The Jezebel business model, summed up in one picture

But it really didn't--even in the late 1800s, women had the opportunity to earn money on their own without being legally required to turn that money over to caring for their husband or family, while men were literally legally required to spend their own money to care for their wives and children, and were taken to court if they did not do so to the wife's liking. The gender role of man-as-walking-wallet hasn't changed after over 100 years of feminism; only now, women need men as much as fish need bicycles, so men literally aren't even worth the money they carry around. Is it any wonder women today wonder where "all the good men" are? If all women are willing to accept is the first percentile of men, and those women are only willing to enjoy those men completely on their own terms, is it any wonder there are no good men out there?

[–]Trevski -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Not in the way they claim it didnt. Did men "run" things? Sure. But that is not the entire extent of "patriarchy" feminists talk about. There was never a true patriarchy, but if there was it certainly isnt the society they refer to. The only difference really today is they are still demanding special treatment even though they already have everything they ever asked for. The persistence of the "wage gap" myth is one of the prime examples. Back many many decades ago there was a true wage gap, today there isnt but they still claim there is one. But its the same gynocentric thought process they always had. It wasn't "fair" even then, (as I see you wrote on another comment) because it informed their theories into what we have today. They were never about true equality, only about wanting all the things they perceived men had that were good. Yes they had less "rights", but they had far less obligations and responsibilities. Women demanded the vote and got it before many men did, those men forced to fight in a war and not even eligible to vote, many early suffragettes even promoted the shaming campaign against men to pressure them into it.

[–]DerpaNerb 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sofie411 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are allowed into the military now.

It is unequal for men only to be drafted, but seeing as men aren't being drafted right now, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? I mean, it's unfair to put restrictions on men because men were unfair to women in the past, so why would we start drafting women now because men were treated unfairly in the past.

Things have historically been unequal, but the flaw in the argument is that no one is getting drafted now. Equality has been achieved. No one gets drafted. Men have to register for the draft, but they don't get drafted. They haven't drafted people since the early 70's. If you took the entire time I've been alive, and then went back that many years before I was born, that's roughly the last time anyone got drafted.

So why should someone who doesn't want a draft spend time and effort getting more people added to a draft before then spending more time and effort getting everyone removed from the draft? Particularly when there isn't even a draft in effect?

Sorry, there's too many real issues to deal with before we start wasting time and energy dealing with hypothetical ones.

[–]themountaingoat 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StuporMundi18 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So you'll excuse me if the postcard you filled out in high school is not feminists' top priority. I assure you that if I hear even a rumor of the draft being re-enacted, I will shift gears immediately.

Making an impersonal argument personal doesn't invalidate the impersonal argument, it just shifts it onto indefensible grounds--YOU YOURSELF are not the one who decides whether or not the draft is enacted or if feminist organizations decide to oppose a reinstitution of the draft. But just because YOU YOURSELF are not concentrating on that particular concern doesn't invalidate the concern; just in the same way that unless you're Irish, Irish legal and political views on abortion have nothing to do with you. You can concern yourself with that issue, but you have no substantive role in the outcome of that issue beyond being generally supportive of one side or the other.

Now, why are YOU allowing for yourself the privilege of being concerned with something that doesn't have much to do with you in particular (Irish abortion) while disallowing others on this site the privilege of being concerned with something that may actually have something to do with them. Because as far as I know, YOU YOURSELF as a woman didn't have to sign a Selective Service registration card; and if, as one presumes, there won't ever be a draft, then why is it illegal to not sign up for selective service?

Now, if women had to sign up for selective service in order to have an abortion in the US, maybe your interests would matter in this case; but as it stands, you are attempting to win the Oppression Olympics by saying that OUR concerns are less important than YOUR concerns, simply because dead woman. Well, I'm sorry for that woman, but there are literally tens of thousands of dead men, hundreds of thousands of homeless men, and tens of millions of socially, medically and educationally stunted men being completely shafted by western society in the race to better serve women's desires. You should be glad that all we asked you to support was getting rid of selective service, considering that feminist organizations have single-handedly been responsible for more gender-based discrimination in the past 50 years than any other western social justice organization out there.

[–]HaberdasherFetishist 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcmur 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

The draft was always tied with someones right to vote. The draft is the entire reason the voting age was lowered to 18. People could only vote at 21, but could be drafted at 18... they thought that being able to be drafted without being able to vote wasn't cool, so they changed that.

Pushing for the vote for women, without also simultaneously pushing for themselves to be included in the draft (in even the smallest capacity) is just asking for privileges without the accompanying responsibilities... aka feminism 101.

Most feminists I know today have a pro-equality stance of "no one should get drafted" and seeing as no one is being drafted, they're not putting too much more effort into it.

Well after the fact that women recently became eligible for all combat roles, there was some pushes to get them included in the draft. There were quite a few feminist women opposed to this idea. Obviously this isn't all feminists, but you are always at least partially responsible for the actions of those you choose to fly the same flag as.

[–]runner64 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This article suggests[1] that women of the time volunteered for service and supported drafting women into factory jobs and the like.

Surely you realize working in a factory is different than serving on the front lines?

I would imagine that they fought for conscription into this sort of work because fighting for conscription into the trenches would be a two-fronted fight.

They could have simply not shamed men for failing to "do their duty" that women were freed from.

I think they knew that they were unlikely to succeed, which is why they fought for a 'stepping stone' measure- conscription into non-combat roles, which they got.

From the article it looks as if they were pro conscription for men, and pro voluntary service in the war industry for women.

And it's telling that at no point in our history did feminists fight for women to be included in the draft while an active draft existed.

Much has been made of the fact that black men got the right to vote before white women. But people who express outrage at that rarely point out that black civil rights leaders fought for the right of black men to serve alongside white men and that this shortly preceded their successful equal rights movement.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaNiceguy8 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Voting was directly tied to military service. Women did not serve in the military, therefore they did not have the right to vote. Furthermore, it was one vote per family, not one vote per individual, and voting was seen as a function of the male. Let's also not forget that fully one third of women voted against women's suffrage.

Women could not refuse to have sex with their husbands on the grounds that the act of marriage was seen as persistent and ongoing consent to sexual relations. You didn't get married if you didn't consent to sex. Moreover, sexual morality laws (such as sodomy laws) were designed to protect women from husbands asking for any "bizarre" or "unusual" sexual acts, given that consent was considered to be present and ongoing. In much of the US, a husband could not legally ask his wife to engage in anything other than missionary position vaginal sex.

No citations are provided for the claim that women were allowed to divorce on the same grounds as men in the link you provided. Nor does it say what the difference was prior to the claimed date.

Women's ability to inherit property was tied to much older ideas that basically said that if you did not have the ability to defend a property you did not own it. Since women were, by default, unable to defend property to anywhere near the extent that a man was, allowing women to inherit property would have enabled "invaders" to seize property without penalty. You'll find that the change in the law largely co-incides with the advent of privately owned, effective firearms. That is, women now had the ability to defend both themselves and their property without the assistance of a male's physical prowess.

Additionally, don't forget that what is now referred to as "first wave feminism" is a rebranding by "second wave" feminists of earlier changes to social structure.

[–]runner64 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that before second wave feminism it was just called 'feminism.' Sort of like they didn't start saying "World War 1" until we got into "World War 2."

I think that most unfair laws of the past make more sense when put into perspective. Even the cruelest laws of the Bible seem progressive compared to what the people there were doing before.
I've found that when examined in the fullest context of the people involved, it is rare to find a decision (or rarer still, a group policy) that doesn't make at least some kind of sense.
With that having been said, society and technology progresses, and laws do not always progress with them- marital rape has been recognized for years, but sodomy laws are still on the books in some states. I think that first-wave feminists had a good reason to want outdated laws off the books.

[–]Lawtonfogle -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaNiceguy4 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Clauderoughly -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]410LaxMD 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jerzeem 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blackhole883 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]duglock -24 points-23 points-22 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]hermes369 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]runner64 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkling5499 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geengaween 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry for the delay. I just grabbed the analysis from the last election when they studied the news orgs for bias. Source

Now, I realize that there is absolutely no way to prove bias one way or another as it is a completely subjective issue - I'm not dumb enough to think that this issue isn't up for debate.

Also, this is another recent study done:

Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America 56.1

ABC World News Tonight 61.0

CBS Early Show 66.6

CBS Evening News 73.7

CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 56.0

Drudge Report 60.4

Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume 39.7

Los Angeles Times 70.0

NBC Nightly News 61.6

NBC Today Show 64.0

New York Times 73.7

Newshour with Jim Lehrer 55.8

Newsweek 66.3

NPR Morning Edition 66.3

Time Magazine 65.4

U.S. News and World Report 65.8

USA Today 63.4

Wall Street Journal 85.1

Washington Post 66.6

Washington Times 35.4

Source which is a really interesting read as it covers others topics regarding media bias.

Again, sorry for the delay getting this posted - I was on the road all day yesterday. Have a good one!

[–]geengaween 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NemosHero 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Degraine 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pigeonburger5 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Degraine 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pigeonburger6 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beericksen 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TweetPoster 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]sulfura36 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sulfura33 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but if you only look at women's issues or look at things from a female perspective only (female-centric) then one gender is clearly put above the other. Considerations from the other gender are completely ignored. Claiming this to be equality is ludicrous.

That's why I said that feminism is a special interest group. It looks after its group's interests only. If they'd identify themselves as that instead of an egalitarian movement (where everybody's issues is considered equally), then I wouldn't object nearly as much because I'm a strong proponent of free speech for everybody.

I never claimed that the MRA aren't doing something similar. In fact, I dislike both the ideas of feminism and MRA on precisely that ground. The difference is, MRAs tend to be a lot more argumentative, (self-)critical and tolerant of differing views than feminists. I also spent enough hours reading feminist and MRA blogs and arguing with them to be confident in my reasoning. I know, it's partly anecdotal evidence, but it's my reasoning for being more critical against one than the other.

Finally, the recent development of gender-based legislation-making, made me quite afraid (or rather aware... don't know clearly what word to use as of yet) for myself as a man. I want any mention of gender removed from legislation and rules while feminists are doing the opposite, jamming gender back into the law-books (e.g. women-quota, VAWA, financial support for DV-victim shelters granted only if shelter is exclusive to women).

Anyway, thanks for the critical reply.

EDIT: Removed a comment that needs more reasoning to not be misunderstood and the reply is long enough as it is.

[–]dungone 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We will have to disagree on what it means to seek equality then. That's fine, I understand where you are coming from, but I still believe it is fully possible for both sides to push from their own side with the purpose of meeting in the middle. (The problem, in practice is, some sides find it profitable to keep pushing even after they have hit the middle on some issues. This is where our problems with feminism arise.)

they don't claim to be an egalitarian movement

They often do. Many people in this sub claim that the MRM is actually a egalitarian movement, but you are correct, it IS a men's movement. We are just focused on where we are legislatively and culturally disadvantaged. We are seeking equality by pushing our side to where it is even.

The MRM may seem more argumentative because we are still a relatively new and growing movement. We have a lot of base level movement that is building. More importantly, we don't have a giant power structure that has been corrupted by greed and power.

(And I agree with you, gender-based legislation is ridiculous and over-reaching.)

[–]SovereignsUnknown 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SovereignsUnknown 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SovereignsUnknown -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnakeJG 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnakeJG 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My post wasn't so much about maternity leave as it was a post to push for better paternity leave.

My suggestion completely gets rid of this double edge sword you are talking about. You make parental leave generous, paid and lengthy, but you make it for both parents. Now men are also taking time off to be with their families, and employers stop being reluctant to hire women based on them taking time off. It opens up more options for men in more traditional care giver roles, and maybe helps remove the pedophile stereotype. It is a move that is all around good for men, women, and families.

I specifically called out Iceland's system, which provides 3 months paid (at 80%) for each parent and another 3 months paid that can be split between the parents in any way. You can read more about it here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/03/paternity_leave_in_iceland_helps_mom_succeed_at_work_and_dad_succeed_at.html

[–]dungone -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Linsolv -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IS_JOKE_COMRADE 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You know...I wanted to agree with Calnunable but I can't really think of one besides the expectation of many people (men and women) that women shouldn't pursue careers due to the demands of child rearing at home. That is one thing that I do sympathize with women over. If I were a smart, aspiring, driven and sharp girl, I'd bemoan the fact that a less-driven man would be damned to be a stay at home dad (I generalize), and that people would judge her decision to hire a nanny/daycare instead of take care of her own children (or judge if she doesn't have children). BUT, this "perception issue" isn't one you can really change with politics. Its a cultural issue. So, in the realm of "changing what CAN be changed", it is hard to find an issue where women face a disadvantage over men.

I may well be looking over something or am unaware of an issue.

[–]THEAdrian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Linsolv 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]THEAdrian 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

One of the things that makes feminism extremely childish is it's belief that saying it is something makes it that thing, whether it is or not. Being female centric, which all feminism is, means that it is opposed to equality. Yet feminists continue to insist that they are helping men too. When press for examples of how they help men, the best they've got is "by shaming people for shaming men into adopting traditional gender roles." Well. Thanks feminism, but not thanks. I've got that one covered. I behave how I want, when I want, with the only caveat being that I surrender to honesty. How about actual examples of actual help? Nope. They don't have those and if pressed enough, they will finally admit "Well, we don't have to do anything because men have all the power."

No. No they don't. And you are an utter child if you really and truly believe that. If women have the best perspective to ascertain what women's issues are, then men have the best perspective to ascertain what men's issues are. Yet when men try to bring their issues to the table, feminists unilaterally shame them, villify them, demonize them, and reject them. Feminism, and feminists, are dedicated to clinging to their childlike refusal to be tempered and to be balanced. The only answer is to toss it out entirely and start over again. The only answer is egalitarianism.

[–]cainunable 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If women have the best perspective to ascertain what women's issues are

Yes, they do.

then men have the best perspective to ascertain what men's issues are.

Bingo. That's where the whole flipped genders comment comes in. Each gender will in general identify their own issues before they will they will identify the issues the other side is facing. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, many feminist will scream and throw fits saying there is no reason for MR as feminism takes care of their issues as too. Well, they are wrong. You, I and everyone else on this sub understand that. Not all women who identify as feminists feel that way though. Some understand that men too have issues that ought to be battled. We even see posts on occasion where women come here and say "I'm with you."

Being female centric, which all feminism is, means that it is opposed to equality.

Not necessarily, they like MR may be fighting for equality, but are fighting the parts that are most dear to them. Feminists fight for equality on one side, MR on the other. We aren't fighting to take power from one side or the other, we are both pushing to the middle. (Yes, there are lots of extremists that aren't looking for equality. Yes, they are the loudest and possibly the most influential. But there are self identified feminist who truly want equality.)

Yes, the best answer IS egalitarianism. This is what we should all be striving for.

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They were fighting for equality, but primarily on issues where women were disadvantaged. Because of this, yes, there is still a need for the MRM.

And once again, we need to stop pretending that ALL feminism is about weakening men and putting women on top. It isn't. Saying this over and over makes the MRM look like we are fighting women instead of fighting for me. It is analogous to saying that MR is all about putting women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. That's not what you or I believe, and we instantly lose respect for anyone who says that's what this movement is for.

Feminism actually does extend past Jezebel, Tumblr, and the whole blogosphere. As a matter of fact, feminism extends past the internet. It isn't all about money, but just like religion, politics and race, it is certainly abused by greedy people for that purpose.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cainunable 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The danger of your opinion comes when feminists are dishonest (and by the way, fewer than 1 in 4 women call themselves feminists, so you can't act as if feminists issues are synonymous with women's issues).

According to you, if women start demanding 10k a year to stay at home and do nothing, then that would be a valid position to take, because women are better at understanding their issues than we are, and as such, we should just give in to their demands. And time and again, we see women doing just that -- demanding free shit that men don't get. How many checkups and freebies do women get under Obamacare? Why are single fathers exempt from WiC (why the fuck do we have a government program that excludes men altogether?). Why are we forced to cover their healthcare costs, while they don't have to chip in to cover our car insurance? Why should they get free birth control if we don't get anything free?

You ignore how feminism works in reality.

[–]cainunable -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I never said you give in to demands just because one side brings up the issue and nothing should be discussed and reviewed. Don't try to claim that I think we should just get steamrolled and let these feminists do whatever they want even when it is beyond what is reasonable. We should generally never completely trust someone when it comes to legislation that will impact everyone, everything should be considered as a whole before anything is written into law.

All those issues you brought up? Those are some of the issues why I am here. These are issues we are fighting against BECAUSE they are unfair.

I'm not naive, I understand that political movement of feminism presently isn't really in search of equality, they are in search of a handout from the government. But this doesn't mean there are some feminists out there who aren't seeking these goals.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Codeshark -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A really good way to recognize that feminism has always and completely failed to logically identify and analyze their issues is recognizing that everything that feminists have argued for is essentially hyper-traditionalism. Alongside their complete inability to notice or care about male disposability their only pursuit of "equality" has been one of "do even more favors for women!"

Thus the vicious feminist cycle... "continue ignoring male disposability" -> "demand more favors (which requires more male disposability)" -> "continue ignoring male disposability" -> (continues...)

(There's also something to be said how also having a male perspective might have helped, although truth is I think an all-woman perspective would be fine if they were trying to be objective instead of all this postmodern bullshit.)

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway1100110 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BalllsackTBaghard 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lazlounderhill 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Typhoeus85 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mcmur 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The Jezebel business model, summed up in one picture
Author	hierophage
Upvotes	284
Comments	150
Date	August 27, 2013 5:35 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1l65je/the_jezebel_business_model_summed_up_in_one/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-jezebel-business-model-summed-up-in-one.1165382 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165382

Comments