How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ****

Yep, The truth has NO place in Modern day Feminism.

To Feminism Truth is a corrosive. If you apply it, Feminism disintegrates.

************************************************************

(the new and improved)
Thundercloud.

Ladies, remember; you can't preach EQUALITY while claiming SUPERIORITY. Dig?

In the the early days of feminism, women were trying to organize to stop being crapped on,they were going through what men are going through now (to a lesser extent) However the so called womens movement has mutated into a vicious,man hating cancer,full of lies and proproganda,and is fully sanctioned by the entire media and the politically correct "machine".This kind of venomous spew and hatred has never been directed towards women.Because of modern feminism,the families stucture has been torn apart resulting in all kinds terrible consequences.In many familys a man will come home after working an 8 or 10 hour day only to have to cook his own dinner,and wash his own clothes because his wife has been told by these mindless daytime talk shows and feminist proproganda, that if she does house work she is being "subservevant".In working families where both the man and wife work jobs, the household chores should be split in my opinion,But for the housewife who's only job is the house, that should be her responsibility.You hear all the time about how hard it is for women to do all the housework,Then who's watching all of these Shallow soap opera's by the ten's of millions day after day after day.

You can see this generational rupture between feminist mother and post-feminist daughter in the Democratic party primaries when it comes to attitudes about Hillary.

A lot of post-50 feminist moms are angry that Obama is "stealing" the nomination away from the presumptive first woman President. They believe that if Hillary loses, it will be decades before another woman gets a crack at the White House.

And, they view their daughter's generation as traitors for abandoning Hillary for a black man.

The post-feminist younger generation finds a lot of Second Wave feminist rhetoric tedious and irrelevant to their lives. They have not experienced male oppression or gender-based obstacles to achieving their dreams.

Indeed, if anything, younger women inherited a system rigged to their advantage, with all types of special entitlements like special college incentives, Title IX, affirmative action in hiring, a court system tilted in favor of women, etc.

The mother-daughter relationship is always a complicated one, and feminism is one area where you can see that it's not always "like mother, like daughter."

how many women now are living a lonely life w/o that
other half that completes? too many to count. they
do stick together, don't they? misery really does love company.

all those special priveleges just got too heavy for any
smart man to stomach. and they still refuse to admit they
were wrong. one privelege and another and another and soon marriage
no longer resembles what it once was, unless you are wearing those
gaga goggles. even my "happily" married male friends admit they
would never do it again if they could shed the one they got.

signing a one-sided legally binding contract and agreeing to
be someone's servant just doesn't seem to do it for the guys
w/ a good head on their shoulders.

wanna get rich?
get rid of the bitch.

It becomes apparent that the daughter is still a women-firster, when she says, "Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness". She shows no empathy for men.

Feminism has harmed men more than women. But nothing's ever a problem until it affects women - even feminism itself. The cycle becomes complete when feminism crumbles, but men are still left out in the cold.

-ax

"She shows no empathy for men. ...nothing's ever a problem until it affects women - even feminism itself."

Indeed. But what we (men) have to understand, if we're going to recover any sanity in this situation, is that this is perfectly natural, nor can we ever expect anything else. There is a difference between the sexes. As Fred Reed put it, men take care of women and children, and women take care of children and themselves. That's the natural order, and no amount of propaganda, "consciousness-raising" or legislative proaction will ever change it. Individual women may take good care of individual men with whom they have valued personal relationships, but as a class it's not their job to look out for the welfare of men as a class. The problem is not that women don't show the kind of consideration for men that men show for women and children; the problem is pretending that the sexes are "equal" and interchangeable.

I've posted this quote before, but it bears repeating:

"If you allow [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." --Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE

The only way men and women can be "equal" is if men don't grow up but remain forever boys, dominated by women (mothers, schoolmarms, etc.). Grown-up men respect women, care for them, even revere them, but they don't treat them as "equals". They treat them as women.

In a healthy culture, each sex has its own territory, from which it can relate with the other, exchange services and goods, etc. When women invade and occupy the territory of men -- as has happened in our culture -- there's no place left for men to be men, and we have nothing of any real value to exchange with women. And everyone loses.

Have you noticed how, as feminism has increasingly succeeded in taking over, women have become ever more angry? They're not getting what they need. But they don't know what they need. That women don't know what they need is related to the fact that a woman can't teach a boy how to be a man. The measure of their ignorance is their stubborn insistence that they already know everything, and have nothing more to learn.

"men take care of women and children, and women take care of children and themselves. That's the natural order, and no amount of propaganda, "consciousness-raising" or legislative proaction will ever change it. "

It is true that to a large extent, that is the "natural order" as far as individual psychology is concerned. But one must look at the end effects of that, as well as the "humanistic" factors involved.

As far as end effects, there is currently, in addition to generalized misandry, institutionalized, legalized misandry at a societal level, which can and should be eliminated. That is by no means a "natural order" but instead is due to the specific, conscious actions of individuals, and can be viewed as practically separate from their motives for doing so, whether innate or otherwise. Unfair is unfair, and there is such a thing as justice.

As far as humanistic factors, what some people seem to be proposing in the long run is that men must in some way be relegated to sitting back and accepting the situation, since it is the natural state of things and nothing can be done about it. But I for one will not tolerate it in my own personal life. Even if there is at bottom no such thing as free will, I can, and in fact have, made the decision not to become involved in a relationship with any woman (I am not gay); I choose not to become a second-class person within that specific context (regardless of whether I am forced into that position by society). And I heavily suspect that there will be many other men who will make the same objection and choose that course.

We shall see. As of now we still have all the quackery about gender being "socially constructed", etc. It's going to be awhile before people come around to the scientific viewpoint, and that may or may not happen in my lifetime.

-ax

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Steve Moxon's view of these issues..

One place where he is wrong is when he says that "society is merely the outcome [representation] of individual psychology." Not so. (His background is in psychology, so it is not surprising that he would view things that way).

-ax