Feminism

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Re: Feminism

Postby Keith » 31 Oct 2013, 13:40

Hi Paul,

Yes, I will concede to Keith on the points he's made, but will agree to disagree on others.

I suppose it's not a big deal, compared to the many other problems of this world, failing to stand-up on buses and trains, and less so these days. It was a big deal back then aged 14 and I'm glad it was. It's stuck with me and I would struggle to shake it off - nor would I wish to. I can't help thinking that if it's not a big deal to NOT stand up, then it's similarly not a big deal to do so.

It's one of by bugbears and gets to me - a general attitude about many things (often to one's detriment) that is regularly described as 'only' or 'just'. For instance - "stop moaning (in light of damage or loss!), it's only such-and-such a thing" (meaning it's trivial). My answer always is - if it's 'only' trivial, you 'only' fix it or replace it." You will often then find that the 'triviality' suddenly assumes greater import.


I don't know if you were under the impression that I thought that standing up for a 20-year-old girl was no big deal. It's possible that you weren't replying to anyone and were just voicing your thoughts. Either way 'it being no big deal' was not what I have against the blanket rule of all men standing up for all women. I just find it an inflated gesture that has less to do with concern for the woman and more to do with the man feeling good about himself.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about you personally. I'm talking about the gesture. I find it out of all proportion. What motivates me to stand up for older people, certain women, invalids, the disabled, or pregnant women is that standing for me is less onerous than for them. Men should be a bit stronger and tougher and not mind a bit of discomfort. But there comes a point when standing for a middle-aged man who is on his feet most of the day is indeed more of a hardship than for a young woman in trainers and jeans who is blithely listening to her MP3 player. If I had stood up, walked over to her, tapped her on the arm (she wouldn't have heard me since she had headphones on) and asked her if she wanted to sit down she would have been quite rightly confused. And not only confused because politeness has gone out of fashion. Confused because it would have been an odd thing to do.

This has nothing to do with something being a big deal or not and everything to do with there being a cut-off point when politeness grades into dogmatic inflexibility and becomes a caricature of gentlemanliness, performed more for the benefit of the performer's ego than for the woman.
Keith
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 12:23

Re: Feminism

Postby Paul » 02 Nov 2013, 12:26

To answer Keith:

I was voicing thoughts generally to some degree but also replying in response to the interchange we have had on this forum.

When I said it was no big deal I meant - compared to the many other (greater) ills of the modern world, but also specifically in the context of this forum. That is, it's not that big a deal (to me) that we should then debate the matter overmuch here. We could go round and round in circles. I've stated my position and you have yours and that's fair enough. I have (truly) conceded some points to you and am minded to think that maybe I was being a little dogmatic about the subject.

I see what you mean about the incongruity of your example. The girl was looking the other way, she had headphones, she was (much) younger and fitter. She neither could see you directly, nor hear you had you spoken. I agree she may see it as strange had you actually tapped her arm and offered your seat.

So, you've convinced me (in some circumstances) or at least caused me to think the matter over some more.

Remember again that I hardly (if ever) use public transport and so the matter doesn't present itself these days and hasn't really done so since the schoolboy and college era. I'm living in the past on this one.

I'm not sure however that the practise has ever been about a man's ego and performed more for his benefit than the benefit of the recipient. If that was the case we may see, in this age of the ego, more chivalrous practises by men.

I agree however that chivalry is very much reduced, in great part because of the effects of feminism, but back in the day chivalry was, I think, simply genuine and a polite convention.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Feminism

Postby Paul » 02 Nov 2013, 15:13

Thanks Yessica

Yes the word 'chum' is now mostly outdated I would think. It's not a word I have heard for a long time. The word 'pal' may still be used here and there and maybe less so the word 'fellow'. Even in a country as relatively small as Britain there will however be regional trends and differences and so whatever I say can only be from the somewhat local perspective I have.

But, it does seem to me that 'mate' is almost universally used across Britain these days. Again, TD himself has commented on the use of this word and how he has been addressed in such fashion, even in his capacity as a doctor.

There is in Britain remarkable regional differences of speech, by way of accents and dialect. Remarkable in that the country is not really huge and yet there are very many differences. Maybe, or probably, that is the case with all countries, including Germany. I'm aware that there are different accents across the USA, but that seems obvious by the sheer size of the place. America really is huge.

This isn't really addressing feminism, and would be more suited to the thread on 'Future English' and the observations on 'Received Pronunciation' (RP). However.....

'Comrade' would to my mind (*see below) be used primarily by communists or to indicate communists! There were no friends or pals or mates in communism. They were all comrades. That's what the use of the word would signify to me. I suppose the word may be apt to describe military groups or other bands of adventurers in potentially dangerous or trying circumstances.

*The reason I mention this is the rather hilarious use of the word 'comrade' that I've seen on Facebook.

For my sins I know someone local to me who is a committed left-winger and political 'activist'. I've known him over 30 years and in fact once worked for him part-time - when he had a business devoted to making a profit! He's infantilised in my opinion and still to this day living out his 'college revolutionary' days, never having grown up. He's about five years older than me. His parents were middle-class, with his father (now deceased) a serving magistrate. He himself went to university ....... studying politics (sigh). He is intelligent, but not wise.

He began a 'Green Socialist' group on FB - whatever that means. I had no real idea, other than an eventual observation that it means the obvious left-wingery allied to some vague hippy, anarchist, new-age, environmental blend of ideas (ideologies). He co-opted me into this group as a member - without my initial knowledge or invitation. I don't go to FB that much (I'm at work - unlike him - or here or on TakisMag, etc) so the first I saw of it was upon my eventual next visit there.

Maybe that's not quite true because I doubtless got an e-mail alert to this fact and wondered what it was about. Curiousity maybe got the better of me, rather than the usual swift deleting of FB mail alerts that one can never quite seem to get rid of fully. It is about three years ago and I can't fully remember. But, I went to have a look.

So, I indulged him for a while and decided to amuse myself looking over the group and the postings therein. What struck me straightaway was that every single post by the members (though not me) began or ended .......'Comrade'. This was a definite hat-tip to communism, complying to all the stereotypes they believe they should follow. And they would say that everyone else 'in the system' are drones or sheep! Hilarious like I say.

Just to bring the topic back to feminism, I noticed there were very many females in this group. They all called each other 'comrade' too. I don't think many of them were working, if any, going off the amount of time (and the times of day) they seemed to spend on FB. Many of them professed to be feminists (as well as communists), which was never challenged by any of the male 'comrades' in the group. One of them once said something along the lines of:

"The 'system' is designed to criminalise people and ultimately imprison them. Most of them are Men (unusual maybe for a feminist) and everyone knows that once men go into prison they get raped and thus emerge abused and psychologically ruined'.

What a remarkable, if not disturbing statement and how she quantum-leapt from one topic unto another. What began as seemingly unusual support for men generally, suddenly became ................. what? A rather strange belief (actually fantasy I suspect) that she seemed to be harbouring.

She obviously completely ignores the fact that far too few people in the UK now go to prison - although this is partly because all the prisons are full to the brim. In the latter sense then, it would seem that very many people are indeed criminals (though she chooses 'criminalised').

It's pretty obvious in any society that the vast proportion of criminals will be men, even in this day and age. It's rather strange that a feminist would point this out. Would she have it that an equal number of men and women go to prison? Of course not - that would be the 'inequality' of male-dominance - even though the numbers would be equal. It would also be stupid and ignore reality.

What she was really saying of course is that less men (and even less women) should go to prison at all. Added to the very many people who do (unjustly) avoid prison, she would include very many of those who don't, with the result being that criminals would be walking the streets in even greater numbers than they currently do.

Her additional reason (to the fact that it isn't criminals' fault - they are 'criminalised', in other words forced to commit their crimes) was alarming though. Suddenly all (male) criminals were rape victims and somehow 'everyone knows' this! A first thought would be that if all criminals were indeed such victims, then who are the rapists? The best you could come up with was that lots of criminals have a dual role in the practise - which is obviously ridiculous and would suggest also there was less of a victim status than general homosexual behaviour - which in itself is almost certainly not true in UK prisons. As regards 'everyone knowing this' is the incongruous position of how she knows it. I doubt she has ever been in a prison (though she may deserve it) and furthermore has never, and would never be in a male prison - she is female. You could say she is relying on (many) anecdotes from male ex-prisoners, but I doubt there would be that many males willing to admit being raped in prison - or being in prison at all in the first place. Indeed I doubt she actually knows many people who have been in prison at all (very few people go to prison) though that doesn't mean she won't know many criminals. Maybe that's why she excuses criminality too. Not only is it a standard left-wing view but she is likely to be among criminals quite often, in various ways.

Obviously the whole viewpoint is ridiculous. How has she arrived at this and why has she clung to it, as seemingly unassailable dogma? I think these people are disturbed - and disturbing.

I did (foolishly) comment upon this, my only comment ever in the group. I could have tied her in knots of course, on all the points I have listed above, and expanded further on them. Except that I couldn't have because it didn't take long for me to be verbally abused, shouted at, and accused of being a 'Tory' and yes, inevitably - a Nazi. The first reply to my comment (as politely bemused as I could be) was defensive, but in that aggressive way people have - especially lefties. I tried one more comment and the roof came down and the sneering abuse began. My 'friend' tried to mediate and explain that Paul (me) wasn't trying to cause trouble and is 'presenting honest questions and opening the matter to debate', and various other sensitive buzzwords - whilst treading on egg shells. I wasn't really, I didn't have the time or inclination to enter lengthy and fruitless debates and I could have predicted the outcome of my comments. I suppose I was being mischievous - and why not?

He (the friend) then got shredded himself by a couple of other 'hardline' (I would say) members, who more or less said straight out, that debate is against dogma and.......... blah, blah, blah ....... bourgeoise............ proletariat.......... collective - and all the other real buzzwords of the left. It quickly became bewildering and mind-numbingly boring.

Nobody was allowed to challenge the hive metality and group-think, or the dogma or ideology, even if or when the reality of a situation suggested that it was almost essential to do so. I was a newcomer and so to be distrusted and - well, look at the first thing I said, trying to argue with one of the sisters - oops, comrades.

These hardliners were comrades too but they also had FB names that began 'Red'. So one was 'Red Tony', something or another I think, and so on.

We here will certainly be the 'drones' to these people as indeed were very many of the population, in their view, and often stated in comments. We will be conservatives (hiss), profiteers, slavers and agents of 'the system'. They will be 'free' and progressive and liberated, etc, etc. As long as one doesn't presume to have the slightest difference of opinion of course.

I stayed a few months or even a year maybe but only browsed their group occasionally - for a laugh. I didn't comment again on anything - why bother? Eventually I did leave, or rather I deleted them from the group listing. Moderate amusement eventually became tiresome, or even annoying - if I had so chosen to be annoyed too much about them.

They were constantly falling out between themselves too, in a really vitriolic way, without any input from me because obviously any people, anywhere, will sometimes (often) have a different opinion, even a slight one on all manner of things. They may by now have argued their own group out of existence, and fomented fierce rivalries and hatreds between themselves. 'Traitor' is no doubt a word that's been used many times among them. My friend was the originator of the group, its creator and yet that didn't stop them from attacking him here, there and everywhere and calling him all kinds of abusive names. Still, these people don't have a leader or a hierarchy so that's allowed. They must certainly have disbanded by now. I shall have to check.

No wonder socialists never get anything done. These people are amusing but also simultaneously depressing. We could laugh at them, but we should also be worried by their numbers and their sheer ....... insanity?

Gosh I'm sorry to have rambled there, so will end this post here. I will compose another one later, answering the rest of your comments.

Thanks.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Feminism

Postby Yessica » 03 Nov 2013, 12:35

*lol* Reminds me of the "Judean People's front".

I, too, have met leftists like this and I wonder why otherwise smart people act like this.

Re: The word "mate". It is interesting what you write. There is a word "mät" (pronounced "mate") in low German and it means comrade in it's original meaning ;)... but it is more or less a respectful term. You could call your boss mät and he would not be offended.
Communist in Germany by the way do not call other communist comrade (Kamerad) but companion (Genosse).
Is there a connection between the word "mate" and the term for the naval officer?

There is in Britain remarkable regional differences of speech, by way of accents and dialect. Remarkable in that the country is not really huge and yet there are very many differences. Maybe, or probably, that is the case with all countries, including Germany.


High German is always the same. Low German varies a lot depending on where you live. Much more so than English.

... but I realize I distracted the thread.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Feminism

Postby Yessica » 18 Dec 2013, 07:55

An interesting article in the New York Times

Beneath these averages are some demographic differences. For many years, researchers found that women were happier than men, although recent studies contend that the gap has narrowed or may even have been reversed. Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opini ... wVgv0MOoQ&
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Feminism

Postby Gavin » 18 Dec 2013, 08:23

I can well believe that. Liberal career women don't even look happy.

You see them trudging to work every day, with the men, in their thousands, walls up, hard faced, tired, childless, often husbandless. They're denying their own natures, depriving themselves and wider society of well-looked after, nurtured children, and depriving a generations of men of their natural companions (not to mention cluttering the workplace with countless non-essential PR and HR "jobs"). Roll on the reaction from women. I think it's about time they tuned in to what has been done to them by feminists.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Feminism

Postby Yessica » 19 Dec 2013, 17:13

By the way I think it is interesting that liberal men are the least happy group. Several possible reasons for that:

1. Unhappy men a drawn to liberalism. While it does not make them happier at least it gives them the chance to impose rules on other people
2. Liberalism (unlike communism) expects men to be effeminate and this makes them unhappy in the long run
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Feminism

Postby Gavin » 21 Dec 2013, 17:19

I’m not sure who are the most unhappy out of liberal and conservative men generally, actually. A conservative man is probably fine if he’s in a job where he feels appreciated and has not had to kowtow to PC and feminism constantly - i.e. if he has not been neutered in the workplace. Also if he has been able to assert himself with decency and attract a woman. But that’s probably a small number of men now. Probably men in the fire dept, the army, the few preserves remaining where men can be men.

Otherwise a lot of conservative men are probably feeling pretty frustrated. You know how the middle-class working white male arguably holds up society (they’re the originators, the screenwriters, inventors, composers, the surgeons (mostly) the pilots, he programmers and for the most part the entrepreneurs), yet is generally hated or ignored, taxed highly, accused of racism etc. He sees women choosing thugs or losers (or just unpleasant people) or no-one at all and sees his city taken over by foreign cultures. If he’s divorced he can hardly even get to see his children. He’s got a lot to be quite frustrated about.

Looking at the liberal man, if he has deluded himself sufficiently perhaps he can be quite happy? Somebody like Tom Chivers, perhaps. He thinks there’s no problem with an ever growing Muslim population. He might be happy that we are “atoning” for the evil we have done in the past. The liberal man might have no problem with the feminisation of the workplace or even the army. He thinks everyone is essentially good and there aren’t really any true underclass - that’s just a fabrication by the evil right (because he personally rarely meets any).

He might be a bit mystified by women choosing aggressive men though, but he will blame the men and not the women, so again him view of women will be untarnished, even though they tend not to choose him.

Well, these are all broad stereotypes, and there is every place on the spectrum, but anyway there are a few thoughts.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Feminism

Postby Gavin » 21 Dec 2013, 17:21

Further to my above post, I was going to post in this thread again anyway:

Hey folks, I have just been through London, having left Surrey, and am on my way back up north. I am on a Virgin intercity train. I have been allocated a single table and I thought I would describe the person opposite me as she is a “type”.

As I sat down I glanced at her, hoping to make eye contact for a pleasant “hello” since we will be sitting three feet from each other for three hours. No interest, no response, even as I looked for longer. She is a middle-aged woman who might have been quite attractive in her twenties but looks to have made herself ugly and slightly masculine, I think probably through years of bitter feminism. She is engrossed in The Guardian. The article appears to be about some Arabs who have supposedly been hard done by in some way in the UK.

She looks a bit angry, she’s scowling while she reads. There are no rings on her fingers. I’d put money on it that she works in “education”. She has the look of someone who wishes to educate everyone in her way of thinking. These feminists and left-wingers seem to have unshakeable conviction in their own rightness. They seem to have very high self opinions quite often, and even if the masses are thinking thoughtcrime in newspaper comments, they know best. Yet arguably women of this “type” have not even successfully been women.

By that age they're usually embittered against men and childless, cat owning, so instead they go to “the state” and decide to make the whole population “their children”. That’s right, they will guide them instead, even though they have pretty much been failures themselves and know nothing of the daily lives of normal people. Yes, I'm thinking of Germaine Greer and her ilk. Women, rise up and ignore these weirdos.

Well, I may of course be entirely wrong about this woman, but still I (broadly) describe a "type" (one I have met before - another teacher, possibly lesbian). A type that is not much use to the country, I would say. But anyone who dared suggest that professionally would probably be called racist - somehow.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Feminism

Postby Yessica » 21 Dec 2013, 19:23

Gavin wrote:I’m not sure who are the most unhappy out of liberal and conservative men generally, actually. A conservative man is probably fine if he’s in a job where he feels appreciated and has not had to kowtow to PC and feminism constantly - i.e. if he has not been neutered in the workplace. Also if he has been able to assert himself with decency and attract a woman. But that’s probably a small number of men now. Probably men in the fire dept, the army, the few preserves remaining where men can be men.


Not sure if I understand you. How would you define a place where man can be men?
Why for example is a man who works say as an engineer for a motor car company not in such a place?

Could you help me understand what a man does when he is in the company of other men what he would not do around women and is civilised? Sorry I do not want to say that men are typically uncivilised. In fact they are not, but anything civilised can be done around a woman as well, can't it? she might not be interested in talk about technics but that is her problem then not his.

I might totally miss the point since I am not a man.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Feminism

Postby Gavin » 21 Dec 2013, 19:37

An engineer would also be such a job. Essentially it's usually a job where a man is not working to a woman.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Feminism

Postby Yessica » 21 Dec 2013, 19:50

I am trying to understand that. What is it which a man want's to do in his job which he can not do when working for a woman?

I have been told that some men regard their work environment as spoiled when the first woman enters to job. So far I have heard of two reasons:

1. They are robbed of the possibility to behave in a slightly uncivilised manner such as cracking jokes about women, or about chopping off other peoples heads
2. They see the camaradie between men gone because everybody wants to be liked by the woman (but that is only true if she is good-looking)
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Feminism

Postby Paul » 21 Dec 2013, 23:26

Yessica, if I may say, you seem not to understand (and on your own admission) the traits of men very much, and by extension, boys. But you have a son. Doubtless though, your son will in his own way, provide more education for you, which has probably been the case with every mother there has ever been. Don't stifle him though.

But of course he will be moulded by society and education and prevailing western culture. Gulp!

Watch some videos of African lions on YouTube and of their societies and observe the necessary behaviour of the pride males, the ultimate alpha male creatures. Nobody is saying we are or should be like lions of course, but extrapolate some of their behaviour and see how it is part of a masculine nature.for all species.

Gavin: Excellent description of the ageing feminist, if only in stereotype and not accurately the woman on the train herself (though I doubt not your accuracy of judgement).

But in the past, there were such cat-owning females (I would think) who were working in education and very good people they were. They were also strong women and maybe outspoken in some ways and doubtless able to hold their ground. Some childless ones too.

They were of course the spinsters of old and the old maids themselves. Education (and health) were vocational careers to which they were fiercely attached as much as ever they were about their salaries (though they would be astute and, in their way, 'classy' women) and yet they didn't approach the job with such poisonous intent. In fact they would flay the modern feminist teachers to the bone, just prior to dismissal.

Ha - I liked how you said that to point out a political or economic foolishness, in a way that might be, strictly speaking, a 'sexist' one (you would castigate women) - you might then somehow be called a racist!

That's how stupid and topsy-turvy things have gone. I think the left are unravelling, at an ever quicker rate and becoming a parody. It won't be enough of course, because they have gained so much ground, but it's amusing all the same.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Feminism

Postby Elliott » 22 Dec 2013, 12:46

"where men can be men"

One example of this, for Yessica, would be the fact that women tend to value security over freedom while men tend to value freedom over security. This means, in the workplace, that women prefer rules (in order to keep everyone safe and "on-task") while men prefer autonomy (so that each guy can do his work his own way, solve problems for himself, and make his own mark on things).

Of course there is always a need for some rules. Bureaucracy is a necessary evil. But too much of it is just awful, and destroys men's enthusiasm. The modern workplace is absolutely full of rules and regulations and any independent or unconventional thought is quickly frowned upon. This is an environment that has been designed to make women feel safe.

Now, I'm not saying that women are incapable of independent thought. Of course not. But they are far less interested in freedom than are men. And the result of inviting them into the workplace is that the workplace has had to be changed into something that men can barely stand. It is the arena of obsessive political correctness, for one thing.

Just one example: the word "brainstorm" had been a management buzzword for many years until, circa 2005, it became verboten because it was apparently offensive to epileptics*. So men, trying to get the job done and trying to solve problems and make progress, had to stop every time they accidentally used the word "brainstorm". What progress can be made when you have to stop and start mid-flow? Not much. This is anathema to men but probably doesn't bother women very much because they are less concerned with solving problems and more with being good and getting along with people.

* Nowadays, even the noun "epileptic" is verboten, because it apparently reduces a person to only a sufferer of epilepsy. You can say "he had epilepsy" but you can't say "he was an epileptic". Totally ridiculous (and I say that as an epileptic).
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Feminism

Postby Gavin » 22 Dec 2013, 13:20

One example of the difference Elliott points to here is the phenomenon of the "Secret Santa" and other such "bonding" activities. Men don't care about those kinds of things: they regard them as a bit silly, a bit embarrassing and a distraction. They already get on fine, and just want to get the job done. Women have introduced all of these things into the professional workplace.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

PreviousNext

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.