So why is that? Why are people still not realizing the fact that feminism got their "rights" through fear, intimidation on a pile of corpses and debris of buildings they blew up? People are letting these liars to just convince people that they're "force for good" and only want "equality" yet when you bring it up to their historical account of terror attacks, they got full NAFALT. Why are letting these people get away with it and not holding them accountable? Are we this desentized that we are so scared of being labeled as misogynists?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Historically, women were anything but 'submissive', at least in the Western world. The rest is accurate, but none of them is doing them any good. Women are more miserable than ever, because all of this is contrary to female nature. The issue is that being more miserable and having these rights might be preferable to the converse, after all, better Socrates, discontent, than a pig, content.
I disagree. As if they can't think for themselves and come to different conclusions than rabid shrews.
Outside of massive class differences, they were. This is more of a cultural meaning of the word than individual, such as the very common patriarchal system most social groupings ran under. They didn't need full submission to everyone but they always operated as #2 in their home, under husband or father or both.
Modern times have changed the meaning of the word into implying a far bigger extreme version than it requires. Though even then, plenty cultures have that extreme submission idea such as many Asian ones.
Doesn't have to do them good if they think its good. That goes for all humans. How many guys consume porn or video games until their life is a blank mess? Or smoke pot/drink until they can't function, but consider it the "cure" for their problems?
This "reality vs expectations" irony is what feminism thrived on. How much was the push for women in the workforce based on increasing household income, only for people to end up poorer because prices increased expecting that extra income.
What does it matter what their conclusions are? Their actions are what is being judged. As they have rejected the earlier notion of returning the gains, they are simply doing a performative piece instead. And in this case, they are rejecting feminism to be contrarian and/or raise their status level. Like every other "not like other girls" type.
Then I misunderstood what you meant. I would definitely regard it as degrading to be regarded as 'submissive'. But being the second in the home is nothing more than reasonable.
How so? They are not obliged to 'return the gains'. They may well regard the previous gains as desirable, but the current bat-shit hype as complete nonsense, as nearly all reasonable people do.
It only is if you let it be. That's a notion behind many problems with gender relations, imo. Its why all women have to be tough, independent, etc. Because to be seen as submissive for a moment it to be degrading.
But anyone, except feminists, from a traditional type home would never talk about their mother's position as degrading even if dad ruled the roost.
That's the same logic that justifies communism. Its great, until it isn't. "But it only wasn't because bad people happened!" It completely ignores the chain of A leading to B. If you never remove A, then you just keep having B forever.
They aren't obliged at all, don't misunderstand me. They do what's best for them and that's all anyone should ask. But they shouldn't pretend to be doing some altruistic act of fighting for someone else's rights while drinking from the teet that took them away.