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

[Drifter]

Your not even properly representing what I actually said. That is what is scary as hell.

If you disagree with me and contend that a 20 year marriage where the husband lost his temper a few times and hit his wife deserves to be defined as an abusive marriage and feminists agree with you then both you and feminists are dangerous.

More dangerous than a man who thinks slapping his wife around a few times during a temper tantrum is ok as long as he behaves himself the rest of the time? Again, stay single.

 

[Lyfe]

More dangerous than a man who thinks slapping his wife around a few times during a temper tantrum is ok as long as he behaves himself the rest of the time? Again, stay single.

I never said it was ok and like jess you are accusing me of some pretty serious things don't fairly represent my attitudes. Clearly you have failed to comprehend anything I have said. Id likewise urge you to stay single if you have such strong tendencies to accuse men of things they never said or did, or attitudes they dont in actuality have.,

 

[Drifter]

I never said it was ok and like jess you are accusing me of some pretty serious things don't fairly represent my attitudes. Clearly you have failed to comprehend anything I have said. Id likewise urge you to stay single if you have such strong tendencies to accuse men of things they never said or did, or attitudes they dont in actuality have.,

There is literally no other way of interpreting what you said. Maybe you word things wrong but you tend to say things, not qualify what you mean but then get all offended when people take what you say at face value. Either way, that sentiment of yours pretty much made it clear this is a fruitless conversation. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[justjess]

Your not even properly representing what I actually said. That is what is scary as hell.

If you disagree with me and contend that a 20 year marriage where the husband lost his temper a few times and hit his wife deserves to be defined as an abusive marriage and feminists agree with you then both you and feminists are dangerous.

Why don’t you ask the woman who was hit how she feels about that? If men were charged with protecting women - by your own book - then how can you justify hurting what you were sworn to protect “even once”? Gtfoh.

 

[Lyfe]

There is literally no other way of interpreting what you said. Maybe you word things wrong but you tend to say things, not qualify what you mean but then get all offended when people take what you say at face value. Either way, that sentiment of yours pretty much made it clear this is a fruitless conversation. Enjoy the rest of your day.

No and I will say it again for the record. I merely contended that long term marriages where a few instances of physical abuse occurred should not ultimately be branded as abusive marriages, especially if the husband did exponentially more positive for his wife than negative.

Since we are in the practice of assuming things I am fair to assume that you do believe lets say a 30 year marriage where the husband lost his temper and hit is wife on a few occasions should be ultimately regarded as an abusive marriage? Is this what you believe?

 

[Drifter]

No and I will say it again for the record. I merely contended that long term marriages where a few instances of physical abuse occurred should not ultimately be branded as abusive marriages, especially if the husband did exponentially more positive for his wife than negative.

Since we are in the practice of assuming things I am fair to assume that you do believe lets say a 30 year marriage where the husband lost his temper and hit is wife on a few occasions should be ultimately regarded as an abusive marriage? Is this what you believe?

Yes. You waxed on and on about how it's a biological imperative for men to protect women and for women to look to men for provision and safety. Yet you are implying (as most people would understand it) that as long as the husband puts a roof over her head (which also, according to your worldview, she should LET him do by himself despite being perfectly capable of taking care of herself), that instances where a husband physically abuses his wife should be overlooked. Regardless of frequency, that is abuse. It scares me to think there are actually men claiming to be Christians with that mindset when there are atheists who would balk at the idea of laying a finger on their partner, no matter how angry or frustrated they were. Especially in light of what the bible charges husbands to do in a marriage . . . you are way off.

 

[Lyfe]

Yes. You waxed on and on about how it's a biological imperative for men to protect women and for women to look to men for provision and safety. Yet you are implying (as most people would understand it) that as long as the husband puts a roof over her head (which also, according to your worldview, she should LET him do by himself despite being perfectly capable of taking care of herself), that instances where a husband physically abuses his wife should be overlooked. Regardless of frequency, that is abuse. It scares me to think there are actually men claiming to be Christians with that mindset when there are atheists who would balk at the idea of laying a finger on their partner, no matter how angry or frustrated they were. Especially in light of what the bible charges husbands to do in a marriage . . . you are way off.

Nope. That is a pretty warped interpretation of what I said at minimum. The fact that anyone could take my words and misconstrue them as severely as they are being misconstrued now is pretty low. I would have thought you a better person. You are setting a dangerous precedence.

 

[Lyfe]

Anyways, once again I am out.

Your warped outlooks are self evident. The idea that marriages and relationships before feminism were always predominantly defined by abuse and mistreatment of women at the hands of men and their husbands. The idea that almost all women were unhappy and that is primarily, because of their husbands as well as their wives inability to work in the same capacity as men. Now any long term marriage no matter how long it is where a husband could potentially lose his temper and hit his wife in a spur of anger on rare occasion the same marriage should ultimately be categorized as an abusive one(despite everything else positive and beneficial that husband may have provided to his wife). Your outlooks are incredibly sexist and bias. Not the other way around.

 

[justjess]

Anyways, once again I am out.

Your warped outlooks are self evident. The idea that marriages and relationships before feminism were always predominantly defined by abuse and mistreatment of women at the hands of men and their husbands. The idea that almost all women were unhappy and that is primarily, because of their husbands as well as their wives inability to work in the same capacity as men. Now any long term marriage no matter how long it is where a husband could potentially lose his temper and hit his wife in a spur of anger on rare occasion the same marriage should ultimately be categorized as an abusive one(despite everything else positive and beneficial that husband may have provided to his wife). Your outlooks are incredibly sexist and bias. Not the other way around.

No one ever said ANY OF THAT. But go ahead and complain that we are the ones twisting words. Bye.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Genuine question: where would black people in America be today without the civil rights movement?

In a better position economically, spiritually and mentally than they are now. When society pushed them into a corner they supported each other. They were forced to have their own businesses and rely on each other.

When desegregation happened they splintered off into different communities. Then they had to rely on people who may or may not care for them to hire them. If they started a business they had to hope that people who may or may not care for them supported their business. They lost the bond they had when they were in the corner to themselves (segregated)...

Action/reaction. Families may have been “together” but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were strong and in tact. That’s more a reflection of the laws and the economy then anything else.

Families are stronger together than apart. That video shows that there were women who didn’t think there was a divide between men and women. Well until it was “pointed out” to them. Kinda like how Eve didn’t know she was naked until the serpent “pointed it out” her? And then after Adam?

And just as you suggest I can’t assume they were strong and intact you can’t assume they weren’t right?

 

[kerrichinchilla]

I have a problem with generalized sentiment such as:

Women were by and large mostly unhappy. Women were mostly unhappy, because of their husbands. Women were also mostly unhappy, because they could not work in the same capacity as men.

There are allot of reasons women were and are unhappy, but given the fact that women now have all these things feminism gave them and still many of them aren't happy it now stands to reason that its completely unfair to scapegoat and fault their prior unhappiness toward their husbands and inability to work in the same capacity as men.

There is no generalisation.

Women were unhappy because

1. It was legal to beat a wife with a stick no bigger than her thumb
2. she had no legal right to her own children
3. husbands and fathers could have wives'/daughters committed to asylums on a whim
4. Women had no right to a bank account or even there own money
5. women had no right to own or rent property
6. women could not vote
7. women had no reproductive rights. Not only was contraceptive illegal But women were banned from using pain relief during pregnancy well into the 20th century because male doctors believed women deserved pain because of fairy tales.
8. women had no right to chose healthcare long into the later part of the 20th century. Men would get final say on their wives health care
9. women still need permission in some countries including the US to have their tubes tired or for reproductive care like the pill.
10. Men could legally r*pe their wives well into the 90s because it was seen as his right.
11. women's healthcare is still an issue. From women's pain not being taken seriously to trials on medication or treatments being done on male bodies only because doctors look down on women's bodies. This includes a trial to understand uterine cancer in 1996 which was done on 12 men ( you know non uterus havers)
12. women lacked basic education and were out right banned from universities and colleges in many western nations again well into the 20th century.
13. by law women were not legally people in many countries. so had no legal rights.
14. Women routinely died and still due due to birth and pregnancy and were not/are not taken seriously.
15. Women by law were men's property hence the name change at marriage.
16. Working class women were seriously underpaid in work and abused by the system (prostitution)
17. unwed women and girls were exploited, abused and killed for being pregnant - many due to r*pe- and were used as virtual slaves in Magdalene laundries.

 

[justjess]

There is no generalisation.

Women were unhappy because

1. It was legal to beat a wife with a stick no bigger than her thumb
2. she had no legal right to her own children
3. husbands and fathers could have wives'/daughters committed to asylums on a whim
4. Women had no right to a bank account or even there own money
5. women had no right to own or rent property
6. women could not vote
7. women had no reproductive rights. Not only was contraceptive illegal But women were banned from using pain relief during pregnancy well into the 20th century because male doctors believed women deserved pain because of fairy tales.
8. women had no right to chose healthcare long into the later part of the 20th century. Men would get final say on their wives health care
9. women still need permission in some countries including the US to have their tubes tired or for reproductive care like the pill.
10. Men could legally r*pe their wives well into the 90s because it was seen as his right.
11. women's healthcare is still an issue. From women's pain not being taken seriously to trials on medication or treatments being done on male bodies only because doctors look down on women's bodies. This includes a trial to understand uterine cancer in 1996 which was done on 12 men ( you know non uterus havers)
12. women lacked basic education and were out right banned from universities and colleges in many western nations again well into the 20th century.
13. by law women were not legally people in many countries. so had no legal rights.
14. Women routinely died and still due due to birth and pregnancy and were not/are not taken seriously.
15. Women by law were men's property hence the name change at marriage.
16. Working class women were seriously underpaid in work and abused by the system (prostitution)
17. unwed women and girls were exploited, abused and killed for being pregnant - many due to r*pe- and were used as virtual slaves in Magdalene laundries.

Add to that:
- Widows were left to the mercy of inadequate government support or the charity of male relatives when they had no education or means to gainfully support themselves.
- girls were traded into marriage before they even started menstruating to men sometimes more than double their age
- infertile women were viewed as defective and infertility was grounds for divorce (and the subsequent poverty of the woman who couldn’t work)

 

[kerrichinchilla]

Add to that:
- Widows were left to the mercy of inadequate government support or the charity of male relatives when they had no education or means to gainfully support themselves.
- girls were traded into marriage before they even started menstruating to men sometimes more than double their age
- infertile women were viewed as defective and infertility was grounds for divorce (and the subsequent poverty of the woman who couldn’t work)

add away theres so many i cant remember them all off the top of my head

another one thats still a problem female genital mutilation

 

[weskrongden]

In a better position economically, spiritually and mentally than they are now. When society pushed them into a corner they supported each other. They were forced to have their own businesses and rely on each other.

When desegregation happened they splintered off into different communities. Then they had to rely on people who may or may not care for them to hire them. If they started a business they had to hope that people who may or may not care for them supported their business. They lost the bond they had when they were in the corner to themselves (segregated)...

We actually agree. Family wise especially blacks were much better off before the civil rights movement. Much higher rates of marriage, less out of wedlock births. These white liberals think they're everyone's savior.

 

[Corvus Metus]

Families are stronger together than apart.

...you know you can have strong family bonds and not control the lives of the women in your life, right? Like, if you actually treat the people you live like human beings and not your property, they'll actually love you, right?

 

[kerrichinchilla]

We actually agree. Family wise especially blacks were much better off before the civil rights movement. Much higher rates of marriage, less out of wedlock births. These white liberals think they're everyone's savior.

What!!! Black people had very few rights, were set up to fail in underfunded schools, most kids left early to work in service roles. Died because they couldn't go to the same hospitals, were lynched often. couldnt sit on a seat, drink water, sit on buses, or go to the toilet where white people were. They had acid thrown on them if their dared to share a pool with whites. Theres a reason why civil rights happened. The issue is Americas war on drugs and bail system which causes more criminality than helps

 

[Lyfe]

There is no generalisation.

Women were unhappy because

1. It was legal to beat a wife with a stick no bigger than her thumb
2. she had no legal right to her own children
3. husbands and fathers could have wives'/daughters committed to asylums on a whim
4. Women had no right to a bank account or even there own money
5. women had no right to own or rent property
6. women could not vote
7. women had no reproductive rights. Not only was contraceptive illegal But women were banned from using pain relief during pregnancy well into the 20th century because male doctors believed women deserved pain because of fairy tales.
8. women had no right to chose healthcare long into the later part of the 20th century. Men would get final say on their wives health care
9. women still need permission in some countries including the US to have their tubes tired or for reproductive care like the pill.
10. Men could legally r*pe their wives well into the 90s because it was seen as his right.
11. women's healthcare is still an issue. From women's pain not being taken seriously to trials on medication or treatments being done on male bodies only because doctors look down on women's bodies. This includes a trial to understand uterine cancer in 1996 which was done on 12 men ( you know non uterus havers)
12. women lacked basic education and were out right banned from universities and colleges in many western nations again well into the 20th century.
13. by law women were not legally people in many countries. so had no legal rights.
14. Women routinely died and still due due to birth and pregnancy and were not/are not taken seriously.
15. Women by law were men's property hence the name change at marriage.
16. Working class women were seriously underpaid in work and abused by the system (prostitution)
17. unwed women and girls were exploited, abused and killed for being pregnant - many due to r*pe- and were used as virtual slaves in Magdalene laundries.

Im sorry, but to contend women were unhappy is a generalized statement of which there is no way to verify. Its a presumption. I am reprimanded when I say that that allot of women are unhappy today and told I cant make such a generalized statement without any real basis other than my own observation. Therefore you are unable to make such statements on behalf of women that lived 50-100 years ago.

I didnt have the same rights, privilege's, and freedoms as a child as my parents did. Did that by default mean I was unhappy? Before I get accused of comparing women to children again(which I am not) the same concept applies. Not having the same rights and privilege's as someone does not by default equate to unhappiness. Just, because men could legally r*pe their wives does not mean it was an epidemic. You talk about how not having reprdocutive rights made women unhappy, yet I am pretty sure there is a statistic correlating women who get abortions to depression.

 

[Lyfe]

...you know you can have strong family bonds and not control the lives of the women in your life, right? Like, if you actually treat the people you live like human beings and not your property, they'll actually love you, right?

Why would you feel compelled to say that based off of that seemingly non controversial remark you quoted? I dont understand why having a strong family somehow implies control and treating someone like property.

 

[kerrichinchilla]

Im sorry, but to contend women were unhappy is a generalized statement of which there is no way to verify.
[/QUOTE,]


all of them are set in law You can literally look them up in most archives and libraries. Are you just playing dumb or are you really this thick?



just a few laws that were brought in BECAUSE women were discriminated in the UK

1919 The Sex Discrimination (Removal) Act
This was the first piece of equal opportunities legislation to officially enter the statute book. As implied in the title, the intent was to “amend the Law with respect to disqualification on account of sex”, meaning women would no longer be “disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function”.
For the first time, women could become accountants, lawyers and vets, sit on a jury or become a magistrate.

1922 The Law of Property Act
This piece of legislation meant that husbands and wives had equal rights to inherit property from each other. Before this, women were forced to give up all rights to their property when they got married – putting their legal status on equal ranking to criminals and insane people. This was changed under the 1870 Married Women’s Property Act, followed by an extension to the law in 1882, which gave married women complete control over their own property.
Following on from the Law of Property Act in 1922, legislation finally gave women the same rights to own and dispose of property as men in 1926.

1923 The Matrimonial Causes Act
This act allowed women to petition for divorce if their husband had been unfaithful. Before the act was passed, only men were allowed to divorce a spouse due to adultery.
A further Act passed in 1937 included cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity as grounds for divorce.

1967 The NHS (Family Planning) Act
This act was important for a number of reasons. First, it made contraception available to all women – previously, the service had only been granted for those whose health would be endangered by pregnancy.
Second, it finally made it legal for local health authorities to give birth control advice to unmarried women, rather than only those who were wed.

1970 Women can get their own mortgages
Women in the UK were generally refused mortgages right up until the Seventies, because so few of them were in continuous employment. Until then, a woman could only secure a mortgage if she had the signature of a male guarantor.

1970 Equal Pay Act
This act made it illegal to pay women less than men for the same amount of work. It also made it illegal to give women less favourable conditions of employment than men.
Some employers attempted to find a loophole in the law by rewriting women’s job descriptions so they wouldn’t have to raise their pay, or by creating new positions for which there were no male equivalents hired. Thankfully, this generally received resistance from local authorities.

1975 The Sex Discrimination Act
This was another radical change to the law, which made it illegal to discriminate against women in work, training and education. This meant that employers, landlords, schools, restaurants and finance companies legally had to treat women as equals to men for the first time. For example, job adverts could no longer specify that a company was looking for only a woman or a man for a specific role.

1975 The Employment Protection Act
This law finally made it illegal to fire women for being pregnant. The legislation also established that women were entitled to take maternity leave, and that they had the right to return to their position after doing so.
However, despite this law being in place for over 40 years, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that over 50,000 women are (illegally) sacked every year for being pregnant.

1980 Women can apply for credit cards and loans
Yes, it really took this long before all women were allowed to apply for a credit card or loan without first needing a man’s signature.

1982 Women can’t be refused service in pubs
Up until 1982, it was perfectly legal to refuse to serve women in British pubs, which were traditionally “male environments”.

1986 The Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Act
This was an important extension to the earlier Act in 1975. It permitted women to retire at the same age as men, and made it legal for them to work factory night shifts.

1990 Independent taxation introduced
Amazingly, women were not taxed independently from their husbands until 1990. This finally marked their income as their own, rather than as an addition to their husband’s earnings.

1991 r*pe within marriage becomes a crime
Before this date, it was legal for a man to r*pe his wife because he had “conjugal rights”. It took another decade after this ruling for the word “consent” to finally be given a legal definition, under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.

1993 Violence against women recognised as a violation
It wasn’t until the early Nineties that violence against women was finally established as a violation of their human rights, under the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.

some laws that STILL exist

A woman 'must permit her husband to have legitimate intercourse with her when she is fit to do so.'
in Singapore and India, non-consensual sex within marriage is not a criminal offence, and does not constitute r*pe as long as the wife is above a certain age – 15 years old in India, and only 13 in Singapore. In Yemen, where child marriage is rife, there is no lower age limit to define r*pe in marriage.
In Malta, if you kidnap someone and marry them, you don’t need to go to jail.
A husband can beat his wife as long as he does not cause grievous bodily harm.
Laws that sanction the use of force against women in marriage highlight the persistent idea that a woman is still her husband’s property and therefore subject to his demands. There are 46 countries in the world which do not provide any legal protection against domestic violence. In Nigeria, it is within a husband’s legal rights to beat his wife “for the purpose of correcting” her, as long as it does not cause grievous bodily harm.
In Chile, Tunisia, and the UK, a man deserves to inherit more than a woman.
In Cameroon, a man can stop his wife from taking a job.

In the USA
In North Carolina, a woman cannot withdraw consent and call subsequent actions r*pe.
By definition, this law allows a form of r*pe to be legal. Let that sink in a moment.
Other states have been put under the spotlight for laws that allow certain types of sexual assault to go unpunished. Some, like Oklahoma and Georgia, closed those loopholes. North Carolina has not.

Child marriage is still legal.
Not expecting to see this on the list? Over the past 15 years, 200,000 underage children were married in the US, some as young as 10 and 11. Although the nation legal age to marry in the US is 18, most states have legal exceptions for cases of parental consent or pregnancy.

Rapists have parental rights in seven states.
Most states have laws that prevent rapists from claiming parental rights, but seven states do not: Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In some cases, this has resulting in sexual assault victims having to coparent with their perpetrator, meaning the rapist has visitation rights and stays in contact with the child and mother.

Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am reprimanded when I say that that allot of women are unhappy today and told I cant make such a generalized statement without any real basis other than my own observation. Therefore you are unable to make such statements on behalf of women that lived 50-100 years ago.

The fact women created feminisms BECAUSE they were unhappy with their current situations is proof enough that they werent happy. If they were happy would they have dealt with force feedings, beatings and imprisonment. Or do you not take what women say as fact?

Women are happier without children or a spouse, according to an expert

'If you are a man, you should probably get married; if you are a woman, don’t bother'

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Lyfe]

Your whole sentiment is that women(in a general sense) were unhappy. You are providing laws to prove your point, yet this doesnt prove anything. Allot of these laws you mention are laws that came to exist, because there were no former laws that protected women against certain things. Would you assume that animals were treated poorly just, because there existed a point and time where there were no laws protecting them? And, because I know that somebody is lurking and waiting to pounce on me and say I am comparing women to animals let it be known for the record that I am in no way shape or form making this comparison, however the same concept applies. just, because there is a point and time where laws dont exist to protect a certain party against something doesn't mean that said party is actually being offended.

You are also making the presumption that all of women rallied behind feminism, yet as I pointed out before feminism and the woman who is largely known to be the founder of it was backed by the CIA. Who needs the majority of women on ur side when u have the CIA who controls the news and media outlets? Don't you ever see how CNN makes it out to be that all black people support black lives matters? Is that the reality, or is that just how its being painted?

You cant prove that women were unhappy. In fact its not even really logical to presume that given the quality of life especially here in the west was during the 50's compared to what it used to be. You are just merely using non existing laws or laws that didnt exist to better protect women to prove your point that women were unhappy and that broad mistreatment must have occured. There is still allot of gender inequality. Does that mean a woman must still be unhappy? Im sure there is still a long ways to go in the hearts of feminist to get to the level of equality they want. Does that mean that women still aren't happy and that it directly ties to this? Your whole argument is like saying that just, because there werent more laws protecting women that must mean that women must have been mistreated. Yes, I acknowledge that many women were mistreated, but not on the level that you make it out to be.