Was everything feminism told me a lie?

[Kevin Beal]

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.

Do you think that if you asked her about the even numbered questions that she would have considered them off-topic or bad questions in any way? You've got a very detailed picture of what Hanna's psychology is, but I don't think you can logically say that without asking her first. If you did, I didn't see it (sorry). I never got the impression that she wouldn't be interested in talking about the even numbered questions. She has talked about things related to the even numbered questions in other threads, if not directly answering those questions.

 

If you have a theory, and you don't test it, that's not exactly philosophical. Esther Villar's work seems very intriguing, and I'll definitely be reading the Manipulated Man, but it's not the sort of thing you simply accept without verification, especially when treating a person as if it were true already could go a long ways in getting the result you want (as in: self fulfilling prophecy).

 

If I think that all men are assholes, and I talk to men as if they are assholes, then obviously I'm going to get offended men being, understandably, hostile in-kind. It's this kind of shit that feminists pull all the time when they demonize male sexuality and lifestyle and then get people telling them in youtube comments to go fuck themselves. "Oh, you see, right there! Men really are violent brutes". That's a big part of Anita Sarkeesian's campaign is to provoke male gamers and then use their responses as proof of her thesis.

 

I think the quotation you have is very interesting and I'll be checking more up on that, but you completely side stepped my criticism with your use of the word "narcissism". Either you are using it incorrectly (my argument) or you are not. I think narcissism is one of the most awful problems in society, I've had to face some of it in myself, and I try and treat it as the very serious problem that it is: as accurately as I can.

 

If it were true that Hanna were displaying narcissism, then it would add support to your theory, clearly, since you are criticizing (and rightly so) the gynocentric focus that society has maybe always had. But you have consistently said that the pathological female personality typified in contemporary feminist thought is a representation of female nature overall, only differing in degree from woman to woman.

 

This may very well be true, I don't know. I don't think so, but maybe. But the logical conclusion of putting this forward is letting women off the hook, since they can't really control it, beyond suppressing strong natural inner impulses, the way an alcoholic can stop drinking alcohol, but they are always at risk of relapsing when the wind blows too hard.

 

If this is just female nature to exploit men and think only of themselves in the classical narcissistic way, then that's fundamentally a sympathetic philosophical position to female evil. This is something you don't want to just assert, make some references to where other people agree with your statements and consider the case proven.

 

If a women does an evil act, I'm treating her to be as culpable as any man. Your position doesn't allow for this, since morally speaking, women are a different species with a different degree of culpability.

 

Maybe you don't think anything like what I suspect you do: that I'm white knighting, but if so, it's ironic, since it's exactly the opposite. You are the white knight in this case (if my argument is valid).

[MMX2010]

Do you think that if you asked her about the even numbered questions that she would have considered them off-topic or bad questions in any way? You've got a very detailed picture of what Hanna's psychology is, but I don't think you can logically say that without asking her first. If you did, I didn't see it (sorry). I never got the impression that she wouldn't be interested in talking about the even numbered questions. She has talked about things related to the even numbered questions in other threads, if not directly answering those questions.

 

I PM'ed her my response to her latest response, because I wanted to respect her request to not clog this topic.  (I, personally, don't think my response was off-topic.  And if she wants to cut-and-paste what I wrote, she can do that.  Or if she gives me permission to cut-and-paste what I wrote, I will do that.) 

 

Also, I am not speaking about "Hannah's psychology" - (as if it's either a permanent part of her personality / identity OR a consistently present part of her personality).  I only speak about her feelings in the moment of posting that topic. 

 

 

 

 

If you have a theory, and you don't test it, that's not exactly philosophical. Esther Villar's work seems very intriguing, and I'll definitely be reading the Manipulated Man, but it's not the sort of thing you simply accept without verification, especially when treating a person as if it were true already could go a long ways in getting the result you want (as in: self fulfilling prophecy).

 

I view Villar's philosophy about women as true for all cultures with moderately present modern technology.  Like all generalizations, it only works when applied to large numbers of people, and it is most vulnerable when applied to singular individuals, (which I almost never do).  I discuss all large generalizations with the person whom I think it applies, and allow them to self-determine the relevance. 

 

I view TheLastPsychiatrist's philosophy about Little-n narcissism as true for all English-speaking, currently existing, media savvy, White-majority cultures.  There is no escape from being "infected" with it.  So if someone displays it, I don't speak from a "never been through it" perspective, but rather from an "I understand what it's like to be infected with it, and I was only (possibly) cured from it two weeks ago." one.

 

 

 

 

If it were true that Hanna were displaying narcissism, then it would add support to your theory, clearly, since you are criticizing (and rightly so) the gynocentric focus that society has maybe always had. But you have consistently said that the pathological female personality typified in contemporary feminist thought is a representation of female nature overall, only differing in degree from woman to woman.

 

This may very well be true, I don't know. I don't think so, but maybe. But the logical conclusion of putting this forward is letting women off the hook, since they can't really control it, beyond suppressing strong natural inner impulses, the way an alcoholic can stop drinking alcohol, but they are always at risk of relapsing when the wind blows too hard.

 

No way. 

 

The first logical implication would be, "If you think a large enough pool of women will achieve philosophical understanding by themselves - meaning 'without YOUR constant leadership' - then you are delusional." 

 

Monitor: everyday.  Lead: everyday.  This, or non-procreative MGTOW.  (There is never going to be a third option.) 

 

The second logical implication would be: "Do you see the majority of men you meet, the ones without philosophy and with a strong inclination to let women forge their own destinies?  Because they exist, you do not get to change your society for the better.  You get to have a family.  You get to choose your friends.  You get to be perfectly free and highly powerful, but you don't get to save your society." 

 

 

 

 

Your position doesn't allow for this, since morally speaking, women are a different species with a different degree of culpability.

 

You get to hold her accountable for her actions, and you get to leave her when it's no longer morally permissible to stay with her.  But you don't get to change the girl. 

 

At best, you get her to behave the way you've always wanted a girl to behave.  And at best, you get to live in the society that you think best enables you exercise your leadership influence. 

 

But you don't get to change the internal nature of the girl; she owns it, you influence it. 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you don't think anything like what I suspect you do: that I'm white knighting, but if so, it's ironic, since it's exactly the opposite. You are the white knight in this case (if my argument is valid).

 

It's not.   

[Kevin Beal]

It's not [a valid argument]. 

Well, maybe at some point, you can let me know in what respect it is invalid. You responded, just not in any way that actually addresses the logic or the conclusion of the argument, so I'm left to figure out how I'm wrong without help from you. Which is especially weird, since, as far as I can tell, you are confirming that I'm right, except that you have considered two different logical conclusions, but portrayed them, for some unknown reason, to be mutually exclusive with the logical conclusion I argued for.

 

You've got a bad habit of moving the goalpost. Please stop doing that.

[MMX2010]

Which is especially weird, since, as far as I can tell, you are confirming that I'm right, except that you have considered two different logical conclusions, but portrayed them, for some unknown reason, to be mutually exclusive with the logical conclusion I argued for.

 

I don't quite remember in what context Stefan was making the following argument.  But he said something like, "If you assume something is genetic, then you'll assume it's unchangeable and won't work hard enough to use upbringing / peaceful parenting to change it.  So it's better to assume that it's caused by upbringing / peaceful parenting to make yourself work hard to change it." 

 

I agree with Villar that women have a smaller capacity for moral action, but I would never hold them to a lower standard of responsibility, because of what I said above.  Even if a woman's smaller capacity stems mostly from genetic influences, to assume that it's most genetic means that I shouldn't work to change it.  (Hence, no White Knighting on my part.  Hence, a complete rejection of your argument that, "the logical implication is (A) to let women off the hook, (B) since they really can't control it, © beyond suppressing strong natural impulses".)   

 

You are correct when describing B and C, but incorrect when describing A. 

 

My argument is that you hold them responsible (~A), even though they can't really control it without a constant leadership / supervisory force in their lives (B), beyond suppressing strong natural impulses ©.  My argument is either more sympathetic towards a woman's personality, or towards a woman's daily temptations stemming from our extremely permissive modern America, or both. 

 

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

 

One of the men I most respect at the FDR NYC Meet-up Groups is married with a wife and son.  He was telling a story about how his wife calmly told him, "The way you portray me makes me sound like a monster."  I know RTR says that you're supposed to say, "I feel sad, confused, and betrayed when you say that."  And she's supposed to say, "Tell me more." - or else she's not being empathetic. 

 

But I assert that you're supposed to say, "You're right, honey.  My throat is really sore from mimicking the Godzilla voice you use when you talk to me."  Or, "You're right honey.  I need you to mend my shirt because I ripped it when describing your behavior like this *insert motion of Incredible Hulk tearing his shirt open*." 

 

When a man says either of those things with the right smirk on his face, the right relaxed tone of voice, the right dominant / confident body language, and the complete conviction that this is the right thing to say, it invites her to instantly and emotionally realize just how ridiculous her worry was.  Some random dude may deliberately portray his wife's emotional concerns as monstrous, but he ain't no random dude; he's philosophically sound and eternally empathetic. 

 

And when she instantly and emotionally realizes how ridiculous her worry was, she'll immediately decide to never have it again.  (And if she does have it again, you either make a similar joke or jokingly ask, "Hey, do you remember the time when my throat was sore because I was mimicking your voice?")  At least two-thirds (and as much as four-fifths) of a woman's worries are frivolous, so the more energy you spend on frivolous worries, the less time to work on meaningful ones.  The less time spent on meaningful ones, the less of a person your wife/girlfriend is - which means the less happiness for you and her. 

[AccuTron]

What a delight to see a woman being honest about feminism!  Thank you!  HONEST!  There is yet hope….

 

As to replying about being disadvantaged: 

 

I never see feminism mention that in the lifeboat crisis, it's WOMEN and children first, men drown.  Or that when bullets fly in a movie theater, it's men that take the hit and the WOMEN that are allowed to live.  Like "you live, we die, just because you have ovaries, using them or not" isn't massively sexist.  Getting one's life protected because of possessing certain organs is NOT disadvantaged.  

 

Or that a drunk psycho female can physically assault a football player with no penalty, but if he defends himself, he loses his career.  Women in general either are not charged with crimes, or the penalties are far less than for a man.  Women get away with a lot, because "well, it's just a girl"  I don't hear feminists protesting that.

 

If men die so women live, if men are grindingly punished where women are coddled, how in H*ll does that suggest a dominant patriarchy?

[Tweak]

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?

Well, the core of feminism says that there is a world wide conspiracy we men have against women and cheat you of your success, ofter referring to a carrier, calling it emancipation. 

 

I personally have never seen how being stuck at work would be liberating.

 

And to your question as to wether women have been disadvantaged in history I personally would say no, at least for what I have seen.

 

The thing is that if you look at history and then want to blame either sex for advantages or disadvantages I would have to say that "it´s the women folks fault".

 

Why? Because thru out history women have made a conscious choice to choose the man that offers her the most resources and the most protection. Thus forcing men to compete with each other. And to this day cause serious violence and sometimes even death. If the man can not meet any of these criteria he will not get to have sex, at least not with the women's consent and he will have no offspring to carry his gens. This then proving that the people here today are the choice of women, by large. Sadly it happens to often that people on this planet are not here becouse of the womans choice. 

 

You also said that you sometimes feel like a piece of shit. Well sadly the feminist movement was never about helping women as some may believe and then "went to far". It was always about getting more people to pay taxes and to have kidz grow up with the state as their mom and dad. But most certainly you should not feel bad, most women never come to the conclusion you have. Since you are part of most radical feminist movement in history and resisting their brainwashing just shows that you have brain and integrity. It´s not an easy thing to escape this omnipresent doctrine.

 

Sadly with this feminist world you will have a hard time finding a real man who knows what a hammer is. Most likely he will just know how to smoke pot and play video games all day. Witch can of course be fun, but come on doing that all the time...

 

And when it comes to women there are at least not to many women who does not come from "Sluts R´us" and knows what a  frying pan is... At least not where i live.