What if women are STILL being subjugated, but are also helping to subjugate many men? What if women have been convinced that their subjugation is over in order for a very few men to receive their assistance in bringing a large number of men under control? What if women, freed from the chains of oppression, desire safety and protection and force oppression on (almost)all?
1 Like
I read it years ago and it doesn’t stand particularly out although it already mentioned the male crisis, which is very commendable.
Recognizing archetypes is important. However, like most soft theories, they’re hard to define definitely and very easy to confuse or inflate with bs. Here in this book, for instance, the “lover” should just be tossed in the trashcan of pattern recognition.
Our ancestors recognized that some people, a lot of them, actually, are just fine with eating, drinking, laughing and pooping their way through life. We don’t have to make mythology more inclusive to ensure those guys feel better.
“Your talent is raw hedonism and it’s beautiful!”
Similarly, there aren’t really female archetypes (basically just two or three at the most) and this is where the real tragedy of feminism unfolded. 99% of all women will never be brilliant in anything - and that’s okay.
So in a sense, the very same spirit of new-age inclusionism that made up “the Lover” ultimately helped create those aweful career women who, even if competent - which women can easily be, of course - are now in the process of tearing down western society.
1 Like
I would ask, when were women subjugated? If we keep this with regard to the US, when were women subjugated here? Sure, you had slavery but that included men. Slavery aside, when were women subjugated?
1 Like
The consequences of “counter culture” and the sexual Revolution have been immeasurable, including ruined lives, and, above all, harm to children, the primary victims of sexual revolution.
Now that this is derailed thread and no longer about fatness, perhaps it’s OK to ask, were there any particular feminists that struck a chord with you? You know, feminists whose literature moved you.
3 Likes
I particularly find the work of Esther Vilar, Norah Vincent and Camille Paglia to be most influential.
EDIT
did you mean “feminists in favor of feminist outcomes” or just “feminists in general”? If it’s the latter, I’ll ammend my list to [no one].
I believe if men want to get the real lowdown on feminism, they should read even just a little bit from and about these highly-influential feminists.
Gloria Steinem
Betty Friedan
Simone de Beauvoir
Shulamith Firestone
Susan Brownmiller
Eric Jong
Andrea Dworkin
After that, they should assess whether these people were just about equality and rights.
1 Like
Andrea Dworkin:
“We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws: all of the images, institutions, and structural mental sets which define women as hot wet fuck tubes, hot slits.”
This sort of sentiment, wanting to destroy society and dismantle the family unit, is common in all of the second-wave feminists I listed. Betty Friedan described the household as being akin to concentration camp. Erica Jong encouraged women to cheat on their husbands.
We can go on and on about these people’s ideas and words. So I am curious about what strain of feminist thought one has when discussing it.
2 Likes
What a time to be active on “testosterone” nation. Articles about training around periods, sex viewed as an abhorrent thing vs part of being “the male animal” and a serious conversation about feminism - in an era where women not only aren’t subjugated but propagated as a protected class 
2 Likes
The period article was good. I’ve spent years trying to figure out that info on my own.
2 Likes
I don’t read any political or agendized writings, unless quoted in discussions like this one. I really am the least radical person you’d meet. When I encounter radicals of either stripe (any stripe) I respond because I think people wind up in echo chambers, particularly now with social media.
That said, I read broadly. I read classically “guy” books as well as books by feminist authors (e.g. Margaret Atwood). My mom had feminist lit and I read that. My very conservative father had National Review and Rush Limbaugh’s book, and I read them also, along with the books he gifted me over the years once I had children he wanted to influence.
My views are my own, so they’re messy - which I believe everyone’s should be.
Abortion: I find it extremely distasteful and have very mixed views re its legality. Certainly late-term should not be allowed unless to save a life. However, until we can work through shared responsibility and compassionate care for moms and babies, I’ll support it as a disturbing necessity. I don’t believe they should be allowed against the father’s wishes, but that’s complicated also.
The thing that knots my stomach is the use of it as a means to manipulate both sides. Everything has to be the extreme to keep us fighting one another rather than demanding better representation. I would note that a strong majority of Americans are against banning it, so what gives? Well, agendas give. Which I think is why I brought it up. I’m not a defender of abortion, but rather someone who is confused and dismayed by the issue.
When were they able to build credit on their own so they could participate fully in the economy? 1974?
I would say prior to that time.
Do you mean a disturbing necessity for women who cannot make proper sexual decisions?
1 Like
And of course the men with whom they make them. Would it work better if the women carried the child to term - a consequence in itself - and then handed it over to the father to raise?
Would the men and teen boys accept responsibility?
We already do, in the context of financial support - by threat of jail.
Perhaps women could be more diligent in their duties as the gatekeepers of sex, if they wanted to avoid their consequences (by “consequences”, i mean “babies”).
2 Likes
What does this have to do with my question?
Women are the suppliers of sex.
Men do not get abortions.
2 Likes
And men are the people pleading for or demanding it, unless you allow for the mutuality of the decision, in which case there should be a mutuality of consequence.
My point being that other issues need to be solved before I’ll stand in opposition.
Men actually have 0% say in the outcome of any pregnancy of their involvement.
Want the child? Not your choice.
Dont want the child? Not your choice.
But wimmenz can Yeetus McFeetus on repeat, for free (taxpayer funded).
1 Like
Specifically what?
Men can as easily gatekeep, you know. My sons were taught that they had one opportunity to prevent unwanted abortions or unwanted children, as the case might be, and that was before removing their pants. Because of the things you said in your next post. I have sons and a daughter. They have choices, all of them.
We don’t allow hardly-known others to determine our fates by way of expectation that those others will act in our best interest. We also don’t foist responsibility onto others or whine that the cards were stacked against us when what we did was have sex with someone by choice.
In my family, anyway.
That’s correct! Which means women can say yes or no, which includes saying no despite sexual urges.
Men display, and women choose or not choose.
Just what business does a young woman have in allowing an irresponsible, uncaring man who doesn’t care about her or possible offspring on top of her?
It’s often been implied on here and elsewhere that despite all the intelligence and competence such a woman can have in all other areas of life (which many do), all reasoning goes out the window once an attractive man comes around.
It’s fairly easy to avoid this “undesirable necessity” of abortion: don’t have sex with a bum.
2 Likes