I agree with the first quote. However, the dual standard of feminism dis not allow men to be men. I remember in the 1980's, when feminism was going mainstream, the precursor of PC language censor was spawned. There could no longer be mailmen only mail persons. Then that was changed to letter carrier, to get rid of mail since it sounded like male. It had to be gender neutral no matter how silly it sounded.. Somehow the word mailman became hate speech coming from male chauvinists pigs who were trying to keep down the females. Guys would scratch their heads and let them have their way to shut them up; women's prerogative. Men felt that white lies were better than nagging, but in 20/20 hindsight truth and short term nagging should have been used since the lie encouraged irrationality; modern liberalism If you opened a door for a female, to be polite, who just so happened to be a feminist, instead of being considered a polite gesture, this was like an act of war in feminist alternate reality. Men would get a chewing out with hate speech that was not hate speech since women did it. If males had clubs that were for males, this was sexist. Only females could have female only clubs and not be sexists. The dual standard was spawned (female and binarius) with the ground work tactic for PC being laid. The tactics worked because males ate the apple, assuming the ladies were leading all of us to a better place. They did not realize she was only doing this for herself at the expense of others. Which feminist fight for men? What is interesting now; I was watching an episode of Law and Order, which is a TV cop and lawyer show in the US. A female cop called her superior officer, who was female, Sir. That made me think, wow, how things cycled back. This might be so the young people don't have any paper trail as to how this all began. If anyone recollects the past, they assume they have to be making this up. Do feminists accept responsibility for the rise in poverty in children, since they helped drive the men away? Some females did well, but more females ended up on the short end of the stick, requiring far more public assistance, increasing the social costs for all. Maybe the feminists will volunteer to cover the tab they created.
A very destructive thing that has happened is that some women feel that it is demeaning to do something nice for their husband or boyfriend. Such nonsensical ideas are very unnatural.
How does feminism relate to natural instinct? If we took away force of law and social prosthesis such as quotas and supplemented social costs, could feminism still exist in a natural state? I would guess no, since it needs the dual standard, PC word games, law to shackle the males and social cost supplements for the women and children left behind as victims of friendly fire. A good analogy for feminists are zoo animals. This is not natural and would not last on its own. However, if there is enough artificial support, this situation is sustainable. If the zoo keepers and all the needed artificial prosthesis were removed, the zoo animals would decline quickly. Liberalism creates so much social cost, because it tends to be unnatural; needs zookeepers. I believe in freedom of choice, including feminism, but only as long as the cost of zookeepers does not takes away choice from those forced to supplement the zoo. Freedom of choice for all would involve choices that don't require propping up one group at the expense of anyone, unless done by charity not law. It needs to be self-sustaining. Would feminism be self sustaining, if they had to cover any costs they create in culture. Or do we need zookeepers to prop it up at the expense of natural selection?
Your forgetting the world has too many people, so comparing humans to animals and saying this is not natural is wrong. There has to be feminism so that people control the birth rates. Having people reproduce on there urges would be stupid. Look at some countries that do this, and there population is out of control.
I'm ALL for gender equality, no more "never hit a woman" or "women first"(when it comes to evacuating dangerous situations) bullshit for me to put up with. That's all special treatment, not equal treatment.
You do realize, Balerion, that both of the examples I mentioned have their grounding in entirely misogynistic views, right? The original reason you were never supposed to hit a woman was because that woman was property, either yours or that of some other man(likely her father or older male relative if her father wasn't around). Damaging the property of another was(and still is) almost universally illegal and damaging your own property was often considered a sign of mental illness. Similarly "women first"(again, we can ignore the "children" part of that) stems, in part, from the view that women are weaker and more fragile than men(yes, men are physically stronger than women, on average, but this was a universal assumption applied to just about every aspect of life) and thus were in need of greater protection(the other significant contributor to this social custom is the disposability with which nature treats males, a human female can only bear young a couple at a time while one man can impregnate hundreds of thousands of women in his lifetime). I don't ascribe to either of these beliefs, so I see no compelling reason to hold to either of these anachronistic behaviors. If a someone strikes or otherwise harms a loved one of mine and this someone happens to be a woman, we she's just shit out of luck because you can bet your ass that I'll strike her as hard as I can. If I have to choose between my brother and I getting into a life raft or giving up our spots to two females, they better know how to fucking swim. Equal treatment for me means nothing less than actual equality, across the board, there's no reason for me to give them any special protections or preferential treatment unless I stand to gain from it(such as getting laid). Personally I prefer gender neutral codes of conduct. Instead of "never strike a woman" it should be "never strike the first blow". Instead of "hold the door for the lady" or "pull out her chair" we should reserve such assistance for those who actually fucking need it, like the disabled, the elderly, or the sick(whether they be male or female or something else).
I'm an egalitarian, so no. Feminism or at least the outspoken feminist is all about getting equality for women but not about getting equality for men, to them men are the cause of all their problems and not also suffers of social gender roles. Why is it funny to kick a man in the balls but not funny to strike a women? I think assault is assault, in short you should never strike anyone, no matter the gender! The only exception I can think of is if they are physically assaulting you and its self defense.
I would probably add an exception for the defense of others as well Electric, but then I consider myself as having failed as a human if I don't defend those I love and care for.
A bunch of whiners inventing silly tales of fantasy grievances and then complaining that nobody thinks they're real men. Where does sour stupidity like that even come from? These are the same clueless who will be seen down the road arguing that black men (whose children those are) don't have the character to be good fathers and can't get work because they have lower IQs.
That's a neat story, but it's not reality. Women as property enables violence. It dehumanizes them and makes it easier to treat them poorly. That's why in every single culture where they are considered property or inferior or sub-human, violence against women isn't just popular, it's accepted. Go to any culture where this is true, and you'll see it. I'm pretty sure the Quran even has instructions on the proper way to beat your wife. No joke. I assume the concept of keeping one's hands off women emerged from chivalry and prior analogous social codes. Yeah, there are certainly some wrong-headed ideas in there, but women are generally smaller and weaker than men, so hitting them was seen as ignoble. That's not misogyny. Yes, saying you should "never" do that is silly, since there are any number of potential scenarios in which it would not only be called for, but necessary, but nobody in their right mind would apply that rule to such a situation. It's just like any other general statement. I mean, do you always need to look both ways crossing a street? Not when you're crossing a one-way street, or live at the end of a dead-end road. "Women and children first" was never applied universally. Some ship captains employed it as a rule during evacuations, but in most cases, as is the case today, the people who actually needed assistance were given priority. And, according to the wikipedia page on the matter, a 2012 study concluded that men are more likely to survive a sinking ship than women or children, so it apparently has never been very popular. Have you ever heard of a case in which a man defends himself against an aggressive woman being criticized for it? I haven't. And certainly anyone who would criticize you in that situation can be dismissed as an idiot. You don't need to change the world for that to apply. This sounds to me like you're angry at women for something. Like they're getting too good a deal, or something. To a degree, sure. But there are differences that should be accounted for. How many women do you know that are bigger and stronger than you? Well, why do you draw the line there? Why should you never strike the first blow? What do you mean "reserve?" Can't you do both?
This is wrongheaded. Feminism is the attempt to balance the scales. They don't fight on behalf of men because men don't need anyone to fight on their behalf. As a sex, we've already got it made. We rule the countries, we run the businesses, and we have the money. For the same reason punching a girl in the tit is funny. Because it's a sensitive area of the body, and reactions tend to be severe.
See right there, that is why feminist are not truly egalitarian. Women have rule countries now, fought in wars, can vote, men do not have universal power over women in the western world anymore, in fact women abuse men physically just as much as men do, but stereotypes are that only women are beaten, women get lesser prisons sentences then men, women usually win custody children, men have social pressures on them just like women do: to be handsome, buff and rich, and there are still millions of bitches that expect to find a man that will free them from work by paying for everything. Tell the abused husbands no one needs to fight for him because he is a man is sexists and that is fundamentally what feminist are, sexist, because to them only women have problems in society. Punching a girl in the tits is funny? You got some sick laughs there. Punching a girl in the tits in not nearly as damaging either.
Oh wow, they can vote and fight in wars and are no longer property of their husbands. I guess that means all things are equal! Oh, wait... What do stereotypes have to do with feminism? What does any of this have to do with feminism? How is this feminism's failing? Ah. We finally come to the real reason you despise women. Women are nothing but bitches looking for a free ride, right? Who says no one needs to fight for battered husbands? There are plenty of outlets for them. Again, what does this have to do with feminism? You're talking about spousal abuse, which is a domestic violence issue, not a gender issue. You've never seen one girl punch another in the boob? You've really never laughed at a guy taking one in the junk? There are entire clip shows practically dedicated to it. And for the most part, taking a nutshot isn't going to do any damage. Lighten up.
@Balerion -- Then you just plain haven't been looking. I know quite a few men who've been jailed and prosecuted for defending themselves against women, even when the women had deadly weapons and they didn't. My friend's psycho ex pulled a knife on him and he was the one who got arrested when the cops(whom he called) showed up, he wound up spending six months in prison because of it. No, I'm not saying that this always happens, but that it happened even once is too much. Unfortunately the world is full of idiots, morons, and the like. I mean, come on, we live in a world where thousands year old texts are considered to be more accurate than the most well demonstrated science. No, but I need the world to change for it to stop happening. So because I dislike the thought of giving women preferential, as opposed to equal, treatment because of their gender, I have to be angry at women? Damn, you're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't use "crazy logic". Rather than jumping to insane conclusions you might want to ask a few questions first. However, you've yet to explain why I should like it when social contrivances seek to give another person the upper hand over me. I mean, it seems that you have no problem with women disliking it and attempting to stop it, is it unacceptable for me because I'm male? Given that I'm 5'5, weigh about a buck twenty(at the moment), and haven't been physically active in nearly a decade? A good number of women are stronger than me, however that's completely irrelevant. If, as a man, I pick a fight with someone who's physically stronger than I am, does it magically become "wrong" for them to strike me? Of course it doesn't, but if I were a woman picking a fight with a man the man would be socially(and potentially legally) castrated for striking me back. THAT is sexism. Rather than telling men that they shouldn't hit women, perhaps we should be telling everyone not to pick fights with people stronger than they are unless they're willing to deal with the potential consequences(such as taking an ass whipping). Because there's no rational justification for escalating from the verbal to the physical. And guess what? To this day I've never once been the person to throw the first punch, so it actually can be done, by anyone. Why the fuck should I?
The women of first world countries really do have a lot going for them and depending on the country are superior under the law. They get lesser crime times, tend to get child custody, have services to protect them if abused as spouses (unlike men), are more educated, get maternity leave. Sexist problems still remain for them individually but systematic patriarchy no longer exists at a state level. Issues of first world feminist like Anita Sarkeesian crusade against sexism in video gaming are first world issues, they don't compare to the sexism that women in the developing world experience which are horrific. Everything actually. The belief that women are weaker, more nurturing, are more oppressed, that all men are rapists and oppressors. Some of these may be true on average but we should not live on "averages", on generalizations, we need to treat it specific to individuals, individually! Any individual failure of justice is a social failure in my opinion, any justice systems that operates on generalities will have failures of justice, even if they are a minority. If feminism was for EQUALITY these outrages would not be tolerated, women would be protesting court houses "Equal Crime, Equal Time!" The issue of spousal abuse is most outstanding though. When hundreds of scientific surveys reveal that women are just as likely as men to be abusers, the feminist movement has been keen to deny all of it as some kind of misogynistic conspiracy against them! To feminist the idea that women can be abusers somehow destroys the plight of female victims of spousal abuse, or worse destroys there concept of a patriarchy because in this instant the systems is stacked against men: how can that be when society is always twisted by patriarchy to serve men first? Because the patriarchy in that since does not exist anymore, it now consist of gender roles and the oppression to the freedom of individuals those roles play, both women and men. Many "feminist" may in fact be for equality, even when that means the few ridding privileges that women have in some situations, but these feminist generally stay silent as more "extreme" minority spout abject misandry and therefore they all support a cause that has been hijacked by hate. I advocate they switch to the side of "Egalitarianism" or "Humanism" Why is it that any retort to feminism is always equated with misogyny? SOME women are in fact Bitches, by their own admission in fact, just as SOME men are Assholes, the law should have EQUAL contempt for these PEOPLE. Feminist. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminis...partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/ http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/feminists-vs-battered-husbands/ No there are not. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...ed-to-close-its-doors-due-to-lack-of-funding/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/17/no-room-for-men-at-the-abuse-shelter-but-fido-can-tag-along/ Again the vocal part of the feminist movement denies that. http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/failfamt.htm "When I returned to England for the publication of my book ‘PRONE TO VIOLENCE,’ I was met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators. ‘ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS,’ ‘ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS,’ read the placards. The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour. By then I knew that my position in America could not be permanent. The women’ movement there was even stronger and their strangle hold over the refuges( called shelters) and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. Although I was invited to lecture, every time I did the gender feminists were waiting to invade my workshops and to heckle my speeches. The threats and the persecution began again. Finally, one of my dogs was shot on Christmas day on my property, and I knew the time had come to leave." What about when a man punches as women in the boob, is that wrong, is it ok when a women does it to another women, but not ok when a man does it? Why is it Ok for a women to punch a man in the nuts? No I haven't, I do laugh at people that inflict injury to themselves out of idiocy. But it not funny to assault other people, think of it this way: if someone can press charges, its not funny, perhaps you don't live in the "very serious" world of law suits? Now you might think kicking someone in the balls was funny then, but if you happen to bust someones nut you aren't going to think it is funny years later when your still paying for it.
Anything can happen once. Exceptions to the rule are just that--exceptions. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not keen on taking your word for it when you say your buddy got railroaded, but even if that did happen (and it almost certainly didn't happen the way you've portrayed it here) so what? What does that say about anything? The police make a mistake, and all of a sudden we have an epidemic? Rather than it being a case of women being treated as more important than men, couldn't it be a bias on the police officer's part because he's used to cases in which the man comes up with some bogus story about self-defense when in reality he's been the aggressor? I mean, sure, we know that domestic violence is perpetrated by both sexes roughly equally, but women report it far more than men do, and men do far more physical injury to women, so the perception among law enforcement is going to be that the guy is usually at fault. Yes, it's bias, but it's one based on experience, not some inherent indifference toward men or reverence for women. That's disturbing, but it doesn't change the fact that those people can be dismissed. Yes, I suppose you would need perfection from law enforcement and the legal system. Sadly, that's never going to happen. No. You're angry at women because you've misconstrued the balancing of the scales as "preferential treatment," despite all the evidence to the contrary. To the misogynist, women finally being treated as equals amounts to them being given special privileges. It's only ever the misogynist who decries the rise of women to equality. You never hear anyone else worrying about it. I wonder why that is? No, you use misogynist logic. ie "This happened to my friend, so it must happen all the time to all men, and it must happen because women have more rights than men." You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. Again, this problem doesn't exist. If a woman attacks you and you strike her in self-defense, you've done nothing wrong. Not legally or morally. Who are these people saying you're in the wrong? Oh, right, this one time your "buddy" got thrown in jail for "defending himself." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why can't we do both? Women in general are smaller and weaker than men, and tend not to have the same social upbringing that men do. It's not some arbitrary distinction. Sure there is. But okay, at least now I know your justification. Well I have, and sometimes I've found it to be beyond my ability to control. But this is a great example of you projecting personal experience onto to the whole of society; because you have been able to control yourself (a feat made far easier by the fact that you've probably been outsized in most encounters) then everyone can. Why the fuck would you have a problem with it?
A Note on Open Misogyny I always adore these stories; they're so self-pathetic. I knew a guy who once got in a fight with his girlfriend. When the police arrived, they didn't arrest him. She had assaulted him with his own staff, which would generally be enough to compel me to say nothing while he beat her into the ground, but we're civilized people. When the police accounted for the damage—the glass table broken over his back, the knife-slashed interior of his precious Honda CRX, they offered him a choice. He could have her arrested or not. He elected the latter. To the other, nobody said a damn thing when my girlfriend ran me down with a Ford Bronco, but that's the way it was supposed to be; it was a joke that got out of hand. And when the dude's wife tried to run him over with an SUV because he didn't vote against Obama, yeah, my sympathies were with the poor bastard who was stupid enough to marry her in the first place. Should he have seen the domestic violence coming? No, I don't see how anyone can enact prevention techniques against their spouse deciding to murder them because they didn't vote, but in the end that only testifies toward ... um ... something. But the problem, as I see it, is half-witted men coming up with what my father described as "Auntie Em" statistics; that is, something might be true, but "My Auntie Em" isn't like that. Over and over again. There is a reason why nobody's surprised when men stand up for domestic violence.
