~ archived since 2018 ~

The Flaws of Modern Feminism: Misogyny as a Hate Crime & Apologising for Your Gender

HaelenHaagen

April 2, 2021

42 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://youtu.be/RtzTj5in6QU

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	The Flaws of Modern Feminism: Misogyny as a Hate Crime & Apologising for Your Gender
Author	HaelenHaagen
Upvotes	42
Comments	15
Date	April 2, 2021 5:17 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/miouvo/the_flaws_of_modern_feminism_misogyny_as_a_hate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-flaws-of-modern-feminism-misogyny-as-a-hate.831515 https://theredarchive.com/post/831515

Comments

[–]michaelscott1776 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lalala477 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]HaelenHaagen[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]lalala477 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

I'd like to think that I understand. You see, people talk and perceive life based on their experience. If i would've been a german woman in the 1945 I would've hated the guts of men, and anyone else in that position would've too.

As a woman, conquering and dominance makes no sense, so when tragedy happens you can't help but think why... Is it necessary...

I'm not saying that after you've been abused (woman or man) the best thing is to generalize the entire gender, but it's also easy to do. It's our responsibility to deal with the trauma, not the abuser's.

It requires a lot of courage and acceptance to let go of the maliciousness of human kind.

But our issues today is not the past feminism and their beliefs, but women today romanticising the idea of being abused when men are making eye contact, which is pathetic.

A lot of these women don't know what being abused is. But because their life sucks, they use feminism as a distraction, to focus on abuse that has happened in the past.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Conquest and dominance clearly makes sense to some women - the lobbyists and “gender studies” types at least. Plenty of German women supported Hitler before and during WWII (and I know not all Germans did, and that the Nazis got less than half of votes cast even in 1934 at the last contested election), but enough to not make them some lunatic fringe. The point is plenty of women do desire dominance and control, including (or especially) those who pretend these are exclusively male characteristics.

You’re right though. Feminists do pretend nothing has happened in over 50 years. Worse, many are in denial about their own actions and desires. Feminism attracts the damaged, the bitter, the would be controller.

My view is that feminism is like “the left”. It’s always had malign elements: people whose main gripe is that they’re not the rulers (and who believe it’s their right to be). In both movements the struggle for control between such people and those simply fighting for a just solution is ongoing. And right now (and for quite some time) the bad guys have been ascendant! I think you need to understand that such people have always been part of feminism and the failure of feminism as a whole to defeat push back against them is the reason why we’re in this position.

Now here’s the issue. Can you reclaim feminism from these people? Probably (even today) most who call themselves feminists probably think as you do, but are not aware of what’s happening as you are. BUT those you fight have institutional power: they are tenured “academics” and have whole university departments (“women’s studies” or “gender studies” and in the US they’re even trying to control newly established “Men’s Studies” departments to ensure they control the issue). It will be a long, hard fight. And you will be slandered and vilified. And these people will unleash physical violence on you if they think you’re enough of a threat! That’s their level of self righteousness! I wish you luck. And I desperately hope you’ll win. But if ANY here support you it will be used against you! That’s the world we live in. But this feminist world depends upon others having children on our behalf. Will the kids of third world immigrants back this? That’s the Joker in the pack, and the rise of China puts a big question mark over all of this. We may not be masters of our own destiny for much longer! Can this be sorted out before this? I have my doubts.

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Humble-Psychology137 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theblackparade87C -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]lalala477 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Myth #4: Husbands were owed sex with their wives. Marital rape was not illegal, and marriage as an institution was based around rape of women.*

The idea at the time was that there could not be such a thing as marital rape because as a married person you are owed sex from your spouse, i.e. conjugal rights. This applied to both men and women. People who believe that conjugal rights "allowed husbands to rape wives" and not the other way around haven't actually done any research.

It was based on the idea that both parties had a right to sex in the relationship, and this was exercisable in law by each partner in a marriage.

The Bible said:

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&version=NKJV

Do note the specific passage where it says "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."

And here's a quote from an article detailing the history of sex and marriage.

"A hundred years ago or so, if you took the statute books literally, the only people entitled to have sex with each other were people who were legally married. All other sex was against the law. Fornication (sex with unmarried people) was illegal; so was adultery (sex with a married person—but not the person you yourself were married to). Cohabitation—living with someone in a sexual relationship—was against the law, except for people who were legally married. Enforcement was, shall we say, something less than perfect. At times, it was almost nonexistent. And the rules were riddled with exceptions. Sodomy, on the other hand, was quite a serious crime; and the full weight of the law sometimes came down heavily on people who had gay or lesbian sex."

"Married people were not only entitled to have sex; they were, in a way, required to have sex. Of course, nobody checked on whether John and Mary were having sex every night, or once a week, or once a month, or never. But if either John or Mary did not perform at all, for whatever reason, the frustrated partner had grounds for divorce; or even perhaps an annulment.

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/01/24/sex-necessary-legally-speaking

Husbands faced divorce if they were impotent and unable to consummate the marriage, though charges were usually made years after the wedding day. There was a similar charge of frigidity for wives, but it seems that wives charging their husbands for impotency was far more common. Husbands had to show an erection to a court audience and sometimes attempt to perform sex with their wives as well.

Source 1 Source 2

Being incapable of performing sex for your wife could merit corporal punishment. One medieval husband wrote about his unhappy marriage and his impotence in a book called The Lamentations of Little Matheus.

"My wife wants it, but I can’t. She petitions for her right. I say no. I just can’t pay."

"Even given his sexual incapacity, Matheolus was subject to corporal punishment:

"Acting as her own advocate, Petra {Matheolus’s wife} puts forward the law that if a shriveled purse {scrotum} can’t pay because it’s empty, under statute recompense for that injury is corporal punishment."

https://www.purplemotes.net/2015/05/03/matheolus-church-wife/

So what does this show? It shows that both parties had an obligation to provide the other partner with sex during the marriage, and could not deprive their spouse of it. If it was an issue, it was not an issue that solely affected women.

Myth #5: "Men had the vote and women did not. Women's suffrage was a matter of women as a united group fighting for their rights against the evil men that kept it from them. Suffragettes were champions of equality who got women the vote. Etc, etc."

Really, I'm very tired of hearing this one.

In Britain, the right to vote was not only restricted by gender, but also by class. Property owners had the vote, the vast majority of men did not. In 1830, just 3% of the population had the right to vote.

During this time, there were a few groups who were fighting for the vote to be extended to them, and one of these groups were the Chartists, who were active from 1830 to 1868. They were fighting for broad electoral reforms including:

a vote for all men (over 21)
the secret ballot
no property qualification to become an MP
payment for MPs
electoral districts of equal size
annual elections for Parliament.

They presented three huge demonstrations to Parliament, and their requests were denied every time. The restrictions were relaxed but not abolished. Benjamin Disraeli said when introducing the Second Reform Act of 1867: "We do not live – and I trust it will never be the fate of this country to live – under a democracy. The propositions which I am going to make tonight certainly have no tendency in that direction."

There were also the suffragists and the suffragettes, who were fighting for the vote to be extended to women. Suffragists emerged in the mid-19th century and believed in peaceful, constitutional campaign methods. In the early 20th century, after the suffragists failed to make significant progress, a new generation of activists emerged. These women became known as the suffragettes, and they were willing to take direct, militant action for the cause.

However, a huge amount of women disagreed with women's suffrage. So many women objected to the franchise being imposed on them that in the mere 18 months leading up to a 1910 parliamentary debate on women's suffrage, anti-suffragettes had managed to collect 300,000 signatures from women who objected to the franchise being imposed on them. Meanwhile, in the 16 years leading up to that debate, suffragettes only managed to collect 193,000 signatures of women who wanted the vote.

A segment from the transcript of the debate:

"Still, for what it is worth, one finds that from 1890–1906 only 193,000 women signed Petitions to this House in favour of female suffrage, and that during the last eighteen months, a period in which a strong anti-suffrage association has been in existence, 300,000 women, some of them eminent women, have signed petitions against it, and to the effect that these proposals shall not be forced upon them."

And...

[–]lalala477 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Continued:

A rather interesting illustration was furnished by an inquiry which was instituted by "The Sheffield Independent," a newspaper which I think itself is sympathetic with these proposals. This inquiry was addressed to the women householders of Sheffield. Twenty-three thousand papers were sent out, and of the replies 9,000 were in favour of woman suffrage and 14,000 were against it. The representatives of this paper reported that in many cases their emissaries were chased with violence from the houses by the female inhabitants under the impression that they were collecting statistical matter as the emissaries of the suffragist party."

It may be difficult to understand why so many women would reject the vote so vehemently, but this was an era where full citizenship rights like the right to vote were granted only to those with citizenship responsibilities like conscription (and sometimes not even then). In that historical context, the vote was actually viewed not just as a right, but also an obligation. So it was never really about men in power shutting women out of the franchise. It was about government having to decide whether to impose a responsibility on women that women as a whole clearly did not want.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1910/jul/11/parliamentary-franchise-women-bill

Regardless of the lack of support for women's suffrage among women, suffragettes became extremely militant in their activism. In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) with her daughters Christabel and Sylvia, and the WSPU carried out a nationwide bombing and arson campaign. Between 1912 and 1915, hundreds of bombs were left on trains, in theatres, post offices, churches, even outside the Bank of England; while arson attacks on timber yards, railway stations and private houses inflicted an untold amount of damage.

https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/sanitising-suffragettes

Instead of being beneficial in supporting the vote for women, it was disastrous. Lloyd George said: "The action of the militants is ruinous. The feeling amongst the sympathisers of the cause in the House is one of panic. I am frankly not very hopeful of success if these tactics are persisted in."

Terrorism aside, Emmeline Pankhurst was also resistant to acquiring the vote for working class men, realising that this would be much tougher than winning the vote for "respectable" AKA upper-class women, and underlying the resistance appears to have been her contempt for working-class men. According to Sean Lang in his book on Parliamentary reform: "The Pankhursts became stridently anti-male, ruthlessly dropping even the most loyal of their male supporters from the WSPU, and claiming, as Christabel did in her 1913 book The Great Scourge, that men were “little more than carriers of venereal disease”."

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/men-won-votes-women-not-suffragettes/

When WW1 came around in 1914, suffragettes also threw their support behind the White Feather campaign with the aim of shaming men into enlisting. Those young women went in for the kill, striking men at the very heart of their masculine identities, the bestowing of a feather telling them, "If you don't go off to be maimed or die, you are no longer a man in the eyes of some brassy chit you've never even met before and will probably never see again." And many men went, because a woman's censure - ANY woman's censure - had the power to drive them straight into the teeth of death.

By mid 1915, it was clear that not enough men were signing up to replace the fatalities on the front line, and the Military Service Act was introduced in January 1916. By March 1916 compulsory conscription for all single men aged 18-41 was in place. In May 1916, the Act was extended to include conscription for married men.

http://www.eastsussexww1.org.uk/attitudes-towards-conscription/index.html

It was only at that point that the British government considered extending the vote to all men, as most of the propertyless, working class men that were conscripted into war during WW1 did not have the right to vote, and this was finally starting to be seen as the injustice that it was. In the trenches class divisions were eroded to the extent that class no longer had any real meaning and every man was the equal of each other in terms of sacrifice and service to one's country.

Men got universal suffrage in 1918 with the Representation of the People Act, which enfranchised more than five million men over the age of 21 without regard to property or class. Women of all classes were piggybacked onto the Act, with an age restriction temporarily in place to prevent women from becoming a supermajority voting bloc, given that about 1 million British men had died in the war. Regardless, this brought more than eight million women over 30 into the electorate. And just ten years later, the 1928 Act (the act which gave women electoral equality) gave the vote to women at age 21, which added another five million women to the electorate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/has-everyone-forgotten-male-suffrage/

Introducing the 1918 Bill, the Home Secretary George Cave said: "War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men's eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period, of so many of our population from the class of electors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise."

The Act was achieved not by the suffragettes’ terrorist tactics, but by fighting of men in WW1, when thousands of men from their many different backgrounds came together to fight the common enemy. This finally achieved what the Chartists, the Levellers and the peasants before them had struggled for in terms of eroding barriers of class. Without the sacrifice of men who endured the horror of trench warfare in WW1, class barriers would have persisted and at most the vote would have been extended only to elite, wealthy, propertied women.

In a later study of attitudes to conscription in 1939, one woman responded: "In the last war [(WW1)] I never told one man that he ought to go. I tried to put myself in their place. If I’d been them I wouldn’t have gone. When I saw them going through the streets – all the young men – I used to think that they were being driven like cattle to the slaughter house. And they were, weren’t they? Fodder for the guns."

The common idea that all men had the vote, and that women did not, and that women's suffrage was a fight of women who were united against men working as an oppressive force to keep them down is an affront to these men who died in a literal war that secured universal suffrage for everyone (many of which, in fact, did not have the vote). It also ignores and erases the will and sentiment of many, many, many anti-suffragette women who actively rejected the vote and protested vehemently against it being imposed on them.

Furthermore, the view that suffragettes were a valiant, fair-minded, equality-oriented group who got women the vote and whose activism merely amounted to firecrackers in barrels is an affront to any right-thinking person. The real violence and extremism of the suffragettes is barely, if at all, recognised by the general public, and this is partly due to attempts by suffragettes to sanitise their history.

"Laura E. Nym Mayhall, in her work on the militant suffrage movement, identified the importance of "a small group of former suffragettes" in the 1920s and 1930s, who created a highly stylised story of the WSPU and the history of suffrage in England, which emphasised "women’s martyrdom and passivity". The group set about compiling the documents, memoirs and memorabilia that now form the basis of the Suffragette Fellowship Collection held by the Museum of London."

https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/sanitising-suffragettes

And here we are now, in crazy world. According to the dominant narrative, all men always had the vote since the dawn of recorded human history, and they refused to give it to women because penis. The demonstrations of the Chartists, and the dead bodies of these men that were sacrificed to the unpopular idea of male suffrage (and who got votes for women in the process), have gone down the memory hole. The terroristic actions of the suffragettes, engaged in for the benefit of wealthy and privileged women only and for which they were barely punished, are the noblest of acts for the noblest of causes. And of course, the only reason anyone could EVER have opposed them was because of misogyny.

[–]UnconventionalXY 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lalala477 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link