Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the beauty of this all is that by not addressing the question you look as dishonest to any outsider reading the discussion instead of just me and LKL.

Thank god for feminism! If it wasn't for women being taxed, how much do you think us guys would be taxed?

The point of feminism is not to help men, that's why it's called feminism. But it's interesting to note that many of the early suffragists in the US were also abolitionists and some believed that until blacks were freed from slavery there could be no equality of the sexes. Abolition of slavery was their first priority. So I would say that a lot of black men were aided to some degree by feminism, in the form of feminist/abolitionists.

There's also a lot less pressure on men today to marry, have a large family and fully support the wife and family.

it appears you don't have anything of merit to offer to the discussion.

What motivation do I have to satisfy the urge of yours to attack whatever I post? What is there to gain for me? I pretty much know what a reply of yours or LKL's would consist of, I know what my reply to that would be.

What interests me now is to understand why yourself and LKL seem so hellbent on doing a pisspoor job at provoking me into doing what you desire.

TM, I ask again: why are you even here?

Well, you are certainly doing an Herculean effort not to answer a very simple question. Simply addressing the question would have been far easier than your attempt to appear sanctimonious.

One got to wonder why would you be afraid of the audience finding out what you think is female and male nature...

Because I hope at one point or another you and your cohorts will post something I haven't heard 100.000 times before and present an argument that I cannot complete by myself.

Oh, the other good thing about feminism - I can be single in my 30's and the shaming over it as if I'm utterly failing to be an adult isn't what it would have been in the 60's or prior.

They have posted things like that TM you just don't give a response to it.

No, they've posted things I've heard before and that does not interest me. If there was anything new being presented that isn't in a hundred or more books, on thousands of websites and has been said on TV and radio for years I wouldn't be growing bored.

I don't bother responding if I do not see anything to gain by having the discussion, I know what I'll reply, what they will reply with, how I will reply, and how they will respond ad nauseum because they are that predictable.

It's what happens when an ideology is discussed by its adherents you get the same talking points over and over again in a different wrapping. The whole thing covered with a nice bow of redefining the world so that it fits within the ideology. In essence, its a discussion where a number of hardly ever discussed premises are assumed to be factual despite the evidence being dubious at best.

For instance, if feminist organizations are pro gender equality and not pro-women, show me financial records of those organizations spending 50% of their resources (time, money effort etc) on male-centric issues.

Explain to me why the following organizations do not have 50% males in their leadership.

http://www.feminist.org/welcome/board.asp

http://www.now.org/officers/

http://www.lwv.org/content/leadership

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site ... bout_board
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site ... bout_staff

http://www.ywca.org/site/c.cuIRJ7NTKrLa ... _Board.htm

http://www.awhonn.org/awhonn/content.do ... rs.htm#BOD

http://www.cwfa.org/leadership.asp

I may just be a stupid, sexist bigot, but it seems weird to me that if feminism is pro-equality, in every respect for both genders, then they should practice what they preach and have 50% representation of both genders on their board and amongst their leadership. These are pretty much the biggest feminist organizations in the US.

http://www.soroptimistinternational.org ... -and-staff


I'm sure there is some kind of rationalization for it though.

you're right, they should have 50% male representation.

I don't see the relevance of that argument; should all civil rights movements involve a 50% representation of the faction that may be opposed to their goals in the spirit of "fairness"? Imagine if feminism had 50% men to begin with when the movement started. There were men involved at the time but they were those who were interested. Often they were also abolitionists. If there were a quota for membership I strongly suspect it would result in complete stasis. Not just of feminism but any equivalent movement. I think this line of argument is pure obfuscation

I'll keep posting these as more come to me:
1) Being a sports buff is more accepted.
2) Being a big gamer, even first-person shooter or racing junkie, could just as easily be a turn on as a turn off.

ok. i couldn't think of a reason why not

The quoted post is the rationalization of gender discrimination within the feminist movement. In essence it can be taken as "proof" that some of the people in this thread practice what they preach (Hyperlexican) whereas some rationalize away their own sexism as being "different" from that of others.

It would be interesting to see data on the gender equality of companies where women are majority share holders to see how they compare to companies in which men are majority share holders.

The whole reason I posted it was that I've been told that feminism isn't a pro-woman ideology, overly focused on women and that feminism is pro-gender equality. However, when what appears to be about 90% of board members and management of feminist organizations are women who spend their resources on pro-women efforts, then it cannot be claimed to be a movement or an ideology focused on gender equality.