As for the parts you refute, you may not understand Asian culture and ideals. It's from the different ideals that I draw the conclusion that men are taught to pursue women, and women are taught to wait.
Asian men are often (in social media, stigma, and it's sometimes true, in daily life that I observe) less active in the pursuit of women, which leads to less success in the romance department.
Likewise, Asian culture demands small talk and subtlety, which instills false confidence in foreigners, which leads to more pursuit, which in turn can lead to success, and sometimes perpetuates that Asian women are easy.
Asian girls are also usually dominant in school. More than half of the top 5 students in the grade (before 10th grade) are female-- 10-12th grade, girls tend to go down because they were used to being detail oriented and can't manage time (even Asian teachers think girls should be more quiet, or rather, since it's expected, they tend to be chastised more often and more well-behaved).
Although Asia has rolled back and become more sexist, mostly due to the "single child" policy, and the pride in the continuation of the bloodline (last name), both sexes are encouraged to learn, and it's policy towards technology and science-related fields are very even for men and women.
I think I have explained to you my views on why genders are very ambiguous, and why I believe that aggressiveness is taught. I am actually considered quite aggressive, although I've never liked the limelight. Of course, I'm trying to step into it now, because it's something I will need in life.
However, I am probably one of the most aggressive of my friends, although not the most mature in some aspects. Why am I so aggressive? Environment. I wasn't born aggressive-- in fact I was a very happy and not very devious baby.
First of all, most of my childhood was uncurbed and I was not set to anything besides basic behavioral standards. Most of my childhood friends are male, and therefore, also uncurbed, unlike some of my current female friends.
Besides this very boring and not completely influential childhood, my parents are aggressive. The type where they can stare down an airport employee into not trying to give them less convenient seating, or they type where people will be too lazy to deal with and just do whatever.
I don't wait for guys to come to me, I will ask guys out to Sadie's.
And I understand there is a risk of running into douchebags wherever I go: including types who hit on you or try to kiss you despite you being 12.
There are stupid and terrible people out there, and I get that. No one should have to deal with them, but they're there.
I do not pretend that they have the same motivations and drives. I know they don't always. But I'm saying the reason for this is not innate. You are not born with it. www.livescience.com/40572-myth…
I know I'm primarily using math and science as examples, but it's only because I'm more interested in it.
Okay, I have told you what I think, albeit a bit choppily and incoherently, but I would like to know your opinions on this. I've discovered (and now remembered) that arguing without knowing each other's premises is rather stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, so defining and stating all information (or as much as you can think of at the time) is important in understanding. Plus, I prefer gaining knowledge to arguing.
Sorry, I actually spent time instead of rushing like last time. I hope you will try to help us understand each other.
My own view is that I am Anti-Feminist. I am not anti-women.
I believe Feminism stifles women. It comes up with False threat Narrative after false threat Narrative. It is a pretty good tactic. Think, if you like of the "Terrorism threat" Under the guise of imminent or even possible attack from Terrorists, many freedoms in the US And other countries were eroded away. Whenever they wanted more freedoms eroded and/or more outrage, they made another threat. Fear is a motivator. Women DO fear. Women fear more than men. Men are taught to find value in their own dispensability. Men are taught to be the one's to protect women and put themselves at risk. Society pushes that. Men are to act for women. Women are not only taught to avoid danger, but to see themselves as vulnerable to their danger and coupled with a physiology that disadvantages them in threat situations, this exaggerates the sense of the danger or risk to levels which are not reflected in reality. Feminism seizes on this.
What does this mean? Men are in greater danger of just about every threat. Murder, assault, robbery and so on. Women fear it to their marrow and men do not. So this is not a good, bad, or indifferent thing. Maybe it allows women to mitigate their risk far better. In my country, men get bitten by snakes often. You know why? Man and women see a snake, women run off and men try to kill it. (I remember as a 13 year old, I had to keep an eye on one as my Mum walked home to get a spade for me to kill it). Who is exposed to the harm?
Because women have this underlying fear and perhaps an insecurity as to clear physical differences, Feminism working on this fear and insecurities is tapping into a whole gender's psyche. But this is not the only area. Men in the world, again because of this believe in their own dispensability, will often in choosing a job, choose higher pay at risk of longer hours, physical harm or death, more remote locations, time away from family and so on. If they do this and women when choosing jobs want it close with set hours and family friendly options and close to home, then men getting on average more pay for fulltime work is understandable. BUT it taps into fear and insecurities. Women are in the workforce and have equal rights and equal pay so point the pay difference and ignore the why (and the fact that 95% of all male death and injury at work is male - as a testament to taking on high paying risky jobs) and women are in outrage. We are getting paid less for men..this is unfair, but it is not because they have not traded off their comfort for higher pay and so it is not unfair.
Here is another problem. Feminism taking credit for allowing women into the workforce. Unfortunately, this is simply untrue. If you ever wondered why IF Feminism was responsible from turning around a Patriarchal society that refused to let women have rights and oppressed them to then get them rights and allowed them to work and so on, WHY can't they similarly just transplant the blueprint onto a third World or developing country?
The answer may surprise. Forget Feminist history revisionism. In the Western World, the reason why we are no longer forced into strict gender roles is as a result of modernisation. In order for society to survive, husbands and wives needed to have big families. They needed a few surviving children in old age to care for them.
Why not rely on pensions? No social security until 1930's.
So why not one or two children? Because childhood death was very common and every family in a community had that shared grief. Every family pretty much would have one or two children at least, that died in childhood or early adulthood. Of course, as a further complication there was no reliable contraception either.
Why did women not generally work? Women were having a lot of children and each time they gave birtyh, risked death. Birthing practices were remedial and if they did not die, they often needed a long time to recover. At any time in their lives from marriage to menopause, they were pregnant/giving birth/recovering/nursing an infant/a combination of one or more of these things. Does this make them reliable for an employer? Honestly?
Why did women not have the same rights? Oh, that was misogyny and Patriarchy...no, not really. For this growing and yet vulnerable family, someone needed to take responsibility for bringing in income to sustain it and taking care of the contractual obligations and such. We have said why the wife was not that person It HAD to be the husband and if he has to earn the money and has obligations to use that money to pay the family's way and such, he NEEDS RIGHTS, in order to meet these obligations and duties. Who doesn't need rights for exactly the same reasons? The wife and kids. They both are forced by society into rather bleak roles. He has all the burdens and reponsbilities and she has all the childbearing risk and no control
So Feminism changed this right? No way.
Men discovered vaccines to combat infant mortality
Men improved childbirthing and women were not so vulnerable.
Men changed social security laws in the 1930's allowing pensions
Men invented contraceptives
Men modernised society and found technology that terrifically changed the time it took to keep a home.
Now these changes could and were slowly trickling through to society...Feminists recognised the changes were occurring and started demanding they happen quicker and men did as they did. Firstly they tried to maintain the status quo in misunderstanding that they were not needing to spare women the burden of what had been their job to carry and then of course they supported women as they do and handed over all rights. A bloodless coup.
For doing so and for their help, they were labelled the Patriarchy and Feminists took credit for all change. You see how dishonest it is and why they can not transplant Feminis into other cultures without those changes that I mentioned men did?
Feminism is dishonest. At its heart, it is not about equality. It does nothing to change any situation that favours women over men. Never has and never will and that is not equality.
Feminism disempowers women and allows them to feel they are victims with no agency in the world and subject to the very worse of oppression by a secret illuminati style secret body called "The Patriarchy" that is keeping women down. Feminism is big business and happy to generate false threat claim after false threat claim and indoctrinate men and women into its cause. Women are scared and cling to Feminism and chant these false claims word for word without research or thought and are patted on the head by each other for condescending support for the chants and defending any claim made against the babble. This is lapdog behaviour and is victimisation.
Women are better than that. Women are not victims. Neither are men. Women ought to be taught that the world is their oyster and THEY have say over what they accomplish and what they do and have responsibility for their choices and accountability for their actions. They ought to do this without clinging, like terrified jabbering monkeys, to Feminism.
My daughter will not be a Feminist I want her strong and resourceful and to make her own way on her own terms and own every decision good or bad. I will support her all the way.
As for differences in males and females. There are plenty and too many to mention. BUT no one male, is representative of his whole gender and neither is any one female. Generalist claims often rankle especially when someone says "I have been sexually harassed by guys before". I feel like saying "So what!?" Because truly there are certainly some guys who are shitty, but to use that as a platform to arrive to "I was sexually harassed by guys and that is because guys are sexist and dangerous and therefore we have to...." one guy does not represent a gender.
I am never going to apologise for being a man or for being masculine and being so or not being Feminist does not make me misogynist or stupid or dishonest or uninformed or wrong or morally challenged or dangerous.
Most of the feminists I know hate being treated specially. It's nice to be treated specially, it really is, but it's also kind of rude if the only reason you're doing it is because of a physical trait we can't control. In the end of the day, we just want respect. (I think there's a website about western feminism, but I've never looked at it carefully, only excerpts)
Pay for my food? Thanks, that's sweet, we'll pay next time. Hold the door open for me? That could be nice and sweet, but unless I'm injured you really don't have to. We can manage our own doors, or we'll hold some other doors open for you.
We usually consider what you just described as patriarch ism. It's awful a parent would put her kid in risk because he's a boy. I would understand asking you to keep an eye on the snake. Everyone can do that. But to bring a shovel for YOU to kill the snake?
We want to assume responsibilities too. When people push these responsibilities on men, it's saying women can't do it as well. There is also dissatisfaction that women are responsible for child-raising. It's saying that men are incompetent at it, and puts pressure on single fathers.
I still don't understand WHY it had to be the husband. Currently in the US, there are more households with the single earner women than there are ones with single earner men. I don't see the need for gender roles.
on the other hand, I applaud your decision to make your daughter independent.
What would you call this feminism? Egalitarianism? I don't know.
we call it feminism.
I am quite often heralded as misogynist and a danger to my daughter and children, by ignorant Feminists when they are on a losing end of an argument. It is kind of you are not agreeing with me so I will take the low road and try to upset you.
I will tell you something I have not told anyone else on here. My ex wife at one stage kept my kids off me for 9 months. No access. I had to take her to court just to see them. Cost me thousands. We were both parents so how could she do that and why did I get no access and she did? Because she was the Mother.
It was a bad time. Very stressful. I had a heart attack 9 months after it was over, from the stress.
but I got the access I fought for.
My daughter has decided she has had enough of her crazy Mother and is wanting to live with me fulltime.
This is not a man who is anti-female.
I find Feminism toxic. Egalitarism or humanism is worthy though.
its disgusting she got to keep the kids, because you're obviously a parent. This is still sexism: applying gender roles, which is obviously not what I want?
I used to call myself a feminist several years ago. Last year I started calling myself egalitarian because I became more aware of other people and supported the lgbtq community.
We are still disagreeing about the definition of feminism. We agree on egalitarianism. I believe the writer of the poem above meant the type of "feminism" I was describing... Which you are calling egalitarianism.
So we can agree on the points, but not the name?
I still don't know what to think of your definition of feminism. All of the feminist things I see can also be considered egalitarian. If they're not, they're feminist in name, just like many pop artists (especially Disney ones) are musicians in name.
(In America) Third wave feminism is disgusting, because it's falsely empowering. First wave feminism was about equality. I don't know about other places, it may be different...
Is this the same as Australian feminism?
If I could favorite this ten thousand times, I would. Because everything you've said right here is incredible and perfect and nggnn
Aside from just how hard I agree with you, the poetry aspect of this was really awesome. I love the rhyme scheme and how well all the syllables roll together. This is incredibly inspiring to me. Thank you so much for this.