Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[Lyfe]

Ok so you admit it. Finally not trying to backtrack. You believe a woman’s place is in the house. Your pissed at feminism and feminists (and believe feminists have been brainwashed) because they don’t want to be in the house. You believe that allowing adult women to follow their own desires is harmful to men and are in agreement with MGTOW that men should shun and shame women who “don’t know their place” and you justify this by the divorce rate while refusing to acknowledge that it’s attitudes like yours that lead women EN MASSE to support feminism to begin with (to the point of literal death) and oftentimes NOW lead to divorce “when abuse and infedility” are absent.

I haven’t been brainwashed by anyone, feminism didn’t “groom” me - I’ve watched with my own eyes what happened to women in my own life who were completely dependent on a man. I decided it wasn’t for me. That is not saying I think all men abuse that position - my grandmother was left destitute when my grandfather died an untimely death, her children (including my mother) were raised in abject poverty because she didn’t have the means to provide for them on her own or the ability to acquire them. Numerous aunts and in laws who dedicated themselves to being housewives only to be left for younger women when their children reached adulthood and to have their husbands deny them any legitimate means of support afterwards despite the fact they sacrificed their own earning potential to be in the home as men like you insist we should do. So no, no one brainwashed me. I’m smart enough to recognize the risks associated with your preferred relational arrangement and choose something else for myself.

you harp on about how smart MGTOW is for looking at the statistics and choosing not to take the risk but condemn women for doing the same and then infantalize them by insisting they must only be doing so because they have been “groomed and brainwashed” by feminism. See the double standard? I’m sure you don’t since your blinded by self preservation and decided the scape goat for your own inability to mantain a relationship was feminism long ago. But it’s blatant to pretty much everyone else.

for the record: I have no issue with anyone of either gender deciding to abstain from relationships instead of risking being HURT (because that is what it boils down to). I do have an issue with anyone of either gender making that decision but then justifying it by demonizing 50% of the population. And I have a massive issue when it’s taken a step further and used to actually advocate for stripping all rights to personhood from 50% of the population. Especially when in the next breath you claim like a hypocrite to be charged by god to love and protect and provide for the people you are trying to make indentured slaves while disregarding every and anything they say about why that will make them miserable and hurt them. You can’t claim to love someone you are actively engaged in hurting. That’s abusive. That’s the furthest thing from love there is. And fuck you and anyone else who wants to do so or thinks doing so is in any way shape or form okay.

god sent Jesus to correct Israel from their mistakes, Jesus treated women so well they flocked To him and were an integral part of spreading and supporting his ministry. I’ll follow Jesus rather than the mistakes of those who came before him and the interpretations of men raised in the defective culture he came to correct that came after him.

Ok so you admit it. Finally not trying to backtrack. You believe a woman’s place is in the house. Your pissed at feminism and feminists (and believe feminists have been brainwashed) because they don’t want to be in the house. You believe that allowing adult women to follow their own desires is harmful to men and are in agreement with MGTOW that men should shun and shame women who “don’t know their place” and you justify this by the divorce rate while refusing to acknowledge that it’s attitudes like yours that lead women EN MASSE to support feminism to begin with (to the point of literal death) and oftentimes NOW lead to divorce “when abuse and infedility” are absent.

I'm actually really not even mad and again you fail to discern where I am coming from. I would just like to point out though that prior to electricity and the technological revolutions of the 20th century there is really no reason to assume that most women held the view that being the keeper of the home was restricting to any sort of potential(in the sense that we think of today). There's no reason to believe that the consensus among women was that most of them wanted out of the house and the opportunity to work in the same capacity as men did. Why would there be? Lets just pretend that the grid went down and there was no electricity. Do you really think all these feminists would be eager to get out there and work in the same elements right alongside men with the type of work that would be needed just to survive? Especially if these were the only type of jobs primarily available and the only things that became worth anything were food and shelter? That's basically how it used to be. This is why its a moot point of reference to contend things like women ALWAYS wanted out of the house in the sense they wanted to earn their own money to go on a shopping spree and follow their dreams... In fact this truth in and of itself basically undermines many of the arguments feminists make when using the past as an example to prove their point. This is why you should stop assuming that the majority of women for hundreds of years actually wanted out of the house and to work in the same capacity as men especially in a time before there was all this commerce and worldly toys like smartphones and coach bags. You had to work really hard and that was only for the bare minimum to survive like food and shelter. Its foolish to assume most women would want to trade their keeper of the home role for labors that men mostly did. Im willing to bet that between laboring as a single woman (when the only things you could purchase are food and shelter) and entering into a marriage with a man while he works and she raises the kids at home that many of the women indeed preferred the second option. Its interesting that feminism fails to mention any of this.

 

[Maes17]

I find it amazing how people feel the need to mention my name in a thread I already exited. If yall wanna talk abt this topic for hours go ahead, yall don't need to bring my name into it.

I thought you liked male and female attention. Why u so unhappy?

 

[Maes17]

View attachment 59403
I thought you had put me on ignore, yet here you are.

 

[kerrichinchilla]

Lol fought who? Wasn’t it mainly male judges that ruled in their favor? Aren’t you in America? When were women in America “imprisoned, tortured, FORCE FED (?!)”, and the real kicker “KILLED” in the name of feminism?

fought the law, police, men in general. It was only BECAUSE women fought, died, went to prison, basically would not shut up that judges and the governments in charge had to back down.
Suffragettes and suffragists all suffered and fought so women could have freedoms, men didnt just decide ''oh yeah women are people to arent they'' after 6000 years.
Men used every excuse in the book as to why women should not have rights like voting, an education, job security, bank accounts, ect. It was only because WW1 and WW2 happened. Women took over all those jobs men said they couldnt do, every single job. If it wasnt for women most countries would have just halted, soldiers would have had no food, clothing, weapons or ammo or coal for heating. After that men couldnt use the excuse women are to weak or not clever enough to work or have what men have and they had to give in. It wasnt out of the goodness of their own heart men seceded because women proved they are just as capable and would not back down. Women werent given rights they took them by force of will and by proving themselves capable. But most of all men did not give women rights they did everything possible to stop women, from religion, to telling women they were undesirable ( nothing changes there with anti feminists, thinking all women want is to look pretty to men) to torture, some of which were barbaric.


testemony of Rosa May Billinghurst a suffragette

''the sight of the first baton brought down makes you gasp, it lands on a young woman by the gate, she raises an arm to deflect the blows and cries out as the copper slams it down, over and over – HE WILL BREAK HER ARM, you shout but Edith is gone into the throng, darting in amongst the bodies towards the target

the young woman who was beaten has already vanished – how? – but the police have formed a line with truncheons raised, driving into the crowd, scything heads, ribs, spines, backs of legs, bringing women down although they try, the protestors, desperately, try to remain upright, to dodge the blows, to resist
two of the coppers tuck their truncheons into the armpits of their long coats then, looking around, one simply reaches out and plucks a young woman running past, swings her towards his mate, they clutch an arm each, then one grabs her, twists at her chest, her mouth drops open, he shifts his hand from bosom to sleeve and between them they lift her clear of the pavement before hurling her to the ground where her head bounces

behind you a voice is frantic – BE CAREFUL, THEY ARE DRAGGING WOMEN OFF INTO THE LANES

everyone knows what that means''

 

[Cintra]

Yes!
Those women suffered and sometimes died so that I wouldn't have to be property.
Should never be forgotten by any woman who is benefitting from their sacrifices.

 

[Lyfe]

fought the law, police, men in general. It was only BECAUSE women fought, died, went to prison, basically would not shut up that judges and the governments in charge had to back down.
Suffragettes and suffragists all suffered and fought so women could have freedoms, men didnt just decide ''oh yeah women are people to arent they'' after 6000 years.
Men used every excuse in the book as to why women should not have rights like voting, an education, job security, bank accounts, ect. It was only because WW1 and WW2 happened. Women took over all those jobs men said they couldnt do, every single job. If it wasnt for women most countries would have just halted, soldiers would have had no food, clothing, weapons or ammo or coal for heating. After that men couldnt use the excuse women are to weak or not clever enough to work or have what men have and they had to give in. It wasnt out of the goodness of their own heart men seceded because women proved they are just as capable and would not back down. Women werent given rights they took them by force of will and by proving themselves capable. But most of all men did not give women rights they did everything possible to stop women, from religion, to telling women they were undesirable ( nothing changes there with anti feminists, thinking all women want is to look pretty to men) to torture, some of which were barbaric.
View attachment 59420View attachment 59421View attachment 59422View attachment 59423View attachment 59424View attachment 59425

testemony of Rosa May Billinghurst a suffragette

''the sight of the first baton brought down makes you gasp, it lands on a young woman by the gate, she raises an arm to deflect the blows and cries out as the copper slams it down, over and over – HE WILL BREAK HER ARM, you shout but Edith is gone into the throng, darting in amongst the bodies towards the target

the young woman who was beaten has already vanished – how? – but the police have formed a line with truncheons raised, driving into the crowd, scything heads, ribs, spines, backs of legs, bringing women down although they try, the protestors, desperately, try to remain upright, to dodge the blows, to resist
two of the coppers tuck their truncheons into the armpits of their long coats then, looking around, one simply reaches out and plucks a young woman running past, swings her towards his mate, they clutch an arm each, then one grabs her, twists at her chest, her mouth drops open, he shifts his hand from bosom to sleeve and between them they lift her clear of the pavement before hurling her to the ground where her head bounces

behind you a voice is frantic – BE CAREFUL, THEY ARE DRAGGING WOMEN OFF INTO THE LANES

everyone knows what that means''

During WW1 and WW2 much of the foundation for the industrial revolution was already laid, but it was primarily by men. Men built roads, men built railroads, men built factories and various infrastructures, men built engines as KM already pointed out. All women had to do was fill in after all the difficult foundations were set in place primarily by men. In a twisted sense its almost as if men became disposable after things became convenient for everyone. You act as if women were right alongside men doing the hard labor to give us all these jobs women can now do. Imagine if it was all taken away. Do you know how many hundreds of years of hard phyiscal labor it would take just to get us back to where we are now? If it was all taken away things would go right back to how they were. Most women would watch over the kids while the man is out building it all over again and most women would prefer it that way. You cant tell me a woman would rather built a hut and go hunting then watch her kids. The point is I dont care if women worked alongside men doing all the hard stuff, but you act as if given the choice between laying that infrastructure and being a caretaker of the home that women actually wanted to be out there doing all the phyiscal work and they would have chose that as opposed to doing those traditionally housewife and mother duties. What were men suppressing you from? Busting your ass building a railroad or infrastructure so you could spend your wages on food and shelter? Its not like there was any of the things to buy back then that would have appealed to a womans interests like there are today. You spent your money on food and shelter. What makes you think most women wanted to be out there working in hard conditions if given the choice between that and staying at home? Look I am not trying to act as if women didnt play a big part or didnt contribute in a heavy way, but maybe you didnt understand the times and the nature of work in the past and make the mistake of comparing it all to today.

Not to mention what education was there during feminism and for what kind of jobs? Who worked those jobs that required an education and would they have even benefited women? If the only sort of education back then was to make the worker more efficient at their jobs then why and how would this education benefit a woman if it only overqualified her for something she wouldn't even do? If I gave education to a woman in law or to work a machine what makes you think she would even be interested in that and wouldnt rather stay at home and raise the children? It would have been a waste of time and resource to train women in stuff they werent even interested in and wouldnt have even done. We need to stop acting as if many of the jobs actually appealed to women during these times and if given the choice they would rather be out doing them as opposed to being a housewife.

 

[Drifter]

@Lyfe When are you planning on going your own way?

 

[Lyfe]

@Lyfe When are you planning on going your own way?

If you must know the truth I am merely bored, unemployed, and having health issues for the time being. I cant walk very far without feeling the affects of that health problem. I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't mostly ridden to a bed or a chair at the moment. So yeah I am here dispelling some of the feminist nonsense I see.

 

[Drifter]

If you must know the truth I am merely bored, unemployed, and having health issues for the time being. I cant walk very far without feeling the affects of that health problem. I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't mostly ridden to a bed or a chair at the moment. So yeah I am here dispelling some of the feminist nonsense I see.

I'm sorry to hear you're having issues. But I cant understand your investment. You dont think having relationships with women are worth it and you think men should prioritize themselves. Which is fine. But then you insist on "dispelling feminist nonsense" while actively ignoring what we say. You're not dispelling anything if you dont actually engage with what being said. You insisted most women were happy pre feminism, then in response to a reply about some of the brutal things they endured to fight for their rights, you clap back with "yeah but men built all the infrastructure", completely disregarding everything else in the post.

 

[Lyfe]

I'm sorry to hear you're having issues. But I cant understand your investment. You dont think having relationships with women are worth it and you think men should prioritize themselves. Which s fine. But then you insist on "dispelling feminist nonsense" while actively ignoring what we say. You're not dispelling anything if you dont actually engage with what being said. You insisted most women were happy pre feminism, then in response to a reply about some of the brutal things they endured to fight for their rights, you clap back with "yeah but men but all the infrastructure", completely disregarding everything else in the post because mEn hAvE mUsClEs. But by your logic . . . Men are also largely responsible for most of the crime, war and other BS happening around the globe. Should women collectively hate men for that as well once they're done thanking them for building the societies they live in as well?

I havent ingored what feminists are saying here I just want much of what they are saying here to be given proper context. My responses have mainly been toward extreme examples and extreme allegations being used to paint certain misguided/flawed conclusions. Not only that, but everything being seen through the light of today without giving proper consideration to the context of the times. Not too mention its the same men that protect women from crimes perpetuated by men. I have had many of my points brushed over as well and its not like I can respond to everything.

Not only that, but like I have been saying from the beginning I dont care if women have the same worker rights as men and get paid as much or if they have voting rights and etc etc. My issue is with certain social ideas that accompanied feminism, all these suggestive and implied ideas. Ideas that have changed the social fabric of society and marriages, families, gender identity and how each gender perceives themselves and quite a bit actually.

 

[Drifter]

I havent ingored what feminists are saying here I just want much of what they are saying here to be given proper context. My responses have mainly been toward extreme examples and extreme allegations being used to paint certain misguided/flawed conclusions. Not only that, but everything being seen through the light of today without giving proper consideration to the context of the times. Not too mention its the same men that protect women from crimes perpetuated by men. I have had many of my points brushed over as well and its not like I can respond to everything.

Not only that, but like I have been saying from the beginning I dont care if women have the same worker rights as men and get paid as much or if they have voting rights and etc etc. My issue is with certain social ideas that accompanied feminism, all these suggestive and implied ideas. Ideas that have changed the social fabric of society and marriages, families, gender identity and how each gender perceives themselves and quite a bit actually.

Ok, so which ideas specifically do you have problems with?

 

[Maes17]

If you must know the truth I am merely bored, unemployed, and having health issues for the time being. I cant walk very far without feeling the affects of that health problem. I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't mostly ridden to a bed or a chair at the moment. So yeah I am here dispelling some of the feminist nonsense I see.

Bro you sound like you’re lonely. I don’t mean that in a bad way either. Men and women have their equal contributions good and bad.

I wouldn’t get too much invested emotionally for stuff here. Ultimately it’s out of our control. I can’t say bad things about Jess. Both you and her have strong viewpoints and I have to side with her cause she sees similar to what I see.

You have your outlook and I do appreciate you sharing and giving men props.

 

[Maes17]

I havent ingored what feminists are saying here I just want much of what they are saying here to be given proper context. My responses have mainly been toward extreme examples and extreme allegations being used to paint certain misguided/flawed conclusions. Not only that, but everything being seen through the light of today without giving proper consideration to the context of the times. Not too mention its the same men that protect women from crimes perpetuated by men. I have had many of my points brushed over as well and its not like I can respond to everything.

Not only that, but like I have been saying from the beginning I dont care if women have the same worker rights as men and get paid as much or if they have voting rights and etc etc. My issue is with certain social ideas that accompanied feminism, all these suggestive and implied ideas. Ideas that have changed the social fabric of society and marriages, families, gender identity and how each gender perceives themselves and quite a bit actually.

I think those social structured affecting men and women today, go beyond just feminism/mgtow.

Society has advanced but still has a ways to go when it comes to relations

 

[Lyfe]

Ok, so which ideas specifically do you have problems with?

Well the notion that patriarchy and the past was defined by abuse and mistreatment of women. Then if given the opportunity that women would have preferred go work in the same capacity as men before the industrial resolution and technical revolutions rather than perform housewife and keeper of the home duties. The idea that men somehow suppressed women of these opportunities as if to imply that that the majority of women were dying to get out and labor alongside men in these circumstances. There was no materialism or hardly any commerce back then as if to imply a woman's finances would have benefited her like it would today and maximize her way of life. Its not like there was any of the things to buy back then that would have appealed to a woman's interests. You spent your money on food and shelter and things relating to shelter. That's all there was.

Not too mention that there was a shortage of work that women could perform and most of the work necessary for actual survival was allot more demanding and suited to men. Allot of women would have been jobless, because of this so the alternative may have been a marriage they may have not seen as ideal as a means of provision. It wasn't perfect, but I wouldnt say it was oppressive given the alternative. How many men married wives they may have not seen as ideal? Most of the jobs were jobs that were absolutely necessary just for survival that men better performed with the exception of jobs women could do that weren't as much in demand. Imagine for hundreds of years the jobs neccesary to survival were only related to building, hunting, fishing, and gardening. Imagine when these all have to be done in unforgiving elements. There would be a shortage of jobs women could perform so who is going to be their provision? A husband with a job. May not be fair in your eyes, but then again the alternative is a woman being stuck in a job she may struggle with. Its as I said earlier when given the uncertainty of being alone and being with a husband I am sure most women would prefer having a husband. Then the question is who takes care of the kids while the other works?

In regards to women being held back and hindered cause of education. What education was there during feminism and for what kind of jobs? Who worked those jobs that required an education and would they have even benefited women? If the only sort of education back then was to make the worker more efficient at their jobs then why and how would this education benefit a woman if it only overqualified her for something she wouldn't even do? If I gave education to a woman in law or to work a machine what makes you think she would even be interested in that and wouldnt rather stay at home and raise the children? It would have been a waste of time and resource to train women in stuff they werent even interested in and wouldnt have even done. We need to stop acting as if many of the jobs actually appealed to women during these times and if given the choice they would rather be out doing them as opposed to being a housewife.

I will leave it at that for the time being, but one of my main griped about today is how society doesn't even recognize or honor being a keeper of the home and housewife as anything of any real value anymore, or attribute it to being a real full time job and position that is necessary and essential. That is thanks to feminism.

 

[Lyfe]

Bro you sound like you’re lonely. I don’t mean that in a bad way either. Men and women have their equal contributions good and bad.

I wouldn’t get too much invested emotionally for stuff here. Ultimately it’s out of our control. I can’t say bad things about Jess. Both you and her have strong viewpoints and I have to side with her cause she sees similar to what I see.

You have your outlook and I do appreciate you sharing and giving men props.

I dont consider myself lonely. Its as I said I just got out of 3 relationships throughout the span of five years. I had allot of social interaction where I worked, because the type of work would allow it. It was all mostly discussion about vain and worldly things which gets old.

 

[Maes17]

I dont consider myself lonely. Its as I said I just got out of 3 relationships throughout the span of five years. I had allot of social interaction where I worked, because the type of work would allow it. It was all mostly discussion about vain and worldly things which gets old.

Do you ever consider brain games or anything while you’re down in health? If coming on here is more beneficial for you then by all means keep posting

 

[Lyfe]

Do you ever consider brain games or anything while you’re down in health? If coming on here is more beneficial for you then by all means keep posting

I mainly just go for drives and pray or pray in a room and watch Christian movies on pureflix.

 

[Maes17]

I mainly just go for drives and pray or pray in a room and watch Christian movies on pureflix.

Wishing you a speedy recovery

 

[Lyfe]

Wishing you a speedy recovery

Thank you I do appreciate it. Believe it or not I have even said a few prayers for you!

 

[Drifter]

Well the notion that patriarchy and the past was defined by abuse and mistreatment of women. Then if given the opportunity that women would have preferred go work in the same capacity as men before the industrial resolution and technical revolutions rather than perform housewife and keeper of the home duties. The idea that men somehow suppressed women of these opportunities as if to imply that that the majority of women were dying to get out and labor alongside men in these circumstances. There was no materialism or hardly any commerce back then as if to imply a woman's finances would have benefited her like it would today and maximize her way of life. Its not like there was any of the things to buy back then that would have appealed to a woman's interests. You spent your money on food and shelter and things relating to shelter. That's all there was.

Not too mention that there was a shortage of work that women could perform and most of the work necessary for actual survival was allot more demanding and suited to men. Allot of women would have been jobless, because of this so the alternative may have been a marriage they may have not seen as ideal as a means of provision. It wasn't perfect, but I wouldnt say it was oppressive given the alternative. How many men married wives they may have not seen as ideal? Most of the jobs were jobs that were absolutely necessary just for survival that men better performed with the exception of jobs women could do that weren't as much in demand. Imagine for hundreds of years the jobs neccesary to survival were only related to building, hunting, fishing, and gardening. Imagine when these all have to be done in unforgiving elements. There would be a shortage of jobs women could perform so who is going to be their provision? A husband with a job. May not be fair in your eyes, but then again the alternative is a woman being stuck in a job she may struggle with. Its as I said earlier when given the uncertainty of being alone and being with a husband I am sure most women would prefer having a husband. Then the question is who takes care of the kids while the other works?

In regards to women being held back and hindered cause of education. What education was there during feminism and for what kind of jobs? Who worked those jobs that required an education and would they have even benefited women? If the only sort of education back then was to make the worker more efficient at their jobs then why and how would this education benefit a woman if it only overqualified her for something she wouldn't even do? If I gave education to a woman in law or to work a machine what makes you think she would even be interested in that and wouldnt rather stay at home and raise the children? It would have been a waste of time and resource to train women in stuff they werent even interested in and wouldnt have even done. We need to stop acting as if many of the jobs actually appealed to women during these times and if given the choice they would rather be out doing them as opposed to being a housewife.

I will leave it at that for the time being, but one of my main griped about today is how society doesn't even recognize or honor being a keeper of the home and housewife as anything of any real value anymore, or attribute it to being a real full time job and position that is necessary and essential. That is thanks to feminism.

Before I say anything, I just want to put it out there that my point of speaking with you is not to attack you or diminish your views. I don't want it to come across as me being hostile or combative, I'm trying to see your viewpoint here. Starting with your first point: how do you reconcile that with how the suffragettes were treated when they protested? You saw how bad it was. No one here is claiming that ALL men abused ALL women back then. Obviously that's not true. But the point of wanting independence was that women were not protected against abuse of power (whether physical, sexual or financial) because of that system. The system itself treated women like children or property. Women did not want to compete with men. That's not the reason most women then and even now want to work. They just wanted the ability to defend themselves against potential abuse and manipulation by being able to provide for themselves. Being the "keeper of the home" is a relatively novel concept. It was also not as treasured back then as you seem to think.