The Dispposable Male

Feminism is misandry disguised as a liberal socialist movement.

Me, I don't hate anyone, and have no wish to victimize or oppress anyone else, but I'm not going to put myself in a position where someone else can oppress or victimize me and that's what most feminists appear to want to do ........ victimize and oppress men.

 

Oh sure, wanting the right to vote, participate in politics, pursue careers outside of the home, viewed as a person and not a husband's property in a court of law, etc etc is the epitomy of misandry

 

Yes please tell me what it's like in Europe

 

Which country contains feminists who don't have the right to vote?



PS
If I could find a woman who would provide and care for me, I'd happily give up my rights to vote and have a career outside the home.

PPS
In the country I live, I don't have the right to vote, nobody else has the right to vote either, it's a military dictatorship.
(and I much prefer living here, than Australia, USA or Europe where people do have the right to vote)
The right to vote ain't that great a deal ...... Clinton or Trump? ...... not even worth going to the polling booth.

 

you'd rather be attacked with a machete lol

 

The makeup sex was astounding!

 

I agree with some of 2nd wave rights, but the right to kill your child seems a bit pathological and extreme, among other things. Also, if she has the legal right to opt-out of parenthood so should he.

 

Even in primitive tribes the division of labor is between men doing the dangerous work of hunting, while women do more of the less hazardous gathering. Considering a single male can produce hundreds if not thousands of offspring its only natural to assume they will always get more of the dangerous jobs and it also explains why males are stronger in general with better gross motor coordination. Its always been a trade-off with males in primitive tribes working slightly less hours a week than the females. A popular song from the 1800s sings about "The widow next door, she's been married seven times before" which is a reference to the fact that, at the time, women could not inherit anything and would frequently end up marrying fur trappers and others with short life expediencies as the only way to hang onto any of their possessions. Among the Sioux and other native American tribes if a woman's husband died she was immediately stripped of all her belongings and left to die if she could not fend for herself or remarry. In the US, it has only been in recent decades that the law actually enforced that the fathers of children pay child support in a divorce.

 

The present issue focuses more on the cultural/legal aspects concerning gender and less on biological differences. You cannot claim we are all equal in every facet, that gender is a social construct, and then single out a group and expect them to die for the other.

 

People can and do claim whatever the hell they want which is why complaining about it seldom makes any difference or requires decades if not centuries to produce any noticeable change. The republican party claiming they are not racist and sexist is about as bizarre as it gets if you ask me, but my point was simply that it is an arrangement of convenience and money. Not only will men sacrifice themselves for women and children, they will do so for each other according to their social status or even be paid to do so. Is it wrong to sacrifice your life for Donald Trump and not for Mahatma Gandhi? For me its like asking how much money you would kill yourself for. We have social taboos and traditions precisely because, quite frequently, whatever people write or paper or say or swear on a stack of Bibles isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just as individuals might make such decisions for themselves, society imposes them upon us as part of any debt we might inherit.

Its a concept that frequently Americans I talk to don't seem to grasp, that even their constitution is now all but totally worthless because they've sold it to the highest bidder.

 

Well, I think this is a fundamental part of the issue, and that is that people can't actually do 'whatever the hell they want'...but they can try....

What these 'idealists', these supposedly educated and 'enlightened' people led by their fiendish demagogues, fail to see is that the world, the real world, is based on truths - physical/biological/economic laws, limitations, which need to be considered and respected if one desires for their venture to succeed. And that blind spot is their downfall. You cannot succeed in accomplishing a great feat, to change the world, simply fueled by wishful thinking.

But we have indeed begun to see some change, or perhaps you may wish to call it 'parts of the fallout'. With the exponential growth of RedPill and MGTOW in the United States and parts of Europe(somewhat covered in the recent BBC documentary and Vice, along with and various newspapers) along with economic impact of the Herbivore Men in Japan, which their government is actively fighting through child-cost subsidies. I think that change need not come for it is already upon us. It may not be the change we want, but perhaps it's the one we deserve.

 

The problem is all these cultures are still largely relying upon the simplest possible memory centric systems logic for their organization with forty years of studies confirming that the republican party is organized along the lines of a flock of chicken and other studies confirming that how much working memory an individual has is the only reliable way of predicting their career potential. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth. This is essentially Three Stooges slapstick of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and thinking is simply no longer a viable option for them which is why when Lincoln freed the slaves he said he did it because the majority would have taken at least another century to do what had to be done.

They are essentially just following the money like so many chickens following the food and fighting over who is eating too much. You can adopt the strategy of dealing with issues when they reach crisis proportions, but that leads right back to problems like the Germans going from the most enlightened nation to Nazi Germany the minute the shit hits the fan and their economy goes in the toilet. Three Stooges slapstick and people arguing over the definition of stupid isn't new and even the primitive tribes noted that this is how civilization tends to organize all the way back to the invention of agriculture. What it really requires is a more competitive system that encourages the mindless masses to think more for themselves rather than spending all their time arguing over the definition of stupid and who is the better example. The technology to make that possible is rapidly becoming available, but it also requires new ways of thinking about such things.

The world is approaching a new "turning point" and its time for those of us with any ability to think for ourselves left to start thinking about what will be required for us to help pick up the pieces.

 

I probably would for Trump as he would pay well, I probably wouldn't for Gandhi because he would expect it for free.

 

Mainly a bunch of male whining losers (you forgot 'True forced loneliness' = unhinged male whining losers).
Guys this limp don't change anything, ever. (and in the UK 'Families Need Fathers', another bunch of pleading whining losers)
In the west these days, as a male, better to live alone and wank to porn than to endanger your home, assets, future income and liberty trying to have a safe relationship with a woman.
Things are so bad in the USA, that if you owe a former female lover money, they may take your passport away and put you in jail.
If a female in the west can get a sample of your sperm (by any means), she has the potential right to a share of your earnings for the next 20 years, how fucked up is that?

It's actually easier if you, as a male, and want a heterosexual relationship, just to jump ship and move to another country than sacrifice your life and well being trying to control or change this stuff in your own country.

 

They are mainly losers, yet you agree with their philosophies?

 

I've been checking this out for a while. Hoping to go overseas in 2-3 years. Many western men have already expatriated just for this reason.

In fact tv actor Vin Diesel refuses to date here in America. He only engages in relationships overseas.

 

Check out the Philippines ........ it's man heaven, and beach paradise, all in one.
I was there last week .......

 

I've heard good things about the Philippines too. Hope you enjoyed it there, thanks for the recommendation.

 

It's way better than Thailand (where I live).

 

Really? I have heard that things had changed in Thailand over the past few years. I've read that Cambodia is doing better too these days.
But the Philippines are probably safer and more expat friendly (?) just an assumption there.