Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail

Postby theprimebait » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:12 pm

Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail
August 19, 2013dissentionLeave a commentGo to comments
The future of feminism is one of the most discussed, debated and written about topics on supposedly male-centered blogs. It seems that almost everyone from traditional CONservatives, alt-right morons, MRAs, game CONartists and followers of pretty much every other supposedly male-centric ideology want to see feminism fail. These people spend a lot of time coming up with scenarios under which their dreams would come true and try to interpret every new bit of information through their ideological blindfolds.. I mean goggles.

It is often hard to ignore the obvious parallels between them and those who believe in apocalypse-centered belief systems. Yet feminism keeps on winning more victories and expanding in its reach- even to parts of the world where it is relatively new and non-indigenous. And all of this brings us to a question that most people opposed to feminism seem to be incapable of answering with any significant degree of objectivity.

Why does feminism keep on winning and expanding its reach? and why do comparable male ideologies fail?

There are those who believe that the success of feminism is due to its support by international bankers or elites who are using it to further their own “super-secretâ€￾ nefarious goals. Others see it as the result of “christianâ€￾ men abandoning their supposed roles as “leadersâ€￾ of the family. Yet other blame artificial female hormones in the water supply. I could go on and list many other equally peculiar and convoluted theories put forth to explain the success of feminism, but I am not in a mood for telling you any more fairy tales today. So let us look at the core elements of all these theories..

Most conventional theories about the success of feminism try to explain it as something “unnatural â€￾ that is rammed down the throat of a reluctant society by some shady collection of small but “powerfulâ€￾ groups.

They want you to believe that the remarkable success of feminism is an “unnaturalâ€￾ aberration and somehow unsustainable without the constant and tireless efforts of shady elites or banal bureaucrats. But is that really the case? What is “naturalâ€￾ and what is “unnaturalâ€￾? Is working in cubicles and living in stucco boxes in the suburbs natural? Are nuclear families natural? Are corporations or “free marketsâ€￾ natural? Is capitalism natural? My point is that a lot of what these people strongly believe in is no less “naturalâ€￾ or “unnaturalâ€￾ than feminism.

Feminism is best seen as one of the eventualities of a larger systemic change that began with the industrial revolution.

But why is there no male equivalent of feminism? Sure, we have all heard about MRAs, alt-righters, MGTOW and PUAs- but none of them have been able to start a movement that is even remotely as successful as feminism. Now, I am sure that all of them have their own complex analysis of the factors underlying their repeated failures. But what if there is a far more straightforward and obvious reason for the failure of all these supposedly male-centric movements?

Here is my theory..

The incredible success of feminism (and popular support for it) comes down to the very basic membership criteria required to benefiting from its gains and victories. To put it another way- any woman can benefit from feminism. Sure.. women from some groups might benefit more than women from other groups, but in the end they are all better off than before. Being white, black, hispanic, asian, fat, thin, hot, ugly, hairy or smooth is secondary to being a woman- as far as benefiting from feminism is concerned. The beneficiary does not have to prove anything beyond their gender.

In contrast to the universal benefit provided by feminism, all of the supposedly male-centric movements want their members to prove that they are worthy or deserving of their membership. The CONservative morons want you to be religious and traditional, the alt-righters want you to be white, the game morons want you to white, buff, witty and so on. Isn’t it odd that people who cannot guarantee anything to their followers want so much from them.

But the bigger problem with all supposedly male-centric movements is a profound unwillingness to share the gains. It is about robbing others with the assistance of your followers and then stiffing those very followers instead of sharing the gains with them. Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.

To summarize, feminism has been very successful because of the very low barriers for membership and universalization of benefits and gains for its members. The same is not true for supposedly male-centric movements and ideologies which have more in common with snake oil schemes and cults than anything vaguely resembling a coherent movement with long-term objectives.

What do you think? comments?



http://dissention.wordpress.com/2013/08 ... ways-fail/
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am







Postby kai1275 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:26 pm

I don't really agree with it at all actually. The reason why I think the men versions keep failing is because of money. If women are working, that is more money the Elite can make and earn. It creates several new economies. Stressed out women need mental disease medicine, clothes, work shoes, etc. etc. Women are also bigger spenders than men. To me I see feminism coming from women leaving the home to work. The Industrial Revolution led to the Women's Rights Movement. The attempt to make children do manual labor in factories failed because of the inherit brutality of deaths involved, but that shows the level of greed back then was enormous just like today. The rest is history after the Women's Rights Movement...
kai1275
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:19 pm

Postby fschmidt » Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:18 pm

This article is right in saying that feminism is natural in a wealthy society in the same way that it is natural for a chunk of meat to become infested with maggots over time. Preventing feminism requires active effort. The only groups that prevent feminism are religious groups like Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and Anabaptist Christianity.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby MrPeabody » Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:24 pm

The reason is because feminism is supported by money and power. It takes millions and even billions of dollars, along with the cooperation of the media and government, to effect this kind of social engineering. Men have no backing from the establishment and will be crushed like bugs if they try to start anything.
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:53 pm

Postby Jester » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:03 pm

I was just talking with my son last night. We can get abroad, and we can get "a broad". Not really a big problem.

The problem is having a circle of like-minded peers, who are ALSO raising families without "dating", tv, slut-hood, rebellion, etc.
"Pick a point and go to it."
-- Dr John Hunsucker, speaking about canoeing on Georgia's Lake Lanier, with its irregular shape, and 1000 miles of meandering shoreline
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby RedMenace » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:07 pm

It is because it's easier to coerce the opposition when you have a hole between your legs.
RedMenace
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:39 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby kai1275 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:31 pm

Jester wrote:I was just talking with my son last night. We can get abroad, and we can get "a broad". Not really a big problem.

The problem is having a circle of like-minded peers, who are ALSO raising families without "dating", tv, slut-hood, rebellion, etc.


Yeah I am starting to ponder what to do about this too. I am going to start a family very soon. Quiver communities are kinda meh...I'm not a very religious Christian at all. Now I see why fschimdt was interested in a new place to raise his family. The more days that pass, the more concerned I feel.
kai1275
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:19 pm

Postby djfourmoney » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:13 pm

Hold on... His theory is very basic and correct. Like he said, people rather scream about the nefarious activities of wealthy individuals and corporations for which no investigations are happening, so its brushed off as a conspiracy theory.

As many in the Black Male Community has pointed out, we're not sure what there is to gain from joining with White men after all, they are in a position of power, even if the rank and file are not. You are usually more comfortable with people that look like you and have similar life experiences. The reality is we all have similar life experiences to a point and this is where the rub comes in.

White males refuse to believe we as Black males are viewed differently by the business establishment. It seems they have forgotten that Civil Rights investigations have gone down since the 1970's. Its not that instances of racism don't happen, it's that they have become harder and harder to prove in a court of law as the standards of bring a case have increased.

That's just one example and Women by and large, push these thorny issues to the side for the greater good of equality. Because getting equal pay for equal work for example, solves some of the income disparities experienced by Latinas, Black Women and Asian women. Getting welfare benefits all women in need, etc, etc, etc.

Men's Rights isn't really about anything it seems but turning back the clock to the 1950's, which makes sense. Jim Crow was still dominate, Women could vote but that's about it and Gays were in the closet. But I see MRA's spend time talking about all three issues as they are some sort of problem today.

Men forget the fact like after the Boston Bombing suspects were found and the youngest brother was put into custody, the Armed Forces saw a marked increase in enrollment. How many more men are going to buy into the "War on Islam"? I am actually not worried about them, but in a viable men's rights movement we don't accept those that agree with US hegemony, sorry but you don't need a paycheck that badly.

Men's Rights should be about increasing opportunities for all Men, not White men freaking out that their grip on being the dominate culture is slipping.
djfourmoney
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Jester » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:09 am

kai1275 wrote:
Jester wrote:I was just talking with my son last night. We can get abroad, and we can get "a broad". Not really a big problem.

The problem is having a circle of like-minded peers, who are ALSO raising families without "dating", tv, slut-hood, rebellion, etc.


Yeah I am starting to ponder what to do about this too. I am going to start a family very soon. Quiver communities are kinda meh...I'm not a very religious Christian at all. Now I see why fschimdt was interested in a new place to raise his family. The more days that pass, the more concerned I feel.


Quiver-full movement is a GREAT suggestion, for me at least!!!!!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Quiverfull-Patriarchy.html
Question: "What are the Quiverfull and Patriarchy movements?"

Answer: Believers inundated by harmful worldly influences often band together to encourage and exhort one another to live Christ-like lives. The closely related Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements attempt to do just that. The desire to protect their families from the influences of a godless world drives them to search the Bible for alternatives. In general, these movements emphasize the leadership of the husband/father, the blessing of children to a family, and the education of children in a Christian worldview.

Proponents of the Quiverfull philosophy emphasize that children are a blessing from the Lord, and He alone should open and close the womb of a woman. They focus on Psalm 127:3-5: “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.â€￾ While some teach that children are blessings and gifts from God, others intend to use their children to redeem the culture. In addition, many continue to attempt to have children despite economic conditions or the physical well-being of the mother.

The Patriarchy movement encompasses the beliefs of both Quiverfull and homeschoolers and emphasizes the headship of the father, or patriarch, in a family. As in any unregulated movement, there are different interpretations of their beliefs. In general, they include:

• God has granted men authority over their families; preferably, men should be in charge in the workplace, as well.
• Women’s sphere of influence is the home.
• Women should only work outside the home in context of her domestic responsibilities.
• Single women may have more flexibility in their work, but, in general, are not encouraged to work as equals among men in fields which invoke authority such as industry, commerce, civil government, and the military.
• God opens and closes the womb; therefore birth control is taking control from God.
• Having and educating many children is the responsibility of all Christians in order to return the country to a nation that follows God.
• God has entrusted the direct oversight of the education of children to their parents alone, not the state; fathers are to supervise every aspect of curriculum and training.
• Girls are encouraged to center their education around their future role as wives and mothers.
• Segregating children into age-specified activities is inappropriate; children are foolish and should not be left to the influence of others who are foolish.
• The local church is a “family of familiesâ€￾; all worship and educational activities are to be multi-generational.
• Unmarried, grown children are under rule of fathers; although a son may be released to find a vocation and “take a wife,â€￾ he should seek his father’s council.
• Since daughters are “given in marriageâ€￾ by their fathers, an obedient daughter will allow her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although both she or her father may veto the other’s choice.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Quiverfull- ... z2cfSBPKgf
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Johnny1975 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:58 am

The reason why feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it is backed. Mentally ill females are backed by those that want to cause instability. Do you really think that they could achieve anything on their own? Isn't it ironic that men can organize themselves into well disciplined armies, and be extremely organized and effective in so many situations, and yet it is feminists that seem so well organized? Come on, wake up. They're backed. They're useful idiots. They're puppets who think they have power. The people who control them could simply take that away from them at any moment. That's why it's not worth wasting any energy on them. Let them ruin their lives and the lives of anyone foolish enough to take them seriously.
Johnny1975
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:07 pm

Postby Ghost » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:38 pm

kai1275 wrote:
Jester wrote:I was just talking with my son last night. We can get abroad, and we can get "a broad". Not really a big problem.

The problem is having a circle of like-minded peers, who are ALSO raising families without "dating", tv, slut-hood, rebellion, etc.


Yeah I am starting to ponder what to do about this too. I am going to start a family very soon. Quiver communities are kinda meh...I'm not a very religious Christian at all. Now I see why fschimdt was interested in a new place to raise his family. The more days that pass, the more concerned I feel.


Yes. This is the number one overarching problem for any man who wants to start a family. Even if a man can find a better culture, find a virgin wife, and find a way to stay out of the west long term, he still needs to mate-guard. This is time-consuming, costly, and drains one's emotions.

Even for men who actually get off their asses and go abroad, this is asking much. I love the idea, and Franklin's CoAlpha Brotherhood idea was good at heart. It needs revival. But most importantly, it needs men who will commit to the idea and actually work towards it.

I think there is a decent handful of places in Asia and Latin America where the physical community could be located. Those places are beyond the femisphere. Spanish is easy to learn. But any language can be accomplished if one puts in the effort. Asia and LA offer opportunities for TEFL, perhaps business opportunities for those so inclined, and since the cost of living is lower in those places generally, living on a modest passive or otherwise online income is possible.

I may start a thread on this later on. This idea needs to come back.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby djfourmoney » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:28 pm

Johnny1975 wrote:The reason why feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it is backed. Mentally ill females are backed by those that want to cause instability. Do you really think that they could achieve anything on their own? Isn't it ironic that men can organize themselves into well disciplined armies, and be extremely organized and effective in so many situations, and yet it is feminists that seem so well organized? Come on, wake up. They're backed. They're useful idiots. They're puppets who think they have power. The people who control them could simply take that away from them at any moment. That's why it's not worth wasting any energy on them. Let them ruin their lives and the lives of anyone foolish enough to take them seriously.


Do you really believe this tripe? Mentally Ill women? C'mon, it was the LACK OF ORGANIZATION by men because as I said before, White men didn't fear the Women's Rights Movement, they were concerned with The Vietnam War and foiling Commies. They didn't want or supported Civil Rights, the polls of the day PROVE THAT.

The world as they knew it was starting to crash down on them.

Dude do some research about the United States about the time you were BORN.
djfourmoney
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby theprimebait » Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:58 pm

djfourmoney wrote: Men's Rights isn't really about anything it seems but turning back the clock to the 1950's, which makes sense. Jim Crow was still dominate, Women could vote but that's about it and Gays were in the closet. But I see MRA's spend time talking about all three issues as they are some sort of problem today.

Men forget the fact like after the Boston Bombing suspects were found and the youngest brother was put into custody, the Armed Forces saw a marked increase in enrollment. How many more men are going to buy into the "War on Islam"? I am actually not worried about them, but in a viable men's rights movement we don't accept those that agree with US hegemony, sorry but you don't need a paycheck that badly.

Men's Rights should be about increasing opportunities for all Men, not White men freaking out that their grip on being the dominate culture is slipping.


for the first time I agree fully with your statement!MRA is mostly about going back to the 50's.you also notice how WN is linked with white females,most WN would not be WN if Black males living among them were all castrated or Gay.they would have no problem with non whites immigrating among them if the males were castrated and they could have the females.its usually a fear of their women going with coloured men.

male's rights movements are there to keep the power structure in the hands of white men.it isn't at all about men having rights.its about white men having the dominance.hence why many PUA's openly mock asiana nd Indian men trying to game white girls,or how on Rooshv's forum they will ban you if you menton that black men have it made in Sweden or Germany etc or they will just go thru Violent Denial.and Black men are the same way that if they sleep with a non black woman,they HAVE to tell the entire world about it,especially the man of the woman's race .

men are too territorial to ever band together for a common cause wich benefits them all.their Zero-sum mentality and oneupmanship will go for their demise.
theprimebait
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:02 am

Postby djfourmoney » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:35 pm

theprimebait wrote:
djfourmoney wrote: Men's Rights isn't really about anything it seems but turning back the clock to the 1950's, which makes sense. Jim Crow was still dominate, Women could vote but that's about it and Gays were in the closet. But I see MRA's spend time talking about all three issues as they are some sort of problem today.

Men forget the fact like after the Boston Bombing suspects were found and the youngest brother was put into custody, the Armed Forces saw a marked increase in enrollment. How many more men are going to buy into the "War on Islam"? I am actually not worried about them, but in a viable men's rights movement we don't accept those that agree with US hegemony, sorry but you don't need a paycheck that badly.

Men's Rights should be about increasing opportunities for all Men, not White men freaking out that their grip on being the dominate culture is slipping.


for the first time I agree fully with your statement!MRA is mostly about going back to the 50's.you also notice how WN is linked with white females,most WN would not be WN if Black males living among them were all castrated or Gay.they would have no problem with non whites immigrating among them if the males were castrated and they could have the females.its usually a fear of their women going with coloured men.

male's rights movements are there to keep the power structure in the hands of white men.it isn't at all about men having rights.its about white men having the dominance.hence why many PUA's openly mock asiana nd Indian men trying to game white girls,or how on Rooshv's forum they will ban you if you menton that black men have it made in Sweden or Germany etc or they will just go thru Violent Denial.and Black men are the same way that if they sleep with a non black woman,they HAVE to tell the entire world about it,especially the man of the woman's race .

men are too territorial to ever band together for a common cause wich benefits them all.their Zero-sum mentality and oneupmanship will go for their demise.


Why is this the first time?

Racism is at the core of any movement that involves men, either to be against it or to continue it.

If you're against it, you want White men in order for men of color to join your movement to comes to terms with reparations among other things.

If you're for it, then you want to push the reset button, say "Let bygones be bygones" when a handful of members still frowns (butt hurt) when a Black man shows up with his cute White girlfriend or wife. Or thumb their nose at Asian men as they steal their women.

I wasn't aware of that type of behavior on Rooshv, but not surprised, the majority of his user group is White. He's a man of color he shouldn't engage in that sort of petty behavior but again I am not shocked and that's why I don't use that forum and his blog Kings of whatever is Misguided, Anti-Woman tripe.
djfourmoney
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Johnny1975 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:51 pm

djfourmoney wrote:
Johnny1975 wrote:The reason why feminism has gotten as far as it has is because it is backed. Mentally ill females are backed by those that want to cause instability. Do you really think that they could achieve anything on their own? Isn't it ironic that men can organize themselves into well disciplined armies, and be extremely organized and effective in so many situations, and yet it is feminists that seem so well organized? Come on, wake up. They're backed. They're useful idiots. They're puppets who think they have power. The people who control them could simply take that away from them at any moment. That's why it's not worth wasting any energy on them. Let them ruin their lives and the lives of anyone foolish enough to take them seriously.


Do you really believe this tripe? Mentally Ill women? C'mon, it was the LACK OF ORGANIZATION by men because as I said before, White men didn't fear the Women's Rights Movement, they were concerned with The Vietnam War and foiling Commies. They didn't want or supported Civil Rights, the polls of the day PROVE THAT.

The world as they knew it was starting to crash down on them.

Dude do some research about the United States about the time you were BORN.




Fair enough, but what about this :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7da-PuTYOHo[/youtube]
Johnny1975
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:07 pm

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 11 guests