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



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Modern Feminism vs. Traditional Feminism

Discuss Anti-Feminism, Men's Rights and Misandry.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Post Reply
amigo
Freshman Poster
Posts: 18
Joined: July 24th, 2014, 7:47 am

Modern Feminism vs. Traditional Feminism

Post by amigo » July 24th, 2014, 2:19 pm

A good read is to check out the 'great feminist authors' that women today cherish from colonial times, in the 1800's.

you will find that a modern feminist, who honors these founding feminists, has absolutely nothing in common with the original feminist writers in our nation's history.

I decided to read some of the feminist literature that started the feminist movements in the early 1800's and was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed 100% with early feminist literature, and that it is the exact opposite of a modern feminist.

literature in the early 1800's tends to be quite short, so you might only have to read 10 pages or so.

as an example, they write about how the reason why women fail in America (in the 1800's) is because men do all the work, they put women on a pedestal, and they want women to be nurtured and cared for, so the women can't learn to be independent. which I agree with. but a modern woman has all sorts of excuses like 'imaginary glass ceilings'.

another great read is the Seneca falls women's rights convention. it is quite hilarious in fact, and again a short read. they demanded that women be prohibited from working in circuses. they demanded that men encourage women to speak up in church. they demanded that women have access to universities, falsely claiming that women could not get an education, after the existence of all women's colleges and female graduates had already occurred before the convention. women will talk about the Seneca falls convention as if it were a monumental event in history, in fact I think Hillary Clinton mentioned it in a political debate, but when you read it you will probably laugh more than anything else.

here is an excerpt that says women should not be encouraged to perform in a circus or on stage:
RESOLVED, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience comes with a very ill-grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in feats of the circus.

one other thing about the women's rights convention at Seneca falls is that they preached equality in a way that no modern feminist does. in this excerpt, the feminist speaker said that men and women should be punished equally for the same crime:

"the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman. "

and we know that in today's america, there is no such thing, men get harsh punishments and women get little or none.

so believe it or not, you probably believe and agree with the founding feminists that a modern feminist also reveres, even if you disagree with the modern feminist, who probably never read the works of those pioneering women anyway.

Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5749
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 2:23 am

Post by Ghost » July 24th, 2014, 5:07 pm

Feminism of any stripe is detrimental to society. There is no such thing as equality because men and women are different. Women's' Suffrage was the single worst element for the U.S. Early feminist writers were presenting their own ideas about what they wanted, and of course had absolutely no understanding of what those changes would produce. We're seeing the result now. Modern day American society is a logical extension of what early feminists were asking for. As always, the most important thing is to watch actions and not only listen to words. Just as it always has been, women claim to want equality and then seek privilege.

Wolfeye
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1314
Joined: December 29th, 2013, 7:18 am

Post by Wolfeye » July 24th, 2014, 6:01 pm

I've noticed that the "-ist" in "feminist" tends to functionally mean "one who operates," like in "motorIST." Sure, it comes off like a whole supportive, "Your body, your rules & you shouldn't have to rely on luck for you to get by," but it tends to be very controlling & sabotaging- from what I've heard from women. It seems to have a very heavy trend toward driving a wedge between men & women. Personally, I'd think they'd support each other.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Anti-Feminism, Men's Rights and Misandry”