Why feminism is wrong

[Gauthier]

The name of feminism has been corrupted, so.

Abolish feminism and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

The name of feminism has been corrupted, so.

Abolish feminism and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom?

Strawman, a stable on NSG.

[Cardissina]

The name of feminism has been corrupted, so.

Abolish feminism and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom?

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

[Shaggai]

Abolish feminism and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom?

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

[Hurdegaryp]

Abolish feminism and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom?

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

So, whose puppet nation are you, exactly?

[Cardissina]

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

Um... what?

[Cardissina]

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

Click on the link.

[Scomagia]

lolwot. Feminism no longer stands for equal opportunities as it operates under the notion that women are still oppressed, although I would say they were never oppressed really.

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

Don't forget being denied the opportunity to earn your own money. Clearly that's a sign of freedom. Oh, and there was socially approved spousal abuse. Can't forget how liberating it was for women to be beaten by their husbands. *nods*

[Cardissina]

I know this is from a YT comment but...

"She's saying that not all men were granted the right to vote, because really it wasn't a male dominated society, it was an aristocratically dominated society and all the aristocrats were men. When all men could vote, they had to be enrolled under government legislation, and men could still not enroll, they just wouldn't be able to vote. By enrolling, they appeared on government papers and could be conscripted as citizens. When women were given the right to enroll to vote, their entry never got placed under citizen conscription papers."

Link to the actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

[Scomagia]

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

Click on the link.

Youtube isn't a source, so fuck no.

[Cardissina]

Click on the link.

Youtube isn't a source, so fuck no.

Hmph, you miss out on some valid points.

[Scomagia]

Youtube isn't a source, so fuck no.

Hmph, you miss out on some valid points.

I'm sure I'm missing out on very little, since you can't be assed to actually post those "valid points" yourself.

[Cardissina]

Hmph, you miss out on some valid points.

I'm sure I'm missing out on very little, since you can't be asked to actually post those "valid points" yourself.

Let me comment the summary.

She's saying that society has always cast men as the oppressors, when they never really were oppressing. Yes, women didn't have the same rights as men, but they were never expected to do much either. Why? Because there was no automation back then, and masculinity was much more useful.

This is just one of them.

[Shaggai]

Good news, NSG: Being effectively property doesn't count as oppression. Neither does legal marital rape. Also, being denied education isn't oppressive. Hooray!

Um... what?

although I would say they were never oppressed really.

[Atomic Energy]

I'm sure I'm missing out on very little, since you can't be asked to actually post those "valid points" yourself.

Let me comment the summary.

She's saying that society has always cast men as the oppressors, when they never really were oppressing. Yes, women didn't have the same rights as men, but they were never expected to do much either. Why? Because there was no automation back then, and masculinity was much more useful.

This is just one of them.

I disagree. Though I believe that in part the man-woman relationship of the past evolved just as any other societal role did, and that men themselves can't be blamed for actually putting women in that place, I do believe that women were oppressed. They had no say, and when they did, it was suppressed. Why was Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting?

[Scomagia]

I'm sure I'm missing out on very little, since you can't be asked to actually post those "valid points" yourself.

Let me comment the summary.

She's saying that society has always cast men as the oppressors, when they never really were oppressing. Yes, women didn't have the same rights as men, but they were never expected to do much either. Why? Because there was no automation back then, and masculinity was much more useful.

This is just one of them.

That's a completely ridiculous point. Being denied rights because you're considered inferior and therefor not expected to do anything is discrimination by definition. Discrimination is, by it's nature, oppression.

[Edgy Opinions]

She's saying that society has always cast men as the oppressors, when they never really were oppressing. Yes, women didn't have the same rights as men, but they were never expected to do much either. Why? Because there was no automation back then, and masculinity was much more useful.

How is masculinity essential to perform tasks? How can humans be divided in two exact types based according to anatomy when there are always exceptions? How is it not meaning women are oppressed, given how their differences from the rest of us are largely constructed through its specific socialization rather than natural differences? Why do we have to build societies that put men at the position of special snowflakes and standard people? Why do we have to build societies that put women at the position of walking incubators?

[Wallenburg]

Why do I get the feeling that Every debat about feminism eventually devolves into mindless arguing

Because it does

[Cardissina]

... Missed it by a mile.

I gtg, maybe I will argue with you guys tomorrow.

[Scomagia]

... Missed it by a mile.

I gtg, maybe I will argue with you guys tomorrow.

Bailing because you can't or won't defend your points isn't exactly great form.

[Cardissina]

She's saying that society has always cast men as the oppressors, when they never really were oppressing. Yes, women didn't have the same rights as men, but they were never expected to do much either. Why? Because there was no automation back then, and masculinity was much more useful.

How is masculinity essential to perform tasks? How can humans be divided in two exact types based according to anatomy when there are always exceptions? How is it not meaning women are oppressed, given how their differences from the rest of us are largely constructed through its specific socialization rather than natural differences? Why do we have to build societies that put men at the position of special snowflakes and standard people? Why do we have to build societies that put women at the position of walking incubators?

Ha. I find it funny that if women were oppressed and are still oppressed by men that it would be impossible to found the feminist movement. Men are not treated as special snowflakes. In fact I would say just the opposite, tell mr how many men were swatted. Then give me a list of women swatted. Special snowflakes? I think not.

[Cardissina]

... Missed it by a mile.

I gtg, maybe I will argue with you guys tomorrow.

Bailing because you can't or won't defend your points isn't exactly great form.

there are things that go on off the screen, I have a life you know. My last post.

[Gauthier]

How is masculinity essential to perform tasks? How can humans be divided in two exact types based according to anatomy when there are always exceptions? How is it not meaning women are oppressed, given how their differences from the rest of us are largely constructed through its specific socialization rather than natural differences? Why do we have to build societies that put men at the position of special snowflakes and standard people? Why do we have to build societies that put women at the position of walking incubators?

Ha. I find it funny that if women were oppressed and are still oppressed by men that it would be impossible to found the feminist movement. Men are not treated as special snowflakes. In fact I would say just the opposite, tell mr how many men were swatted. Then give me a list of women swatted. Special snowflakes? I think not.

Oh, right. Hi Ostro.

[Shaggai]

Ha. I find it funny that if women were oppressed and are still oppressed by men that it would be impossible to found the feminist movement. Men are not treated as special snowflakes. In fact I would say just the opposite, tell mr how many men were swatted. Then give me a list of women swatted. Special snowflakes? I think not.

Oh, right. Hi Ostro.

Oh, come on. Ostro would at least be more subtle than that, and wouldn't say this:

although I would say they were never oppressed really.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ha. I find it funny that if women were oppressed and are still oppressed by men that it would be impossible to found the feminist movement. Men are not treated as special snowflakes. In fact I would say just the opposite, tell mr how many men were swatted. Then give me a list of women swatted. Special snowflakes? I think not.

Oh, right. Hi Ostro.

Swing and a miss. Nice to know you act the same with others too though. At least when you think they are me.

Oh, right. Hi Ostro.

Oh, come on. Ostro would at least be more subtle than that, and wouldn't say this:

although I would say they were never oppressed really.

You seem to be assuming Gauthier cares. He doesn't. He's just here to be snarky and post one liners, engage in subtle baiting, and strawmen.
That's been made obvious. I think it's because he knows he can't win an actual argument.

As for women being oppressed, the vast majority of mankind was oppressed for most of history.
Both genders were oppressed with stifling expectations of gender roles and such.

What gets left out in the feminist narrative is that women were also complicit in upholding this system. Especially aristocratic women.
A male who tried to alter the system would be accused of being a cad and a scoundrel who wants women to be in danger, and either socially ostracized, physically assaulted, or killed.
A female who did so would be ignored and sidelined if possible, then moving up toward beatings, rapes, and as a last resort execution.
This would be done at the demands of women and men who were vested in the system being propogated. Some of the most ardent defenders of gender roles were women defending their rights to be protected and all that nonsense.
Some of the most prominent anti-suffragettes were women who were afraid they would be drafted.

But you'll notice that as soon as a critical mass of women opposed something, it was reversed. Or demanded something, they got it.
So i'd say it's more complicated than the oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic that gets thrown around.

You're here in the modern day talking about what are essentially modern luxuries and how women were denied them.
You're forgetting that back then the world was extremely violent and dangerous.
You should probably consider whether security was worth those freedoms in that context, because lots of women apparently thought so.
As the world got safer, the restrictions got less and less sensible, and women noticed this and started demanding more freedom in greater numbers.
I think it's stupid to say that women held no power. They were half of society, and whats more, they hold immense soft power THROUGH gender roles by which they can injure a mans reputation and endanger his life and wellbeing.
All of this tends to be overlooked by modern feminists in order to blame men for everything.

Compare that to a critical mass of men demanding something, as in the case of the labor unions, and the strike busting that occurred, and you'll start to see why feminist revisionist history is stupid. Especially when you ask, if those women considered themselves oppressed, why would they raise their sons for hundreds of generations to oppress women?
No. They raised them to protect women.
That they were crafting a rod for their own backs is undeniable, but to say they were oppressed without clarification is to whitewash their complicity in the oppression of both men and women.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinese-man-f ... 28808.html

Read that then you might start to understand why the feminist narrative is destructive and wrong, even in countries you'd probably consider to be very patriarchal.