~ archived since 2018 ~

Third wave feminism is degeneracy at its finest

KristerZX · 2022-01-21T16:00:19+00:00

They realy be blaming everything on men and saying men are useless, while the "feminist" is a fat whore spending most of the day on Twitter,...

KristerZX

January 21, 2022

12 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Third wave feminism is degeneracy at its finest
Author	KristerZX
Upvotes	12
Comments	30
Date	January 21, 2022 4:00 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/s9dz4x/third_wave_feminism_is_degeneracy_at_its_finest/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/third-wave-feminism-is-degeneracy-at-its-finest.1098380 https://theredarchive.com/post/1098380

Comments

[–]tenchineuro 27 points28 points29 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Head-Medium-3007 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZS_1171 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Head-Medium-3007 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Was there ever a "good" wave of feminism? Karen Straughan argues that even first wave feminists were highly selective in their demands for "equality"

Karen aka u/girlwriteswhat posted this on R/MensRights last week. I thought it deserved its own thread.

TL;DR -- All of the perks, none of the responsibilities. Same as it ever was.

1st wave feminists:

⁠⁠Won the right for married women to own their own property and income, and hold it separate from their husband's control. [Yet] maintained the legal entitlement of married women to be supported financially by their husband. (Otherwise known as, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours.) Her entitlement to his support even extended to the tax burden on her property and income--property and income he was legally prohibited from touching.

So basically, instead of demanding equal rights as administrators of the marital income and property, they demanded the rights of unmarried persons without the responsibilities, and the rights of married women without accompanying responsibilities. Men were still held to their responsibility as sole provider for the family, including the wife, but now had to do it without access to their wives' incomes and property.

There were men sent to prison in the UK for tax evasion for being unable to pay the taxes owing on the property/income of their wealthier wives. One suffragette, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks even refused (as was her right under the law) to provide her husband with the necessary documentation so he could calculate the taxes, and given that he was a schoolteacher and responsible for paying for everything else, he couldn't have afforded to pay it regardless.

While he was in prison, she urged other suffragettes to do what she had. He was released from prison on humanitarian grounds due to his failing health, and died a few months later.

2) Won default mother custody of young children upon divorce or separation. Previously, the assumption was of paternal custody since the father was solely burdened with financial responsibility for their care.

Of course, it was only custody that was changed--financial responsibility still fell 100% to the father to maintain the household of his minor children. Since his ex was head of that household, he was now forced to continue supporting her even if she was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage.

So again, we went from the man having superior rights and greater responsibility, to the man having inferior rights and still having greater responsibility.

Hilariously, in 1910, after these two legal innovations had been in effect in NY State for close to 40 years, a suffragette lawyer (yes, before women were allowed to get an education and all...) wrote in the Times that the law still discriminated against women on the matter of children. How did the law do so? The only area of the law at that time that did not consider mothers at least equal custodians and guardians were the provisions granting the father control over the minor children's income and property. Basically, the law saw him as 100% responsible for feeding, clothing and sheltering the children, therefore it gave him 100% of the right to manage their money for that end.

A woman could, at that time, go to court and demonstrate that her husband had legally abandoned his financial responsibility to her and the kids, and there were provisions for transferring said rights to manage the children's income/property to her in such cases (and in the worst cases the man could end up in prison for refusing to support his family to the best of his ability). But this suffragette wanted the laws themselves changed such that wives (who bore no legal financial responsibility toward their children, or even themselves) have equal control over the children's income and property.

These changes were all in place decades before women got the vote. And speaking of the vote...

3) In 1917 a group of anarchists in the US filed a federal case against military conscription, describing it as involuntary servitude and therefore unconstitutional. SCOTUS was unequivocal in its rejection of their argument, asserting that the draft was a reciprocal obligation owed by all citizens to the state in return for the rights conferred by the state upon citizens.

Among other legal obligations men owed to the state: hue and cry laws, bucket brigades, the special constabulary (being drafted into the police force in emergency situations), etc.

Some suffragettes (like Sylvia Pankhurst, who abandoned the suffragette movement over it) were opposed to the draft, but other more active (and now more famous) ones campaigned in favor of the draft and participated in campaigns designed to use public shaming to pressure men to enlist. One of their posters even decried the fact that a woman was denied the franchise no matter how great she was (she could be a doctor or a lawyer or a mother, or a mayor), while even men unfit for military service did not lose their right to vote.

Two years after SCOTUS formalized the draft as being part of the price all citizens must pay for their rights as citizens, women got the vote. And no obligation to the state was ever placed on them in return for this right.

And before anyone here says, "but women weren't ALLOWED to be soldiers!", there are other ways to serve your country during wartime, and mandatory "war work" (like sewing uniforms or assembling munitions) could have been made a thing in a female draft. Anyone arguing that if women were included in the draft today "we'd be sending tiny, vulnerable women into foxholes" is ignoring the fact that there is TONS of necessary work in and alongside the military that doesn't involve active combat or serious physical risk, so that argument basically boils down to "how dare we inconvenience women!"

So. Three examples of first wave feminists demanding and getting men's rights without men's responsibilities. Two of them actively involve zero sum situations such as income and property rights, or custody rights to children, and in both cases feminists managed to arrange things such that women got all the rights while men were still burdened with all the responsibility.

Women could and also did own property throughout history: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/iu2ebj/women_could_and_did_own_property_and_have_rights/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZS_1171 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyBlades -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Head-Medium-3007 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyBlades -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Head-Medium-3007 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyBlades -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Head-Medium-3007 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyBlades 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSnesLord 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ImplodedPotatoSalad 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SodyPops17 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pappo4ever 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dino-dancers -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSnesLord 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dino-dancers 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dino-dancers 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dino-dancers 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstablishmentKooky50 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sad-Independence9797 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sad-Independence9797 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link