Search this blog

Sunday, 25 June 2017

Not a 'real' feminist?

Eliza goes out to protests all the time. She waves her picket signs in the air saying that women are oppressed by the patriarchy and need equal rights to men. She shouts down the misogynistic men’s rights activists who don’t care about women and are claiming their special male privilege. She has written articles about how women still aren’t there yet and have a long way to go.

She is a feminist.




Or egalitarianism?

Cassie is a stay-at-home mum who loves her kids and supports her husband’s job. She enjoys going out with her friends and cooking food for her family. She supports gender equality and respects men and believes that men and women should be equal. She feels that as a woman she has to spend more time with her children and do more of the housework because that is what is expected of her, and at times that can be infuriating. She loves her husband but feels that if they were to separate than it would be only fair for her to gain custody of her children since she is the mother and all kids needs their mothers – but of course her partner would see the kids on weekends.

She is a feminist.

Angela is a university student. She feels that as a black woman she has the shitter hand in the pile. As a History student she has been looking at the systematic oppression of black people against white people, as well as oppression of women against men, and capitalism against the working class. She was once sexually assaulted in a club – she was really drunk and a guy put his hand up her skirt like the sexist pig he was. What an arsehole. She loves her guy friends but she wishes they would realise the historical privilege guys have had over girls, particularly in terms of work and education.

This racist bitch is full of shit.
She is a feminist.

It is not uncommon for people within the same movement to call others in the movement ‘not real feminists’ or ‘not real Muslims’ or ‘not real socialists.’ But isn’t that unfair? If a person calls themselves a feminist/Muslim/socialist then who are you to tell them that they are wrong? How is the ISIS member any less of a Muslim then the respectable father and husband who goes to Mosque regularly, works as an accountant and volunteers at his local soup kitchen?

Dying of laughter...
There are many different types of feminism – radical feminism, liberal feminism, intersectional feminism, socialist feminism, black feminism, trans feminism, post-modern feminism, Marxist feminism. There’s also first, second, third and possibly fourth wave feminism depending on if you agree the current feminist movement is part of third wave or the new internet ‘fourth’ wave SJW feminism. Within the feminist movement each of these groups disagrees with each other and claims to have different goals. The liberal/egalitarian feminists claim that they just want women to be equal to men and don’t hate men. The radical feminists will smirk ‘misandry’ and say that the liberals aren’t doing ‘enough’ and need to have a fuller impact.

The media shines a light on the one that shouts the loudest, but isn’t writing them off as ‘not a real feminist’ or ‘not a real Muslim’ just a bit of a cop out? They’re still part of the same ideological movement, just a different strand. Christianity has lots of different strands; Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, C of E, Evangelicals, Anglicans, 7th Day Adventists – and historically they have had feuds against each other. Henry the 8th made up the Church of England just so he could divorce his wife which led him to falling out with the Pope. But he called himself a Christian, so wasn’t he still a Christian? Who was the Pope to tell him he wasn’t a ‘real’ Christian despite the fact that he said he was?

52 comments:

  1. Feminism (in America) is a lobbyist group that acts in many ways, like a religion. They tell you what to believe, what the rules are, what they should be and how to get that done - including through "radical means". Just like religion, Feminism is a doctrine. Most of the "problems" Feminism raises are distorted or manipulated.

    I don't see the Suffragettes as being "first wave Feminists" because they had nothing to do with Feminism and I think it's a distortion to connect them as much as we do in society. Suffragettes wanted the right to vote; Feminists (as starting in the 1960s aka "Second-Wave") wanted to change social perceptions and get special privileges and opportunities to make their dreams a reality. The only thing the 2 groups have in common is that they are female-based, otherwise they're not really in the same vein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think second wave feminists were focusing more on socio-economic problems that had not been addressed by first wave feminists. I would say feminism used to have noble ideas and principles but now has become unnecessary or 'distorted and manipulated' as you mention.

      Delete
    2. I think "second wave" feminists created socio-economic problems to fix by challenging femininity and urging women to reject their gender role and take on a man's role instead. It backfired because many women still wanted their female role so now they were just taking on both; Meanwhile men never went with that trend of challenging their own gender role as they are generally, more utilitarian of the 2 groups. Ironically, men went with mother nature while women decided to challenge it (mean girls? just kidding!).

      So before "second wave" Feminism, there weren't any problems to be addressed by Suffragettes other than voting (which they got as a privilege compared to men, since men have to sign up for the draft to vote while women are exempt). Even before the Suffragettes, women were making a lot of 1sts in politics, business, science and even military etc. However, those women were there because they wanted to be, not because a lobbyist group told them they should be.

      "Second wave" Feminism pushed women into the workplace saying they "should be" there, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. Then when women got there, the workplace had been accustomed to males and a few women, so it was not able to accommodate the influx of women who were there for a Movement rather than because it was their genuine dream against all odds.

      “Second wave” Feminism then used this transition to capitalize, and they manipulated women into doing a lot of things they ended up regretting (like burning their bras, hyphenating their names, divorcing their husbands or treating them badly, putting work before their families – leading some women to pass their biological clock and lose the opportunity altogether, etc.). Studies show that women’s happiness has declined ever since “second wave” Feminism. How can it not when Feminism pressures women to be women and men at the same time? The only way this will be able to work, is to convince men that they should do the same thing – which most men just don’t want to do (just like most women don't really want to either).

      Enter “third wave” Feminism which focuses more on distorted campaigns like “he for she” and “toxic masculinity” which are just their manipulative ways of forcing men to submit to the changes they need in order to be successful.

      Honestly, I see Feminism as an anti-feminine and anti-female movement and I don’t see how it was ever noble. I see the Suffragettes as having nobility but not Feminism. It’s a female-prejudiced doctrine, and very similar to religion.

      Delete
    3. I mean there are different levels of feminism. I think feminism has been important in giving women choice and the option to be something other than a housewife who is tied to a husband. That was also kind of dangerous because it meant a woman had to depend on a man for everything and had no identity of her own. I think feminism has done a lot of good for women; if it wasn't for feminism we wouldn't be able to vote, work, get an education, or live our lives and be treated as equals to men. It is true that biologically some things men are better at and some things women are better at but some things are socially constructed as well. For example there is no biological reason that states women are better at cooking and men are better bass players or drummers. (In the music world traditionally women have always been the singer whilst men play the instruments but things have been and still are changing - and feminism has contributed to this).

      I think it's wrong to say feminism was never noble as its primary interest has been to help women have the same rights as men, and rather than 'become' a man, to be treated with the same respect as a man. Men in the West were respected in a way that women were not, hence the feminism that bore out of the Enlightenment. (People always think it started with the Suffragettes but it actually started a century prior to that). It wasn't all about bra-burning and calling men pigs. A lot of it was about giving women choice. I think nowadays (as you know from reading my posts) feminism has lost it's significance because Western women now have the same respect and equality that men have. Many disagree with me on this, claiming that women are still not there yet, but I have never felt unable to do something because I am a woman. So for that I am grateful for the feminist movement before me to have given me choice as a young woman.

      Delete
    4. I agree, like any other doctrine or religion, there are different levels of adherence and extremism etc. Let me ask you, what makes you so sure that women weren’t given a choice to be something other than a housewife? Most women today, many decades after Feminism, still say they’d like to get married, have children and be at home. “The survey said that if staying at home with the children were counted as a job, it would rank as having happier workers than any other trade or profession. Only one in seven stay-at-home parents say they are dissatisified with their role, a level of unhappiness that is less than half that found among civil servants or salesmen and women.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3634473/The-job-makes-happiest-Housewife-Survey-finds-stay-home-mothers-satisfied-profession.html#ixzz4ldM5dic5 )

      So where is the proof that most women who were housewives, weren’t so by choice? Especially when there were already female journalists, lawyers, doctors, scientists, politicians, police, gun-testers, etc?

      “Some American Women Firsts Pre-Suffragettes:
      1762: Ann Franklin was the first female newspaper editor in America.
      1776: Margaret Corbin was the first woman to assume the role of soldier in the American Revolution and receive a pension for it.
      1784: Hannah Wilkinson Slater was the first American woman to be granted a patent.
      1795: Anne Parrish establishes, in Philadelphia, the House of Industry, the first charitable organization for women in America.
      1812: Lucy Brewer was the first American woman to join the United States Marine Corps.
      1828: Sarah Hale was the first American woman to be a major women's magazine editor.
      1835: Harriot Kezia Hunt was one of the first woman to practice medicine, "clearly the first to achieve a marked success".
      1848: Astronomer Maria Mitchell was the first woman to be elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
      1849: Elizabeth Blackwell, born in England, was the first woman to earn a medical degree in America.
      1855: Anne McDowell was the first American woman to publish a newspaper completely run by women; it was circulated weekly and titled, "Women's Advocate".
      1866: Mary Walker was the first woman in America to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
      1869: Arabella Mansfield was the first female lawyer in America; she was admitted to the Iowa bar.
      1870: Esther Hobart Morris was the first woman in America to serve as Justice of the Peace.
      1870: Ada Kepley was the first woman to graduate from law school in America.
      1872: Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for United States President.
      1873: Ellen Swallow Richards was the first woman admitted to MIT (which made her the first accepted to any school of science or technology), and the first American woman to earn a degree in Chemistry.
      1876: Louise Blanchard Bethune was the first woman to work as a professional architect in America.
      1877: Helen Magill White was the first woman in America to earn the Ph.D. degree.
      1887: Susanna M. Salter was elected mayor of Argonia, Kansas becoming the first woman mayor in the country.
      1891: Marie Owens, born in Canada, was hired as America's first female police officer, joining the Chicago Police Department.
      1893: Florence Kelley was the first woman to hold statewide office when Governor Peter Altgeld appointed her Chief Factory Inspector for the state of Illinois.
      1908: The first U.S. Navy nurses, known as the Sacred Twenty, were appointed; they were all women, and were the first women to formally serve in the U.S. Navy.
      1911: Harriet Quimby was the first woman to be licensed as an airplane pilot in America.
      1916: Jeannette Rankin was the first woman in America to be elected to Congress.
      1917: Loretta Perfectus Walsh was the first woman to enlist in the United States Navy.
      1918: Opha May Johnson was the first woman to enlist in the United States Marines.”

      Delete
    5. You've probably never heard about these women (or many of them) because Feminism doesn't acknowledge these pioneers since they debunk the idea that Feminism gave us the rights to do these things. In fact, Feminism pushes other women instead, modern women who are open card-carrying Feminists. (I have studied a lot on women's history and Feminism in America etc.)

      So how has Feminism given women a choice they didn’t already have? What “sexist” law(s) did they change to give women choice when women were already allowed in colleges and workplaces etc?

      “That was also kind of dangerous because it meant a woman had to depend on a man for everything and had no identity of her own.”

      So do you consider a “wife and mother” to be lacking of identity? Do you not believe in the HUGE value that a wife and mother has on a happy and healthy, stable home? A wife is the most important woman in a man’s life and a mother is the most important woman in a child’s life, so how does she not have an identity? Are you saying that you have to have a job title as a woman in order to have an identity? That being a waitress or a maid means you have more identity than a wife or mother?

      Also, why is it dangerous for a woman to rely on her husband when they’re in a partnership and equally rely on each other? Shouldn’t you at least be saying it was equally dangerous for the men to depend on a woman for everything related to their health/food (mold could grow if she’s not cleaning; food poisoning could occur if she doesn’t cook right) and rearing of their children (and their well-being; not being neglected) and had no identity of their own, other than “workhorse” or “bread-provider”?

      Why do you say that “if it wasn't for Feminism we wouldn't be able to vote, work, get an education, or live our lives and be treated as equals to men.” Honestly? Aside from voting because that wasn’t thanks to Feminism, it was thanks to the Suffragettes. At the time of Suffragettes, before Feminism, women already had the right to work, get an education, “live their lives” (they weren’t killed for being women) and be treated as equals to men. So where do you get this idea from, that women weren’t able to do any of these things without Feminism?

      I think it's wrong to say Feminism was ever noble and it’s wrong to say their “primary interest has been to help women have the same rights as men, and rather than 'become' a man, to be treated with the same respect as a man”. Women were already treated with the same respect as men but with the balance of acknowledgement of gender-differences. Feminism wanted to change the gender roles, not make them equal.

      Delete
    6. Women in the West have always been respected in a way that men were not. If a woman was raped, there were always men who wanted to kill the rapists whereas no one really cared about when men were raped. When a little girl went missing, an entire town would take off work and go out to search for the little girl, whereas when a little boy went missing, they just put out some “Missing” and “Have you seen me?” posters. Marriage has traditionally always been joked about as enslavement of men by women, as the saying went “happy wife, happy life”. Men were the ones who had to suck up the courage to woo and ask out women, always being expected to make the first move and be suave enough to pull it off or be rejected in public. When people would start dying around a woman, no one would expect her to be the murderer until about the 3rd or 4th body; whereas most men are suspected at the 1st or 2nd body – this is how so many women got away with multiple murders by food poison, especially before they could test for it. Anytime a disaster was to happen such as the famous Titanic incident, women [and children] were always protected before men as they were seen as more valuable and sacred. After voting rights switched from property requirements to age requirements, men were expected to give up their lives in the case of war because they are considered more expendable than women. When women got the vote, they were not expected to equally give their lives in times of war. Instead, they were expected to stay back – where it was safer - and take on work, forcing women out of their chosen housewife role, so they could keep productivity going with so many men gone as in WW1 & WW2. If a man ever said something that a woman didn’t like, she has a social right to slap him in public (assault) and no one cares – even if his intent wasn’t malicious. However, if a woman said something that a man didn’t like, it was not socially acceptable for a man to slap a woman in public and everyone who saw it would care and consider it assault.

      So in reality, women in the West were respected in a way that men were not, and realistically Feminism in the West was founded by:

      (a) a distorted and manipulative narrative/fantasy that came mainly from 2 women. Betty Friedan – who wrote the Feminine Mystique - and introduced “Feminism” to the public as we know it today. She was a housewife in an abusive relationship (though she said she was abusive to him too) and had regretted her own marriage. She then self-centeredly projected that onto all women. Then Gloria Steinem capitalized on that, spreading Feminism (what you and others call “Second Wave”) and created the National Organization for Women (NOW) - arguably the most powerful and influential Feminist lobbyist group ever - and she also created the Feminist magazine, Ms. Magazine. Steinem had a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and had to be locked up. As we know, mothers are very important to children and Steinem blamed her father for this because he was the one who had [to have] her locked up. She internalized this and “made the personal, political”. She took the blame and subsequent hate she had for her dad and turned it onto all men and used Feminism to make a movement and political lobbyist group out of it. She was a very smart lady despite her emotional problems and sexist outlooks. She worked for the CIA (not a conspiracy theory) and knew how to manipulate the public, the law and the political system, which is part of why her Feminist movement is still hanging on today despite constant and consistent failure and hypocrisy etc.

      Delete
    7. (b) a “sexist” view in society that is biased in favor of women. Western women have always been among the most privileged in the world, in any time. It is out of that entitlement, the fact that women were used to society catering to their wants and needs, that Feminism was allowed to thrive and get support despite the fact that most women didn’t actually agree with it. When Feminism came out and said in the 70s that “Feminism is the belief that women are human beings”, there was a social pressure not to go against it. Feminism has always been a fascist-like group that works to pressure/bully people into what they want. They want women to stop being housewives/mothers and work? They claimed being a housewife/mother is oppressive and working is liberating. They want women to leave their men? They said “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and “we’re becoming the men we wanted to marry”. (Those are clearly anti-male and anti-marriage statements.) They want society to have more feminine than masculine values? They claim “toxic masculinity”, put little boys on drugs to decrease their desire to be physically active while cutting recess (which is due to natural gender differences, not a mental illness) and focus on “empowering” girls while ignoring boys or telling boys they’re part of the problem and need to change.

      As far as the concept of “female empowerment” and/or “female rights” in the world, it did not start in America with Suffragettes – you are right - and was mostly popular in France. However I am talking about Western Feminism, or what you call Second Wave & Third Wave Feminism.

      “It wasn't all about bra-burning and calling men pigs.”

      - I never said it was “all” about that. I said it was all about challenging gender roles and nature, along with a ton of regrettable details that just keep accumulating. I read recently about Feminists trying to say that women shouldn’t wear tampons anymore. Radical movements with radical ideas attract radical people. Sometimes they can be good, like the American Revolution, and sometimes they are not good, like Feminism.

      (https://twitter.com/KamaPost/status/637006943693967361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F109552-what-is-free-bleeding-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversial-menstruation-movement)

      “A lot of it was about giving women choice.”

      -What choice?

      I think Feminism has never had significance because Western women have always had the same respect and equality that men have; they just used to choose to embrace gender differences more so than today. If we decide in modern times that we’d like to focus less on our gender differences, that’s fine but it’s historically inaccurate to say that the people before us were “sexist” or “misogynist” just because they chose differently than we do today.

      The people who claim that “women are still not there yet”, say this because they don’t want “choice” and “equality”, they want “quotas” and “conformity”. It’s not about choice for Feminists, it’s about making their fantasy/goal/doctrine into a reality. Why should Feminism tell us how many women should be in each job, especially so long as women are not limited from that job?

      Well the Feminism movement never gave me any choice that wasn’t already given to me by the men and women who wrote and decided on the law before they ever came around. So I’m not thankful for Feminism in any way, shape or form and I think society would have been better off and more egalitarian without their sexist doctrine getting in the way.

      By the way, have you ever seen “The Red Pill” documentary?

      Delete
    8. Wow this is very interesting and well put. You're right, I didn't know of any of the women who did those things. However, don't you think part of it is because it's always been men writing the history books and men being celebrated for being the scientists lawyers writers etc? Like in schools we should be taught about these women but instead the majority of history's great people that we learn of are men. I guess it would make sense for feminists also not to acknowledge successful women before the movement.

      That article you mention is from the Daily Mail; not that what is said is necessarily untrue, but the Mail is a very right-wing conservative pro-traditionalist paper so will have that bias.

      I agree that being a wife and a mother can be rewarding for some but for many that simply wasn't enough, and what feminists like Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer were trying to say is that women could also have careers if they wanted. Nowadays lots of women have careers and its become easier to pursue a career than it was before feminism.

      I meant it's dangerous to rely on a husband in the sense that if you're in an abusive relationship (like Friedan as you said) or unhappy with your partner then you would have nowhere to go because you depend on him for everything. Also this is a personal thing but I don't think it's good to rely on another person too much, like to a degree yes but I think self-sufficiency is important for basic survival. Also back then a man could abuse his wife or rape her and it was overlooked because they were married; marital rape used to not even be considered rape. Of course now feminism has taken it to the extreme and calls everything rape, and men get false rape accusations, but if it wasn't for women's rights we would probably all still be stuck in (some) unhappy marriages and wouldn't have much say in what we wanted.

      The Founding Fathers were all men; there have only been 6 Queens in the history of the British monarchy, most of the famous scientists and inventors were men. Most of the major things we know about have been done by men, and if we want to know about women we have to research a bit more. I agree that women like the ones you mentioned should be celebrated for the great things they've done and it shouldn't be something that you have to 'dig deep' to find, it should just be taught in schools like I mentioned earlier.

      We don't know what the modern West would look like today without 1st and 2nd wave feminism. Things like the pill and abortion rights may not exist, less women may be encouraged to pursue a career, and women may still be paid less than men. I think you present interesting points but I can't say I agree with your overall premise that feminism has done nothing to help women which is what I'm overall getting from you.

      Yep I've seen The Red Pill, thought it was fantastic and sad. Liked it cos like Cassie I used to identify as a liberal feminist but then realised that when you see the other side of the coin the current movement is awful.

      Delete
    9. I know my posts are long but I'm giving a lot of context so I'll cut out the redundant quotes from here on out as much as possible:

      Well thank you for taking the time to read it and being open to discussing it. At this point, many Feminists just call me a misogynist against my own gender and call it a day. Haha (Doesn’t exactly change my view on it.)

      Since neither of us could really prove it, let’s just say that you are right and it did start with men not really caring about women’s accomplishments – though, for context sake, I didn’t find these women on Feminist websites etc, I found them looking up “women’s first” in regular history websites. So men overlooked women – why hasn’t Feminism corrected that yet? It’s been over 50 years and there are plenty of “women’s history” and “women’s studies” classes in colleges now, right? So why aren’t the Feminists teaching us more about these type of women?

      A personal hero of mine, that I am very thankful for what she did for me, is Phyllis Schlafly. Many women credit her as pretty much single-handedly stopping the ERA movement, which was pushed by Feminists. She was a living example of everything Feminism lied about. From earning a bachelor's degree in 1944, a master's degree in 1945, working as a ballistics gunner and technician at the largest ammunition plant in the world - a male dominated field - during WWII and being a mother of 6. She was a lawyer who read about the ERA, vehemently disagreed and saw that Feminism was hiding some of the facts from women that they knew they’d disagree with. So she started campaigning and writing pamphlets to let women know about the “untold” provisions of the ERA, which ultimately turned women against it and is the main reason why it lost – women had been empowered through knowledge of the bill no thanks to Feminist manipulation and distortion.

      If you won’t accept the article from the Daily Mail, what about Time Magazine/Gallup poll? “56% of American mothers prefer to stay at home.” (http://time.com/4068559/gallup-poll-stay-at-home-mothers/)
      Or Forbes? “84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/#d3d688d623a2)

      What about the fact that there are still Feminist articles portraying stay-at-home life as oppressive or not the right choice?

      Yes, it’s true that some women don’t want to be housewives/mothers (though I wouldn’t say that’s not “enough” as it implies it’s lesser than, rather than just different, unless you are making that argument); and that more women nowadays have careers and that it’s easier for women to pursue careers than it was before Feminism. However, the two are not as connected as they seem. Something else happened at the same time as Feminism, which helped Feminism be in the right place at the right time: The technology boom. Women had more time on their hands. Chores took less time, laundry took a few hours not all day, leftovers could be heated up with microwaves and refrigerators made shopping trips for groceries less frequent. Outside of the home in the workplace, machines were being made that made things easier for women (and men) to be in the workplace such as air conditioning, calculators, cash registers, printers, scanners, bar codes, post-it notes, etc. There were tons of inventions that made the workplace more comfortable for any worker, especially compared to the jobs like truck driver, factory worker or coal miner etc. that had conditions so bad, it warranted what we now refer to as “worker’s unions”. Conditions have always been worse and more dangerous in male-dominated fields. The ones women don’t find so “liberating”, I guess.

      Delete
    10. Furthermore, when women get older, they’re more likely to look back and regret not having kids and a family, spending too much time at work, more than they are likely to regret not working enough and having kids and a family instead. More women say “I wish I had more time with my family” rather than “I wish I spent more time in the office”. Many women do find family and personal connections to be more fulfilling than working and careerist accomplishments.

      Of course, that makes it dangerous to be in an abusive relationship though, not dangerous to be married.

      I understand what you are saying here (“self-sufficiency is important for basic survival.”), but I also just want to say that a big part of evolution and how we survived this long and made it to where we are today, is because we did choose to embrace gender roles as that was most important for basic survival. Men were better at getting outside resources as well as defending against outside predators whereas women were better at insuring survival of their offspring and that partnership made both more effective in their roles, leading to survival and successful evolution. We started out less different in terms of gender and over time, our gender differences have increased not increased. So according to survival of the fittest, gender roles were the “fittest” for us – particularly those who wanted to have kids and families at some point.

      Part of feminism taking rape accusations to the extreme includes marital rape. Women took marriage far more seriously before no-fault divorce, when they could leave for any reason (delighting gold diggers everywhere). Most women did not come from broken families, they came from traditional families and had fathers who were more than vigilante about their well-being. Potential suitors not only had the pressure of wooing the women they were interested in, but proving to their fathers that they were worthy as well. Again, this was to protect women; No one was protecting the men from bad marriages. So just to make it clear, I am not saying that marital rape never happened to any woman unable to get out of a bad marriage; However I am saying this was extremely rare and not really a sexist issue but an individual character issue. Is it not just as bad when women manipulate men through “marital rape” when they choose to get pregnant without his knowledge or consent? Forcing him to commit to fathering a child he may not be ready for?

      Furthermore, is this really the rape that we should be focused on? Not all rape is equal. A serial rapist who climbs into people’s bedrooms and beats women into rape is far worse than a husband who “rapes” his wife (and how do you even prove that)? Not to be cold here, but honestly, what are the damages? They’re married so they’ve already had sex before and she’s not a virgin. It’s immoral and wrong, but should it really be at the front of “women’s issues”? Is focusing on this kind of rape really going to protect most of the women being raped?

      “The Founding Fathers were all men”. Yes, the same ones who all gave their lives fighting in the Revolution so that men and women would equally have freedom from the British monarchy.

      What do numbers have to do with sexism? What does it matter if there was only 1 female (insert job) or 1,000? As long as women have that choice/opportunity, what does it have to do with sexism? If we’re expected to make it law that no women should ever experience any adversity in the workplace or life simply because she’s a woman, isn’t that sexism? Besides, men face far more scrutiny than women, especially publicly and even more so in modern times whereas women are often protected from any scrutiny or criticism or even unpleasant comments. Why is it considered rude to make a teasing remark about a woman’s age or weight yet perfectly okay to do so about a man’s? It’s not sexism, it’s gender differences and gender preferences. Most women don’t want to be treated the same way men are (by other men) and most men don’t want to be treated the same way women are (by other women).

      Delete
    11. “Most of the major things we know about have been done by men, and if we want to know about women we have to research a bit more.” This is true, as is the fact that the most “major things we know about” have been done by men rather than women. Men invented or discovered electricity, vaccinations, the computer, the TV, the phone, the internet, gravity, math, space engineering, etc. This is not at all to say that women are not capable of doing these things but on average, men do tend to be more inventive (starting from scratch) than women; They also have better improvisation skills on average. On the flip side, women tend to be more structured so their accomplishments tend to be more innovative (making something already there even better). That’s part of what makes men and women together such a good team.

      Furthermore, as I said before, why isn’t Feminism doing more about the “we have to research a bit more” part? Most of those women I listed for you are not in the “Women’s Hall of Fame” nor is Phyllis Schlafly or a lot of other famous women who conflicted with Feminist values. At least men had the excuse of these great inventions by men taking up their time, space and focus – if we go with that argument of men purposefully excluding women. What’s the excuse of Feminism to overlook these women, other than that they don’t obey their doctrine? So then how is Feminism a pro-women’s movement rather than a pro-Feminist movement? (Men aren’t in charge of the Women’s Hall of Fame and even if they were, why would they exclude anti-Feminist women in favor of more modern Feminist women?)

      “We don't know what the modern West would look like today without 1st and 2nd wave feminism.” Not exactly but we can make educated guesses and projections based on the contextual evidence at hand. The pill was invented by a man born in the Silent Generation, before Feminism, even though his pill came out during the era of Feminism. “In 1951, Margaret Sanger met Pincus at a dinner hosted by Abraham Stone, director of the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau and medical director and vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and procured a small grant from PPFA for Pincus to begin hormonal contraceptive research.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Goodwin_Pincus)

      I will give you that Feminism happened to be on the right side of the issue when it came to abortion and did play a big role in getting that right. Two things though:
      1. Abortion was never a sexist issue like Feminist said, about men wanting to control women’s bodies. More women were against abortion than men and many people saw it as murder – as well as many religions are against it.
      2. Roe v. Wade was decided by an all-male Supreme Court at the time which decided in favor of abortion rights because it was a Constitutional right. Even though Feminists were the ones to choose to include this in their platform, anyone who brought this to court at the time would’ve won – with or without help from Feminists.

      I also agree with you that less women would be encouraged to pursue a career but what level of encouragement is enough? Any level of encouragement disproves sexism. Feminism makes career a priority though, pushing girls to focus on it early on in high school but getting upset when anyone tells young women in college they should start planning things a certain way if they know they want to be mothers to avoid passing their biological clock. So if Feminism is pro-choice, then why do they only support one and bash the other?

      Delete
    12. Women are not paid less than men, it’s a Feminist myth. This was briefly covered in that Red Pill movie as well. Age, Education, Experience, Health & Other Benefits, Overtime Hours, Parental Status (Including Amount of Children), Part-Time Hours, Vacation/Time Off, Willingness to Negotiate Pay or Ask for Raise, Type of Work (Field, Responsibilities, Conditions [including safety]) are all factors NOT included in the “wage gap”. (http://www.aei.org/publication/some-thoughts-on-equal-pay-day-and-the-23-gender-pay-gap-myth/) (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/19/90039/explaining-the-gender-wage-gap/)
      (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/02/the-equal-pay-day-factoid-that-women-make-78-cents-for-every-dollar-earned-by-men/?utm_term=.5c6b77e46211)
      (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-facts-behind-that-79-cent-pay-gap-factoid/?utm_term=.29ff13657437)

      Yes, I am thoroughly convinced that Feminism has done nothing to help women that wouldn’t have happened organically without Feminism involvement and that furthermore, Feminism involvement has made 90% of problems worse, not better, including adding new ones.

      Delete
    13. You're certainly not a misogynist, that's a silly thing to say. When I mentioned payment I meant that before the Equal Pay Act women could be paid less than men just for being women. I'm familiar with the wage gap now being a myth.

      I agree that the 'having it all' mentality has put too much strain on women, as I mentioned in another post about stay at home mothers vs women with full-time careers. One of my favourite books, I don't know how she does it, addresses this very well.

      The one thing I think you were very wrong about is the rape thing. I agree that rape is not a feminist issue, it's a humanitarian one. But rape is rape, and it's not fair to say some cases are worse - it's still bad. Most rape occurs within people who know each other, such as a family member or husband/boyfriend. I think it's very wrong to say 'what are the damages' as being raped or assaulted by someone you love and care for can be more psychologically damaging than it being a total stranger. (I know you're not saying it isn't important, just saying that you were being a bit dismissive.) But yes I agree rape needs to be solved by looking at the psychological reasons people in society do that, rather than saying it's a 'feminist' issue which of course it isn't considering men get raped as well.

      Delete
    14. No, definitely not misogynist! Haha But because of my experiences, I do tend to lean more conservative when it comes to family values; And Feminists seem to really hate women who are more pro-family than pro-careerist (though I'm not anti-careerist, I just believe in having all of the facts before making a decision to limit chance of regrets).

      I am sorry for my mistake about the time period of wage gap that you were referring to, thank you for clarifying. To that, I would say:

      1. This goes to my point that we didn't need Feminism because the same year this law was made, Betty Friedan was just publishing The Feminine Mystique and Feminism (what you call 2nd wave) hadn't started yet.

      So it wasn't the Feminists who gave us the Equal Pay Act but just a really great man of integrity, one of the best presidents America has ever had: John F. Kennedy.

      2. This goes to my point that men and women are equal but different and Feminism wants them to be the same.

      a) There definitely may have been some financial discrimination going on merely based on gender - which is logical from a business point of view as women are less reliable when it comes to bottom-line business as they can get pregnant and would have to (as well as most likely want to) leave the workforce; whereas if a man gets [a woman] "accidentally pregnant", it'll only force him to work more because of child support so the workplace benefits more from hiring men than women – and pay/salary maintains those employees. If the business thinks the woman will be leaving soon anyways, it makes sense they’d want to invest their money in employees they believe will be there longer. I’m not saying it’s moral or proper, just looking at it from a business perspective for context sake, showing that it wasn’t a misogynist “hatred of women” but more of a fact of nature, albeit inconvenient for working women in this case. That being said, if a woman was not married and a careerist-type, as you saw by that list I gave earlier, they made it happen.

      b) Just as there are multiple factors to women being paid less today, there were also multiple factors to women being paid less in the past. Fewer women chose to work and were not seen as steady choices because of their likelihood to choose family over work and women were less aggressive/assertive about demanding certain wages, as were men, especially who didn’t have seniority or big work accomplishments as incentive for raises etc.

      So that’s why I say that a recurring theme I see in Feminism is that even if they point out real problems or areas that could use improvement in society, it’s often rarely about sexism let alone just pure misogyny. Another theme of Feminism is the hyperbole and extremism. And yet another theme being anti-male, constantly searching for criticisms of men and blaming them for things yet always excusing women’s faults/choices and never looking at how men might not be at fault etc. Very “us vs. them” mentality. [In modern times, more “Feminism vs. everyone else” than “women vs. men” as that didn’t totally work out.]

      A lot of anti-Feminists, myself included, believe that women can “have it all” if they really want to. The difference is anti-Feminists tend to say one at a time, either career then kids or kids then career; whereas Feminists tend to insist that they should be able to occur at the same time – have it all, all at once.

      Well, if you believe it’s “not fair to say some cases [of rape] are worse” than others, then do you believe that getting “raped” as a grown woman by a man you committed to getting married to and having sex to, is equally as bad as being a 12 yr old virgin and having your first sexual encounter ever be rape before you’ve reached puberty and it was a crazy, violent stranger who snuck into your bedroom at night and beat you into submission? Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to say they are the same or “equal”. So I guess it's a difference of perspective.

      Delete
    15. You said “Most rape occurs within people who know each other, such as a family member or husband/boyfriend.” Do you have any sources on that? I know that most rape occurs within people who know each other ambiguously, like a neighbor or friend of a friend etc. I’ve never seen any studies that say it’s most likely to be a family member and certainly not a husband or boyfriend. In fact, I’m sure I’ve read things that said a husband is least likely to rape you than anyone else you know but I’ll look into that.

      I never said that “being raped or assaulted by someone you love and care for” couldn’t “be more psychologically damaging than it being a total stranger.” However, I do think being raped by a father, step-father, mother’s boyfriend, dad’s friend or literally anyone on the planet Earth is more “psychologically damaging” than it being one’s own husband. Quite frankly, I have a hard time grasping the concept of “marital rape” as I don’t understand how it’s “rape” if you’re married. The only way I can see “marital rape” occurring is if it occurs during the divorce proceedings but everything I’ve read about “marital rape”, says that it is an incredibly rare occurrence.

      You are right to say that I was being a bit dismissive of it because I was. I think that, of all rape that occurs in any 1 town, city, country, continent or all of planet Earth, that is really the only one that is a waste of taxpayer money being used to get police and courts involved. Marriage doesn’t happen unless two grown adults consent to it – aside from cases of minors with parental consent – so that seems more like an individual choice problem. Proving rape is an expensive and tough process, and I don’t think those resources should be wasted on “marital rape”. To put this in more context: I see “marital rape” as the “jaywalking” of rape crimes. Yes, it is wrong and it shouldn’t happen – I do NOT endorse or encourage it - but we can’t afford to go after every single case and I’d rather see justice for the kind of rapists who don’t give their victim half of their money and possessions first. I want resources to go towards catching and decreasing serial rapists, rapist-murderers, child rapists, prisoner rapists etc. before we worry about “marital rapists”. So I see it as a matter of priority, efficiency and practicality, I guess. Why spend resources helping people who made bad decisions when that money could go towards helping innocent people who were victims of circumstances out of their control first?

      Delete
    16. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

      https://rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsvsrealities.php
      I've seen these similar statistics before saying that rape is more likely to be from someone you know. It's actually less common for it to occur from a stranger down a dark alleyway, and that's one of the common myths about rape.

      I know you're trying to look at this from a logical and pragmatic perspective which I respect but I think rape is rape, and it doesn't matter if it's from a stranger or from your partner, it's still rape. I know people who have been raped and in those cases it was from people they knew closely. And as you know from reading my other post I experienced a form of sexual assault from my then-boyfriend.

      It doesn't matter who it is, the point is the effect it has on you after. The mentality of not grasping how it's rape if you're married is dangerous because that is what made rape cases between a husband and wife difficult to see as a severe crime. Rape is non-consensual sex as we know; just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex 100% of the time they want it. You could be tired or pregnant or not in the mood, whatever. If your partner forces you into it or does it against your will then that's assault.

      I know this conversation has sort of spiraled into being about rape but I think it's important we clarify these things.

      Delete
    17. I don't mind you challenging my opinions at all. In fact, I welcome and appreciate it - especially because you do so in an open-minded/discussion, respectful manner (so thank you for that). I embrace clarification, I prefer it over making assumptions that can’t be clarified. :)

      As I had said to you before “I know that most rape occurs within people who know each other ambiguously, like a neighbor or friend of a friend etc. I’ve never seen any studies that say it’s most likely to be a family member and certainly not a husband or boyfriend.”

      The first cite you sourced falls in line with this, as the relationship with the highest percentage was “an acquaintance 45%”. I think it’s a shame that they lump in “boyfriend/girlfriends” in with “current spouses” and “former spouses” as there is a HUGE difference between a boyfriend/girlfriend and a legally contracted husband/wife; as well as a big difference between current and former spouse. I am sure that if we could see the breakdown between boyfriend/girlfriend and legal spouses, it would be much more clear that the two groups shouldn’t be lumped in together. I’d also like to know what they consider a “boyfriend” as well as what they consider “rape” (due to colloquial differences etc).

      The second cite you sourced was more opinion than factual and I had some differences of opinion with it. If you’d like to discuss them, we can. For now, I’ll wait to see your response.

      So just for clarification sake, of the 2 examples I gave you - with a pre-pubescent virgin being brutally raped by a stranger compared to a wife being raped by a husband she’s in the process of divorcing – your response is that you do see them as equal?

      I wanted to try and give you one more example of context if you don’t mind for how I see marital rape that I think is better than the jaywalking example. I see marital rape as a billionaire who is robbed of $10,000 compared to a working class person (virgin) who is robbed of $10,000. Stealing is always wrong but from an objective point of view, the billionaire will hardly feel the loss financially (it’ll be mostly a pride issue), whereas the working class person could potentially become poor after such a devastating lost. So would I rather use taxpayer money to replace the billionaire’s $10,000 or the working class person’s $10,000? I will likely choose the working class person every time because I don’t see the loss as equal to them both even though it was an equal amount and the same exact crime. I hope that makes better sense of where I am coming from on that issue. Of course the billionaire is still robbed but it’s really hard for me to have the same sympathy and incentive to help as when the working person is robbed and actually devastated by it rather than just upset about it.

      As I said before, I don’t understand the concept of how a husband can rape a wife unless they’re in the middle of divorce and I don’t see how that should become society’s issue. Getting raped by a boyfriend or a guy you’re dating is much different than getting “raped” by a husband, with whom you legally promised to have sex with. (I say this because if you don’t have sex after marriage, the husband can get an annulment as opposed to the divorce because the marriage will be seen as never having been “consecrated”. Legally, they wouldn’t be divorced as the court would say they were never married since they never had sex.)

      I know people who have been raped and molested as children as well, though usually by family members. I think that you and I may have different definitions of rape and sexual assault.

      Delete
    18. You said “The mentality of not grasping how it's rape if you're married is dangerous because that is what made rape cases between a husband and wife difficult to see as a severe crime.” I respect that this is your opinion and you genuinely believe it, however I genuinely believe that marital “rape” between a husband and wife is not a severe crime and shouldn’t be classified as such. We have civil offenses and criminal offenses because some crimes are worse than others. I see marital rape as a civil offense, not a criminal one.

      Maybe you and I have the same definition of rape and sexual assault, but different definitions of “force” and “choice”.

      Delete
    19. It's less likely and less common for a 12 year old virgin to be raped by a stranger who crawls into her bedroom at night than it is for it to occur by someone you are with or are acquainted with. It's not about whether I see them as equal or not, more that I just see them both as severe crimes.

      I still don't get how you don't get that a husband can rape his wife. Rape is unconsensual sex. Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex everytime.
      Maybe check this out: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/does-marital-rape-even-exist
      I presume you're not religious but some of the major religions hold this view too, that if you're married then you're legally required to have sex whenever your partner wants even if you're not in the mood. Sex is meant to be mutual, and if the other person isn't feeling it you can't force them into it.

      Delete
    20. Here's another article: https://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/

      Delete
    21. Thank you for providing those links so I could have more context to your opinion on marital rape.

      While it is less likely for a 12 yr old virgin to be raped by a stranger than a non-virgin, older person to be raped by someone they are “acquainted with”, being raped by someone you are in a committed relationship with – primarily legally – is less likely than *both* of those things. Even the statistics you provided in this link: (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence) stated that it is more likely to be raped by a stranger than a spouse/boyfriend, even when counting current spouses, former spouses and current “boyfriends/girlfriends” altogether in the same group.

      You said “It's not about whether I see them as equal or not, more that I just see them both as severe crimes.”, yet that is what my question was about, since I wanted to know what your opinion was in that particular context – especially as compared to my own, of not seeing them as equal. Also, my question was not whether one was more likely/common than the other, but rather if the psychological impact of both situations could really be looked at as “equal” or the “same” without doing a disservice to the important differences between the two situations. It seems you label them both “equally severe” but I cannot.

      I think it’s a disservice to females to undervalue their virginity by disregarding the importance of that, particularly in context to rape. Losing your virginity through rape does have more negative psychological impacts on someone who lost their virginity than if they had lost it through their consent. Therefore, how could rape of a virgin not be considered the most severe when it comes to rape scenarios? Furthermore, whenever I think of rape, one of the worst parts (as a female) is that someone is trying to enter your intimate space without your consent. So I also fail to see how the notion of someone raping you, that you would never consent to have sex with in the first place, isn’t worse than being raped by someone that you’ve already let enter that space and more psychologically damaging because of the extra factors involved.

      I guess part of my problem with the idea of “marital rape” is that I don’t understand this idea that women are so weak and naïve that they marry rapist men who marry them just so they can beat and drug them to force them into sex. If a woman has already consented to have sex with a man by committing to him through marriage, then why would he need to rape her? The scenario of a wife saying “not tonight” and her husband either hitting her or drugging her to force her into it, is so incredibly rare and perpetuates the Feminist myth that your husband is “more” or even just “likely” to rape you, when he’s one of the least likely persons you will ever encounter who will rape you.

      A wife is more likely to rape her husband, than a husband raping his wife. It is somewhat common for women – in marriage and outside of marriage – to lie about birth control, etc. and seduce the man they’re with to get themselves pregnant without his consent.

      You said, “Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex everytime.” Well, I completely understand that, I am married, and I don’t see much relevance between that and “marital rape”. Most “marital rape” occurs during separation/divorce. I’ve never even heard of any cases where a husband actually beat his wife into having sex with him except maybe in India, but not in the Western world.

      I don’t know if you think I hold the opinion that “if you're married then you're legally required to have sex whenever your partner wants even if you're not in the mood” but I just want to make it clear that I don’t. (And you presumed correct about me not being religious.)

      Delete
    22. While it can be argued that people who grew up in religion aren’t as educated or encouraged enough to choose for themselves, the fact remains that believing in a religion is still a choice and choosing to conform to a religion that says you have to do things you will not like or agree with, is a bad choice in my opinion, but still a personal choice that doesn’t need to involve the law/police etc. Also many of the situations presented in the “example” article were not real examples of marital rape. As you said, “rape is *nonconsensual* sex” so if a wife agrees to have sex with her husband because she doesn’t want to just tell him “not tonight” or didn’t choose to marry a man that respects her enough to drop it after the first time or so, why is that now society’s problems? I don’t believe the government should have to act as a marriage counselor and/or marriage matchmaker. Adults choose who to date and who to sign a contract with and marry. Adults also choose who to have sex with and when, unless they are beaten or drugged without their consent.

      So if you see all rape as “equal” and “severe” including “persuaded sex” then I hope you also hold women equally accountable on the other side. As I mentioned before, women lie about birth control to rape men into getting them pregnant; Or women target men who have money and are drinking and they throw themselves at him so they can accuse him of rape later for his money – which is all rape in itself as he wouldn’t have agreed, had he known she was using him for the money. Gold-digging women constantly rape men for their money. Also, when a wife says that if a man doesn’t say exactly what she wants to hear or acts the way she wants him to, then she will not have sex with him, is that a form of rape?

      As I said before, “marital rape” is a Feminist exaggeration in their attacks against men. The vast majority of husbands will never rape their wife yet they will experience their wife withholding sex from them if they don’t “behave” the way she wants him to. That’s coercion just the same as if a man says that without sex, he won’t hang out with you anymore. Both genders participate in manipulation to get what they want. Do you really believe the government should be involved in every one of these kinds of situations?

      Delete
    23. I absolutely agree that women can manipulate their husbands by using sex as a weapon (which I think is lame and childish) and use men for their money. I don't know if I'd agree that a woman seducing a man for material gain is the same as rape, because if he consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse.

      I think it's a bit unfair to say a woman is 'weak and naive' for marrying a horrible man as some men can be very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line. I guess I also feel strongly about this because a close relative of mine was raped by her partner, however granted they were not married and were separated at this point but they did already have a child together. Hence I can see the emotional damage being raped by someone you are/were in love with can bring. Some men can be abusive to their wives and this includes rape; in the movie 'What's love got to do with it' it shows how Tina Turner was raped by Ike Turner and they were married. Of course this isn't all men, but we can't deny the fact that it happens.

      I do think the government should be involved in cases of rape or domestic violence or abuse in order to protect those involved. I also think society places too much emphasis on 'virginity'. Of course it's horrible to lose your virginity via rape or assault or to someone who was cruel to you (like me) but needless to say you can get over it. I don't mean that in a horrible way, just in a truthful way. I'm not married (I'm only 20) but I have a boyfriend who is kind and loving and nothing like the guy I was with a year ago. So the guy you have your 'first time' with isn't necessarily going to be your special prince or whatever Disney fairytale shit (lol). Virginity is seen as this sacred thing or whatever but I don't think it should be, I think it's just about choice but it doesn't define whether you're a good or bad person or whatever. (I know you didn't say that, again just clarifying. Conversing with you is so intellectually rewarding!)

      Perhaps because I'm still fairly young and have not had masses of experience with guys I'm not sure of the whole marital rape scenario. But I still stand by the fact that rape is rape regardless. I think whatever the case, whether you're raped by a stranger who takes your virginity or your partner, it's horrible but you can still get over it through time and therapy and loving yourself again.

      Delete
    24. If you don’t think that “a woman seducing a man for material gain is the same as rape, because if he consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse” then why do you look at it any differently the other way, when a man “seduces” a woman for sexual gain because if she “consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse”? If the wife says “yes” to avoid debating it any further, as in most of those examples from the link, isn’t that the same thing?

      Well the reason why I say that is two-fold:

      1. I think it's unfair to say a woman is not responsible for her actions of choosing the wrong men yet men are responsible for his actions of choosing the wrong women. This bias implies that men are so superior to women in judgment and accountability, that they take the brunt of all decisions involving “their” woman; like when a parent takes the brunt of all decisions involving their children. If we are to base laws etc. on this bias, perhaps it explains why political leaders and other such leadership positions don’t fall equally 50/50 male-female. After all, if women aren’t/can’t be held as accountable for their own judgements as men are, should they really have that much responsibility? I think this bias undermines women.

      2. I don’t know if you are familiar with the Lifetime Network but during the time period of about 1987-1998 (which was a big pro-Feminist period in USA), this network came out with a series of films involving exactly what you said, “a man who is very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line”. This “Lifetime Myth” really spread in society and was pushed somewhat in the mainstream – and the “abuser” was usually a white male. They got some complaints about scaring women out of relationships by projecting this false myth (as it was proven to be very rare) and eventually Lifetime started focusing more on movies with more female-female dynamics and based-on-true stories with female perpetrators etc.

      3. As I mentioned above, the notion that a man who is “very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line.” Is very rare and usually happens when the woman expresses poor judgment. It is very common that everyone else around her knows that the guy is a jerk etc. but she’s the only one who “can’t see him for who he really is” and it’s usually because she chooses not to, because she doesn’t want to, as she’d rather be with him than face the truth. I don’t believe the government should step in like a parent and make the better decision for her - unless we’re going to say that women are weaker than men, less accountable and worse at discernment, and then change things in society to reflect women’s inferiority to men. We can’t say women are independent and equal to men, yet should be held less responsible for their own choices.

      Furthermore, quite a few women lie about “marital rape”, especially when they are getting divorced/separated because they’re distraught at the separation and they want to get revenge on him some way. Claiming that he raped her is a good way for some women to get sympathy from those around them and get people on her side, especially if they have the same friends etc. In cases where they have children together, she could also be saying this to ensure he doesn’t get custody, again as revenge for the break up etc, to keep his children away from him.

      Delete
    25. So just to be clear, if any man rapes a woman by means of physically assaulting her, tying her up or drugging her without her consent – regardless of relationship status with the woman – I think he should always be convicted as that is psychotic and a danger to society. However, if a woman says her separated husband came over and talked her into it even though she didn’t really want to, but he did one last time etc. or any other consensual situation like that, it really shouldn’t be considered as “rape” as I think that is offensive to real “rape victims”. (Not saying that your friend was lying or anything, just saying the situation I am talking about, is more common than actual rape, as you say did happen with your friend.) Also, I didn’t say being raped by someone close to you like that couldn’t be emotionally damaging – just that being raped by someone you’d never let in your body, or before you are ready to let people in your body, is more emotionally damaging because of those extra factors.

      Just as much as we acknowledge that not all men commit “marital rape”, but we can't deny the fact that it happens; We should also acknowledge the fact that most men do not and that we shouldn’t exaggerate the situation (by changing “coercion” into “consent”) as it helps no one involved.

      Also, I’d like to clarify really quick on the most common rapist relationship status, “acquaintance”. This is usually a neighbor, someone who lives in the same neighborhood or building complex, a co-worker not known well, or friend of a friend, etc. “Acquaintance” is usually not your best guy friend or even your classmate, etc. It’s usually someone you do not choose to interact with on a normal basis, but tends to be within the same vicinity as you on a regular basis. This is why it’s so important that women are more aware when they live alone or are walking alone etc. as most victims are targeted when they are alone. Married women are least likely to get raped, even by strangers than single women as married woman tend to have their husband around which dissuades rapists from trying, as they know they are more likely to face physical consequences as a result. Feminism doesn’t like it when we say that because it goes against their “women are better off without men and don’t need them for anything” argument. They don’t like the fact that these side benefits of safety do exist for women who are married. I can also tell you from experience, I faced far more “harassment” from men when I was alone than I do when I walk around with my husband. That’s just a part of nature. [I also face less “harassment” from men when I am out with another woman my age than when I am alone. There is safety in numbers, but as far as when rapists are concerned – this is more true when men are present, as more women sometimes means “more victims”.]

      Since you do think the government should be involved in cases of rape or domestic violence or abuse in order to protect those involved, I’d love to hear more about your opinion on whether you think the government should then take more precautions to protect men from the kind of domestic abuse we acknowledged earlier? I assume you care about men’s rights as well as women’s rights, but correct me if I’m wrong.

      Delete
    26. Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the virginity thing, as I think the opposite. I think society places too little emphasis on 'virginity' which is why more women regret their first time post-Feminism than they did pre-Feminism. I know Feminists disagree, but for a lot of women pre-Feminism, life was more like a Disney fairytale. Most women did get married and along the way: they were courted and taken out on nice dates, introduced him to the family for approval (since parents are older and wiser about long-term choices) and vice-versa, got engaged and then got married and only ever gave their bodies to the 1 man who committed to loving them and taking care of them for the rest of their lives. Since most marriages were not abusive, they were pretty great – even when money was low, you will hear people from that generation talk about how they relied on each other and got through those rough times because family and character/integrity were the most important things; not money.

      Since Feminism really broke up families, we’ve lost that atmosphere in society yet many women today still want the same things their female ancestors wanted and don’t understand why Feminists say “they can have it all” yet they are having harder times getting married today than ever before. The anti-romance, anti-Disney fairytale thing also started in the same period as the Lifetime movies when Feminism was pushing that women needed to be “independent” and “not rely on a guy for anything” as though that were the end of the world or so harmful for young girls to see. You’ll notice the princesses that came out in that period are more sassy and rebellious, whereas even today they have moved back towards more traditional pleasant characteristics (patient, understanding, accepting, friendly, optimistic, etc.) but just include less men to make Feminists happy. The notion that you needed to be single or not married to be “independent” and have a real “identity” wasn’t the truth, they just wanted to push anti-traditional family messages, as that has always been their primary focus, to keep men and women apart rather than coexisting peacefully. Even though women are harder to understand than men (more complex), because of the extremism and biases in society today: more men actually understand women, more than women understand men. Most women don’t even really bother getting to understand the differences between them and men, they just expect men to be the same as them and view them through their own shoes rather than his. This is why our society is so biased towards blaming men and excusing women, because we are so pro-women over men; The biggest irony of Western Feminism.

      Delete
    27. Virginity is seen as this sacred thing because it is - for men and women (but more for women). For women: It’s the moment you decide to choose to give a man the most intimate gift that you can possibly give him. Most men take it as a huge compliment – asshole men take it as “notches on the belt” – because they know how big of deal it is and like I said, good men respect when women wait; They don’t look down on them for it because they see it as the way she values herself and her body etc. For men: It’s the moment a woman has finally given you the respect and trust that is usually (used to be) reserved for quality “men”. Most women take it as a negative sign if he hasn’t had sex yet, like maybe he’s not so great if women haven’t already “validated” him - slutty women take it as “notches on the belt” too, they’re just more rare than their male counterparts - and the guys who have the most women offering him sex (or attention), seem to then accumulate even more female offers as it grows exponentially. It’s also part of nature. Men have always been the pursuers and until they can “successfully” pursue a woman, they often feel like unworthy losers. Women have always been the “gate-keepers” and had the benefit of getting to deem which men are “worthy” of such intimacy; Until the sexual Feminist revolution where now women are more likely to feel like unworthy losers if they aren’t having sex, and men get to expect it now that so many women engage in it in a looser manner.

      I’ve never really heard of anyone associating it with being a good or bad person (except maybe in religion) and that is definitely an extreme way to take that (for anyone who does). However, it is a huge choice that a woman makes and I think it’s better when men and women respect the value of that choice and the transition it has, primarily on women. While I don’t believe it “makes you a woman” just because you’ve done it, it does change your entire perspective and the way you view things – particularly men and romance, etc. So I see it almost as big a choice as having children for women (and the two are connected, though I don’t agree ready for sex has to equal ready for kids). It’s a life-changing decision that does leave an impact – whether good or bad or indifferent. So I think it’s empowering to let women know that so they can do everything they can to make sure that impact is as positive as possible. When women lose their virginities in regretful ways, they’re more likely to have negative views and relationships with men; whereas when they lose it to their nice boyfriend who took his time and made sure she was ok and didn’t break up with her afterwards, etc. they tend to have more positive views and relationships with men. Of course this is not always, just most likely.

      Thank you for the compliment, I feel the same and enjoy discussing with you. :) I don’t know if I’ve ever asked you this before, but what are your thoughts on legalizing prostitution and/or polygamy for consenting adults only? (You can pick an appropriate age limit for this hypothetical question.)

      Delete
    28. I don't think we really have Lifetime in the UK, though I've heard via researching online that it's kinda shit. I love Disney movies but personally I love the more sassy independent women - Belle, Esmeralda, Mulan, Elsa and Anna, Pocahontas - that care for and respect men but are also comfortable with themselves and have ambitions as opposed to just waiting for a man (Belle is a good example of this).

      This brings me back to a point I made earlier; I think men and women should respect each other and peacefully coexist, but I do think it's dangerous to rely on a 'man for everything' because I feel like it takes away some of your personal identity. Same with relying on anyone for anything. I guess I'm pretty self-reliant, just the way I've always been. I think Cinderella and Snow White are a bit lame and wet (although I still enjoy the movies) but that's just down to opinion. I acc have a post planned on Disney females that I'll post another time.

      I've never really been a 'traditional values' kind of person so I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't think virginity should be a measure of your value whether you're a man or woman. I think it's about choice and it's true that emotionally it's nicer to lose it to someone who really cares about you, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. I also think 'waiting till marriage' is a bad idea because sex is a big part of a relationship and you need to see that you're both sexually compatible. I've slept with three guys, which isn't many, and the guy I'm with now is very kind to me and respectful and I don't think it matters how many or little people I've slept with before him, I think it's about when you're together you're together. Like when you get married it doesn't matter how many sexual partners you had before, the fact is you're both together and love each other and (hopefully) respect each other and will (again hopefully) live a long and happy marriage. I believe in sex-positivity so I think it doesn't matter how many or little people you have sex with, that's your choice and it shouldn't be a measure of value.

      I've always been in favour of legalising prostitution (18+, same as everything else) and I absolutely think consenting adults should be allowed to marry into polygamous relationships if all parties are happy with it. I have no problem with what people want to do with their genitals. Personally I don't think I'd ever want to be in a polygamous relationship, but if other people do it's not my place to tell em not to.

      And yep I agree men's issues should be taken more seriously as well, like there are so many domestic abuse shelters for women but hardly any for men (as said in the Red Pill documentary) so yeah I'm all in favour of that.

      Delete
    29. When Lifetime was going through their male-bashing phase, the movies were outrageous. I remember one film where this guy seemed really charming and like a gentleman, until he got engaged to his gf. Then it was revealed that he was actually a kidnapper who was only pretending to be in love with the gf to get revenge at her mother, because he and his previous gf had tried to kidnap the mom for money but the mom got away and the previous gf accidentally died, so he blamed her for it and was using her daughter to get to her. That was one of their more complicated ones but the basis was the same: you think the guy’s great but in reality, he’s a bad guy and you just couldn’t tell the whole time. Whether it was a gentleman husband turned wife-beater or popular male friend turned rapists, etc. It went a long way to make women fear men and relationships with them. (That being said, their newer movies in the last 20 years that are more "based on true events" are actually usually pretty good and well done.)

      I grew up on Disney movies, they were one of the very few positive things in my childhood that had such positive messages. I think it’s really biased when women’s “ambitions” are belittled if they involve “just” being a wife and mother. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Is the assumption that if a woman wants to primarily be a wife and/or mother, that’s all she’s limited to? Like if a woman is waiting for love in her life, then suddenly that makes her one-dimensional? If someone rejects love and only wants to focus on their one main hobby, such as Merida for example, how is that seen as more liberating and not limiting?

      I’m not really sure what you mean by “the more sassy independent women - Belle, Esmeralda, Mulan, Elsa and Anna, Pocahontas”. Esmeralda is definitely sassy but the rest of the ones you mentioned aren’t really “sassy”. What does “independent” mean to you? Why would being more open to love or less open to love, have anything to do with “independence”? For example, Belle was not independent as her life revolved around taking care of her father. She actually had more freedom to be her own person when she chose to be with the Beast rather than when she was with her father. Since she had to take care of her father, she couldn’t travel or explore or live out her dreams. It wasn’t until she let go of her father, chose independence through “love” that she was really able to finally go pursue her own dreams. Also, you do realize that Belle was waiting for love too, right? In the beginning of the film, when she is talking to her father before he goes on his trip and goes missing, she tells him about how lonely she is and he tries to recommend Gaston to her. She rejects the idea of Gaston because she cares about the kind of person he is inside, not just his looks and status. Nonetheless, she is still looking for love too though, and she clearly feels “trapped” in her life with her father as she sings “I want much more than this provincial life”.

      Delete
    30. I don’t understand this idea that if you’re in a relationship or marriage and not working, that you’re suddenly “reliant on him for everything”. Marriages (done right) are partnerships, both people work together and they get the benefit of each other’s strengths to cover their own weaknesses. Together, they make a better team than when they are alone and bring out the best in each other. If you have a job, you’re still reliant on many people, if not more than just being in a relationship. You are completely reliant on everyone else: the boss, and the decisions they make for the company; your fellow employees, and their sense of teamwork, productivity and compatibility; your customers, and their desire to purchase your product enough as well as approve of your job in order for you to keep your job; etc. As a housewife or stay-at-home mother, you are only really reliant on yourself and your husband. We live in society so we are all reliant on each other. As far as independence, if you are an adult and legally responsible for yourself and no longer living off of your parents’ money, how are you not independent, regardless of relationship or work status? Also, are you still “independent” if you’re on welfare or unemployment? Because at that point, you are completely dependent on the government and all of the tax payers in your country in order to survive. So would you say people on government-financial assistance are not independent?

      Because my situation at home was so bad, I did everything I could to move out on my own – age 19 - and be “independent” as soon as possible (I even lived in my car for a few months). While I was able to make ends meet on my own, I do not feel that I was more “independent” at that point in my life, than I am now. Quite frankly, I grew up pretty independent because my mom was often out getting drunk or at home sleeping or watching TV with a hangover. I had to fend for myself A LOT as well as for my younger siblings. Now I am older, wiser, more secure in my life and more confident in myself – yet I have a husband who I am technically financially “dependent” on. If something were to happen and my husband died or if we even got divorced, I would be emotionally devastated of course, but I would still walk away a better person than when I was “independent” before we were together. So how would me being “independent” instead of with my husband be more “empowering” for me? It may be “empowering” to be alone by Feminist standards but I don’t see how that should be held up as some virtue. Some people stay single, some are fortunate and find their love. Why should that have any bearing on “independence” unless for tax reasons?

      Delete
    31. I would highly recommend you re-watching the old princess films before you write a post on them. Too often I see so many articles (albeit usually Feminist) that bash the Disney princess films based on nothing but their feelings and stereotypes about the characters that are sometimes even *disproved* in the film itself. This is especially true for the older ones. I don’t think Snow White and Cinderella are lame at all, I think they are some of the best role models that Disney has ever made and they personally helped me deal with my abuse when I was growing up. They were so strong, resilient and optimistic, never letting the abuse get to them and corrupt their positive spirits. I think it’s a real shame that Feminists have pushed myths about them being doormats etc. Snow White was incredibly spunky and immediately starts to boss the dwarves around and get things done. She cooks, cleans, does laundry and isn’t afraid to do her part because she wasn’t spoiled. She didn’t just expect to be taken in because she was a princess, she was willing to earn her keep. She was almost killed yet she found a way to bounce back and keep moving forward. I really don’t see anything lame about that. Same with Cinderella. She used her free time to save the mice from being eaten by the evil cat. She had a caring heart and tried to see the good in everyone – even when it wasn’t really there. When someone is constantly berated or neglected, is it really so awful that they might dream of someone who actually loves them and would treat them right for a change? Would it really be more empowering if they’d rather be alone forever than if they still believed in true love even after being shown the opposite? Are those not positive messages about good prevailing over evil? And by the way, Cinderella was able to free herself from the tower because she was clever enough in a very distraught situation to think of alerting the dog to come and get the cat who was trapping the mice. When compared to all of the other princesses, Cinderella is actually one of the more intelligent ones. I used to watch these films over and over as a child. (I wasn’t able to always get out so much, especially before high school, because my mom usually wouldn’t drive/take me anywhere.) So again, I would *highly* recommend you watch these movies before posting about them so you have a recent, accurate memory of them. Just because the earlier princesses were more reserved in their actions and weren’t so rebellious and outspoken, doesn’t make them any less “independent” or have weaker characters. In fact, one of the things that I like about them is that they weren’t spoiled and they didn’t take things for granted as much as a lot of the sassier ones did. (By the way, Belle, Pocahontas & Cinderella have always been my favorites since I was a little girl and I really loved Anna too. I like the princesses that have spunk and intelligence. :D)

      Delete
    32. I have what I like to call progressive-traditional values. Haha My most treasured traditional value is: children first. That’s what causes me to lean more conservative when it comes to family values though it’s not limited to that. I support gay adoption (progressive) because statistically 2 parents are better than 1 (traditional). I also support polygamy for consenting adults (progressive) because I believe extra/extended family members is better than broken, segregated family members etc (traditional). I usually balance out to being pretty moderate with slight leanings left and right depending on the topic. I don't think virginity should be a measure of your value whether you're a man or woman, either. I think we agree on the choice and impact but just disagree on the value of that choice. It is unfortunate when girls don’t get to lose it to the “right” guys but that’s why I’d rather do what I can to help girls in the future not be so unfortunate. We don’t have to try and force them to wait until marriage like before Feminism, I’m not saying that, but we shouldn’t downplay it, because it often leaves a bigger impact than the girl expected it to because they do underrate it more today. It’s a special thing women have and I don’t think that should be taken away from them to serve a Feminist doctrine. I think if someone wants to wait until marriage to have sex, I respect their choice as much as someone who refuses to do any kind of drugs, drink or smoke etc. Their choices may or may not align with my choices, but either way, I can respect their choices and their intent etc.

      Everyone is entitled to their own choices. As I said before, most women don’t care about the amount of sexual partners their men have had but most men do care about the amount of sexual partners their women have had. Just like most men don’t care about the physical attractiveness of their partner’s exes but most women do care about the physical attractiveness of their partner’s exes. On the reverse, just as many women rate themselves on the beauty of their partner’s exes etc., as many men rate themselves on the amount of “sexual” exes their partner has had. Not all men and women fall in line with these but in general, most do.

      I don’t really know what “sex-positivity” is but I tend to favor quality over quantity. I’ve known young women who have bragged about sleeping with 20+ men. I don’t know how they do it. I don’t really see that as empowering. I don’t think that letting tons of different guys into your intimate space is liberating but I don’t think I should be able to legally tell you what to do with your body. I’ll advise you because I care, but I believe most adults are independent and should be free to make their own choices. That being said, if you choose not to hang out with someone who is religious because she is always talking about how it’s “sinful” not to wait etc.; Would that be any different than choosing not to hang out with someone who is “slutty” because she is always talking about how much of a “prude” you are? I think people are different and we shouldn’t have to all be forced to have the same preferences etc. I don’t want to lose our diversity, I think it’s part of what makes us greater overall. So if a woman thinks sleeping with tons of men is liberating, that’s her prerogative. I would only tell her that most men don’t really respect that so she might want to keep that in mind when she wants to find her own long-lasting love. Isn’t it empowering for her to know ahead of time so she's not shocked later when it happens? That’s what I believe.

      Delete
    33. I am happy to hear that you are in favor of legalized prostitution, I am as well. I think that is one of the greatest points against Feminism, as they claim to fight for women’s “choice” yet they usually advocate against legalizing prostitution (and polygamy). I like the idea of adults having freedom of choice too. That being said, along with this freedom of choice, I equally believe in accountability for said choices. One of the things I saw most with people around me growing up, as well as with most Feminists, is a lack of accountability for one’s own actions aka victim mentality. I believe in a lot of liberties as a consenting adult such as legalized alcohol, marijuana, drugs, prostitution, polygamy, gambling, etc. This doesn’t mean I agree with these things, but I do believe they are someone’s own choices. That being said, I don’t want to have to pay for their choices. If someone loses their money gambling, I don’t want my tax money to go to their “welfare” check. If a polygamous family can’t afford the multiple kids they keep having, I don’t want my tax money to endorse their irresponsibility. I believe that is a fair balance, freedom of choice for promise of accountability.

      Well since you agree with men’s issues, I would just ask that when you look at a situation involving a man and a woman, don’t forget to look at both sides. Our society is very biased towards women so it’s very natural for us to give women the benefit of the doubt – even involuntarily - and not think twice about how a woman might be lying or how a man might be mistaken or misunderstood etc. This is why I don’t support Feminism and call myself a humanist/egalitarian instead.

      Delete
    34. I do watch the Disney movies quite regularly. I see what you mean about Snow White looking after the dwarves and Cinderella being kind to the animals, I guess I just prefer women with more attitude or 'spunk' as you say, and Cinderella and Aurora are a bit too 'soft' for me. My favourite is Esmeralda for that reason because she stands up for the gypsies and for Quasimodo, and she doesn't make finding a man her 'number one priority' but works well romantically with Phoebus (who is my favourite Disney guy). I also love Mulan because she is full of courage and goes out to help her father and her family and defend her country. (I'm no nationalist, but in the context of the film what she does is very noble).

      For the same reasons I think one of the worst is Ariel, although I do think she's lovely (and we both have red hair) and adore The Little Mermaid as I do every Disney film. However, telling little girls that if they give away their voice and rely on their looks that they'll get their 'dream man' who they've literally known for 5 minutes is not a positive message in my books. I like the fact that Frozen jokes about this with the 'you can't marry a man you just met' line from Elsa.

      Belle is another one of my favourites. I think she's smart, down to earth and cares for her father and then looks after the beast and brings out the best in him. Also, Belle doesn't specify 'love' in the romantic sense, more that she wants someone she can talk to who understands her. When I think of independence I do think of not making finding a man your number one priority in life. This is because growing up I've always had a crush on a guy or had a boyfriend and felt like I need a guy's attention to make me feel good about myself. I think this is really unhealthy and that love should come from within first. Absolutely wanting love in life is healthy and normal, I just don't think women should spend their lives pining around waiting for someone like I did in my teens; it's better to just live your life and then you'll naturally meet the right person. I think Disney films, chick-lit and rom-coms have all fed into this 'girl meets boy' story and I've found it tiresome and even upsetting. That's why my favourite Disney girls are the ones that do great things and find men in the end without 'dreaming' about it primarily.

      Jenna Marbles once made this funny youtube video talking about Disney princesses and what if Cinderella tried to get her own back on her stepmother and step-sisters and ran away, rather than meets a Prince she danced with once and lives happily ever after? Same with Snow White; 'some day my prince will come.' Yes it's natural to pine but not when the primary message of a movie is the prince will get you and you'll live happily ever after because real life is not like that. I don't know much about relationships but I know they take time and work and that people can't marry each other within 5 mins of knowing each other and expect it to last unless it's an arranged marriage.

      It is true that our society has more female-bias and I think I've internalized that. We're told that women are the ones being oppressed when actually I don't think anyone in the UK and US are 'oppressed' nowadays (that's such a strong word to use!) and if anything women are given privileges that men don't have. My boyfriend's friend even said that if a girl is studying Engineering at uni, they can copy answers off the guys because there are few girls in that field and the guys will pander to them and help them out just because they're women. I think it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising.

      Delete
    35. Man you write so much (but it's very interesting) and I want to respond to it all but tryna be as concise as I can lol. Yeah it sounds like you've been through a lot and I have as well as you've read. I think at the end of the day if being a housewife and mother makes you feel happy and fulfilled that's good, but it doesn't for everyone and so as we both agree, choice is always important. I don't think having sex with 20+ people is bad or good; tbh I don't really care. Sex-positivity is basically looking at sexuality as down to individual choice and freedom and not virgin/slut shaming people.

      Delete
    36. When I find other people who are open-minded and curious, I like to dive into the subjects and really converse about them. It’s not about an argument to me, like my side vs your side, it’s just about exploring all of the different perspectives and contextual facts related to the topic, to understand and see it as fully as possible. I know you consider yourself a thinker so I don’t hold back with you and try to allow the conversation to flow as much as possible. If it’s too much, I can scale back for you; I am just used to conversing with others who also like to “dive” into the subjects etc. As far as my end, you can never write too much for me and I will always look forward to reading your full opinions.:)

      I also appreciate diversity of opinion, like what you and I are having here. I want to hear your unfiltered opinions, give you my own and let’s talk it all out and see if our own puzzle pieces don’t fit together in some way to create a larger picture. Most people’s opinions are formed on their own experiences, (personal and informational) and since we all have different experiences, I enjoy hearing them and how they differ from my own; etc. As long as people are always open-minded and open to discuss, I think there’s a lot of potential to learn and grow; regardless of “sides” or “disagreements” etc. In my opinion, true friends are the ones who can openly disagree without it affecting their friendship. I know some other people believe the reverse, that true friends don’t disagree or something like that but I don’t.

      As a child, I did go through a lot more things than many people go through as adults. A lot of people in my family did, as negative cycles tend to breed more negativity. This is why I do not like the “victim mentality”, rejecting accountability or being oversensitive to obstacles in life. I believe that ever since society started to put so much emphasis on feelings about things, we have gotten emotionally weaker. If we consider being manipulated into sex as being “rape”, then why don’t we consider car salesmen who manipulate customers into bad deals as “thieves”? If being talked into doing something you didn’t really want to do, is considered to be “traumatic” rather than just a “hard lesson learned”, how would we ever be emotionally strong enough to handle “more traumatizing” situations? Furthermore, when people embrace/encourage a victim mentality, it also makes them far less likely to choose better decisions for themselves – keeping them trapped in the negative cycle longer. (Going back to my argument against Feminism as it’s all based on victim mentality, which I believe holds women back more than it empowers them.)

      Delete
    37. According to what you explained as “sex-positivity”, I wouldn’t say that I blanketly agree with that. My balance is this: if a woman wants to be a slut and contribute to society by helping a ton of single men get their sexual releases, that’s her choice and I won’t put her down for it, even though I wouldn’t want that for myself or my daughter etc. I wouldn’t go out of my way to make any woman feel bad about her sex life but personally, I just wouldn’t really want to be around her or have her around my family just as most other women wouldn’t, as it’s an evolutionary thing of learning not to trust these women for their potential to break up families etc. When women’s sex lives aren’t just their own choices affecting themselves but choices that are bad for society, such as trying to go after married men or having kids with a ton of different men, that is where I draw the line of deeming it completely appropriate and even necessary to “slut-shame”. My mother, my grandmother & my stepmother (dad’s gf) all have 4 children from 3 different men. Since I personally know these women, I find it personally offensive if anyone tries to tell me that I shouldn’t have the right to slut-shame them (not saying you are). As with most things in life, I prefer to take people and situations based on their own merits. I don’t like extreme sayings/”rules” like “never slut-shame” or “never hit a woman” (what if she is trying to kill your child or beating her own?) or “never talk politics with friends” etc. I just think that to think in such absolutes all the time is so limiting. Rarely in life do we ever find things that are so black-and-white; yes-or-no; good-or-bad, right-or-wrong etc; Not everything is that simply answered or explained.

      I wouldn’t say “attitude” and “spunk” are synonyms as “attitude” can be sassy whereas “spunk” is more of an energetic, courageous and determined thing. Hence why Snow White is one of the spunkiest princesses, along with Anna. I don’t agree with you that Cinderella and Aurora are “soft” though “soft” is very subjective. I think Cinderella and Aurora were very strong and I don’t see their “traditionally feminine” qualities as taking away from that. If you’re into the Disney Princesses, I would like to recommend this post for you: "Ranked:Disney Princesses From Least To Most Feminist" Response - (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.com/2017/05/rankeddisney-princesses-from-least-to.html)


      If The Little Mermaid were actually “telling little girls that if they give away their voice and rely on their looks that they'll get their 'dream man' who they've literally known for 5 minutes” then I would agree with you that is not a positive message, however I disagree with you on the message here: Ariel was ready to move on from being held back by her father’s fear and prejudice, albeit somewhat “reasonable” considering what happened to his wife. Her dreams of being human were what she really wanted, and Eric was just a cherry on top. She wasn’t just relying on her looks, she was relying on their natural chemistry. Many times great changes do come with sacrifices, but too many people are afraid of making those sacrifices because they don’t actually believe that what they can attain in place of those losses will be better. Ariel did, she was very “independent” against all odds and forged her own path. She made her dreams happen, being human, and she got to get a great guy on top of it. I don’t think the deal was so illogical though it was naïve and impulsive – which is why I love Ariel but she’s not one of my favorites. Another post: Disney Princess Analysis: “Ariel just left her family for some guy she barely knew.” - (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.Disney com/2015/11/disney-princess-analysis-ariel-just.html)

      Delete
    38. Belle has always been my #1 favorite, pretty much my whole life. Haha :D The thing about her comment to her father is, her father asks "What about Gaston? He's a handsome fella." (Because he understood she meant love.) Belle doesn't say "I'm not looking for a relationship or love." She says "He's handsome, all right, and rude and conceited and... Papa he's not for me." This shows that she is open to love and she does want someone to love and talk to but she hasn't met the right man yet and doesn't want to settle. Another post: Disney Princess Analysis: Getting To Know Belle (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.com/2016/11/disney-princess-analysis-getting-to.html)

      Why is making finding a career your #1 priority in life any more independent than creating a new family as your #1 priority in life? If we accept that not all women want families and not all women want to work, what makes one more independent over the other? What happens when you spend your teen years pining for the perfect job, expecting that you are going to have a super important career that helps save the world, and it doesn’t happen; And you get stuck being some waitress at a diner or a cashier at a clothes store? Some women get depressed when their dreams aren’t realized – whether in career or romance. Is that healthy and normal? I just think it’s really biased to keep putting one “over” the other, implying a “better/more fulfilling” option rather than “next” to it as another equal option and it hurts women by pressuring them into making the “right” choice rather than choosing what they truly want for themselves (whatever it may be). If a woman is very smart and talented and capable of being a great doctor etc., I think it would be just as wrong to discourage her or tell her that being a wife would be more fulfilling; Because I really do think it’s a personal choice for each woman to make.

      I agree that romantic comedies have similar happy endings to Disney fairy tales however the Princess movies are based on fairy tales which are supposed to be allegorical. The romantic comedies are more like common fantasies on screen. I find modern romantic comedies to be more unrealistic than Disney princess movies as the former are based on placating to women’s feelings for money, whereas the latter are more based on timeless fairytales that have moral points. Under your criteria of “Disney girls that do great things and find men in the end without 'dreaming' about it primarily”, I would say that the majority of the princesses match this. I think people don’t understand the historical context of Snow White or Cinderella’s time. Many people act like they could’ve just ran away and started over but in their time, that would’ve been much harder than it is today and they likely would’ve died on the street, been raped or sold into slavery or otherwise been worse off trying to go out on their own. The world wasn’t always so nice and safe, we’ve only had electricity in most homes in America for less than 100 years and indoor plumbing for slightly more than that. (More reasons why gender roles prevailed more so pre-Feminism than post-Feminism without so many modern inventions and technological progress etc.)

      Delete
    39. I don’t really know what movie you are talking about where the primary message is “the prince will get you and you'll live happily ever after”. As I said before, real life was really like that when those movies came out in 1937 and 1950 (Snow White & Cinderella). Since the vast majority of women did get married in those times, it wasn’t “unrealistic” at all to show girls getting a happy ending. Furthermore, there is always talk about women’s portrayal yet not the men’s. The first 2 princes didn’t even have names. They’re all handsome, tall and have a masculine-build. How many movies do we have portraying men as rich, tall and powerful even though in real life, most men are not that rich, tall and powerful? That’s what movies are, unrealistic portrayals that entertain us by appealing usually to our emotions – desire, fear, ambition, etc. (Though there are a few movies out there that are made to make you think, though they’re usually not “mainstream”.) I don’t really understand why people expect cartoons for children to go into the nuance of relationships and dating etc. Most of them don’t focus on love though they hold up love as a value, as most kids watching the films would see their parents in love just as the prince and princess were, and would want the same thing for themselves. I don’t see the harm in that at all. The primary values are usually focused on having integrity and a good character. (good overcoming evil)

      If you think “it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising”, wouldn’t you then think the same think in reverse about men who manipulate women to their advantages?

      Delete
    40. If you think “it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising”, wouldn’t you then think the same thing* in reverse about men who manipulate women to their advantages?

      *typo, sorry

      Delete
    41. I think because I've been brought up in an environment where achieving and doing well in school and aiming for a career have been encouraged, I've gotten used to that. I didn't really like school (esp primary and sixth form) but my secondary school and sixth form were very big on achieving, particularly my secondary school. They pushed the idea of doing well and reaching for the stars and a fulfilling career. In years 10 and 11 this financial company called Moodys came in to encourage young girls to pursue STEM subjects. (Being pro-arts I've never liked the fact that in school sciences always seem to be emphasised more than arts and arts are more frowned upon. Just my experience). With this in mind and also the fact that both my parents have always worked I've never thought not having a career could be fulfilling.

      However, I've come to realise that isn't true of course so yes I do agree with you that it's down to personal choice. If one woman (or man) finds staying at home with the children whilst their partner works fulfilling, then good on them. All my life I've heard people tell me there's no future in the arts; in music and writing the two things that I love. But I would not feel fulfilled working in a bank or an office or as a doctor. Fulfilment does come down to a person-to-person basis so I agree with you.

      Yeah I guess again this changes my perception of the Disney princesses. I think I always found the happily-ever-after thing upsetting and annoying in my teens because I think it sells this false idea that true love can happen within 5 minutes and always makes it the primary focus of the movie. (I forgot about Jasmine; she was my fav princess growing up btw). This is why I love Moana and rate Merida; I think it changes it up and makes the storyline more interesting rather then 'they lived happily ever after.' Maybe I'm just a pessimist. I've never really cared for love songs either. I don't like the emphasis on romantic love as being the 'best' kind of love; Moana loves her family and where she comes from, Elsa and Anna love each other, Merida loves her mother etc. So I'm very happy that Disney are exploring other forms of love and different storylines. But yes it's true that we have to look at things in context and in the 1950s girls grew up and got married and weren't able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path. I don't think its healthy to define yourself through somebody else. Again maybe I'm just pessimistic and self-reliant. I've always struggled to relate to people and have felt very alone most of my life, despite having friends and family who love me. But then lots of people feel like that. So the 'true love conquers all' message just depressed me.

      Yeah of course its just as bad when men manipulate women to their advantages. Typically women manipulate men for money and men manipulate women for sex, but underlying these are forms of power and control.

      Delete
    42. I suppose in some ways I was lucky as I got to see both growing up. On my father’s side, he worked a lot and his gf stayed home raising the children – who were involved in a lot of sports and cheerleading kind of activities etc. My father worked overtime and probably spent more hours at work than he did at home or just about. He wanted to be more involved with his kids and he tried to go to as many games etc. as possible, even going as far as to work night-shift (in the middle of the night) so he could be there to support them. He’s a real work horse but he does it to provide for the big family he has. If he could get away with working less, spending more time with the family BBQing or going to the movies or watching football games together etc, he’d be a lot happier. I admire his work ethic because despite the stretch of his paycheck, he’s never been homeless nor gotten financial aid from the government and he’s even paid my mom some child support along with all of his other financial commitments in his life. However, I also see him slaving his life away at his job and being very underappreciated by those in his family who choose to see his absence and stress levels more than his commitment and dedication. (It’s interesting how we hold up women for wanting to work yet we don’t do the same for men – especially those working to support a family.) Luckily for my father, his gf staying home was a good counter-balance to his having to work all of the time to make ends meet. Since he had to be gone working, she was home to take kids to and from school and practice etc, make them breakfast and dinner every day, take them out to the park on the weekends and overall just being there for them. They didn’t have to fend for themselves, they were loved and taken care of and they knew it.

      *Post-Script: Later when my father’s gf was done using him for his money to raise her kids, she started working while still with him so she could save up to move out on her own. All of those years staying home with him didn’t stop her from being able to leave when she wanted, nor did her relationship with him stop her from being able to get a job when she wanted. So not only did “relying on him” not hurt her, it helped her and hurt him.

      On my mother’s side, she was a single mom who worked and raised us by herself. Even though my mom wasn’t feminine and very slutty, she was also very lonely and had she been capable of it, seemed to really want marriage and a happy family. She even once told me, after I was already an adult, that she had regretted not just getting married to a good man and “not have to worry about money all the time”. Unfortunately for her, she was too self-destructive to make that dream a reality, so working was what she was stuck with. She also was really horrible when it came to priorities with money. She was constantly spending money on luxuries over necessities, getting evicted and was on welfare as well as unemployment at different times etc. Had she been “financially dependent” on a man, she probably wouldn’t be as deep in debt as she is and would have someone there to help keep her accountable for her bad spending – as well as taken less taxpayer money just to blow most of it off. As a single mother, she had no counter-balance to her weaknesses. As her eldest child, I had to take that role; playing father to her and mother to my siblings.

      Delete
    43. So I was lucky because I got to see that sometimes things don’t work out for a reason and not everyone is made to have the same life. This is why I think these kinds of personal choices shouldn’t be so politicized as with the way Feminism does it as well as mainstream media. (And again, why I try to push for advocacy of children over grown adults.) I know better than most people that not all women are meant to be mothers and not all men want to slave their entire lives away at work. However, I don’t think “changing the gender roles” or associating higher value with one over another is a healthy way to look at these things in general. I think what’s fulfilling is “diversity”. We’re not a homogenous society with everyone having the same 1 job and/or purpose in life. Our different skills and preference “make the world go round”. Just like our bodies have different parts (head, finger, heart, skin, muscle, etc), so people in our society make up different parts (scientist, politician, parent, fire fighter, athlete, etc). I just wish people were more encouraged to do whatever they wanted, rather than conforming to some political or Feminist doctrine. Fulfilling means finding your own purpose, not someone else’s, in my opinion.

      Honestly, I think anti-Disney princess propaganda sells the false idea that “true love can happen within 5 minutes and always makes it the primary focus of the movie” more than the actual Disney princess movies themselves. As I said before, the Disney Princess movies sell the idea that moral character and choosing to be a good person will always get you through the toughest situations and not to lose hope. Snow White is arguably the most optimistic princess and when did she come out? During the Great Depression in USA when people wanted something to lift their spirits. And as far as finding “true love”, considering most people came from married parents, what else should they have called it instead? “Convenient love”? “Primal chemistry”? I think “true love” was a very sweet and positive way to label the romance and it was very symbolic of “marriage” – since marriage is committing to one person for the rest of your life; your “true love”. And again, until the last few decades, most people watching the Disney films came from happily married homes so it wasn’t as controversial as with today, where 45% of kids are being born to single-moms (in the US).

      I liked Moana because I thought she had a good balance, I didn’t like her any more/less because she didn’t have a romantic storyline. I liked Merida’s growth but I didn’t really like the message of her film and I think it encouraged self-centeredness and unrealistic expectations a bit too much. I like the emphasis of romantic love as the “best” kind of love because it’s a whole-encompassing love that you get to choose. When you find romantic love, you get a spouse and someone to create a life and family with. Your spouse is the start of your new family, the one in the 2nd half of your life that you chose; as opposed to the one you were born with in the 1st half of your life without any choice in the matter. Perhaps for someone like me, who was born in a bad situation, with a lot of bad people close to me in my family, and have made it out and found my husband, I can appreciate this sentiment more. I have to say though, I don’t think that the 2nd family has to replace the 1st family, as shown in Sleeping Beauty when Aurora finally got both for the first time at the end; or when Belle brought her father to the castle at the end of Beauty and the Beast; or the Sultan finally caved and changed the law so Jasmine could get married in Aladdin etc. Even though Pocahontas was always my 2nd favorite princess growing up, I was always a little upset that they “took away her happy ending” and she had to give up her love to stay with the family that had wanted to make her marry Kocoum – especially considering it was her romantic love that potentially gave his life to save her family.

      Delete
    44. That being said, I don’t mind Disney exploring other forms of love and different storylines. Though to be fair, the “traditional and stereotypical beautiful princess falling for the handsome prince and living happily ever after” hasn’t really been used since 1959 with Sleeping Beauty. Starting with Ariel, there was a lot of different changes and more family dynamics etc. Starting with Belle, there was a lot of change in the princes and break from their traditionally perfect characters as well.

      I don’t know why you would say that “in the 1950s girls grew up and got married and weren't able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path” as that’s simply not true and I have shown you proof of that. Those girls had the option to work just as their mothers had and their grandmothers etc. Most of them preferred to be housewives and I really wish you’d stop using the false statement that they “weren’t able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path” when there’s absolutely no proof of that.

      If it’s not healthy to define yourself through somebody else than what makes defining yourself as a “lawyer” any better than a “wife”? Somebody else defined what a “lawyer” is and what the requirements are that you have to meet in order to call yourself that. Just like someone else defined what a “wife” is and what the requirements are that you have to meet in order to call yourself that. Both of them are personal choices.

      What makes you think being a careerist is more self-reliant than being a wife? What happens when you work the same job for 12 years thinking you will work your way up in the company but you keep getting passed up for promotions while you watch your dreams slip away? Or you get “laid off” with the company because someone hire up made some big mistakes and now the company is failing? How is that any different than if something happens to your marriage and it happens to fall apart? Especially considering the fact that you have MORE choice when it comes to the kind of man you marry, then you do the kind of job you will end up with – which is based on a somewhat unpredictable market of always changing trends as well as personal compatibility with strangers?

      I understand that if you don’t have romantic love in your life and don’t feel too optimistic about it, how the “true love conquers all” message can be upsetting for you but if you did find someone who made you feel like you weren’t alone, really understood you and made you happy and wanted to be committed with you – would that be such an offensive thing? I think part of the problem might be that people have forgotten what “true love” and even just being “in love” really is. Meg was a good example of this. She had 1 (very) bad situation and it forever soured her on men, almost to the point of getting her “true love” killed when she finally did meet him. We can definitely focus on other forms of love and storylines etc. but I don’t think we should start spreading bitterness about “true love” as it can be more harmful than helpful. In addition, a lot of females tend to think they are “in love” when they have a deep crush or really like a guy; yet if you ask their crush if they are “in love” he will often say no, without hesitation. If you ask a female if you can be “in love” with someone even if they don’t feel the same way in return, they will often say “yes” whereas males often say “no”. The real answer of course, is no, in order to be “in love”, both parties have to feel the same way. So I think unrealistic beliefs about love are a bigger part of the problem than “true love” itself being so exalted. And another big part of the problem being that we don’t teach young women enough about the differences between them and young men and give them enough context to things regarding gender-differences (thanks to Feminism, of course). If females understood males better, there wouldn’t be able to be so much manipulation nor as much need for it.

      Delete
    45. “Yeah of course its just as bad when men manipulate women to their advantages. Typically women manipulate men for money and men manipulate women for sex, but underlying these are forms of power and control.”

      - So then in your opinion, what makes one “rape” or “needing government/police involvement” and not the other?

      Delete
    46. It seems your marriage is very happy and so has given you a positive outlook on romantic love. I think you're very lucky and am happy that it is that way for you. I do disagree that 'romantic love is the best kind of love' because I think you can have love with friendship, parents, siblings; like the love my brother and I have for each other is huge. Again because of the way you grew up I guess this is why you would view your marriage as freedom from your difficult child situation.

      I felt sad at the end of Pocahontas too, but then in the second movie she meets John Ralph and they go back to her home land so it shows love for family and love for a partner.

      With this last question I'm not sure how to answer it. I think if you feel you've been emotionally or physically abused you should report it.

      Delete
    47. Well, you can't love your friends, parents or siblings the same way you love your spouse. I guess you have to experience it to understand what I am talking about, but it's whole-encompassing in the way other loves can't be. That's the beauty and splendor of marriage and having children together, not just for me but for all people in happy marriages who want to have kids.

      I just think you should try to hold women to the same standards as men unless you're argument is that women aren't equal to men. If you keep giving women more passes than men, then it shows that you don't really think they're equal.

      Delete
    48. I do appreciate that being happily married to someone must be wonderful and is a different kind of love to platonic/family love. However, for someone who hasn't experienced that I don't think the loves I've had for other people account for any less (and I know you're not saying that). This post I wrote is about love, and for me love for friends and the pain that comes with it has been very strong in my life.
      http://www.thezarinamachablog.co.uk/2017/07/love.html

      I'll also be writing other posts on stuff we've discussed here. And I agree women and men should be held to equal standards. I think it's easier to forget sometimes because society gives em different passes (it's bad for a husband to hit his wife but 'funny' if a wife hits her husband). It's also tricky because men and women are different, and 'equal' shouldn't mean exactly the same, so it's all about situations I guess.

      Delete
    49. Yes, I am just trying to make the point that romantic love (particularly in marriage) embodies platonic & family love as well, which is why I said it was "whole-encompassing". The best marriages are when you marry your best friend (platonic love) and when you have children together, you've really cemented becoming a family. When marriage is done right, it's supposed to be a trio of love - representing all types of love in your life.

      I look forward to reading more of your opinions on all of the stuff we've discussed here, including the love post.

      What you just said about: "men and women are different, and 'equal' shouldn't mean exactly the same, so it's all about situations" is exactly why Feminism fails so much as it rejects that principle and tries to say "gender is a social construct" and in reality "men and women are and should be exactly the same". (Unless it's a bad situation of course, for example Feminists never push for women to be "equally" represented in custodial or construction jobs etc.)

      Delete
  2. This is the thing. All the groups you mention create their own definitions of what it means to be one of them. There is no "objective" definition. If you say you are a feminist, or a Christian, or whatever, then you are, and it's up to you to sort out your legitimacy with others who claim the same label. Nobody who doesn't take the same label has any business telling you whether you are or are not a "real" whatever-it-is. It's disrespectful; but moreover, they don't have the frame of reference, which is inherently subjective, to make that distinction.

    I get very impatient with, for example, atheists or Christians who pronounce that this or that person is "not a real Muslim." Who are they to say? Where do they get off?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is very true, like if I say I'm from England and someone tells me I can't be because I have brown skin, who are they to tell me that? How a person defines themselves is subjective as you said.

      Delete

If you enjoy my posts and want to support this blog, consider becoming a patreon by clicking on the tab at the top of my page.