Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[–]NYD3030 20 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Really came full circle on this one didn’t they.
I actually think a lot of old ideas are going to come back in a mutated, pro-woman form. For example as far as I can tell in most cases polyamory is just polygamy for women.
[–]dajodge[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought my post would include it, but it meant to point out their preoccupation with the Genetic Fallacy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy#:~:text=The%20genetic%20fallacy%20(also%20known,origin%20rather%20than%20their%20content.
It was a little bit encouraging to see the OP recognize the hypocrisy, though.
[–]rammo123 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
The sound of bagpipes in that sub is deafening.
[–]House-of-Raven 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The irony is there’s tons of people on that thread denouncing others as “not real feminists” when those same people have espoused the same opinions on Reddit. We’ve really jumped the shark on what feminists believe feminism is.
[–]arturitoburrito -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The comments in that thread are criticizing that way of thinking... The bag pipes are playing for you.
[–]henrysmyagent 14 points15 points16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Expecting men to pay for everything is absolutely considered feminism by most women today, but it is actually benign misogyny.
The most feminist thing a man can do for women today is to pay for nothing.
No free drinks. No free dinners. No free handbags, shoes, fingernails, hair extensions, etc. No free vacations.
Women are intelligent, responsible, independent, and autonomous beings who do not need protection and/or provisioning from men.
[+]arturitoburrito -11 points-10 points-9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Pretty easy to top that by defending their reproductive rights as human rights...
What's the point of your post even? It's so off base the comments in that thread don't even agree with the world view you are shitting on. You just want to shit on something though and be patted on the back.
[–]henrysmyagent 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, there are things feminists say, and then there are things feminists do.
There are precious few feminists in divorce courts. The strongest, most independent feminist somehow becomes a total dependent when it comes time to dissolve the marriage.
Most non-tradituonal women still expect traditional monetary support from their man.
[–]Total_Connection4436 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Jeez, some of the comments in that thread. One of them says that men should pay because the man earns more citing the example of a tech bro dating a waitress. I tend to agree that the partner making significantly more should pay for more stuff, but what's wrong with the reverse case where the woman earns more? Do the same rules apply?
Even the most progressive and (self-proclaimed) egalitarian women can't even conceive of the idea of a high wage earning woman wanting to date a lower status man. It's not that they have a preference for more professionally successful men or won't date a lower status man. It's that the entire idea of such a thing even happening at all or anybody wanting to do that is a completely alien concept.
This totally tracks with feminism because in order to believe in patriarchy theory, you have to ignore the existence of a large swath of the male population. If the only men you see are tech and finance bros and doctors and CEOs, then naturally your confirmation bias will lead you o believe in patriarchy.
She doesn't use the example of a high earning woman dating a waiter because in her mind he's not even really a man or somebody worthy of consideration. The waiter is an asexual background character. Service industry workers, men in other non-glamourous lines of work, racial minorities, disabled men, homeless men, etc. are completely invisible to them. If you acknowledge them, you have to reconsider the core principles of feminism.
[–]eli_ashe 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
this is likely correct, unfortunately.
i'd suggest folks consider that when people view relationships in a format other than for love, such as for relevant instance viewing a relationship as 'what's good for women' (could be for men, or for queers, or for an individual) you end up in a position that entails doing some kind of shitty cost benefit analysis predicated on whatever metric you are using.
Only love avoids this problem.
see also here Beliefs In Individualism Fuel Anti-Love Ideologies
[–]Socalgardenerinneed 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
I feel like the OP as well as most of the comments were pretty reasonable. They're basically like this idea is dumb and its being talked about because of tiktok which is a dumb platform.
Seems pretty down-to-earth to me.
[–]dajodge[S] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
And yet, unfortunately, the expectation still exists.
[–]Socalgardenerinneed 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure. Lots of shitty expectations exist. Just wanted to make it clear that despite maybe approaching the issue a bit differently, I think the folks over there are pretty much on the same page as us on the topic.
If you just read the post title, it might not be obvious.
[–]OldCardiologist66 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Saw someone saying that malevolent forces are working to keep the patriarchy lol
[–]Socalgardenerinneed 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I mean, there's some weird stuff there too lol. Just saying that the comments are broadly on team "men shouldn't have to pay 100% for dates".
[–]StupidSexyQuestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I generally agree. Honestly I was pleasantly surprised at the comments.
It’s just so hard to shake the feeling of how bizarre the words many use. They it is that so few are able to straight up say “no, it’s unfair to men. We want to be equal so we will share.” Easy peazy. There’s definitely some great reasonable comments in there but some… it looks right but feels off.
[–]country2poplarbeef 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I always love the obsession Feminism seems to have with Wicca and the surprise they have when it gets "twisted" into toxic bs. Who would've ever thought a cult started by an old white guy with a bunch of women following him would be toxic and objectifying of women. It's not like "Wicca" literally means male witch or that a lot of these early covens were just a bunch of "witches" worshipping some male guru. 😅
[–]The-Minmus-Derp 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The top comment on that sub is literally talking about how that idea is obvious rage bait horseshit. I think they got this one
[–]JustTheSpecsPlease 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, what if your partner is a woman?
[–]Sure-Vermicelli4369 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If you look at threads in that sub asking the mask-off version of this, is it acceptable feminism to want to be a traditional-style wife, you'll be met with feminists reminding you that feminism is about a woman's right to choose.
So in other words, expecting men to pay for things is feminism because anything a woman wants or that makes a woman happy is feminism.
[–]YetAgain67 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
"Is reinforcing traditional and retrograde gender roles feminism?"