Understanding Feminism.

martianmarvin · 2014-06-28T23:57:21+00:00

The goal of feminism is to make a society where men and women are as “Equal” as possible.

Why do people keep saying this? This is not nor ever was the intention of feminists. See, e.g.,

http://tomjameslaw.com/blog/19th-century-mothers-rights-legislation-in-the-u-s/

The author quotes from the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls convention and observes,

The resolutions quoted above make it clear that first-wave feminism was not entirely, or even primarily, an “equal rights” movement. Although an equal right to vote was part of the platform, the ultimate objective seems to have been to ensure women’s primacy in the law, not mere equality. Hence the resolution quoted above, that the obligation of the law to make women happy was “superior” (not merely equal) to all others. The declaration that asserted that custody should always be decided in a way that makes a woman happy was contrary to the judicially developed principle that the custody of children should be decided solely on the basis of a determination of what was in a child’s best interests.

Taken together with the resolution that the “superior obligation” of the law was to ensure the happiness of women, it is clear that the prevailing belief among these early feminists was that judges, when making custody decisions, should dedicate themselves to making women happy, not protecting children’s best interests. That would be consistent with Stanton’s supremacist views about women and men. According to her, “We [Women] are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free and developed, healthy in body and mind, as we should be under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory.” 4

Feminists made no effort to extend the male-only child-support obligation to women. Rather, they were committed to advancing and promoting sex-based stereotypes according to which women’s naturally superior and proper role was that of child-raiser, while men’s only legitimate function was to provide material sustenance for women and children. This kind of supremacism was congruent with the sexist judicial philosophies that had spawned the tender years and maternal preference doctrines, and it helped cement those doctrines more firmly in the law than they already were.

Edit: Added some paragraph breaks in the quotation.

PIBagent · 2014-06-29T02:26:19+00:00

The goal of feminism is to make a society where men and women are as “Equal” as possible.

Here is a run down of a post submitted 3 years ago in the Men's Rights sub that points out what bullshit your argument is:

(title)Feminists tell you that the solution to men's issues is more feminism. In reality, feminists fight against men's issues.(title)

"Recently we've had some articles by feminists such as Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Schywzer arguing that the solution to men's issues is more feminism. All issues that men face are due to patriarchy and toxic ideas of masculinity, which feminism fights. Therefore feminism is the answer.

In fact, the complete opposite is true. Feminists fight AGAINST men's rights.

Here are some examples to prove my point.

Father's rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.

Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW's own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don't give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.

Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man's life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man's name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.

Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal.

"The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism."

Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.

Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.

Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies.

Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.

And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.

The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.

Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.

Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges."

Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.

Men want society to stop thinking only men commit rape or only women can be raped.

Feminists rolled out the dont be that guy posters, which portray all rapists as men.

Or here is noted feminist Mary Koss (author of the famous 1 in 4 study):

Clinical psychologist Mary P. Koss of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who is a leading scholar on the issue, puts it rather bluntly: "It's the man's penis that is doing the raping, and ultimately he's responsible for where he puts it."

Men don't want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.

Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.

Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.

Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn't deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).

Men want the issue of suicide (predominantly male) and educational failure (predominantly male) addressed. Feminists protested several recent events at Canadian universities using such methods as physically blocking entrances and pulling fire alarms. The justification was that the organizing group was a hate group, and the speaker (Warren Farrell) was a rape apologist. The full 2+hour talk was posted online - there was nothing like that discussed. Subsequent events did not even feature Warren Farrell in any way, yet were still met with protests, illegally pulling fire alarms, etc.

Men want society to stop stereotyping men as pedophiles.

Feminists created this billboard campaign portraying all pedophiles as men. Read more about it here

As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men's rights is a blatant lie. Don't believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women's rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men's rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality.

Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.

It is reasonable to conclude from these two facts that feminism fights to harm men."

Please see the original post under "interesting discussions" in the side bar of the /MR sub for post links, should be the first item.

TL;DR

Don't tell us feminism helps men too, it's insulting.

onemorereddit · 2014-06-29T01:49:03+00:00

There are many feminists with positive intent, but I don't really appreciate being needlessly vilified constantly. Feminists are so hysterical and biased -- to the point where they refuse to see any perspective but their own.

Are there plenty of feminists that don't behave this way? Sure.

Are there plenty of feminists I personally know that don't behave this way? Absolutely!

But the loud, protesting masses, the #yesallwomen folks, the angry tumblr folks, the folks writing movies and laws that are aimed at what a monster I supposedly am? They're never going to give a shit about me, and they're NEVER going to trying to ensure that I'm treated fairly.

Most feminists are about advancing women, whether it harms men or not. I don't hold that against them, but I'm certainly not going to root for them.

barleymoo · 2014-06-29T00:10:38+00:00

The thing is, feminism is a political movement. They think they're victims, that they're saving civilization. Every tyrannical movement thinks this.

They're angry too. However it's a spiritual law that people are never angry for the reason they think. The true cause of their anger, as has been stated before on TRP, is their own natures: part of them resents the fact they automatically submit to alpha authority, as if a switch had been flicked in their heads.

I can sympathize with that. I would resent it too, in more rational moments.

But I can't sympathise with the fact that they 'kick the dog' and try to blame beta men for this, also punish little boys for it. And, by the by, make themselves miserable in the process.

It's a problem, and you don't solve problems by blaming people.

rebuildingMyself · 2014-06-28T23:15:37+00:00

Don't defend an ideology based on their stated intentions when their actions so clearly and conclusively prove that to be subterfuge. A core tenet of TRP is that things are what they are, not what people tell you they are, and not what you'd like to believe they are. Feminism is what it is, and it is not about equality.

greycloud24 · 2014-06-29T00:19:09+00:00

feminism is destroying society because it enacts laws to force ideals that are based on fantasy.

lets say you live in a house, and you are inside it one day when it catches on fire. you pull out the feminist fire extinguisher and spray it only to find that it has been filled with gasoline. you see gasoline has gotten a bad wrap as a fire retardent, and they wanted to keep things equal so they filled half of the fire extinguishers with gasoline. they ignored reality and acted on fantasy, and now you are in a burning house and you just sprayed the fire with gasoline.

that is what feminism is doing to society. it is giving "fixes" that actually cause more social damage. it is addressing problems based on emotion rather than on measurable effects. it doesn't address reality, it invents fiction and then implements fictional cures to misunderstood/misidentified problems into real laws, and real policies that effect real people.

hidingthis · 2014-06-28T23:33:43+00:00

[permanently deleted]

jacks1000 · 2014-06-28T23:18:51+00:00

Their primary goal is not evil, and I think many people here would like to be in this type of egalitarian society.

Nope, it's evil. "Egalitarianism" is an excuse to "fix society." I like society just fine, no changes please.

oven- · 2014-06-28T23:50:04+00:00

However, this society is not possible; the feminist’s explanation of gender roles is that they are all societal constructs. That a man’s attraction to big breasts, are all because of the media, and that a women’s disinterest in math and sciences are all due to people pushing her down. Now, we know through science that this shit is not true. None of us are born equal, and this is what feminists can’t accept.

Why do you say that this society where people are treated equally is inaccessible - do you have any evidence of this? Also, the fact that we're sexual beings and that we're sexually dimorphic is more or less irrelevant. "Now, we know through science that this shit is not true. None of us are born equal, and this is what feminists can’t accept." Again, no one ever besides stupid radicals meant equality in a literal sense.

The crux of all social justice (whether you believe feminism is a true social justice movement is up to you) isn't to make everyone equal. It's to insure that someone's disability or disadvantage is supplemented and aided; equity, not equality.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story of a destructive regime in which some people were hurt or handicapped for having advantages they can't control. It's called "Harrison Bergeron". I feel like you guys (readers of the red pill) think that men are threatened by feminism, or perhaps just annoyed. I am no outspoken feminist, however some of beliefs align with feminist writers. That being said, I am not outspokenly against it.

I may have left some things out, so if you need clarification as to what my point is or whatever else, just respond to this comment.

reddishman · 2014-06-29T14:46:03+00:00

Equality is not possible between men and women.

If a man and a woman are equal on paper then the woman has more value because of the fact that she has a vagina. </redpill>

niczar · 2014-06-29T15:28:41+00:00

Something I was trying to tell self-identified atheists on reddit who find themselves alienated from their family or social sphere at large because they live in a backwards place in the third world or in the Southern US, is that they shouldn't defined themselves as being this or that but rather what it means to them. You can call me an atheist because I don't believe in any gods.

I don't usually call myself an atheist; not because I dislike the word, but because it is not very useful. "I don't believe in gods" is not significantly longer than "I'm an atheist." It is however a much more precise and doesn't invoke as many negative prejudices. But more importantly, it does not define you as in a different group from other people, just merely as having different characteristics.

Same for all the various denominations the LGBTQWTFOMG movement comes up with on a weekly basis. "I have sex with men", "I have sex with men and women" is more precise and more useful than shit like "I'm gay / queer /bi / whatever". It's also factual, as opposed to being judgemental, even and especially applied to oneself.

Same problem with feminism. I think men and women should have equal rights, and that they often have the same potential in many endeavours. Am I a feminist? I also ~~believe~~know that men and women have significantly different preferences and behaviours, and that it's deeply rooted in biology. Am I an anti-feminist?

The word is largely meaningless.

exit_sandman · 2014-06-29T10:42:25+00:00

However, feminists aren’t these evil women curling their fingers while they watch the world burn. Majority of feminists, are middle to upper class White women, that think they are impacting the world in a positive way.

Of course they do. So do socialists, and this brought us stuff like job security, welfare, retirement payments, fair pay etc. But it also brought us political system that can only survive with barbed wire and gulags.

2014-06-29T15:22:47+00:00

[permanently deleted]

cooltrip · 2014-06-29T12:01:49+00:00

I copy & paste myself...

If men and women were actually equal, feminists would not choose Alpha over beta (transitive property). However, you will find no gender-equality defender choosing beta over Alpha.

By the way, my friends, let me tell you this:

The "gender equality" feminism talks us about does not mean "men and women are equal", since, for instance, men can't get pregnant, or women won't run 100 meters faster than men, or they won't get awarded as many Science Nobel prizes as the most feminist country in the world awards to men.

The "gender equality" feminism talks us about means people should only be rewarded/punished by the inequalities they can be responsible for (for instance, a lazy man versus a hard-working woman), but they shouldn't be rewarded/punished by the inequalities they cannot be responsible for (for instance, a man with Down syndrome versus an intellectually gifted woman).

For instance: if there are certain biological physical differences between men and women that women are not morally responsible for and that will make women fail the physical tests men have to pass in order to work as firefighters or cops, then women should be given easier tests. This is the actual "gender equality" feminism talks us about.

So this "gender equality" attempts to deal only with the inequalities people can't be blamed for; which, logically, implies the very recognition of the existence of such non-guilty, natural, biological inequalities (therefore, formal feminism recognizes men and women are not equal; formal feminism aspires to see these non-guilty, non-responsible inequalities compensated by the government, similarly to how disabled people should be helped by the government too)

The "women are equally capable to men" is just a popular, informal, vulgar, inexact "gender equality" proposition or approach Disney tries to sell us all.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: no feminist complains about Alpha; every feminist loves, desires, needs and prefers superior Alpha over inferior betas; no gender-equality defender will ever despise Alpha for his superiority and marry an inferior beta she has to maintain, for this beta's inferiority; the secret goal of feminism has nothing to do with gender equality; the secret goal of feminism is just to get rid of inferior betas and the rest of non-Alpha. Feminists just want the sexual freedom to respond "No, I don't want to have sex with you" to betas, a sexual freedom women had not in the oppressive past. The only rape a woman can suffer is male inferiority.

Title	Understanding Feminism.
Author	hidingthis
Upvotes	30
Comments	50
Date	June 28, 2014 10:49 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/29cpy5/understanding_feminism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/understanding-feminism.17200 https://theredarchive.com/post/17200

Comments