Feminism is Anti-male

Right now my latest one is 23, I’m about to be 39. I didn’t hit on her or anything. She just came along and basically made it clear by grabbing me by the crotch and then keeping in contact and coming over to bang in her spare time. So maybe it’s not always older guys going for younger women, but the other way around.

This seems like an abandoning the field of discussion. It would apply to all arguments, it seems, with those you disagree with who are on the left.

I should add that I am also con-feminist. There are many feminists and feminist positions I am against. But when one dismisses all they have done and been for and against, it is just silly and binary where there is complexity.

Great, I would even word it the same way.

This has happened. I would say more often the problem was that it promoted hardened lines, from which problems for all parties would continue to eminate.
This has included way to much focus on controlling how people communicate, rather than getting us to where everyone can be expressive, even when it is unfair, so we can hash stuff out.

Yes.

There are also huges spaces, bot private and public where women as still seen as emotionally infantile, for example, and the women in those spaces have to perform better than men to be taken seriously. Or make more noise, etc.

There are still a lot of spaces where a woman without a male gardian is seen as inviting sex, and either this should allow it or is a bitch, if not worse.
A turning Point for me around this issue was when I Heard from women how many times men have shown them their penises in parks, how many men walk up to them and say fucked up shit, in daytime, how much they HAVE TO be Cold in these situations
and yet if they are Cold when there unwanted advances
they are called cunts
or other names
and not just by some weird old pervert on the street, but via gossip channels that affect work, social lives and more.

If I read your post it’s like things were basically equal, then feminism keeps pushing things and now men are viticims more than women.

I see it as, yes, feminism is going too far in a number of areas and this can be really fucked up. There are even some environements where men have the lower hand.

But I still see a lot of areas where women are treated like shit in ways men are not and these are norms.

I still see men in most of the Power positions, so if things are fucked up, it is still primarily coming from the decisions of men.

So it would be odd to blame women for the problems of post-modernity or current society. Even weirder to blame a subset of women, feminists, for making the modern World fucked up. Most of what we face is due to the decisions of men.

FAir enough, and I’ve been in a situation where I have had to tell feminists, for example, that in a discussion of sexual abuse of Children, it is not OK to refer to the victims as she all the time or the perpetrators as he. And if they then argue that this fits statistics, I tell them that this is a staff meeting, we have to be here, and at least one of us experienced it the other way around, and out of respect for him and any others, they should be empathetic and professional. This is not Always the result.

Feminism isn’t necessarily wrong. If men are such a bunch of weak, low-testosterone, cuckold faggots that they would permit women to be feminists, then women deserve to rule over them, and the weak men deserve to suffer all the consequences of their weakness, the ultimate one typically being getting conquered by a more virile, patriarchal group.

The only problem I have is that I live in the same society as these weak men, and so am forced to share in the consequences of their decisions. I could give less of a fuck if some faggot in another group is so weak and stupid that he can be convinced by a woman to give her power. In fact, having men in other groups be weak is probably even a benefit to me, for obvious reasons.

So how about we have different societies. One society for non-feminists and one society for feminists.

Feminism in society is the political manifestation of weakness in men. Patriarchy is therefore the opposite, the political manifestation of strength in men. Of course, there are outliers, so if you are a patriarchal-minded man in a 90% feminist society, tough shit, and if you are a feminist in a 90% patriarchal society tough shit, but a political regime can only be in place if enough people agree with it, and men can only agree with feminism if they are weak, especially mentally, but typically physically too.

And needless to say, all other factors equal or approximately equal, a patriarchal society defeats a matriarchal (feminist) one every time.

The rich are getting richer. I just read a book about a trend in society where the rich and powerful, the elite, are no longer seen as legally punishable. Even the supposedly liberal media does not like when rich and powerful people might be sentenced to prison. Suddenly judges, prosecutors and the media begin to talk about putting it behind us, about how harsh the shift from freedom to prison would be for a hedge fund director or a politician, how it must be political. IOW it is not just that the rich and powerful can hire much better legal representation. It is that the US no longer is a land ruled by law. The law is no longer applicable to the rich and powerful. Of course there are exceptions, but there is now a systematic no longer even charging people with crimes, if they have positions of power in the private or the public sectors, then dropping the cases, giving probation, pardoning them, etc. Not simply because their lawyers are better, but because of how the judges, prosecutors and the media view a rich and or powerful person going to prison. And this can be for precisely the same crimes. Drug crimes, violence, whatever.

The US has not been a democracy for a long time. It is an oligarchy. Now the rich are not held accountable for crimes.

So I see a thread like this in which feminism is given so much power. You are fighting over scraps. It is nto the feminists who are taking away your power.

It is the elites.

And while republicans and democrats and feminists and anti-feminists and antifa - and alt. right demonize each other and scuffle and blame eachother for the end of the good society,

the people with real power giggle there way in and out of the banks that they own and that own us.

Specific issues with specific policies and ideas in these various groups are great to argue about. There is a lot of fucked up shit out there,even created by people with relatively little power. That feminists have created some horrendous policies and demonized people who should not be demonized…agreed. Each of those groups I mentioned above has proposed some good stuff and some bad stuff and some horrendous stuff.

But they do not have the power (some democratic and republican politicians have soem power, though most as just fronts in debt to peopel in real power).

But when someone want to blame any one of those groups for most of the problems, paint them as THE threat, they are confused and worse, they are helping the people who are fucking us all over. People who do not give a shit about either side of any of those splits into groups above. People who love that these groups exist and joust with each other.

There are still facets of society that need a feminist challenge. There are areas where feminism has fucked things up. Likewise each of those groups.

but saying that the white man in Europe will become a slave because of feminism, is radically not noticing that feminists and all the others with relatively little power will be slaves also. And already are.

Karpal Tunnel that’s off-topic but wow man you’re brutal. I’m just here taking it one step at a time, but you wanna get to gassing Jews and their traitorous puppets and accomplices immediately. Slow down, man.

Maybe we don’t need to exterminate them all. Maybe we can just remove these subversive degenerates from power peacefully.

But I guess you just want this and there’s no stopping you.

Karpal Tunnel for the next fuhrer?

There’s just no stopping him.

@Karpel

If men are sometimes perceived as being more competent at work, women are often perceived as being more competent at everything else, at managing domestic affairs, at health, at relationships, at staying out of trouble, essentially at being life smart.
I mean are you saying women and society don’t have any, or many ‘negative’ perceptions of men, or that these negative perceptions don’t hinder men, in any way?

In popular culture, if men are depicted as heroes more, they’re also depicted as villains more, as gangsters and thugs, as drinkers and drug addicts.
Look how men have been depicted in sitcoms from about the 80s onward, comparatively.
The male characters, from Al Bundy, Tim Taylor, Ray Romano, Dough Heffernan, Homer Simpson to Peter Griffin are depicted as well meaning idiots at best, hapless and helpless without the aid of the women in their lives, and at worst, downright psychopathic.
Men are often depicted as loud and obnoxious, mentally and emotionally stunted, socially inept, perpetually adolescent, preoccupied with base things like drinking, sex, junk food and sports.

Now you could say: well men earned that reputation.
Really?
In some cases they didn’t, and in others, well maybe that’s only because they’ve been socialized into being as such, just as women have, apparently been socialized into being stay at home moms, instead of ambitious and career driven, so perhaps if women, and men started seeing men in different light, they would change…not that that’s what I want, really I don’t give a damn, I don’t care either way, if men, or women change, but it’s a double standard, to attribute all of women’s, ‘shortcomings’ to discrimination and socialization, and all of men’s, perceived ‘shortcomings’ to biology, or freewill.
‘Well that’s just the way they are, they’re inferior’.
What’s good about women is intrinsic, what’s bad is extrinsic.
Conversely what’s good about men is extrinsic, what’s bad is intrinsic.

And these attitudes we’re permitted to hold towards men, I wonder what implications they have for the following:

Women are more likely to win custody in family courts.
Women are more likely to take men to the cleaners.
They’re less likely to be homeless.
They’re less likely to be incarcerated, even for committing the same crimes, with the same criminal history.
Much more attention and money get poured into women’s health issues.
So called ‘couples therapists’ typically side with women over men.

These’re just a few examples of areas where men are disadvantaged, and women overprivileged, at least in part, because of societal prejudices.

If there’re more men at the top echelons of society, in politics and big business, there are more men at the very bottom, making up the majority of homeless, incarcerated and institutionalized.

And what about injustices men face?

If a woman accuses a man of physical or sexual abuse, he’s automatically perceived as guilty, if he’s been exonerated by the courts, well, he’s still kind of guilty, somehow, in any case many wouldn’t want to be associated, or do business with him.
If a man accuses a woman of physical or sexual abuse, at best he is laughed at, and at worst, well, he’s guilty, he must’ve deserved it, he was cheating on her, or mistreating her somehow.
If a woman murders someone, well, she was crazy, someone or something drove her to it, if a man murders someone, he’s a coldblooded psychopath.
If a man gets attacked by a woman in public, *shrugs, if he defends himself from her attacks, he runs the risk of being lynched by a mob.
Female genital mutiliation happening in Asia, big problem, male genital mutiliation happening in NA, the EU and Australia, *shrugs.

And there are virtually no social, or legal consequences for women caught lying about being raped, when they ought to be imprisoned, ostracized and shunned.

And there is no ‘rape culture’.
A few isolated individuals with archaic beliefs, or a few sociopaths hardly constitutes a culture.
I have never met someone in person who condoned rape under any circumstances.
If someone walked around town, handing out flyers that said: ‘it’s okay to rape women under certain circumstances, like if they’re scantily clad or drunk’, he would not make it out of town in one piece.
98% of men don’t think rape is okay.
Not a majority, not a significant minority, only a tiny minority of scattered individuals, most of them social lepers and outcasts, do.

That’s hardly culture.
The closest thing I can think of that comes to rape, counterculture is gangsta rap, which’s promoted by the progressive media, mind you, or the radical Islamists we’ve been importing, who’s very existence is ignored, if not denied by progressives, the very ones lecturing us about ‘rape culture’.
If they’re really concerned about it, perhaps they should be addressing gangsta rap and radical Islam, but they don’t give a fuck, probably because their agenda is as much or more about attacking white men, as it is about defending women.

And there’s a lot of drug dealing, murder and theft going on out there, but we don’t refer to it as murder culture, or theft culture.

And In our culture, it’s still primarily men who’re expected to be sexually outgoing.
Sometimes they come on too strong, on the other hand, sometimes they get slapped in the face for just trying to be nice, or express interest.
Sometimes women are coy, adding to, some men’s confusion.
Sometimes women play head games, feign interest, only to use them for sexual, financial or other favors.
I wonder how women would do if the shoe was on the other foot?
Women by and large, are the selectors still, they have more power in many ways, in relationships.
It’s men who put themselves out there, to be accepted, or rejected, who take the risks.

Population groups are never going to be equal.
Do you know why?
Because they’re not equal, not in talent, nor tenacity.
Jews and some Asian immigrants outperform whites economically and educationally, they also have lower homeless and incarceration rates, and women are now outperforming men educationally, and have always had lower homeless and incarceration rates.
While part of the inequities we face are probably due to discrimination, they’re also due to biological differences between groups, and cultural differences, as well as different choices individuals within groups happen to make, and so on.

If Askhenazi Jews culturally value academia and banking over drugs and crime, and have higher IQs than the mean, why would we expect them to be equal to other population groups?
It’s absurd.
There’s always, always going to be differences between groups, however ‘big’, or ‘slight’.

While women seem to be as intelligent as men, as far as iQ tests are concerned, and as far as iQ tests are presently designed, perhaps they’re less intelligent in ways we can’t, or aren’t measuring, or perhaps they’re less ambitious, or just aren’t interested in the sorts of high playing jobs, like STEM, taking on leadership roles in academia, business and politics, as men are.
Who cares?
No one would so much as bat an eye at the suggestion that women make better parents than men, that that’s why they’re awarded custody more, or women are less antisocial, that that’s why they’re incarcerated less.

Studies have indicated while there are more male geniuses, there are also more male idiots, proportionately, so perhaps that’s at least part of the reason why more men are found in both the upper, and lower rungs of society, whereas more women are found in the middle.

But none of this should come as a shock or surprise, progressivism is after all an ideology, first and foremost, it’s not science, altho like conservatism, it sometimes make use of, or abuses, manipulates and masquerades as science.
Some say it’s about promoting equality between population groups, but there’s nothing necessarily scientific, or reasonable about wanting to do that, in fact, in some cases it’s damaging, or impossible to, but read in between the lines, it’s not just about promoting equality, it’s about women, minorities and their useful idiots getting ‘revenge’ against white men.

Arguably, males and females have always had it about equal, we just had different roles.
If you measure value solely in terms of how many individuals from your group are leaders in politics, business and academia, than yea, white men are number one, but oddly enough, that in itself is kind of…patriarchal way of measuring value to begin with, in a sense.
Ironic, isn’t it?
If you measure value more in terms of health and safety, women live longer and are healthier today than men, less so today in fact than they were in the 19th century, for as long as records have been kept, they’ve been living longer.
What population of slaves can say they’re being taken care of in many ways, better than their masters?
No population of slaves at all, that’s what.

Again there are less homeless women, less incarcerated and institutionalized women.
Women are more likely to receive help from men and society when they ask for it, etcetera.

Is it better to have more members of your group in positions of power and prestige, or would you rather have more support from your community and the state?
Friends and family you can confide in, especially in times of mental and emotional distress?
One of the reasons why men drink more, is because there’s fewer outlets for their release.
Perhaps it’s one of the reasons why men commit suicide more, too.
Because society doesn’t sympathize with male grief, or poverty, sickness and so on.

What is quality of life, and which population group really has it?
While men may’ve had more power than women historically, and contemporaneously in some ways, and while sometimes, some men may’ve abused this power, many more men have been fair, and generous with women.
If women have had less power, they’ve been valued by society more.
Again, it’s, women and children first, when disaster strikes.
To this day it’s predominantly men who take the dirtiest, most dangerous and physically demanding jobs.

And furthermore, insofar it really existed, how much was patriarchy just as much or a product of women’s attitudes about themselves, and what they couldn’t do, and weren’t willing to do?

If things are about just as fucked up for both sexes, or more fucked up for men than women, in a lot of ways, than what does that tell you? Perhaps power doesn’t matter so much, at least when it comes to relations between men and women, because men care about their mothers, sisters and daughters, just as much, or perhaps even more at times, than they care about themselves, their fathers and sons, and so their power, shouldn’t be as suspect, as feminists are making it out to be.

Again, this is a very overt, simplistic and ironically, masculine way of defining power.
For centuries, women have been the power behind the throne.
Women have always had power, it’s just been exercised more, discretely, indirectly, by manipulating those with overt power, which they’re very good at.
If men are physically stronger, and in more positions of official political and economic power, women are experts at manipulating them.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
There’s a tendency in males to downplay their pain and suffering, with women it’s just the opposite, there is a tendency to shout it from the rooftops, to blame everyone and everything else instead of taking responsibility.
Men tend to feel more shame for crying, for being a burden.

If men are violent (statistically far more towards themselves than women, mind you) bastards, than women are vindictive bitches with a forked tongue, and they know just how to wield it and what buttons to push to get their way.
Women’s emotional and verbal violence is in fact all more dangerous in many respects, because a man’s is easily recognized for what it is.
A woman’s is all the more fiendish and insidious, for it dresses itself up in sheep’s clothing.
Instead of attacking it accuses, blames, cries, denies, redirects.

There’s a kind of false machismo that says: men can’t be hurt by women, and if they are, it’s their own fault, because hey, we’re men, we’re strong, but when the police and family courts are on her side, you damn well bet your ass, she can.
Women want to be able to give vitriol without receiving any in return.
Well I want to say enough is enough, I am sick and tired of the double standards.

You know what, I don’t even give that much of a fuck about men’s issues or women having it better in some ways, I am just sick to death of all the bitching and complaining feminism does on the behalf of many, but not all, women.
If anything, I guess I’d rather see more acceptance of the way things are in society, the good, bad and ugly, but if there’s going to be a women’s movement than there needs to be a men’s and/or a genuine equality movement too, because you know with some women, and femininists especially, it’s never enough, you can never, ever please them.
I am tired of the media bashing men, of the one way sexism.

Actually, this is an excellent post, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Feminism has been and still is a secondary, even a tertiary issue for me, my main interest is this dehumanizing corporatocracy we live in, and how it’s subjugating working class men, women, liberals and conservatives alike, and ruining the environment on which we all depend.
They do have us fighting over scraps and crumbs from their table, by design.
While liberals and conservatives disagree over solutions, ideally at least they ought to be able to come together on the problem: society is rigged by and for the 0.01%, and drastic measures need to be took, but unfortunately they can’t, because mainstream liberalism and conservatism are themselves, rigged.
I don’t identify as liberal or conservative,I would never box myself in like that,I am,whatever makes sense to me

Just because a population group is physically weaker, doesn’t mean it’s inferior, or of less value, or it can’t attend to its own needs, and ours, better autonomously than it can shackled.

It does. Superiority and inferiority are established through conflict.

In the above sense of dominance and superiority, it indeed does. There are, of course, other kinds of value.

A separate argument but you’re wrong about this too lol.

Feminism itself can be considered an incomplete accounting fallacy, as it only ever complained about the downsides (costs) of being a woman and rarely if ever acknowledging the upsides (benefits), while doing the reverse for men and only pointing out the upsides of being a man and refusing to acknowledge the downsides. Gloominary here is doing nothing more than trying to complete the accounting.

@Thanatos

In society, they’re established through competitively collaborating…well ideally anyway, in reality it’s a combination.

Women as a whole are physically weaker, and less capable of defending themselves and others, but they have other advantages, like the capacity to give birth.

Women are not another species, what’s good for them, so long as it’s not bad for us, is good for us.

And women are not big children, they understand their needs as much or more than we do, but we can’t rely on them to fully appreciate our needs either, which’s why men need to be autonomous too, not only politically and legally, but in relationships as well, we can’t expect them to always be mindful of ourselves, just as they can’t expect us to always be mindful of them.

exactly, that’s all I’m doing, for nearly every advantage men have, there’s an equal and opposite disadvantage, if society expects more from women here, here and here, than it expects more from men there, there and there.

While at times our roles have been different, and at others similar, depending on the civilization, and how urban it was, society has done a, not perfect, but pretty fair job at balancing things out, in the main, until feminists gained too much power in the mid-late 20th century, that is, to spin that malicious, pernicious, sexist lie, that men have it too easy, and are malevolent oppressors.

Rhetoric like that is wrong, hurtful, hateful and divisive.
Feminists have reimagined men and women as warring tribes, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Men and women always have been, and always will be part of the same tribe, our success depends on how well we take care of each other, what hurts one, ultimately hurts the other.
Life would not only be impossible, but miserable without each other.

Some men, and women in the men’s rights movement want to go to the other extreme, and claim women had it too easy, that they’ve had all the rights and none of the responsibilities.
I say enough is enough, let’s burry the hatchet instead of each other.
Men and women both had and have it hard in ways, and we should see ourselves by and large as well meaning, but imperfect partners in life.
We need to heal from the discord feminists and others have sown between us and between families.

Perhaps the most important point you made is that feminism destroys male-female relationships in society by creating a social order which makes men and women competition (and skews this competition in favor of women and feminine entities), so basically it makes men and women enemies. But biologically, men and women evolved to cooperate, to develop bonds for the purpose of reproduction. They don’t want to consider each other enemies. It’s a perverted situation.

The real competition has always been between different groups of men, not between men and women. Destroying cooperation between men and women is just another way of making a group more vulnerable in relation to real enemies.

You just can’t here that there is a counterpart masculinism where all sorts of ideas about what women are and how they are the enemy is just part of everyday guy talk. It doesn’t even need a name we are so used to it. And it is very effective at making males and females enemies. Of course feminism goes overboard, but I never hear you guys complain about porn, for example. You’ve been swimming in masculinism, and there are good forms of this and f ucked up ones, but we don’t even have to give the thing a name, because it’s the water we’ve swum in. Now when women come along and talk shit about men it’s like they invented systematically talking about the other sex like they were _______fill in the blank with a negative word. Women who have sex with someone else are sluts or whores. Women who don’t have sex are cold bitches. Women only like bad men, not nice guys. Women only want money. Women are shallow and that’s why she dumped you and went for X. There are of course higher discourse versions of this and then implicit versions in media. Things swang and now it is a complicated mess rather then the women as ditzes or femme fatales or boring housewives in medie 60 years ago. And men get the short end of the stick also. But when I see this blanket condemnation of feminism without any peek at the dark side of masculinism which was in charge for so long it just comes off trite and personal.

If some women get shamed for being sluts and whores, some guys get shamed for being virgins, fags or for not having ‘game’, so it goes both ways.
And have women not always said: men are shallow, they only like bimbos, or men are only in it for the sex?

Women always talked lots of smack about men, it’s just it was rarely written down, because there were few women writers.
And even if we did talk more smack, we also compliment women more, as we’re more vocal and direct about what we like, and who we love.

My problem is not that women are allowed to publicly talk smack about men, my problem is, men aren’t allowed to, my problem is the hypocrisy, the do as I say, not as I do, the double standard.
That being said, I agree with Thanatos that men and women should try to come together more, and realize both sexes have shortcomings, as well as, things to be proud of.
It’s not a competition, even feminists all came from eggs fertilized by their daddies sperm.

And while more men are in positions of political and monetary power than women even today, as they have been throughout much of history, which was possibly as much to women’s collective liking as it was men’s, that doesn’t necessarily mean men were collectively abusing that power, on the contrary, today, society, politics and law often favor women’s interests at men’s expense.
While we can only speculate how happy 19th century and earlier women were, 19 century women were living some 5 years longer, and in many ways taken better care of than 19th century men.
Remember it’s, ‘women and children first’.

Bob wrote:

There are some good points in the above and it shows a clear and concise understanding of both male and female and their obligations to each other. It shows the wiles that both sexes use to get what they want and that is how it should be.

The women who initially championed Feminism did not think like men although they tried to and now they live to regret.

In the beginning of this movement the elites funded Feminism and allowed it to happen, they saw monetary gain and power and the way to do it was to divide and conquer, primarily destabilise society and tax both men and women. The outcome of all this sets the stage for a New World Order, can’t buy or sell without a chip, which means a cashless society, which is already taking place.

Before feminism the basic unit of civilisation was the family, with Feminism all this fell apart, women with families dependent upon husbands now became dependent upon the State.

Feminism is NOT about equality, it is about destroying the family and it’s about women who are now suffering because of it,
it is about anti authority to a husband,
it is about children abandoned and not having fathers.
it has failed BOTH women and men and it is still being used as a tool so that the State can have primary control.
it is about fake freedom, and

There is nothing noble about Feminism, it is a way and means for total control of both sexes.

What the fuck are you on about with this “masculinism”? What does it mean and why is it wrong or bad?

I never made any of these claims and I’m not interested in defending them.

Especially when a group is entering without those particular problems, where their social bonds between the genders are intact because of strict religious ideology, then this only allows a potential conquest upon those who are less organized.