Is feminism running rampant on university campuses?

Post Reply New Topic

Good point. It took me four tries to get a lecture in which she was able to proceed to her talk without being shouted down. And this is where the thinkers are supposed to be.

The problem is that feminists will get mad at a man for being masculin but then ridicule a man for being passive submissive or feminin and tell him to be a man! Its a Psychological tactic to mess with his head like that and sometimes can cause psychological damage to him, I am pretty sure they know this, they don't really care as long as they get what they want out of men to further their agenda. This leads to men being confused not knowing what to do, how to be and what his purpose is.

Will they? Feminists? As in, a singular feminist or feminist group? I've never seen anything like that. Maybe I'm keeping up with the wrong feminists. Or in this case, the right ones.

I certainly agree there's a lot of confused, conflicting, contradictory messages from many quarters of society and culture, both directed to and about men and women - how they should be, and how they should relate. My advice is to try and not be an a***hole, and pay little heed to those who are a***holes, be they male or female. This can be very difficult, but it's about all I've ever managed to work out.

(ETA: of all things, I was once watching a Dave Chapelle interview. He said that, once he decided to go into comedy and showbusiness, his dad said something like, 'before you do, name something you are not willing to do - a price you are not willing to pay. If someone asks you to pay that price, refuse. If they still ask, walk away'. Which is one of the best pieces of advice I've heard)

And dear God, how I hate 'be a man'. And 'man up'. And 'grow a pair'. Ugh.

Very interesting points, Kuku.

Its targeted to Radical feminists and yes they do this strategy and in a way it can be a form of mental abuse! And the last line bolded I agree Im glad were on the same page. I dont know if I am a feminist or not I technically dont ignore issues men face and do strive for equality and at the same time I dont believe in the all men are rapist ideology either. I do not identify as an MRA either because they use unrealistic statistics of false rape reports to try and back up their claims. I identify more as an egalitarian or a humanist if you will besides I do tease both groups alot of course I do tease feminists from time to time because its easy and im a man they are angry at men but when it comes to a serious matter I observe what they are fighting for and sometimes feel like the watch dog when it comes to observing the radicals *Tumblr level radicals and SCUM from Sweden Society for Cutting Up Men* is the problem. Sexist hate groups totally ruining the true cause for gender equality and spreading hate.

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 04 Apr 2014, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think God has blessed me through you AspieOtaku, you have spoken his word!! !

Radical feminist logic: Man doesn't approach her so she dismisses men as being shallow because they find her ugly! And wines about it for hours then a man does approach her and finds her attractive she chews him out and says he only wants her for her looks and is right after sex! Man walks away pissed and insulted the radical feminist then whines again why shes alone!Then posts several male bashing threads on tumblr!

Hate groups are bad by definition.

A couple of remarks:

- 'Feminist' doesn't equal 'woman'. Many women are not feminist (though the ones that are use to speak louder, so they look more numbered than they really are). And many feminist are not women: feminism is plenty of 'white knight' men defending damsels in distress (quite a paradox, though). It's not men against women. Modern feminism is damaging both men and women, and it's equally supported by men and women.

- 'Damage' doesn't equal 'evil'. Very often people are damaged because human psychology is such a b***h. Feminism was born to fight the traditional secondary role of women in society and the levels of violence suffered inside families (my mother suffered violence, for example). This violence and this secondary role was explained through oppression.

The problem appears when it becomes visible that women don't find such a happiness in the competitive male world (as many women in their 40s discover: "fine, I succeeded in my career, and now what?"), and many women find male violence attractive. So it was not such a simple problem as "hey, women are oppressed" but a more complex one. Women find unfair to be secondary in society, but at the same time they don't find a lot of happiness in competitive world. They want nice guys, but at the same time they can't avoid not to find them attractive. Your head says one thing, your guts another one. Not easy.

And nobody has found a solution to that: no way to go back to the lack of options women had one century ago, but the current situation is not bringing happiness neither to men nor to women. And even if somebody could find a solution, there's another problem: this is not gonna solve the lives of women who already made a choice in their lives. And when people can't get their chances back, they will defend any mistake as much as possible.

Men don't like the "competitive male world" anymore than Women do. Taking away a woman's personal stake in ending injustice, and replacing it with a personal stake in perpetuating it by turning them into housewives is a less than noble endeavour.

Last edited by Stannis on 05 Apr 2014, 11:38 am, edited 17 times in total.

Women have always worked. I don't mean the obvious keeping a household running, raising children, etc, but work outside of the 'housewife' role, taking part in the necessary reproduction of day to day life and, where necessary/possible, selling their labour. There were, and still are, women who will pay other women to do the 'household/raising children' stuff for them (this is within the paradigm that women are responsible for that kind of thing), just as there were and are men who will live lives of leisure, to the point of paying other men to dress them.

There was a brief period where it was possible for many households to get by on one job and one wage. Because of the various assumptions and expectations, it fell to women to stay at home and look after the children.

The consideration is what women have been 'liberated' into. It is not the competitiveness of the 'male world', but rather the dull and relentless and atomising world of consumer capitalism, a system that can only keep going by promising, and then failing, to make people happy. Many, many men are similarly miserable in this world. The non-existent 'golden age' that ever lurks in the human psyche, the eden we never should have left, here becomes the 1950s postwar arrangement.

It is not just the woman who gets 'everything' who then becomes miserable. Across human experience, the attempts to attain a goal are often far more rewarding and enjoyable than the goal itself. And it's a rare human whose desires cohere, and don't contradict, who feels no regret of at least one of their choices.

There is a bundle of confused and contradictory gender signals from society. Both to each gender, how they should be, and also what they should think and expect of each other, how they should relate.

There is an assumption that socio-economic conditions are beyond being questioned, that the only variable is the option for women to either be wives and mothers or live lives that don't involve having a family. This is bollocks.

A few women may genuinely have a thing for violent men - why not? There are many childhood/familial psychological dynamics to account for this. It doesn't suddenly make feminism a nonsense.

I think much else of the time, the 'jerk' boy gets the girls (of course, loads and loads of non-jerks get girls, too) because of an assumed strength of character. Being an a***hole is a shorthand way of trying to show confidence, and confidence is attractive. Of course, much of the time it's bluster - it's a lot easier to ostentatiously display confidence than to actually be so. True confidence is quiet and unassuming. The blustering jerk is not likely to be the unflappable, solid, calm sort in a panicked situation.

The ladies loved my grandad. Men, too, but that women particularly enjoyed talking to him was often remarked on. He was not a violent man - he could rarely be stirred to anger - and, following from his mom raising him after his dad died in a mine collapse, had a respect for the strength and capability of women rare among his peers. What he did have was strength of character, and a genuine interest in people and their lives, and treating people as people and, even better, grown ups. How often is anyone addressed as, or assumed to be, a grown up, as opposed to an adult toddler who either a) should have all the fun flashy things he wants, and right now, because he's a special little boy, oh yes he is, ooh look at the funny flashing lights or b) needs to be chastised for something she not only hasn't done, but wasn't even thinking of doing?

Except that they don't. It you adjust for the specific degree, the difference is tiny. Do you really expect $300,000 a year from an art history or women's studies major? Besides, if you counted people working above ther education level, you might get a different answer: It would include a lot of boys who hated school and chose to work their way up instead. They're usually underpaid for the work that they do.



Which is exactly why I respect her. When Chester Nimitz was appointed head of the US pacific Fleet, he came home bummed. His wife asked 'Isn't that what you've always wanted?' He said 'Yes Dear, but all the ships are at the bottom.' There's more leadership turnover when times are tough, so it wouldn't be surprising if any group got its first chance in a bad spell. And if we're talking anecdotes, remember that Carly Fiorina presided over the liquidation of the world's two best computer-tech portfolios: DEC and HP. I remember glowing cover articles about Autodesk's female CEO, written while they were hemorrhaging market share even faster than GM.

Why the hell would you assume that most women chose those two joke majors?



Woman are only respected when they're taking the fall for something that men probably exclusively did. Cool story.

I didn't. It doesn't take many to drag down the average, and the ratios for the other majors tell the same story.



They weren't taking any falls, unless you count golden parachutes. The people taking falls were the tech staff who were laid off for the mistakes of these women. Firing 5,000 people at a time was common. As far as any 'bad hand' inherited from their male predecessors, I'm not going to count having a 2x performance lead over everyone else in the world as a handicap. Nor HPs number-one market share position. Sorry. As for Autodesk's CEO, there were so many companies that had standardized on AutoCAD that she could get away with having no competitive product for several years while Dassault, PTC and EDS ate her lunch. That's more like coasting on a fat inheritance than being a turnaround boss.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 06 Apr 2014, 12:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

Feminininininininiiismismismisism. Sorry I just felt like saying that! Im really hyper right now! Oh and *snort* *snort *snort snort snort* and weeee!! I just had a talk with a feminist in person and they aren't so bad after all!

but do agree with them politically now?