How Feminism has broken the system

chevalier_d_eon · 2013-09-20T17:56:44+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Demonspawn · 2013-09-20T17:34:22+00:00

Were we to allow men and women to both have fluid gender roles... what would happen?

Both would compete to be in the protected female role.

Who would win that competition? What would the end result be?

We'd be right back to the place you are complaining about. Men "stuck" in the male role and women allowed to be fluid.

Mytecacc · 2013-09-20T17:11:53+00:00

Women have always had jobs outside the home, its only the wealthy women that didn't work.

ladysuccubus · 2013-09-20T18:47:48+00:00

Misleading title.

You're not telling us that feminism has broken anything, you're telling us that the problem is that society hasn't fully adopted feminism, and you're telling us what men need to do to complete the project.

giegerwasright · 2013-09-21T02:38:55+00:00

Fail.

The problem is that feminism, and women who casually default to feminism when convenient, insists that men adhere to rigid roles while women get to do whatever the fuck their whimsy demands. It's all about privilege without responsibility. It's all about doing whatever the fuck they want without any repercussions. It's all about diminishing men until they are nothing but drones meant to subsidize whatever vapid chick flick they want to pretend they live in.

PeterArching · 2013-09-20T18:24:00+00:00

Studies show that women are still expected to handle the lion's share of chores and child rearing because men have not been given the freedom or responsibility to fill traditionally female roles.

Remember that these studies classify all the dirty, disgusting, or labor intensive jobs around the home as men's hobbies.

So reshingling the roof in July? "You pig - I'm in the house slaving away over a sink suffering this oppressive air conditioning and you are up there goofing off!"

VortexCortex · 2013-09-21T07:53:23+00:00

I don't want to do this:

There are two styles of gender roles- rigid and fluid.

Prove it. You have no evidence for this theory. It is as unfounded as feminism.

Rigid gender roles are what we refer to as traditional.

The word is "stereotypical", not "rigid". Bachelor is a gender role, so is Old Maid. So is "dirty old man". You see how the roles aren't rigid, but merely typically fit into stereotypes? This is because I'm self selecting the criteria. Let me self select another criteria: I can say, "Men fill the role of comedian" then point out class clowns and the jovial father figure, etc. I've created a gendered role where there is none.

You start with an assumption then find supporting evidence, like a feminist. Don't. Instead, survey for the traits males have, then make determinations based on the evidence. You may find that men are as nurturing as women: Filling a "Peter Pan" role, playing with kids, teaching in ways that mothers don't.

If you don't know, or don't have evidence, then say that you don't know, or that you hypothesize. This encourages others to find truth in evidence. Don't present mere claims as true, like feminists do.

Men protect and provide for his family, women nurture and care for her family.

Single mothers protect and provide for her family, like a momma-bear. Males nurture and play with their children. See? Now where are your roles? What I wrote is every bit as true, and has been for a very long time.

Places with this set up include Asia, Latin America, and Pre-Feminist movement Western countries (US, Europe, Canada.

Or, essentially: Planet Earth. At a glance I see no appreciable change in the roles due to pre-feminist or post-feminist influence. It is up to you to provide the evidence for this claimed distinction. Women's rights is not Feminism.

Fluid gender roles are when everyone is equal and there is no distinction.

You've made a definition of a term. It can be anything you want. Prove such a state exists, or it has no bearing on reality.

Women fight in wars and work alongside men.

Women are not on the front lines -- where you have to be in order to "fight".

men take equal share in child rearing responsibilities

True, they always have. Men and women are different. They rear a child in different ways. I suspect you are excluding from child rearing a great many things that men bring to the family.

there are very few differences between genders minus obvious sex related things.

I'm not sure I follow. The genders are differentiated by sex. I don't see 50% of men wearing frilly dresses. I don't see them with large breasts. I don't see woman with big broad shoulders as average.

On other counts I fail to see the genders merged and heterogeneous.

I see no evidence that the differences or lack thereof you've self selected are representative of reality.

This is often seen in tribal communities.

How often? Which tribes? I see here only more assumptions and claims lacking evidence.

What the Feminist movement has done is taken society from a rigid gender role to that awkward, dysfunctional place in between the two.

Prove it. I do not see this as having happened. If anything has been caused, I suspect the primary effects of feminism is in perception, not reality.

Women are given the ability to take men's roles while men are stuck in their roles, and it makes things confusing for everyone.

Are men stuck? I can cite legal reproductive and child support laws wherein men are limited or required to fulfill roles. I see women being given opportunity, but for the most part not taking this opportunity. Ergo the equality is algebraic: 20% female applicants = 20% female managers. Hence why the irrational Feminists are unhappy with this equality, (20% = 20%) and instead advocate for an unequal 50% women in higher tier jobs, regardless of the percentage of female applicants choosing to do the job.

Women put more pressure on themselves because while they are now expected to contribute financially, men still have a stigma of being stay at home dads or taking on the household duties.

I agree that women PERCEIVE a pressure due to feminism's influence, but I have not measured it. Further, I do not know of a prevalent male force pushing women to provide financially. It seems her option, and thus only a perceived pressure. Marxist Feminism's goal seems to have been primarily concerned with doubling the workers in a communist society, and normalizing methods of human reproduction. Marxists held that Capitalist women wouldn't benefit from such pressure. Especially since the economy would merely adjust to two incomes. I've not done the research, but I suspect a strong favor among the capitalist elite for feminism.

Studies show that women are still expected to handle the lion's share of chores and child rearing because men have not been given the freedom or responsibility to fill traditionally female roles.

I think I remember a survey, so I can grant you women being expected to handle household chores, though men are fully capable. In my experience it falls to whomever has the free time. It's not like keeping a house clean, cooking, and doing dishes takes much time -- I cook and clean and it takes little more than an hour a day total (we have leftovers every other day). Seriously, time yourself when cleaning. If you haven't, you've got no leg to stand on.

However, what I take issue with here is the leap of logic. You wrote, "BECAUSE". I'm not aware of any support for the claim that women do housework BECAUSE men are stuck in gender roles. It seems a far simpler explanation to me that females have the instinct to nest, because that's what they've done for millions of years. For evidence I cite any of our Ape cousins' behaviors.

Feminists have essentially shot women in the foot because now they are expected to be everything without the men's movement to balance things out.

I don't think feminism needs unbalanced gendered expectations to shoot anyone in the foot. The censorship and division-ism of cultural Marxism is harmful to everyone. However, I don't see average folks "expecting" women to be everything without men's help.

There is a scale, but our society is so in the middle, it doesn't work out for anyone and simply causes more confusion and stress.

"It doesn't work out". That remains to be seen, eh? I don't agree with the feminist ideology (or any ideology without evidence), but I can point to financial success of the professional feminists in their government sanctioned programs -- It seems to be working out for them, regardless if the goals be steeped in misandry or not.

A men's movement is necessary to restore balance and complete the shift from rigid to fluid gender roles as it is unlikely people will be willing to go back to the way things were.

I think a men's movement is beneficial now, but that restoration is not possible. The victorian model is flawed. Perhaps we'll try something like the Ancient Greek's again. There are other ways to have balance. Eg: MRM wouldn't need to exist if the Human Rights folks were actually effective. Or, maybe if most folks rejected feminism, or men were more unified in their voting strategy (like the females seem to be).

Women NEED men to be equal if they don't want to go back to being helpless housewives.

I wouldn't say they NEED to be considered equals. I would say it's right to do so. I believe in meritocracy -- I judge based on merits, on an individual basis. If a man/woman wants to raise a family there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would rather the kids be raised by parents than the state. I challenge your "helpless" statement as not being true in the past.

There will still be issues given resistance and attitudes towards rape and slut shaming thanks to Puritanical values concerning human sexuality, but hopefully that can correct itself over time.

Again, prove it. "Puritanical values". What of women? Aren't women the ones doing the slut shaming? Wouldn't they slut shame without religion, being that females compete amongst themselves for reputation and status? Isn't that what we see regardless of creed? Prove your claim. I'm assuming the puritanical values not the cause of sluts being shamed, without denying that such events happen.

So try not to get discouraged by misled Feminists who think they should fight men rather than work with them.

If anything, it was the misled Feminists who think they should fight against the men furthering their own issues and censor opposition that caused me to don the title MRA in addition to my humanitarian efforts. I am only emboldened by them. Were there no such agents against MRAs, the MRAs wouldn't need to exist -- We'd all be focusing on maintaining egalitarian goals.

Hopefully this has given you some information to help you fight the good fight for true equality.

Sadly, it hasn't. It's a collection of hypotheses, but I put no stock in them without evidence -- at risk of becoming exactly like the feminists.

Note that the MRM needs no ideology to explain why we further men's rights. We can further men's rights simply because the rights are being attacked, suppressed, censored, or denied. We can further men's rights for equality. We don't need any explanation as to the exact reason why feminism is evil. Many MRAs are anti-feminist, but it's not a requirement. We speak of feminism often because it is ONE driving force that actively harms the rights of men.

Feminism isn't the only opponent. Humans left up to their nature see men as disposable, and care for women and children above all else, to the detriment of men. Corporate interests in lax job safety, Government furthering disposablility of men through war and lack of funding for mens programs, gynocentrism of the media ignoring male victims.

Sorry, don't mean to be harsh, but Men's Rights isn't defined by feminism. Find me some evidence I can believe in instead.

rightsbot · 2013-09-20T17:06:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

theozoph · 2013-09-22T17:14:53+00:00

Sorry, but people talking about "gender-fluid tribal societies" are talking out of their ass.

First, matriarchal families do not include men. Mostly, in matriarchal societies families are composed of women and children, with men forming a parallel society outside, from which women and children are excluded. This isn't gender-fluid at all, and I do not know of any truly gender-fluid society. Mankind simply never had the luxury of settling into this configuration.

What feminists and gender equalists try to experiment is simply unprecedented, and will probably fail in spectacular fashion.

/my 2cts

stickyk · 2013-09-20T23:12:34+00:00

Housewives might not have been financially independant, but that doesn't mean they were helpless.

And saying feminism has shot women in the foot is ridiculous. I'm quite fond of my right to vote and all the other essential human rights I now have thanks to feminism, and would give that (perfectly fine) foot for not having to go back to how it was before. Sure, women have to work extra hard now, but you're trying to blame feminism for it as a way to bash it, which is completely irrational.

Title	How Feminism has broken the system
Author	ladysuccubus
Upvotes	18
Comments	77
Date	September 20, 2013 5:04 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mscvv/how_feminism_has_broken_the_system/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-feminism-has-broken-the-system.1163352 https://theredarchive.com/post/1163352

Comments