Believing in equality of the sexes with regard to politics and economics should be called humanism, although that term has already been taken. Feminism implies there is masculinism
Yes, I think that based on tone in some of the posts, subjugation is the alternative. Reminiscing about women “being protected at home, and ungrateful about it”, expressed negative feelings of women having choice in everything from careers to partners being a threat to men et cetera. It’s only a threat if you’re weak. And if a hapless woman whose existence is to be coddled and protected is beating you, or not choosing you, look in the mirror.
The feeling when reading these posts is that women should be isolated in order to subjugate them because competition is too strong from the hook-up and dating field to careers, and it’s kind of weird.
We also have not defined a baseline definition of feminism, and there appear to be multiple definitions, so there’s that.
4 Likes
Because it started as a pro women’s movement. And it succeeded. However, it wasn’t enough to create equal opportunity so in order to create equity, it needed to become anti male movement. It’s why a school like Harvard needed to reject Asian applicants as simply lowering the standards for other demographics was not enough.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone has said that. The issue is, a child from a two parent home will have better outcomes than a child with a single mother. This is not debatable. I said single mother for a reason; studies have shown children with single fathers have outcomes similar to two parent homes.
If a society wants to produce stable, productive citizens who are less prone to criminal behavior and other destructive behaviors, whether they impact others or themselves, then a society should avoid promoting ideas that create men who are unable to function socially and women who think men are unnecessary (because equality means you don’t need anyone else).
Got it. Thanks for the reply.
I’m sure these are real life experiences for you but I, again, am reading about them on the internet.
I don’t doubt either case intrinsically. Even when I was in school, prior to the woke era, Europeans were described as explorers, but conquering explorers. I remember a focus on Aztec floating farms, which actually were pretty impressive and interesting to learn about, but Aztecs were described as conquerors themselves. I had a few teachers I remember who seemed to have a bend. An English teacher who spent the whole fucking year on Scarlett Letter and what it means for women. In hindsight I probably should’ve tried to fuck her. I bet she was sexually liberated. But she was an outlier. The tail, not the dog.
I played Texas high school football. Not in the Permian Basin, which an odd number of people nationwide are familiar with given intensity, but for a school who ran over the Permian Basin at state level consistently. A storied program. There was always an offended mom or teacher. Phrases like “don’t be a pussy”, face masking by a coach, laps without water in Texas heat as a punishment et cetera triggered a lot of people. This is normal.
I’m not seeing anything indicative of a changed society in your post. Just likely outliers in your normal experience that you’re highlighting online, which is my point.
Back to an old question…what I want to be provided in a marriage and what I am prepared to offer are the same thing, and also happens to be part of the traditional vows. I want to be cherished, and am prepared to cherish my husband as well as our children (his and mine, as I am now in a blended family).
cherish
verb
cher·ish
cherished; cherishing; cherishes1 a
: to hold dear : feel or show affection for
b
: to keep or cultivate with care and affection : NURTURE
2
: to entertain or harbor in the mind deeply and resolutely
I agree with the posters above who believe in mutuality. If my husband were injured or otherwise unable to work, I would work to compensate for the financial loss. Do I like that he out earns me? YES! But only because mo’ money = mo’ money and we both like money pretty well. I would bet a great deal of money (which I like, mind) that if I somehow got a profound raise and blew past him, he’d be delighted. When I was in private practice and had the capability to perhaps out earn him, I didn’t because we both prioritize leisure at this point. So time off, a schedule that allows for less rushing on both our parts. But there was no thought to preserving his place at the top. He is physically stronger. We both know it. In some ways he’s emotionally stronger, though that would depend on what’s needed in any given circumstance. If it’s cool, it’s him. If it’s empathy and compassion, that’s me. No one denies his strength, and my strengths don’t diminish him. They’re shared resources.
To have and to hold, to love and to cherish. What more could be needed? If he can protect me from harm, I’m grateful. I would do the same for him. We’re going to get older and older. Eventually one of us will fail in some way, hopefully temporarily. If it’s him, I will protect him. By helping him get around if needed, by managing his meds, if needed, by getting him to and from appointments and also to and from fun, or making sure it happens around him. Can I battle the wolves at the door? Maybe not…or maybe so. Assuming we’re our current selves, I’ll cower behind him (protecting the dog as she is deaf and elderly) while he takes care of the threat. If he is incapacitated I will be the one to go to the front of the pack with a gun. I mean, God help us all if that’s how it has to go down because I could not be less effective in terms of fight instinct or skill, but no harm will come to the people I love without me doing my level best to stop it.
3 Likes
I am reading between the lines but it’s there, from a handful of posters.
1 Like
Also, I’m very sorry to interrupt the current discussion, it’s very interesting and I’m enjoying it.
Once again, I’m stunned to find myself so in agreement with @Njord, who I must have originally completely mis-categorized. Or else who has changed over the past few months. 
1 Like
Would you prefer I write a book for a post? And you say you haven’t seen a changed society? Look at our two choices for president. COVID lockdowns. Illegals flooding the streets and getting benefits Americans have to work for. Congresswomen saying white men are the greatest threat to America. Gender affirming surgery in minors. Oh yeah, it’s still 1950 out there.
1 Like
I see a conservative & liberal candidate. I agree tone has changed to a more divisive rhetoric than we’ve seen, but process is still the same
We’ve had a lockdown before during the Spanish flu. Neither of us were born but there a nearly 100 year precedent in place. Not saying I agree, but not a change, historically.
Congresswomen saying weird shit is pretty normal. Again, the tail and not the dog in application of your example.
Gender affirming surgery in minors is pretty fucked up, but not as bad as killing kids in the womb. It’s the new, grotesquely shocking thing, I’ll give you that.
I bet if you go outside there is a 99% chance a woman will not accuse you of being a threat to America, nobody will take you home and lock you in your house, you will not see a tranny. Don’t chase the tail. It’s a waste of time.
2 Likes
I’m sure if we got in to details of certain topics we would find significant disagreement, especially around casual sex. Referencing years actually, not months 
I see two fossils who won’t be making any major decisions.
You needed to go back a century, to a time with much less medical knowledge.
Calling white men evil is not weird.
A. I’m not white.
B. The woman in question wouldn’t be in Congress, the boardroom or the classroom.
I work with one so …
When I was a teacher I had students who were so…
There are many videos on YouTube talking about this interview, I just chose one of the first ones that came up. When in America would anyone be defending allowing children to read this book in school? This is Joy Reid, representing the agenda of a TV network which in turn is a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. This is not some lone voice on social media. Do these people represent a majority or even significant number of Americans? No. But they do have power.
Why do you guys think young men don’t want to get married these days?
Too much fun playing the field. All these hook up apps & whatnot make ordering up a pumpkin spice basic bitchez with a side of that medical reefer so easy that marriage is obsolete.
1 Like
Man. Getting high with strange bitches.
Those were the days!
1 Like
Yeah. That ended for me in the mid 20’s, but I still didn’t get married until mid 30’s.
There’s no real incentive to.
2 Likes