Why I'm Not A "Feminist"

[Revoltingest]

Feminism is about power and money, greed orientated, always has been, even if it is defining itself more now. Men following it are only protecting their own women, thus themselves. It is an adulteration and idol and greed stemming from insecurity

Are you speaking of feminism as a philosophy or about feminist sub-culture?
Your views are so unusual & interesting that you might even want to start
your own thread to elaborate on them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Physically, men tend to be bigger, yes. But it's honestly a negligible difference.

Perhaps things are different where you live, but here women tend to be far smaller than men. (Note: I'm looking at averages, not the largest & strongest women vs the smallest & weakest men.) Mrs Revolt works out regularly with weights, & is one of the strongest in her group. Yet she is far weaker than nearly every guy we know. I find this non-negligible.

The political and economic power still mostly consists of men, and many of the women in power continue to contribute to the problems in their own ways.

Women have a great deal of power. They can start businesses, borrow money, get powerful jobs, etc. And exercising more voting power then men, they determine the leaders of this country. They've altered the course of government in the direction of "nutrure" ever since they started voting in the 1920s, eg, more foreign adventurism, the welfare state, consumer protection. If they don't like their leader choices being mostly men, that's hardly "patriarchy".

Besides, the US government has very little connection with the country as it stands, so what's represented in one isn't necessarily represented in the other. Sure, there might be a fair amount of women in political positions, but the real powers of the US are the megacorporations; how many of them have women CEOs or on their top boards?

The US gov is elected largely by women, & there are powerful women in it.

Or, once again, let's look at my gamer culture. I can name many male game designers:
Shigeru Miyamoto
Satoshi Tajiri
Ron Gilbert
Tim Scafer
Sid Meier
Will Wright
Hironobu Sakaguchi
Hideo Kojima
John Carmack
John Romero
Jonathan Blow
Markus "Notch" Persson
Lord British
But when it comes to female game designers...
Roberta Williams
...
...
Roberta Williams

And despite being a major pioneer in the Adventure genre of gaming, and having incredible technical knowledge making her games look and sound way ahead of their time... sorry, but her games generally SUCK!
Obviously, there's other female game designers, but I just mean off the top of my head. That has been changing in recent years, but there's still a long way to go.
The Let's Play community is also a major aspect of the modern gaming community, and I only know of one female Let's Player (PushingUpRoses) as opposed to several male Let's Players, and even she's not terribly well-known(only ~25,000 subscribers). ...okay, there's Suzy from Game Grumps, but she's just one girl among a company of guys, and she doesn't really participate in the video/computer gaming a whole lot; she's most prominent in their Table Flip series on board games.
This is generally why I focus in on culture rather than politics. Power here is independent of the government, and has more to do with representation in content creation, artist variation, and publishing companies. Men almost have a monopoly here.

The apparent fact that women are less into gaming doesn't strike me even remotely as "patriarchy". There will be trend differences between men & women in their interests & personalities. Likely, any society will always show some expressed differences. This is definitely not "patriarchy" by any shared definition I've yet seen.

Of course, it is a good question of whether or not "patriarchy" can be accurately applied to this. (Might actually be a good idea to talk it over with RF's feminists in our forum.) I would argue it does, because IMO power comes first from clout, not job description. ... okay, the people with the most power are the ones with the most money, yes, but clout is next in importance. My subculture doesn't really have many women with clout, largely because it's been regarded as an "all-boys club" until relatively recently, and sort of slid back into being thought of as one during much of the last generation. Therefore, the ones who "guide" the culture, i.e., content creators, artists, and publishers, are almost all men: hence, patriarchy. It's not intentional, but gamer culture in recent years hasn't really made it easy to be a female participant, let alone a female game designer.
Thing is, it's getting better.

Since women have the ability to do these things you find them not doing, & yet they choose not to, one might ask them why, rather than blaming "patriarchy", which is fundamentally laying the cause at the feet of males.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you speaking of feminism as a philosophy or about feminist sub-culture?
Your views are so unusual & interesting that you might even want to start
your own thread to elaborate on them.

Women don't want equality. They want more. That is greed. Men protect their women as, in general, it saves thinking. Men are not as sociable as women, are not into speaking of relationships as much as women. Hence if it comes to a war on words: "who's she with" "what's he doing" etc etc, they will win, that is all they think about, (look at the differences in our magazines, men to women). Men think of things which are of use. The traits are different. We now make life so easy, as men, that women can even do it (lets face it, most kids could as well).
So the false world we create with all its energy requirements is ideal for the woman. it is safer, cleaner, and more inter-personal skills related. Hence they come out of the house into the office (house) or supermarket (house) by their car (house on wheels- you don't see many women chaining themselves to railings in order to clean out the drains do you). Women do not want equality, they want the cream off the top. To do this they make men feel guilty for something they are not doing, certainly not to the level they are accused of.
But men protect their women, so they turn it into a fight against other males. Now the male is happy, he can fight again...whooopi! Better than that, he has the excuse that he is defending the honour of his woman. Women feminists use men to get what they want, and then give no thanks for it.

Feminism has nothing to do with 'equality'. It has everything to do with insecurity power and money. But how is that going to sell!

 

[Apex]

Women don't want equality. They want more. That is greed. Men protect their women as, in general, it saves thinking. Men are not as sociable as women, are not into speaking of relationships as much as women. Hence if it comes to a war on words: "who's she with" "what's he doing" etc etc, they will win, that is all they think about, (look at the differences in our magazines, men to women). Men think of things which are of use. The traits are different. We now make life so easy, as men, that women can even do it (lets face it, most kids could as well).
So the false world we create with all its energy requirements is ideal for the woman. it is safer, cleaner, and more inter-personal skills related. Hence they come out of the house into the office (house) or supermarket (house) by their car (house on wheels- you don't see many women chaining themselves to railings in order to clean out the drains do you). Women do not want equality, they want the cream off the top. To do this they make men feel guilty for something they are not doing, certainly not to the level they are accused of.
But men protect their women, so they turn it into a fight against other males. Now the male is happy, he can fight again...whooopi! Better than that, he has the excuse that he is defending the honour of his woman. Women feminists use men to get what they want, and then give no thanks for it.

Feminism has nothing to do with 'equality'. It has everything to do with insecurity power and money. But how is that going to sell!

Spoiler: Kinda naughty word

 

[Robert.Evans]

Spoiler: Kinda naughty word

Well I had to look, kinda funny because of the spelling, but don't think you should use such words if LDS means Latter day saints.......if indeed it does

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I had to look, kinda funny because of the spelling, but don't think you should use such words if LDS means Latter day saints.......if indeed it does

He should've left that word for me (the atheist).

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

He should've left that word for me (the atheist).

We heathens are allowed to swear. It says so in the Bible. (It probably doesn't actually say that, I just feel like if other people can use that as an excuse, then so can I.)

 

[Revoltingest]

We heathens are allowed to swear. It says so in the Bible. (It probably doesn't actually say that, I just feel like if other people can use that as an excuse, then so can I.)

My Bible says we heathens can swear.
(It's only penciled in though.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

Feminism is about power and money, greed orientated, always has been, even if it is defining itself more now. Men following it are only protecting their own women, thus themselves. It is an adulteration and idol and greed stemming from insecurity

Tune in for another episode of the "Anti-Feminist Meltdown" show, every day on "Why I'm Not a Feminist."

 

[Revoltingest]

Tune in for another episode of the "Anti-Feminist Meltdown" show, every day on "Why I'm Not a Feminist."

Message from the station manager:
Our new horror series, Anti-Feminists Meltdown, has ceased
filming due to its star being committed to Arkham Asylum.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Tune in for another episode of the "Anti-Feminist Meltdown" show, every day on "Why I'm Not a Feminist."

I could imagine this rant being followed by " Mary-Ann, git outta dat' dere kitchen n' grab me another beer!" *belches* *farts*

 

[Alceste]

In other words, if you don't fight and kill the opponents, or at least violently martyr yourself and others, in order to obtain equal rights and freedoms, you don't deserve them? To be perfectly honest, I kinda doubt that's what she was talking about, especially given what Apex said. Guess I HAVE to watch it at some point now...

Patriarchy is maintained and enforced by both men AND women! EQUALLY! It's a cultural thing; no one person or group of people is solely to blame!

Seriously, she thinks feminists have an entitlement mentality, because she believes men fought physically and bled and died to obtain certain rights while feminists simply demand those same rights non-violently. She speaks very plainly, leaving little room for misunderstanding.

Yeah, the face palm moment when she whipped out the tired old straw man that patriarchy = all individual men on earth was where I gave up watching. Any person who does not understand what patriarchy means is not qualified to offer a thoughtful critique of feminism, IMO.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Seriously, she thinks feminists have an entitlement mentality, because she believes men fought physically and bled and died to obtain certain rights while feminists simply demand those same rights non-violently. She speaks very plainly, leaving little room for misunderstanding.

Yeah, the face palm moment when she whipped out the tired old straw man that patriarchy = all individual men on earth was where I gave up watching. Any person who does not understand what patriarchy means is not qualified to offer a thoughtful critique of feminism, IMO.

Karen Straughan has had some deeply problematic blog entries and posts in the FeMRA subreddit forums:

Her response to the article "The Necessity of Domestic Violence":

I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I'd listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he'd eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they'd be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.
A man I know who has experience with men in abusive relationships would get his clients to answer a questionare. Things like, "after the violence, did you have sex?" "If so, how would you rate the sex?" 100% of men in reciprocally abusive relationships said "yes" to the first, and "scorching" to the second.
He also posited that the much-quoted cycle of violence--the build-up, the explosion, the honeymoon period--correlates with foreplay, orgasm and post-coital bliss.
Erin Pizzey called it "consensual violence", and said in the main, that was the type she'd see at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our "never EVER hit a woman" mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they're demanding.
The DV in Sleeping with the Enemy is the most rare form out there, half as common as "matriarchal terrorism", and injuries are typically less severe. It's seriously foolish to treat all cases like the most rare type, and refuse to address women's instigation and participation in violence.
I don't really find too much in the article that strikes me as seriously ethically questionable. DV isn't pretty. Neither is the article.

When pressed about what it was that she actually meant:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a good summary of what you're saying is "Violence isn't right but a slap here and there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging and exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life".

Straughan doubled down and made it even more apparent that's exactly what she meant:

That's pretty much it.
I also think it would be good for women to take boxing or karate or some other form of training, not only because it helps you be more confident in your ability to defend yourself against muggings and stuff like that, but that would demonstrate to women that getting hit isn't going to break them into little pieces. Women aren't made out of spun glass, and allowing them to believe they are does them no favors.

She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

 

[Revoltingest]

Karen Straughan has had some deeply problematic blog entries and posts in the FeMRA subreddit forums:
Her response to the article "The Necessity of Domestic Violence":
When pressed about what it was that she actually meant:
Straughan doubled down and made it even more apparent that's exactly what she meant:
She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

Bear in mind that she is Canuckistanian (a primitive rural folk) & they have very different ways up there.

For the record:
I oppose domestic & other violence, by either gender or variants thereof.

 

[Alceste]

Karen Straughan has had some deeply problematic blog entries and posts in the FeMRA subreddit forums:

Her response to the article "The Necessity of Domestic Violence":


When pressed about what it was that she actually meant:



Straughan doubled down and made it even more apparent that's exactly what she meant:



She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

Yeah, no. That's seriously messed up. I've never met anyone, male or female, who has been in an abusive relationship that would describe the abuse as consensual. I don't even tolerate angry verbal outbursts. Physical violence would be a total deal breaker.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Karen Straughan has had some deeply problematic blog entries and posts in the FeMRA subreddit forums:

Her response to the article "The Necessity of Domestic Violence":


When pressed about what it was that she actually meant:



Straughan doubled down and made it even more apparent that's exactly what she meant:



She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

I just looked up Paul Elam because I didn't know who he was. My stomach is turning.

I wonder how many people identify with that lowlife's views of what constitutes "men's rights"...

 

[Revoltingest]

I just looked up Paul Elam because I didn't know who he was. My stomach is turning.
I wonder how many people identify with that lowlife's views of what constitutes "men's rights"...

Whatever his views are, let's not turn this thread into a parade of horribles regarding advocacy for men's rights.
This thread is about those who share the feminist goal of gender equity, but reject the brand or the associated sub-cultures.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

She is one of the most outrageous mouthpieces for Paul Elam. Believe me I have quite the file on girlwriteswhat. And so does Dave Futrelle's blog:

GirlWritesWhat | we hunted the mammoth

 

[Robert.Evans]

Karen Straughan has had some deeply problematic blog entries and posts in the FeMRA subreddit forums:

Her response to the article "The Necessity of Domestic Violence":


When pressed about what it was that she actually meant:



Straughan doubled down and made it even more apparent that's exactly what she meant:



She's the female mouthpiece version of Paul Elam, who explicitly stated that if men were to hit their wives, that they better do it right, slam their faces into the wall, and watch blood spray everywhere for the purpose of teaching the wives a lesson not to dare show force against the husband.

I think she made some interesting points, which I would have thought considering you are the violent type and all for assaulting men, and considering you also all for equality, you would be all for. But I detect in your speech that perhaps your not.....hmmmm

 

[Riverwolf]

You sound as if you don't believe in God, which is strange on a religious forum. Thus your comments are your own

What does God have to do with any of that? Of course the comments are my own, not my Gods'.

So are yours.