Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll respond to this part of your post, because I think the first part has been addressed in other comments.
Your first paragraph here is basically the standard "behind every great man, there is a great woman" feminist trope. I'm not sure if there is any convincing archeological or scientific evidence to prove it, so I guess it's a matter of speculation.
You got to think deeper to understand the "behind every great man, there is a great woman" saying. First, this was from long ago. Second, lets look at Albert Einstein for example. The man didn't even take the time to brush his hair.
Without a woman taking care of cooking etc, who knows if Einstein would have made it long. He would have had to choose every day. Every day cooking to eat would have taken him away from his studies. Can you imagine what he would have smelled like with clothes that were never washed? In other words, in those days, it was the woman that kept him healthy and clean and he could focus.
We're not talking about men, you obviously don't even know what MGTOW or MRA is anyway they aren't "extremists", it's mostly just a life philosophy and ideology. However they're a direct response to radical feminists and the war on men partially. They created it.
Attempt to defer I see. Again we're not talking about men.
Ah, you edited. So in public MGTOW forums, I see discussions about things like artificial wombs and sex bots being awesome so that women are rendered useless and irrelevant. That's not extreme? That's not even touching all of the other vitriol and such in those forums. If it's somehow not extreme, the forums sure aren't bearing that out.
I think part of the reported unhappiness may be because when married women started working full time outside the home, the bulk of the home making and child rearing duties were still the wife's responsibility. That's not necessarily the husband's fault. That's a conditioning thing from how we were all raised.
The feminist movement sort of put a lot of pressure of women to " have it all," but that also meant " do it all". Remember the old commercial " I can bring home the bacon. Fry it up in a pan. And never let him forget he's a man, cause I'm a woman." Hey, no pressure right?
Well, speaking as someone who was the primary breadwinner while raising two kids with a husband who also worked full time, I can tell you that the homefront got the short end of the stick. When both parents are outside the home for 10-12 hours per day, the cooking, cleaning, yard work, and even child rearing are done in a less than optimal manner.
Ideally, one parent would be able to stay home and tend to all the things that make life worth living instead of two people running themselves ragged trying to keep up with everything and having no time to enjoy any of it.
He is correct there is reports/surveys coming out that are showing women are becoming more unhappy on average.
Read this vice.com article. The moronic Ph.D. that wrote it doesn't even get it. The women surveyed aren't saying the men aren't out there. They're basically saying in a nutshell, there isn't enough men making upper class salaries.
If they're lawyers and out earning men. Why do they still need to marry up?
When all of lawyers and doctors, and other upper class salaried workers were men, the women had it made and the men just married their secretaries or something. Most of them stayed home and lived a great life.
Explain the difference.
First you need to study up on the unreliability of any self report survey. Then you need to study up on the fallacy of trying to quantify happiness. Then study up on surveys and statistics in general.
Quote:
Also..if feminism is so great why are so many women whining about not being able to find a wealthy man or a lack of men to marry up with?
Who are all these women you speak of. You do realize that the majority of people marry within their own socioeconomic level and most people aren't wealthy. So there are some women who seek out wealthy men, I think they are referred to as gold diggers. As well we have men who seek out wealthy women and men who whine about not being able to find whatever it is they seek in women.
And all of that has nothing to do with feminism.
Why is feminism so great other than the fact that subjugation of another human being is the opposite of great.
Why do you think feminism came about. Because being dependent on a man for your basic survival, food, clothing, shelter; having no protection or recourse from abuse by men, rape, beating, starvation; having no voice in your own life, where you live, how you live, your reproduction or general health; being unable to pursue your intelligence, strengths, talents and goals was a reality for women.
NY is very much about who's who and impressing people. It's not like that everywhere.
wanderlust76 from your profile you sound young, I'm surprised you have an old geezer attitude about women.
I don't I just don't like most feminists because like I said think they are hypocrites... and I've noticed the differences between more traditional, conservative women, and women that identify themselves as feminists in more liberal areas. I totally agree with some of the MGTOW and MRA stuff, just not the extreme things where they don't believe in relationships and so on. That's ridiculous.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 06-20-2017 at 09:56 AM..
What you are doing is saying that your anecdotal claim that has no basis other than your own fantasies is valid, and that anyone challenging you has to come up with statistical data. But of course you don't have to provide any statistical data to defend your anecdotal claim. Double standards, much?
That's not really what the post meant.
If you have anecdotal evidence that Amish women aren't, in general, happier and more secure than women who live a modern lifestyle (for example in Pennsylvania), they're just as relevant as my own statements.
It's only incidental that someone tried to prove the same thing earlier using a statistical argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Because some human beings are better off being denied the freedom to pursue their own interests, to develop their talents, abilities and skills to the fullest, to merit the respect of other human beings as a capable, competent and valuable member of the human race. The argument is that the world is better off if 50% of us are subservient to 50% of the rest of us. And that argument only has merit to a few of the 50% who wouldn't be subservient, who feel that they would personally be better off if superiority were based on possession of a penis.
Again, like one or two other commentators, you're arguing ideology versus practical outcomes.
If the two were in concordance, then you'll have a stronger case, but that doesn't seem to be true in reality.
My mother was the good submissive fundamentalist Christian wife of my abusive, delusional fundamentalist Christian father.
If my mother had been more of a feminist, she (and my brothers and I) would have been better off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
