The feminist obsession with Barbie dolls seems odd at first glance. Whether it is their compulsion to create ugly feminist Barbie or Computer Engineer Barbie, we see a great deal of focus on make-believe for a group of grown women. But feminism at its core is very much about make-believe, and feminists have demonstrated an incredible capacity to treat make-believe as if it were reality.
You can see this historically with the feminist/media creation of Amelia Earhart. After Charles Lindbergh captured the world’s imagination by flying solo across the Atlantic in an aircraft he had custom built for the flight, feminists wanted to show that women could do that too. Earhart was selected because she looked the part and had a pilot’s license. However while she looked the part, she was not a gifted pilot:
There is no denying that Earhart had difficulty learning to fly. It took her more than 15 hours of flight time and nearly a year to solo the Kinner, and she had a number of mishaps afterward, most of them during landings. As one biographer noted: “Unfortunately, though highly intelligent, a quick learner, and possessed of great enthusiasm, Amelia did not, it seems, possess natural ability as a pilot.”
But skill as a pilot wasn’t needed for what Earhart’s media handlers had in mind. They commissioned two men to fly her across a short span of the Atlantic in a Fokker Tri Motor. After Earhart did her part by looking pretty in the passenger seat while the menfolk did the flying, her media handlers triumphantly dubbed her “Lady Lindy”, threw her a ticker tape parade, and arranged an invitation to the White House to meet President Calvin Coolidge. As a newly minted feminist icon, Earhart then wrote a book and gave lectures about her experience riding across the Atlantic. It could be no other way, as The World History Project explains in Amelia Earhart becomes first woman to fly across the Atlantic:
Since most of the flight was on “instruments” and Amelia had no training for this type of flying, she did not pilot the aircraft. When interviewed after landing, she said, “Stultz did all the flying—had to. I was just baggage, like a sack of potatoes.” She added, “…maybe someday I’ll try it alone.”
But make believe is good enough for feminists, which brings us back to Barbies. Back in July of 2013 Jessica Wakeman wrote an article at The Frisky about her failed attempt to play feminist Barbie with her nieces. Wakeman wanted to pretend Barbie was a pediatric oncologist:
I pulled a naked Barbie from a box and dressed her in a yellow gown. (Barbie’s closet seems to be entirely gowns and miniskirts.) Then I announced, “My Barbie is a doctor.”
I cleared my throat. “She’s a pediatric oncologist. That means she helps kids with cancer. She graduated at the top of her class from Yale. No, Harvard. She is trying to find the cure for lymphoma.”
But her nieces didn’t want to play pediatric oncologist Barbie. They wanted Barbie to be focused on girly things like fashion, hairstyles, and meeting Mr. Right. No matter how many times Wakeman tried to return to the feminist narrative, her nieces always steered back to traditional girl areas of focus:
Elly’s Barbie then started “doing” my Barbie’s hair. I tried again. “Maybe one day, she’ll run for office,” I mused. “She could be a senator. She could sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
“I like her gown,” Mackenzie replied.
What is so unintentionally comical about Wakeman’s piece is that there were two games of make-believe going on. One game had her nieces imagining Barbie going to balls, dressing in the latest fashion, and attracting prince charming. The other game of make-believe had Wakeman imagining herself as possessing great professional gravity and as a feminist role model for young girls to follow. Ironically Wakeman lives in the very world her nieces wanted to play in, she was just too busy playing make-believe to see it. In the real world Wakeman is a staff writer for a gossip site, not a senator or a doctor. The first five main categories in The Frisky’s banner are:
- Sex
- Relationships
- Celebs
- Style
- Horoscopes
Had Wakeman only played Barbie the way she has played her real life and not her make-believe life, her nieces would have been delighted.
Update: It gets better.
Ladies: You can do it God’s way or your way.
Well, at least her niece was given a nicely androgynous feminist name by her parents, unlike Jessica herself.
Good point, Dalrock. Feminism is founded on make believe. Feminism claims that gender is a social construct. Reality at the genetic level says clearly that sex is inborn. Feminism says that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies. Reality says that estrogen and testosterone are powerful compounds that have many effects on human tissues, both obvious (muscle growth and strength) and subtle (brain structures and connections). Feminism says let’s make believe that if 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it’s due to discrimination. Reality says otherwise, that the percentage of women suited to that job is way smaller than the percentage of men (and the percentage of men suited isn’t huge).
Feminism says fathers are disposable, reality says fathers are a critical part of the family. Feminism says that women are always the victims of Domestic Violence and men the perpetrators, reality says that women can be just as abusive as men but not always in the same ways.
Feminism says that Laura Croft is real, or should be, reality says…nah. Don’t take a feminist with you out into the dark parking lot at midnight. Take someone and something from … reality.
Perhaps women like Jessica want to push women into serious fields so they don’t have to compete for jobs in traditional female pursuits.
“Well, at least her niece was given a nicely androgynous feminist name by her parents, unlike Jessica herself.” – Novaseeker
Ironically, the Mac in Mackenzie can be traced back to the Scottish surnames where Mac or Mc translates to “son of”.
Hilarious. Thank you Dalrock.
Earl .. agreed .. but women are easily deceived and have higher rates of mental illness. Add the current meme gene and you have the perfect “idolator” (ie practitioner of idolatry).
I don’t trust any of them (ie women).
“Feminism says let’s make believe that if 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it’s due to discrimination.”
If 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it IS due to discrimination… caused by the division of labor. Feminism makes believe that discrimination is the same as bigotry.
Make believe is all about aspiration, and feminists have a list of proper and improper aspirations. The improper ones just also happen to be the natural ones, and these are unavoidable. As the irony of Wakeman’s career choices show, trying to avoid pursuing the natural aspirations only leads to pursuing them very badly.
Pingback: Confusing make-believe with reality; why feminists obsess over Barbie. | Manosphere.com
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2:19-20 KJV)
I was wondering where I could slip this in; perhaps this is closest.
This is about Rochester; Norman Castle, Medieval Cathedral – I once saw Murder in the Cathedral played there – (not Rotherham) on the banks of the River Medway. It concerns the coming by-election – one of the delicacies of British Politics where the ruling party tends to get shafted. This however concerns Her Majesties Official opposition (yes there is one) and the Shadow Attorney General, an overweight middle-aged woman who visited the town on behalf of her party prior to next weeks election. She – a woman, and dues-paid socialist – who lives naturally in a Three Million Pound house – snapped a house with one or more national flags draped at the front, posted the same to twitter and then mocked the owner. Could that happen in America, where every humble congressman has a stars and stripes in his office? I rather doubt it.
The house in question, a £150,000 terraced house, was purchased in 2002 by White Van Man and his wife. At first the woman politician defended herself by bizarrely playing victim alleging anti-Islington bias (much as Marie Antoinette would have complained about an anti-Versailles bias amongst the peasantry), and then the outrage thus growing greater, she resigned. The press see it as the socialists contempt for the genuinely hard-working people of this country – clearly UKIP are now the voice of the working man – but wearing my Manosphere hat, is this not a case of a woman having risen so high by reason of affirmative action (like Amelia Earhart) that, as always with women, they become oblivious to any man who is not higher than they – apex fallacy.
I cannot quite imagine a male politician so effortlessly slipping on that particular Banana skin.
Dalrock,
At its core? Hmmmmm…. no I don’t think so.
At is core I think it is about unattractive women. To each their own.
“Feminism is founded on make believe. Feminism claims that gender is a social construct. Reality at the genetic level says clearly that sex is inborn.”
I believe feminism distinguishes between gender and sex. Gender is the social construct. Sex is biologically determined. Gender and sex are not the same thing.
Novaseeker
Well, at least her niece was given a nicely androgynous feminist name by her parents, unlike Jessica herself.
No, she was given that name by her aunt. (She notes that the names were changed).
A sister swears by Norman Vincent Peale’s “The Power of Positive Thinking”. The idea that we are as God and can change the world just by believing it is so seems to have found a home in feminism. Of course, the corollary is that other people can stop those good thoughts with bad thoughts, so they must eliminate all bad thinkers (realists) before the feminist paradise can bloom. She became angry when I commented that it was incredibly arrogant to think this way; that I would continue praying to God and seeing this world as it is.
“I believe feminism distinguishes between gender and sex. Gender is the social construct. Sex is biologically determined. Gender and sex are not the same thing.”
The make-believe part is where feminism takes the sex of the person and confuses the gender social construct of it. Ergo men act more like women and women act more like men. Reality would say that if you are a man act like it and a woman act like it.
“The make-believe part is where feminism takes the sex of the person and confuses the gender social construct of it. Ergo men act more like women and women act more like men. Reality would say that if you are a man act like it and a woman act like it.”
Yes. They see sex as biologically determined and socially influenced. So it’s more of a continuum. A man can still be a man and have some feminine qualities and a woman can still be a woman and have some masculine qualities. This is where LGBTQIA thinking/ideas/studies find a home in feminism. In the feminist world, there are many genders, but really only two sexes.
“In the feminist world, there are many genders, but really only two sexes.”
Yup…that’s their reality. Let’s see what the Creator has to say.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27
I see only two there.
The idea of ‘many genders’ sounds like something a Legion or herd would say. Basically it’s demonic thinking.
It’s not about the career, it’s about the lifestyle.
This is one of the major differences between boy and girls.
Boys who dream of becoming a doctor, athlete, or soldier are interested in the nitty-gritty details of the career. A boy that wants to be a pilot one day will spend countless hours studying and earning about airplanes on his own. The career is an end in itself.
For girls (as demonstrated in this article), a career is an accessory to the lifestyle–no different than a purse or clothing. “She’s a doctor; great; let’s do her hair so she looks pretty when she goes out on her date with cute doctor Ken.”
I’m not saying this to be critical of girls, just to point out that boys and girls are different, and different for a reason.
Nature has set mens primary function as providing for a family (a mate and children), and they best way they can do that is to be career focused.
Nature has set women’s primary function as bearing and raising children to adulthood. A career focus interferes with that primary function. There’s nothing wrong with the girls in the story. They simply haven’t been socialized enough to eliminate the biases nature has built into them.
My company outsourced me to a new client. I am working for one of the VPs. He openly told me that he is sending his daughter to Medical School NOT because she wants to be a doctor (I mean she would like that…), but MOSTLY because she wants to marry one. She figures she’ll have a better shot at that if she is among them for four years. I think for many women, medical school winds up turning into a very exclusive and extremely expensive dating and match-making service.
Mrs. IBB on feminism:
At its core? Hmmmmm…. no I don’t think so.
At is core I think it is about unattractive women. To each their own.
You can repeat this falsehood forever and it still won’t be true. But it will tell readers a bit about your veracity.
My company outsourced me to a new client. I am working for one of the VPs. He openly told me that he is sending his daughter to Medical School NOT because she wants to be a doctor (I mean she would like that…), but MOSTLY because she wants to marry one. She figures she’ll have a better shot at that if she is among them for four years. I think for many women, medical school winds up turning into a very exclusive and extremely expensive dating and match-making service.
Instead of spending all that money on Med School, why not just provide half that amount as dowry and go through a match-making service–oh wait, that’s too old-fashioned.
It’s also too honest. Most people still think they need to play feminist make-believe.
Hmmmm…..ugly feminist women and make believe. Folks, we’re headed for social unrest. Let’s talk about make believe rape versus the real thing. What happens if the men around a feminist decide to walk away? Easy to do. Especially if said feminist had helped destroy a man’s life. Make believe means you never pay the consequences. Real life involves revenge and worse things. What will happen? Just think about karma. Feminism depends on male protection. In make believe, men are nasty and brutish. A few are, most aren’t. Civilization is breaking down due to, in a large part, feminist malevolent fantasy. The social contract doesn’t work when women can destroy a man’s life with a false accusation. When justice has been denied due to the fact that a man is male, realistically, men withdraw. Personally, I refuse to defend or protect anyone who can destroy me. When I grew up, boys were taught to protect women. How’s that worked out? Make believe for men means pretending that a woman won’t get jealous, and then destroy your life. Reality means that MGTOW is best for men. As someone has said, you get what you incentivise. As for getting involved when a woman is being assaulted….nah. It might be reality intruding on make believe.
I believe feminism distinguishes between gender and sex.
On the contrary, feminism is all about blurring lines, including the line between language (“gender”) and biology (“sex”). This should be no surprise, as ambiguity in communication is a common female trait.
Gender is the social construct. Sex is biologically determined. Gender and sex are not the same thing.
Gender is a linguistic construc, such as “Der, Die, Das” or “La, El”, etc. Sex is biology. But note that many feminists now champion the notion that sex can be self-assigned via hormones, surgical mutilation, prosthetic devices, and so forth.
It is make-believe to pretend that a person with XX chromosomes can be turned into a “man” by high doses of testosterone, dressing up and other things. Just as much as “pediatric oncology Barbie” is make-believe, although Barbie costs a whole lot less than surgical mutilation.
It’s the whole liberal ideology that is make believe (including feminism).
Modernism (or liberalism) is the ideology of our modern world (both for Republicans and Democrats and even during the fifties). It is a rebellion of the will against the truth, a rebellion of fantasy against reality, a rebellion of “ought” against “is” (the moralistic fallacy).
This was the dark heritage of the so-called Enlightenment. Since most of reality cannot easily changed, the only way out is make believe. Examples:
1. I was born a man but I want to be a woman so I am a woman (even if I have a penis and all my cells have XY chromosomes).
2. I have the fantasy that all races and all religions are equally worthy. So every difference is due to discrimination. I don’t leave reality change this point of view.
3. If African-American people do not perform at the same level that Whites, this is due to oppression (even if Ashkenazim Jews were oppressed but have a higher IQ – and a higher performance- than Whites).
4. If the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim, this is because of oppression. Islam is a religion of peace. Let’s gather together and sing Kumbaya.
I don’t want to be rude, but this is the basis of modern world and the American nation. See the founding document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Excuse me? Are all men equal? Is this self-evident? What a pile of BS! It is evident that all men (and women) are different from each other. But it is easier to take refuge in a world of fantasy and claiming this is evident spares this people the need of justifying it. “Because I say so”. So we will make believe that all people are equal and if the differences arise, this is discrimination and will be swiftly punished.
This aspect of feminism derives from its intrinsic association with leftism, and leftism assumes that every aspect of human nature is socialized (except homosexuality). Men and women aren’t acting like the equalists say they should, which only means that we’re still improperly socializing our kids.
It’s hilarious seeing how they warp facts to fit this fantasy. An example I use in my book is a video about how Disney is perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes. Among the examples they use is Gaston from “Beauty and the Beast.” Even though he’s a clownish caricature of masculinity, he’s cited as inspiring boys to be too manly. Likewise with the “be a man” sequence in Mulan. Nancy Drew defied numerous gender stereotypes, but she still had some girly traits so she’s seen as perpetuating gender roles.
As long as anything anywhere hints that boys should be male and girls female, it will be too much.
As reality makes a catastrophic appearance in the lives of western women, several questions need to be asked. What will happen if a feminist is caught in a car during a riot? Will she try to convince them that she’s down with the struggle? Suppose the rioters are black, and she’s white? Who would want to save her if things got violent? A nasty, brutish cop? A well armed homeowner? Seriously, what’s gonna happen to snowflake when things go back to the natural order? You know…..violent and vicious? The way humanity has been for thousands of years?
@ easttexasfratboy: Before the rape she’ll try to convince them she’s down with the struggle. Afterwards, she might blame patriarchy. You see, blacks have bought into the corrupt patriarchal hierarchies instilled into them by their white overlords. They keenly feel slighted, oppressed, and less manly because of their low status on the totem pole. Thus, they try to make up for this loss of status by showing that they’re not completely the bottom, that they’re superior at least to women. It’s not really their fault.
Patriarchy hurts men, too.
Without wishing to implement yet another Grand Imperial thread-hijack, Opus, it might be noted that Dan the Kentish Man/Man of Kent’s nation had signally trounced my own, the oldest enemy, in their common sport (involving an assortment of muddied oafs and a pig’s bladder) on the most irredentist, celtic and rebel ground in the entire Union the night before last, thus giving him IMO quite justifiable occasion to gloat, if only for a little while.
But Madame and the rest of Ed’s chi-chi dinner-party circuit, as the people’s tribunes, remain impervious to the distasteful frolicking of the man-serfs, or she would have known this.
Instead, she gauged her likely gain in artificial PC points (necessary due to fundamental ignorance of her party’s own ideology) and the approbation of her Herd, in what they had assumed was their own private playground of the social media, by having a nice Shaming and Mocking/Belittling orgy. No oiks allowed.
It actually startled even me a little, to realise that working class men are truly invisible to them, mere self-actuating meat forklifts, drivers, drinks-carriers etc. and utterly infra dig., too too gross even to mention, except to titter knowingly at their crudity, lack of enlightenment and incomprehensible neandertal patriotism.
At this rate it will not end well for the Emilys of this Island, I fear. Perhaps she could get some posing practice in, since it’s so crucial to look good in public. Line up three dining chairs, lie down on them, and get someone to pop a laundry basket at the end of the row with a makeup mirror in it, to check her teeth for spinach.
I’ll bring the knitting.
Does Barbie do knitting? Thought not.
@ imnobody: “Excuse me? Are all men equal? Is this self-evident? What a pile of BS!”
Depends on how we interpret equal. Are we equal in talents or abilities? Obviously not. However, I would argue that we’re equally worthy to God accountable to God. As a governmental document, the Declaration was advocating that humanity replicate this to the best of its ability by making us all equal before the law.
What they opposed was the notion that there’s some inherent aristocracy that has the right to rule over others, for such a notion implies that some of us are more worthy than others, that person A’s well-being can be sacrificed for the well-being of person B because person B is intrinsically more important, that person A has to follow the rules but person B doesn’t because his dad is a duke.
The ancient antecedent of this type of inequality is religious human sacrifice, the notion that it pleases a deity for me to kill you for MY good. The Declaration was an attempt to reverse that notion and its implications, to support the notion that each man matters.
The way we interpret that phrase now has little relation to what it was meant to say, both among lefties who think it means that everybody’s equally good at math, as well as those who are trying to refute the lefties.
And how cruel to her nieces to drag pediatric oncology, a truly grim subject, into their playtime.
Here’s another tho’t ab’t women vs the Left’s fantasy view of women: despite the pediatric-oncological yearnings, almost inevitably women, when joining their menfolk on TV pgms (often too when meeting some new menfolk), are complimented on how nice they look; men never. It’s amazing how the PC Left can insist on their miscellany of bullshit and at the same time, when they turn it off to create entertainment, reveal they believe just the opposite.
One big exception, tho’, is the fact that on many comedy shows, men are always bimbos, even tho’ feminism promised us there w’d be no more bimbos.
@ Martel
I get what you say and I get the historical context. The Puritans were the first utopians. They were the first group that wanted to do without all tradition and build a society where there were no aristocracy, no social classes and no differences. Everyone was to be equal before God. With the Bible and their hands, they wanted to build the Paradise on Earth, which is the definition of utopia.
I understand that, for Americans, the Declaration of Independence is a sacred text (other peoples have other sacred texts so who am I to judge?) and I am criticizing at my own risk. But the origin of the rot is in there.
The text does not say “all men are equal BEFORE THE LAW” or “all men SHOULD BE treated equally” . It says “all men are created equal. FULL STOP” (the moralistic fallacy: going from “ought” to “is”). Not “EQUALLY WORTHY”, not “EQUALLY REPRESENTED” or “EQUAL IN RIGHTS” or “EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGIOUS SACRIFICE”. No qualification. Equal. Period. Full Stop. You can interpret it with all the qualifications you want but they are not in the text.
After saying all men are equal, why not women? why not all races? why not poor? why not girls in math or in corporate boards? Every difference is a discrimination because everyone is equal. The idea was in the beginning and all that came afterwards is only the development of the idea to its logical conclusion (which, as always, it takes centuries).
Modernism (and, especially leftism) was the logical development of this idea. The legacy of the Puritans lives with the Founding Fathers and with the vanilla leftist East-coast citizen who rants against discrimination. America was founded upon this idea. As much as we admire America and its accomplishments (as I do), I think it is better to be aware of that.
See “Albion’s seed” for more details about the Puritans.
Kara Hultgreen is a better example than Amelia Earhart.
Lt Hultgreen holds the dubious distinction of being the ONLY pilot to crash an F-14 due to excessive rudder. It’s important to understand the engineering details of the circumstances of the crash. Every plane has its limits. Pilots are qualified on planes because they have to learn these limits to heart so they don’t, you know, crash. The limitations of the F-14 were quite well known, so well known that they were printed in the manual before the Navy even started buying them. To much rudder means the engine gets no intake air means you have a flameout.
No other pilot in US or even Iranian service has ever crashed an F-14 for something so obvious that it’s printed in the ****ing manual.
http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the-deadly-consequences-of-feminist-propaganda-in-the-us-navy
@Tam
Are you implying that a game of soccer has taken place? – and that that is the only reason for the Flag of St George being blatantly flown. How easy to mistake such a display of Football enthusiasm for evidence of a Neo-Nazi, BNP or EDF supporting UKIP-voting trogolodyte of limited intellect but much brawn. I really thought the education system had succeeded in eradicating such unevolved attitudes in the nations glorious welcoming of Sudanese, Pakistanis et al. Diversity is out strength though obviously not in the Socialist Republic of Islington.
Poor Jessica, she just couldn’t find the right edition of Barbie to play with:
The frisky is such an awful website. it’s almost as bad as xojane. filled with sluts who write about all the sex they have trying to normalize their behavior. it’s something betas should read to stop pedestalizing girls.
they refuse to accept reality. all that matters is money, that new doll will not sell (updated my blog with another example)
@ imnobody: The Puritans may have influence the Founders, but although I’m not certain to what extent, I am certain that their influence was limited. Otherwise there would be no 1st Amendment or separation of powers. Utopians aren’t particularly concerned with individual freedom (unless it’s the freedom to be exactly how they think you should be, of course).
You’re correct that the Declaration is a document of ideals, and in the purely temporal sense the “equal” clause isn’t its only error. Another example is “it is to preserve these rights that governments are instituted among men.” Obviously, that wasn’t the reason why the Ottomans had a Sultan.
However, it was the reason they believed that governments SHOULD exist, and that’s what the Declaration was saying. It WAS a bold proclamation of ideals. I’m exceedingly aware of the dangers of conflating what should be with what is (it’s foundational), but declaring ideals does not in and of itself proclaim that they supersede reality, nor does it indicate any sort of obliviousness to reality.
We are “created equal” by “our Creator” (which is in the text albeit not in that exact order). Thus, as God made us, by God’s standards, in God’s eyes, we’re “equal.” He sees my soul as equally valuable to yours and everybody else’s. It doesn’t give further explicit qualifications because none are needed, for in their minds and in the minds of whoever they suspect would read it they would have been nothing more than re-stating the obvious.
Unfortunately, philosophers are masters of obfuscating the obvious. Rousseau’s notions of “equality” and “liberty” gradually warped the definitions of those terms as intended by those who previously used them. Disciples of Kant and R turned reality on its head. Meaning depends neither upon what was intended, nor do words have any objective definitions. “All men are created equal” is now used to advocate ideas that directly oppose what was originally said.
I don’t hold God responsible for all the awful things that have been done because of misreadings of the Bible, nor do I hold the Founders responsible for the idiocies of those who twist their words.
“The text does not say “all men are equal BEFORE THE LAW” or “all men SHOULD BE treated equally” . It says “all men are created equal. FULL STOP” (the moralistic fallacy: going from “ought” to “is”). Not “EQUALLY WORTHY”, not “EQUALLY REPRESENTED” or “EQUAL IN RIGHTS” or “EQUAL WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGIOUS SACRIFICE”. No qualification. Equal. Period. Full Stop. You can interpret it with all the qualifications you want but they are not in the text.”
I’ve thought about this, and I think the problem is that things tend to drift. I’m sure when the Declaration of Independence was drafted it was clear to people that this meant equality before the law, i.e. the government shouldn’t have the ability to apply the laws unequally. The trouble is that over time things drift in a particular direction. Therefore “all men are created equal, in the sense that the law should apply equally to them and there should be no aristocracy” becomes “all people are equal, and any differences must be imposed from outside.” Similarly, “homosexuals are humans, we shouldn’t execute them” becomes “homosexuality isn’t that bad” becomes “treating homosexuals differently is discriminatory.” In the past this probably helped to create the concept of aristocracy, going from “this family is really successful” to “this family is better than other families.” It depends on the assumptions of your society but whatever direction you’re pointed in things tend to drift that way.
What we need is a solid, core understanding of reality to check these slides into absurdity. But of course we no longer all agree on the Judeo-Christian founding principles of our culture, so we can expect our society to continue to drift into more and more ridiculous things as its anchor in anything real and fundamental slips further. Eventually it’s likely this society will fall apart and the resulting hardship will necessitate a return to reality, but who knows when or how that will come about.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
There is nothing truthful about this statement.
First, God never created any man other than Adam and his wife Eve. Since then, He stopped creating man, and outsourced that duty to humans themselves. It is society which create men and women, not God. God gave the ability to make babies to man and woman, and babies grow into men and women.
Secondly, God does not believe in the doctrine of “equality”, because, in His Kingdom, your reward and your resultant position is based exclusively on your efforts and abilities (Revelation 22:12).
Some people receive five talents, while some receive only one (Matthew 25:15). It was never God’s intention to create a mass of people who are exactly the same in every way. He deliberately made some people smarter, stronger, wiser, and more attractive than others. Is that fair? Well, “who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (Romans 9:20). While we may not know everything about God’s reasons, this much we know: he always has a purpose in his creation, and everything he creates is fit for the reason for its creation. So, for some uninformed person to posit that God made “all men equal” is a demonstration of ignorance.
@ Dave: “First, God never created any man other than Adam and his wife Eve.”
What about Jeremiah?
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
–Jeremiah 1:5
Unless you want to argue that “formed” and “created” are antonyms or something.
Dave,
You really believe that? It makes no sense to me. Tell me, which one of Eve’s daughters did Seth have incestuous sex with to give birth to Noah? Is that in the Bible or Torah? I’m quite certain God went and made quite a few more humans than just Adam and Eve.
“Secondly, God does not believe in the doctrine of “equality”, because, in His Kingdom, your reward and your resultant position is based exclusively on your efforts and abilities (Revelation 22:12).”
“Created equal” refers to a starting point, revelation obviously refers to an end point. Two baseballs may have been “created equal” in every relevant sense, but if one gets smashed out of the park and the other just stays in the umpire’s bag, they’re no longer the same.
“Some people receive five talents, while some receive only one (Matthew 25:15).”
In that parable, they weren’t “created” with ten, five, or one talents, they were given them in adulthood.
“It was never God’s intention to create a mass of people who are exactly the same in every way. He deliberately made some people smarter, stronger, wiser, and more attractive than others.”
As correct as this is, to believe that it in any way refutes what the Founders were saying “is a demonstration of ignorance.”
river rat,
“My company outsourced me to a new client. I am working for one of the VPs. He openly told me that he is sending his daughter to Medical School NOT because she wants to be a doctor (I mean she would like that…), but MOSTLY because she wants to marry one. She figures she’ll have a better shot at that if she is among them for four years. I think for many women, medical school winds up turning into a very exclusive and extremely expensive dating and match-making service.”
I think it is more that dad is doing what he thinks gives his daughter the best possible chance in life. He is giving her an “edge” over her competition. When you get right down to it he plurality of dads want their daughters to marry medical doctors. I mean we can bullsh-t ourselves until we are blue in the face, but it is what it is. Its reality.
@Dave,
The phrase cannot be understood properly unless quoted in context:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…
The subject of the DOI is man made government.
The “created equal” part is in reference to their individual rights.
Nobody (certainly not the men that signed the document) has ever thought that “created equal” meant created identical in their abilities, skills, and gifts.
This section is the foundation of the entire American system of government, because it declared that there is an authority higher than the government. Thus, the government can neither grant or remove rights. It can refuse to recognize them, but it cannot take them away from a person.
This stood in start contrast to the rest of the western world, where the king was considered to have been placed there by God, and thus the king had the authority to determine individual rights of citizens; the right to grant them and the right to remove them.
@ innocentbystander: “I think it is more that dad is doing what he thinks gives his daughter the best possible chance in life. He is giving her an “edge” over her competition.”
Furthermore, lots of dads buy into the mistaken notion that daughter having a phD or being a big-time businesswoman will make her more attractive to men. If she could somehow work in a Starbucks that’s frequented by medical students, her chances of hooking up with one wouldn’t be much less than if she attends class with them.
@IBB,
The dad is also providing his daughter with a backup plan.
If she fails to land a doctor husband, she will have her medical degree to fall back on so she can provide for herself.
This is part of the easy divorce culture. If she marries some guy and it doesn’t work out (for example, she isn’t haaaaapy), it will be easier for her to divorce him if she has a degree to fall back on.
A lifetime commitment (for better or for worse) is considered too much of a “putting all your eggs in one basket” move today. Women, including married women, need options. That’s all her dad is doing by sending her to medical school–giving her options.
And so it begins … sorry Dal, it just kind of happens.
Always speak when you’re spoken to and all that, I was brought up that way …
… correct, Opus, White Van Dan works “in the motor trade”, and apart from juggling exwife, several children and the current “bidey-in” (as we style it), finds solace in the dubious bosom of being “a passionate fan of both the England football team and West Ham United”.
“so disaffected with politics he says he “can’t even remember when I last voted” because: “No matter who you have in, it doesn’t matter.” He had not even been aware that a by-election was happening in Rochester and Strood before reporters started knocking on his door.
His neighbour Sharon Taft, 54, said: “Dan is a gentleman, he is a gentle giant.
“Everyone thinks it’s ridiculous what has happened, he put [the flags] up for the World Cup and just kept them there. I think he just feels a bit embarrassed about it all, he’s quite a private person.”
Another neighbour said: “We all saw him this morning and asked for his autograph.
“He was a bit red-faced but took it in good spirits.
“He’s just a normal bloke, there was no reason for her to say what she did and post the picture.
“He is a cage fighter so I wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of him, but out of the cage, he isn’t like that at all, he’s so nice.” ”
‘Literally worse than Hitler’, in the appalled eyes of the liberal nomenklatura. You couldn’t make it up.
Hey Anonymous Reader and your statements about what feminism claims! You got it all wrong.
“Feminism says that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies.”
No, it doesn’t. It claims that just because a person is a woman and not a man, she should not automatically be considered unable to do the same things men do. Feminism claims that everyone should get a chance to prove themselves.
“Feminism says let’s make believe that if 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it’s due to discrimination.”
No, it doesn’t. It says that women should have the same opportunities to become pilots that men do.
“Feminism says fathers are disposable.”
No, it doesn’t. Not mainstream, third wave feminism, anyway. Feminism says families are important, and the more good role models children have, the better.
“Feminism says that women are always the victims of Domestic Violence and men the perpetrators.”
No, it doesn’t. It says that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, no matter if the victims are women or men. Feminism wants to teach men how to respect and value all other human beings, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc.
Feminism is about equality of opportunity, for all human beings.
“If she fails to land a doctor husband, she will have her medical degree to fall back on so she can provide for herself.”
You think she will actually graduate with a medical degree?
Martel,
For some men it IS more attractive. For some men, it doesn’t make much difference. I’ll confess, I was never going to marry a woman unless she had her bachelor’s degree AND she was relatively “debt free.” Call you any name you want in the book, but its true. But I wasn’t holding out for a PhD.
Well this is the old “An Officer and a Gentlemen” schtick where Lynette and Paula kept hanging out at the OCS school in Puget Sound and every 13 weeks, tried to nail themselves a would be Naval Aviator. I don’t know how realistic that Academy Award winning movie was. If was an Officer’s Candidate, I don’t think I’d be romancing too many of the papermill working, local girls, no thanks.
new anon,
And now we are full circle. Really the only question that matters here is should fathers work hard to give their daughters more lifelong options OR is creating fall back options for daughters who screw-up-in-marriage/don’t-get-chosen-as-wives, inherently unChristian? Forget what feminism says here, what does the Bible say about this? Maybe Dalrock should start a post about it?
Mavis,
What is the root of feminism? Why did it get started in the first place?
@ Mavis: “No, it doesn’t. It claims that just because a person is a woman and not a man, she should not automatically be considered unable to do the same things men do. Feminism claims that everyone should get a chance to prove themselves.”
While simultaneously ensuring that the men in whatever work environment the women choose to work in alter their behavior enough to ensure women feel comfortable. “Don’t wear the wrong shirt or that woman who’s equal to you won’t be able to cut it.”
“‘“Feminism says let’s make believe that if 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it’s due to discrimination.’ No, it doesn’t. It says that women should have the same opportunities to become pilots that men do.”
And that they’re pushed as much as possible to want those opportunities, even when they’re disinclined to want to take advantage of them. There aren’t as many woman computer programmers as men. Even though not as many women want to be computer programmers as men, this is still considered a problem.
““Feminism says fathers are disposable.’ No, it doesn’t. Not mainstream, third wave feminism, anyway. Feminism says families are important, and the more good role models children have, the better.”
In theory, you’re somewhat correct. In practice, not even close. When’s the last time you’ve seen feminists take any active interest in reforming family law to make it more equitable? When called on it, feminists agree. When not called on it, it rarely crosses their minds.
““Feminism says that women are always the victims of Domestic Violence and men the perpetrators.’ No, it doesn’t. It says that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, no matter if the victims are women or men. Feminism wants to teach men how to respect and value all other human beings, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc.”
Again, literally correct only. Feminism may well want to “teach men how to respect and value all other human beings,” it doesn’t bother them in the slightest if their leaders grind widely wearing t-shirts that say “I bathe in male tears.”
If she could somehow work in a Starbucks that’s frequented by medical students, her chances of hooking up with one wouldn’t be much less than if she attends class with them.
It might even be better, or better still one near where doctors work.
I tried finding the median age doctors marry. Didn’t come up with anything, but my guess is it’s older than the general population because medial school is so time intensive they don’t have time to focus on getting married.
I did run across this thread on a med student site that had some interesting stuff:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/average-age-of-marriage-for-physicians.768823/
As a girl I am def interested in this. As a guy you can go out to a bar in college and tell some girl you are applying to medical school and they are intrigued and you probably getter hotter in their heads instantly. I have honestly stopped telling guys I meet that im applying to medical school bc they say “ohhh” in an intimidated voice and usually walk away or end the covo.
I was never interested in guys who were “applying” to med school. The ones who were in med school, however…hubba hubba
The dad may be setting his daughter up to never marry. The pool of potential husbands will be shrunken due to her high status.
Conversely, the pool of women going after the same guys she wants is huge. Every woman from waitress to college professor would love to land a doctor as a husband.
Mavis,
Women teach children. Women should not be teaching men anything, especially not what men should or should not respect. Women do not get to do that.
I see two men holding hands and kissing, and I get disgusted. Same goes for two women. No woman will be teaching me anything about how I am supposed to respect that (respect sexuality) in anyway. I don’t. I never have. And I never will.
But more importantly, what is the root of feminism? In your opinion why did it all get started?
Four premises of feminism:
1. Men and women are the same.
2. Women are morally superior to men.
3. Women require assistance from men to be equal to them.
4. Men owe them such assistance because they’re simultaneously evil for oppressing them and uniquely capable of providing for them.
Thank you Martel. But I am more concerned what a feminist thinks the root of feminism is. Here is her great opportunity to “teach men” something, ha ha…. 🙂
@new anon
I was thinking that most men in medical school would come in already married or boo-ed up or they could have enormously large egos. I would discourage any woman for looking for spouses in a graduate program of any kind. Unless it is a program where people go straight out of undergrad so most people are about 22 or so, most people tend to be older in grad programs, like mid-twenties on up. They’ve usually worked for a while and are returning to school. So the chances that they’ve met someone is pretty high. My English master’s program had a lot of people fresh out of undergrad. So most of my classmates were 22-24 range. And most of them had gotten married the summer before starting their grad program. So even a bunch of young people won’t guarantee that there are enough young, single folks up for dating. Plus students dating other students isn’t always the best idea.
@ TFH: I’m aware that logical rebuttals will likely be lost on Maevis, but I enjoy giving folks like her the chance to actually attempt to refute me. It’s fun to see how they react (or don’t), and it’s a good intellectual exercise.
@ innocentbystander: You bring up a good point about respect. I don’t automatically respect ANYBODY, men included. Genuine respect has to be earned. I don’t give it away like gumballs to men, why should I for women?
That’s not to say I don’t treat people with respect. I’ll treat you with respect until you show me you don’t deserve it, but I won’t actually respect you until you earn it. This concept is hard for many women to digest.
And good luck getting your question answered.
@Tam
Worse than Adolf. That good, really. Anyone who supports both The Hammers (first football team I ever saw) and England – did you ever see Michael Caine in Escape to Victory who played for both – is the kind of guy I like; though of course Dan lives no where near East London and is on the wrong side of the Dartford crossing. I don’t think you have ever been to Strood, have you. Perhaps tomorrow I will wax lyrical about Cliffe and the Isle of Grain, or perhaps direct you to your copy of the complete works of Dickens for a more atmospheric account.
Interesting that a man oblivious to politics can bring down a pampered suffragette – haven’t seen anything this good since Chantelle – the lip gloss devotee from Romford – destroyed George Galloway.
Maybe she should’ve “hypnotized” bar’bee and those young girls .. “you are now a Doctor and an Airline Pilot .. you will not remember why you want to be a Doctor and Airline Pilot .. but you will want to be one .. errrr both”. Fantasy land has never been so bliss ;@)
Speaking of news of th wimminz and hypnotizing them ..
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/Ohio-lawyer-hypnotizes-female-clients-687543
I’m calling BS on the above story. I don’t think you can be told to do something you don’t want to do. His problem is he doesn’t look like Brad Pitt.
@IBB said: For some men it (woman having a phD) IS more attractive. For some men, it doesn’t make much difference.
This statement could mean anything, depending on what number the word “some” represents. This is how I would break it down:
5% – men who would find her more attractive as a wife
15% – men who wouldn’t care
80% – men who would find her less attractive as a wife
We can debate the distribution of the numbers, but I seriously doubt the last number (men who would find her less attractive) would ever go below 50%. In fact, I would floor that number at 66% (the number of men who have no college degree at all).
Conversely, she has narrowed the field when it comes to men. Women in general want to marry up, at the least they resist marrying DOWN.
66% of men do not have a degree of any kind.
6% have a masters.
2.5% of men have a phD or professional degree (such as law).
Her dad’s “go to medical school and marry a doctor” is a risky boom or bust strategy. If she doesn’t land a man in the 2.5%, it’s likely she (1) won’t land one at all, or (2) not be satisfied with the one she did land (a recipe for divorce).
Regarding education for a wife, Its been my belief that the level of education your wife has, that will be the absolute bottom for the level of education your sons receive.
Also useful in knowing that they can stick with something and finish it.
Mrs. IBB:
I think for many women, medical school winds up turning into a very exclusive and extremely expensive dating and match-making service.”
If true, then this new, upgraded MRS degree is a problem. The old MRS degree simply resulted in English lit majors, elementary ed majors, etc. but there was and is no cap on the number of majors in the College of Ed or liberal arts. Med schools are different from undergrad programs. Because the number of openings in med school is finite, so for every husband-hunting woman that is admitted, someone else who really does want to be a medical doctor is turned away. It is quite likely that even those MRS degree hunters who graduate will not practice, and so contribute to the ongoing imbalances in the medical fields.
If this is true, once again we see how catering to hypergamy at the micro level can lead to problems at the macro level. And once gain we see how individual White Knighting men are part of that process.
@TFH
There used to be a saying ‘Fuck the Nurses, Marry the Doctors’. I am sure the same must apply to Lawyers and their shorthand/typists. You are correct however to observe that just because medicine pays well now that does not mean that it will be well pay well in 2040. Choosing a career on the basis of its purported income is to my mind foolhardy – we do not know what the future holds and getting into a line of work to which one is entirely unsuited is sure to end in disaster.
Patriarchy hurts men, too.
True, but what we have now hurts men more than Patriarchy did. IMO Patriarchy is probably the best system we’ll ever get in this age. It is certainly better than any other system humans have used that I’ve ever read or even heard about.
Mavis
Feminism is about equality of opportunity, for all human beings
Mavis, the 1970’s called, you’re late for your Disco dance lesson.
Feminism is about equality of outcome for women. Because women are good
and men are bad. That’s what underlies the Duluth protocols, which undergird
VAWA, and so forth and so on.
Equality of outcome is what underlies Title IX, with the known effects on mens
collegiate sports as well as on high school sports, but also on other aspects of
collegs – such as the new Kangaroo Kourt standard for sexual misconduct.
Feminism is gynocentrism, the notion that women are human beings…and men
are not.
I’m sure you’d fit in well at teh Frisky. There’s too much reality around here for you.
TFH,
He openly told me that he is sending his daughter to Medical School NOT because she wants to be a doctor (I mean she would like that…), but MOSTLY because she wants to marry one.
Is he Indian? Or from some other Asian society?
No. Caucasian.
Medicine has always been a hot field and will always be a hot field, we are the 1%. I know of no unemployed medical doctors. All make at least 6 figures and a substantial percentage make 7 figures. Most of whom own their own practice and employ others.
If it is not hot in 2040 then nothing will be hot.
In a flattened, globalized economy, all professions are this way.
Matt Robinson
Regarding education for a wife, Its been my belief that the level of education your wife has, that will be the absolute bottom for the level of education your sons receive.
Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have to support this belief?
Also useful in knowing that they can stick with something and finish it.
Can you think of any other area of life besides school that would also demonstrate this?
@ JDG: “‘Patriarchy hurts men too.’ True, but what we have now hurts men more than Patriarchy did.”
I agree, and what’s most harmful of all is remnants of the patriarchy merging with the New Matriarchy. Those parts of the patriarchy that objectively helps women we’re supposed to keep, i.e. sticking up for a woman who’s being catcalled. Moreover, despite all the feminist articles I’ve read decrying how patriarchal hierarchies encourage men to be sexually prolific, feminists have no problem whatsoever dismissing their critics as loser who can’t get laid. The new system retains patriarchal responsibility for men while denying them patriarchal rights. It’s your fault if your family fails, but you have no authority over your family. Women insist on marrying men who make more money than they do but also want equal pay. The list goes on forever.
@ Anonymous Reader: “If true, then this new, upgraded MRS degree is a problem. The old MRS degree simply resulted in English lit majors, elementary ed majors, etc. but there was and is no cap on the number of majors in the College of Ed or liberal arts. Med schools are different from undergrad programs. Because the number of openings in med school is finite, so for every husband-hunting woman that is admitted, someone else who really does want to be a medical doctor is turned away.”
This is true for tons of high prestige professions. One example that springs to mind is a (objectively decent) female anchor for FOX News who quit a few years back so she could stay at home with her kids. The 10+ years of journalism experience she had working her way to the top of her profession goes down the toilet, but had she just had kids right away after college a man could have gotten those 10+ years under his belt instead, only he would have used that experience to build a lifelong career.
Think of all the school hours, the mentoring, the career development that went nowhere except to help a woman find herself.
This is a fantastic article.
(That’s it, that’s all I have to say. Can’t offer anything other than a compliment)
@imnobody00
After saying all men are equal, why not women? why not all races? why not poor? why not girls in math or in corporate boards? Every difference is a discrimination because everyone is equal. The idea was in the beginning and all that came afterwards is only the development of the idea to its logical conclusion (which, as always, it takes centuries).
Even though I think Martel correctly pointed out:
What they opposed was the notion that there’s some inherent aristocracy that has the right to rule over others, for such a notion implies that some of us are more worthy than others, that person A’s well-being can be sacrificed for the well-being of person B because person B is intrinsically more important, that person A has to follow the rules but person B doesn’t because his dad is a duke.
I get what you are saying. Still, I still want to comment on the following:
why not women? – Because a woman was typically understood to be an extension of a man, not an independent entity. Laws of the time reflected this as well as social understandings. IMO this was a good thing and we would be immensely better off if this were still the case today.
why not all races? – There are men in every race. Also, black people were not the only people enslaved (check out the Irish slave trade). Also, if they had made a stand against slavery at that time, the 13 colonies would not have been unified against Great Britain. Instead
why not poor? – The idea was to give each man the opportunity to lift himself out of poverty, not to guarantee his success.
girls in math or in corporate boards? – Because when you give women free reign in men’s spaces you get what we have today.
I think the US constitution was a good idea that should not have progressed any further than abolishing slavery (for all men).
@IBB
Only TFH has the power of accurate prediction. Medicine may continue to do well especially in America, but the bottom has (financially) fallen out of many a sure market. It is also the case that the grass is always greener in someone else’s field. Industry’s that imploded and some that went roller-coaster are too numerous to elucidate.
Opus,
Well in that sense, then there will never be any “hot” profession, never any sure markets. Because the moment it is acknowledged as being “hot” everyone will want to get into it just for the money. Then the money will in turn go down and it will no longer be “hot.”
But in reality, what you say is not true.
Pure merit based professions (where only the fittest could compete and survive) will always be “hot.” One such profession is sports. Perhaps none of us will earn in our lifetimes what one Tom Brady will earn in last year in the National Football League, and with good reason. We could never do his job no matter how many of us try out for the role as QB of the New England Patriots. Merit. And because of hypergamy he “merits” a Hollywood actress to breed his first child (a bastard) and multi-million-dollar Victoria Secret panty model wife to breed the rest. Neither of these two women could do better than Tom Brady and he knows it. But both women had to find a way to socialize themselves in such a manner as to get a man like Tom Brady to pursue them. That costs time and money.
My collegue sends his daughter to medical school. There is a huge social opportunity cost that he is paying to ensure that she has surrounded herself with the top 1% of possible earners/breeders from which she could choose to be her husband. That is a big gamble but one that typically pays off pretty well because the WORST possible thing that could happen (if she actually finishes medical school) is that she finishes unmarried/un-engaged. That is not so bad, she can start the whole husband hunting process all over again in her residency program.
The real question here is simple, what percentage of male would-be medical doctors would refuse to settle to marry anyone unless she too is a medical doctor? I mean we can only speculate that percentage but if it is high enough, then her MMV goes exponetially high based on the financial support of her family putting her through medical school (an elite category of women.)
One thing that’s happening with even undergrad is that the MRS degree will fast become obsolete. A male college graduate would probably prefer not taking on an additional $80,000 in debt, thus rendering a career girl’s less-educated sisters a leg up on the marriage market.
And some of guys who’ll be best off financially will be those who eschew college in favor of entering the skilled trades. A dude who’s played his cards right to become a welder probably won’t be interested in anyone with an MRS so he can take on student loans he avoided taking on for himself. (not that she’d be interested anyway).
I’m not sure how all this will affect the MMP, but I’m sure it will somehow.
Excuse me? Are all men equal? Is this self-evident? What a pile of BS!
They didn’t mean everyone had equal abilities. They meant everyone has equal worth in the eyes of the law. Remember, these are guys who wrote in a time where only aristocrats had the protections we all take for granted. Common people were dealt with expediently.
[Feminism] claims that just because a person is a woman and not a man, she should not automatically be considered unable to do the same things men do. Feminism claims that everyone should get a chance to prove themselves
And that when they fail it’s because men have conspired to make them fail, and that “things men do” should be altered until they’re easy enough that women can do them.
One thing that’s happening with even undergrad is that the MRS degree will fast become obsolete.
It’s already obsolete. If you’re not planning to get married until your late 20s or early 30s there’s no reason to date with the intention to marry when you’re in college. IMO this drives the hook-up culture as much as anything.
And it’s a train wreck, too, because sexually experienced women with large debt loads and unmarketable degrees are not going to find it easy to land a husband after their looks fade.
Cost of a College Degree Has Crossed the $240,000 Threshold
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/198537/
The new system retains patriarchal responsibility for men while denying them patriarchal rights.
Yep! From a pedestal to a tyrant’s throne. the new system even add’s new responsibilities for men that a patriarchy would be too sensible to allow.
Eric,
Exactly. But that just forces them to become feminst (or more feminist if they were already) for no other reason that government provisioning. Someone has to make them “whole” if no man will “man up.”
IMHO, we’re entering a phase where becoming a doctor will not be as lucrative as it was in the past.
1) The cost to benefit ratio of becoming a doctor is high.
It takes 14 years of training to become a doctor: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/03/physician_shortage_should_we_shorten_medical_education.html .
It only takes 4 years to get a computer science degree (and the 6 figure income that goes along with it).
2) The continued socialization of medicine in America (and focus on restraining costs) will force down doctor’s incomes in the future. Already, some US doctors are refusing to take on patients that got their insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, because the plans don’t pay the doctors enough. How long will they have that choice? Either they will be forced to take those patients, or everyone will be insured by and exchange/government plan (which, imho, is the long term goal of Obamacare).
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/a-doctors-perspective-on-obamacare/
3) More women are entering medicine
Look at the what the influx of female vets (the majority of vets are women now) hase done to vet income. Because women prioritize things like flexible working hours and the ability to work part time over money, the pay for vets has gone down as more women have entered the field–down to an average of only $93,000 a year.
As more women enter medicine, the income for doctors will go down. Not because people want to pay women less, but because women prioritize other things ahead of money.
A few decades ago, a law degree was the golden ticket–not any more. I predict medicine is headed in the same direction.
Loved the Barbie-playtime mention; it’s basically a feminist version of Saki’s “The Toys of Peace” in which well-meaning relatives try to get two little boys to stop playing with soldiers and other “violent” toys. Unfortunately, this author doesn’t seem to have written her piece as satire.
I think for some women (feminists) it really DOES all go back to what Freud claimed: Penis Envy. These women are upset that they cannot compete with men, or have/do what men do, so they create and/or want artificial worlds in which they are on an equal footing. Many of them choose this because they are unattractive and cannot compete with beautiful women. Even if they fail at making it in the “man’s world” they feel (falsely) vindicated that they CAN, every time they look in the mirror and see an unattractive woman.
Mavis says:
November 21, 2014 at 12:48 pm
LOL!!!
I haven’t read the replies to this yet, but you could not be more wrong.
jbro1922 says:
November 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm
You think she will actually graduate with a medical degree?
Even if she does she is much more likely than a man to leave the field at a fairly young age, thus squandering the valuable resources that went into her training. She is also more likely to work fewer hours before she departs from the field.
Martel
One thing that’s happening with even undergrad is that the MRS degree will fast become obsolete. A male college graduate would probably prefer not taking on an additional $80,000 in debt, thus rendering a career girl’s less-educated sisters a leg up on the marriage market.
Agreed, and so fathers who truly want their daughters to marry should either encourage the young women to find employment in certain fields, or seek college on merit scholarships. Higher Ed state schools are quite willing to shell out full free rides (tuition, books and even lodging in some cases) to National Merit scholars as well as lesser accoladed students. GPA plus good test scores is worth something. A young woman who is marriageable and has no student debt is carrying a pretty good “dowry” in the modern world.
However many degrees are worthless even in the Duke Power world. So the MRS degree must be tightly focused on something useful, and debt free, to be worth while.
This is, of course, a set of suggestions to middle class and working class fathers. The UMC fathers can clearly afford to buy their princess a pretty good MRS degree. Although if they push princess too far up the academic ladder (say, to MD status) hypergamy will make it almost impossible for them to marry. Something women just don’t get.
Dal — I was surprised to read about A.E. “being flown” instead of “flying solo”, and could not believe my recollection was that far off. She did eventually make a solo flight in 4 years later in 1932, but I had been unaware of her being-flown previously.
@Mavis:Feminism is about equality of opportunity, for all human beings.
Hahahaha… You funny… Every man knows what Feminism is about and it has nothing to do with “opportunity” for “human beings”, it’s about trying to get laws passed which give to women items they neither worked for, nor deserve at the expense of men.
THAT is what Feminism is all about. The only good thing about Feminism is it also teaches young girls that they should slut around till they are on the down-hill slide. And that is the carrot to the men who are expected to fork over their money in the form of confiscatory taxes to women. Of course, as long as the men just enjoy women during their prime, 18-25 years, and refuse to work themselves to death to hand things to women, or buy into the marriage thing, he can come out ahead.
That is what Feminism is all about…
enrique,
Remember, feminism is the result of unattractive women gaining access to the mainstream of society. And women compete with other women (either in looks or in career.) Feminism can’t end that.
With the Patriarchy, it used to be that men felt some “shame” if they couldn’t find a wife. Much of that “shame” is gone. There simply is no “shame” in our feminist world for women OR men if they aren’t married. This has been very freeing for MGTOW. White knighting religious authorities ahve failed miserably at getting men to “man up” as men feel no shame for refusing to do so. Society will not stigmatize them.
On the other end, women in the Patriarchy had social standing when they got married. A married woman in the feminist world STILL has social standing, feminism couldn’t succeed in reducing married women back to single women no matter how much they try. That is because feminism goes against a woman’s basic nature. That said in the feminist world divorced women ALSO have social standing because they typically have access to financial resources that never-married-women would never have. That is new as divorce rarely occured in the Patriarchy. So where does this lead women? Marriage, because it is so rare, rewarding, and life altering financially for women, is an even bigger deal for them in the child-support/feminist society.
Feminist women have tried (in vain) to do all that they could to reduce the meaning of marriage. But the reverse has actually happened. In feminism capturing the minds of women so that they are led to value their careers over marriage and motherhood, they have in-turn made marriage more scarce for women as the ugly will always be ugly (and unmarried, since there is no shame for an ugly man to remain single) while the beautiful wait until they lose their beauty (and their window) on marriage.
The new system retains patriarchal responsibility for men while denying them patriarchal rights.
More accurately, feminism keeps and adds to men’s responsibility, while taking away all authority.
Holding men accountable for people and events that they have no control over is one factor behind MGTOW. It’s also arguably crazy-making.
Pingback: It gets better. | Dalrock
I am very pleased to report that at no time in my tertiary education (two degrees) did I pay so much as a single penny – don’t you just love socialism.
Does TFH think that Entrepreneurship – much like creativity – can be taught?
Is TFH entrepreneurial?
Re female M.D.s:
1) Lots of them leave the profession or go part-time forever after squeezing in a just-pre-Wall kid. This makes nearly a complete waste of the ~million-dollar training they received at taxpayer expense (their debt is only like a quarter million or so, a HUGE negative dowry for any man looking at them for marriage soon enough to have any kind of real family). Oh, and the medical school place they took up? It instead COULD have gone to a man who would have been FT for a career — and supported a family with the earnings. That’s a much better use than one more “PLEASE don’t let my one shot at a family have Down’s” or hypergamous-to-spinsterdom bitter careerist broad cluttering up yet another profession traditionally a man’s province.
————————————————————————————————–
2) Related bit I figured up a while back: A woman who wishes to be a neurosurgeon – or a mother: Age 22-23, just got a Science B.S. degree. Add a possible year for getting into medical school; that’s age 22-25 on entrance. 4 years to pass medical school, but many aspiring doctors have to repeat a year; age 26-30 on graduation. Add 7 years for neurosurgery residency, but note that many residents have to repeat a year; that’s age 33-38 when they truly begin their field. Now, they have a quarter million dollars of student debt, while they’ve been poster children for deferral of gratification.
Yeah, they’re going to work in their field a while before they try to have a family, despite the awkward fact that 90-95% of their fertility (and half or more of her looks, nontrivial if she doesn’t have a husband yet) is irretrievably behind them, having silently slipped away during all those years of study. This is a classic example of why I note that the typical (if usually completely unintended) result of schooling beyond the bachelor’s level for women is “Master’s = not much of a family, and Doctorate = no family”.
Much better planning would be to have the children in her twenties, and then go back to school in her forties, if she truly wishes to do so. As at that point she may decide she prefers instead to spend time with her husband and/or grandchildren, that may well not happen, to be sure.
Mavis says:
November 21, 2014 at 12:48 pm
“Feminism says that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies.”
No, it doesn’t. It claims that just because a person is a woman and not a man, she should not automatically be considered unable to do the same things men do. Feminism claims that everyone should get a chance to prove themselves.
This is false. The truth is that feminism has resulted in PTs and tests scores being lowered for females so that more women could qualify for positions they previously could not (when given the chance to prove themselves).
“Feminism says let’s make believe that if 50% of airline pilots aren’t women, it’s due to discrimination.”
No, it doesn’t. It says that women should have the same opportunities to become pilots that men do.
Another lie. Women aren’t given the same opportunities as men. They are given extra opportunities over men via affirmative action and the lowering of standards.
The fact is that men have faster reflexes, faster cognitive reaction time, more accurate temporal processing, and more accurate pitch and loudness discrimination than women. the result is that male pilots out perform female pilots quite significantly. The best qualified man should get the job. Rarely is that ‘man’ a woman. Yet feminism causes better qualified men to be passed over to accommodate less qualified women.
“Feminism says fathers are disposable.”
No, it doesn’t. Not mainstream, third wave feminism, anyway. Feminism says families are important, and the more good role models children have, the better.
Another false reply.
Mainstream feminism does indeed treat fathers as disposable and has the help of a feminist / misandric state to do so.
1st – Mainstream feminism perpetuates the family destroying policies that promote the single mother and enable married women to ruin their children’s lives by taking them from their father. Fathers are STILL 90% likely to loose their kids when a wife leaves (regardless of fault), and over 40% of children are born out of wedlock. Children that grow up with out fathers are at a horrendous disadvantage growing up. Feminism did this. Mainstream feminism perpetuates this. Feminists do not care about children that get in the way of their own “happiness”.
2nd – Women have full reproductive rights (to the point of murdering their unborn children). Men do not. A woman can have a baby and walk away with out any further legal action brought against her. Once a man is deemed a child’s father, he is held responsible financially, socially, and legally until the child is 18. Why doesn’t mainstream feminism do this to women?
3rd – Mainstream feminism is responsible for misandric laws (DV, VAWA) and policies (no, means no, yes, means yes, female oriented learning in schools) that discriminate against fathers, men, and boys as well as continued public discrimination that males cannot be trusted. Boys are even considered potential rapists by some of your mainstream feminist sisters.
4th – Mainstream feminism maintains that a man’s legitimacy must come from a woman. A woman’s version of a story will be assumed to be the correct one unless overwhelming evidence is present. A man that has a problem with a misandric policy is considered a whiner and a wimp. A woman points the same misandric policy and she is daring and heroic for doing so.
Mainstream feminism continues to hate men and the traditional family just as all other stages of feminism did. The hate is manifested differently at times, but it always has, and still does, seek the end of the family as well as the subjugation of men.
So yes, mainstream feminism says that fathers are disposable. If you have evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it. And as I have said before: for every woman we liberate, we subjugate a man.
“Feminism says that women are always the victims of Domestic Violence and men the perpetrators.”
No, it doesn’t. It says that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, no matter if the victims are women or men. Feminism wants to teach men how to respect and value all other human beings, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc.
How sad that you don’t even see in your own reply how feminism discriminates against men (even using your own twisted standards). You say feminism wants to teach men how to respect and value other human beings. How arrogant. As if the feminist view would even know where to begin with that, much less even have the right to. Before one can teach men right from wrong, one must know right from wrong.
And who will teach the women, who actually initiate domestic violence at a slightly higher rate than men, who abuse children at a higher rate of men*, who divorce rape their husbands and render their children effectively fatherless at a much higher rate than men, and who use their children for leverage for CS (something few men even attempt). Who will teach these women to respect and value other human beings? Can mainstream feminism remove the log out of it’s own metaphorical eye for a change? Nope! Feminists would have to know right from wrong for that to happen.
Feminism is about equality of opportunity, for all human beings.
What a joke. Please see above.
*I acknowledge that more women care for children than men. I also acknowledge that the majority of males who abuse children are not their own fathers.
The OP’s point is well taken. But I don’t like the implicit elements of TradConism and SoConism. TradCons and SoCons want us to be awed by motherhood (as opposed to fatherhood) as only this thing women can do; and, therefore, either only this thing women should do (the traditional view) or at least this thing which women can do if they want and shouldn’t be “forced” to do anything else although they should have the choice (the “conservative” feminist view). But, any moron can get pregnant, breastfeed, and change diapers. Also, any moron can impregnate a woman and change diapers.
But by any objective measure, becoming a pediatric oncologist who finds a cure for lymphoma (which will save countless lives) is a much greater accomplishment then “bearing” and “nurturing” children, and certainly much greater than wearing makeup and wearing pretty clothes. Yes, I know, this is what feminists say. In this, they are correct. If far less women than men do this (become a pediatric oncologist), it is not because they are “intrinsically” less suited, even if they are less apt on average (e.g. overlapping bell curves), but because it is far easier to wear pretty clothes and find a man to leech off of, than to become a successful medical researcher, which is very, very hard work; and human nature often finds the path of least resistance.
Do I think proper parenting isn’t important? Of course not, but it involves a lot more than pushing a child through one’s crotch, and after birth it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. If anything, maybe women are less suited to that than men, going by statistics.
JDG says:
November 21, 2014 at 7:19 pm
2nd point under “Another false reply” should read:
Women have full reproductive rights (to the point of murdering their unborn children). Men do not. A woman can have a baby and walk away with out any further legal action brought against her. Once a man is deemed a child’s father, he is held financially responsible, socially and legally, until the child is 18. Why doesn’t mainstream feminism do this to women?
Hey, how ’bout this, left/liberal progressive Feminazis… Air Force Barbie– she’s a Lieutenant Colonel on the Thunderbirds team, too. (Don’t know whether to cheer or scream about imperialism, eh?)
@IBB
“”Tell me, which one of Eve’s daughters did Seth have incestuous sex with to give birth to Noah? Is that in the Bible or Torah? I’m quite certain God went and made quite a few more humans than just Adam and Eve.””
Here is a few links for you to check out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/index.htm
http://earth-history.com/pseudepigrapha/book-the-forgotten-books-of-eden
There are 10 generations between Adam and Noah.Cain & Abel were born with twin sisters.I know that the Book of Genesis does not say that.After the death of Abel, Cain moved down the mountain with his twin sister(she was supposed to be joined to Abel).Abel’s twin sister was joined to Seth.In the Forgotten Books of Eden read Adam & Eve 1 & 2.After you read those read the Book of Enoch,which is my favorite.It will enlighten you the days of those 10 generations.Shalom.
TFH,
Oh, nonsense. (About your women pilots stuff.)
The reason modern commercial aviation is so safe is that it’s so easy to fly a modern airplane, an average or slightly above-average person can do it. Until you get into a crash scenario, e.g. US Air 1549, you don’t need a “Sully” Sullenberger at the controls, and when you do, you don’t usually get him even if the pilot is male. But because routine flight is so safe, it almost never matters.
Now combat flight, like any branch of combat, is completely different matter. There, if you have N slots you always want to take the top N performers, not just the first, or random, N who meet an arbitrary qualification cutoff.
@Eric
”They meant everyone has equal worth in the eyes of the law.”
And they went further and got rid of hierarchy all-together(and reestablishing a new one in its place). Hence Wives are no longer obligated to obey their husbands, subjects no longer have to obey their rulers.
And Aristocracy was destroyed in all of its gory glory in the French revolution and the like.
Isn’t equality in the eyes of the law just another name for impartiality or the rule of law? Derived from the principle of God’s justice where he is no respecter of persons for all are subject to the rule of law?
Perhaps the best response to Mavis is to quote F.Roger Devlin. In his Home Economics he writes:
“… most critical discussions of Feminism concentrate on refuting its doctrines… Whilst such formal refutation of doctrines is not valueless it seems to me to mistake the fundamental nature of Feminism. The Feminist movement consists essentially not of ideas but of attitudes [and] emotions. Feminist theory as it is grandiloquently called, is simply whatever the women in the movement come up with in post facto justification of their attitudes and emotions. A heavy focus on feminist doctrine seems to me symptomatic of the rationalist fallacy: the assumption that people are motivated primarily by beliefs. If they were, the best way to combat an armed doctrine would indeed be to demonstrate the beliefs are false, but in the case of Feminism even more than Marxism and other political ideologies, it is rather the beliefs that are motivated by various personal and non-rational needs. I propose therefore that Feminism may be better understood through a consideration of the Feminist herself.
A Feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.”
He might have added (as I will) the words of Prime Minister Baldwin albeit writing of Media Barons that they seeks ‘power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages ‘.
… ‘power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages ‘.
And now the prerogative of the harlot is required in academia, touted by the MSM, and enforced by the state.
Dear Mavis,
If feminism is about all of those things you state, why isn’t it called “equalism” or “humanism”?
Mackenzie is an awfully common name among young girls. Don’t know where that comes from, but I wonder if any of these people realize that Mackenzie means “son of Kenzie”
A Gael would refer to any daughter of Coinneach as nicCoinneach or sometimes nicCoinnich.
Mac is from old gaelic maqi , appears on ogham stones as meqq- or maqq(o), “son of”, and ni(c) is a contraction of nighean, daughter (there’s a lot of grammatical diddling about with terminations, aspiration, elisions etc. that escapes me, having no Gaelic).
As Heidi says, it’s like The Toys Of Peace, written over one hundred years ago.
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/ToysPeac.shtml
The Modern Parents give the children Politically Correct toys
“Here is another civilian, Robert Raikes, the founder of Sunday schools, and here is a model of a municipal wash-house. These little round things are loaves backed in a sanitary bakehouse. That lead figure is a sanitary inspector, this one is a district councillor, and this one is an official of the Local Government Board.”
But children will be children
Peeping in through the doorway Harvey observed that the municipal dustbin had been pierced with holes to accommodate the muzzles of imaginary cannon, and now represented the principal fortified position in Manchester; John Stuart Mill had been dipped in red ink, and apparently stood for Marshal Saxe.
“Louis orders his troops to surround the Young Women’s Christian Association and seize the lot of them. ‘Once back at the Louvre and the girls are mine,’ he exclaims. We must use Mrs. Hemans again for one of the girls; she says ‘Never,’ and stabs Marshal Saxe to the heart.”
“He bleeds dreadfully,” exclaimed Bertie, splashing red ink liberally over the facade of the Association building.
“The soldiers rush in and avenge his death with the utmost savagery. A hundred girls are killed” — here Bertie emptied the remainder of the red ink over the devoted building –“and the surviving five hundred are dragged off to the French ships. ‘I have lost a Marshal,’ says Louis, ‘but I do not go back empty-handed.'”
Mark, there’s no need to pollute the Bible with human-created manuscripts. The Mosaic Law prohibitions on incest came long after Adam & Eve, that’s all.
@Gunner Q
“”Mark, there’s no need to pollute the Bible with human-created manuscripts””
Who is polluting the Bible? Those “divinely inspired” manuscripts fill in a lot of unanswered questions that are in the Bible.For example,as I stated in my previous post.Cain and Abel were born with twin sisters.There had to be women for them to mate with.How did you think that they populated the earth? mating with sheep? The Book of Genesis does not tell you this.Enoch was one of the greatest men of the Old Testament.He did not die.He “walked” into heaven.The Bible also speaks of “Arch Angels”.But,just Michael and Gabriel.There are 7 Arch Angels.Uriel,Raphael,Raguel,Michael,Saraqael, Gabriel & Remie.Also,if you dared read those ancient “JEWISH” texts you would see that Christ was prophesied in them….several times! These are just a few examples.Again I emphasize “Ancient Jewish Texts”……not “gentile texts”….Shalom!
About women and medical school….
As I have said before women make great doctors. Their brains seem very well wired for medicine as opposed to say, engineering. Woman make up more than half of most medical schools in America. This will probably continue until about 60-70%. The requirements of being a doctor are good communication, ability to memorize, compassion, and ENDURANCE with a heavy emphasis on endurance. Women seem to really do well and match into all the specialties they want to match in (and those they don’t like very much are desperate to make women match into them unlike ob/gyn with only 5% match of men and no one cares (and they shouldn’t)).
Male doctors now generally marry female doctors or other professionals. Not nurses. Two doctor families ought to be sterilized because it is pretty much child abuse. Nannys a child’s birth to college. But it’s really common. Going to med school to marry a doctor seems like the hardest worst possible idea but chances are good during the training at some point she will succeed in marrying another doctor. This is the reality of he great sorting and 2 professional families making up the 1%.
The link to student doctor is hilarious as the female doctor talks about intimidation. It’s just so hard for women to accept very few men think degrees or worldly accomplishments increase female SMV.
@ Mark,
Are you Christian? If you are then you know the canon is closed and must not be added to. If you aren’t then I suppose it doesn’t matter what manuscripts you trust.
Kevin,
Women may make great doctors (in *some* specialties) but still they tend to work fewer hours than their male counterparts (and particularly tend to take time off for babies–rightly so! ) which further adds to our practitioner shortage due to limited med-school slots.
Kevin writes like someone who is on the “inside,” but as someone else who is on the inside, I’d have to say women don’t make great doctors. Of the traits he listed, memorization is by far the most important one for getting through medical school, and that’s why there are more women in med school (though not “more than half” as he claims; I don’t know where he’s getting that from, it’s still about 47%) than in typical STEM fields. Because it’s all memorization. We residents sometimes reminisce about our pre-med days, and I always say my favorite science class was physics, because it was so logical and rational, and all you had to do was solve equations, compared with biology which was all memorization. At this, the women groan and roll their eyes, and state their preference for biology and joke about how hard physics was for them.
Unfortunately, Kevin is right that sending that daughter to medical school probably does give her a good shot at marrying a doctor. I can’t count how many pairings-off occurred in my medical school class. Most med students (of both sexes) are hardcore biology nerds, and thus these men have limited interest in the world outside of medicine. What they really love is studying anatomy and physiology; thus, what type of woman do they have the most in common with, the most rapport with? One who also loves studying anatomy and physiology! Medicine really is a tight-knit little community, and with all those long hours spent working as a doctor, you inevitably feel much more of a connection with a female fellow doctor than you do with a nurse or radiation tech or whatever. But yeah, what others have described of these pairings is true: they get married 4th year of med school or in residency, pop out 1-2 kids just before her fertility goes over the cliff, then the kids are either raised by nannies or by their part-time doctor mom whose spot in medical school would have been better spent on a guy.
“What is so unintentionally comical about Wakeman’s piece is that there were two games of make-believe going on.”
Hamsterception!
Dalrock refers again to Amelia Earhardt. Not to be outdone the Germans had their answer in the person of Hanna Reitsch: this is her story.
Hanna was born in 1912, and was good at flying gliders. Now, I may be mistaken, but I can only suppose that flying a plane without an engine is somewhat easier than flying a plane with one. In a moment of true empowerment and female equality the Germans allowed Hanna to fly the rocket propelled (Yikes!) Messerschmidt ME 163 – which she duly crashed. Notwithstanding writing off the hardware she was awarded the Iron Cross First Class. One can only wonder what she might have been awarded had she landed the plane in one piece. Undeterred and after spending six months in hospital she is than let loose on the first jet fighter, a Messerschmidt ME 328 (or so she says).
Next she came up with a brilliant idea to win WW2 which she pitched at the Fuhrer. Her idea – Operation Suicide – was that men should volunteer to be killed . Hitler tends to get a bad press but his rejection of this piece of gross Misandry must stand on the credit side of his balance sheet.
Wiki sings her praises but to what extent she is reliable is hard to say as some of what she claims is demonstrably untrue even where it otherwise seems implausible – my BS-ometer was going into the red. Nevertheless, all hail to the V (bomb): You-go-Nazi-girl.
Woman make up more than half of most medical schools in America
When the Federal government requires that 50% of admissions to med school must be female in order to retain any Federal funding, it should not be a surprise that 50% or more of medical students are female. Another bit of the legacy of Bill Clinton.
And this is why up the comment thread I pointed out just how bad it is for UMC daddies to send their snowflake princess daughters to med school in search of their MRS degrees, because each admission of that sort screens out another person, likely a man, who wants to actuallly be a medical doctor.
Male doctors now generally marry female doctors or other professionals. Not nurses
Another way to put this: female doctors marry male doctors. Thanks to Clinton’s quotas, more women are in med school who probably would have made excellent nurses, so the “pool” of eligible women is mixed with men. But make no mistake, it is very rare for a woman in med school to marry “down” to, say, some history professor and have it last. It’s going to be lawyer or doctor or nothing, because of hypergamy.
Pushing people beyond their level of competence in order to fulfill some nose-counting is injust in many, many ways and it contributes to the decline we see all around us.
Mavis says:
November 21, 2014 at 12:48 pm
“Hey Anonymous Reader and your statements about what feminism claims! You got it all wrong.”
“Feminism says fathers are disposable.”
No, it doesn’t. Not mainstream, third wave feminism, anyway. Feminism says families are important, and the more good role models children have, the better.
Really? Then please explain why nearly all feminists oppose default shared custody in the event of divorce. (Don’t forget that “mainstream” means “most of”.)
Oops, you’re wrong.
“Feminism says that women are always the victims of Domestic Violence and men the perpetrators.”
No, it doesn’t. It says that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are men, no matter if the victims are women or men.
Actually, women in romantic relationships abuse men at higher rates than men abuse women. Such domestic abuser women also make much greater use of weapons, surprise, third parties (hired killers/male relatives/police via false reports/shouted lies to white-knight male bystanders/lies to bouncers/etc.), attacking sleeping victims, attacking the helpless (disabled/sick/old/young). Plus, women that are domestic abuse victims who get injured commonly began the incident by attacking their partner (most domestic abuse victim women choose to be in long-term chronically mutually-abusive relationships).
Oops, you were wrong again.
You really should learn something about domestic abuse before speaking or writing about it. I suggest anything by Erin Pizzey (women who started the U.S.’s first women’s shelters, run out of the business by feminists because she spoke the truth about what she saw with women, relationships, and abuse) and Daniel Amneus (his free online book “The Garbage Generation” contains links to innumerable studies that spell out exactly what I wrote in the paragraph above).
Feminism is about equality of opportunity, for all human beings.
Except for when it supports hiring/promoting blatantly less-qualified women over men, firing men from jobs for baseless accusations by a woman, Title IX, no draft for women, etc. etc. Hey, that’s all the time.
Oops, you were wrong again.
Are all feminists as poorly-informed and/or mendacious as you are? Seems that way to me.
Pingback: Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?