Inside The World Of Men Who've Sworn Never To Sleep With Women Again--Is Feminism The Blame

[Frogburn]

I was reared as what is termed a latch-key child. Both parents working. So, I came home to an empty house like most kids of my generation.

Feminism did not "liberate" men nor since the 1970's can it be attributed to dramatically reducing the cost of college education, keeping manufacturing jobs from leaving the USA, or improving wages overall.

Feminism can't be blamed for those things either.

My grandfathers never graduated high school, my German one never finished grade school, yet both had blue collar trade jobs that paid enough that their wives did not have to work, they owned homes, cars, and raised large families of 6 or more children. In contrast my brother has not 1 but 2 masters degrees and his wife works as well, they have 3 children and can't afford the material life our grandparents had (albeit, on my black side my grandfather drank up and gambled all the money so his kids and wife went hungry and lived in poverty).

The cause of this goes to corporate America.

Additional people competing for jobs in the workforce has consequences or costs. The costs can be negative (decrease in wages). Some of the consequences might be positive (more talented people).

But women worked--and worked like hell--long before the 1950s. You'd have to know something about the history of labor in the USA for that though. Children worked too and grueling hours for pay that amounted to slave wages. Both worked in factories. Actually, some husbands, wives, and their children all together worked in some American factories. But this was during the 1800s when "work" was not glamorous but lethal to your health. And indeed some children died of work related diseases before they reached age 20.

Women themselves with rifles in their hands stood beside men with rifles in their hands and battled police and Pinkerton hired forces to eventually when labor rights and the 8 hour day.

Eventually women and children left the factory floors, children went to school, and women went into the homes. But this took a while and even into the early 1900s American children, shoeless, were still toiling in conditions we wouldn't force grown men, even prisoners of war held as terrorists, to work in.

Having had women nurses, women doctors, and women surgeons working on me, I for one have zero problem with capable and/or talented women working. My current primary care physician is a female nurse practioner. She's as good as any man with her equivalent experience and education so far as I can tell.

In terms of hospitals women have been involved and leaders from day one. They were orgininally Christian nuns. And this predates what we term "feminism." But the US Southern culture of Southern Belles predates what we term "feminism" too. And be sure the Southern Belles were no "weak" women. They were feminine women that even took it upon themselves to carry the conversation if they were in the presence of shy men.

The culture of modern "feminism," largely in the US produced in the North, is more abrasive and at times obnoxious. They are akin to female version of Donald Trumps with their cutting remarks and condescending attitudes. Actually, the few women of the South that have inherited what remains of the Southern Belle culture or customs are some of the harshest critiques of Northern women I've met.

My own issue with feminism has little to nothing to do with women in the workforce. My issue with it is I do not view it as egalitarian, otherwise it would call itself that, and it would not be engaged in "Identity Politics," but rather I view it as a female supremacy. The fact that feminist have fought for women making large salaries to have their employer pay for the condoms of women, but they expect impoverished men to pay for their own condoms, just evidences they are not egalitarian.

But one more point on the history of labor in the USA. Arguably, the socialist (who were for equality for women and blacks) had a far greater impact than feminist per the 1970s.





In terms of mating there is an historical issue that goes back long before the USA ever existed. And that is that throughout most human history a large swath of the male population was left womanless. One book I read written as popular science, the author argued that it was the birth of democracy (not feminism) that "democratized" mating and distributed female mates more evenly among males. Part of his proposition was that even though Christianity through Jesus condemned men from having more than 1 wife, that the alpha males still had many mistresses and guarded those women from having sexual relations with other men.

Actual science confirms the disadvantage of males comparative to females. It has always been the case 1 man can have 3, 7, 20, or 100 women. Therefore per the math some men will be left with zero.

Some men will be rich like Donald Trump. Less successful men have no problem whining about how unfair it is the rich "take more than their share," but switch the product from money to females and they turn into sheer hypocrites calling other men "losers" just as Donald Trump does. It takes talent to make money and to avoid paying taxes or reducing the amount of taxes you pay. If you don't know how to do it perhaps you're just a loser and cry baby. Some men are simply superior to you.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by mtl1

Here's an idea: Most women want some one above their level and don't treat others with respect and kindness or fairness.

Wow. You know a lot of women - and intimately - to know what most of them are like!