A critique of feminism.

Post Reply New Topic

The subject is, A critique of feminism, not a personal gender based attack on the previous poster.

My opinion is based on the resulting social changes.

I think the fear biting female vote has been very destructive to a system that has long joined us as a People, The Constitution.

It was written by men. Men died to preserve it for 200 years.

The fenminist vote has brought us Homeland Security and Govenrnment by Secret Police.

As Malcom X said, "The chickens will come home to roost."

Second class is better than no class.

Black people did not want to destroy the system, they wanted to join it.

Feminism wanted to destroy the male power structure. They had the vote, what was the 70s about?

It is a crazy woman who burns down the house she lives in.

With power comes duty, responsibility, and honor.

Duty, all future generations will be affected by our actions.

Responsibility, acting only in ways that are the best for everyone, including the future.

Honor, Putting what is right above personal feelings.

Personal feelings? What in the heck are those?

I see no evidence that the voting of females is either a necessary or sufficient condition for the resulting social changes that you describe.
The fact that my country, despite having less enshrined protection, lapses behind your own in the ushering in of the issues you describe, even though females have been voting here longer, indicates you have falsely identified a pre/co-incident with cause. The fact that one thing happens before another, is not proof that the one is the cause of the other.



Where as we have had female suffrage for over half a century longer than yourselves and suffer much less from the malaise that afflicts you. The strongest, most sensible conclusion is, female voting is not the cause of the issues that concern you. If it were, we'd be more than half a century further down that track, rather than lagging behind (to the point of mimicry at times) you.


Like the honour of raping your underage daughter? The majority of twits who pull that crap are males. Gross generalisations are worse than insulting. They also tend to be misleading - and as you've probably deduced by now, this is true even where there actually is some measure of truth involved; if generalisation worked we could rule out 'male honour' by vaguest reference to worst possible case scenarios without need to specify nicities like causality, evidence, significant statistics, or indeed anything but a throw-away line in the cheap sale of fear.

I note you take issue with 'the fear biting female' but personally I fail to see how your perspective on female suffrage can be differentiated from the kind of reasoning at fault in such instances.

It makes perfect sense. What I'm saying is that women have been pushing for equal rights for years, but they don't truly want equal rights. Women want a man's salary equivalent, but they still want him to pick up the tab at dinner. I know it's a blanket statement, but by and large, most women want to think they're better than men, not just equal. And further, many women out there in the workforce think they should earn the same amount of money as a man for doing less work - citing the fact that just being female should entitle them to equal pay because they would do the job if they could.

And I say this as a woman - a woman who doesn't put up with not getting the respect she is due. The difference between me and some is that I have a more realistic view of what is due and I don't expect more. I don't think that either sex is better than the other, I just think each is better at some things than the other. Often, women are better at nurturing and men are better at tasks requiring strength and endurance. Does this apply across the board? No. That's why it needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

And who is talking about choosing men as the default representation of real humans? That's ridiculous. Was that even part of the conversation?

I perceived Kitsy's comment as playful, not serious.

Inventor, you forget that after women got the right to vote we had positive things like, oh, THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. You can't present negative political occurrences as evidence without considering the positive ones as well; to do so is terribly manipulative.

You also ignore that the majority of Senators that voted for the creation of Homeland Security were *shock* MEN.

If I were to use the same strategy as yours for my own argument, then my argument would go like this:

Men were the conquistadors who slaughtered millions of indigenous peoples.

Men led the Crusades.

Until the twentieth century, women had no real power, so everything stupid humans ever did previous to that was entirely the fault of men.

Seems a little unfair, doesn't it?



Are you saying we should be grateful to men that they give us any rights at all? If we're in debt to you for our lives, then you are CERTAINLY in debt to us. Who do you think squeezed y'all out at birth? And before anyone responds to that last question in a way that's idiotic, remember a baby cannot fit through a urethra.

Male superiority is crap; female superiority is crap.

Things like Homeland Security are the fault of both sexes.

Pandd, thank you. I didn't have the energy.

Honor, Putting what is right above personal feelings.

Like the honour of raping your underage daughter? The majority of twits who pull that crap are males. Gross generalisations are worse than insulting.[/quote]

Ballerina Rapists? Such intelligent comments. He is not a real man, he is a Ballerina, and he rapes his underage daughter. It sounds like Feminists to me. Some gross generalisations amount to libel and slander.

Women did not get the vote in 1970, they did not have anything to do with Civil Rights for people of color.

Feminism is recent, did jump on the Civil Rights band wagon, after the fact. They had the vote for fifty years before blacks, and did not think their maid should vote.

Black people were slaves, white women owned them. Then they were kept as cooks, washer women, maids.

One people's freedom was not celebrated by women, they claimed they were some kind of slave, and needed freedom. The only people the white over class women could become free of were white over class men. Well they are now, and don't come back.

Native Americans got the vote in 1974, then the whites wanted the concentration camps back.

The first country where women got the vote was Finland in 1909, British women over 30, in 1918, and all white women, over 21, in the USA in 1920. So your non-disclosed country the women had the vote fifty years before? 1870?

Womens Suffrage was a white only deal. The were firmly against Universal Suffrage.

Your Critique of Feminism shows you do not even know the basic facts, but that does not stop you from calling all men rapists. You do not know your own history, or ours, nor the TOS of WP. If you would like to attack me personally, send me a PM.

Thank you for making my point that the uninformed should not be allowed to vote. Nor should gender bashing be seen as anything but what it is, hate speech.

This thread is A Critique of Feminism. When someone posts an opinion, it is just that. It is not an invitation for your ill informed personal attacks on the poster.

Now, where is this country that had the vote for women fifty years before America?

white women owned black slaves? I don't like how you leave out the males who at the time were the ones who actually owned slaves considering women were still treated inferior.

Inventor, you are a smart person but your views of women are off meanwhile you are ignoring that all people of any race any gender can do good or they can do harm. When you throw all females into one group, it means you've made up your mind about that gender as a whole.

If it suits your way of life, that's fine but you're wrong. You may have also not seen anything else, it may be your enviroment as well. It may have been your upbringing. You may just be someone who will close their ears when a gender who isn't supposed to say such things speaks because it goes against what you were raised to think.

It leaves people blind and unwilling to understand that people that aren't apart of that mold are going to have a really hard time over those false labels.

Have you ever been falsely labelled and stereotyped?

Ballerinas have got absolutely nothing to do with me.
You either need to re-read my earlier comments or are deliberately taking them out of context; if you really think your comments reply to what I actually said, you have misinterpreted. I was making an intentionally hyperbolic example of what seems (to me) to be the reasoning employed throughout your entire argument. The point is we can posit all kinds of correlations and point hasty generalising fingers, but without evidence (and mere chronological/time relationships do not constitute proof in my reckoning), it's still just random correlations.

The world is not America. And America is not, nor has ever been a matriarchy.

No, it was not.

Actually, my earlier comment ought to have said 'universal suffrage'. The actual point, is that even if in 1906, Finland were the first nation to allow women a vote., that still puts it ahead of the US. So if such evils as the willingness of the US to go to war were caused by women having the right to vote, we would logically predict Finland started that war, or one equally as bad, 14 years before the US.....The problem with your theory, is that of all the evils you claim are caused by women voting, none of them seem worse (than they are in the US) in countries where you yourself know women have been voting longer, (than they have in the US).


I've already stated very clearly what I think of generalisations. Perhaps if you read my earlier comments more carefully you will comprehend what is being said better.
Evidently, my comments no more state that all men are rapists than they suggest maleness is caused by committing rape. A point I note because it demonstrates nicely that mere correlation does not prove anything about causation, which was my point all along.
Your argument in your comments seems (to me) to consist of, a series of two things ('feminism and 'X-evil') with an observation regarding their chronological/time relationship. That does not prove anything more than any other random correlation....like the one I gave as an example.


I have most certainly not made any personal attacks on anyone. I do not appreciate unprovoked accusations.


Actually, I had meant to type universal suffrage and missed the error when I checked through my earlier comments.

Last edited by pandd on 11 Dec 2007, 7:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

I thought it was a necessary consequence of the intended point of this comment, "Now, the bit about women being "expected" to function the same as men and so on, women have PUSHED for total equality.', and the fact that what has been 'pushed for' are human rights for women (not 'man rights' for women).

I personally cannot say that my own experience supports your statement here..."I know it's a blanket statement, but by and large, most women want to think they're better than men, not just equal.". In my experience, women do not seem any more likely to have such an attitude toward their gender in-group/out-group, than people generally have towards in-groups/out-groups.

Do they? I have not ever really encountered this myself, nor had anyone I personally know (in RL) describe personally encountering such an incident, so I wonder just how common it is. For instance, does the amount represented by the phrase 'many women' exceed the amount of people with entitlement boundaries, picking on any old excuse in which to dress up their entitlement issues, and who also just happen to be female, in the job market, dissatisfied with their renumeration and/or just short of anything else to fixate their entitlement energies on?

This is a Critique of Feminism, not inventor.

As for the gender as a whole, they are female, get it, Feminism.

Where have I falsely labeled Feminist as being female women?

"your views on women are off." When you throw all women into one group, (Being Female?) it means you have made up you mind about the gender as a whole." I think they are female. They act like it.

How does this mean that I ignore the good done by all races and genders? Even women?

Feminist are female! Deal with it! One might infer that I think all Feminist are female, but not that all women are Feminist.

You are the one who responds to a Critique of Feminism, A Critique= to criticize, which covers both good and bad. Feminism, A Gender Based identity politics with a platform of male bashing, as being anti-woman. Not all women agree with Feminism. It is obvious you hold the two to be one.

Feminism is not about Women's Rights. It is not about equality. It is a one plank platform, anti-male.

It's center is attacking the male power structure. As far as I can tell, they are for nothing.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

Anyone who disagrees with them is told everything he thinks is wrong, he has not been around, it was his upbringing, enviroment, or deaf to anything he was not raised to hear. He is labeled a Ballenrina? A rapist? and they come in gangs to shout that he hates all women everywhere and is proof of their right to hate men. The accuse him of doing what they are doing, gender sterotyping.

The response here shows that the label Feminist brings personal and sexual attacks against anyone who disagrees, which continue, and go far beyond the question, A Critique of Feminism, do not even respond to points raised for discussion, but are all directed at the poster on a personal, sexual, social, and historic level. There must be something wrong witth me to dare question Feminsim.

I see no defense of Feminism, no refuting of the discussion points, just an attack on the poster. That is Feminism in a nutshell. If the label fits, and you defend it, it is not false.

"Have you ever been falsely labelled and sterotyped? Yes, several times, on this thread.

I agree that women did have full rights in many cultures long before this modern era. They also had the vote in some near modern times. Blacks were entitled to vote after freedom, but the reality was not in step with the law. Up until recently, very recently, a Mississippi Valley town of 2000 whites and 10,000 Blacks, the whites won every election. In the politics of race, women voted white.

Civil Rights was about equal access, sending Black children to White schools, and it was white mothers who were most against the idea. Women were not Human Rights supporters. In the 47 years white women held the majority of votes, they never favored Universal Suffrage. Jim Crow, Segregation, Seperate but Equal, were evils which were not addressed by white women.

As for Finland, there was the Russo-Finnish War. Women were in the front lines, brought supplies, had guns, and got the vote. They lived and died in equality.

After the 1960s street fighting was over, comes Feminism. Their goals were not Equal Rights, everyone but Native Americans had the vote. Their issues were shakey. Women who answered the phone should be paid the same as men who worked in steel mills. Both put in 40 hours, so equal pay for equal work.

The hard dirty jobs were open to all, they paid because they were a horrible thing to be doing. They did not apply, they just wanted the paycheck. Lots of women did. They were respected. They got the same pay as men for doing the same work. Gutting chickens pays the same male or female.

I have heard many complaints from women, when they organize, over some issue, Feminist come out of nowhere, to take over leadership. They were leadership in search of any issue to lead. It did not matter if it was breast feeding or the Women of the UAW, Feminists saw themselves as having to reeducate women. They had opinions on everything, the United Auto Workers contract at the Wixom plant, Maleocentric maleocracy, opression, but they did not work there, and had no idea about what was being negociated. Breast feeding was using women as cows on a manoholic manocentric ranch.

Women took to having secret meetings. Universities were pressured into having Degrees in Gender Studies. Feminists took over education because they had the only true view of relations between the sexes. Males are wrong, females need to be reeducated. The tactics they used are still about, attack the speaker, not what they are saying.

Start by calling all men rapists, accuse them of raping their daughter as a child. Refuse to stay with any male dominated agenda, like being civil and sticking to the point being discussed. The point is to stop discussion. Go off on tangents, the less connected the better, and refute everything said by saying everything you say is wrong, without any reason why.

Now, do you have anything to say in defense of Feminism without involving me or any other poster?

Nobody's made any progress.

Last edited by CockneyRebel on 11 Dec 2007, 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

What doesn't make sense to me, is how women fought for equality for many years, and now, half of them dress like sex objects, in their skimpy clothes and high heels, and they're still starving themselves, in order to have that thin body.

She wasn't calling you or all men ballerina rapists . She was merely pointing out how illogical you're argument was. You seem to blame woman having the right to vote as the root cause of all the evils of society.

Inventor, you were falsely stereotyped? Where? I said you were smart. That is not a false stereotype based on your gender, sex or race. That is just my observation.

I just disagree with what you think feminism is. People that don't like feminism of course will find one feminist to blow up in the media to portray all feminists like that.

Cockney Rebel, women dressing like that. Not sure. I've known some feminists who have turned it into their own social rules and regulations. You cannot be a feminist if you wear makeup. You cannot be a feminist if you have long hair, you cannot be a feminist if you wear a dress. See how superficial some feminists have made it?

It's not about what you are on the inside but the outside. This is how movements usually end up because people warp the message to suit their own goals. Then you have feminists who don't care about grouping up with those who have turned it into a social club. Because those feminists don't feel the need for attention, the media finds the easy targets that do want the attention.

In return it also gives the twisted up perception of what feminism is.

If roles were reversed and males were the maids, males were treated inferior, males weren't allowed to hold patents for their own inventions and it belonged to their wives instead, if males were not allowed to vote, if there were male infantcide in China and India, if males worked on the farms with women and were paid less for being male, if males had limited opportunities, if males were considered freaks for having an ounce of intelligence...

I would feel that there were injustices going on that needed to be solved. This isn't really all just about females rights to me, it's about human rights and giving people a chance not based on racial stats, gender stats because all of these stats are hogwash used to promote a social science platform to further boost the person's own opinion on their perception of people.

They sit there and read these stats. All it really shows is that own person's preferences. If the statistics show that there are a high percentage of black males in prison in comparison to whites, the racist will read that and say "I rest my case" a person who is not a racist will challenge that statistic and bring up points to counter that statistic.

Men and women do have differences. Individuals all have differences. I am on a site with people on the spectrum. Doesn't mean we are all the same. Just because people have differences doesn't mean they shouldn't be given the chance to show they can perform tasks.

People take swipes at females for all types of things deemed manly. Playing electric guitar for instance. It doesn't take brawn either.