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

[Maes17]

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

And appreciate it as well

 

[Lyfe]

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.

Im not an expert on all laws and laws belonging to all the cultures you may be are referencing. There are so many laws and so many cultures so idk which ones in particular I am supposed to address. What are we talking about the r*pe laws towards women in america before feminism or early America? Or other places? I genuinely dont know... If we are talking about patriarchy is it fair to say this system is based off of the Christian worldview? Why isnt the Bible considered protection of abuse if the whole system of patriarchy is based off of Christianity?

In regards to your question,

Obviously I think beating women is cowardly and weak, but I also don't think its fair to say that represented how the average feminist was treated. Were not many of them were given a platform in which they could rally and protest without incurring police brutality? Your more familiar with the history than I am.

 

[Drifter]

Im not an expert on all laws and laws belonging to all the cultures you may be are referencing. There are so many laws and so many cultures so idk which ones in particular I am supposed to address. What are we talking about the r*pe laws towards women in america before feminism or early America? Or other places? I genuinely dont know... If we are talking about patriarchy is it fair to say this system is based off of the Christian worldview? Why isnt the Bible considered protection of abuse if the whole system of patriarchy is based off of Christianity?

I'm referencing Western cultures. Other cultures were generally worse. I'm talking about the fact that marital r*pe was not considered an offence. Domestic abuse was not taken seriously. This was the case in 50s America for example. Patriarchy being based off of Christianity is a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not get into seeing as you could literally fill up a whole new thread with discussions based on that. What I will say is that the marriage advice dispensed by Paul and the picture painted by Jesus is not patriarchy. Far from it.

In regards to your question,

Obviously I think beating women is cowardly and weak, but I also don't think its fair to say that represented how the average feminist was treated. Were not many of them were given a platform in which they could rally and protest without incurring police brutality? Your more familiar with the history than I am.

The stuff @kerrichinchilla shared is the tip of the iceberg. If you're really interested in knowing how women were treated, consider looking into some of the practices she mentioned. This is not me being snippy btw. It's a genuine suggestion.

 

[kerrichinchilla]

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.

Women literally worked the factories, mines and mills. The reason they couldn't do certain jobs is because MEN banned them. You can't play the victim or stand on the shoulders of men and claim superiority when men stopped women from doing such jobs.
Women and children still worked dangerous jobs. Women lost limbs, scalps and lives working dangerous jobs men would not do in the mills, factories and mines. The only women setting at home were the new middle class as men decided it was a status symbol to have their wives not work like working class families.

Ever hear of the matchstick girls whose jaws rotted away, who suffered phossy jaw from creating matches.

What about women who worked the mines? People like to forget about that one


Not to mention the only reason health and safety laws exist is because of women who decided enough was enough like the match stick girls.

 

[Lyfe]

I'm referencing Western cultures. Other cultures were generally worse. I'm talking about the fact that marital r*pe was not considered an offence. Domestic abuse was not taken seriously. This was the case in 50s America for example. Patriarchy being based off of Christianity is a whole other can of worms that I'd rather not get into seeing as you could literally fill up a whole new thread with discussions based on that. What I will say is that the marriage advice dispensed by Paul and the picture painted by Jesus is not patriarchy. Far from it.


The stuff @kerrichinchilla shared is the tip of the iceberg. If you're really interested in knowing how women were treated, consider looking into some of the practices she mentioned. This is not me being snippy btw. It's a genuine suggestion.

What percentage of wives report being raped by their husbands during the 50's? Also how do you prove that, legally? Im not saying it didnt happen because clearly it did. The question is before it did become law was it reported frequently enough? How do you charge and sentence someone who was also at times given consent by the same wife? Isnt the same wife able to get a divorce? It was a stigma back then, but not kept from them. What are you supposed to make of accusations from a wife who wont divorce their husband and stays in a situation where r*pe occurs tho she has the right to request divorce? The biggest question is how does one prove that and what does it now mean if women can go to the law and say they were raped by their husband and the accusation has to be taken as truth in all instances? The issue is a loaded plate, but should there be a law in regard to an offense that can punish someone in something that is soo hard to prove? You can prove r*pe with random men, but proving a husband raped his wife is entirely diff. Obviously r*pe is wrong in any situation, but how do you charge a husband like you would any other rapist when its hard to prove and marriage(in the 50s) by default implies consent. Im not saying its right, but just, because there wasnt a law that existed dealing with the issue of a man raping his wife doesn't mean it can be seen as anti woman. It just means a law during the time didnt exist. It was probably more to do with the fact that there weren't enough cases to necessitate such a law existing.

So why is divorce and a woman moving back in with her parents or maybe even her brother being discounted here as a way to protect herself?

 

[Lyfe]

Women literally worked the factories, mines and mills. The reason they couldn't do certain jobs is because MEN banned them. You can't play the victim or stand on the shoulders of men and claim superiority when men stopped women from doing such jobs.
Women and children still worked dangerous jobs. Women lost limbs, scalps and lives working dangerous jobs men would not do in the mills, factories and mines. The only women setting at home were the new middle class as men decided it was a status symbol to have their wives not work like working class families.

Ever hear of the matchstick girls whose jaws rotted away, who suffered phossy jaw from creating matches.
View attachment 59448View attachment 59452
What about women who worked the mines? People like to forget about that one
View attachment 59451

Not to mention the only reason health and safety laws exist is because of women who decided enough was enough like the match stick girls.

Did these examples you used accurately represent the norm and typical way of life for most women though? What was the ratio of stay at home wives and women at home compared to women who worked alongside men in jobs that men usually performed?

 

[KoncreteMind]

You don’t get it. All women want is to be recognized for their contributions as PEOPLE. They want their vagina left out of the equation. I give men the same courtesy and respect I want for myself.. to be judged for their individual person. It is pointless discussing things with you.

You can want whatever you want. But in reality men and women have different natures. So with different natures how can they be viewed the same? Why would they be judged exactly the same when they have different natures?

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''

Can you be specific? When was the time feminists were out in America getting killed/tortured? What event can I look up where that happened?

 

[justjess]

You can want whatever you want. But in reality men and women have different natures. So with different natures how can they be viewed the same? Why would they be judged exactly the same when they have different natures?



Can you be specific? When was the time feminists were out in America getting killed/tortured? What event can I look up where that happened?

Your literally objecting to treating women as people. End thread/

 

[Cintra]

Women doing things I’d why my life sucks. Stupid women and their stupid rights. When the cunts act up I should kick their dumb asses like Holy Quran says. Stupid bitches wanting power.

Lol
Bad weekend?

 

[Maldarker]

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

I hope & wish you the best brother. I'm going through some health stuff & it can be daunting hang in there GOD BLESS you!

 

[Faker He-Man]

What percentage of wives report being raped by their husbands during the 50's? Also how do you prove that, legally? Im not saying it didnt happen because clearly it did. The question is before it did become law was it reported frequently enough? How do you charge and sentence someone who was also at times given consent by the same wife? Isnt the same wife able to get a divorce? It was a stigma back then, but not kept from them. What are you supposed to make of accusations from a wife who wont divorce their husband and stays in a situation where r*pe occurs tho she has the right to request divorce? The biggest question is how does one prove that and what does it now mean if women can go to the law and say they were raped by their husband and the accusation has to be taken as truth in all instances? The issue is a loaded plate, but should there be a law in regard to an offense that can punish someone in something that is soo hard to prove? You can prove r*pe with random men, but proving a husband raped his wife is entirely diff. Obviously r*pe is wrong in any situation, but how do you charge a husband like you would any other rapist when its hard to prove and marriage(in the 50s) by default implies consent. Im not saying its right, but just, because there wasnt a law that existed dealing with the issue of a man raping his wife doesn't mean it can be seen as anti woman. It just means a law during the time didnt exist. It was probably more to do with the fact that there weren't enough cases to necessitate such a law existing.

So why is divorce and a woman moving back in with her parents or maybe even her brother being discounted here as a way to protect herself?

You were previously complaining about false perceptions of the past, while from my perspective you have the same romanticized rose-tinted perception of the past that most gen x and millennials tend to hold onto. I’m a gen x’er myself, and I was also very ignorant of the social attitudes of the 50s and how much had changed in the following decades until I started learning more later in life.

We have to remember that the expectation of wives was that they should “try to get in the mood” so that their husband doesn’t “have to get aggressive”. And this was advice generally given to newlywed wives not by men, but by other WOMEN who didn’t understand they were actually victims of spousal abuse. This is far different than the attitudes of today obviously.

I now finally understand why my great aunt didn’t divorce her awful husband who treated her like garbage until they were around 70 years old. Now I totally get it. She was just afraid, and suffered silently for years. She obviously needed help because she did not file for divorce until she finally received some outside support from my grandparents.

 

[weskrongden]

50s was the GOAT era. Women are so happy now that they're all obese and on anti depressants lol.

 

[justjess]

Did these examples you used accurately represent the norm and typical way of life for most women though? What was the ratio of stay at home wives and women at home compared to women who worked alongside men in jobs that men usually performed?

Ugh... let’s ignore that organized business as we know it is a pretty recent invention and prior to it families worked TOGETHER on farms and in home based businesses, and women took jobs doing piecemeal sewing etc from home that wouldn’t be captured in statistics.. let’s just ignore that and pretend Iike the work world has always looked exactly as it has today...

The history of women's work and wages and how it has created success for us all

www.brookings.edu

If you follow the years where upticks in female employment occurred you will find they almost always coincide with some greater societal period of problems: the Great Depression, the world wars etc.

Seems as if you guys are fine with us breaking our backs and pitching in when times are rough but have an issue with it as soon as it would inconvenience you. Your bad. Shouldn’t have gone on imperial blood bath missions or let greed collapse the economy if you couldn’t risk the women folk enjoying there little piece of agency too much to hand it back over when you got back.

50s was the GOAT era. Women are so happy now that they're all obese and on anti depressants lol.

Ever hear of hysteria?

 

[weskrongden]

Ugh... let’s ignore that organized business as we know it is a pretty recent invention and prior to it families worked TOGETHER on farms and in home based businesses, and women took jobs doing piecemeal sewing etc from home that wouldn’t be captured in statistics.. let’s just ignore that and pretend Iike the work world has always looked exactly as it has today...

The history of women's work and wages and how it has created success for us all

www.brookings.edu

If you follow the years where upticks in female employment occurred you will find they almost always coincide with some greater societal period of problems: the Great Depression, the world wars etc.

Seems as if you guys are fine with us breaking our backs and pitching in when times are rough but have an issue with it as soon as it would inconvenience you. Your bad. Shouldn’t have gone on imperial blood bath missions or let greed collapse the economy if you couldn’t risk the women folk enjoying there little piece of agency too much to hand it back over when you got back.

Ever hear of hysteria?

Women entering the workforce in such massive numbers eschewing marriage and kids in the process (along with immigration) has been a massive boon to the wealthy capitalist class. I'm sure the feminist movement had huge financial backing from the wealthy and business community during it's rise.

You're right that we should have stayed out of both World Wars though.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Not so much in America recently, although Incel terrorism is on the rise in the US and Canada, but google Mexico and Turkey feminist murders and you’ll see some, as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia of course ( I wonder why? )

I don’t ever remembering hearing of women being tortured for being feminists in America. Whether recently or historically. And I think in other countries they think it’s akin to being a witch.

Your literally objecting to treating women as people. End thread/

Or it can be said you’re literally objecting to being viewed as you were created (a woman). Imagine going to God and telling Him NOT to view you as He created you. I’m not even sure what’s negative about being viewed as a woman

 

[vancityeagle]

I would say that Capitalism and the worship of money, social hierarchy, etc has more to do with the unhappiness between sexes than "feminism"

Of course those always attacking "feminism" more often than not are the most vocal defenders of the capitalist system.

 

[weskrongden]

I would say that Capitalism and the worship of money, social hierarchy, etc has more to do with the unhappiness between sexes than "feminism"

Of course those always attacking "feminism" more often than not are the most vocal defenders of the capitalist system.

There's a connection there though. Don't get married and become a mother. You'll be happier being a corporate worker bee helping them squeeze out a few extra shekels.

 

[Maldarker]

All the ism's are doomed to fail because they all have one thing in common and that is humans.

 

[vancityeagle]

There's a connection there though. Don't get married and become a mother. You'll be happier being a corporate worker bee helping them squeeze out a few extra shekels.

Yes there is a connection.

But the main underlying problem is Capitalism, not feminism.

And the vast majority of the anti feminists defend the Capitalist system to their grave.

Talk about missing the forrest for the trees.

 

[kerrichinchilla]

You can want whatever you want. But in reality men and women have different natures. So with different natures how can they be viewed the same? Why would they be judged exactly the same when they have different natures?



Can you be specific? When was the time feminists were out in America getting killed/tortured? What event can I look up where that happened?

Wait so you don't think women are people? The comment you were quoting said all women want is to be treated like people.

Also feminists were being tortured raped and killed during suffrage in America and Europe. They are still being tortured, raped and killed in countries across the world today. One shining example is Iran where women are being imprisoned for refusing head scarfs. Many are 'going missing' but this isn't a middle Eastern issue it's just they stand out more.