TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

A century of feminism has failed us. Women have betrayed men's trust

mankindglobalmedia

October 7, 2015
193 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/belinda-brown-a-century-of-feminism-has-failed-us-women-have-betrayed-mens-trust/
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title A century of feminism has failed us. Women have betrayed men's trust
Author

mankindglobalmedia

Upvotes 193
Comments 74
Date October 7, 2015 12:53 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3nu2xh/a_century_of_feminism_has_failed_us_women_have/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-century-of-feminism-has-failed-us-women-have.969888
https://theredarchive.com/post/969888
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by mankindglobalmedia

Teenage Boy and Girl Exchange Sexts: Boy Threatened With 10 Years In Jail, Girl Given 12 Months Probation

2138 upvotes
September 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

Teenager falsely accused of rape commits suicide

1894 upvotes
March 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Talented A-level student hanged himself after he was falsely accused of rape

932 upvotes
October 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Lady Gaga's sexist new video shows men as predators, quotes bullshit 1 in 5 stat.

259 upvotes
September 24, 2015
/r/MensRights

That 'Only 2 to 8 Percent of Rape Accusations Are False' Stat Is Extremely Misleading | National Review Online

246 upvotes
August 6, 2015
/r/MensRights

Man receives sex act while blacked out, gets accused of sexual assault | Washington Examiner

243 upvotes
January 12, 2016
/r/MensRights

Hillary used to support registering women for the draft, now she'€™s not sure | New York Post

228 upvotes
February 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

NOT GUILTY: Gregory Alan Elliott verdict means "free speech has won the day" - The Rebel

188 upvotes
January 23, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Lobstermansunion 66 points67 points68 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

This website has a series of articles that are about 75% accurate on the issues but then they conclude by telling men to "man up" and marry that unicorn snowflake woman who isn't "like that."

Whether "conservative" or feminist, women will claw tooth and nail to avoid the consequences of their actions and expect men to just fix it for them.

[–]ANUS_CONE 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

women will claw tooth and nail to avoid the consequences of their actions and expect men to just fix it for them.

I wholeheartedly wish that I could sit here and tell you honestly that I've had a different experience in my short time on this planet. AWALT 100%.

[–]Underwater_Karma 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

My wife is a strong willed, self sufficient woman with a lucrative career...and the "wouldn't it be great if I just took care of the house" hints still drop at least monthly.

[–]Lobstermansunion -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what you're getting at but if you're saying she wants you to be a house husband, don't do it. Chances are she will start perceiving you as unmanly and want to get rid of you.

[–]ANUS_CONE 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

What he's getting at is the same thing that I go through, as well as all of the husbands of the women that I work with, and every male that I know.

Married women do not want to work. Married women with kids really don't want to work. As much as this shit gets touted every day about equality in the workforce, etc. etc., never have I ever seen a group of people more inclined to get out of having a job than I have with young married women.

That's just my personal experience, and the personal experience of everyone I know though. So take it with a grain of shit.

[–]The_0bserver 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he means to say that the wife wants to be a house wife, even though she has a great career going on for her.

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

Some individual women are great. I just talked to a longtime female friend this morning who is a fun, fair, and logical woman teaching her daughters how to be genuinely strong adults. But the exceptions prove the rule.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In my experience pretty much all women know what they're supposed to say. When the shit hits the fan, though they're AWALT. If you talked to my wife you'd probably think she was pretty cool too. In reality she uses me to finance her social life.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's sort of like splitting money on the first date. I recall one survey in which the vast majority of women said that they would split but the vast majority would want the man to pay.

[–]Lobstermansunion -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hear you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She married to you, though?

[–]Lobstermansunion 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL no she's like 20 years older than me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, that's why she's fun and fair.

It'll be different if you guys get married.

[–]Lobstermansunion 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hear you. She's not perfect but she is refreshing to be around.

[–]JohnKimble111 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some of the content was great up until a few months ago, but more recently I've been increasingly disappointed by the quality of the articles.

[–]Lobstermansunion 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a decent site. Better than some US counterparts. But they have trouble seeing over the blinders of their particular ideology on gender issues.

[–]SilencingNarrative 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I think the way this is going to shake out is: provider / provider partnerships, or single parent households, will raise children but nurturer / provider partnerships will continue to decline until they are naught but noise.

The combination of no-fault divorce, and the pro-choice notion that a woman can not be held to any promises regarding a pregnancy (any such promise is regarded as alienating body rights and thus not honorable), and alimony and child support has made nurturer/provider partnerships a one-way street. All of the power is given to the nurturer, and none to the provider.

Civilisation won't end. There has never been a better time to be alive than now, as a man or women. Things on the whole will continue to get better.

I think that's actually the reason for no-fault divorce and pro-choice to become the unstoppable forces that they are. Society is, compared to previous times, extremely wealthy. We can afford to have single parent households so we do.

[–]Lobstermansunion 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Sure, just close your eyes to the legions of juvenile delinquents being raised by single mothers that will be lifelong drags on the system. Thumbs up.

[–]SilencingNarrative -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I doubt that's true.

[–]lasciate 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being raised by a single mother is one of the best indicators of future criminality statistically.

[–]Lobstermansunion 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

you can doubt all you want but it's true. Prisons are full of adults who were raised in dysfunctional single mother run households. It's a leading cause of both criminality and generational poverty among every ethnic group.

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Can you quote me rates, or compose some sort of argument as to why you think thats true?

[–]Lobstermansunion 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://fathers.com/wp39/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fatherlessInfographic.pdf

[–]SilencingNarrative 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So there are a lot of stats in that pdf correlating poverty, crime, drug abuse, ..., among children with fatherlessness.

The main question, though, is which of those factors cause the others?

The pdf is assuming that fatherlessness (and more generally, single-parent-ness) leads to poverty, drug abuse, ...

But what if poverty leads to drug abuse, crime, ..., and fatherlessness?

If the main change has been that fatherlessness among the poor has skyrocketed, but the other problems poverty causes have not been sky rocketing, then fatherlessness is not going to bring society to its knees.

BTW, the crime rate has been steadily decreasing for the last 30 years. This supports my poverty as the prime cause hypothesis.

[–]veyron9009 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Go outside and visit a ghetto.

[–]SilencingNarrative 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are ghettos better or worse than they were 10 years ago?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She just wants men to return to the plantation and resume catering for women who don't want to work. No thank you -- even the feminist society is a more palatable choice for the man who wants to be an equal, not a tool.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognize their error would not be outweighed by the gain.

[–]Lobstermansunion 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point. Given the choice to confront her errors in judgment regarding her special womanness, they will likely choose one of the following: 1. Head in sand 2. Blame the men 3. It's not faiiiirrrrr 4. I need a man/the government to save me.

[–]MenandBoysareGood 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.

So true....right up to the president. By attributing everything to "patriarchy" they've shut down logical reasoning. By declaring and promoting criticism as politically incorrect they've silence any who would dare talk out.

[–]Demonspawn 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them.

Perhaps what we've learned is that women can't be trusted with power. Perhaps that's why every successful society made it there by only allowing men in control of society. Perhaps the ultimate lesson from this experiment is that our ancestors were right, that men and women need to be in separate roles for the good of the society.

Or perhaps we will learn none of these things, because being "equal" is more important than success, and we will continue to decline to our own self-destruction.

[–]BuschMaster_J 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We don't mind putting a yoke on for civilizations' best interest. We do so willingly and without question and have for eons. It's being disrespected and demanded to put it on without recognition or with dismissal of our contribution and sacrifice for our families that starts to rub us the wrong way.

Plus the "woman's right" to sleep around has devalued the benefits of getting married and sacrificing our output.

Men are creatures of direct influence, women are of indirect influence. It's a problem that has been created by woman's direct action and man's indirect actions. It's a meta societal problem that can only be changed when women realize that expecting to ram their ego up against ours and have men become subservient will never work.

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We don't mind putting a yoke on for civilizations' best interest. We do so willingly and without question and have for eons.

Yes. We have for eons as long as we are sure that our work will benefit our children.

But when profits from our work and our(?) children are taken from us... we shed that yoke. And that's what will end society.

[–]Lobstermansunion 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The belief that women are ever going to give up their current privilege without an armageddon-level fight makes me think this woman drinks lead paint for breakfast.

[–]Demonspawn 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. That's the problem. They're going to keep blaming men for not doing enough all the way into the collapse.

[–]matthew_lane 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At which point they'll blame men for the collapse. Obviously the men caused the collapse to punish the women for fighting the patriarchy..... An obviously all the men died because patriarchy hurts men too..... So men should totally fix society, but this time fix it better for women, because um, equality?

[–]Mythandros 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I could up vote you more than once, I would.

[–]Lhtfoot 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep...

[–]Organicdancemonkey- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't worry, the upcoming war will make most of this moot.

[–]Maschalismos 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

War with who?

[–]Organicdancemonkey- 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

America supposedly funded and trained moderates in Syria. Russia, supporting Assad comes in and bombs ISIS then the US says Russia bombed their Moderate rebels too. Now Defense secretary Carter said the US will begin 'direct action on the ground' to tople Assad. What do you think the result will be of these two super powers moving their pawns, rooks and knights into this arena?

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return.

The flaw here is that she thinks that respect was sufficient reward.

" we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them."

This is exactly wrong. What we need is for women to develop real independence instead of the faux Strong Independent Woman/needy, high maintenance, hypoagentive hothouse orchid scam that passes for independence.

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What we need is for women to develop real independence

Don't hold your breath on that.

Women don't want independence. Their voting record demonstrates this strongly.

[–]Lobstermansunion 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women want "choice" without any chance they will fail or get hurt or not be taken care of. Which isn't real independence.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The point is that what they want is not dispositive. What is dispositive is what men do. When men finally steel themselves against howling and shaming language and imprecations and tears and all those other manipulative tactics, it will leave women with no choice but to be independent. If you have no one to depend one, you become self-sufficient.

This is not something where their voting record or habits matter. This is not something they get to vote on. This is not something where they have any right to dictate to men what men will do or not do.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

it will leave women with no choice but to be independent.

As long as women control 55% of suffrage, they will always have the option to take from men via government and we can't take that from them unless we remove women's suffrage.

This is not something they get to vote on.

Read this and recognize that at each step the "White Knight Brigade" is actually government.

This has already happened. This is something they've already voted on. They've already pushed responsibility for their actions onto men via government. To try to pretend that "it's something they don't get to vote on" is sheer fantasy.

Men tomorrow could decide, en-mass, to divorce all women and not support them. The day after tomorrow there'd be a bachelor tax that women demanded (and got, because they control suffrage).

You cannot force women to be "independent" as long as they control suffrage as government will take from men to give to women.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As long as women control 55% of suffrage, they will always have the option to take from men via government and we can't take that from them unless we remove women's suffrage.

Laws overwhelmingly enforced by men, who sooner or later are coming around. One day women are going to insist on the law being enforced and will be asked you and whose army.

"You cannot force women to be "independent" as long as they control suffrage as government will take from men to give to women."

Which do you think has a greater effective range and more killing power - a law or a rifle?

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So, basically, you are banking on a revolt against government in order end the problem that women's suffrage creates.

You haven't disagreed with me at all here. You just stated that this can't be solved without ending women's suffrage.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh, we don't have to get rid of women's suffrage, we just have to show they have no option but to vote the right way - the right way being whatever it takes to get men to continue doing what we do to support society - things like law and order, things like utilities maintenance, things like food production and vehicle repair. They will vote and if they don't vote in a way that holds society together - this time not relying on male disposability and male utility - they will start dying in childbirth because there's no electricity or anything else in the maternity wards.

It's called passive resistance. Women think they have a corner on it and if men resort to it, they can always use shaming language to crush through it. Well, what if one day that shaming language stopped working?

This is the ultimate form of MGTOW.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, we don't have to get rid of women's suffrage, we just have to show they have no option but to vote the right way

Or else what?

You imagine some mass "men strike"?

Not going to happen. Revolution would happen long before that. Women are passive-aggressive, men are aggressive-aggressive.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You imagine some mass "men strike"? Not going to happen. Revolution would happen long before that.

The "men's strike" as you call it would be the revolution. Women could someday but can't yet do their own fighting.

[–]Lhtfoot 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This guy gets it.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I diverge from her commentary the minute she starts into the "we have to give men back the decision making power" rhetoric. History is largely male history, definitely, and most modern societies owe a significant debt to male ingenuity and productivity for their current state, but I don't believe for a second that this is because men are x and women are y, natively. For the bulk of our history, women were shut out from many of these roles. Could they have done the job, had they be given the chance? Absolutely.

The number of jobs where it truly matters if you're a woman or a man are vanishingly small. For the most part, we can all do the work without reference to our gender.

So, going back to "what once was" isn't an option anymore, as much as she might want it, but neither is this current track, where women play scorched earth and rise at the blatant expense of men. Hardening into camps and the inevitable hit we'll take on the population as a result, is a real fear, even if this author's choice of solution is a bit nostalgic.

To me, the road forward is to rip open Family Law and rebuild it. As a symbol of egalitarianism, you don't get more fundamental than the family and the law that surrounds it.

Shift to 50/50 at the outset and you send a message to both parties that children are a shared responsibility. Your job doesn't really allow you to take 50/50? Well, tough shit. Negotiate with your ex-wife and sign on the dotted line to shift from 50/50 to some other split, but we're getting your signature indicating that you both agreed to that shift. You want more time with your kids, Mom, than 50/50? Well, tough shit. The world expects you to financially support half of those expenses, so unless you can get Dad to take on a greater proportion of the financial role so you can play house, you're out working. Neither camps will be able to hide behind gender roles and will have to literally sign off on their choices.

Remove alimony, and you make sure every party knows that the benefits of the marriage end when the marriage ends, and that they should conduct themselves accordingly while they are in it. Taking a decade off to solely care for your children while someone else works becomes a risk, now, the way it should be in any egalitarian society. Too many women opted for the Mom role or the housekeeper role because that safety net was there.

Do those two things, and you send a message clear across society that the old days are done, and real adult responsibility is here for all of us.

Then, you tackle the CJS.

[–]Lobstermansunion 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There has never been a society on the face of the planet where women, in general, have held real adult responsibility similarly to men. Many individual women have chosen to take on difficult tasks for her own betterment and the betterment of her family, and that should be applauded, but the exceptions prove the rule.

The reason why both Feminism and modern "conservative woman" claptrap is a swiss cheese ideology of double standards is because women, in general, do not want to be held to the same standards as men. But they want all the benefits of us pretending they do.

Women, in general, have never had it so good as they do now in the West and will use every trick in the book to keep their double standards. If Feminism stops working (which is likely in the coming years) they will dress it up as something else and expect all the same stuff.

[–]Code_Bordeauxx 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

but I don't believe for a second that this is because men are x and women are y

Allright, bring on the downvotes...

Good thing science doesn't care one tiny little bit about what you believe or don't. Everything, and then I really mean everything we've observed so far -from the the chemical properties of sex hormones, to the human anatomy, to behaviors we observe- point us in one direction: that women are designed (evolutionary) to nurse children and men are designed for doing tough jobs.

Have you not heard that the more people are free to choose their jobs the more you see male and female dominated jobs arise? People keep claiming this is all because of some 'social construct' but if you actually go out and test this the data doesn't support it! There have been experiments on baby's just moments after they were born, and girls and boys already showed a different interest in faces vs mechanical objects. I should ask you what evidence you do have to hang on to your 'belief', but it can hardly be anything else than just that, a belief.

If men and women really are equal in their capacities, this is what we'd expect:

We'd expect men and women to show the same amount of interest in the same subjects. We don't observe this (as from childbirth!)

We'd expect men and women to have the same capacity for logical reasoning and a similar bell curve distribution. We don't observe this.

We'd expect men and women to display similar behaviors. But we don't see it. If stressed, men isolate themselves, women seek up the group. Men are polygamic, women are hypergamic. Men seek competition, women seek compromise. How long do I need to go on?

You, and everyone who has upvoted this, has to ask himself: why do you keep blocking out the question what if men and women really are NOT equal? Why is this so scary to you? You probably don't like the consequences of such a line of thought, but you have to see how fallacious such thinking is. Truth doesn't care about what we feel comfortable with, it just is. We can either accept that and move from there, or keep up the illusion. Wake up.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So, you've made an eloquent and reasoned argument as to why men and women are not EQUAL, but that's not really what I stated, is it?

I stated that the vast majority of positions in our modern societies are such that they can be filled by either gender. That one gender might be slightly better suited, and another is slightly less suited, or that given the choice, they choose to differentiate, is really immaterial. There's enough overlap in our skill sets, and enough of these jobs barely begin to scratch the edge of our performance envelope, that any gender-based differences would be minor, certainly small enough that we shouldn't necessarily exclude people of x gender from those positions.

Can you do child care? Of course you can. What you don't know, you could learn, and there's a lot of men who do fantastically at child care, given the opportunity. Sure, women might be better suited to it at outset, and certainly get better social training towards it, but once men get up to speed, there's not a lot to choose between them. You still have the basics of empathy and caring, working ears to hear the cries, and enough time management skills to handle the schedule, I pretty much guarantee you.

[–]Vorpal_Spork 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The number of jobs where it truly matters if you're a woman or a man are vanishingly small. For the most part, we can all do the work without reference to our gender.

Maybe at a desk job. For the working class it's inevitable that you'll have to do a woman's work for her. Cooking is stereotypical women's work, but even at restaurants I worked at I've had women whine to the boss until I was forced to do their jobs for them. Despite that they agreed that carrying up to 75 lbs wouldn't be a problem for them during the application process I still had to carry boxes for them and help them in various other ways even though I had more work to do than them already.

[–]kaliwraith 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. You've said too many things to comment on all of them but I think the center of what women really "need to do" is to take responsibility for themselves. Their success, their choices of morals & ethics, their happiness and wellbeing are their own responsibility.

Men have been burdened with responsibility and therefore act with power over their circumstances. When feminism says women should have power without responsibility first they create the problems we are seeing today.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their success, their choices of morals & ethics, their happiness and wellbeing are their own responsibility.

And that's exactly what they don't want. Watch how women vote and you'll see why a plan which requires women to take responsibility for themselves is a plan guaranteed to fail.

[–]ulthrant82 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what you do for a living, and therefore what you see for jobs and careers day to day, but I can tell you that jobs where gender doesn't matter aren't vanishingly small. I work in mining right now, but I've worked in manufacturing, forestry, steel and oil and gas. There are a great many careers out there that are dominated by the male gender, and for a reason. Mining, farming, forestry, fishing, construction, manufacturing, chemical extraction, oil and gas.. Etc. Etc.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I can tell you that jobs where gender doesn't matter aren't vanishingly small.

I absolutely disagree. Maybe where you live is different from my locale, but up here in Canada, here is our distribution of labour. The service sector dwarfs all the other sectors combined, and manufacturing only employs 4M out of the total pool of jobs.

Service, accommodation, government, health care, education, etc. all total about 20M positions, and the vast majority of those positions can be held by either gender.

[–]ulthrant82 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

British Columbian here, and well, according to -your- stats the total for all industries in Canada totals 17.8 million, so I don't see how the service sector can be 20 million. Still using your stats, the goods producing sector (which is male dominated and includes all the most dangerous jobs too, btw) STILL totals near 4 million. 4 million out of 18 million is not a vanishingly small number. It's damn near 25%. That's still not including (completely male dominated) transportation and warehousing, which brings the total to 4.8 million. Out of 17.8 million. That's almost one out of every three.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I eyeballed the math for the non-goods producing sectors. 3.9M out of 17.8M is 22%, or 78% of the jobs can be performed by both genders.

And that's only if every last job in goods producing sector can't be performed by women at all, which we both know isn't true. A percentage of the employment in those sectors does actually employ women right now, so clearly the nearly 4M jobs in that sector are not exclusively male, but a percentage of the jobs in the non-goods producing sectors are also labour in return, as you say, and habitually employ men. There's a small bit of overlap on the categories, clearly.

But ... how does this change the base contention that a big majority of the jobs in any given modern nation can be performed by both genders? Even if you're 100% correct and the ratio is more like 2/3 to 1/3, that's still 66% of the jobs in the country that can be performed by both genders, or a big majority.

[–]ulthrant82 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not saying that the majority of jobs can't be done by both genders. It was the implication that there are almost no male dominated jobs out there or that they are a vanishingly small amount. +-20% is still a large margin for a single gender to occupy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that maybe my terminology drove your response.

But, look at the trend ... manufacturing and those male-intensive jobs keep declining as a percentage of overall employment. 20% may seem significant, but it's been declining for 30 years. As we proved during the war years, even a lot of those supposedly male jobs could ultimately be done by women, too. I really don't think that there's a big list of jobs that would HAVE to be done by males only.

[–]ulthrant82 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I would agree that there may not even be -any- jobs that men HAVE to do. Women are fully capable of performing in the physically demanding careers. It's that men are much more capable at those tasks and to a greater extent, more willing. Evolution has simply made us better suited to those types of tasks, and society has made it acceptable for women to refuse to do them.

As technology advances, those labour intensive positions will continue to steadily decline as well. This video my CGP Grey highlights that issue nicely.

[–]dalovindj 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Uhh, guys, I think those numbers are millions. There are only 7.1 billion people on all of the planet.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, you're right. Typing fast.

[–]ulthrant82 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. Typo. Fixed it. Thank you! :)

[–]LarryLove 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shift to 50/50 at the outset and you send a message to both parties that children are a shared responsibility.

This times a thousand. The SOP in California is to give the mother 70% of the custodial time and work from there. It's complete bullshit and needs to change.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't believe for a second that this is because men are x and women are y, natively.

You'd be wrong in that belief, because Tabula Rasa is bunk.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's so much overlap that in most cases, we're talking degrees of success rather than a true binary, though.

I've done child care, and I'm a Psychologist, so I'm doing a traditionally female job involving communication, empathy and personal care. In a truly binary set up, this job would be off limits to me, but here I am, nonetheless. There's male nurses, female pilots, etc. Sure, there's some jobs that are always going to trend to one or the other, even heavily, but no one job is truly binary.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them.

No, no, NO! We don't want your "dependence". You can fuck right the hell off, Belinda Brown. Traditionalist woman are no different from feminists.

[–]jagenigma 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

At first, the cause for feminism was just and led by women who wanted to be treated better by men. But now it's led by ignorance and quotes and women who want to be over men. Feminism is supposed to be about equality, not making men seem like the enemy. It's causing more of a division of sex as opposed to bringing them on an equal playing feild.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter