I hate feminism rant

[IzGood]

I hate feminism.

Women want equality to men....but they also want to be treated like a lady. Open a door for a lady, buy flowers for a lady etc etc. but on the other hand they want to be dominant, in control, chief of staff of the household. How many TV show's do you see now like Everybody Loves Raymond where the husband is just a dribbling idiot and the wife runs the show...

Previously prior to feminism women respected, looked after and from what I can see loved their husbands.

What does a woman need a man for now? Protection? Food? Economic Security? No! She can get all this by herself.

Rarely within my social circles do I hear of a man getting rid of his woman. It is usually the woman getting rid of the man and he is usually devastated. A woman can go up to a group of men and they would drop what they are doing at that moment to attend to her. If a man approached a group of women, it wouldn't work like this.

I believe Feminism is the cause of so much sh*t now. I don't know what it was like first hand living prior to feminism but I'm guessing that divorce rates were a lot lower and the family unit was much stronger. Now a woman can walk out on a man regardless of the situation, be independent or walk around the corner and find another man just clicking her fingers.

And to the women that complain that they can't find a man....it's because you are too choosy! You compare the everyday man to a Calvin Klein model or a man of Brad Pitt's status.

 

[Lysis]

lol oh izgood. I have so much to say on this topic, but I'm so sleepy and have a few glasses of wine in me that I have no argument in me at this point.

Plus, I think feminism and "women demanding respect" are getting thrown together, and I think feminism is a far extreme to what women want, but again, I'm sleepy and if you were saying this to me IRL, I'd just say "OK" and go to sleep. lol So, I can't argue, but I believe there is a difference.

ETA: Remember, women were treated like shit for centuries. We are not saying we are men. We just want respect and equality in the workplace. That does not mean we can't be treated like a lady.

 

[Mel22]

Previously prior to feminism women respected, looked after and from what I can see loved their husbands.

Oh, and this simply isn't the case anymore? Women don't love or respect their husbands? And this widespread lack of love and respect is apparently solely due to feminism? Haha.

What does a woman need a man for now? Protection? Food? Economic Security? No! She can get all this by herself.

And this is a bad thing how exactly? I cannot imagine why we women should not even be able to feed ourselves without a man..lol. You seem to think that women ought to be dependent on men for our very survival. Why do you feel this way? Do you feel that you could not offer a woman enough to keep her without having her be fully dependent on you? A woman won't stay with you unless the alternative is starvation?

Now a woman can walk out on a man regardless of the situation, be independent or walk around the corner and find another man just clicking her fingers.

Okay, so women should not be able to escape an unhappy/abusive relationship? Women should be totally dependent on men and unable to survive alone..?

Seriously buddy, it seems like you've got a real self-esteem problem. Some men are threatened by strong, independent women and at the risk of coming across as inflammatory, your post just reeks of deep seated insecurity and resentment.

I'm far from a feminist either, but seriously, re-read what you've written.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but I feel you are making sweeping and totally inaccurate statements. Try to incorporate a little logic and fact in your next rant.

 

[Pander Bear]

I think you're an idiot:

Women want equality to men....but they also want to be treated like a lady. Open a door for a lady, buy flowers for a lady etc etc. but on the other hand they want to be dominant, in control, chief of staff of the household.

So you think its more appropriate that they be treated as second class citizens? There are plenty of women who don't want or expect you to hold doors open for them— probably more every day. Probably not many who are interested in a man who would grouse about it, though.

How many TV show's do you see now like Everybody Loves Raymond where the husband is just a dribbling idiot and the wife runs the show...

The other side of that coin is that housewives are viewed as finger-wagging, castrating scolds (wilma flintstone, marge simpson, those annoying women from raymond and all the other shows). Neither depiction does men or women much justice. Then again, Comedy is sort of a throw away medium, and raymond is pretty much the epitome of it— I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions from it, save perhaps for the obvious one, that it has survived for so many seasons and into syndication because people choose to watch it, and the demographic that chooses to watch it most fervently happens to skew to more conservative gender roles, so scratch your head further. Maybe Raymond is just following in the great literary tradition of helping audiences work out their anxieties on stage.

Previously prior to feminism women respected, looked after and from what I can see loved their husbands.

You DO realize that you can't really rely on those accounts since they were written by men, right? There were plenty of accounts of the positives of slavery written before the civil war.

What does a woman need a man for now? Protection? Food? Economic Security? No! She can get all this by herself.

What does a man need a woman for? Isn't love and companionship the right answer for both genders? Wouldn't you feel guilty if the person you were with was only there because she had no other options in life?

Rarely within my social circles do I hear of a man getting rid of his woman.

Sounds like your social circle doesn't have any handsome, or even competent men in it. To tell the truth, this is mostly how it has always gone. Watch a nature show. Males compete for the attentions of females, who have to be choosy regarding who they mate with. Damn that feminism in the animal kingdom! It needs to go back to how it was before the holocine fucked it all up!

I'm guessing that divorce rates were a lot lower and the family unit was much stronger.

You're totally right! Spousal abuse and loveless marriages were more common too!

God you're strange. Maybe you need to get laid.

 

[Tude]

You forget about the tv shows of yesteryear, like "Leave it to Beaver." June Cleaver was just the bitch that cooked the food. I guess that's more acceptable to you? You gripe about women being self-sufficient like it's a bad thing. Doesn't it make a relationship more special if a woman chooses to be with you versus being with you for survival's sake? If a woman doesn't need financial support from a man, she's a bitch, but if she depends on a man financially, she's a gold-digger.

Divorce rates were lower back in the day because society shunned divorce. Religion was part of the reason, being as divorce is a sin in some religions. You complain that women can walk out on a man and "be independent," but how many men walk out on their wives? So women that "can't find a man" are too choosy. What about men that can't find a woman? Are we women not submissive enough?

 

[littlepenguin]

Gahhhh. It's uneducated duncecaps like yourself that bring our society down. I bet you think that the 'coloreds' should still have a separate drinking fountain?

I shake my head at your foolishness.

First of all, fuck TV, fuck the media, and the fact that you would buy into any 'family' portrayal on television says that you're not that bright. TV is just that - entertainment. Made up crap with people shoving agendas into it. I could go on for hours but I'll just stop with that.

99% of the things you stated have absolutely nothing to do with feminism. They are called EQUAL FUCKING RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Plain and simple. Basically, I see you'd like women to stay in the kitchen and cook me some turkey pot pie and do the dishes and do the laundry and shut your womanly pie hole because damn you're a woman and you ain't got shit to say except for "What else can I get for you, honey?"

I give a big FUCK YOU to all that bologna.

You're damn right - I don't need a man for anything. Maybe to open an occasional jar of pickles, but I'd have already smashed it with a hammer before I asked one of you big perfect burly manly creatures to help a little weakling lady like myself.

"Rarely within my social circles do I hear of a man getting rid of his woman. It is usually the woman getting rid of the man and he is usually devastated. A woman can go up to a group of men and they would drop what they are doing at that moment to attend to her. If a man approached a group of women, it wouldn't work like this."

Well, they say that the company you keep is a reflection of yourself. Therefore, this tells me you hang out with a bunch of pig-headed woman haters (SHE-RA!!) and anything they do probably isn't a reflection of any person in society with a brain, or respect for anything without a penis. And really, that's not how it works. Sigh.

"I believe Feminism is the cause of so much sh*t now. I don't know what it was like first hand living prior to feminism but I'm guessing that divorce rates were a lot lower and the family unit was much stronger. Now a woman can walk out on a man regardless of the situation, be independent or walk around the corner and find another man just clicking her fingers."

Divorce rates are higher now because the services are more readily available. NOT because women are bulldozing through society trying to be all uppity and independent and shit. And yeah, I can walk around a corner and click my fingers and find another man - to fuck that night. Not to wife me up and stuff. Next time you wanna post some stupid stats, maybe you should either back yourself up with some sources or educate yourself on the subject a little first.

"And to the women that complain that they can't find a man....it's because you are too choosy! You compare the everyday man to a Calvin Klein model or a man of Brad Pitt's status.

YES! We bitches are choosy bitches! Because if we weren't, we'd end up with people who resemble Danny DeVito or John Goodman or even worse - have a personality like you!

 

[MyFinalRest]

It does seem like the leftist push for "equal rights" goes a bit too far and ends up fostering seperation between gender, race, and sexuality. The left-ards are also experts at causing the right-ards to start a big reactionary sentiment that is equally as retarded as what the left tries to cook up. This sentiment of "gender seperation" is especially prominent on college campuses.

I also don't think we should be looking towards the sado-masochistic bestiality-porn that passes for nature shows for direction on what is "natural" or "correct" for us humans.

I also don't like the current dynamics between men and women that are portrayed and promoted in the media. It's not always so clear as to what is wrong with it, but it is obviously unhealthy.

I certainly like to treat a woman like a lady, and if a woman wants to be treated like a genteel dignified lady, she should act like one, and if a man wants to be treated like a gentleman, he too needs to act like one. We all could treat each other a lot better, both within our genders and to towards the opposite sex.

I think certain gender specific behaviors can stick around, like holding doors open for ladies (one of my crew-cut feminist professors really did not like it when I did this for her while asking her a question walking down the hallway).

But, certain behaviors like the role of the female who plays coy and passive while the male plays the role of predator and agressor needs to fucking go. Women shouldn't also expect men to be the exclusive provider of "entertainment" in the relationship either and woman should not look down on a man for not being able to spend lots of money on her. I have no problem providing for a woman, as long as she can be satisfied with what I am able to reasonably give her.

Men and women just need to communicate with a sense of some common ground and as bad as men can be, and I don't think I need to delve into an explanation of this, some women could stand to be a little less ruthless as they demand men to please them while they sit back passively like they are royalty and then judge them harshly for failing to make her happy. But, don't get me wrong, lots of women are not like this...just the ones I like. What is it that I love about cold-hearted stoic bitches who shatter my soul into pieces?

 

[alasdairm]

op does not understand meaning of word "feminism".

alasdair

 

[verso]

I'm going to write a book on this some day because there's a lot to be said. It's not so much feminism as it is a new double-standard that has only recently grown painfully obvious, and that double-standard is this (you touched on it briefly): that it has become acceptable for women to enter the workforce, earn a living, and provide for themselves, but it has not yet become all-around socially acceptable for men to leave their occupations and take on the role as house-keeper or the stay-at-home.

I think that this became obvious to me when I was in class and overheard a conversation between two young women; the first young woman said to the other, "yeah, I'm just here as sort of my fall-back. I'd really like to be a stay-at-home mother someday." I snickered, thinking that she must be unusual and surely no one else would feel the same way. But, to my surprise, the second young woman excitedly proclaimed that she, too, would be taking her college degree and using it as her fall-back on the off-chance she did not marry and would have to provide for herself. Needless to say, I was pretty angry.

You have to understand that on college campuses today, the number of female students is typically greater than the number of male students. In fact, on some college campuses, women outnumber men nearly three to one. I wanted to say to these two young women that they will need to marry each other, as they will soon be the only ones with college degrees. It's funny because, essentially, what they're doing is taking those spots in the classroom away from young men who will very likely need them and need a college degree in order to provide for a family in the first place!

It's very discouraging; and now I joke that I'd like to become a stay-at-home dad. I'm only half-joking, though, because I really would like to become a stay-at-home dad someday, or, at least for a little while. But, alas, I have yet to meet anyone, feminist or otherwise, who believes so strongly in my right to stay at home.

 

[RobotRipping]

^ i agree with the right to stay at home and be a stay at home Dad if you choose to be. I love kids and also love staying at home so it would be ideal for me but i know the 'manly men' out there would think it is effeminate or something.

OP has obviously never studied feminism, there were different waves of feminism with different goals in mind and there's a whole spectrum of feminism; it's not like all feminists want to see the destruction of man, equality between the sexes is still far from being an actuality. Feminism isn't just about equality between sexes but equality between all women whether black or white, advantaged or disadvantaged. Do some reading and get back to us.

 

[Pander Bear]

Everybody has a "right" to stay home. Nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to flip burgers or write legal briefs. If you want to stay home and raise children, do it. Plenty of men do— and I dare say all men spend more time raising children than their grandfathers and fathers did these days. For decades, women who wanted something other than a rich home life have had to endure criticism from family, coworkers, and perfect strangers about their life choices, as well as institutional barricades that prevent them from achieving at the same rate demographically similar men have. If the fairer sex can more aggressively into colleges, law schools, and board rooms, I'm sure you can find the stones to either make a career for yourself where you don't have to live your life chained to a desk away from your family, or stay home outright while your uppity castrating wife makes you feel like a useless housefrau when you ask for more money to do the weekly grocery shopping. 8(

 

[verso]

So then you think it's now entirely and completely socially acceptable for men to become stay at home fathers? Mothers today are telling their sons "to marry rich" just as mothers have told their daughters to do for so many years. Is that right? And fathers the same, encouraging their sons to take a wife, stay at home and bring up the children?

I think I've misunderstood you, because it's not even something that's debatable... it's not yet socially acceptable and while women today have both socially-acceptable options available to them, men do not.

You can say, "just do it then," but that doesn't make it any the more socially-acceptable (or easier to do), and that's the problem. There needs to be a discussion, and I haven't yet met a feminist or anyone else for that matter who appears interested in having it, and it's sad really because you would think that feminists would be the ones to get the ball rolling.

Feminism means gender equality, liberating both men and women from their assigned gender roles, and, well, this is a gender role that is old and ancient and we'd all be better off without.

 

[jazz hands]

You DO realize that you can't really rely on those accounts since they were written by men, right? There were plenty of accounts of the positives of slavery written before the civil war.

[...]

You're totally right! Spousal abuse and loveless marriages were more common too!

God you're strange. Maybe you need to get laid.

Ethnocentrism at it's finest. Much of the world still lives in a male-dominant structure, and you're dismissing their family units as lacking love and being wrought with spousal abuse. If it's not for you, fine, but don't pretend like the Western family unit is superior in any objective way. Meet some families from these cultures you're criticizing before making such sweeping generalizations.

I think it's amazing that you're lauding the American family unit as being the fair standard because, well, take a look around. I see ghettos filled with children born to single mothers, lacking any stable family unit outside of a gang, when I walk around Atlanta. Surely you have seen this too.

 

[Pander Bear]

ghettos in Atlanta generally aren't places one walks to, even if one had a mind to go to them. They are (generally) poorly maintained dirt cheap subsidized apartments. Development that actually caters to residents aside from liquor and processed foods stays away, making these non-project projects little islands of concentrated poverty. Once you're inside one, though, I suppose they're pretty pedestrian friendly, as car ownership is below average, naturally. I'm not a sociologist, but in my neighborhood full of working poor, families are more diverse, so-to-say. There are families with a man and a woman raising children, men and women raising grandchildren, grandmothers living with adult grandchildren, young people my age living on their own from either intact or broken parentages. I'm told I missed my neighborhood's "gang phase" by about a decade, and even then, it amounted to little more than my Irish and German grandparents did in new york and boston— fighting over basketball courts.

There's lots of sociological research into the health and quality of African American home-life, to the point where if I was black I'd be both bothered and thankful for it. Something I think most bluelighters can agree upon—and we'll just leave it at this— is that lots of young black men get taken out of the gene pool for dealing and using drugs, and it would be a better world for all involved if they were raising families and not in prisons.

That's a pretty big digression, though.

So then you think it's now entirely and completely socially acceptable for men to become stay at home fathers?

No, I don't think that— but it is neither "feminists" fault its unacceptable, nor does something need to be 100% acceptable for it to be something you do. What I mean to say is that when I sit down and peoplewatch, I see as many 5 year olds with their dads as with their moms. Yes, its in a yuppie, liberal city center, and its not the same for everyone, but you can live your life however you want.

Mothers today are telling their sons "to marry rich" just as mothers have told their daughters to do for so many years. Is that right? And fathers the same, encouraging their sons to take a wife, stay at home and bring up the children?

Lol, I'm from a pretty straight-laced family, and I was told to marry for love, and that I didn't matter what I did with my life as long as I could look myself in the mirror and I was happy. I think that's pretty normative.

it's not yet socially acceptable

Is being gay socially acceptable yet? There's plenty of evidence for either answer, yes or no— I'd argue you'd find more support for men staying home than for homosexuality among a random sampling of people. The bar you're setting is either impossibly high, or is so fuzzy it might as well be. Maybe the real answer for me is that it doesn't matter if its socially unacceptable. Is that how you want to live your life?

You can say, "just do it then," but that doesn't make it any the more socially-acceptable (or easier to do), and that's the problem. There needs to be a discussion, and I haven't yet met a feminist or anyone else for that matter who appears interested in having it, and it's sad really because you would think that feminists would be the ones to get the ball rolling.

Honestly, I don't think it happens the way you imagine. From the people I know with young children, its a conversation for once a child is a distinct possibility. The couple looks at who likes their job, who has a better paycheck, whether either can afford to stay home full time, whether any other family members can be leaned on for childcare, how much daycare costs, how long the stay at home spouse would be planning on staying home.

Economically, fewer and fewer couples are able to say "one of us works, the other one is in charge of the home". In all probability, you and I are both going to fall somewhere into a gray area with our partners, and its going to have nothing to do with deeply held convictions or what other people think about you when they see you on the street.

Feminism means gender equality, liberating both men and women from their assigned gender roles, and, well, this is a gender role that is old and ancient and we'd all be better off without.

Actually, men working while women minded the home is a new phenomenon, anthropologically speaking. Before the industrial revolution, where one's industry was in their home, both spouses shared most tasks— both earning a living for their family, and attending to the family in other ways.

 

[jazz hands]

That's a pretty big digression, though.

It is hard to separate the issues, definitely. What I was getting at though (and conveyed poorly) was that the Western style of family as it happens in America is not particularly durable. I'm not trying to say one way is better than the other, just that the spouse-dominant model does thrive in some areas, even under intense stress (war, oppression, etc).

Sorry for the reactionary response; I didn't really get my point across as well as I could have.

 

[Belisarius]

Seriously, though, your post seems to be all over the map. Are you mad about sexual power relations? Different attraction tactics? Extremism? A perceived breakdown in "family values"?

Women want equality to men....but they also want to be treated like a lady. Open a door for a lady, buy flowers for a lady etc etc. but on the other hand they want to be dominant, in control, chief of staff of the household. How many TV show's do you see now like Everybody Loves Raymond where the husband is just a dribbling idiot and the wife runs the show...

Wrong. There are plenty of women who hate "chivalry" (to some it's yet another manifestation of the oppression of the patriarchy, kyriarchy, or other soup du jour), others who appreciate it, others indifferent. Sure, some women insist on wearing the pants, but IME the men who are involved with women like that clearly prefer it that way, so what's the problem? For every feminist who wants to supposedly turn the entire classical sexual dynamic on its head, there are ten more who'd just be satisfied with things like, you know, equal pay and being treated like something other than an ambulatory incubator. These are similar goals to those of equality movements for pretty much all of modern Western history.

Previously prior to feminism women respected, looked after and from what I can see loved their husbands.

And those--who are indeed in loving relationships--still do. I can't see this as less preferable to the hordes of women in history who had (and many who continue) to keep their game face on in miserable ones for lack of an alternative.

What does a woman need a man for now? Protection? Food? Economic Security? No! She can get all this by herself.

With all due respect, this is the kind of language one would reserve for children or clever monkeys.

Rarely within my social circles do I hear of a man getting rid of his woman.

I rarely hear about men getting fired by female bosses for not putting out, getting beaten bloody by their S.O.s, or raped on the street and left for dead, or getting left with three squalling kids while mother gallivants off to greener pastures of cock.

A woman can go up to a group of men and they would drop what they are doing at that moment to attend to her. If a man approached a group of women, it wouldn't work like this.

It was like this long before the days of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Betty Friedan, really.

I don't know what it was like first hand living prior to feminism but I'm guessing that divorce rates were a lot lower and the family unit was much stronger. Now a woman can walk out on a man regardless of the situation, be independent or walk around the corner and find another man just clicking her fingers.

a.) See my earlier point about husbands.
b.) In other words, they can do the same things men have done to women for countless years.

And to the women that complain that they can't find a man....it's because you are too choosy! You compare the everyday man to a Calvin Klein model or a man of Brad Pitt's status.

Women are only choosy because men--and for that matter, males of most species--will bang anything with a pulse.

 

[IzGood]

While most people disagree with my rant, there is a smaller percentage which partially agree.

I think in today's world it's very politically incorrect to be anti-feminism.

But I'm not painting all women with the same brush and saying that all women should act a certain way. If a woman wants to be university qualified, independent, full time worker, fine! No problem but don't expect to be courted around like a woman if in essence you are acting a little bit like a man.

If a woman strives to be a housewife, have children, look after her husband, and not work, also fine, along with this comes being treated like a woman, being courted, having doors opened etc etc etc.

I don't think you can have best of both worlds. For example, be university qualified, career orientated, have a reasonable to high paying job and then expect the man to pay for dinner 8(

 

[Pander Bear]

ok pops

 

[verso]

Actually, men working while women minded the home is a new phenomenon, anthropologically speaking.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. I'm inclined to believe, from what I've read and from what I know, that, despite certain outliers, child-rearing and the more domestic responsibilities tend to fall upon the women in many societies and many cultures around the world and it's not a recent development. I'll have to talk about this more with the girlfriend when she's not so exhausted; anthropology is her field of study, not mine.

 

[jazz hands]

Here's an account of the Sentinelese people, the most uncontacted of the uncontacted peoples. The story is told by an Indian anthropologist who approached their island on a boat:

"... we were about to return when a couple of natives were seen on the land, apparently keeping a vigil. We approached closer, keeping a safe distance from the shore, when more men came out of cover armed with their usual weapons, threatening to shoot [arrows] at us. We had taken a few large fish caught during the previous night to offer as an appeasement gift to these people. We exhibited these, with gestures of offering. Meanwhile, men were converging on the spot from all direction. Some were waist deep in water and threatening to shoot. However, we approached closer and threw a couple of the fish towards them. They fell short of them and were being carried away by the water. This gesture had a mellowing effect on their belligerent mood. Quite a few discarded their weapons and gestured to us to throw the fish. The women came out of the shade to watch our antics. In their height and stature they were equal to the men except that the lines were softer and they carried no arms... There were 20 children. We approached the coast a little further from them and managed to land a couple of fish on shore. A few men came and picked up the fish. They appeared to be gratified, but there did not seem to be much softening to their hostile attitude. Again we approached the group. They all began shouting some incomprehensible words. We shouted back and gestured to indicate that we wanted to be friends. The tension did not ease. At this moment, a strange thing happened - a woman paired off with a warrior and sat on the sand in a passionate embrace. This act was being repeated by other women, each claiming a warrior for herself, a sort of community mating, as it were. Thus did the militant group diminish. This continued for quite some time and when the tempo of this frenzied dance of desire abated, the couples retired into the shade of the jungle. However, some warriors were still on guard. We got close to the shore and threw some more fish which were immediately retrieved by a few youngsters. It was well past noon and we headed back to the ship..."

http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter12/text12.htm