Advice For A Man Dating A Bisexual Feminist?

I don't want a 50s housewife. But I don't want some pseudo-intellectual bimbo who has been brainwashed by the idiocy of feminist culture either. Feminism demeans a woman's natural femininity. The reason relationships are so dysfunctional is because of what feminism has done to women and their perception of men. The average man isn't any better these days, because the role model for the average male is something seen on a TV. People in general are fucked up, regardless of their sex. Feminism has simply helped bring us to this point. But then again, the seeds of modern-day feminism are far from grassroots. It was a government-funded movement, as Gloria Steinem herself admits, to change society and the way people think. It wasn't designed to empower women but to create tension among the sexes. The people who gave us feminism want a dysfunctional society where gender roles are confused and everything is turned upside down. After all, that's "open-minded." The average 50s housewife was probably a lot happier than every other woman today who relies on Prozac to get her through her busy work week while making money for the system as her kids (if she has any) are raised by the state in some indoctrination center (i.e. school, day care, whatever).

 

Things have become much more fucked up over time. There is a huge difference between the 1940s and now. Look at the divorce rate, illegitimacy rate, etc. All of which can be thanked in large part to feminism and the phony war that was created to pit women against men and men against woman.

 

This is just adding insult to injury. Feminists have been waging psychological war on men for a long time now, most intensively over the last 25 years. Nearly all of our media and educational institiutions are now under feminazi control.

I note in particular the firing of Larry Summers as President of Harvard. Summers defied feminist dogma by suggesting that Harvard's difficulty in finding women faculty might be explained by (not "is exaplained by", but "might be explained by") inherent gender differences. He supported his position with data.

Instead of offereing reasonable criticisms, his argument was oversimplified to "he says boys are smarter than girls!", and the the media swooped in, hammering the drum beat for his ouster.

Feminism has a remarkable set of similarities to communism, and indeed, much of feminist ideology can be traced to communism. Equality is seen as a synonym for utopia, and any evil done in the name of achieving that utopia is seen as justified, including crushing any criticism or dissent. There is never any requirement that it should actually prove that any of its assertions are valid, or that it will achieve (or is even trying to achieve) its supposed utopian goals. What I've seen of feminism demonstrates that it is a supremecist hate group with a thin ideological veil.

The data that I've seen on happiness in the US shows a net decline in happiness since the 1970's, driven primarily by a decline in the happiness of women. Women were, and still are, happier than men according to the data, but less so. Certain groups, such as black women, seem to be happier though.

I would by no means say that any study or data is definitive, especially when dealing with a subjective question like happiness. Nor can one say that feminism is necessarily the primary factor that could account for the change, thought there is reason to think that it is. However, the data is consistent with my general sense that feminism is massively fucking things up for nearly everyone, and that feminists are never going to admit to have fucked things up.

A portion of militants are happy with the new gender order, and will continue to promote it no matter what the costs may be for others.

We went from a flawed social order that could have been improved to work better for everyone, to one that is massively fucked up. I guess that's what happens when you try to solve problems with war.

 

so do you guys want to go back to the days when women couldn't vote, work, drive, eat in public without a chaperone, and enjoy any kind of real freedom? Because it seems to me by condemning feminism so completely you're sort of ignoring the obvious progress feminism has made.

 

Just communicate with her and be open and honest she sounds like a wonderful woman and I wish you the best of luck with her.

Don't listen to people who have obvious issues with identity and gender. Just be yourself and be loving; it sounds like she's already doing that.

 

did I say that?

I think you may be conflating advancement of women's rights issues with feminism. I wouldn't say there has been zero overlap, but they are distinct entities.

All of the women's rights that you mentioned were well in place prior to the early 90's, when feminist attacks on men became much more aggressive.

The data that I've seen on women's happiness begins in the 70's, so it's not possible for me to make any kind of objective assessment about any time prior to that from the data. It may be that women's quality of life improved up to the 70's, then declined. In any case, the decline begining in the 70's suggests that any increases in money or power that women may have gained did not translate into increased happiness. In other words, money and power don't make you happy.

I think a movement that had the goal of improving life for everyone, and was willing to be self-critical, would have produced a much better result. I don't think that men and women are natural enemies, but if you get hyper aggressive militants running the show, they're bound to fuck things up.

 

how lame a question....same as dating any other person...you keep being a good person and don't cheat yer' honey......feminist or whatever the hell a person believes strongly in...be it religion, veganism. pita freak, republican, communist.....what have you

it don't matter.....just don't be a douche and treat your partner well

the end

 

It would be misleading to say that women's rights have advanced if women's quality of life has declined.

I don't claim to be a historian, but I think that all of the rights mentioned by Melia came about largely from women advocating for them, and men agreeing to them. By definition, women couldn't have voted for their own enfranchisement, men had to vote for it.

Change in any relationship can come about through a process of negotiation, or through aggression. I would argue that any real advancement for women has been produced through negotiation rather than aggression. Feminist psychological warfare (aka, "the culture wars") has produced increased political and economic power for women, but less happiness.

 

when I refer to feminism I simply mean equality for both sexes. The militant feminism political ideology you're referring to doesn't ever really cross my radar, but to be fair when any kind of oppressed group tries to gain ground there will be people who do it in a peaceful, fair manner and people who go about it in a militant way, ultimately attempting to oppress their oppressor.

 

I don't think that social movements inherently have a militant wing, but it does seem pretty common.

With feminism, I see the militant extremists in control of the media and education system, and any moderates at the margins.

 

No. To say that feminists are engaging in psychological warfare is as accurate as saying that some men are rapists.

No. Ignored, since I am addressing the issues raised. I'm not aware of any similar MRA lines, so it would be impossible for me to ape them, badly or not.

I think you are intolerant of criticism of feminism, and have therefor resorted to insulting (and baseless) characterizations of my arguments.

The main reason that I chimed in here is because I thought rat was being ganged-up on. Unfortunately I've learned that trying to engage in debate or dialogue with feminists is mostly counterproductive.

I don't respect your opinions, and you don't respect mine. Wouldn't we both be better off not debating this any further?

 

some feminists are engaging in psychological warfare would be the equivalent of saying some men are rapists, actually. Lets be fair.

do you have any concrete examples of extremist feminists controlling the media and our education system? I know you gave the example of the Harvard president earlier and I plan to read up on that but do you have more?

 

I think feminist control of the media and education is mostly evident in the changes that have taken place and their results. One of the problems here is that because there is feminist control of media and education, we have no sources to warn us of the take over. It's a bit like a disease that starts by taking over the immune system.

Only about 10 corporations now control about 90% or more of the media in the US. You can discover that fact if you seek it out, but the media is largely keeping this quiet. It seems to me like this is the sort of thing that should get a lot more attention if we had a responsible media, but we don't.

Along with the control of so much of the media in so few hands, one can see at least the potential for tight ideological control of the media. I would say the potential has been realized.

Another under-reported story is that the male college applicant pool has dropped by about 50% over the last 20 years. Not only is this the result of feminist control of education and media, the fact that this has happened is largely kept quiet. I suspect that if the female college applicant pool had dropped by 50%, we'd hear feminists screaming bloody murder, and we'd hear no end of it in the news.

A particular example I'd give of feminist media control is a news story that US rates of domestic violence reach a peak the day of the super bowl. It made sense to many people; the male fans of the losing team would vent their rage on their wives and girlfriends. It was widely and uncritically reported in the media. It also happens to be a complete fabrication.

The fact that such a complete fabrication could be so widely and uncritically promoted implies the complicity of both news organizations and academics.

The advertising and entertainment media seems to me to be the primary feminist weapons. If you look at pre-1990 media versus post, there is a pretty striking contrast (though I think feminist influence began significantly before then).

One manifestation is depictions of violence by white women against white men (as well as other forms of abuse). This became rampant in post 1990 media. In all representations of female violence directed against males that I have seen, the female is always presented as the heroine, and often the male is presented as ridiculous. In any depictions of male violence against females, the male is always presented as the villain.

A single instance of such depictions is not significant, but at saturation levels it begins to have a real psychological effect.

Another manifestation is the representation of black men in implicit or explicit relationships, particularly sexual relationships, with white women. Some level of representation of this particular type of relationship could be defended as promoting freedom of choice in relationships. However, the frequency of these representations went from about zero pre-1990, to saturation levels. Nor was this even a promotion of inter-racial relationships in general (when is the last time you saw a depiction of an asian man with a black woman on tv or film?).

As in the previous example, any one instance was not significant, but became significant through saturation.

Beyond these particular examples, there is a clear blueprint for such a take over of media and education in a book called "pedagogy of the oppressed" by antonio gramsci. From wikipedia:

Here, I think anti-capitalist elements were replaced by feminist elements. It's not simply that such a book exists, but that it was aggressively promoted. I recall from my college days that some of the more radical faculty promoted it.

The example of the firing of Larry Summers suggests a much broader problem of fear and intimidation tactics in the college and university system. There were very few voices of resistance, and in any case they were swept away. It would not have been possible to carry out his removal with so little resistance without a broad network of support. The fact that the media also cooperated in an intense campaign for his ouster suggests that there was coordination.

There's probably a lot more to be said about this issue, but the nature of the attack makes it difficult to research, that is, the media and academic institutions aren't going call themselves out. There are also limitations to my own ability to research it. That's a start, however.