A word to some of the angry feminists, FROM A WOMAN

You've just found the penis-shaped door to freedom. GET ON YOUR FUCKING FEET. Turn the tables on your masters. Light the entire world on fire. The time for sitting there like a little bitch is OVER.
Forum rules
This section is open to the public. Feel free to post questions, criticisms or comments. Thank you.
Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by Info » Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:22 pm

Portrait of a Modern Feminist: Helen Smith
CHARLOTTE HAYS, September 19 2012

One of the oft-cited “facts” at the Democratic Conventions was that being a woman was “a pre-existing condition” before Obamacare. Hooey, according to Dr. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist known as “Dr. Helen” on Pajamas Media.

Far from being discriminated against, women already consume about 75 percent of health care in the United States, Smith says. Men, on the other hand, are frequently encouraged not to go to the doctor for routine tests, including the life-saving PSA test to detect cancer.

“I absolutely think there’s a war on men. I laugh and cringe every time I see something on the ‘war on women,’” says Smith. Smith, who is also an authority on violent children, is half of a blogging couple—she is married to Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the University of Tennessee law professor known as Instapundit. They live in Knoxville, Tennessee, where she continues to see patients once a week, though she has shifted her focus to writing.

Smith has a book coming out from Encounter Books entitled Male Strike: Society’s War on Men. The thesis of the book is that the deck is so stacked against men that they are “going Galt,” as Smith puts it. The term comes from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which society’s productive members went on strike—led by John Galt—because they were being exploited.

“In the case of men, the government and the politicians work in cahoots with women to extract money from men,” Smith says.” And then men aren’t entitled to a lot of the benefits, such as WIC (Women, Infants and Children Program) or a lot of welfare.”

The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women. And taxpayer money doesn’t just go to what we regard as traditional welfare programs. Smith cites the Violence Against Women Act, which funnels taxpayer dollars to organizations staffed by activist women.

“One reason women promote the war on women is that many of these women have degrees in such things as women’s studies and hold academic jobs, and they are the ones yelling because they know that if their benefits were cut out, who the hell needs them? They are not necessary but there is a lot of funding for these things. It’s all about money.”

“I’m a feminist in that I believe in equality,” says Smith. “But that doesn’t mean the superiority of women. What has happened is that [a legitimate movement for equality] has morphed into a whole political system based on women having special privileges, and the more privileges they have the more entitled they feel.”
readers must note that although she's not as damaged as most feminists, she's still suffering under the delusion that women can do what men can do (even though history and common sense obviously prove her wrong.)
Women activists have sought and obtained laws that make it easier to convict men of sexual abuse on what formerly would have been deemed insufficient evidence. The Violence Against Women Act seriously eroded traditional legal standards regarding evidence. A letter from the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office—known as the “Dear Colleagues” letter—further diluted the evidence standards when accusations are lodged against young men on campus.

“A man’s rights go only as far as a woman’s honesty,” Smith says. “If a woman says a man is domestically abusive, hardly any evidence is needed. Women can just point the finger at you, and men don’t have rights in terms of getting kids.” In the past, men had more say in marriages. This was not right, Smith says.
again, this dumb bitch has no idea that men had to sacrifice their lives to protect their wives. that's why men did and should have more privileges than women.

an adult can drive a car and work at a job. although a child doesn't have the 'privilege' of doing these things, he also doesn't bear the responsibility of caring for another human being's welfare.

and you'll note that this bitch doesn't mention the fact that men had the "PRIVILEGE" of fighting and dying in wars for her ungrateful ass.

Image

but please be patient with this dumb bitch. she does make some good points:
But today men have far fewer rights than women in a marriage, and that isn’t fair either.

“Men are discriminated against in ways that women can’t understand and yet we say there is a war on women,” scoffs Smith. Title IX, for example, a law passed forty years ago, to expand opportunities for female athletes, ended up curtailing the opportunities for men to participate in sports. This has made men feel “less welcome” on college campuses, Smith says.

While Smith is a fan of Kay Hymowitz, the Manhattan Institute scholar who wrote the classic Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys, she does have a quibble. “What Kay Hymowitz calls the perpetual adolescence of men is just men understanding that the cards are dealt against them,” she says—or, in other words, men going Galt.

“One thing I talk about [in the book] is that I used to think as a woman it’s hard to be a men’s rights activist,” she says. “I want men and women who care about them to have the courage to stand up in a world that says that there is only male privilege. I would like people to put themselves in somebody else’s shoes and see the world from the male point of view and see that maybe things aren’t so great.”

Smith’s advocacy for men is a second career of sorts. She originally became well-known as an expert on violent children. Her book The Scarred Heart is about such kids. She has done a documentary film entitled Six on the six young people who in 1997 murdered a family. It shows how failures in the mental health and legal systems failed to stop the killings.

Whenever there is a rampage shooting—such as the ones in Tucson or Aurora—an immediate response is to look for “a simplistic answer” such as blaming guns or violent music and movies. But the real problem is more complicated: “Most of them are mentally ill, and one of the big problems is mental health in our society is not the best. We don’t focus on getting the people the treatment they need. There are roughly about a thousand murders a year by the mentally ill,” she says.

Smith, who specializes in treating violent children, says that intervention can prevent murders, if the child’s problems are diagnosed in time. She says that the goal is not to turn these damaged children into saints or even admirable citizens but simply to help them not commit bigger crimes such as murder. Interestingly, a lack of self-esteem isn’t their problem.

“What [experts] have found is that high self-esteem isn’t necessarily linked to highly adaptive behavior,” Smith says. “In fact it can be just the opposite. One of the things found with killers is that many of them have very high self esteem—a high self-esteem that is fragile.
We've mentioned this before in relation to today's feminist education system which places a priority on self-esteem over competence. Women are more concerned with making others feel good at the cost of telling the truth. This of course leads to tragic consequences:
One thing I’ve found with rampage killers is that they can’t stand having people judge them. The fact that somebody is judging them and finding them inadequate sends them into a rage. And they’ll take the rage out on anybody.”

“Often what you see with rampage shooters is that [the shooting] is a climactic conclusion... They have a feeling like I should be special. It gives them this discrepancy: I am down here and yet I am supposed to be up here, and somebody is going to pay for that.”

Image

Another problem leading up to a dramatic event is that children haven’t faced consequences for smaller actions. This leaves them confused. “We are a society that doesn’t have consequences anymore.” Smith says. “Even in the political system there are no consequences. If you don’t pay your mortgage, hey, you can probably get off the hook in some way. Our political system is based on that. We’re a society in which anything goes in a certain sense, and at the same time nothing does.”
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
JAR
Jedi Bonersaber
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by JAR » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:10 pm

that article is very sad and very scary at the same time. I agree with what the article says about shooters. What's even more scary is that I can relate to the sense of entitlement. I understand what it is like to question why other people are having it better than me. I'm jealous. I'm resentful. As far as I am concerned, I've been living life as I have told to be, I've been doing it correctly. I treat others the way I want to be treated. I show compassion. I want to put others before me. I do all of these things for shit. I live life how I was taught, and in return I get a rusty pitchfork shoved up my ass by all the assholes and bitches who weren't able to be a proper doormat like me. The part that turns shooters into shooters is when the people doing it wrong are rewarded, and the ones doing it right get punished. Once they pass the threshold of tolerance, they are going to want payback. They are going to have their last 15 minutes of fame, trying to punish those that needed to be punished from the beginning.

These shooters have the right to be angry. they have the right to be frustrated. Shooting up a school is terrible, don’t get me wrong. The point is that society has raised them to think and act one way, even when nature has them wired to act completely different mentality. Essentially, feminism is keeping everyone unhappy, yet people continue to disregard the truth and live a life of lies and dissatisfaction. As long as society persists, shootings will persist. Unhappiness will persist. suffering will persist. Some way along the line there needs to be a change in direction.

If every guy who has had thoughts about bringing a weapon to the school would just read the ebook first, I guarantee a lot more lives would be saved. This site built by Prof. Plum is not a quick-fix prescription drug; it is a healthy lifestyle built from the ground up. The more men that realize this means the less shootings that have to happen in the future.

test

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by test » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:25 am

It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don't realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit them, or that the other doesn't have them and cannot benefit from them.

Most feminists call traditional male entitlements "privilege". They call traditional female entitlements "benevolent sexism" (because like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can't really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations "oppression". They call traditional male obligations "rights" (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else, and still is) or "patriarchy hurts men too".

What feminism has really done in the advancement of women's interests is take men's patriarchal obligations, apply them to women, and cast them as "rights" that women can choose or not as they see fit. It--with the help of advancements like the pill--has also toiled to free women from their patriarchal obligations while holding onto as many entitlements as they can. Like removing the obligation to marry for life or provide their husband with children that are his in a meaningful way, while keeping the entitlement to his financial support.

And please don't get me wrong. I'm not a traditionalist in any way shape or form. But I do live in reality, and I know what's been happening over the last 40 years.

The problem with what's going on now is that as women are released from their obligations (to men and to society), without giving up corresponding entitlements...things are getting unbalanced. The system we had before sucked for a lot of people, but it was at least equitable for both genders--it afforded enough entitlements to offset each member's obligations. When you remove obligation from one member while holding onto the entitlement, this places more obligation (and less entitlement) on the opposing member.

A great deal of women's traditional benefits used to be provided by men on an individual basis (financial support, partnership, protection, etc), but now men have been kicked out of the house, so to speak. Because women have so much more choice now--because they claimed things like earning income as rights rather than obligations--and because they owe nothing to anything other than personal fulfillment...well, choices cost. They cost economically, socially and politically.

Men aren't being allowed to fulfill those benefits on reasonable terms anymore--women have broken the old social contract, and when we took away men's benefits without replacing them with others, we soured the terms of the deal for them. Now we need more government, more social, legal, enforcement and corporate structures to provide women with help, support and protection, or to extract those things from unwilling men. None of those structures are "non-profit". They take a huge cut before what's left trickles back down. They're a very resource-hungry middleman, so we need more productivity on the ground in order to feed that. Most of that productivity comes from men, one way or another, even though their few remaining benefits no longer make it worthwhile to them.

That means we're trying to chain men even more inexorably to their old obligations. There's a reason everyone in the media is in a tizzy over men not "manning up". Men have always either provided for women and children, or been economic generators for government and corporate coffers. They've always put more in than they've taken out--women drive 80% of consumer spending. Now they're being asked to put even more in, and get less out.

Let me put it this way. Women make up about 60% of med students right now. Very progressive. The government spends millions of dollars to train her, because paying to train doctors is a wise investment. Doctors earn out the wazoo. This generates tax revenue and economic activity, which helps recoup the cost, and doctors provide a valuable service to society that helps keep everything stable. Spots in med school are finite because of the cost of training, and the woman beats out several male candidates for that spot in school.

But what's this? She sees that career as a right rather than an obligation. She has virtually unlimited choice as to what she wants her life to look like. So, like about half of all female doctors, within ten years of getting her MD, she will be working part time or not at all. Her male colleagues saw their career as an obligation, and expected to be working 50-70 hours/week for at least 30 years, providing valuable service to society and generating all kinds of economic benefit.

That female doctor has just taken out of society more than she's put in. Someone not only has to pay for that, and take up the slack. We all pay, with our tax revenue, and by having to wait to see a doctor, and her male colleagues pay in the longer hours many will choose to work to fill the gap she left in her wake. And because women represent more than half of all doctors, the fewer males ones will have to take on even more burden in order to ensure you and I can get an appointment.

And I'm not saying that women shouldn't be doctors--hell, my sister is one. But I AM saying that though women have made inroads into the male roles, they haven't embraced them in any meaningful away, because it actually sucks to work 70 hours a week and barely see your family, whether you're a man or a woman, and society doesn't enforce this role with women the way it does with men.

You won't find a single feminist wanting to talk about this stuff. They won't even accept that women have, and have always had, female privilege. All those spots on the lifeboats while the men went down with the ship? That was just another form of oppression to them.

You're young. You seem exceptionally bright and well-spoken, and you have every right to feel dismissed and disregarded by the people on AskFeminists. They are writers of revisionist history and revisionist reality--emotional reasoners who form narratives to explain their emotions, instead of living in reality. Please don't get sucked in by them.

There are women's issues, but feminism seems to mostly work at cross-purposes to those issues. How can you complain that women are not trusted in positions of political power--how even women won't vote for them--and then in the next breath cast women in this role of needing perpetual help and support just to survive their own lives, all the while whining that purses are oppressive? I'm a woman, and one of the biggest problems I have with feminism is that it does not give women any credit.

Anyway, I thought I would reach out to you--off thread, because I don't want to cause another shitstorm right now. I'm a mother of three kids, two of them boys. My oldest is 17, and I worry about the world he and his brother are growing up in. I know my daughter will be just fine. That's gotta tell you something.

User avatar
defman
Small boy from Nigeria
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:57 am
Location: Willagee, W.A., Australia

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by defman » Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:48 pm

Brilliant.
6 He saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 kJB

In business, men gets 1/2 to 1/3 price.... women gets FULL PRICE! :-))

Revenge has never been sweeter!

Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

"I DON'T need feminism because...."

Post by Info » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:24 pm

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

User avatar
Hlootoo
First pubic hair
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:07 am

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by Hlootoo » Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:58 am

Oh my God....I hope people here realize just how beautiful this post is. :,) I already saw a few of these, but seeing even more is even better! Thank God I'm not the only female who feels like this! :clap:

Captain Haddock

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by Captain Haddock » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:18 pm

As much as feminists need a smack in the mouth until they bleed, we have to remember that their bullshit only exists because passive men have allowed it. Whenever I feel the rush of anger at another fem-Nazi bitch crapping on about "rape culture" and "misogynist this/ that/ the other" and all their rubbish "men and women are equal in every factor and it's only culture that dictates gender roles" rhetoric, I have to stop and remind myself that their delusion only exists because WE (men) allowed it.

The same way that it's easier to point the finger at sexual predators and rapists as randomly occuring "evil" people without looking at their back story and the influences that led them down the dark path they choose, we have to remember that this problem is ours to deal with because we allowed it to fester in the first place, into the gaping wound that feminism has now left to bleed.

User avatar
Dick Van Dyke
Hall Monitor
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, from a woman.

Post by Dick Van Dyke » Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:53 pm

How feminists and feminism has destroyed masculine and feminine roles
WASHINGTON, December 30, 2013
By: Crystal Wright

I regret not getting married when I was young. More specifically, I wish I had focused on the marriage factor, asking myself what I wanted more: a career or a family.

Unlike my mother’s generation where gender roles were uniquely defined and respected in America, the 1960s feminist movement and the offspring of liberalism has led to the death of masculinity in America today.

Gender roles have eroded to non-existence.

Starting in elementary school, teachers are drowning boys in “sensitivity,” turning men into little ‘sissies’. “They are making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters,” asserts anti-feminist Camille Paglia in a recent interview.

She is absolutely correct. These same little boys grow into adults who suppress their manhood to live in a politically correct prison with “no models of manhood,” adds Paglia.

Today’s modern man is afraid to tell a female colleague she looks pretty because he could be sued for sexual harassment.

Just as the politically correct crowd has succeeded in turning America into a Godless nation where Christians like Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson are condemned for talking about their beliefs, America is also becoming a manless nation.

The 1960s feminist movement founders like Gloria Steinem distorted gender roles to create an industry of lies upon which they could build careers. In demanding what should not have required demanding, like equal pay and opportunity, they have given up so much.

The result is that many women in my generation, daughters born in the 1960s and 1970s, who want to be married aren’t because men demand we be their “super” equals. The 1980 Enjoli perfume ad for “the 24 hour woman” captures feminism’s destruction of manhood in modern society. Not only are women expected “to bring home the bacon” (work a highly successful job) and “fry it up in the pan” (cook), but also maintain a fit body, keep a clean house, perhaps be a mom and “never let you forget you’re a man.”



Whew, I’m weary just writing about today’s super woman.

My mother wanted me to have more “career” choices in life than she did as a woman growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet she certainly didn’t want my choices in men to be the casualty of my professional success. I was raised in a traditional household where my mother stayed at home most of her adult life raising three children while my Dad was the provider.

In many ways I wish I had her life because today’s American culture no longer celebrates men and women’s biological difference. Consequently, romance has been sucked out of dating.

As I’ve gotten older, dating has become awkward. Our masculine bereft society has made men believe they don’t have to act like men: pay for dates, open car doors and basically act chivalrous. You know woo a woman.

Last year I dated a man, who after few months, wanted to make a point of how much money he spent every time he took me to dinner.

After giving him the kiss off once, I agreed to a dinner date. Reading the menu, he blurted out he was still looking for a job so I would have to go split the check with him.
Edit: note the entitlement-minded bitch attitude displayed by the author. this is what happens when bitches like her are raised in a feminist culture where women EXPECT to be handed free money.
This coming from a 40 something man, who just retired from the military and was receiving his pension and about to sign an offer letter for a new job.

I looked at him speechless, ordered my meal and split the check. The next day I texted him, saying I can certainly pay for my own meals and that’s not why I go on dates.

Men go off to war, defend women and children against harm because they’re stronger. They are inherently providers. Women bear children, care for them and their husbands because we are naturally nurturers. It’s time for men to man up; women to be feminine again and America to reject the lies feminism is built upon: abortions and career women.

No one can have it all, especially women. You can’t be a millionaire CEO and great mom too without sacrificing something.

I’d happily exchange my “career” for the option to be barefoot and pregnant tomorrow if I could. What’s wrong with that? Women and men need to stop apologizing for our natural instincts.
coffee's for closers.

Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, FROM A WOMAN

Post by Info » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:22 am


"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."

--Queen Victoria I, the most powerful woman in history
Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

Info
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: A word to some of the angry feminists, FROM A WOMAN

Post by Info » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:52 am

Image
"I don't need feminism because...

It's a movement that when I dared to disagree has called me fat, ugly, brainwashed & stupid. Has said that I deserve to be raped, even though I'm a sexual assault survivor.

Has wished death on me and told me the world would be better off without me. Has threatened my children, harassed my mother and even tried to get me fired.

It's a movement that when I share those terrible things says,

"We're not all like that." Rather than, "I am sorry"

It's based on lies & full of hypocrites that only care about furthering their own agenda

I don't need feminism because I don't want my sons to grow up thinking they have to hate themselves in order to respect women & that mocking others that think differently is acceptable."
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest