why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

b.s,alot of guys who get laid,are married,have a gf, are
against feminist.there are women against feminist.
feminist and their hardcore leftist allies think
only bitter,cranky single guys hate them,which
is not true.You feminist and hardcore leftist are losing.
ok.

not true, we know that sometimes bitter, cranky guys with gfs hate us too.

i know i shouldn't poke the bear for a laugh, but sometimes i just can't help myself.....

If that's true then what's your excuse for not being in a relationship?

Oh, yes. I see that tons of woman always on my way to work, protesting before the parlament: "We dont want to be treated as equal humans! We dont want the same rights! We think we are of lesser worth and dont deserve to be treated with the same respect!" It´s really a miracle to me, why our government, has yet not given in to it, when there are so many people who dislike feminism. ^^

Indeed. I don't agree with a lot of things feminists have to say. But I've had gfs before and am happily married. And one thing I think is important to point out is just because I've had gfs, the occasional NSA sex partner, and am married, NEVER ONCE have any of those situations ENTITLED me to sex. Being married doesn't get you a free pass to an all-you-can-fizzuck buffet. What my wife and I did last night tends to be more the exception than the rule.

The only guarantee, assuming fidelity, you get with marriage is when you DO have sex, you shouldn't have to worry about contracting diseases or raising kids that aren't yours, plus the kids you do have are kids you agree to have together within the marital framework. Nobody agrees to a non-stop sex-fest when they get married. They only agree that when they DO have sex, it's only with that person.

It seems I had sex more frequently BEFORE I got married. That fell off sharply once the ring was on her finger and the honeymoon was over. I hit a pretty dusty dry spell after we had three kids going on almost 7 years now, and things seem to have slowly picked up within the last few months. If you're not getting any now, what makes you think getting a gf or getting married is really going to improve things? When she's too tired after work and she's getting bombarded by children as soon as she walks through the door? AND she's doing laundry, dishes, and can barely keep up with keeping the rest of the house clean? You really think she's going to make sex a priority when bedtime is really the only time in the day she can get any peace?

Become a Mormon and move to Utah, have many wives.

Oh hey, I just had a thought, perhaps many women should go march in front of a Utah Mormon church demanding equality, esp where multipliable marriage is concerned, many husbands.

actual,Im with someone.My relationship status has nothing to
do with feminist.

The problem many of us have is not so much feminism as it is Feminism™ . I think working towards equality between the sexes is a must. LEGALLY it is unjust to disenfranchise women and claim to be a free society. I don't think ANYONE should be given special treatment simply based on gender. I don't believe perfect equality is even possible, and here's why: The two sexes fill complementary roles that they cannot coexist without, and those roles are NOT the same. It's obvious. Men are at a disadvantage when it comes to carrying a child to term and breastfeeding afterwards. Women are at a disadvantage because bearing children REQUIRES a certain amount of time off work and some occupations inherently cannot accommodate breast feeding…or even if they do, the stress of managing a career AND caring for children carries the risk that a mother will be unable to continue to breastfeed for as long as she could otherwise.

By virtue of WHAT we are as men/women, we ARE equals in the sense we are human beings, but we cannot be equals in ALL THINGS at ALL TIMES. For a woman to hang on to the exact same success potential the same way a man CAN, she'd have to forget about marriage and family entirely simply because of how much time it takes, potentially beyond childbearing years. I'm not saying a woman SHOULDN'T care about those things, or that it is WRONG for a woman to want those things or work for those things. I'm not even saying that it is inherently impossible. I'm saying it is inherently more difficult for a woman to do that AND build a career THE SAME WAY a man can do it.

So I would say that women should partner with men, on equal terms, AND women do deserve a certain amount of respect and regard (and admiration) because of the difficulties inherent to being a woman. That's only in the interest of fairness. NOBODY, man or woman, should have to deal with glass ceilings. And yes, my wife has had to deal with that sort of thing recently. But it wasn't because she's a woman. It was because she was working for a mix of jerks and crazy people. She took a new job where they treat her with decency, same as anyone should expect anywhere, got her position back that she was previously forced to resign at her old work, and is even getting better pay. Oh, and we have three children. I don't even HAVE a "job-job." I take care of the kids!! ! But because of the differences between men and women that CAN'T be worked around, we went through a lot of crap to get here.

So…if believing that we should make every effort to give women equal political and legal status on par with men and if believing that we should eliminate (within reason) barriers to success for women in the workplace makes me a male feminist, then sign me up.

The problem is that the loudest voices are, as often is the case everywhere, the ones that aren't about equality in any reasonable sense. That's the issue I have with Feminism™ . It's not about equality at all. That's why this post caught my attention. Feminists™ would have put it this way:
"Oh, yes. I see that tons of woman always on my way to work, protesting before the parlament: "We dont want to be treated as equal humans! We dont want the same rights! We want MORE rights! We think we are of more worth and deserve to be treated with greater respect!" It's a viewpoint that holds that ALL men are scum and inferior. And where this is NOT the case, it IS the case that they demand men step aside and make every accommodation that they demand.

And this simply isn't the way the world works. At least not in the "man's world." If I got to demand every accommodation for my job to make it a success, I'd still be a public school teacher right now. Nobody in an entry level job gets his own personal assistant to run around fixing his mistakes to guarantee a promotion. Even if you have something on a management or executive level, you don't get a free pass from making mistakes and facing consequences. I'm self-employed, which basically means I'm a CEO. Just because I'm the CEO doesn't mean I've got clients breaking down the door to procure my services. I'm not really doing all that well at the moment, and if I'm going to grow my business, *I* have to take responsibility for things like finances and marketing. Talk about a glass ceiling! Hint: it only exists if YOU put it there. If there's no more upwards mobility for you in the company where you work, give yourself a promotion by seeking the job you want elsewhere, and don't stop looking for it until you get it.

Feminists™ aren't interested in ordinary upwards mobility. They see status as imposed by men for men's interests alone, women need not apply. It's "I'm a woman, and my kind have been oppressed for millennia. I'm ENTITLED to the top jobs, and YOU (men) are going to do all the work to put me there." Feminists™ would have a point if they stopped at equality. It's tit-for-tat dominance over men and demanding that men accommodate them along the way that I have the most trouble supporting.

And just to be clear, I'm referring to Feminists™ as a radical, extreme movement, what some may call "Feminazi." I'm not assuming that ALL feminists are like this, but it doesn't seem to me that feminists really have much of a voice in the media as Feminist™ radicals do. Saying all feminists are Feminists™ is like saying all nice guys are Nice Guys™. The problem is somehow we tend to be more attracted to the attention-getters, all the crazies whose views somehow get representation disproportionate to how many people actually buy into that ideology.

Neither "leftist" nor "feminist" means what you think it means.

Whilst leftists do seem to be "losing", I would suggest that over the past 200 years or so, progressives have massively "won" compared to conservatives. Women can vote, capital punishment has been widely abolished, homosexuality is legal (and now so is homosexual marriage), there has been widespread prison reform, non-prison sentences are now commonplace, slavery has been abolished, irrational discrimination is increasingly illegal, "racist" and even "transphobic" is now seen as a bad word...

I think you mismention the "loudest people" with being "the most important people." When it comes to political parties, it´s as well normally that extreme rightwing or leftwing people, being the loudest. But that does not make them the most important. Simply because the stuff they usually yell around, is nonsene to the majority of people. And these extremists, denie themselves, that the reason, why not more people are agreeing into their oppinion, are not because of them not yelling loud enough, but simply because of them telling nonsense, anyway in which nonsense.

Maybe they are the ones, yelling the loudest. But why are they doing so? Because noones listens to them. So if noone listens to them anyway, why bother yourself with them? Have you ever seen an Angela Merkel, Barack Obama or pope Francis yelling around? - Nope. Simply because they know, that people are at listening to what they are saying, so they dont need to yell and scream to make people listen.

The more someone yells, the less you need to care for that person, simply because that yelling expresses nothing else then frustration, that noone listens to them anyway.

First of all I'm a hardcore leftist and I only ally myself with the reaonable feminists, aka, sensible human beings who defend that men and women should have the same rights (and duties) before the law. And the law has to protect this equality status where there are gaps. (That obviously doesn't mean some kind of affirmitive action for women.)

The left is "losing" in the same I am "losing" this debate, i.e., the points I'm making here will be completely obvious 30 or 40 years from now. The leftist point of view is already obvious to many, although still a minority. And it's painful to watch the population falling for the same right wing crap since the dawn of times. But the left will eventually prevail _ unless there is extinction. It's absolutely obvious, to anyone who has a working brain, that the nordic countries' economic systems are the best we have in the world.

You're probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that they get the most attention and dominate the narrative. What disturbs me is that more sensible moderates don't seem to actively counter it, with some posts on WP being a striking exception rather than the rule.

I have a hypothesis as to why that is: The interests of moderate feminists are still served even if Feminists™ get their way. In fact, it's practically a guarantee. Feminists have a lot to gain themselves if Feminists™ succeed, therefore it doesn't do them any good to oppose them.

It might even be foolish to oppose them. In the USA, the Republican establishment has come out in strong opposition to Tea Party Republicans. Part of the draw for establishment Repubs is that by attracting more women voters, gays, illegal immigrants, and welfare recipients, they get to keep their jobs. The Tea Party opposition maintains that establishment Repubs have abandoned their voter base, which is why they can't win elections (their own people aren't turning out at the poles). Establishment Repubs are SO FEARFUL of Dems that they'll do anything/say anything to shut up the far right.

Democrats have shown no interest whatsoever in switching sides, meanwhile, and there's not much cooperation between the two parties. The Dems have succeeded in capitalizing on right-wing divisions, so all they really have to do is sit back and enjoy the show. They know they've got establishment Repubs helping them push through their policies and see no need to help any Repub push through theirs.

What you DON'T see, however, is moderate, establishment Democrats working to shut up extreme leftist factions of their party. The Repubs have abandoned any semblance of a unified front, whereas Dems haven't been so foolish.

It's the same game. Feminists (not Feminists™) aren't actively shouting down extremists within their own ranks. Feminism is only going to succeed where feminists are unified. Division is almost always catastrophic to a cause.

There aren't any extreme leftists in the USA. Certainly not in the Democratic party.

There is attention, and there is attention. Sure that westborough protestant whatever nuts, gets lots of attention for their extreme oppinions. But there is "I never thought of it that way." attention and "WTF - I mean WTF? O_o *rofl*" attention.

Sorry, but I dont agree on that. What you call division is for me the contrary of militarism. What freedom is there, if people are not allowed to mention their opinions, anyway if it may not opt well with someone elses opinion. I dont need a movement to free me from an conservative gender thinking that was forced on everyone of us, so that someone else can force on us their gender thinking. ^^ As well that there is no absolute need to fear it. So some people have extreme thinking. Luckily we live in democracy, which means the majority must agree on something, and not in an "Yellography", so that the one yelling the most get its way. ^^ Some rare extremist are not an devision to the cause. In eruope you have as well in almost every country some extreme rightwing conservative party. But they are no division or an catastrophe to conservative people, because conservative people are simply conservative people and extreme rightwing conservative people are rightwing conservative people. Outside of that forum and the ones, always creating that kind of threads, I never met someone, mixing those two totally different kind of oppinions with each other.

Its as if I´d post a video of some strange US "self founded religion" leader, having 25 wifes and 95 kids and opinions from the millenium before jesus was born, and start referring about "todays global patriarchism". ^^

Right.

However, there are movements within movements.

There is "Feminism," and then there's what I'm referring to as "Feminists™". You can't win without unity within a greater movement. You don't help yourself (as a whole) by attacking extremists. You see that fairly consistently in political movements, as I mentioned earlier in re Repubs vs. Dems. If feminists display factionalism, i.e. moderate "men+women=EQUAL" vs. a more militant Feminists™ "men<women," with a moderate majority shouting down a vocal minority, feminists as a whole lost a faction that they could potentially use to their advantage in the long run. If a vocal minority of Feminists™ are able to effect change, it only benefits non-militant feminists. The reverse can't be said.

@ArrantParriah: You never hear Dems getting all hot about "single-payer" as opposed to the individual mandate. They're not totally stupid. If a large number of people knew that a few Dems were working towards single-payer, they might be less likely to vote for them. And there have been Dems opposed to ACA BECAUSE it wasn't single-payer. This, however, doesn't make news very much. However, you haven't seen any Dems working AGAINST ACA legislation, either…unless you count how many times Obama has selectively rewritten it, and even then there really hasn't been much opposition from the left on this. It's not in Dems best interest to oppose it. Repubs, on the other hand, seem to provide too much entertainment by being divided the way they are. The establishment kinda co-opted the Tea Party to win elections, and not long after seem to have done everything they can do to shut them up, especially considering the dirty tactics used to get rid of electable candidates from their own party. The thing is, there are always divisions within groups. It's only the extremes you hear about, and no movement has made any lasting marks without agreeing on the essentials and moving forward. Dems for the moment are able to sacrifice on certain issues to get what's most important to them passed through. Repubs have abandoned their conservative base by trying to get votes (gays, immigrants, etc.) that they'll never get. Unless something significant changes, Repubs will be staying home for the next elections, too.

You are a feminist.

I am a staunch feminist, and I am very perturbed by the fact that militant extremists have hijacked the name while ignoring the fundamental equality basis of the movement.

I am certain there are plenty of christians out there that feel the same way about the hate filled "christians" of the more extreme flavors.

If the scales ever tip too far the other way, then I will probably end up in the "opposite" movement, complaining about the male extremists who want to overthrow the female dominated world rather than achieve equality.