What do Anti-Feminists Really Want?

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Whilst I completely agree with you that society should be goverened by meritocracy, it seems that you are implying that all Feminists believe in unfair measures in order to eradicate a patriarchal society? Is this correct or have I misunderstood you on this point?

Yes, feminists are interested in their own gender and their rights, first and foremost, they are not interested in equal rights.

Feminism, by very definition, is approaching the issue of gender equality with a bias towards women.

I believe in social equality between the genders, but I certainly wouldn't dream of calling myself a ''masculinist'', as that would implicitly state that I was looking at the issue from a agenda driven view, slanted towards men.

I believe that a law that is unfavourable towards women, is equally as bad as a law that is unfavourable towards men. It just so happens, that most unequal laws in the modern-day are at the expense of men.

If a group of white people claimed that they were campaigning for racial equality, and then formed a movement called ''Caucasianism'', and referred to themselves as ''Caucasianists'', wouldn't that raise alarm bells to you, as to what their real motive was ?


I think an accurate analogy is to compare a feminist with a defence lawyer or attorney, and ''women's rights'' with the attorney's client and the defendant.

If you consider how a defence lawyer goes about his business, and what his motivations are, then you'll see the similarities between his job and the objectives of feminism.

The defence lawyer is only interested in getting his client acquitted, and is not bothered about whether his defence is right or wrong.
The lawyer is always looking to get the best deal for his client, and will use any trick or tactic to achieve this aim.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
Woah, woah, WOAH. Speaking AS A FEMINIST, I think you'll find that actually, there are a hell of a lot of us who absolutely strive for gender equality and find the idea of a matriarchal society just as distasteful as patriarchy.

Then why are you a ''feminist'' ?

You believe in gender equality, and hold similar views on the subject as I do.

Why do you have to favour one out of the two genders in your self-definition of your standpoint on the subject ?

It seems completely contradictory to the notion of equality.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
OF COURSE both genders should be able to live their lives however they want. Why are you making such sweeping assumptions about a vast political group? Would you say that all Conservatives, or all Liberal groups have exactly the same politics?

I make sweeping statements about feminism, just as I do about ''white supremacist'' and ''black power'' groups.

Just because something can technically be defined as a political movement, doesn't mean that it's immune from sweeping criticisms if one of the fundamental tenets of the movement is worthy of criticism.

Originally posted by Indigogirl
No! So show some grace towards the Feminists who believe in, and are doing their damndest to work for, gender equality instead of saddling us all with an outmoded stereotype!

There is no way I'd ever show any grace towards feminists or feminism.

I have no truck with any divisive group, whose ideology and agenda are the antithesis of social equality.

We live in an age were women can do mans work through the use of Technology. It can be anything from computers to earth moving equipment.

This is the age of women and rebirthing of energy.

People who are Anti-Feminists are living in the past.

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders


There's a huge difference between between believing that women and men are equal in a social and legal sense, and believing that men and women are equal biologically.

Clearly, as you say, women and men aren't equal in the latter sense, as there are fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and if anyone attempts to ignore these evolutionary differences between the genders, then they are behaving a bit lie an ostrich that buries it's head in the sand.

As a man, I want in a woman:
An intellectual equal
A supermodel (ok, at least cute)
A sense of adventure (take that how you want it)

She will do the dishes, and sweep. I will do the lawn and help with the dishes
She will cook most of the time (simple logic, else we end up with burgers or fried foods everynight.)

She will be paid equally, she will wear dresses, she will try to please and be pleasing to me, I in turn will trim my toenails, "manscape", and be pleasing and attentive to her.

See, I don't believe in such words as feminist or anti-feminist..at least, not in my worldview. the sexes have differences, and instead of pretending they aren't there...find them and love the differences, accentuate them..
the differences isn't in a workplace environment, anyone can do almost any job equal (some exceptions, I think women are better at nurturing in general, men are better at physical labor.)

Call it what you will. I want to be a man, and I want women to be women.

This boy verses girl attitude in both sides is beneath me and frankly, unnatural. feminism served a purpose and still does for specific aspects...such as making sure there is equal pay in the workplace, and really thats about all there is...the rest is a personal choice...be it a woman wanting to be a career woman, a porn star, or a 50s style housewife...feminism or anti-f has no place.

feminism served a purpose and still does for specific aspects...such as making sure there is equal pay in the workplace, and really thats about all there is...the rest is a personal choice...be it a woman wanting to be a career woman, a porn star, or a 50s style housewife...feminism or anti-f has no place.

I disagree that it still serves a purpose other than a self-proclaimed label that makes a woman feel good about herself by using a gender-superior term to describe herself.

Equality of pay is already here. You can spit out all the statistics you want, but if you're getting paid less than someone, regardless of what body parts they have -- in this society, it's because you're not doing as much work as them. Women exploit this crap in the workplace all the time and get men screwed over for, literally, just working harder and earning a higher wage. If there are two workers with the same title, and the woman gets paid more because she is more capable, that's fair. And if we switch the genders around, all of the sudden its a crime against all women, and the wages must be equalized!

If you want equal pay for doing the same job....

...start doing the same job... and you'll get equal pay. The law demands it.

Feminists have not had a reason to exist in Western society since the early few years of the 21st century

Originally posted by vaevictis
I know this may be construed as a troll thread, so mods can delete it if they think this is so.

Anyway.


There's been a lot of discussion about feminism and what usually follows is a frank exchange of views (to put it mildly) coated with cliches. Despite that, we pretty much know what feminists want.

What about the vision of people who want to eradicate feminism? How do they envision the world (Western world specifically, there are obviously areas on this planet where feminism is just a word) without feminism, and do they think their vision will ever be realized?

Focus on:

I'm gonna get hell-fire-flamed for this, but...

I'm sorry I find the only validity of the specifics you have outlined as a means to achieve what they want which is CONTROL. I am of the firm opinion that most men (if not all) deep down are absolutely terrified of the control that women hold over them with sex. A beautiful, or even simply alluring woman can cause men to behave in ways that are quite irrational and even counterproductive to their own survival. Even the less than pretty ones have a lot of power in this. Men are very hard wired biologically to reproduce... Often; and even though many (even most) over come it, and find ways the cope the sheer force is terrifying, and rightly so. It's a lot of power. So much of society for thousand years has been geared around mechanizing, and justifying social sanctions and other methods for controlling women, and much of it does revolve around female reproductivity.

I feel we are at a pendulum and paradigm shift in terms of society. The reasons and social pressures fascilitating that are varied, but I feel that women are going to find themselves backed into corners reminiscent of the 50's or even older very quickly very soon. I don't know that I completely agree with this article, but it rather puts out some interesting questions...

www.newamerica.net...

Originally posted by vaevictis1. The social structure

Again, much of that social structure is designed to limit the prospects of women who would take control of not only their own reproductivity but their lives. This can range from snotty looks at church, to threatening or actually carrying out a death sentence (slowly by discarding a woman to starve cast out by society), or quickly for improper behavior (stoning to death for adultery.)

Originally posted by vaevictis2. Women's rights

Well once again, the fewer freedoms women have over all them more control men have over there reproductivity.

Originally posted by vaevictis3. Right to vote

You don't want uppity women, having influence in government that would give them more power do you?

Originally posted by vaevictis4. The military

Well that's a tougher one, in times of war, many times the women fight along side the men. When you are fighting for your way of life/homes/survival of your children it's hard to persuade a woman not to pick up a gun, and besides it's useful. However, many of these women with their new-found sense of control, competency, and even command have a difficult time going back to a life of unquestioning submission. So, society cracks down on them with a vengeance, or society adjusts for a time. It usually swings back within a generation in those circumtances however.

Now, many women support a patriarchal existence as well for a few reasons.

A. It may simply be what they are used to.

B. There are a lot of pressures to accept it, and in order to psychologically or even biologically be able to survive they need to believe the paradigm.

C. Some of them (at least in the modern resurgence of partriarchy), simply are stunted, juvenile personalities that don't want to have to make decisisions. They want a 'strong man' to do it for them. Look up Christian Domestic Discipline... It's a thing.

My point here is that much of human society has been very much influenced by men trying to control women. Period.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Yes, feminists may come in for some stick on this site and others, but that's because it's people that held similar views to theirs, who were largely responsible for creating unequal rights between the genders.

As one who was a feminist in the 60s/70s, I can tell you it was unequal rights between the genders that caused feminism, not the other way around.

My older brothers raped me. My family excused them and would have killed me for being pregnant if I had not miscarried.

I aced an IQ test and was offered education at an elite school. An older brother had done the same and was enjoying his advanced classes. I was ordered by my parents to stop studying and reading.

I wanted to be a doctor, and always got the highest marks for science and maths in my class, but was prevented because I was female.

I worked for a short time for Hanimex, in Sydney. All the bosses were male, all the workers were female. The bosses had their pick of the females and those that didn't give sex when asked were fired. Or, like me, they quit.

I applied to study drafting, but at that time drafting courses were not open to females. We had to do the shorter Tracer courses instead. So instead I coaxed the guys working in a factory, building the switchboards, to teach me everything about them. Then I worked as a Tracer, designing those switchboards, with three male Draftsmen under me. They each got about four times my pay, despite me doing more work, more advanced work, and supervising them.

In 1982, my husband nearly killed me with a high chair he was trying to smash our new baby with, because he didn't want my parents to visit. The police would not come to the house and would not charge him, because in those days police did not get involved in "domestics."


That's just a few examples of why feminism was necessary.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I clearly remember men being interviewed on news stations, fighting the criminalization of forcible sex with wives.

Their point was that was wives were for. That it was impossible to rape your wife - she's supposed to give you sex when you want it. That's what marriage was to them.

Prior to this specific criminalization, men were not charged for raping their wives. You could go to jail for raping someone else - yes. But even if the two were legally separated, and the male broke into her residence and forced her to have sex with him - screaming, crying, begging that he not wake up the children and not do this.....he was never charged with it.

She was married to him. It was not illegal.

In case you are wondering - I am hardly the only woman who knows this. I'm also not the only person - as I promise there are men on this very board who know this used to happen, and probably even know men who did things just like this.

Then, "men" stood up and tried to make it so that it was not a crime when someone finally tried to specifically bring this behaviour into the criminal code.

In Africa, when new female government reps came in they tried to make this illegal there.

Do you know what the male reps did? They made a law instead to make it SPECIFICALLY LEGAL to rape you wife - using the argument that a guy should wait until she goes to sleep and then force sex on her.

I believe that 1993? 1994? was about the year when most of Canada/US/UK finalized their laws in regards to this issue.

I want you to know, that the men who stood up in public and defended that these laws should never be made and that it was impossible to rape a wife.....those men ASSURED my teenage self that I was a feminist. I don't think I could possibly explain to you how horrified I was by these "men."

Thankfully, I know that there are better men in the World and in my nation. Better than those idiots, and better than you.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I do not believe that a rapist should be put in jail for the rest of their lives.

I do believe that repeat violent or heinous offenders of all types should not be released.

While certain types of offenders have unacceptable re-offending rates, not all do.

Rehabilitation is the norm, not the exception for many criminals.

A grave error in judgement is not the same as a terrorizing bully who cannot be trusted.

reply to post by Brood


Feminists don't need to exist?

Do you know that the societies you are talking about encourage immigration?

Do you know that we - Canada, USA, Australia, UK - constitute about 15% of the planet population?

That leaves about 3 BILLION women who have not just lesser rights, but in many cases specifically encoded legal NON-rights.

Those who want to take it all away out number us in the literal BILLIONS. And that is being generous and assuming that I should not lump in the large numbers of people in the "enlightened" countries who want to take rights away from women.

I don't want to take anything away from anyone.

But I will not back down - and I will encourage everyone of you to realize how new, how easy it would be to lose your rights. To be swallowed back up by the billions and billions of others.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Brood

 

Feminists don't need to exist?

Do you know that the societies you are talking about encourage immigration?

Do you know that we - Canada, USA, Australia, UK - constitute about 15% of the planet population?

That leaves about 3 BILLION women who have not just lesser rights, but in many cases specifically encoded legal NON-rights.

You can tell me all these situations that involve women and label it misogyny all you want, but it's all about religion and perverted human lust. You should be fighting against those, saying that these issues are gender-specific is just sexist. You should be fighting for people, not just women.

I don't want to take anything away from anyone.

Do you want to offer support for females and not men? Same thing.

Standing against one set of wrongs does not follow that one stands for another set.

Most things in this world really aren't one thing or another. Penis-Vulva. Black-White. Right-Wrong.

Standing up for women does not mean I stand against men, and your inability to understand this shows a serious lack of ability to critically think.

reply to post by vaevictis



The anti-feminista basically are reactionaries. All they want is to return to their idyllic Neocon golden age of the whenevers when women knew their places (Church, Kitchen And Children). Feminism is still defined as a movement to end sexist oppression. The oppression could be against men or women. It is a simple concept that they REFUSE to understand.

The ideals of feminism was good in theory at the start but the Illuminati has been using it for their purposes and has been using it against humanity. It's about equality. Though it has turned to making the feminine superior to all else, and at their own expense too.

Just look at the word: FEMIN-ISM.

Why can't it just be "equalism"? The word Feminism implies leaning towards one side only, and that is feminine to the exclusion of all else. Is that really about equality?

Sure one can say, that the word came about because at the time the feminine was opressed, so that feminism would mean simply "for the feminine" but nowadays, its not. It's like radical extremists.


If you look at wiki about feminism.. I guess I would fall into the category of masculism just as women would fall into feminism IF it was really about equality and equal rights.

but I don't like the words masculism and feminism, so I choose not to use either word, since both words imply extremism. That's the problem at hand.

It's like feminism is just looking for revenge, not justice. Not equality, but superiority. Ego driven, at leat that's how it turned out to be nowadays.

I'm not ANTI-Feminist. Anti-feminists are portrayed as being Against Equality. That's wrong.

It's just the word feminism that I'm against. Sure, not everyone is a feminist extremist, but there surely are some, and that's due to the use of the word.

Because you can surely fix something by ignoring the particulars.

Fixing a deep problem by ignoring the who, where, what, when and why is SURE to work. Why you could get your wand out and just wave it around and say, "I don't know what is wrong, and I don't know how to fix it, and I don't want to look to close.....but BE BETTER. Bippty-Boppity-Boo."

All better.

I thought I knew, but then I met a female anti-feminist and now I just have no idea what's even going on anymore...

PLEASE people look at the term's definition.

According to wiki, anti-feminists are NOT ONLY against 'feminism' but also EQUALITY.

Don't identify with the word anti-feminist if you're not against EQUALITY.

These words have been set with such definitions to DIVIDE PEOPLE and CAUSE CONFLICT by THE EVIL POWERS THAT BE to further segregate humanity and make conflict.!

Sometimes words aren't defined by their literal meaning or etymology. That's when you have to be careful about saying what term you identify yourself with!!

Originally posted by Aeons

Standing up for women does not mean I stand against men, and your inability to understand this shows a serious lack of ability to critically think.

No, but it does mean you don't fight to serve humanity; just women. you don't acknowledge the men and then tell everyone you're fighting for gender equality. You're building the wall that you claim to be breaking down. Sorry if pointing out this hypocrisy grants me another label from your highness.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.