Was everything feminism told me a lie?

[hannahbanana]

So, it's been about a year(?) since I've really started learning about the double-standards and lies within feminism, and listening to the other side of the story through Youtube videos and this forum. And even though a lot of the initial emotions have subsided, I still sometimes wonder if there was even one thing that was true in what I was taught and believed about feminism and gender equality over a year ago.

 

The thought of being lied to and manipulated about how "victimized" women are makes me feel angry, and sometimes kind of like a piece of shit. Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is.

 

I don't think that this is an overall healthy feeling, since I personally have done, and am doing, as much as I can to defy such negative associations around women.

 

A part of me might have once hoped there was some truth to feminism that I could cling to, but not anymore. But reflecting on this, I guess I wonder what everyone here thinks about the real nature of gender equality, as it pertains to women. For example, many people think that women are equal (if not privileged) today, but were not so in the past. Others, like girlwriteswhat, believe that women have NEVER been disadvantaged.

 

What do you think, and could you give specific examples, if possible?

 

 

[Pepin]

I think there is a lot that needs to be said about the treatment of women in third world countries. It is illegal for women to drive in many, and under some laws, women are punished if they are raped.

 

A minor argument I think may be valid is that men offering to buy females drinks is a little exploitive. It creates a pressure for the woman to do something for the buyer, because most people have an instinctive to provide reciprocity. Though, I feel like this isn't really a big problem, because as far as I am aware, most females use this as a method to get free drinks and will go after whoever they like most.

 

I also think that they are right about many men being a little too creepy among women, at least from my experience. I work at a coffee shop with mostly women, and the guys can be so creepy to the girls here. Every day, 40+ year old men will attempt to flirt with 16 year old girls here. The other week, my 16 year old coworker bent over, and these 35 year old men took pictures. That's pretty messed up.

 

This isn't a general problem with men of course, as most male customers don't act like this, but I think more men are creepy in this way than women. I've gotten a couple of girls, mostly old women, doing something similar to me, but it isn't that bad. But anyway, I think we need to ostracize those creepy people a lot more.

 

The whole topic of feminism gets so confusing as there are so many different conflicting theories within the group.

[MMX2010]

I'm not sure this will answer your question, but the first thing that strikes me as true about feminism is that the majority of long-term romantic relationships were miserable because most men were domineering but NOT overly successful.  This led to a bad blend of male laziness coupled with a "You can't make me work harder!" attitude that women resented.  So it was valid for women to seek escape from such relationships and either: (1) secure a long term commitment from more driven men or (2) provide for their own long-term survival through job-acquisition. 

 

The only major flaw was that most women prefer to rely on government (rather than hard work, self-improvement, and personal initiative) to secure resources and to use misandric harassment to lampoon men's romantic choices. 

 

As much as men (correctly, unfortunately) deduce that civilization may soon become bankrupt due to feminism and the over-growth of government, it was feminism that said you ought to never expect romantic security, deep devotion, and the heights of interpersonal bliss.  You had to earn it and maintain it. 

 

And though you criticize my decision to become a "Womanizer in training", my decision is both a response against and a direct result of feminism. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

An uncle of mine once spent some time living in Fiji. He has a lot of stories to tell about it and one thing he said during a story stuck out in my mind. At the time he was there (I dunno, something like 20 years ago?), the local government was a council of men from the community who would discuss and decide on things. While he was in the middle of describing this, he made a quick quip of, "Of course, their wives were really calling the shots. The wives would tell the men what to do and they would go to the council and do it."

 

I think this is the big secret to women's power and one of the reasons why it's so difficult to see. It is really common for women exercise their power through males, often in very subtle manners.

 

What also needs to be added, I think, is that you can't compare equality of men and women on the same rubric. To say that women aren't making as money or getting as high in the corporate ladder or whatever else, be they fake statistics or not, is making the underlying assumption that women want these things in general. From the information I've been getting hanging around places like FDR, women generally want men to run around in circles doing things for them, and are usually more than willing to manipulate in order to do so.

 

"Hey look! I can see evidence of a patriarchy because more men are holding higher positions in society!"

 

You don't see the women behind the men who enjoy all the power without any of the work.

 

Regarding abusive husbands...

 

Abusive husbands are very obviously bad people. We in the FDR realm have been up and down talking about how women choose these husbands. But one thing I haven't heard much, someone correct me if I've just been missing it, is how other women in a social circle (particularly family) pressure a single woman into marrying an asshole.

 

I was hanging out with a girl awhile back who came from a close-knit 7th Day Adventist Family/Community. She moved to my area with her sister, mother, and grandmother (emphasis: all women), and NONE of these women had anything nice to say about men. It was within the first day of meeting them that the sister made a rapist joke at me, and throughout the time we had hung out I consistently got rapist and murderer comments from the rest of the family (not directly. The girl told me about it*) and the girl told me horrible, twisted stories of the beatings she and her sister received from her father. She told me how she had been raped at 14  by someone in her school and her dad simply said, "Oh, that didn't happen." when she tried telling it to him. The Grandma was divorced due to an affair of the grandfather, the mother divorced due to an affair on her side (the girl also told me stories of how her dad would refuse to have sex with her mother, preferring rather to watch porn and masturbate).

 

*Note: I was a little slow on the draw at getting angry at this shit. My male friends and I growing up used to rip "jokes" like these at each other all day and not bat an eye. I think it took me awhile to realize that these women were serious because that's what they actually thought of all men. 

 

The kicker here? The girl was supposed to have an arranged marriage and the whole fucking family was pissed that she didn't do it. She ended up marrying somebody else, who by her description was also pretty abusive (went straight into the military after graduation... yay. He was gone in another state and she was waiting to move to him at the time we met), almost called the wedding off the day of, and was having second thoughts of sticking the marriage out. 

 

And why didn't she get out? She gave me two main reasons: 1.) fear that no one else would ever marry her and 2.) fear of social ostracization from her family and the church community. So while all the men these women had ever known were rapists and physically abusive, the women still bullied each other into marrying them. I wonder how far into the distant past this trend goes.

 

Conclusion: it's nearly impossible to tell how "equal" things are and have been between the two genders because the rubrics are different and the power held by women is very subtle. As far as I can tell, however, it leans in the direction of women.

[J. D. Stembal]

There are kernels of truth in feminism and traditionalism, but overall, they are exaggerations used for political gain. I think that if feminists want to be totally honest, they have to admit that men were just as victimized in the past. In the present, men are clearly the victims and women are the overzealous profiteers. Without shutting down the sexism-racism-Marxism narrative in the mainstream media, I don't think we will ever have a peaceful and free society.

[Lars]

The most important thing to remember is that historical and present day gender related struggles are not one-sided.

[PatrickC]

Like being woken up to the lies about govt and then the family. Feminism was the last one that had foiled my critical thinking skills. I remember feeling quite dazed after the realisation, so you have my sympathy. I guess it's perhaps worse for women, particularly those that identified with feminism. I'm now very glad I did mind, as it means I know what to look out for without being fogged by cultural expectation.

[PGP]

Increasingly, I actually think feminism is useful for me. In terms of elucidating how people act under different social conditions towards one another, it has been invaluable to me. Finding out what people are like is very difficult if they have another to blame for their behaviour. Anything that lifts the veil is to be welcomed IMO. 

[Kevin Beal]

I think women have got it harder in many respects. People tend to minimize and excuse the shit that women do. I think that's a terrible thing that encourages and incentives things which are not healthy. I think that is actually the reason Feminism appeals to so many women, is because of the craziness of people doing that to women messes with their sense of reality.

 

I'm actually grateful to feminism. If it weren't for feminism, men would still be very keen on being the patriarchal hero slave for women's express benefit. The ugliness of feminism has woken us up to the raw deal that gynocentrism is for men.

 

I think that women face some real problems, I just don't think that feminism does anything but make them worse.

 

I think it makes it tougher for the unicorn women out there that men are beginning to form these expectations as they shake off the propaganda of "women are wonderful". Establishing trust will be harder, but I don't think men will ever stop wanting a good woman in their corner.

[MMX2010]

And why didn't she get out? She gave me two main reasons: 1.) fear that no one else would ever marry her and 2.) fear of social ostracization from her family and the church community. So while all the men these women had ever known were rapists and physically abusive, the women still bullied each other into marrying them. I wonder how far into the distant past this trend goes.

 

 

Rollo Tomassi's SMV chart is highly informative, somewhat depressing, and outright scary. 

 

The findings are that a woman's Sexual Market Value is initially much higher than men's, peaks at age 23, declines severely until it matches a man's SMV at age 30, and is consistently lower than a man's for the rest of her life.  So when you describe the woman's behavior, I thought, "Must be around 30 or so.".  And when you describe her female relative's behavior, I thought, "Must be older than the woman they're pressuring." 

 

When you understand a woman's SMV, it angers you (threatening to make you a severely exploiting womanizer), saddens you (making you want to protect them from making poor decisions in the future), really angers you (because you can't protect a large population of women from making poor future decisions; they won't let you), and energizes or horrifies you (by seriously tempting you to become a not-so-dickish womanizer).

 

Ultimately, to understand a woman's SMV makes me realize that feminism will fail because the majority of women are simply NOT interested in being independent, self-supportive, go-getters.  At best, they're willing to cast themselves full force into this role when they're young and pretty - but once they hit 27-33, they'll pull the, "I wasn't serious about that Independent Woman stuff; honest!" 

 

 

 

I think it makes it tougher for the unicorn women out there that men are beginning to form these expectations as they shake off the propaganda of "women are wonderful". Establishing trust will be harder, but I don't think men will ever stop wanting a good woman in their corner.

 

No, it makes it easier.  Hannah will always be fine.  She's 19 and she knows what every good woman is supposed to know. 

 

I'm tempted to make fun of her for approaching this topic from a narcissistic viewpoint, but this culture makes everyone approach all social problems from a narcissistic viewpoint.  So making fun of her just wouldn't be fair. 

 

Still, the best of women stand out more brightly now, even if they narcissistically worry that they'll be "lumped in with the rest of those women".  Politically, they will, (and I'm strongly tempted to pioneer some women-shaming, misogynistic, highly personal articles that will be the vanguard of the backlash).  But when they read a nasty article, they'll always have a man at their sides to tell them, "Trust me, honey.  That guy isn't talking about you.  And if he knew you, he'd be the first to admit that he's not talking about you." 

 

So romantically, they won't. 

 

Professionally, they might.  But that's a small thing to worry about. 

[iHuman]

In a Nutshell I think that like many other things Feminism most likely started out with only Positive Virtuous Intentions, but like so many things, was quickly polluted/corrupted into a tool to extract/leverage Money and Political Power.

[shirgall]

When feminism means correctly identifying and stopping abuse, I'm all for it. When feminism means demanding reparations for imagined abuse, it has jumped the shark.

[hannahbanana]

 

 

And though you criticize my decision to become a "Womanizer in training", my decision is both a response against and a direct result of feminism. 

Hi, MMX, I just want a quick clarification...when you say "you" are you referring directly to me, or is it the general kind of use of the word "you?" Completely fine for it to be, I just don't want there to be a miscommunication.

 

 

 

I'm tempted to make fun of her for approaching this topic from a narcissistic viewpoint, but this culture makes everyone approach all social problems from a narcissistic viewpoint.  So making fun of her just wouldn't be fair. 

 

If you decided not to make fun of me, why even mention it? You're making the same point anyway. I started this post because I didn't remember this topic being discussed much, and I was curious as to other people's honest thoughts and opinions. I am fully prepared for them to be negative towards me, or to be on a different line from my own thinking. So please, don't hold back.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a narcissistic viewpoint.

I'll admit that it is a slightly selfish reason as to why I have had the thoughts that I wrote in the OP, being that I mentioned my own personal negative feelings when negative points about women as a whole are discussed. But I'd like to explain that the main reason I feel angry or sad when women are talked about negatively is NOT because I feel offended, or because I'd rather people only say good things about women. It is because these negative things are true, I realize it is true, and I am sad because I wish it didn't have to be that way. I'm not trying to fall back on the NAWALT argument. What I'm saying is, since I know that it is possible for women to live in a better way, it frustrates me that a majority of women still aren't, still choose to be ignorant to how they behave and expect others to behave towards them. THAT is what makes me sad. It has nothing to do with me personally feeling singled out, or offended.

 

Of course, if that is not what you were referring to when you said I was acting in a narcissistic way, please tell me what it is that you are referring to.

 

 

 but this culture makes everyone approach all social problems from a narcissistic viewpoint

 

Also, you do realize how hypocritical it is to say that people's behavior can't be helped just because of "culture." That is EXACTLY what feminists say, and if I know anything about you, it is something you hate about them. If I AM being narcissistic, it would be for my own personal reasons. 

 

Narcissism is defined as “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.” I just asked a question that affects me personally. If that is narcissism, then almost every single post in this entire forum, and most replies, would be out of narcissism.

Thank you for the responses from everyone, by the way. I like seeing each person's take on the issues.

I myself think that (especially 1st world) women in general are quite privileged as a whole. I think that if any stance taken by feminists was ever true, it no longer is for these women...it is difficult for me to say what I think of how things were in the past, because 1) I wasn't there, so I don't have personal experience, and 2) history is taught through the lens of women being oppressed as a whole in the past, so I can't be completely trusting of second-hand sources.

I can't deny restrictions put on women in other countries based on religious reasons, etc...but in these cases, restrictions are also imposed on men, just in different ways, so I'm not sure if it's really a gender issue, or just an issue of controlling people in general.

[MMX2010]

Hi, MMX, I just want a quick clarification...when you say "you" are you referring directly to me, or is it the general kind of use of the word "you?" Completely fine for it to be, I just don't want there to be a miscommunication.

 

In that case, I left it ambiguous to see how other people would react to it.  But what I meant was "the general you, who downvote me at every turn, who I know-for-sure isn't hannahbanana". 

 

 

If you decided not to make fun of me, why even mention it? You're making the same point anyway. I started this post because I didn't remember this topic being discussed much, and I was curious as to other people's honest thoughts and opinions. I am fully prepared for them to be negative towards me, or to be on a different line from my own thinking. So please, don't hold back.

 

 

Because it's fun to mention it, and then not do it.     It's approximately triple the fun of actually doing it. 

 

I know you sincerely believe that you started the post for the reasons above, but you were also motivated by a considerable amount of  "I wonder if I'm going to get lumped in with the rest of those women." worries.  (And I know this because you said so, "The thought of being lied to and manipulated about how "victimized" women are makes me feel angry, and sometimes kind of like a piece of shit. Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is.")   There's nothing wrong with worrying whether you'll be lumped in, especially since it's a legitimate fear that will happen to you on some level.  Thankfully, it won't be that bad for you. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a narcissistic viewpoint.

 

I'll admit that it is a slightly selfish reason as to why I have had the thoughts that I wrote in the OP, being that I mentioned my own personal negative feelings when negative points about women as a whole are discussed. But I'd like to explain that the main reason I feel angry or sad when women are talked about negatively is NOT because I feel offended, or because I'd rather people only say good things about women. It is because these negative things are true, I realize it is true, and I am sad because I wish it didn't have to be that way. I'm not trying to fall back on the NAWALT argument. What I'm saying is, since I know that it is possible for women to live in a better way, it frustrates me that a majority of women still aren't, still choose to be ignorant to how they behave and expect others to behave towards them. THAT is what makes me sad. It has nothing to do with me personally feeling singled out, or offended.

 

 

About a year ago, I felt exactly the same sadness as you.  And I began feeling that sadness around eleven years ago.  So that's over a decade of sadness.  But then I began reading Rollo Tomassi's writings which convinced me that women's current misbehavior is biologically hard-wired, which makes me feel stupid for expecting massive female behavioral changes just because I oh-so-very-much wanted them. 

 

Then the sadness turned to rage, which isn't very healthy at all.  But after I read some of Heartiste's writings, I decided to become a womanizer-in-training, which is really an expression of hope and compassion.  (Yes, it's a strange thing to say; it is true nonetheless.) 

 

Womanizing is simply admitting that the majority of women aren't cut out for the egalitarian, self-starting, courageous roles we see in movies and on television.  They are still the "surrendering hopefuls" who'll pin their entire futures on the backs of "the biggest apes" (I think that's Stefan's term, right?), whether they be asshole men or government bureaucrats.  When I was raging, I wasn't doing anything important.  (Worse, I was expecting my rage to motivate women to alter their fundamental biology to please me - which is exactly what feminists do.)  But now that I'm womanizing, there's always something to do: whether weights to lift, a business to work on, or a series of womanizing techniques to absorb.  And so the hope provides happiness, a little bit of direction, and a lot of compassion towards myself and women. 

 

 

 

Also, you do realize how hypocritical it is to say that people's behavior can't be helped just because of "culture."

 

 

I never said that, though.    

 

It is tempting to make fun of people who don't understand something very important.  However, (1) I've only understood this important thing for two days.  (2) Making fun of someone who doesn't get it is narcissistic.  (3) Patting myself on the back for realizing how narcissistic it is....is also narcissistic.  (4) How hilarious is it that the narcissism is so large? 

 

So I wasn't excusing your behavior.  I was excusing my behavior and yours.  And everyone else's.  This culture makes it very hard to stop focusing on ourselves. 

 

 

 

Narcissism is defined as “extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.” I just asked a question that affects me personally. If that is narcissism, then almost every single post in this entire forum, and most replies, would be out of narcissism.

 

 

It is.  And it's fine.  Don't worry about it. 

 

 

 

I myself think that (especially 1st world) women in general are quite privileged as a whole.

 

*snip* 

 

so I'm not sure if it's really a gender issue, or just an issue of controlling people in general.

 

Feminism is a reaction against the immense media message that, "Lady, you can be a self-starting, independent, and strong woman!  You can cure diseases all by your lonesome.  You can build machines all by yourself!  You can reach the entire world with your voice, and the world is yours if you're willing to work for it."  (As I said earlier, woman are only capable of pretending to want these things when they're young and pretty.  But as soon as the pretty starts to seriously fade, women are like, "I didn't mean any of that Strong Woman stuff: honest!!)

 

By not-changing, feminists are indeed trying to control everyone else.  They monopolize far more time than they deserve, and control far more government resources than they are capable of managing.  They were given everything, and still want more. 

 

Lastly, I think I already know the answer to this, but did you downvote any of my posts? 

[Kevin Beal]

it is difficult for me to say what I think of how things were in the past, because 1) I wasn't there, so I don't have personal experience, and 2) history is taught through the lens of women being oppressed as a whole in the past, so I can't be completely trusting of second-hand sources.

I think that's very reasonable and can't fault you for that. I did just want to point to one of many reasons to be suspicious.

 

Christina Hoff Sommers is awesome, and calls herself a feminist, so there is at least one NAFALT out there, but she reports on a long standing feminist myth surrounding the "rule of thumb", which refers to the supposed rule in the ancient world that says that it is permissible for men to beat their wives if the implement that they beat them with is no thicker in circumference than his thumb. So, he could hit her with all sorts of nasty, even if they aren't blunt, instruments.

 

Feminists have claimed for decades that this law comes from English Common Law, but it appears nowhere in any laws ever recorded. It's actually attributed the Roman emperor Romulus, who in all likelihood, did not exist. But it is taught in women's studies courses throughout the world. Christina talked to some of the people who write the women's studies textbooks perpetuating this myth, and they refused to take it out.

 

Maybe feminists have a ton right about the history of women's oppression. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that if there's good evidence, but it is indicative of a general disregard for historical accuracy in feminist study. Similarly, with the wage gap, and keeping women out of business and university, the truth is much more interesting than the feminist account.

 

 

Christina's video series is pretty good, and I would recommend it to y'all.

[J. D. Stembal]

Womanizing is simply admitting that the majority of women aren't cut out for the egalitarian, self-starting, courageous roles we see in movies and on television.  They are still the "surrendering hopefuls" who'll pin their entire futures on the backs of "the biggest apes" (I think that's Stefan's term, right?), whether they be asshole men or government bureaucrats.  When I was raging, I wasn't doing anything important.  (Worse, I was expecting my rage to motivate women to alter their fundamental biology to please me - which is exactly what feminists do.)  But now that I'm womanizing, there's always something to do: whether weights to lift, a business to work on, or a series of womanizing techniques to absorb.  And so the hope provides happiness, a little bit of direction, and a lot of compassion towards myself and women.

 

What is the end goal of being a womanizer?

 

I freely admit that I've been one for most of my adult life. I have wingmanned with other pick up artists, but I lacked the chops to succeed very much while solo. I'm about 5' 9", so I'm automatically handicapped from the start. I've never married, and never proposed marriage. Whenever it was mentioned in a relationship, I would scoff at it. I would often date two women at once (sometimes three), and enjoyed the drama it caused. I've been called an asshole, player, scum, gigolo, womanizer, etc. I was the envy of most married men.

 

The problem is that the goals of this lifestyle, staying single and unattached at all costs, are in direct opposition to most of women's goals. Women want marriage, state control over their men, money, and babies. PUAs, in general, do not want anything to do with the above. We might be getting trim by the truckload, but we are setting ourselves up to be an accidental sperm donor (unless vasectomied), or accused of rape or worse if we piss off the wrong woman. Need I mention sexually transmitted diseases? The juice just isn't worth the squeeze, in my opinion. It's too dangerous for males right now, and the more money you have, the greater the danger.

 

Any woman that is interested in dating a self-described womanizer is a woman you want to avoid at all costs!

[MMX2010]

So I decided to re-read Esther Villar's "The Manipulated Man" again.  Maybe it was curiosity.  Maybe it was because I wanted to start a diet, and figured it would be easier to destroy my appetite than show food discipline.  And maybe I wanted to see how reading Rollo's and Heartiste's writings would influence my interpretation. 

 

But the first nineteen pages are stomach-churning for their accuracy. 

 

Some choice ideas are: (1) That man is defined as "the being who works", whereas woman is defined as "the being who does not work, or at least works only temporarily".  (2) That the biggest resisters of Villar's message is men, because to reject her message is to be enslaved by women's needs and desires - but to accept her message is to be completely free to carve out his own path.  Freedom is scarier than slavery.  (3) That women will adopt stray birds, stray dogs, stray cats, and stray horses - but rarely will they adopt stray children.  And they will only adopt stray children when they-themselves cannot produce their own children.  This, Villar argues, is evidence that women neither love, nor care about children; they only care about the perpetuation of themselves, genetically. 

 

My best quote, so far, regarding women and feminism is this:

 

However, I had also underestimated men's fear of reevaluating their position. Yet the more sovereignty they are losing in their professional lives - the more automatic their work, the more controlled by computers they become, the more that increasing unemployment forces them to adopt obsequious behavior towards customers and superiors - then the more they have to be afraid of a recognition of their predicament. And the more essential it becomes to maintain their illusion that it is not they who are the slaves, but those on whose behalf they subject themselves to such an existence.

 

As absurd as it may sound: today's men need feminists much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless, and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their animalistic instincts.  Therefore the more aggressive Women's Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else.  Without their arrogant accusations the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies.  If the press didn't stylize men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this 'men's society', men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently." 

[J. D. Stembal]

The most important thing to remember is that historical and present day gender related struggles are not one-sided.

 

Lars, this is a very important observation, but modern day feminist ideologues would have us believe that men are not victims. If it comes out that boys have been victimized, the responsibility of their mothers is never called into question.

 

If you can stomach hideous neglect and abuse, look at this 1981 documentary on the prostitution of boys in the South.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXlvObVuKeE

 

At 23:20, the panelist wearing the glasses asks whether or not women who are in positions of power are involved in the sex trade of boys. The panelist on the left quickly quips, "You don't find many women in positions of power." The professor on the right contends that he doesn't have any evidence that sexual abuse of children by women is common. We have since learned that historically (see The Origins of War in Child Abuse) women and mothers were very much involved in child sexual abuse, infanticide, and cannibalism. What is a mother but a woman in the position of authority over the family and her children?

 

Later on in the documentary, about 1:10 in, the interviews from a report called "Boys for Sale" are shown where cops and Houston city officials discuss the enforcement of boy prostitution, which is low. Few arrests are made, and they consistently paint the boys as victims. Is this because they truly care about boy prostitutes, or are they told by their supervisors to keep the crime and sex abuse off the books and under the table, so we can persist in our ignorance about how men and boys suffer? One of the cops correctly attributes this crime wave to a poor home life and lack of familial support. At no time in this presentation is the role of the parents, including the mother, intimately discussed. All we know is that there is an abundance of boys in the area who either run away or are forced out of their families, some of them affluent families.

 

In one of the interviews with the boys, he actually blames himself for being a burden on his family.

 

Can you imagine an expose about boy prostitution being televised in the current media climate where feminism is so dominant? I can't see it. It flies in the face of the patriarchy theory. I watched one (it might have been a 20/20 investigation) last year or the year before which discussed international sex trafficking, but it focused on young female victims almost exclusively.

 

For more reading on Tom Philpotts see https://archive.org/stream/TexasMonthlyMay1982-TomPhilpott-TheCaseOfTheCampusCrusader#page/n0/mode/2up

 

I plan on starting a thread about male prostitution and sexual abuse if there isn't one already.

[J. D. Stembal]

FDR edit:

 

Compare and contrast the 1981 video in my previous post, which is currently under moderation, to this recent report on underage "female escorts."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoiU6KBsli8

[hannahbanana]

 

In that case, I left it ambiguous to see how other people would react to it.  But what I meant was "the general you, who downvote me at every turn, who I know-for-sure isn't hannahbanana". 

 

 

 

Because it's fun to mention it, and then not do it.     It's approximately triple the fun of actually doing it. 

First, thank you for the clarification.

 

Second, why would it be fun to make pick on someone without the decency of actually addressing them directly about it? To me, that seems very disrespectful, condescending, and just unempathetic. The guidelines of this forum clearly state to "focus criticism on the theory, and not the individual." It also says "Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged." The fact that you hint at criticizing me (not to mention everyone else on this forum) as a narcissist, without actually saying it, seems pretty passive aggressive to me. Honestly, I felt a little shocked and confused by your response. I didn't expect that you would say that.

 

 

 

 

I know you sincerely believe that you started the post for the reasons above, but you were also motivated by a considerable amount of  "I wonder if I'm going to get lumped in with the rest of those women." worries.  (And I know this because you said so, "The thought of being lied to and manipulated about how "victimized" women are makes me feel angry, and sometimes kind of like a piece of shit. Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is.")   There's nothing wrong with worrying whether you'll be lumped in, especially since it's a legitimate fear that will happen to you on some level.  Thankfully, it won't be that bad for you. 

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough, but again it's not so much a concern that other people will treat me in association with other women, but more that I myself am disappointed in these women and don't want to be associated with them because of who they are, and not because of what others will think of me. Maybe I have felt what you've described above in my life, but it is not my main focus here and is not as big a problem or worry to me as what I just described.

 

 

 

I never said that, though.  

 

It is tempting to make fun of people who don't understand something very important.  However, (1) I've only understood this important thing for two days.  (2) Making fun of someone who doesn't get it is narcissistic.  (3) Patting myself on the back for realizing how narcissistic it is....is also narcissistic.  (4) How hilarious is it that the narcissism is so large? 

 

So I wasn't excusing your behavior.  I was excusing my behavior and yours.  And everyone else's.  This culture makes it very hard to stop focusing on ourselves. 

 

 

Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but you WERE excusing my behavior. You even said it right in the last line that I quoted (" I was excusing my behavior and yours"). I just don't agree with you. Even if this culture DID encourage narcissism, it's not an excuse. Just like a person with a history of abuse who has difficulty leading a non-abusive lifestyle. It's difficult, but it's still not an excuse, and I wouldn't want such excuses made for myself in any situation.

I don't think our culture encourages narcissism and focus on the self; in fact, I think the opposite. Selfishness and materialism is almost always seen as a term of disgust, an insult. Ideas and institutions like the state, as well as religion, rely on the denial and sacrifice of the self for the "greater good" in order to exist - and they are alive and well worldwide. Herd mentality and conformity are ingrained in children at schools from day one, to avoid the attention of bullies and other abusers.

Are there narcissistic people in the world? Yes, since narcissism comes from abuse and the world has many abuses. Does the culture reinforce narcissism in people? I have my doubts. Because there are also many examples of the culture reinforcing self-erasure.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I think I already know the answer to this, but did you downvote any of my posts? 

No, I did not downvote any of your posts, in this thread or in others. I considered downvoting your second post, because it had very little to do with the topic and seemed more like a veiled insult, but I ended up addressing that directly instead. I would only downvote a post that is either trolling, or downright abusive.

[J-William]

I was hanging out with a girl awhile back who came from a close-knit 7th Day Adventist Family/Community. She moved to my area with her sister, mother, and grandmother (emphasis: all women), and NONE of these women had anything nice to say about men. It was within the first day of meeting them that the sister made a rapist joke at me, and throughout the time we had hung out I consistently got rapist and murderer comments from the rest of the family (not directly. The girl told me about it*) and the girl told me horrible, twisted stories of the beatings she and her sister received from her father. She told me how she had been raped at 14  by someone in her school and her dad simply said, "Oh, that didn't happen." when she tried telling it to him. The Grandma was divorced due to an affair of the grandfather, the mother divorced due to an affair on her side (the girl also told me stories of how her dad would refuse to have sex with her mother, preferring rather to watch porn and masturbate).

 

That’s a great example of the first encounter telling you all you need to know. She made a rapist joke at you the first time you met her.

 

That’s a clear signal to stay away if you are healthy or self-respecting. I can only imagine her mother and grandmother said similar things to men that kept the good ones running in the opposite direction.

 

 

Lars, this is a very important observation, but modern day feminist ideologues would have us believe that men are not victims. If it comes out that boys have been victimized, the responsibility of their mothers is never called into question.

 

If you can stomach hideous neglect and abuse, look at this 1981 documentary on the prostitution of boys in the South.

I'm glad this film was made, but I really don't think I have the stomach to watch it.

 

I wonder what a follow up documentary would look like, i.e. if they caught up with some of the boys in the original. I bet a not small portion of the boys are dead from suicide or drug overdose... male prostitution is never talked about except as the butt of a joke.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

That’s a great example of the first encounter telling you all you need to know. She made a rapist joke at you the first time you met her.

 

That’s a clear signal to stay away if you are healthy or self-respecting. I can only imagine her mother and grandmother said similar things to men that kept the good ones running in the opposite direction.

 

 

No, you misread. Her family did, not her.

[Carl Green]

Try and keep in mind that "feminism" didn't tell you anything. Individuals told you things that are relevant to "feminism".

 

(unless you're already doing so and just using the shorter version of how to say it)

[MMX2010]

@hannahbanana: I've read your response three times, and feel like I've a lot to say. 

 

We have a misunderstanding regarding the word "narcissism", which I'll explain later.

 

For now, though, I'm sorry that I shocked you. 

[MMX2010]

Second, why would it be fun to make pick on someone without the decency of actually addressing them directly about it? To me, that seems very disrespectful, condescending, and just unempathetic. The guidelines of this forum clearly state to "focus criticism on the theory, and not the individual." It also says "Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged." The fact that you hint at criticizing me (not to mention everyone else on this forum) as a narcissist, without actually saying it, seems pretty passive aggressive to me. Honestly, I felt a little shocked and confused by your response. I didn't expect that you would say that.

 

So it's most important that we've different definitions of narcissism. 

 

Everyone on FDR is familiar with Capital-N Narcissism, the full blown psychological disorder present in roughly 6% of Americans that guarantees children will be abused and everyone who knows the Capital-N Narcissist will be miserable.  I wasn't using that term. 

 

Few people, however, are familiar with TheLastPsychiatrist's definition of Little-N Narcissism, which is the term I always use.  I could post multiple links to multiple articles, but the primary component of Little-N Narcissism is that your first and foremost concern is how a specific idea or understanding affects you and your relationships.  Most people use philosophy in a Little-N Narcissistic way, because they use everything in a Little-N Narcissistic way.  Why do you want to go to college?  Why do you want to study this, but not that?  Why are you attracted to this person, but not that person?  What's the best part about philosophy?  Why did you stay with the romantic partner with whom you stayed the longest?  (Try as you might, you'll almost certainly answer those questions in a Little-N Narcissistic way.  Doesn't mean your answers are wrong, doesn't mean your thought process is flawed.  Just means that Little-N Narcissism is epidemic in our culture, and that you suffer from it because you're a part of this culture.) 

 

----------------

 

The second thing to address is why I would make fun of you, rather than directly addressing it.  By "directly addressing it", do you mean intellectually, philosophically, and objectively BUT NOT emotionally and personally?  Maybe you do, maybe you don't - but I find that topics that create a lot of emotional energy are best addressed emotionally and personally first, rather than intellectually, philosophically, and objectively first. 

 

There are many reasons for this, but the first one is Little-N Narcissism.  It was safe for me to assume that you were approaching this question from a Little-N Narcissistic perspective, especially because you stated, "Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is.")."  And even your correction, "it's not so much a concern that other people will treat me in association with other women, but more that I myself am disappointed in these women and don't want to be associated with them because of who they are, and not because of what others will think of me" is Little-N Narcissistic.  (Your primary focus is on either: (1) how their negative behavior affects you and your relationships, or (2) how very strongly you want to stand out from among those women.  Both of these are Little-N Narcissistic.) 

 

The second reason is because of who you are.  You are a 19 year old girl just beginning philosophy.  You're "supposed to be" awkward, emotionally out-of-control (most times), and mostly unable to handle interpersonal conflict.  But what you did was: (1) express your frustration with me in clear language, (2) refused to personally attack me despite being frustrated with me, and (3) didn't downvote my post; instead you sought further conversation and clarification. 

 

You don't get how exemplary your behavior *IS*.  You don't get how your ability to handle conflict as I described makes you better than 95% (or more!) of women-period.  Not just Women Your Age.  Your self-doubt is an insult to your character, and I wasn't going to stand idly by and "let you get away" with it. 

 

------------------

 

The third reason is because philosophy doesn't cure Little-N Narcissism.  When you say, "Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but you WERE excusing my behavior. You even said it right in the last line that I quoted (" I was excusing my behavior and yours"). I just don't agree with you. Even if this culture DID encourage narcissism, it's not an excuse. Just like a person with a history of abuse who has difficulty leading a non-abusive lifestyle. It's difficult, but it's still not an excuse, and I wouldn't want such excuses made for myself in any situation.", I appreciate your passion for the truth and for upright moral behavior.  But I don't think you realize how hard it is to reverse Little-N Narcissism. 

 

Little-N Narcissism is everywhere, even in political protests. 

 

I'm sure you've seen the pictures of dogs attacking Blacks during Martin Luther King Jr's political protests.  Whether you agree with the protestors or not, they disagreed with the White power structure, especially the police and the government - and directly protested against those institutions.  But last month, a hashtag BlackBrunchNYC emerged as people who disliked the Michael Brown and Eric Garner incidents gathered inside of trendy bistros where White people were eating brunch to "raise awareness" about those issues.  They brought cameras to film the discomfort of the Whites eating lunch, and took selfies of themselves participating in the protests to put on facebook. 

 

Both groups are protesting, but the second group is full of Little-N Narcissists. 

 

If you knew how prevalent Little-N Narcissism was, you wouldn't expect your passionate commitment to truth and moral action to immediately cure your own (or anyone else's) Little-N Narcissism.  You would, especially, realize that women without your passionate commitment to truth and moral action simply will NOT be quickly "reformed" or persuaded through passionate moral argument.  And then you would realize how awkward it is to complain about the hypocrisy and truth-evasion of the feminists who lied to you your entire life.  (Eventually, you'll also realize that the phrasing of my last sentence was Little-N Narcissistic, "how awkward it is to complain about the hypocrisy and truth-evasion of the feminists who lied to you your entire life".  Get it?  They lied to us, too.) 

 

Let me know if this helps, or has created even more confusion.  My actions were complicated, creative, and worked perfectly, (in my opinion).  But that doesn't mean I explained them well enough.  And if you're confused, I didn't. 

 

[Mister Mister]

  My take on it is this - certainly there are legitimate complaints that women can have towards society, and even more so in the past.  We should listen to these complaints and address them based on standards of reason and justice.  But what really needs to be opposed is the narrative that we live and always have lived in a patriarchy - defined as a system in which men have all the power and use that power for their own benefit at the expense of women.  This assumes that:

- men naturally want to exercise power over women

- women have suffered more than men (how exactly would one measure this???).  if this is the case, than the disproportionate attention and resources poured towards women - breast cancer funding vs. prostate cancer, concern about girls self-esteem while boys are drugged and have 

- violence, dysfunction, oppression, and abuse of power are male qualities - you hear this very often where if you mention any dysfunction in the society, a feminist will respond "yes but that's the patriarchy", "patriarchy hurts men too", etc...  The importance of women's role in sculpting the values of the society as the primary caretakers of children, as well as the blatant sexism inherent in referring to violence and injustice as "patriarchy", and to peace and equality as "feminism" rather than humanism or egalitarianism is lost on them.
 

-all male achievements have come at the expense of women, they are not earned fairly but stolen from women, thus making women as a class, an injured party entitled to restitution, and men as a class are a criminal party deserving of punishment.  another way of saying it is that, since men's wealth and power and privilege comes at the expense of women, women's advancement must now come at the expense of men.  Of course this comes down to a basic confusion over win-win vs. win-lose which is common on the left.  But to me this is the biggest aspect of feminism that must be opposed because it comes hand in hand with ignoring or minimizing male victimhood, especially male children who have it really bad in so many ways.

  A more appropriate alternative narrative is outlined by Warren Farrell - that gender roles evolved in a certain way, in a more brutal environment, to ensure survival of the children.  Women gave themselves up as breeders and men gave themselves up as resource acquisitors, for the sake of the survival of the children.  Only when economic freedom allowed for more comfort, did women begin to think about what more they wanted out of life.  Also significant is Stef's analysis that for most of history, most people have been like cattle to political power.  Therefore, women were seen as primarily objects of fertility to produce more cattle, and men were seen as potential workers and warriors.  In effect, the sexual roles that evolved out of our biology and the economic reality of the past, were used by those in power as a way to secure their hold over their human farms.  

       When feminists talk about how standards of beauty are prescribed by the society, to some extent they are right, but not in the way they say.  Standards of sexual value are not prescribed by men for the purpose of oppressing women, but by Rulers for the purpose of running human farms, certain roles have developed, and people have internalized them - therefore men pursue young, fertile women, and women pursue workers and/or warriors, both of which often come at the expense of potential love and long-term happiness.

[Carl Green]

A human trait, or characteristic or call it what you will, that some people may (or may not) have is to assume a position of dominance. It seems to be conflated with masculinity which is understandable given that a lot of people that have the dominance aspect are also male, but not all masculine men have the dominating aspect. 

 

If feminists are anti-male, what can we call an anti-dominance 'movement'?

 

I don't care if you're a male or female, just don't think you should be able to tell me what to do and we'll get along just fine.

[PatrickC]

I think it was MMX that mentioned Ester Vilar, either in this thread or another. She had an interesting take on feminism. Insofar as she considered herself a feminine feminist, as opposed to the popular feminism being what she considered as masculine feminism. She was anti male feminism, which makes her an anti feminists by today's standards. Of course these days the word feminism come so preloaded, that I think there is a good case to discard it altogether to save confusion. However, she is well worth a read and some of her books can be found free online.

 

There is I think a strong case to be made that feminism as we know it today has been heavily influenced by lesbian thinking. Which is partly to blame for much of the more extreme anti male sentiment that exists within the movement. Lesbians of course will view men as competition for their sexual preferences and also they consider men as being of little utility for them.

[hannahbanana]

First, just a quick correction, since you've made this mistake more than once now: I'm not 19, I'm 21. Not sure if that makes a huge difference to you or anything, but it was just nagging at me a little.

So it's most important that we've different definitions of narcissism. 

 

 

Well, I'm confused if we do, since in my earlier post I gave a definition of narcissism and asked if that was correct, and you said "It is.  And it's fine.  Don't worry about it." So either we DO have the same definitions, or we don't and I've just been confused about it based on the comment I quoted for most of this conversation. Based on your last post, I'll assume the latter is true.

 

I've read what you've said about the difference between "Narcissism" and "narcissism," and although it was a little confusing, I think I understand what you meant by it.

 

I think you're right that there is a lot of self-centered behavior out there (such as your example about selfies), but in the context of this conversation we have had in this thread,I really wonder what the difference is between your definition of "narcissism" and having a personality/sense of individuality. Of course people think about things in relation to their own life and own experience. And especially on this forum, people ask very personal questions, which have to do with their own thoughts and their own doubts, which can make them pretty vulnerable. I'm still in disagreement with you as to whether THAT is narcissistic, since it is less about getting attention drawn to themselves just for the sake of attention (like taking a selfie), and is more about asking a pretty personal question and asking people for help or for answers. That seems like a pretty positive thing for a person to do, rather than not pay any attention to themselves at all.

 

Now, if what I just wrote about IS "little-n narcissism," then why does it really matter, since it is so prevalent and, as I see it, not necessarily a bad thing? And based on your most recent post, you seem to think that what you define as "little-n narcissism" is a bad thing (that it needs to be "cured").

 

Saying that any example of thinking of yourself is narcissism (little-n or otherwise) like it's a bad thing just seems like another accusation of "original sin" in human nature. I don't think it's always bad to think of things in terms of yourself. I we didn't, it wouldn't seem like there'd be much motivation to live a happy, peaceful life.

 

 

 

 

The second thing to address is why I would make fun of you, rather than directly addressing it.  By "directly addressing it", do you mean intellectually, philosophically, and objectively BUT NOT emotionally and personally?  Maybe you do, maybe you don't - but I find that topics that create a lot of emotional energy are best addressed emotionally and personally first, rather than intellectually, philosophically, and objectively first. 

 

When I said "directly addressing it," I meant actually saying "I think that hannahbanana's post is narcissistic," or something to that effect, rather than "I WOULD say that hannahbanana's post is narcissistic, but I won't." Either way you're saying the post is narcissistic, but the second way just makes it feel worse. I'm probably not the only one who would get more irritated by that, and I would think that such an approach would actually lead to MORE aggression and hostility that could slow or block the main purpose of the conversation. I suppose in a way I appreciate your motivations for going about it this way, but I would have never guessed that was the reason, if you hadn't explained it.

 

So all in all, thanks for explaining what you meant by what you said, but I still just don't think I can agree with you on the whole definition and distinctions of narcissism. I also don't want to divert the topic of this thread by continuing to post about something entirely different...maybe you could make a new page for it, if you wanted to.

 

 

[hannahbanana]

  My take on it is this - certainly there are legitimate complaints that women can have towards society, and even more so in the past.  We should listen to these complaints and address them based on standards of reason and justice.  But what really needs to be opposed is the narrative that we live and always have lived in a patriarchy - defined as a system in which men have all the power and use that power for their own benefit at the expense of women. 

 

I agree; I recently watched an interview of Karen Straughan on TYT where she brings up a lot of the institutional actions that distinctly disadvantage men (circumcision, Father's rights, incarceration figures), and it's a really uncomfortable thing for feminists to hear, since by admitting the "institution" DOESN'T  specifically benefit men would tear down the foundation of the movement.

 

 

Hmm, interesting points. I think you're right that making such distinctions as "feminist" and "anti-feminist" etc. is probably more obstructionist than anything else. Maybe it would be better not to think of it in such a way. I'm not sure.

 

I also don't think I've considered your point about lesbian influences...I'll have to think about that more.

[PatrickC]

I also don't think I've considered your point about lesbian influences...I'll have to think about that more.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights

 

This article is a little old now (2009), but it goes into some of the history of a (still current) political lesbian (feminist) commentator for the Guardian newspaper (Julie Bindle), which might help you better understand their influence on feminism. It's interesting to note that there was some push back to political feminism from other feminists at the time (1969). But this internal criticism has largely been eradicated by the cultural marxists that have all but taken over the movement. Any criticism that still exists is probably limited to feminists like Wendy Mcelroy (ifeminism) or Christina Hoff Sommers. Both of whom are roundly rejected by mainstream feminists, including so called moderates.

[Kevin Beal]

Few people, however, are familiar with TheLastPsychiatrist's definition of Little-N Narcissism, which is the term I always use.  I could post multiple links to multiple articles, but the primary component of Little-N Narcissism is that your first and foremost concern is how a specific idea or understanding affects you and your relationships.

I could not find their definition, but TheLastPsychiatrist's article on schools breeding narcissism uses little-N narcissism in a very different way than you do. You aren't even using it in the colloquial sense, as being synonymous with self centeredness, but as focusing on how things affect you personally. That is not how the person you are promoting as the authority uses it in their articles (from what I can tell), and it's not a definition of narcissism that I've ever heard. And I've heard a bunch.

 

The whole point of narcissism is that it's a reality distortion that must be maintained through exhaustive effort, and when anyone doesn't enable you in that false version of reality, they are immediately seen as being malicious, trying to fuck with you, etc. It is tied up in how people identify with things, but it's not the same thing as saying that they focus on how things affect them. One way in which it resembles that is when the narcissist's bubble reality prevents them from empathizing with other people, and you get Hillary Clinton claiming things like "women have always been the primary victims of war".

 

But obviously, examples like: "what do you guys think about Linux? I'm thinking of buying a new computer" are focused on how things affect them, but does not treat other people as if they don't exist or matter, as in the narcissistic example above.

 

If you simply focus on the one effect of focusing on yourself before others, you've kinda missed the point of what narcissism is, as most people do.

 

Narcissists are the type of people who derail threads because it threatens their bubble reality, and accuse other people of things on flimsy or non-existent evidence, because their ego perceives reality as it is, as a threat.

[J. D. Stembal]

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights

 

This article is a little old now (2009), but it goes into some of the history of a (still current) political lesbian (feminist) commentator for the Guardian newspaper (Julie Bindle), which might help you better understand their influence on feminism. It's interesting to note that there was some push back to political feminism from other feminists at the time (1969). But this internal criticism has largely been eradicated by the cultural marxists that have all but taken over the movement. Any criticism that still exists is probably limited to feminists like Wendy Mcelroy (ifeminism) or Christina Hoff Sommers. Both of whom are roundly rejected by mainstream feminists, including so called moderates.

 

This is damning proof that feminism isn't about equality, but a political struggle against men. The activists who guided the political message of the radical feminists in 1981 are some of the same people still waging the fight against men now (because they didn't have children?).

[MMX2010]

I could not find their definition, but TheLastPsychiatrist's article on schools breeding narcissism uses little-N narcissism in a very different way than you do. You aren't even using it in the colloquial sense, as being synonymous with self centeredness, but as focusing on how things affect you personally. That is not how the person you are promoting as the authority uses it in their articles (from what I can tell), and it's not a definition of narcissism that I've ever heard. And I've heard a bunch.

 

The whole point of narcissism is that it's a reality distortion that must be maintained through exhaustive effort, and when anyone doesn't enable you in that false version of reality, they are immediately seen as being malicious, trying to fuck with you, etc. It is tied up in how people identify with things, but it's not the same thing as saying that they focus on how things affect them.

 

 

When Hannah asked whether everything she was told about feminism is a lie, she focused on two feelings, (which I won't order in terms of More Focused On, Less Focused On): (1) the annoyance she would feel at how the bad behavior of feminists would cause her, an anti-feminist, to be "lumped in with them", and (2) the rage she felt towards feminists, because they could be Much Better People, but aren't. 

 

If she focused on the nature of those women, not caring one bit about how either her future behavior would be negatively judged or how better the world would be if feminists weren't like that, she'd ask herself tough questions about: (1) the nature of feminists, (2) the nature of women, (3) the nature of American society with regard to feminists, (4) the nature of American society with regard to women.  But those questions are extremely frightening, and Hannah seems poised to ask only the odd-numbered questions. 

 

The even-numbered questions were asked and answered by Esther Villar in the first ten pages of The Manipulated Man.  After defining man as "a creature who works" and woman as "a creature who does not work", she offers the following suggestion: 

 

 

 

One of man's worst mistakes, and one he makes over and over again, is to assume that woman is his equal, that is, a human being of equal mental and emotional capacity. A man may observe his wife, listen to her, judge her feelings by her reactions, but in all this he is judging her only by outward symptoms, for he is using his own scale of values.

 

He knows what he would say, think and do if he were in her shoes. When he looks at her depressing ways of doing things, he assumes there must be something that prevents her from doing what he himself would have done in her position. This is natural, as he considers himself the measure of all things - and rightly so - if humans define themselves as beings capable of abstract thought.

 

When a man sees a woman spending hours cooking, washing dishes and cleaning, it never occurs to him that such jobs probably make her quite happy since they are exactly at her mental level. Instead he assumes that this drudgery prevents her from doing all those things which he himself considers worthwhile and desirable. Therefore, he invents automatic dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, and precooked foods to make her life easier and to allow her to lead the dream life he himself longs for.

 

But he will be disappointed: rarely using the time she has gained to take an active interest in history, politics or astrophysics, woman bakes cakes, irons underclothes and makes ruffles and frills for blouses or, if she is especially enterprising, covers her bathroom with flower decals. It is natural, therefore, that man assumes such things to

be the essential ingredients of gracious living. This idea must have been instilled by woman, as he himself really doesn't mind if his cakes are store bought, his underpants unironed, or his bathroom devoid of flowery patterns. He invents cake mixes to liberate her from drudgery, automatic irons and toilet-paper holders already covered with flower patterns to make gracious living easier to attain - and still women take no interest in serious literature, politics, or the conquest of the universe. For her, this newfound leisure comes just at the right moment. At last she can take in herself: since a longing after intellectual achievements is alien to her, she concentrates on her external appearance.

 

Yet even this occupation is acceptable to man. He really loves his wife and wants her happiness more than anything in the world. Therefore he produces non-smear lipstick, waterproof mascara, home permanents, no-iron frilly blouses and throwaway underwear - always with the same aim in view. In the end, he hopes, this being whose needs seem to him so much sensitive, so much more refined, will gain freedom - freedom to achieve in her life the ideal state which is his dream: to live the life of a free man.

 

Then he sits back and waits. Finally, as woman does not come to him of her own free will, he tries to tempt her into his world. He offers her coeducation, so that she is accustomed to his way of life from childhood. With all sorts of excuses, he gets her to attend his universities and initiates her into the mysteries of his own discoveries, hoping to awaken her interest in the wonders of life. He gives her access to the very last male strongholds, thereby relinquishing traditions sacred to him by encouraging her to make use of her right to vote in the hope she will change the systems of

government he has managed to think up so laboriously, according to her own ideas. Possibly he even hopes that she will be able to create peace in the world - for, in his opinion, women are a pacifist influence.

 

*snipping two paragraphs*

 

If only man would stop for one moment in his heedless rush toward progress and think about this state of affairs, he would inevitably realize that his efforts to give woman a sense of mental stimulation have been totally in vain. It is true that woman gets progressively more elegant, more well-groomed, more `cultured,' but her demands on life will always be material, never intellectual.

 

Has she ever made use of the mental processes he teaches at his universities to develop her own theories? Does she do independent research in the institutes he has thrown open to her? Someday it will dawn on man that woman does not read the wonderful books with which he has filled his libraries. And though she may well admire his marvelous works of art in museums, she herself will rarely create, only copy.  Even the plays and films, visual exhortations to women on her own level to liberate herself, are judged only by their entertainment value.  They will never be a first step to revolution. 

 

When a man, believing woman his equal, realizes the futility of her way of life, he naturally tends to think that it must be his fault, that he must be suppressing her. But in our time women are no longer subject to the will of men. Quite the contrary. They have been given every opportunity to win their independence and if, after all this time, they have not liberated themselves and thrown off their shackles, we can only arrive at one conclusion: there are no shackles to throw off.

 

It is true that men love women, but they also despise them. Anyone who gets up in the morning fresh and ready to conquer new worlds (with infrequent success, admittedly, because he has to earn a living) is bound to despise someone who simply isn't interested in such pursuits. Contempt may even be one of the main reasons for his efforts to further the mental development of a woman. He feels ashamed of her and assumes that she, too, must be ashamed of herself. So, being agentleman, he tries to help.

 

Men seem incapable of realizing that women entirely lack ambition, desire for knowledge and need to prove themselves, all things which, to him, are a matter of course. They allow men to live in a world apart because they do not want to join them. Why should they? The sort of independence men have means nothing to women, because women don't feel dependent. They are not even embarrassed by the intellectual superiority of men because they have no ambition in that direction.

 

There is one great advantage which women have over men: they have a choice - a choice between the life of a man and the life of a dimwitted, parasitic luxury item. There are too few women who would not select the latter. Men do not have this choice.

 

 

You may not agree with Villar.  Hannah may not agree with Villar.  I completely agree with Villar. 

 

Because I agree with her, I can answer Hannah's question about feminism in the most succinct and never-wrong way.  "Feminism is always right when talking about feelings that exist, but feminism is always wrong, (by ridiculous orders of magnitude!), when talking about the relative scales of positive and negative occurrences." 

 

 

So this statement is correct: "In the past, women felt oppressed in their marriages."

 

And these two statements are lies: "In the past, women felt oppressed in their marriages.  So if you give women absolute freedom to choose whether they want to marry, whom they want to marry, and when they want to marry, the overwhelming majority of relationships will create happiness in all who participate in them." They're lies because they suggest a 99% success rate, but you'll only ever see a 1% success rate.  They're not lies because success never happens; they're lies because the success rate is wrong by many orders-of-magnitude. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PatrickC]

This is damning proof that feminism isn't about equality, but a political struggle against men. The activists who guided the political message of the radical feminists in 1981 are some of the same people still waging the fight against men now (because they didn't have children?).

 

Yes, I've had the displeasure of meeting Julie Bindle including fellow radical feminist Julie Burchill at a friends party once. They both came from the NME (New Musical Express) magazine. A rather cool kids UK mag on contemporary rock bands in the 1980's. They have all since migrated to the Guardian.

 

I always remember her rudely interrupting this guys rather funny anecdote to say, 'I know you men like to think you've always got something funny to say, but perhaps you could give some of us ladies a word in edgeways. To which this guy responded, 'Please go to reception, they'll take care of your baggage.' Baggage being a sarcastic expression for people with psychological issues. Needless to say everyone laughed except the two Julie's of course.

 

She complained to my friend who's party it was. To which he said, 'well Julie, you remember the time you offended the editor in chief of the News of The World once. As I recall he was placated by a rather large Martini. So here, give me yer glass, shut up and enjoy the rest of John's story.'