I have a question for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

One of the pretenses to the formation of the U.S. was no taxation without representation. The colonists were not represented but fellow colonists but by politicians in Britain, who they did not feel could adequately represent them, as they did not live in the colonies and did not understand the colonists needs and plights.

Women faced a similar problem, and still do in my respects. Before women's suffrage, we did not have adequate representation and those who were making decisions on our behalf did so without the understanding of our needs or problems. While women today have the right to vote (as we should), we still do not have adequate representation in government for some instances.

For example...



The men above are discussing a health care bill, one of the points under discussion was whether the new bill should mandate that health insurance plans provide essential benefits, including maternity services.

These men will never have to be pregnant and are not really qualified to make policies concerning women's health issues based on that fact and the lack of knowledge of women's health problems that stem from the fact that they are not primarily applicable to them or something they have ever or would ever experience first hand.

Already women are suffering from mandates which allow employers to refrain from offering health insurance policies that exclude contraception, because "birth control" pills are actually hormone pills that are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but to treat a myriad of often painful, inconvenient, and sometimes infertility causing women's health problems that women often face. In fact 50% of women who take birth control pills do so to treat these medical conditions and not to prevent pregnancy.

To add to their woes, health insurance plans, regardless of whether or not they cover birth control pills, don't cover compounded medications. This is important to know because progesterone and estrogen don't come in a commercial form outside of birth control pills, and so have to be compounded if for some reason she can't take the form offered in the birth control pills. For example, maybe she can't tolerate the synthetic hormones, and needs natural hormones, or maybe she needs the progesterone but must avoid the estrogen. These policies leave women having to pay out of pocket or opt for invasive, expensive surgical procedures such as hysterectomies, because that's the only thing covered by the insurance that will treat her condition.

All of this is a result of men, with their lack of insight into female problems, making policies that pertain to women.

Also, your assertion that only those who serve in the military should be able to vote assumes a country that 1. Either support a large military. 2. Creates a situation where it's impossible for some people to vote, despite the fact that they may be more than qualified to make decisions on the issues on the ballot. 3. Would create a situation where significant swaths of the population are not represented, causing discontent, unrest, and instability, and 4. Assumes that the country even has a need for a large military, when ideally, the natural state of country should be at peace, and thus have small military. 5. Overlooks the valuable contributions and sacrifices of civilian volunteers and contractors (the military likes these people because they don't have to give them veterans benefits).

As for paying taxes, just about everyone does. Those who don't pay income tax pay sales tax, sometimes gas tax, property tax, utility tax, and so on.

Very ironically, it was actually the lack of women in government that lead to a strange situation in Victorian England. It started when a well educated woman sought to divorce her violent husband who had kicked her out of the house and was keeping her from their children. She was a wealthy woman with an income on account of inheriting her family's holdings, but had no access to that money as any money a married woman had, was legally the property of her husband. She was unable to obtain a divorce as only men initiate them, and he refused to divorce her, and without access to funds for a lawyer, she took it upon herself to teach herself the law.

She discovered two interesting things.
1. Married women had no legal personhood in England. This was an unintentional result of only men having a say in making policies.

2. Because she had no legal personhood, she could not only not own property or have her own money, but she could also not be responsible for any debt she incurred. This is like having a credit card but not being responsible for the bill.

So what did she do?

She ran up a bunch of debt in her husband's name. Keep in mind, this was a time when there were no social safety nets except poor houses and people still got thrown into debtor's prison.

Her ploy worked. Her husband finally divorced her, and her actions called to the attention to parliament the fact that, in the course of their all male law making from their all male perspectives of life, even though they all had mothers, wives, and probably sisters and aunts, they forgot to ensure that married women had legal person hood.

When people aren't allowed to represent themselves, they and their interests are overlooked.

Politics are dominated by males for the fact there's less female millionaires than male millionaires; seriously....only wealthy people can make it into high offices in politics. Politics is about power and networking, and through networking with powerful people, you get into politics; and the rich people dominate the networking game and help each other.

Another theory that the Freemasonry is exclusively male. lol

There's a common theory that says that women are less likely to get into because 'Women are still responsible for the majority of child care and household tasks' - I think this is rubbish because it only applies to poor and middle-class women, people who win political positions are often of the upper class or the mega rich class, they have maids to do the household tasks and even most of the child caring tasks, don't tell me that Hilary and Angel Merkel for example ever did their own laundry with their own hands in the last decade.

Tell women to stop voting for male politicians I guess. You can't force equal representation. We elect congressmen and senators. Meaning people of both genders vote so if there's about as many males as females then females are at fault.

Like boo said the rich run for office. There's quite a few rich old women in office. Know who's also barely repersented? Young people. Most senators and crongressmen are 60+ Making decisions for young people they never met based on their memories of being young in the what 1950s?

There are the occasional Cinderella stories in politics. Anybody can do it. Start dirt poor. Keep straight A's in public school, get part-time paralegal work, and spend what spare time you can in the law library of your local courthouse.

When you get into college, get involved in student government. Major in something useless like philosophy, social science, pre-law, paralegal studies, or something like that. Paralegal is good because you basically get to do the hands-on grunt work that real lawyers don't have time for. You'll learn legal procedure, document prep, and so on--basically, everything it takes lawyers an extra 6 years to learn.

Once you finish that, you'll enroll in a terminating juris doctorate program. If you're dirt poor, take a 4 or 5 years off and do paralegal work for any firm that's hiring. Trust me, there are plenty low-level solo lawyers out there who need all the help they can get and could use the cheap labor. Look for the ones with high turnover in their staff. You're going to get fired eventually, but don't let that bother you. The better lawyers know who these people are and will probably hire you because they know you at least have experience.

Because you have hands on experience practicing law without a license, which in reality is what legal secretaries do, you're going to already know everything they teach in law school. So what you do next is talk to your lawyer and tell him what you want to do. He and his partners MIGHT actually get together and pay your way through law school on the condition you come back and work as an intern or even a junior partner for a specified period of time.

So you make it to law school...

You'll be rehashing everything you learned at the bachelor level. What most lawyers have told me was that passing law school was mostly basic literacy and common sense. Reading, following instruction, lots of repetition. If you can form a complete sentence in proper English, you can be an American lawyer.

After passing bar, you'll probably intern at a big law firm or you can strike out on your own right away. You choose. But ASAP you pay off any debts you have, though if you're slick you can get someone else to pay for law school. Once you fulfil all your obligations, you go solo.

THIS is when you enter politics. As a lawyer, your job is to represent people. You'll join civic organizations, get to know the other lawyers in town, know all the judges, and know all the people you serve, racking up clients through word of mouth. You'll go to every town hall meeting, every city council meeting, every school board meeting, every church service at the largest church in town, work out at the Y or largest gym, drink at the biggest bar, eat at the most popular restaurant. Talk to EVERYONE. Get to know your councilman or county supervisor. Get to know your mayor. And as soon as someone gets ready to retire or hits a term limit, make your move. Once you make city council, stay active. Meet regularly with your home folks. Then branch out. Help out as many people in other wards as you can. When the current mayor leaves office, go for it.

Branch out. Talk to people and get to know people statewide. Write editorials/opinion pieces for local and statewide newspapers. Go to every political party meeting you can. Actually, you should start that when you're still a teenager working minimum wage. Run for state legislature.

Never stop running. Work with lobbyists to pass a law, and make sure it stops by your committee first and has your name on it. And make sure everyone knows who you are.

State legislation isn't exactly a whole lot of busy work. They have lives and law practices and families back home, so they usually only hit the state capital when they're in session.

Once you get a couple of state house/senate/assembly terms under your belt, consider whether you've got enough support locally to make a fed house run or if you have enough statewide support to go for fed senate.

And there you have it.

In getting to know former congressmen and judges, I've been privileged to get an inside glimpse into politics. What you see in the media is a lot of drama cooked up by news outlets for ratings. Most of these people are actually good friends, even in opposing parties. Congressional gigs are boring, thankless jobs that nobody really wants except for the tiny handful of politicians in office. Even the executive. People tend to overlook the fact Trump has run for president before. He just wasn't as well-positioned to WIN during his first run. If you really have the passion for it and you have solid support from your base, nobody cares how much money you have. You'll HAVE all the money you need because people will throw it at you.

Law practices are about representing the little people back home. That's why lawyers tend to be rich. They help people and can afford to be generous with their time, hence why the good ones end up being so well-paid. Mounting a full-on public office campaign is EXPEEEEEEENNNNSSIIIVE and time consuming, but again, the people you serve on your own time and on the job will donate millions to see their man in local, state, or national legislature. Maybe only the rich do end up in office. But you're not rich on your own. You're playing with donor money, which you don't exactly get to keep. The "little people," and maybe some key "big people," too, are heaping a lot of trust on you. If you let them down and fail in accountability, things won't go well for you.

Bernie Sanders has something of a cult following. It's bizarre, but he's a bum. Never worked for anything his whole life. Married up, I believe. Hillary came from money but got bogged down in Southern tradition and social order. Don't forget she started life as a loudmouth activist, so playing the part of a demure southern trophy housewife was pure contempt for our people. She only took THAT gig because she couldn't pass bar back home, but COULD practice law in Arkansas. Whatever she and Bill HAD, it's been replaced by donations from various and sometimes questionable sources. They're basically bums now, too. She should have stayed in the senate, but whatever. Washed up politicians, especially the popular ones, write books and charge quarter million for speaking engagements. But they're basically just bums.

But, yeah, anybody who wants to bad enough can succeed in politics. You don't have to come from wealth to do it. Just serve your people and serve them well.

Since this personal attack has been left to stand, tell me your theory. I have no idea whom you think I resemble. The theory has already been addressed and refuted by the mods. They found no evidence anyway, but I could have been hiding my vast hacking knowledge for all these years.

Since you hold the bigoted opinion that men and women represent a partition rather than a gradient, you probably think I feel insulted at being called a girl?

[1] No one owes anyone sex.
[2] Sex is part of a relationship.
[3] I am a biological animal.
[4] Mating is a biological directive.
[5] I am man that is attracted to women.
[6] This is normal and healthy.
[7] This is not seeing women as objects.
[8] This is not the opposite of feminism.

Why do you see it as a personal attack?

Obviously it's you who has a problem with being called girl. Hmm.

You can call me a girl as much as you want.

More your stream of false accusations of lies.

^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.

This is good^^^

My two cents:
Feminists aren't getting offended because they think "all men" are anything.

The "not all men" chorus that MRAs/Incels always fall back on is offensive because it's primary function is as a derailing tactic for legitimate discussions. The only way it would be relevant to any discussion would be if the other person is literally saying that "all men" do something. which is rarely if ever the case, save for some extreme examples. Most of the time it's used, it's arguing against a point that was never made (basically against the straw feminist in the Incel's head.)

This concept is VERY simple and easy to understand.
If you can't grasp it, it shows that you weren't really looking to learn anything and that this topic was started in bad faith.

Basically it's like this:

They have a legit point, though. All men, by virtue of being men, are inherently participants in the patriarchy. I didn't choose to be born male, but I am male. I cannot share in the feminine lived experience due to a slight chromosomal deviation, possession of my own male gonads, and the usual secondary sex characteristics which entitle me to a certain privilege. Sure, I could reject who and what I am, but that's like someone who voluntarily fasts trying to identify with a malnourished person in the third world experiencing war and famine. I can stop any time. They cannot. I can claim my masculinity any time. A woman cannot.

I'm not trying to mansplain and support the feminist argument. I'm just saying t there are feminist strains who will point that out. Not ALL feminists, haha. But there definitely ARE those whose worldview can effectively make the "yes, all men" argument. The MRA views expressed are a counter to that particular attitude. When expressed that way, it's not a strawman. A feminist might not say "all men" outright, especially if she's being careful. But it is a hidden assumption that often lurks in a dark corner of the argument.

The problem is that the SJW feminists here keep calling me a "bigot" without explaining why. Just because I don't agree with SJW feminists doesn't mean I don't think women don't deserve a voice. If these people met my older brother, it would vaporize their perception about me. I also live in the Bible Belt which cancels out "white male heterosexual privelege" in my case because I am not an iron pumping alpha jock. I get labeled as being "priveleged" without actually receiving any of those supposed "priveleges".

I don't understand this SJW meaning. It seems to be something conservatives call folks who promote modern liberal cultural changes brought on by modern women controlling their reproductive rate, and/or via technology consolidating subsets of the population (giving them curage). The later being something that folks of all political perspectives don't like about a great many subsets, many of them that can be quite troubling.

Can someone enplane this SJW stuff to me?

-----

I know that it would have been impossible to study as a male teenager if there were girls in bikini's about in school.

Saying girls cannot wear bikini's to school is likely widely agreed upon.

Saying that girls cannot wear the same shorts boys wear to school is something different. Especially if there is a functional need for shorts (to keep the person cool).

Boys and girls just learn better when they are taught separately. They should still intermingle.

Last edited by Darkrose50 on 20 Sep 2017, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"SJW" has a few meanings. It's an acronym for "social justice warrior."

Sometimes, it's used in a sarcastic manner to refer to people who might take "political correctness" too far. One example: thinking that a white person has "appropriated" African culture by wearing dreadlocks.

Your response is very of off topic as it doesn't relate to the point of the thumbnail........this only reinforces my point about "not all men" being a fundamentally discussion derailing phrase. Nevertheless, I will attempt to respond.

I know nothing about you specifically, nor do I care to find out. Your use of the term SJW to describe anyone with feminist leanings and obsession with privilege is a bit of a red flag but it's not enough for me to point to anything specific you've done.

However, I do know this forum and how it tends to be dominated with socially awkward, low self-esteem, incel types who have developed regressive attitudes about dating and women which they learned in an online echo chamber from other awkward low self-esteem guys. These views fundamentally take what would otherwise just be normal socially awkward guy and render them highly toxic to the opposite sex. If you don't fit that description, you shouldn't worry about it.

I'm extremely socially awkward and I'm married to another awkward person. I know plenty of other socially awkward aspie types with feminist/liberal leanings capable of happy and healthy long-term relationships, even if it took extra time and struggle to find them. Many exist on this very forum.

It's possible that some exist, but I've never heard of an MRA type being in a non-toxic relationship. It seems like most can't even get out of the starting gate and it makes them bitter, distrustful and angry of nearly all women. I do feel sorry for people like that as I'm sure most are not bigots at all (just misguided.) However, these guys have willfully CHOSEN to embrace views that they know are toxic and self-sabotaging to their chances of finding a partner so my pity can only extend so far.

These self sabotaging attitudes are not exclusive to men either. The same could also apply to my more bitter feminist friends and acquaintances (who have a low opinion/distrust of men) who only seem to find toxic relationships.

If anyone (male or female) does hold regressive and bitter attitudes about dating or the opposite sex, that's entirely their prerogative and right, but they shouldn't be surprised or upset when the opposite sex stays as far away as possible, as a result.

He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.