Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 99

Thread: Hello =)

  1. #21
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Okay Dee, I'm finally home and can sit down and take another stab at it...

    Building on my earlier post...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    However, it (tilting) would certainly solve nothing since the competition for power and the struggle for it would certainly still exist, even more fervently. Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West? This is my main point and where I'm coming from .. along with all the questions and thoughts that are now seeking an outlet.
    I don't think it *was* originally. I think it became that way as the natural albeit unplanned/accidental result of Men having created enough labor-saving devices to free Women from their allotment of daily burdens. Which, in turn, afforded her a wealth of free time as a result. Not so much for the man though, he still had to continue to get up every day, go to work, do whatever arduous (generally) work he had to do, and then come home hungry and tired to his wife-- who had had the luxury of considerable more free-time during the day than he-- and thus was not so tired and up for adventure. Enough of that daily grind for both of them degenerated into contempt as she longed to spend more of her free-time doing other things outside the home and engaging in the outside world in ways she wasn't really able to previously-- and he existing in the same pattern (rut) as he always had, coming home tired and hungry just wanted a nice dinner, a place to put his feet up before going to bed to do it all again the next day.

    For all of Feminism's proclamations of freedom and choice and opportunities and empowerment-- all of that was only ever really able to be utilized and enjoyed by HER since HE still had to work for a living. But girls just wanna have fun, right? And slowly the dynamic began to shift away from the more or less equitable distribution of labor between the sexes to where it was primarily just him doing the labor and she engaging in other pursuits.

    In the beginning women started organizing primarily for local issues and social campaigns, such as the Temperance Movement, which targeting the social issues of alcohol, gambling, and prostitution. And in the process-- which included quite a bit of uncivilized behaviors as well-- developing the skills and tactics that would eventually set them up for taking part in the Suffrage movement. What started out being Universal Suffrage, turned into Women's Suffrage after most men were granted the right to vote as a result of their war-time service, particularly in the UK, but also in the USA. It's just that the linkage between the two is strung out farther in the States than it was in Britain where it was more immediate.

    As women enjoyed their successes-- however much was truly the result of their specific efforts is debateable, but the results were certainly real enough and in time who did what and how faded from memory and the popular notion of women as the architects of their own liberation sprang up into the popular imagination, no doubt shepherded along by the proto-Feminists. But the real driving force behind "Women's Lib" didn't occur until the advent of the Pill, which was the catalyst needed to kick things into high gear. And that's when the Feminists really started coming into their own as a thing, and a political entity. Along with their radical ideas of "bringing down the Man" and doing away with "the Patriarch" and by extension, "The Patriarchy"-- the system, which hateful Feminists claimed was built by Men for the purpose of advantaging Men over Women and keeping women bound to their kitchens in a form of domestic servitude. Which of course was absolute pure bunk. And moreover, it was ironically "the man" who was continuing to quietly go to work every day to bring home money and resources to provide for his family while the women were out burning their bras and declaring themselves liberated. (Someday, somebody really needs to sit the men all down and explain to them the right way to do oppression...) From there, the doctrine of hateful Feminism really began to pick up speed, helped along by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, Simone De Beauvoir, Kate Millet and all the rest.

    And man-hating has been a principle staple of Feminism the entire time. It's in all their writings, all their speeches, all their handouts and fliers, its in everything they say, everything they do. Feminists have NO LOVE for Men. Despite all their protestations to the contrary, you cannot and will not ever find any evidence of "Love" for Men by Feminists. No Feminist love songs for men. No Feminist poems or love sonnets for men. No Feminist novels extolling the many virtues of men. Not even so much as a Feminist "Thank You" note to men for building civilization, inventing all the cool, labor-saving devices and freeing women from their daily domestic duties so they could rise up and stab men in the back by way of thanks. Feminism is a hate group. It has always been a hate group. Feminists have always been hateful people.

    There has never been any reason to vilify men or to demonize men or to blame them for result of millions of years worth of co-evolution and joint society. That was all women's doing. Hateful women. Hateful Feminist women. Bent on torpedoing men for being the one thing they themselves could not be-- and for revenge, tearing down everything that was male or masculine as they work to establish themselves as the new ruling class. Dictators are easily recognized in every generation-- and in every gender. Feminists are basically the reincarnation of Hitler in pantyhose. Their methods are different, but their aim and sexist bigotry is very much the same. And even many of their tactics are similar. Not the same. Not exactly the same. Not detail for detail the same. That was then, this is now. And there are other ways to achieve the same result.




    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    Why is the struggle for power characteristic of both genders in the West?
    I don't know. You tell me. Men didn't start this war.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    Why were men initially labeled as "powerful", with "powerful positions" when in reality, they were merely struggling at work every day in order to support their families?
    Because that made it easier to cast them into the role of antagonists and rationalize their overthrow and the taking of all their stuff. Women said it-- "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Men did their jobs so well they freed up women from their labors so that women could turn around and thank them by kicking them in the nuts and tossing them out of society.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    - More importantly, why were Western men - way before feminism - demonized for showing human weakness through tears while Eastern cultures award the utmost respect to a man who cries, knowing that it results from extreme anguish?
    I think it has more to do with the expectations of women. That Western women have been more "impressed" by "manly men" who don't show weakness or fear, and those are the ones they have selected, which has in turn reinforced that trait in Western men, being a largely "captured" population up until relatively modern times. While the women in other cultures set different criteria for "manliness" and selected men with different traits. By and large it is the women who do the selecting, and the men who compete to get selected. This results in a high degree of "flamboyance" and large "showy" behaviors by males, who are all engaged in doing whatever they can to attract the attention of a female and thus receive the chance to mate. It also puts men in the position of having to vye for sex and women in the role of being able to dole it out as they see fit-- which they do to everybody's consternation. Men are thus made out to be the sexual aggressors while women get to sit back and claim they could care less-- even as they are every bit as concerned and compelled to engage in it as men-- again, they get the "softer" power which includes "plausible deniability". Elsewhere (in the forum) I have described the various mating strategies available to men (two, or more darkly, three) and women (one, or more darkly, two). Though as someone else used to point out, there were undoubtedly other secondary reasons such as love, kinship (not meaning incest), etc. which could also draw two people together provided the basic sexual chemistry is there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    - The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated.
    The only traits that flourish within a nation are ones that are valued and appreciated BY WOMEN.

    There, I fixed it for ya. ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    - In Eastern cultures, a much more normal attitude exists when it comes to emotional human traits and therefore, a much more balanced relationship exists between genders to this day.
    Yes, but the hateful Feminists are busy working on that as they endeavor to export their hateful Feminism to every corner of the globe. And with a shocking degree of success too, I might add. Witness the Japanese "Herbivore Men" movement, which seems to be an outright rejection of the traditional view of Japanese men, slaving away for their families-- "Death before dishonor" and all that-- along with the ever-increasing modern hateful Feminist onslaught which is hacking away at their cultural value and esteem faster than Jezebel can spew ad hominems. The situation for women there, while still nothing like it is for women here in the West, is rapidly changing and the worm is turning to put them more and more into the driver's seat. The reaction by men to the Feminist invasion is to tune out, drop out, and check out. More and more, all over the world, as hateful Feminism sweeps in, MGTOW Men check out. Men want nothing to do with the hateful cunts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dee View Post
    It's a "Kick-ass culture" and everybody's geared up and ready to go.
    We are what you women have made us. You wanted us to be caricatures of ourselves and our manhood / masculinity. That's what we've become. Men work hard to be what women want. If you don't like who we are, you have only to look at yourselves for why it is so.


    The hateful Feminists are the ones who drove the truck. But all the other women, including the ones who "didn't hate men" were busy tagging along for the ride.


    Men built civilization for women. Invented stuff to free them from their labors. And were still willing to keep going to work themselves to put them up, pay for them, feed them, clothe them, help them raise the kids. And women turned around and spit in their eye by way of thanks. What have women-- especially the hateful Feminist women-- ever done to free Men from their burdens? To make their daily lives a little better? Where are all the Feminist love songs for men? Where are all the Feminist poems for Men? Where are all the great Feminist authors extolling the many virtues of their men? Feminism is a hate group and all the hateful Feminists ever do is screech and harpy and belittle their men, demonize their men, vilify their men. Call them rapists and monsters and declare them unfit to be around children. As they work to "other" them and cast them out of society.

    Feminism is a hate group. You need look no further than the Feminists themselves and all their works to know it. Stack up the evidence of their hatred in one pile. Stack up the evidence of their hate in the other. And then measure them. You won't need an extremely accurate ruler. Perhaps one that measure in miles-- or maybe parsecs...
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  2. #22
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,400
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    What a great conversation starter!
    Yes.

    First, there was historically a clear division between the duties and labors of the sexes. Men generally did most of the "outside" work ("outside" with respect to the male-female team) while women did most of the "inside" work. To put that in another context, the woman and the kids/family, were the "home base" and women were essentially in charge of that.
    I just want to smuggle in here that before 1850 - 1900 (depending on where you look), the majority of people lived in an agrarian society (and then they moved to the cities to become factory labour). On a farm, the wife contributed 50 % to the wealth, such as it was, of any farm unit. Food that was produced outside had to be processed for storage and consumption, and a lot of food was produced in-house (dairy and poultry). A lot of clothing, if not most or all of it, was produced in-house, etc. etc. IOW, women were "workers" just as much as men, the farm was their "work place". Urbanization and mechanization eliminated women from the work force, and relegated them to the status of "housewife" - that's when a woman's work became "the house and the children" - which it had never been before. I'm pretty sure many saw that as a step down. And spending your time inside a house with dusting and cleaning as your nominal content in life must have driven them crazy. Yeah, well it did, didn't it ...?

    In addition to machinery that eliminated the drudgery of manual work (like, indoor plumbing vs. the hours spent carrying water every day ... there are some weird statistics ...), there is one item I always miss in these discussions,
    and that is The Pill. It's not an accident that both feminism and the number of divorces skyrocketed in the years immediately following its introduction. That was the single most potent weapon that gave women the power they have today.

    M

  3. #23
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Yes.



    I just want to smuggle in here that before 1850 - 1900 (depending on where you look), the majority of people lived in an agrarian society (and then they moved to the cities to become factory labour). On a farm, the wife contributed 50 % to the wealth, such as it was, of any farm unit. Food that was produced outside had to be processed for storage and consumption, and a lot of food was produced in-house (dairy and poultry). A lot of clothing, if not most or all of it, was produced in-house, etc. etc. IOW, women were "workers" just as much as men, the farm was their "work place". Urbanization and mechanization eliminated women from the work force, and relegated them to the status of "housewife" - that's when a woman's work became "the house and the children" - which it had never been before. I'm pretty sure many saw that as a step down. And spending your time inside a house with dusting and cleaning as your nominal content in life must have driven them crazy. Yeah, well it did, didn't it ...?

    In addition to machinery that eliminated the drudgery of manual work (like, indoor plumbing vs. the hours spent carrying water every day ... there are some weird statistics ...), there is one item I always miss in these discussions,
    and that is The Pill. It's not an accident that both feminism and the number of divorces skyrocketed in the years immediately following its introduction. That was the single most potent weapon that gave women the power they have today.

    M

    That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times. I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family. It is more of an executive function and not particularly that of a servant-- certainly no more than *he* was any kind of servant-- or you could say that *she* WAS a servant, and then have to agree that *HE* was also. Whichever way you want to frame it. You just can't say it was only one and not the other.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  4. #24
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,156
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times. I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family. It is more of an executive function and not particularly that of a servant-- certainly no more than *he* was any kind of servant-- or you could say that *she* WAS a servant, and then have to agree that *HE* was also. Whichever way you want to frame it. You just can't say it was only one and not the other.
    There is often an ignored factor about these things, that tends towards making it rather absurd.

    This things never happen to any particular standard.

    A man can work 'outside' to the best of his ability and opportunity, yet still end up with a miserly pay to take to the 'inside' as his contribution. He will be entirely blamed and condemned for this, he will also be expected to compensate even at the cost of his own self sustenance, as in many cases of child support.

    A woman can determine the quality of the 'inside' work, she can spend time raising children to hate and blame their father, they can be raised in squalor, a husband can return to squalor. There is no balancing state influence on this, a man can either make a good choice or a bad choice for a partner, and he will have to accept the consequences. Social services exist to alleviate a woman from pressures, not to set a standard of performance.

    So called 'social pressures' massively more impact the deadbeat dad rather than the deadbeat mum.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  5. #25
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    There is often an ignored factor about these things, that tends towards making it rather absurd.

    This things never happen to any particular standard.

    A man can work 'outside' to the best of his ability and opportunity, yet still end up with a miserly pay to take to the 'inside' as his contribution. He will be entirely blamed and condemned for this, he will also be expected to compensate even at the cost of his own self sustenance, as in many cases of child support.

    A woman can determine the quality of the 'inside' work, she can spend time raising children to hate and blame their father, they can be raised in squalor, a husband can return to squalor. There is no balancing state influence on this, a man can either make a good choice or a bad choice for a partner, and he will have to accept the consequences. Social services exist to alleviate a woman from pressures, not to set a standard of performance.

    So called 'social pressures' massively more impact the deadbeat dad rather than the deadbeat mum.

    Yup.

    And that is a large part of the reason why courtship used to be a formal thing.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  6. #26
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,400
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    That was largely my meaning when I said that Men have traditionally been engaged in the "outside" work, and women with the "inside" work. I don't necessarily mean literally "inside", like inside the house at all times.
    Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.


    I meant dealing with the homestead and issues related to the home and family.
    Tasks that fell on husbands, too.

    M

  7. #27
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.
    Exactly, and I alluded to that also, though I didn't state it outright. I wasn't trying to get bogged down in the specific eras, but just go for a general gist of the progression / transformation of the homestead and the workplace.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Tasks that fell on husbands, too.
    M
    Lots of things seem to fall on husbands...
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  8. #28
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,156
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Of course not. The main point, however, is that women have always had a workplace. There was a blip when they hadn't, between 1920 and 1960, and now they are working again, although not from home.



    Tasks that fell on husbands, too.

    M
    To be honest, I've always felt working class women have been dragged into this, and feminism was a middle class women's movement. I grew up with women and around women, who expected to work for a living and expected to get married and have kids. They didn't view it as 'having it all' they just viewed it as wanting family and having to earn money. There were women around who worked less 'outside' jobs, perhaps the greater amount, but can't think of any I grew up with who didn't work at all. The work they often did was local, shops on the high street, school, council, library, GP's etc. They didn't want to be far away from the kids.

    Feminism has kept building for working class women reasons for them to fear their males. It has attacked and undermined the working class movement of men by undermining the homes that was the reward for working a job and having family. Never understood that from working class women's perspective, I've studied local local working class women activist. No doubt they were strong, determined and capable. They ran their own groups, fought for their own issues, had their own identities. They didn't hate working class males, they aimed to struggle alongside them. I look at this as characterised by the difference between Sylvia Pankhurst, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

    Feminism is and was too artifice constructed, it reeks of a middle class dilettante female jealous of the fact that the middle class men she was expected to be beautiful for in order to hook, didn't actually work very hard for a living and had status and praise passed to him for arrogance and ordering others about.

    Since then it's evolved and grown into a whole range of jobs for middle class women that make them feel like saviours and let them preach to working class women. Before schooling was handed over to feminist influence, I'd characterise working class women's response to feminism by one I witnessed, where a feminist was going on and on to a woman working in textiles. Saying she was underpaid, abused and used, the worker started laughing at her. The feminist didn't give up shifted over to promising to get her more money, to which she got the reply 'that'll be okay, more money is good, but I won't hold my breath" laughed then went back to her work.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  9. #29
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,368
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    To be honest, I've always felt working class women have been dragged into this, and feminism was a middle class women's movement. I grew up with women and around women, who expected to work for a living and expected to get married and have kids. They didn't view it as 'having it all' they just viewed it as wanting family and having to earn money. There were women around who worked less 'outside' jobs, perhaps the greater amount, but can't think of any I grew up with who didn't work at all. The work they often did was local, shops on the high street, school, council, library, GP's etc. They didn't want to be far away from the kids.

    Feminism has kept building for working class women reasons for them to fear their males. It has attacked and undermined the working class movement of men by undermining the homes that was the reward for working a job and having family. Never understood that from working class women's perspective, I've studied local local working class women activist. No doubt they were strong, determined and capable. They ran their own groups, fought for their own issues, had their own identities. They didn't hate working class males, they aimed to struggle alongside them. I look at this as characterised by the difference between Sylvia Pankhurst, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

    Feminism is and was too artifice constructed, it reeks of a middle class dilettante female jealous of the fact that the middle class men she was expected to be beautiful for in order to hook, didn't actually work very hard for a living and had status and praise passed to him for arrogance and ordering others about.

    Since then it's evolved and grown into a whole range of jobs for middle class women that make them feel like saviours and let them preach to working class women. Before schooling was handed over to feminist influence, I'd characterise working class women's response to feminism by one I witnessed, where a feminist was going on and on to a woman working in textiles. Saying she was underpaid, abused and used, the worker started laughing at her. The feminist didn't give up shifted over to promising to get her more money, to which she got the reply 'that'll be okay, more money is good, but I won't hold my breath" laughed then went back to her work.

    Feminism has largely been an upper-middle class thing. Working women have to work and don't have the time. Upper class women don't care. They have power. It's never been about "Patriarchy" anyway, it's been about money all along. Which is one of the reasons why Feminism is so fucking wrong.

    I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  10. #30
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,010
    Rep Power
    25
    Dee, welcome back!
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •