Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

a reply to: stinkelbaum

If only 6% rich white male landowners (plus land owning women ... how many - can I count them on one hand?) voted, what percentage within that 6% were white female voters? That point is mute in my opinion.

The first Presidential election was held in 1789, when only 6 percent of the population had voting rights. In 1812, six Western states were the first to give non-property owning white men the right to vote.

Women's Struggle for Voting Rights

During the early 1800s, most women worked at home and raised families. As a result, they didn’t have money to purchase land, separate from their husbands. Men were listed as sole property owners on real estate deeds, making them U.S. citizens and granting them voting rights in many states. It wasn’t until 1856 that the last state, North Carolina, gave voting rights to all white males, regardless of property ownership.

Women weren’t given national voting privileges until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. However, California, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Michigan and New York gave women voting privileges before the Amendment was enacted.

classroom.synonym.com...

a reply to: InTheLight "

Elevating Women: What is in it for men?"


Nothing. Third wave feminist claim they do not have as many rights and or the same as men do.
Truth is that they in fact already have more then men and they also have benefits of not being drafted as just one example. What they really want is for men to have even less rights while they get even more rights. The "equality" claim is nothing but a ruse.

Higher taxes and paying for someone else's bastard is what We get out of the deal.

a reply to: everyone

considering how much most women have had to fight to be considered as more than nurses and secretaries in the military, I don't see not being drafted as a viable argument, so why don't you tell us some of those other ways women have more than men??

a reply to: everyone

This is an ever-evolving tidal wave coming in to it's fourth phase and will eventually hit shore and spread across many lands.

The emerging fourth wavers are not just reincarnations of their second wave grandmothers; they bring to the discussion important perspectives taught by third wave feminism. They speak in terms of intersectionality whereby women’s suppression can only fully be understood in a context of the marginalization of other groups and genders—feminism is part of a larger consciousness of oppression along with racism, ageism, classism, abelism, and sexual orientation (no “ism” to go with that). Among the third wave’s bequests is the importance of inclusion, an acceptance of the sexualized human body as non-threatening, and the role the internet can play in gender-bending and leveling hierarchies. Part of the reason a fourth wave can emerge is because these millennials’ articulation of themselves as “feminists” is their own: not a hand-me-down from grandma. The beauty of the fourth wave is that there is a place in it for all –together. The academic and theoretical apparatus is extensive and well honed in the academy, ready to support a new broad-based activism in the home, in the workplace, and in the streets. At this point we are still not sure how feminism will mutate. Will the fourth wave fully materialize and in what direction? There have always been many feminisms in the movement, not just one ideology, and there have always been tensions, points and counter-points. The political, social and intellectual feminist movements have always been chaotic, multivalenced, and disconcerting; and let's hope they continue to be so; it's a sign that they are thriving.

www.pacificu.edu...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: everyone

considering how much most women have had to fight to be considered as more than nurses and secretaries in the military, I don't see not being drafted as a viable argument, so why don't you tell us some of those other ways women have more than men??

Woman were the ones responsible for that. you claim so dramatically that they already had to fight hard just to be nurses and secretary's in the military. The cold hard truth is that that is exactly what they were fighting for, to be just nurses and secretaries in the military and to not have to fight in wars They would not vote for equal rights unless they were excluded from things like the draft.

Opponents of the ERA [Equal Rights Amenndment] focused on traditional gender roles, such as how men do the fighting in wartime. They pointed out that the amendment would eliminate the men-only draft requirement and guarantee the possibility that women would be subject to conscription and be required to have military combat roles in future wars if it were passed. Defense of traditional gender roles proved to be a useful tactic. In Illinois, supporters of Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican activist from Illinois, used traditional symbols of the American housewife. They took homemade bread, jams, and apple pies to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie."[52] They appealed to married women by stressing that the amendment would repeal protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases.[53] It was suggested that single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated if the amendment were passed as well. Traditional women started to oppose the ERA.[54] Schlafly said the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women and warned that if men and women had to be treated identically it would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives with no job skills. They could no longer count on alimony. Women's colleges would have to admit men. Her argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women.[55]

It was woman who stopped woman from being able to become soldiers in the military. here they are at the hearing even with big badges pinned onto themselves saying no to it.




As for you asking about woman having more rights instead of less then men. I already gave one example and here are a few others:

Women have the right to genital integrity. As a matter of law, it is illegal to mutilate a young woman's genitals no matter the form of mutilation. It is NOT similarly illegal to mutilate a young man's genitals.

Women have the right to unilaterally opt out of responsibility for a child after sex. They can leave a child up at a safe haven and never inform the father of the existence of the child. Men do not have the right to unilaterally opt out of responsibility for a child after sex.

Women have the right to coerced vaginal sex rape at the legal level. Men do not have the right to call getting made to penetrate a woman rape at the legal level. Women have the right to call penetration of their vagina by an object rape at the legal level. Men do not (anywhere so far as I know) have the right call getting forced to penetrate an object rape at the legal level.

Women have the right to vote without having to fulfill any responsibility to the state. Men do not have the right to vote without having to fulfill any responsibility to the state. They have to register with the Selective Service System or they can lose the right to vote due to how felony voting laws work.

I believe everyone should be equal as far as Sensibilities go. Common sense should dictate how people treat one another, but what were seeing is something more ... insane lately.

I actually feel really sorry for any of these ultra feminists who have Sons. Some have had their forks removed before they even know what it means.

a reply to: everyone

the draft ended about a year after the ERA had made it through congress, they had around six years after that to ratify it without any draft in use, and then there is the fact that the draft hasn't been used since then.

Middle-class women generally were supportive. Those speaking for the working class were strongly opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and hours. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives.

en.wikipedia.org...

so what were these special protections??

Now, if one of the major and fundamental roles of government is this equalizing one, then the adoption of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment will negate this same equalizing function under the guise of broadening it. The Equal Rights Amendment will invalidate all the legislation, hundreds of pieces of it, which has been adopted over the last 100 years which were passed to permit a semblance of equality which had been denied women down through the ages.

There are various kinds of protection for women workers provided by State laws and regulations (1) minimum wage; (2) overtime compensation; (3) hours of work, meal and rest period; (4) equal pay; (5) industrial homework; (6) employment before and after childbirth; (7) occupational limitations; and (8) other standards, such as seating and washroom facilities and weightlifting limitations. It would be desirable for some of these laws to be extended to men, but the practical fact is that an Equal Rights Amendment is likely to destroy the laws altogether rather than bring about coverage for both sexes. Those State laws that are outmoded or discriminatory, should be repealed or amended and should be handled on a “case by case” basis.

historymatters.gmu.edu...

oh it was those laws that were passed over the past century that permitted a semblance of equality. in other words, some women didn't want to risk the illusion (which this writer fully admits was a very poor illusion at best if you go and read the full article) by claiming the equality!!

But what really killed the ERA??

It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives.

it would disadvantage those women who were lucky enough to stay home and be full time housewives.

so they chose that the other women, the single women who didn't have families, the women who had families but still had to work, the women who were abandoned by their husbands, ect, should be the ones at a disadvantage instead.


it is the same religions that has worked so hard to enforce that traditional family where dad is the king of the castles that has has male circumcision as another of it's deeply held beliefs. and it seems to me, it has become less popular in the past century.

Women have the right to unilaterally opt out of responsibility for a child after sex. They can leave a child up at a safe haven and never inform the father of the existence of the child. Men do not have the right to unilaterally opt out of responsibility for a child after sex.

women raping men, really? must be one heck of a drunk man, or one heck of a wimp! or are you talking about men raping me?? I do believe that is illegal??



and women seem to bear the brunt when it comes to the responsibility a children brings with it! a portion of the fruit of your 40 hour workweek in no way can account for the 24/7 care women are responsible for with their child! if a man becomes a father, his boss will see him as being of higher value to him, since it will force him to be more responsible, or at least that is how they thing. a women though, will lose value in the boss's eyes because her attention will now be divided between the child and her job, and the two combined will most surely affect her ability to be there on time, consistently, without being feeling drained and lacking sleep... or so they think. and that is not even touching the fact that men have had centuries of being able to pickup and split on their families leaving them with no support whatsoever!

Women have the right to vote without having to fulfill any responsibility to the state. Men do not have the right to vote without having to fulfill any responsibility to the state. They have to register with the Selective Service System or they can lose the right to vote due to how felony voting laws work.

and we're back to the draft again....

a reply to: awareness10

I raised three sons, during a portion of their childhood, I was doing my best to live according to what those ultra conservative christians taught...
they can tell you straight up, it's not that great when women don't have an equal footing!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: jellyrev

"they did nothing of note"

really.....
it was the women in those matriarchal societies that managed to figure out just what medicinal properties the plants around them had.... most of our modern drugs can trace their origins to that knowledge of the plants. it was women who began to cultivate the edible foods.
the most esteemed woman in the primitive tribe was the witch doctor, who knew the medicinal value of the plants and such.. the most esteemed men were the chief, who had proven himself in his art of war and the shamen who spent his days playing in the spiritual real....doing nothing of note!

Why are you repeating something that's wrong? Did you not read the previous series of posts explaining that there is zero evidence of matriarchal societies ever existing?

Is the straight-out denial of facts OK when it's about "women's empowerment"?

Also, do you have any evidence at all that it was women who first started cultivating plants?

Totally amazing that people can actually get away with making these statements, with no evidence at all to back up their assertions.

a reply to: Talorc




or how about existing now??

mentalfloss.com...

and then there is these people..

www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu...


let's see...
they traced their lineage through the mother
it was the women who owned the land,
the man left his family and moved in with the wife's- just as the bible states by the way.
they nominated the chiefs, who were men, but we also then answerable to the women...

I also believe I read somewhere else where it was the women who decided weather or not to go to war, as well as what would happen to any prisoners of war.

it seems to be a heck of alot closer to a matriarchal society than what the christians brought to america with them! and gee, many of the ideas that made up the constitution of this country came from their form of government!

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 2:24

so where do you reckon he would go to after he left his father and mother? where did lot got to? the women's household!! matriarchal. it doesn't say that the man shall go and steal, buy, or kidnap the girl and bring her home to live in the household of his father... the man was to subject hiself to the rule of his father in law originally, and this would protect the women from much of the abuse that we've seen throughout history when the women is brought into the man's household.

Tracing descent from women is termed matrilineal, not matriarchal. Property ownership and decision making capacities for women would point to egalitarianism moreso than matriarchy.

Patriarchy and matriarchy are bullsh*t concepts to begin with. Realistically, neither can very well be demonstrated. The idea relies on arbitrary definitions of power and authority. In a society where only men can function as government officials, who's to say many such officials aren't imbeciles, and their wives actually advise and direct them behind closed doors? That scenario was certainly common enough throughout history. Power can be exercised in many ways. It doesn't rest on ceremony. "A crown doth not a king make."

a reply to: Talorc

maybe when women rule, they don't have as much desire to rule over men but rather just share the power??

George-Kanentiio explains:

In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations.[89]

en.wikipedia.org...

this sounds more more matriarchal than patriarchal to me.

In a society where only men can function as government officials, who's to say many such officials aren't imbeciles, and their wives actually advise and direct them behind closed doors? That scenario was certainly common enough throughout history. Power can be exercised in many ways. It doesn't rest on ceremony. "A crown doth not a king make."

maybe what makes it patriarchal is all those laws that end up leaving women with their only power being persuading their husbands, with weather or not their husbands chosing to listen being up to them?

and I bet if you look through history, you will find all kinds of crap being done to those queens who sat on a throne without a king to pressure them into marrying so a king could rule in their name!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Talorc

maybe when women rule, they don't have as much desire to rule over men but rather just share the power??

George-Kanentiio explains:

In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations.[89]

en.wikipedia.org...

this sounds more more matriarchal than patriarchal to me.

In a society where only men can function as government officials, who's to say many such officials aren't imbeciles, and their wives actually advise and direct them behind closed doors? That scenario was certainly common enough throughout history. Power can be exercised in many ways. It doesn't rest on ceremony. "A crown doth not a king make."

maybe what makes it patriarchal is all those laws that end up leaving women with their only power being persuading their husbands, with weather or not their husbands chosing to listen being up to them?

and I bet if you look through history, you will find all kinds of crap being done to those queens who sat on a throne without a king to pressure them into marrying so a king could rule in their name!

the only problem with that is the broad brush. it is a statement that presumes that the deviation from the 'normal range" is very small.

in actuality, women are neurotic (like men) and prone to irrational behaviors. some women are hungry for power like some men are.

The truth of the matter is that yin does a terrible job of executing its tasks/duties without yang there to help it. Without left, there is no right. and 1 is meaningless without 2 to give it context and value.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

.. and yet, somehow, we ended up with a god with no goddess??

wonder how that came about....

Well, while all this fawning sycophancy over the wonders of girls doing stuff over eons has been . . . mildly flattering (though I highly freaking DOUBT women were the ooonly gender cooking, figuring out medicinal uses, tending animals, and so forth) this thread is 4 pages in and I've yet to see anyone actually say what marked benefits for males "elevating" my gender produces today. I think we've kinda nailed this stuff, the horn-tooting's getting old.

This is really a whole lot of brown-nosing fluff, honestly. Bullet points comparisons of changes between now and 15 or 20 years ago would be an excellent starting point. Make a clear case, don't just wax vaguely poetically.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just a being who wants and needs sex

Duh... It's called being human and alive. You can have fun being intimidated by sex, but I'm not afraid of it. Nor do I care about having it outside of a relationship. The risks can be severely reduced if done properly too. But then again none of this has anything to do with the double standard created by Christian society towards women and men and sex.

PS: Stop ad homineming me. I'm not the topic of conversation. If you don't like my morals, too bad. I'm not here to please you anyways. The fact that you are trying to attack my character by trying to paint me as a sex maniac just shows how desperate your argument is. Stay on target, mate.

There there krazy
I think you just got a little befuddled and confused again
I am not labeling you anything or suggesting anything
You are an adult, though I could make many an inference and joke here at your expense it's not my buisness, though I am tempted and it would be very funny

If anyone was adhomining it was you
Suggesting I was saying men should be sexually liberated and women shouldn't and here you are bitching about me ad homining you,

That's just pathetic krazy

Now as to the double standard created by Christianity, is this like your evidence for evolution posts, you make stuff up, put it out there and hope everyone believes it though it is baseless

Where is your evidence krazy
What proof have you Christianity teaches a double standard between men and women

originally posted by: Nyiah
Well, while all this fawning sycophancy over the wonders of girls doing stuff over eons has been . . . mildly flattering (though I highly freaking DOUBT women were the ooonly gender cooking, figuring out medicinal uses, tending animals, and so forth) this thread is 4 pages in and I've yet to see anyone actually say what marked benefits for males "elevating" my gender produces today. I think we've kinda nailed this stuff, the horn-tooting's getting old.

This is really a whole lot of brown-nosing fluff, honestly. Bullet points comparisons of changes between now and 15 or 20 years ago would be an excellent starting point. Make a clear case, don't just wax vaguely poetically.

I'll take a crack at this. I had some thoughts in general. My drinking buddy here with me too. We're having our birthday drinks.

What first stood out to me here, and basically answers the OPs question as well as "Why Feminism"? in general - the answer is right in his (guessing male) thread title. What's in it for men?

Men have to make it all about them. Try this: Me and mine Hipster Hoodrats here are challenged by road construction - do you care? Do you wonder what's "in it for you"? Probably not. I'm guessing not. And the same for any other subject.

But with many "women's issues", especially "women's rights" - men feel the need to stick their nose in. What do you care? It affects you how?

Oh but you do care about what's "in it for you"? EYE ROLL. You just answered the question as to why Feminism even exists.

a reply to: FalseMove

That...that wasn't even coherent. Cut back on the drunk posting.

I'm female. There has been nothing improved in the last 2 decades, at least, that makes any kind of notable marked difference whatsoever. There have been no issues presented pertaining to my girly genetics that aren't anything other than mediocre snowflake complaining. I'm speaking of the West. Anywhere else is up to the locals to alter. Not us. We're not the planet's police force, and we're not the world's moral compass, either.