Why Feminism isn't needed anymore (except in 3rd world countries)

[Kung Fu]

Wow if us men folk are really so dangerous, wouldn't it be much more fair if we were the ones who were told we shouldn't go anywhere late at night etc? Makes sense to me.

Because men aren't the ones usually getting raped. I thought that would be obvious but I guess that went right over your head a buddy.

 

[Faker He-Man]

Because men aren't the ones usually getting raped.

Right, I agree actually. Men are much more dangerous, so if anyone is being told to stay home just for the sake of everyone's safety, it should be men and not women, agreed?

 

[Faker He-Man]

If I was a black man, I wouldn't go to a bar operated and owned by people that belong to the KKK because I know there's a high probability that I would get into a situation where I could potentially lose my life even though I could be doing nothing wrong.

Nah, bars are public accommodations, and everyone has a right to feel safe in public places. It's very cowardly to just let someone intimidate you from going there because of skin color. I would regularly gather up all my friends to show up at the same time while live streaming just to send the message that their intimidation will never be tolerated in my community.

 

[Kung Fu]

Right, I agree actually. Men are much more dangerous, so if anyone is being told to stay home just for the sake of everyone's safety, it should be men and not women, agreed?

When did I say women should stay at home? And in one of my earlier posts I stated that I don't stay out late and when I do I'm not around women partying or with any woman who isn't my wife, sister, mother, and or aunt.

 

[Kung Fu]

Nah, bars are public accommodations, and it's very cowardly to just let someone intimidate you from going there because of skin color. I would regularly gather up all my friends to show up at the same time while live streaming just to send the message that their intimidation will never be tolerated in my community.

If you were a black man living in the south in a small town, you wouldn't be going to a bar owned and operated by the KKK. Stop lying and trying to look tough.

 

[Violette]

I never said liquor was the only reason or main reason but one of several. Regardless, I have actually brought solutions or at least possible solutions that would, I feel, greatly minimize r*pe but since feminists want to have their cake and eat it too they don't want to hear and that's fine but just remember until things such as free mixing, alcohol, sexual promiscuity, the dress code (for both men and women), popular culture, and etc. are addressed accordingly incidents of r*pe will never decrease and in fact will only keep on increasing if the things I mentioned are magnified even further. This isn't rocket science. You can't control the actions of others (no matter how hard you try) but you as a woman can control you're own and thus this is where personal responsibility comes to play.

If I was a black man, I wouldn't go to a bar operated and owned by people that belong to the KKK because I know there's a high probability that I would get into a situation where I could potentially lose my life even though I could be doing nothing wrong.

You can’t control the actions of others but if we could get enough men to realize they’re actions and profound misunderstanding about what they’re entitled to is the main issue then maybe r*pe wouldn’t be so common? If more men were feminists we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Women aren’t constantly raping either sex, the issue solely relies on the actions of men since they’re the ones actually raping people. Men aren’t animals they’re perfectly capable of not giving into whatever BS instincts they use to justify assaulting someone. Of course this isn’t rocket science we’re discussing social science It’s pretty easy to not r*pe someone. A world where women have to avoid men to avoid getting harassed or assaulted is a sad one.

 

[Forever Light]

If it is extremely similar to communism, then it does relate to communism.

It's not. Communism is a counterfeit and evil system. It will take a while to try and explain this. Perhaps a new thread will be started on it, but it may take a little while to compile the needed information into something brief.

Marxists are mostly atheists but you don't have to disbelieve in God to want a better societal system. There's a rich history of christian communism and anarchism. There is also Islamic socialism/communism as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism

The part before the "but" is correct. The part after it is problematic. Saying that yes, they are mostly (?) athiests but that you don't have to be an athiest to agree with what they (athiests) are doing, will do nothing but get you into serious trouble because it's falling for cleverly packaged and deceptive (good sounding) lies. It's actually believing God that leads to being in a better societal system, not communism. Communism is a con which at it's core is completely anti-God.

That's why you don't trust corrupt governments.

Agreed.

If South Africa has a state, then it's not communist and if the leaders claim to be attempting communism but are doing it in an authoritarian way, they typically have alternate motives.

Not typically. Always. With Communism, there will always be a state. You're only meant to believe that it's possible that there won't be one, but there always will be. So-called communism is actually a misnomer and would be more accurately termed "socialist dictatorship". The idea of stateless communism is sweet-sounding false advertising, because it's not the true reality of what you end up with.

 

[mecca]

Saying that yes, they are mostly (-?) athiests but that you don't have to be an athiest to agree with what they (athiests) are doing, will do nothing but get you into serious trouble

These people's individual perception on God has nothing to do with their actual ideas. Read those pages I sent on Christian communism and Islamic communism, plenty of people share the same ideas while believing in God. There are many religious communist / socialist movements, there's Buddhist socialism, Christian socialism, Islamic socialism, Jewish socialism... anyone of any religion can see it is a good system.
And did you know that some of the first communes that people lived in were created by Christians? There is nothing in communism that is incompatible with religion, and history demonstrates this.

Communism is a con and at it's core is completely anti-God.

This is a ridiculous statement... communism isn't ant-God, it's a system. None of the things proposed in this system are against God or anti-God. Under any system there will be people who believe in whatever religion they want and there will also be people who do not believe in God... it's a personal belief. Marx did not invent communism and just because Marx criticized religion, doesn't mean all communists are anti-religious. Communism has existed for a long time and these ideas have been talked about and practiced before Marx was even born. Early human societies resembled communist ones as well... they did not have a state or any hierarchical classes, people shared land communally, and goods were shared amongst the community because everyone supported each other.

It's actually believing God that leads to a better societal system, not communism.

Belief is not the only thing that matters, action also matters... people have to physically organize themselves and interact with society in a positive way along with supporting positive values to create a beneficial system.

With Communism, there will always be a state.

Completely wrong... the recognition of communism absolutely requires the removal of the state. Since the state has never been removed, communism has never been able to be implemented (in the modern day). Anarcho-communism attempts to create communism in an anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchical way, this allows for the state to be unable to take over. Communists are inherently against the state and aim to create a society where the state no longer exists and where people can thrive through cooperation. These views can be easily aligned with religious thought.

Here are quotes from the wikis on Christian Anarchy and communism:

Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that claims anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels. It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable—the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus. It therefore rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. Christian anarchists denounce the state, believing it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous.

At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture. For example, in the medieval Christian church some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property (see religious and Christian communism)... In the 17th century, communist thought surfaced again in England, where a Puritan religious group known as the "Diggers" advocated the abolition of private ownership of land

Bible verse

Acts 2:44-45, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need”

Religious groups are historically some of the most supportive of communism.

 

[Faker He-Man]

When did I say women should stay at home?

Never mind then. I thought you had mentioned something like women shouldn't be going to night clubs or something like that.

And in one of my earlier posts I stated that I don't stay out late and when I do I'm not around women partying or with any woman who isn't my wife, sister, mother, and or aunt.

Yeah I'm old and married, so other than friends and relatives I'm generally not either. Even if I was single, I'm just not into the hookup culture (I think it's gross honestly), and I'm not even comfortable jumping head-first into romantic relationships so... yeah I'd probably be single forever at my age lol

 

[Kung Fu]

You can’t control the actions of others but if we could get enough men to realize they’re actions and profound misunderstanding about what they’re entitled to is the main issue then maybe r*pe wouldn’t be so common? If more men were feminists we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Women aren’t constantly raping either sex, the issue solely relies on the actions of men since they’re the ones actually raping people. Men aren’t animals they’re perfectly capable of not giving into whatever BS instincts they use to justify assaulting someone. Of course this isn’t rocket science we’re discussing social science It’s pretty easy to not r*pe someone. A world where women have to avoid men to avoid getting harassed or assaulted is a sad one.

Your solutions have been put into place and it's not working. The problems are only getting worse. When you want to try the same thing over and over again but yet want different results that's called insanity.

Anyways, good luck with whatever it is you're looking for or wanting to fix.

Peace be upon you.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

Both sides are right here, its just one of the complexities of human nature. And it takes a lot of self-reflection and subordination of one's own will to deal with this issue.... both on personal and collective measures.

Women should have the right to go out at anytime of the day or night and feel safe. Thats not unrealistic, its a basic right. For that right to be implemented in a productive & realistic way, men have to first hold themselves accountable for their own actions and then proceed to hold other men accountable collectively. Its not females responsibilities to get our behavior inline with basic standards of decency and safety. Men need to accept our part in this situation and be prepared to confront our part in this escalating crisis.

On the other hand, letting white strippers who pretended to be black while relentlessly, publicly pushing an immoral sexual agenda that is counter to everything decent in human nature with "Slut Walks" organized throughout the world aimed at indoctrinating young females into this hedonistic lie is playing right into the hands of evil. Humans must be accountable for their actions and telling young, impressionable people that they have the right to do, wear & say whatever they want with no consequences is a dangerous trap and the people that are setting this trap are well aware of the hurt wrought by such actions.

Like Anthrax sang all those years ago.....
"Good, vs. Evil.....
We stand to vanquish evil.......
Man can only live one way, that place right in the middle."

 

[justjess]

If you were a black man living in the south in a small town, you wouldn't be going to a bar owned and operated by the KKK. Stop lying and trying to look tough.

Its really depressing that this is the analogy you have to use, that women need to view men as this level of threat. dont u see a problem with that?

 

[justjess]

It was addreseed KM u just dont want to accept it. False allegations are statistically rare. The whole process of reporting a r*pe is meant to be a deterebtand of the few which are actually reported that ever even get prosecuted conviction rates are horrible.

So in your scenario, im sure the guy will be fine and if its proven it was a malicious false report then she should be prosecuted.

Therw are plenty of feminists concerned with the oversexualizarion of society.

And seeong as most rapists are far from career criminals i disagree that teaching affirmative consent to boys is pointless and even if it is it cant hurt so whats the problem?

@KoncreteMind it was answered.

 

[justjess]

I don't think so but I'll ask again just in case I skipped over it. If a women and a man get drunk, and the women wakes up the next day forgetting,regretting, or misremembering what happened the night before and cries r*pe, who will generally be believed by police? And I mean with no other pieces of evidence like texts or witnesses. An answer would mean the man, the woman, or neither.

And if men have to be represented by the minority of men that r*pe/sexually assault, why don't women have to be repped by the women who make false accusations?

I have no desire to represent all men by rapists. But u are sitting here telling women its our resposibility to protect ourselves from being raped and if thats the case then i have no choice but to view all men as potential rapists. Its not exactly like they wear badges or something so we know which is which. Ive been assaulted by all different types of men so cant narrow it down based on that either.

Much fairer to everyone to just teach men consent no?

 

[Kung Fu]

Its really depressing that this is the analogy you have to use, that women need to view men as this level of threat. dont u see a problem with that?

It's just the way the world is and has always been like. Sure, we should strive to make it the best we can but that doesn't mean we should stop being vigilant and or stop making intelligent choices that would otherwise keep us safe.

I used to get into a lot of fights in my early 20s and late teens but now that I think about it all of it could have been avoided if stopped going to places with large gatherings of men and women mixing, staying out late, and avoiding alcohol. I only have myself to blame for being stupid and reckless. I knew where I was going there was going to be assholes, drunks, and promiscuous women and if I had made smarter choices I could've avoided all that nonsense. My saving grace was Islam. I was forced to choose either what the Quran tells me to do or throw it away and be a hypocrite. I chose the Quran and so I got married and dropped almost all my bad habits cold turkey.

 

[justjess]

I dont think im being selfish, overly optimistic, or unrralistic to want to be able to trust half of the worlds population to not violate my person.

 

[KoncreteMind]

@KoncreteMind it was answered.

And like I answered, telling me about the frequency of false accusations isn't an answer. Nor is telling me "the man will probably be ok". I asked you about who you think would be believed first in the scenario and you refuse to answer because you know the answer

I have no desire to represent all men by rapists. But u are sitting here telling women its our resposibility to protect ourselves from being raped and if thats the case then i have no choice but to view all men as potential rapists. Its not exactly like they wear badges or something so we know which is which. Ive been assaulted by all different types of men so cant narrow it down based on that either.

Much fairer to everyone to just teach men consent no?

So whose responsibility is it for a person to protect themself from theft if not the person? I don't think I have to view everyone as a thief to do my best to protect myself from theft. All I have to do is not do things that increase my chances of being stolen from. Which is as far as I've gone when it comes to personal responsibility.

And like i said, normal men don't need to be taught consent.

 

[Forever Light]

These people's individual perception on God has nothing to do with their actual ideas. Read those pages I sent on Christian communism and Islamic communism, plenty of people share the same ideas while believing in God. There are many religious communist / socialist movements, there's Buddhist socialism, Christian socialism, Islamic socialism, Jewish socialism... anyone of any religion can see it is a good system.
And did you know that some of the first communes that people lived in were created by Christians? There is nothing in communism that is incompatible with religion, and history demonstrates this.

This is a ridiculous statement... communism isn't ant-God, it's a system. None of the things proposed in this system are against God or anti-God. Under any system there will be people who believe in whatever religion they want and there will also be people who do not believe in God... it's a personal belief. Marx did not invent communism and just because Marx criticized religion, doesn't mean all communists are anti-religious. Communism has existed for a long time and these ideas have been talked about and practiced before Marx was even born. Early human societies resembled communist ones as well... they did not have a state or any hierarchical classes, people shared land communally, and goods were shared amongst the community because everyone supported each other.

Belief is not the only thing that matters, action also matters... people have to physically organize themselves and interact with society in a positive way along with supporting positive values to create a beneficial system.

Completely wrong... the recognition of communism absolutely requires the removal of the state. Since the state has never been removed, communism has never been able to be implemented (in the modern day). Anarcho-communism attempts to create communism in an anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchical way, this allows for the state to be unable to take over. Communists are inherently against the state and aim to create a society where the state no longer exists and where people can thrive through cooperation. These views can be easily aligned with religious thought.

Here are quotes from the wikis on Christian Anarchy and communism:

Bible verse


Religious groups are historically some of the most supportive of communism.

I believe that if we take a look at history, then it teaches us that a vast difference exists between the ideals of what is referred to as communism, and the actual political ideology/movement that was brought out onto the world stage and marches under that name.

They are not the same and if the difference between the ideals of a better society and the actual political-ideology of "communism" (which it is really not, since it is actually a dictatorship deceptively hidden behind a false pretext of promising such ideals to everyone) is not clearly understood and recognised, then the danger of being taken in and deceived by it exists.

Therefore, when I make a statement saying that Communism is evil, I'm referring to the latter, i.e. the political ideology/movement that marches under the banners of "communism" or "socialism" (because it really isn't).

The actual Principles (Good Principles - that are Divine in origin and originate from a higher plane) that will actually bring about that better society for all, once they are finally followed, is not what I'm referring to, when I make the statement saying that (so-called) communism is evil. It's the political ideology that is being referred to as being evil, that marches under a pretence but is not actually what it appears to be.

 

[mecca]

I believe that if we take a look at history, then it teaches us that a vast difference exists between the ideals of what is referred to as communism, and the actual political ideology/movement that was brought out onto the world stage and marches under that name.

Yes, that's true, many corrupt dictators took power and true communism has been subverted in many instances whether by authoritarian leaders or the US government, that doesn't change what communism is. If true communism has been attacked and fought against in every instance, then how can you expect an accurate and genuine portrayal? It can't be truly recognized if it's intentionally subverted by corrupt and powerful people.

They are not the same and if the difference between the ideals of a better society and the actual political-ideology of "communism" (which it is really not, since it is actually a dictatorship deceptively hidden behind a false pretext of promising such ideals to everyone) is not clearly understood and recognised, then the danger of being taken in and deceived by it exists.

If the people themselves work to create communism, there is no dictatorship, no one will take over. If the state is rejected first instead of attempted to be used as a tool, there will be no corrupt authoritarian leaders. This is the way in which anarcho-communism attempts to implement communism. The definition of communism has not changed, it will always refer to a stateless and communal society. A state referring to itself as communist doesn't make it communist... The dictators that took power in the name of communism did not care about the people, they just wanted power and control. They created oppressive state dictatorships where the state owned everything... this is not communism, the actual term for when the state owns everything and controls the production of goods is called state capitalism. Anarcho-communists are against state capitalism because communism is necessarily against capitalism and state control. Communism requires the removal of the state and necessitates that the workers themselves own the means of production, not the government. It would render the capitalist government obsolete.

 

[EABY]

Women, you have equal rights to men in the 1st world. Why is it needed?

Well, here is an often ignored issue.
"Women's jobs" pay much less, than "Men's jobs".
Especially in the lowest forms of employment.
I know! I know! They say that just aint so! Women get the same amount!
Well i'm here to tell you, it just ain't so!
And just how insidious it is, AND just how they DO it!~
For instance, did you know that a waitress only get $2 an hour (yes TWO dollars) and they are supposed to "make up the difference to minimum wage" thru their tips?
Why should i "have to make up the difference?"
Really. WHY? Just pay me the freaking min wage already!
And then, out of those "tips", she has to pay 10-20% to the EACH of the other workers ie; busboy/s, bartender/s, the Hostess at the door, and the cook, all of whom ALREADY make minimum wage, or more, per hour, than she gets?
Why? Because they make "her" food, "her" drinks, and clean up "her" tables (sometimes).
Ahem... Isnt this what THEY get paid for?
WHY single HER out, to pay MORE, for the same service that is THEIR job, for which THEY already get paid for?
Do you see my point here?
Then, there are some restaurants who made ME pay a $2 FEE, for every CUSTOMER who used a credit card, to pay HIS bill?
So, if she gets a $2 tip, its gone! She gets NO tip.
And WHY am i expected to PAY for a customer using HIS credit card?
When I have NO CHOICE, over HIS chosen way, to pay for HIS food?
And i had to figure my percentage "take outs" BEFORE these $2 fees were taken out!
Really? WHY?
If I'M not getting that lousy $2, WHY do i have to count it in AS TIPS, IF I'M NOT GETTING IT?
THAT money went back to the restaurant! To cover THEIR fees!
By the time i got done talllying up all the percentages of my tips to give out, i had less than 1/4 left. IF i was lucky.
And then i was treated like a greedy money-grubbing witch, when i got upset about the amount of tips I made - AND THEN HAD TO GIVE AWAY!
How would you react to this?
Then, there are the "Mens jobs" that women do, that she gets paid LESS for.
I worked for a construction company as a laborer & machine operator.
I went to college classes to learn this stuff. Paid good money to learn it too!
And then i found out that my "starting pay" of $7 hr... was $3 LESS than the guy who walked off the street one day, with NO experience at all.
I HAD experience, college education, and had been there over a year, at that point.
And he had to ask ME how to do everything, and i ended up TRAINING HIM!
And my pay, was $3 less an hour, for doing it.
When i asked why this was... i was told that the college had made a "deal" with the area construction companies, and that the deal was, they only had to pay their female grads $7 per hour, just so we would get hired.
A person with education & on the job experience, doesn't need to be "pushed" onto a company for a job for cheap wages!
That wasnt MY deal with anybody!
I PAID for my education & experience, and got penalized for it!
It didnt matter which company hired me, I was screwed no matter who i went to work for!
I just didnt know it at the time i went to school and got hired.
Especially when my bosses found that they REALLY liked the job i was doing.
But they wouldnt pay me the same amount of money as the men got, even tho i was doing the same job, and MOST times, doing a BETTER job at it, because women tend to take more pride in how their work looks.
Such as with laying brick. The bosses were SO thrilled with my job, they gave me lots more & made me show the men how i did it!
But i never got a raise, or a promotion. But the men got promotions & raises regularly as they moved from job to job within the company.
And men are paid by the JOB they do.
Such as a machine operator makes $3-$5 more per hour than a laborer.
And a bricklayer gets $5-$8 more than the machine operator.
But me? Doing ALL those jobs? Got the measly $7 an hour wage, no matter what job i did.
The bosses were thrilled with me, because i was a jack of all trades, but got PAID for NONE.
And my xmas bonus was paltry too, compared to the men's.
So much for higher education!
I stayed with the job for a long time, ONLY because i really LIKED the physical labor and the work.
But still, so much for equality! And getting education so i could make better wages than the waitress job!
Yeah, right! That worked out well. Not.
And then, there was Bartending.
I worked for over 3 years as a bartender, when they hired a man to take some shifts.
And i was good, too. Really fast.
They started him out at $5 more per hour than i got.
And he got regular raises.
I NEVER got a raise in all the 8 years i worked there.
When xmas came around the first year he started, they said we were getting a bonus.
And they said HE was getting the holidays off.
I was going to have to work them ALL and leave my kid with the babysitter for the holidays.
BUT...
A bonus!
For the FIRST time since i started working there!
I was desperate to make some extra money, so i could actually buy some nice gifts for my kid that year, instead of cheap shit.
So i worked Christmas eve & Christmas night.
Of course, you know the bar was dead, because everyone was home with their families.
So i didnt make jack shit for the extra hours.
The bosses came out on Christmas Eve with our checks.
And the new man bartender got a bonus of $250 included with his check.
I got NO bonus.
When i asked why not?
I was told that because i was working the holidays, I DIDNT NEED THE BONUS.
Even tho the bosses were right there, and SAW how dead it was, and my empty tip jar.
I sat down and cried.
Another crappy christmas. With crappy gifts. That i didnt even get to spend with my child.
And new bartender man?
He had NO kids. NO family. NO reason for the extra wages, bonuses & time off.
So, do you still want to tell me that we have equality?
This is only 3 examples.
I have a LIFETIME more stories to tell you, if you don't believe it.
So, you see, there is ALWAYS a way to keep women's pay down to crap scale.
And also, i was raising my son, and paying babysitters, etc. with NO help from their father throughout all these jobs.
He never paid me a dime of child support.
The breadwinners are women these days, NOT men.
They walk away scot-free, and leave US with the financial burden.
How the hell can we provide a halfway decent life for our kids, if they wont pay us the wage to support ourselves?
I had all these jobs going all at the same time... because ONE job wouldnt even cover 1/4 of my expenses!
And believe me, i lived CHEAPLY!
No champagne taste on a beer budget spending for me!
I never had enough money to pay the rent, utilities, gas, car insur, and bills, all at the same time!
And God forbid when the damn car broke down!
I would end up losing my job every damn time! Because i couldn't get to work!
And then you know what happens after that?
You lose the apartment, because you had to spend the rent money on the car.
Or you lose the car, AND the apartment, because it cost too much to fix the damn car!
And you had to pay the freaking mechanic hundreds of dollars (of your rent money!) just to have him tell you it wasnt worth fixing!
Any way you looked at it, if that car broke down, i was fucked.
And because i had crap wages, i had crap cars that broke down all the time.
Life is hell for women. Really. You should try it sometime.