massaki Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I what to know why do people attack feminism all the time, like what is wrong with it? I used to know, but now i have forgotten, so reminders in-depth please are welcomed.
aFireInside Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I don't think anyone attacks feminist but more of what they say or at least some feminist say. Some arguments are full of hate towards men or even towards some women.
Eva Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I (a woman) attack feminism like I attack any "ism": because they are arbitrary or a priori values. Although, to be more precise, I don't really attack them—it's only those who operate from "isms" and any sort of bigotry that do attack and feel attacked.
massaki Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 So what do you guys think of the Patriarchy? I think it talks about how throughout all of time men have oppressed women. I think it also talks about how men should be put in there place below woman and how woman should rise up against their oppressors. Honestly it reminds me of the communist manifesto, and the last few lines with workers of the world unite. I heard some of their logic comes from there. I hear feminist talk about equality, but they usually from a lot videos i see bash men. what do you think about that? If feminist are for gender equality why don't they just call themselves gender equaliist or something like that , why say you are for equality and only push for one side, that's in its self unequal? According to many feminists if a girl is drunk and i had sex with her even if im drunk to that rape, if i kiss a girl even if she wants it and moves closer next to me for me to kiss her that is rape and if i don't ask a girl to have sex with her even if she removed her clothes , opened her legs for me to have sex with her, that's rape. Do you agree with these ideas? According to these ideas i am a rapist. Even one goes as far as to say if you don't ask the girl every few seconds and every new position during that its rape. I know communication is important ,but this is going way too far.
Kevin Beal Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 These are just my own opinions. I only represent myself. Patriarchy theory states that society is run by men, to the benefit of men, at the expense of women. The fact that men are at the top of power structures is not sufficient to support patriarchy theory, and it is often the only reason given. It never occurs to a lot of people that while men are at the top, they are also at the bottom. Certain men have power in society. The vast majority do not. By comparison, in power structures, as with many things, women are statistically perform / sit in the middle with a few men at the top and the rest of the male population doing the dirty jobs. The same people often who make this argument that men are at the top, therefore patriarchy theory is true, are the same kind of people who are completely unaware of the enormous effort on the part of men to build and maintain the society they benefit from. Or worse, they look at garbage men or other laborers with disgust. The fact that the computer she's using to type her argument, the make-up she's wearing, the car she drives, the building she's in were disproportionately made by men never enters her mind. A sort of narcissistic, gross thing she's doing. Another problem I have with feminism is the infantilization they do of women treating them as dandelions blowing in the wind, having no agency or responsibility over her life. If she does something immoral, she will often be excused for it. Lorena Bobbit is regarded as a hero for mutilating her husband, women get off with less prison time even after all other factors are controlled for, paternity fraud is minimized and the man's feelings are considered irrelevant often. And another reason is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
Alan C. Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 There is nothing wrong with feminism, just like there is nothing wrong with liberalism. It's a particular kind with which there are problems (eg. modern, Western feminism and left-liberalism). When speaking colloquially, people often assume that others define words in precisely the same way as they do. The use of 'capitalism' (sans qualifiers) is a good example. It often causes confusion.
Mike Fleming Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Basically, feminism, assuming it was valid at one point is no longer required. Anyone genuinely interested in equality today would be more interested in ideas of freedom and liberty for all than having one group favoured in a system that allows mass theft and redistribution to occur. Today's feminists receive enormous amounts of money from government grants to keep the narrative going. It's standard operating procedure for government programs. The problems can't go away, even though they pretty much have, because that would mean that they don't need to receive money for it any more. It's the same with global warming. A lot of people stand to lose a lot of money if the problem is perceived as being no longer there. Which is why you get endless propaganda and theories which look bizarre when you actually think about them. It's about money (stolen money to be precise) fundamentally and lots of it.
Kevin Beal Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 FDR 126 Feminism Part 1: The 'Bait and Switch' http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/feminism_part_1.mp3 FDR 127 Feminism Part 2: Divided We Fall http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/feminism_part_2.mp3 FDR 128 Feminism Part 3: Women Need Men http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/feminism_part_3.mp3 FDR 129 Feminism Part 4: A Way Forward... http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/feminism_part_4.mp3 FDR 1786 Environmentalism, Feminism and Statism http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1786_feminism_environmentalism_and_statism.mp3 FDR 2082 Feminism Is Socialism with Panties? http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2082_feminism_panties.mp3 http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/tag/feminism
Daniel Unplugged Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I think we need to bring in masculinism. Nearly all of my mates are royally whipped by their girlfriends. Down to the matriarchy!
LovePrevails Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 most feminists are not aware of any of the writing on men's issues which would seem to show deliberate bias since its all out there however a lot of feminists are motivated by a desire for justice I have certainly found talking to the feminists I know on men's issues was able to provoke curiosity and interest in them, but I am a good and sensitive orator and I delivered the information over several sittings so as not to set up an us-vs-them scenario ---- I have since been told by these people I really opened their eyes to the other side of the coin and have been thanked for doing so. The purpose of this video was to model the kind of communication that encourages mutual understanding rather than making enemies of people with differing views on gender issues. I think it was very successful as it got positive responses from feminists as well as lay people and men contacted me to say it accurately reflected their experience. Usually I have seen men tlaking about men's issues to feminists and getting shot down so I must have done something right. Please offer any feedback.:
PatrickC Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Feminism is the outgrowth of some of the worst female traits, which is why it has been so successful. It has relied on the natural bias that exists within both men and women to always protect women at all costs. Working unchecked as they have within the political system to provide themselves with more and more privileges above men and boys.
jacbot Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 The Feminist movement and civil rights movement were both hijacked by marxist subversion. The task is not do dash the word feminist or civil rights activitst, but see clearly the mechanism behind this and call the cloaked parasites by their proper names povetypimps, racehustlers, misandrist. Also the problem is the one of agency (agent theory) and gatekeepers,.., Libertarians dont believe in mob rule yet allow 1300 people size (how is the senate/congress/parlement not a mob?) to democraticly vote up/down laws for half a billion people. Its totally useless to attack current day feminism beyond uncloacking the propaganda. What we need is citizen nullification otherwise there will be another "ism" down the road that needs to be defeated. and we can start this process all over again.
Kevin Beal Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Its totally useless to attack current day feminism beyond uncloacking the propaganda. What we need is citizen nullification otherwise there will be another "ism" down the road that needs to be defeated. and we can start this process all over again. I think this is pretty specious. We wouldn't tell blacks in the early 20th century to forget about racism and focus on irrational thinking generally since it's the deeper issue at play. Also, I don't understand how you can point to marxism as the reason feminism is toxic. Certainly it plays a role, and I'm aware of the major influence marxism had on second wave feminism, but people have this strange belief that the first feminists were great and wonderful and virtuous and it was only hijacked later and became bad. I think that's a bunch of boloney. If marxists came onto the boards here and started influencing discourse enough to ruin the foundational ethics talked about on the show, that would speak to a deeper problem. Why would that appeal to virtuous people fighting for a truly righteous moral cause? It wouldn't. It's not the name "marxism" that is so repulsive, but what it actually stands for. People who actually aligned themselves with whatever truly righteous cause people think first wave feminists adhered to would not be interested in something as repugnant as marxism. First wave feminism only came about after enough labor saving devices were available that it allowed for enough leisure time to reflect on such issues. That is to say women had enough leisure time. Men were still busy making these labor saving devices for women and dying in horrific working conditions. And what kind of a person looks at that situation and says "you know what we should focus on? Working toward the benefit of women!"? The vast majority of human existence has been spent barely surviving. This life of excess people in the west enjoy is very new. What did they really lack? They couldn't vote. Good! Fuck voting. They could and did go to university and develop their careers. They had to put up with social disapproval for stepping out of their assumed roles. And so did men. The idea that a society could be so out of balance in favor of one sex over the other doesn't make any sense to me. That would be completely unsustainable. Women raise boys, after all. Feminism is deeper than marxism. Marxism is just great for pushing propaganda. It's symbiotic, not subversive.
jacbot Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 We wouldn't tell blacks in the early 20th century to forget about racism and focus on irrational thinking generally since it's the deeper issue at play. I think you severly misundertstood and misread,., the civil rights movement just like the feminist movement is justified in their stated objective. These tools are now infested with socialist. and the reason why that is ,is because they are "single failure points". (organisational theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_theory Comparing these hierarchical organisations to this website makes no sense. Marxist go for straight for the jugular by controlling management positions in said organisation. Thats not how FDR is set up, so FDR is pretty immune to such powergames and office politics and marxist trolls would be kicked from the boards pretty quickly. You have to see the current machinery for what it is, its nothing intrinsic about feminism or civil rights movement in general. Note; I define feminism as a subset of the broader civil rights movement. I write my post from this viewpoint, Women do need voting rights, that's an existential right. How a free democratic society (note there is no TRUE democracy less maybe for a country like Switzerland) should be set is another discussion all-together.
InquisitorM Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I guess the reason I have spoken out against feminism at all – and it isn't all that much because I honestly try to stay away from that mess – is that, like so much modern thinking, it focuses almost exclusively on symptoms rather than causes (for example: teach men not to rape rather than stop raising men that can rape). On top that that already monumental issue, I have seen little willingness to make allowances for actual gender differences and negotiated inequity in specific arenas, such as the 'men should do half the housework' kind of thinking. It's the liberal problem all over again: more legislation means less chance for negotiation and less chance for healthy, long-term solutions. I have no issue with putting time and effort into short term problems, but only as long as it does not obscure the deeper causes and hamper solutions to them. I hope that doesn't come across as oversimplifying the topic, but it brings my favourite Einstein quote to mind: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction." Like many in the anarchism movement, I imagine, I used to think feminism was a good thing. Then I learned all about child development and empathy and realised that feminism – as it is now – was more of a barrier than an aid to progress; I just don't see any way to any way to reconcile the lack of critical analysis with the desire for freedom and integrity. Feminism is forced equality, because any attempt to find equality anywhere other than in the uncoerced desire for equality is barking up the wrong tree. Many times I have deeply wished I was wrong, but it seems logically impossible.
Kevin Beal Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I think you severly misundertstood and misread,., the civil rights movement just like the feminist movement is justified in their stated objective. These tools are now infested with socialist. and the reason why that is ,is because they are "single failure points". (organisational theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_theory This is exactly what I thought you meant. I didn't know the terms "single failure points" or "organizational theory", but you weren't unclear about how you believed that socialism came in and made feminism bad when it was originally good. Unless there's something else you didn't mention, I think I understand what you are saying perfectly. I'm very familiar with how people believe that first wave feminism was great and noble and then became toxic later in the 60's / 70's. And everything that I've learned about it flies right in the face of this belief. I've worked with companies who were bought and their whole way of doing business was changed, even when most of the employees stuck around and kept doing the jobs they signed up for. Taking over the management and operations changed things significantly. And some of these companies failed because the company who bought it wanted it to (and sometimes because the parent company was retarded). Feminism is not an organization. Many of the goals of the suffragettes weren't moral goals. A big complaint was that mothers were bored to tears after their children moved out of the house. And there were a lot of women who were against women's suffrage. Women who weren't broken psychologically to love the patriarchy in their Stockholm Syndrome. Very eloquent women who argued that it's a proper division of responsibilities. I don't think that should be enforced by the guns of the state, obviously, but it started out that only very particular men could vote before it was opened up to men generally and then black men. All it is and ever was is a way of buying political influence. "Oh you want to vote? You can vote for me then!" And I don't know what you mean by "existential right" or "free democratic society". I absolutely abhor democracy (see "Democracy - The God that Failed") and there are no such things as "rights" (see The Deadly Superstition of Human Rights).
PatrickC Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 Actually it has to be said that the suffragettes engaged in some despicable campaigns like the 'white feather' campaign. Which was set up to shame young men that hadn't joined up during the 1st WW. They then insisted on the vote after men got it after this war in which millions of young men had already died or had been traumatized. Whilst I have no time for voting myself, there lingers a vile stench in the suffragettes direction in this regard. Particularly when they suggest they fought and died for the right to vote. Like men didn't and had done in their millions.
jacbot Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I think I understand what you are saying perfectly. I've worked with companies who were bought and their whole way of doing business was changed, even when most of the employees stuck around and kept doing the jobs they signed up for. Taking over the management and operations changed things significantly. And some of these companies failed because the company who bought it wanted it to (and sometimes because the parent company was retarded). Feminism is not an organization. Many of the goals of the suffragettes weren't moral goals. A big complaint was that mothers were bored to tears after their children moved out of the house. And there were a lot of women who were against women's suffrage. Women who weren't broken psychologically to love the patriarchy in their Stockholm Syndrome. Very eloquent women who argued that it's a proper division of responsibilities. I don't think that should be enforced by the guns of the state, obviously, but it started out that only very particular men could vote before it was opened up to men generally and then black men. All it is and ever was is a way of buying political influence. "Oh you want to vote? You can vote for me then!" And I don't know what you mean by "existential right" or "free democratic society". I absolutely abhor democracy (see "Democracy - The God that Failed") and there are no such things as "rights" (see The Deadly Superstition of Human Rights). Kevin: I think I understand what you are saying perfectly. No you dont. Proof: Kevin: We wouldn't tell blacks in the early 20th century to forget about racism and focus on irrational thinking Strawman, and I take offense to that.., where did i even hint that I was promoting/impliying this.? Kevin: I've worked with companies who were bought and their whole way of doing business was changed Not relevant, people (stockholders) can do with their private property whatever they want, tuff luck for people working there, but you can leave anytime you want. Thats not marxist subversion. Kevin: Feminism is not an organization. You know i was talking about special interest groups that promote feminism right? (aka organisations (plural!)) I dont know what your beef with women is,.., referral to victorian era as being somehow privilidged to women is basicly not factual. I suggest we put up some old Law Almanaks of the 1920-1930 so you can objectivly see what "rights" women had. Sure lot of white knighting in those times, but that doesnt make being a second class citizen any sweeter. Kevin:"..And I don't know what you mean by "existential right" or "free democratic society". I absolutely abhor democracy.." I knew you were going to read over this at mach 2..., go back and read slowly (the part about, "Americans not having democracy " and "only the swiss have democracy" ..). That last part about the Swiss is pretttyy key!!!
Kevin Beal Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I dont know what your beef with women is,.. That's all you needed to say. I'm a misogynist. It's established.
jacbot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 That's all you needed to say. I'm a misogynist. It's established. I am not the one thinking that giving voting rights to women or blacks is a bad thing! You think you live in a democracy, its like an Occupy guy who thinks he lives in a capitalist state, both are not true.
jacbot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 "Which set up to shame young men that hadn't joined up during the 1st WW" I cant remember if WW1 soldiers were volenteers , considering the millions that died , its more likely they were drafted.
Kevin Beal Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I am not the one thinking that giving voting rights to women or blacks is a bad thing! You think you live in a democracy, its like an Occupy guy who thinks he lives in a capitalist state, both are not true. I didn't say that giving people voting "rights" was a bad thing. But I will say it now. Yes, it's a bad terrible thing. Nobody should be allowed to directly influence where the guns of the state are pointed (incl. white men). Voting isn't exactly evil, but it's definitely not a positive thing. (see "Truth About Voting") I don't think I live in a democracy. It's an oligarchy. I have very specific criticisms of democracies that have nothing to do with my own personal experience. Hans Hermann Hoppe wrote the book Democracy: the God That Failed, and he rips democracies a new one. You can also find him talking on the Mises.org YouTube channel about this. You put those words in my mouth. Naughty naughty. You just assumed that these things were positive things without doing anything at all to support this and then took offense when I disagreed. That's bigotry. You are projecting your own bigotry onto me. You didn't even attempt to consider what I was actually arguing.
jacbot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I didn't say .... voting "rights" was a bad thing. But I will say it now. Yes, it's a bad terrible thing. .....Voting isn't exactly evil, You just contradicted yourself and flip flopped 2x, that makes no sense. WHat i get out of this is that you didnt like women getting the power to vote. You put those words in my mouth. Naughty naughty. I am not the one contradicting myself within the same sentence. and i dont have any telepathic ability, you should be more clear as i cannot read your mind. Well since you begin with name dropping,..,Hans Herman hoppe reflects on deligated democracies (USA, Europe) he is very much in favor of the Swiss DIRECT democracy, So is Stef Molyneux by the way (will look for youtube link in a minute). This is the 3rd time I mentioned the Swiss system,.., (i am a resident). This could have been a learning moment, but all you do is name calling and what not,.., thats not nice.
PatrickC Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 "Which set up to shame young men that hadn't joined up during the 1st WW" I cant remember if WW1 soldiers were volenteers , considering the millions that died , its more likely they were drafted. http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm
jacbot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 quote from the link "..The first two years of World War I saw the utilization of only voluntary enlistment in Britain..." So partially voluntary it seems,,,,thanks for the info Why voting is an existential right: "Lecture presented by Michael Rozeff at the Lugwig von Mises Institute's annual Austrian Scholars Conference held at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama; March 16-18, 2006." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIE74SD0wTA
PatrickC Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 What has this video got to do with the topic in hand. If you think this adds to the milk of human kindness, then please explain yourself.
Kevin Beal Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I didn't do something, then decided to do it later is not what a contradiction is. You told me that I said that women shouldn't be able to vote. And I never did say that. I chose later to say that nobody should be able to vote. And I'm curious, where do Hoppe and Stef say that they support direct democracy? I don't know where, but I believe Stef has said that he explicitly does not support direct democracy (talking about ancient Greece).
jacbot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 What has this video got to do with the topic in hand. If you think this adds to the milk of human kindness, then please explain yourself. Did you like the video? The first part was a reply to you (WW1, white feathers) The second part was a reply to Kevin (other then a white line for seperation in my reply, i didnt do a @Kevin marker) apologies. I hereby explicitly clarify. It relates to voting , poltical action of special interest groups (aka like feminist). -- I didn't do something, then decided to do it later is not what a contradiction is. You told me that I said that women shouldn't be able to vote. And I never did say that. I chose later to say that nobody should be able to vote. your quote "didn't say... voting "rights" was a bad thing" your quote "Yes, it's a bad terrible thing." your quote "Voting isn't exactly evil," you can change your mind about voting ofcourse, but its funny it happens twice in the first 3 lines of your reply. The meaning of the word "contradiction" is reserved to describe exactly this kind of flip flopping short term memory problem. Anyway, anarchist "Michael Rozeff" is quite explicit,., voting is an existential right because,.. hey, citizens are the "principals" of the society. You did watch the mises youtube ?
Kevin Beal Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 your quote "didn't say... voting "rights" was a bad thing" your quote "Yes, it's a bad terrible thing." your quote "Voting isn't exactly evil," you can change your mind about voting ofcourse, but its funny it happens twice in the first 3 lines of your reply. The meaning of the word "contradiction" is reserved to describe exactly this kind of flip flopping short term memory problem. I'd really love a second opinion (not yours). I've pointed out countless contradictions in myself and others and maybe I'm just daft, but I cannot even begin to see how this is a contradiction. A contradiction is holding mutually exclusive propositions to be true simultaneously. "I didn't say voting rights were a bad thing" was true. I hadn't said that at the time. And then upon reflection, I decided that I would advance that position as my own, hence "yes, it's bad". ...and I didn't say I changed my mind, either. Am I really just so retarded that I can't see what you're saying? Please somebody else let me know. Am I crazy?
Kevin Beal Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I've been looking and I can't find anywhere that Hoppe says that he supports direct democracy. It's stated repeatedly that he's an anarchist, and the two are mutually exclusive for obvious reasons. Also, since we're sharing videos, here's the truth about voting video I referred to:
MMX2010 Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 Am I really just so retarded that I can't see what you're saying? Please somebody else let me know. Am I crazy? You are right; jacbot is wrong.
Kevin Beal Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Hmmm, I wonder who downvoted my posts... (I never downvoted any of your posts jacbot)
Recommended Posts