http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
[video=youtube;JymN5yu-K_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o[/video]
Betty Friedan is a feminist right? lol she is sort of the mother of modern feminism.
MGTOW, MRM, MRA mens rights, what gives?
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
[video=youtube;JymN5yu-K_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o[/video]
Betty Friedan is a feminist right? lol she is sort of the mother of modern feminism.
I stumbled across this on the internets. Very interesting blog...
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-breivik-paleoconservative.html
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-breivik-paleoconservative.html
Not anti-, but it doesn't concern itself with them.
That's where you missed my point.
I disagree with the 'niche' part.
Anti-racism has been far far more effective than say, the black rights movement... once people started to see that these were actual people and that they were capable of the same things that they were, then there was a connection made and the imbalance started to be corrected. I'm not saying it has been eliminated, just that there's far more sympathy for the plight of the oppressed now than there was in the recent past... and in many ways the concern has become more global as well.
This has nothing to do with militant groups like the original feminists and the Black Panthers, but because of people like MLK whom everyone could identify with-- mostly because racism and oppression are things that ANYONE can, or can at least imagine themselves experiencing-- whether it's economic or social or anything... and therefore people in general can identify with it. You don't see too many White or Asian people getting super-interested specifically in black rights, except in perhaps a voyeuristic way-- because the whole phenomena, necessary though it may be, feels exclusive... unless you can find some common ground or relate to it on a personal level. But you DO see people getting extremely interested in preventing racism in general and taking steps to open their minds.
General anti-sexism or anti-discrimination would be a far far more effective strategy for correcting the imbalance than feminism at this point, because I think that most people recognize that oppression in general is wrong. Stimulating empathy and doling out information is a key part of persuading people, but again this works better in terms of individuals than groups... UNLESS you appeal to the groups with which the individuals identify and actively seek to include them in your cause.
And no, I don't have my 'panties in a bunch' (nice), I just don't like being ganged up on and mocked when I'm expressing a valid point.
I know who Betty is lol, she wrote the Feminine Mystique...
I doubt any rational sane human being could agree with her in this case... funny enough the american feminist groups tend not to be sane or rational. They once were, but as with most causes, when you win you turn into the new tyrant to replace the old.
This is completely unrelated and if you're comparing my posts to right-wing fascist propaganda then once again you've missed the point.
The blog article here is about someone demanding that oppressed groups conform to a pre-existing standard, and mocks the idea that the standard should be reformed at all. It sets up false dichotomies and makes everything black and white when it's actually far more grey. It selectively excludes instead of attempting to universally accept. The feminist model has far, far more in common with this than what I'm expressing here.
Last edited:
I didn't realize I was taking a condescending tone-- I definitely didn't think it was more condescending than 'I don't even know where to begin with this'.
You mean the system demeans itself?
I'm not defending the men's movements and I'm not blaming women for anything-- I'm criticizing feminism, which, despite what some people seem to think, is not perfect. And not all women are feminists. You seem to have jumped to some very large conclusions about me the second I dared to criticize feminism, even though I'm probably equally if not more critical of the men's rights movements. If I've emphasized the positives of the male movements in my post, it's because there doesn't seem to be any question here over the positive merits of feminism.
And again, you're making it about taking sides here-- as if you can either be a feminist (or in the case of what you just said, a woman), or an evil force of oppression.
There's no middle ground?
There was a shift of power. These men lament that "their natural rights" were taken away from them by feminists, government and social engineering.
For one, women are no longer dependent on them. "Back in the day" women were socially and practically obligated to marry early and to be virgins or at least not "cock riding sluts", which ensured that every "decent" guy could have a wife drop into his lap without much effort. Women's financial independence and new social and sexual freedoms make them choosy and insolent.
Most of these men earnestly believe that women are by design inferior to men in many ways, intellect, emotional maturity, morality, so on, and that it's a natural fact being perverted by society's current attitudes. Women are like fickle children that NEED to be put in line by a man. So when they see women earning more, getting better education and career opportunities they get angry and jealous because what is rightfully theirs is being taken away by the government and feminism.
It's no longer acceptable to "discipline" ones wife or girlfriend, even though the women need it and secretly crave it, and the man will be punished very seriously.
Women's new liberties in sex and relationships means it's "impossible" to get a "good" girl who's not a cum guzzling slut. Women are sexually and morally depraved, have no control or reason to govern their impulses and the men can no longer keep them in line...
Everyone keeps looking at this thing at ground level!
Zoom out a bit
Ask yourself who is behind all these various movements...trace the flow of funds
The game plan of the people funding these various movements is to break down the current structure of society to create a new one. The new structure will probably resemble something in between Huxley's 'A Brave New World' and Orwell's '1984'
It will be a totalitarian government that monitors every aspect of our lives and tranquilises all our anxieties.
Children will be raised by the state while both men and women work for the state. This will increase tax revenue and allow the state to indoctrinate the children
The wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair (who can be seen talking about the New World Order on youtube and took Britain illegally into war in Iraq) Cherie Blair has publically commented that women should go back to work as soon as possible after giving birth
This is because she is privy to the agenda of the elites which is to have all children rasied by the state and to have all adults working for the state
For as long as men and women squabble amongst themselves they will not be able to stand together unified against the common threat of the people who are trying to manipulate both parties
Don't be their plaything, look behind the veil and see the puppetmasters pulling the strings and everything will begin to make sense
Zoom out a bit
Ask yourself who is behind all these various movements...trace the flow of funds
The game plan of the people funding these various movements is to break down the current structure of society to create a new one. The new structure will probably resemble something in between Huxley's 'A Brave New World' and Orwell's '1984'
It will be a totalitarian government that monitors every aspect of our lives and tranquilises all our anxieties.
Children will be raised by the state while both men and women work for the state. This will increase tax revenue and allow the state to indoctrinate the children
The wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair (who can be seen talking about the New World Order on youtube and took Britain illegally into war in Iraq) Cherie Blair has publically commented that women should go back to work as soon as possible after giving birth
This is because she is privy to the agenda of the elites which is to have all children rasied by the state and to have all adults working for the state
For as long as men and women squabble amongst themselves they will not be able to stand together unified against the common threat of the people who are trying to manipulate both parties
Don't be their plaything, look behind the veil and see the puppetmasters pulling the strings and everything will begin to make sense
Last edited:
This is true.
I was raised in a legit patriarchal home. I unfortunately know this attitude all too well. I remember my father saying that he would never go into business with a woman.
After at least a millennium of overt oppression the feminine is compensating globally. Most of what passes for "Feminism" is women embracing their own inner critic which they do at their peril. But rather than being morally depraved (with the exception of the celebrity/celebrity wanna bee circuit) I believe we are seeing an age of feminine moral chasteness. One is far more likely to encounter frigidity in the female population than the opposite.
It is not that the men fear societal punishment for "keeping their women in line" but rather the changing dynamic within men who are beginning to abandon despotic patrimony.
I think that in some ways the deconstruction of our 'former' identities has been extremely quick-- probably too quick to have been something that just spontaneously 'happened', and more like the product of a lot of influences and conflicts that have been occurring throughout the centuries. It just seems highly highly unlikely that the history of the human race has been anything but a lot of back and forth, stability and instability, liberty and oppression etc… and all of this back and forth has ultimately produced a conflicted and confusing sense of who we are and what we are 'supposed' to do. Things like patriarchy, religion, slavery, colonialism… all of these things were rooted in ideas about the true nature of human beings, and they provided us with answers, even if they were false and oppressive.
Feminism, along with various other social change movements (I would also include things like minority rights, children's rights, worker's rights, anti-nationalism, globalization and atheism) have largely dismantled the previous oppressive norms, but they have also produced a sort of apocalyptic post- modern confusion where nobody really knows what it means to be human.
I can't remember who said it exactly, but one of my professors used to throw out the idea that '(people) are condemned to be free'… so as liberty increases, so does confusion, and our sense of place is eroded. This means that in addition to basic survival, we now have to concern ourselves with trying to find a meaning and an identity and a sense of place in the absence of clear signifiers. We use narratives to try to explain things, and some of us can even be confident about their bearing on objective reality, but ultimately they cannot be universally true-- because the truth, if it ever did exist, has either been buried or destroyed. Male insecurity really isn't so different from female insecurity-- it's all about trying in vain to recapture or create a universal sense of place.
But now we have generations who are increasingly being born into a society of remnants-- remnants of male or female roles, remnants of religious ideas, remnants of races, ethnicities, identities… and for each and every one of these things, there's this sense of having missed out on them, or not really believing in them, or desperately trying in vain to revive them against colossal amounts of resistance. This isn't to say that it's a bad thing that they're no longer 'the norm', just that without that norm it's much more difficult to find your bearings.
There's a great Canadian thinker named BW Powe who insisted that in the coming age, identity is probably going to be more important to people than anything else… I would have to agree with that statement.
Feminism, along with various other social change movements (I would also include things like minority rights, children's rights, worker's rights, anti-nationalism, globalization and atheism) have largely dismantled the previous oppressive norms, but they have also produced a sort of apocalyptic post- modern confusion where nobody really knows what it means to be human.
I can't remember who said it exactly, but one of my professors used to throw out the idea that '(people) are condemned to be free'… so as liberty increases, so does confusion, and our sense of place is eroded. This means that in addition to basic survival, we now have to concern ourselves with trying to find a meaning and an identity and a sense of place in the absence of clear signifiers. We use narratives to try to explain things, and some of us can even be confident about their bearing on objective reality, but ultimately they cannot be universally true-- because the truth, if it ever did exist, has either been buried or destroyed. Male insecurity really isn't so different from female insecurity-- it's all about trying in vain to recapture or create a universal sense of place.
But now we have generations who are increasingly being born into a society of remnants-- remnants of male or female roles, remnants of religious ideas, remnants of races, ethnicities, identities… and for each and every one of these things, there's this sense of having missed out on them, or not really believing in them, or desperately trying in vain to revive them against colossal amounts of resistance. This isn't to say that it's a bad thing that they're no longer 'the norm', just that without that norm it's much more difficult to find your bearings.
There's a great Canadian thinker named BW Powe who insisted that in the coming age, identity is probably going to be more important to people than anything else… I would have to agree with that statement.