Thursday, January 31, 2008

[feminism] the reason the young man is what he is

[Chuckle] Vox sure knows how to put the boot in:
There was no shortage of women who didn't like it when men were responsible for everything. They wanted to vote, they wanted to work, they are demanding a turn to take the reins.

Fine, says the modern young man, who has been subjected to 16 years of feminist propaganda that women are just as good - better, in fact - than men at pretty much everything.

Not being given to whining and being largely practical, the young man is happy to leave the responsibility to the women who are demanding it.

Who in their right mind would trade models, games and football for marriage to some controlling bitch who's as likely to leave you as not?
Why do I like that guy so much?

Late note for Welshcakes, who said not a lot but was not happy:

I've just got off the phone from the girl I love and every syllable she uttered went straight through me. She's everything I adore in women - soft to the touch, passionate, exotic, difficult, impossible, superior to me in intellect, a polyglot, impossible not to make endless love to, appreciative of men.

Plus she was tongue tied and at a loss what to say. That's nice.

I ... we ... can adore women and everything about you, from the way you move, the things you do with your lips, the sheer excitement in your presence, the way our troubles just melt away when you're in our arms.

We can adore you and do, including you, Welshcakes.

That's why we hate feminism with a passion - because the strident variety which has consumed one half of humanity is so divisive, so mindless, so designed to separate and breed hatred, so designed to turn men from the women we'd love to love.

To hate feminism does not mean we want to chain you to the kitchen or to dominate you and if you think that, it's so, so sad. Most men - the non-vocal types - want to meet you in a spirit of love, not in a spirit of prune-lipped oversensitivity as to whether we're going to infringe your personal rights as a woman or whether we acknowledge your supremacy.

In my head you are superior and I go back tomorrow to 150 of you in one room with me for four hours - yes, I think you're superior but do I need it shoved down my throat 24/7?

It's one of the key reasons I left to come over here because the "just past young" give ... and I give in return.


Welshcakes Limoncello said...

I am once again uplifted by the high esteem in which you and your chums hold women, James.

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Welshcakes, I'm going to add to my post in response because I knew this would be misinterpreted.

My novels show what I truly think of women - I adore you but that doesn't mean I can't hate feminism - many wonderful women do hate it with all their heart because it divides men and women into enemy camps.

I just hope that one day, western women can throw off that madness and become women again.


'...want to meet you in a spirit of love, not in a spirit of prune-lipped oversensitivity ..'
Well said, James.

Selena Dreamy said...

One should not equate female intelligence with feminism. Women adopting men's behaviour by aping the most extreme types of masculinity are merely struggling to console themselves with secondary substitutes!

Smart blondes play dumb...


oestrebunny said...

it divides men and women into enemy camps.

I was struggling for something to say but you've pretty much said it yourself. I can see the good that has come of feminism but it just seems so angry, so hostile. So preachy, so shouty. I find it quite intimidating to talk to feminists, they always make me feel as if I'm letting the 'side' down.

jmb said...

How sad that we so misunderstand each other.

Gracchi said...

James I'm not going to respond with much, save to say that I'm astonished by how wrong you are. As a young man at the moment I'm thrilled that my generation is one in which women go to university and have careers- I have female friends by the arm load and when I have been in relationships have appreciated them all the more for the fact that my girlfriends have been my equals- educationally, careerwise and mentally.

I wouldn't want it any other way- and the nirvana you offer me of some silent Bimbo with an iron who has never been to university, who is perfectly feminine and who doesn't have a job but looks after the kids all day is one that I think is deeply unjust to the women out there who want more and is deeply unattractive to men like me who want partners not slaves.

Oh and by the way feminism doesn't set men against women, inequality does.

Ruthie said...

Feminism is one of those words that mean different things to different people.

I say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of people who describe themselves as feminists consider it to mean "equality."

Like any other number of movements, and causes, the noisiest and most extreme among its members get heard the most and become somehow representative of the whole group.

"Feminism" doesn't have to mean "man-hating" or "female superiority," although that's what many men hear when they hear the word.

I consider myself a feminist in the loosest sense of the word-- but emphatically, I do not think women are superior to men, I do not expect a man to be submissive to me, and I do not consider myself a bitch who is likely to leave someone without a good reason... I am immensely appreciative of men but also immensely dedicated to being self-sufficient and not reliant on a man to take care of me.

If you mean a different thing than I do when you say "feminist" then there's a basic disagreement in terms...

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Tiberius - your strawman is extraordinary.

Of all people, if you'd read any of my stuff, you'd know the "silent bimbo" is the last woman on earth I'd ever wish to see.

My novels and all my posts raise an intelligent, witty, exotic, sensual woman as the ideal and it is she who runs the agenda in conjunction with him.

In my own relations I'm more feminist than any of the strident ones in the sense that I accept women's equal and complementary strength, not domination by one gender or the other.

My working life has also been spent getting girls to take their place and not to allow themselves to be dominated - I'm even doing that now at university.

That's why your statement is SO wrong and based on assumption without reading.

But the feminists I'm speaking of - the ones who label themselves so today - they are the cause of the trouble. This hypersensitized "equality" just near the surface 24/7 in a "don't you oppress me" mode is galling.

This is what the second half of my post was about. About getting away from this cr-p and when two people approach one another, it's in a spirit of giving rather than "now what are my rights here".

Feminists have a lot to answer for in the division between the sexes these days and it's sad that the new generation are weaned on the milk of distrust and dislike of their forebears - the feminist authors.

"Oh and by the way feminism doesn't set men against women, inequality does."

With the greatest respect - this is not right. Equality doesn't arise from enforcement and will never survive on PC police surveying the males for any signs of recalcitrance on their enforced reconstruction.

Enforced equality is the ultimate divider and it's ultimately rubbish too because it's a feminist construct which takes no account of gender differences.

Mutual relations - trust and respect - between man and woman where one's strengths complement the otehr's strengths is where it's at and is the only soild basis for society.

Men and women who choose to live outside of those relations therefore play no part in the basic fabric of society and have their place but at a distance.

The majority in society are still hetero and still get married. The best marriages are not where the aggressive female demands "equality" or where the unreconstructed male demands a doormat.

They are where each partner recognizes the strengths of the other. Thatcher was right about families and individuals.

While individuals like myself have every right to co-exist in this society, they do not and should not shape it.

Enforced "equality" always spills over into dominance but mutual equality between two people under their own particular formula is the only sustainable answer. So micro-socialization, not macro.

I'd like the feminists who read a steady diet of feminsit literature to the exclusion of all else to start reading some of the great anti-feminist authors out there - all women.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Well, it's possible to be a feminist - in terms of wanting equal rights not MORE rights, as I've written before - and still be "soft", you know. However, there are some men - often intellectuals who like to play games - who will take that softness, probably because they fear it, and tread it into the ground. Still, this is a chivalrous reply and I thank you for it.

Selena Dreamy said...

bretwalda: Enforced equality is the ultimate divider and it's ultimately rubbish too because it's a feminist construct which takes no account of gender differences.


Think of Samantha, in Sex and the City, boosting women’s testosterone. If mental health primes are to be believed, she’s a raving nymphomaniac. If the feminist lobby are to be credited, she’s a psychologically aware women in control of her own sexuality. But in either case, she has the compulsive manner of someone displaying classic signs of libidinous paranoia. Nor do I wish to be unkind or underestimate the acumen of the enfranchised female, but there is a fundamental difference here, it occurs to me, between emulating the male and being equal to the male.

Emulation is the cheapest form of flattery!


Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

I'm amazed and gratified by the number of sane women both here and over there who support good relations between men and women as the primary goal.

I disagree with Old Fart [above] that this is about gonads. It seems to me to be about how you and we get along - is that not important too to him?

I had a top day with some fabulous female minds [and the rest of them wasn't too hard on the eyes either].

So glad we can agree on some things.

Anonymous said...

I think it is about time I had my say on this important topic...