Is History Repeating Itself?

grasshopa · 2016-12-24T11:41:15+00:00

ya, I dunno. Today's feminism seems to be about being MORE equal than men. All the privilege, none of the responsibility.

Suffrage was about the right to vote.

I realize it's a radical position to have around here, but I do believe that previous iterations of feminism had their place because there were real inequalities. I think that largely was settled decades ago though, and today's feminism is so deluded they don't really understand what they're fighting for.

2016-12-24T15:13:49+00:00

I have spoken with some disdain of the suffragette. What is the matter with her, fundamentally, is simple: she is a woman who has stupidly carried her envy of certain of the superficial privileges of men to such a point that it takes on the character of an obsession, and makes her blind to their valueless and often chiefly imaginary character. In particular, she centres this frenzy of hers upon one definite privilege, to wit, the alleged privilege of promiscuity in amour, the modern droit du seigneur. Read the books of the chief lady Savonarolas, and you will find running through them an hysterical denunciation of what is called the double standard of morality; there is, indeed, a whole literature devoted exclusively to it. The existence of this double standard seems to drive the poor girls half frantic. They bellow raucously for its abrogation, and demand that the frivolous male be visited with even more idiotic penalties than those which now visit the aberrant female; some even advocate gravely his mutilation by surgery, that he may be forced into rectitude by a physical disability for sin.

All this, of course, is hocus-pocus, and the judicious are not deceived by it for an instant. What these virtuous bel dames actually desire in their hearts is not that the male be reduced to chemical purity, but that the franchise of dalliance be extended to themselves. The most elementary acquaintance with Freudian psychology exposes their secret animus. Unable to ensnare males under the present system, or at all events, unable to ensnare males sufficiently appetizing to arouse the envy of other women, they leap to the theory that it would be easier if the rules were less exacting. This theory exposes their deficiency in the chief character of their sex: accurate observation. The fact is that, even if they possessed the freedom that men are supposed to possess, they would still find it difficult to achieve their ambition, for the average man, whatever his stupidity, is at least keen enough in judgment to prefer a single wink from a genuinely attractive woman to the last delirious favours of the typical suffragette. Thus the theory of the whoopers and snorters of the cause, in its esoteric as well as in its public aspect, is unsound. They are simply women who, in their tastes and processes of mind, are two-thirds men, and the fact explains their failure to achieve presentable husbands, or even consolatory betrayal, quite as effectively as it explains the ready credence they give to political and philosophical absurdities.

From H.L. Mencken's In Defense of Women - something to read over Christmas.

Devilsgun · 2016-12-24T10:55:13+00:00

It's the nature of the beast - Womyn who are ugly culls, failures at being decent human beings, and losers tend to congregate, hence Feminism

Ultramegasaurus · 2016-12-24T11:41:41+00:00

Nope, even the most ugly and vile feminist cunt can have men.

Title	Is History Repeating Itself?
Author	Imnotmrabut
Upvotes	16
Comments	11
Date	December 24, 2016 10:43 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5k2jhp/is_history_repeating_itself/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-history-repeating-itself.935187 https://theredarchive.com/post/935187

Comments