Home

Does feminism deserve its bad reputation?

DS86DS

Staff member
Administrator
Member
Feminism seems to have acquired a bad reputation in recent years, notably amongst certain Men's Rights organisations and social movements such as MGTOW. While I support men's rights and believe the family courts are unfairly biased against men and fathers, I can't help but get the feeling that much of the anti-feminist rhetoric on youtube and elsewhere comes from men who are simply annoyed about getting rejected by some woman they were attracted to, or due to some other petty grievance. I also don't believe it's a liberal vs. conservative issue. I think most men would agree that their mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts etc. deserve the same opportunities in life as they have.

There are of course fanatical elements within feminism which hate men across the board, but I'd imagine that they're a minority within the movement overall. Nonetheless it can't be denied that without the women's rights movement beginning in the early 20th century, that women today would remain second class citizens and under the thumb of their husbands, e.g. unable to take out a loan without their husband's permission.

While of course there are fanatical elements within feminism and the court system unfairly treats fathers - without feminism our female friends and family would be subjected to unfair disadvantages in life relative to ourselves and I know I'd personally dislike to live in such a society. For one, my own female family members mean more to me than the whole of my fellow male-kind combined. With all of that said though, I do agree that men face numerous unfair disadvantages in modern life. Yet perhaps the solution isn't to bash feminism, but rather to learn from it and its achievements while attempts are made to try and achieve fairer treatment for men in certain areas of our modern society?
 

Jad

Member
My personal attitude, when I was part of the women's rights movement at uni was this:

To women, their rights and nothing less.
To men, their rights and nothing more.

Your post is well thought out, comprehensive and you have a good grasp on the matter. There are a couple of points I'd like to zero in on, but I'll come to those.

Without feminism, women would probably still not even have the vote. Even then, the vote for women only came about when it did because during WWI, women went into the factories and did the jobs that men had been telling them they were too feeble to do, and without them there would have been no munitions for the front. And as unpleasant as it is to think that advantage was taken of that appalling slaughter, womens' organisations did petition Lloyd George with a veiled threat to disrupt munitions production unless a guarantee was given that women would get the vote after the war ended. The deal was struck and to its credit, the British government delivered.

Lloyd George might have called their bluff because so many women had husbands and sons at the front that they might not have supported any campaign of disruption, but the deal was put on the table and Lloyd George blinked. He couldn't take the risk.

Incidentally, although history records that Mary Astor became the first ever female British MP to take her seat in the Westminster Parliament in 1919, , she wasn't the first female MP. That historical landmark went to Constance Markievicz, who served as a Teachta Dála for the Dublin South constituency from 1921 to 1922 and 1923 to 1927. She was an MP for Dublin St Patrick's from from 1918 to 1922.

Coming to some of your points:

I never met a feminist who hated men. That is, I believe, one of the most destructive arguments in male / female rights debate. I can think of any number of women who resent the power that men still have to discriminate and abuse women. Certainly, many believe that rape is still too easily defended. Many women have had bitter experiences at the hands of boyfriends, husbands, fathers, or any other male figure and they may hate that particular individual, but hate men en masse.... as a gender..? No, I just don't accept that.

When it comes to children, that is probably the single most contentious issue of them all. Of course men care for their children. My father is the most wonderful, caring, loving and devoted man who ever lived (my opinion and I'll defend it to the death because he's my dad). He'd walk in front of an oncoming locomotive to protect his family. But he didn't carry his three daughters inside his body. He didn't feel our hearts begin to beat as our mother did, or feel us kick inside him. He didn't suffer the agonies of childbirth (trust me, it hurts) and he didn't nurse us at his breast. nature (or even God if you choose) gave that to mothers. Mothers have a bond with their children that no man can even begin to understand. It goes waaaaaaaaay beyond the simplistic "My child too" argument, which pales in comparison when stood next to the emotional, physical and psychological connections that exist between mother and child.

Mum's are special. The mother, quite rightly in my opinion, has - and should have - primacy in consideration over the father in the eyes of the law.

That does not mean to say fathers should be discarded. Visitation and access rights should be better than they are. I feel for those caring and devoted fathers who are deprived by embittered women when a child becomes a football between estranged parents, kicked back and forth for petty point scoring, each parent wanting to score a goal against the other. When I see lone men, say, sitting with a child in Macdonalds and it's clear that this is probably the only time he'll get with his child for goodness knows how long, I feel sympathy for him. I truly do. Separation from a loved child must be incredibly painful and I wonder what brought them to this point. It's none of my business I know, but it just makes me hold my own little girl's hand just that bit tighter.

British law staes that "The needs of the child are paramount". Again, that is right and proper and in any divorce case where the arguments of both parents are of equal merit, that special bond between mother and child, which I believe exists on a far higher plane than that of the father, means the mother starts from - for want of a better phrase - an advantageous position. This next line of mine may ruffle some feathers, but it needs to be said because this is another point of British law, and one grounded in biological fact, psychological necessity and social practice.

British law used to recognise the "Need For A Father". In other words, it accepted the principle that every child must have a male role figure in their life. The contentious word was "need". But what, exactly is it, that constitutes that need...? A protector...? A provider...? A role model..? Somebody to kick a football in the garden with...? What, exactly is it, that a father does that a mother can't..? If it's a protector, I can promise you that I - and billions of women like me - would just as quickly stand in front of that locomotive. Protective primal instinct in a mother is just as deep and fierce in a woman as it is in any man. If it's about provider, then women can also provide. Equality law in pay and benefits have taken away the argument that men earn more so can provide better. A single mother, in work can earn just as much (I emphasise "can" although the reality is sometimes different) and if not in work, state benefits are equal for male and female. My wife and I have two graduate incomes coming in. Our daughter is just as well provided for by two women as she would be in a heterosexual marriage. A single father caring for a child would have all the same difficulties of juggling work and family as a single mother has. Again, there is nothing a man can do in the role of carer that a woman can't. And in a world where male and female are now considered social equals too, mum can take her son to the football match too and help him with all those little rites of passage. He doesn't need to go on his first hunt any more, carve the liver from his first kill and eat it raw in front of the tribe in order to "become a man". We've moved beyond that.

And so it came to be recognised that actually, there isn't anything a father can do to teach a child, or provide for a child, or protect a child that a woman can't do.

The controversial "Need For A Father" clause was enshrined in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act until 2006 when, after a long campaign by feminist and LGBT campaigners, it was debunked by scientists, childcare professionals, human rights lawyers, sociologists, child psychologists, paediatricians and other specialists. It was also decided that that part of the Act discriminated against single women and lesbians because it was the basis for preventing either obtaining IVF treatment and adopting, and thus becoming parents.

Had that clause still been place, I would not be a mother today and a beautiful, happy, intelligent, feisty, well brought up and balanced little girl wouldn't be bringing joy and love and happiness to the world. And literally now, tens of thousands of other children of single and same sex parents would be similarly deprived the human joy and fulfilment of being parents.

That clause had to go because it was wrong. Wrong in science, wrong in human rights, wrong in sociology, wrong in morality, wrong in application and wrong in practice. It had no foundation in either logic or fact. It was nothing more than antiquated custom that didn't relate to the modern world.

But of course, there was a counter argument. Men's groups felt that the removal of the clause marginalised and discriminated against them. But did it..? I don't think it did. The removal of the Need For A Father clause didn't prevent men from becoming fathers. Rather, it opened the door to many who wouldn't have otherwise become so. My sperm donor was a lovely, marvellous (gay) man who wanted to know that his genes were being passed on and his line would continue, but he didn't want to be a parent. It may sound like a cold, clinical and calculating arrangement, but it has resulted in making everybody happy and it has brought a beautiful child into the world. What's not to like about that..?

No man has been prevented from fathering a child because of the removal of that clause. I have wonderful nephews and nieces because my sisters husbands have, well.... you know.... The way in which I conceived my child hasn't diminished them as men and fathers in any way.

The main, organised opposition to the removal of the clause came mostly - and predictably- from the churches. The Roman Catholic church in England declared that it would withdraw its adoption services across the board if NFAF was removed. Catholic Care opposed the removal with every weapon in its armoury, but the Blair government held firm and even attempts by Bishops in the House of Lords were voted down. In a fit of pique, the church declared that it would ignore the law. It refused to provide adoption services to those it considered inappropriate.

This, of course, caused a clash with authority and in 2010, Catholic Care lost its charitable status because of non-compliance with the law. It no longer provides adoption services in England. And that is tragic. Nobody wins. Everybody loses. Ridiculous.

Where men are concerned though, it has to be asked, why would they be so angered by this...? Remember, the law states that "The needs of the child are paramount". It is the interests of the child that always take precedence, not the rights of fathers... or even mothers, come to that. The child's welfare, nurturing, development and well being are overwhelmingly the most important thing. But it was becoming clear that male objections were centered almost entirely around their perceived loss of masculinity.... the deprivation of their role in this world as men. Or if you want to put it in blunt terms........ the damage to their ego.

It became a man vs woman issue...... Male pride being bruised by "feminazis" and "Shaven headed lesbos" (their words)........ It felt like their argument was: "Women are winning the battle of the sexes and we can't have that". The Fathers 4 Justice group started up and quickly became a magnet for disaffected men. They gained publicity for ridiculous stunts like scaling the walls of the Courts of Justice in London, dressed as Batman and Robin. Their entire campaign was driven by emotion and their perception of masculinity, not remotely connected with the needs of children.

It was often alleged that they didn't care about children at all.... their motivation was to prevent women "getting one over on them".

They were also careless in not vetting those they let into their membership. They didn't vet those who joined them properly and the group was soon riddled with paedophiles who saw it as a possible way of regaining access to their children that had been denied them due to previous crimes. When this was exposed, it did their cause immense damage.

Since that time things have changed and their campaign still exists, but is vastly different to when it started. It still campaigns for what it perceives to be men's rights, but has little success in changing anything. It's rhetoric is less aggressive and hardline but it's still driven by emotion rather than evidence and still misses the main point: That the interests of the child are paramount.

UK law also recognises the primacy of care and nurturing, and that ovewhelmingly special bond that exists between mother and child.

It's not a man vs woman thing. It's the biology of our species. The very core of our part in the role of life on earth.

And, given the social history of male / female relationships, that makes it a feminist issue.

Of course, children need parental nurturing and direction, but yes, they do have personalities of their own and it's right to help them to develop those personalities. Apart from teaching the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, let them grow their own way, interfering at little as possible save to nudge them away from developing behaviours that will bring them into conflict with authority.

The home can be the centre of a woman's life, but it doesn't have to be her boundary. The notion of the woman being kept chained by the ankle to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant still exists in the mentality of some, but it has become so diminished now that it's an embarrassment to those who advocate it. Or at least, it should be.

That is one of the ways in which feminism has worked, both subliminally and openly, those sort of attitudes have been rolled back.

A contemporary feminist writer and suffragist of her day, Rebecca West wrote in 1913: “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what a feminist is: I only know that men call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.”

Feminists came under attack more than a century ago, and we have to endure the same attacks today.

Traditionally, women are expected to be passive..... submissive........ Yielding. We are supposed to be dependent on our menfolk as they perform their traditional masculine roles.

OK.... this is fine for those women who want to live in that sort of familial relationship. That is the individual choice of the woman in question, but fewer and fewer are making that specific choice. Rather, a woman now wants the sense of fulfilment from, once having acquired an education and thus armed with knowledge, wants to go out into the workplace and use it, but we also want children too. And those two things are not always entirely compatible.

Feminism has been blamed for millions of women finding themselves faced with difficult choices between career and their role as a parent. If women have primacy in the care of children, then there are responsibilities that go with that. That's a given. And so a conflict exists.

Traditionally, when a woman was forced by economic circumstances within the family to go out to work (for the pittance we were valued at in those times) another female figure would step in. Her mother or mother-in-law would usually run the kids to school in the morning, or pick them up in the afternoon..... take them home... give them tea.... look after them until mum finished her shift. It was relatively easy to do and not thought of as any sort of onerous task. This was about family.

But increasingly, those older matriarchal figures have established careers of their own now and are not conveniently to hand to take on these family roles. Also, a young couple with their 2.4 little blessings may have moved to another area and not have family close to hand to help out.

The social services system has stepped into that breach and the role that used to be filled by a child's grandparents is now overwhelmingly taken up by professional child minders. OK, fine. Not a bad thing. However, quite rightly, the state has legislated to ensure that practitioners are properly qualified, vetted and licensed and this means those who do the job of caring for children are expensive. So....... what's the point of a woman going out to work if everything she earns is swallowed up by childcare costs...?

What happens to the bond between mother and child when a third party is carrying out the role that a mother should be performing...?

Shouldn't the mother sacrifice her own ambitions and needs for the sake of her children...?

These are 21st century problems and the blame for them existing at all is laid at the door of the feminist movement.... and in a way, the accusers have a point. If women had stuck to their traditional roles such questions wouldn't arise.

But our society has moved on from the simplistic rules of previous generations. The world has turned and it has changed. The traditional values and social mores have changed with it.

I'm not going to go into the economics of ordinary working class families trying to run a home with only one (often unskilled) wage coming in. It was tight enough running our home on a single graduate income when I wasn't working..!!

All I can say to that, is that women are now presented with a choice. We had that choice and decided that I would be a full time mum for the first six and a half years of our daughter's life. We took the financial hit, I stayed at home. We made that choice. We're glad we did because our relationship and bond with our daughter is something that we have found to be so fulfilling. We have both found a happiness we thought would be deprived to us forever.

But it was OUR choice to make. We had it available to us. My staying at home wasn't forced upon me...... it was a CHOICE.

And yes..... I am speaking up here for the 'traditional' view of a mother's role as parent. I make it quite clear that I don't deny that argument, but rather, I use it as a positive for the feminist stance.

For us, it wasn't about me being forced into parenting by being told that this is my only purpose in life. Nobody shackled me to the kitchen floor. I chose that option of my own free will, having thought about it and discussed it at length with my significant other. She didn't tell me that I HAD to do that. We came to a decision between us and both worked our guts out to make it happen.

And that is the success that feminism aims for. It enables women to make the life choices that have been denied to them for centuries by deeply embedded socially constructed misogyny. The barriers that women have faced for millennia are being dismantled one by one. We haven't broken them all down yet because things like the glass ceiling still exist. Men still physically and sexually abuse women. The culture of misogyny still exists. There is still much for feminism to do.

As I said, with rights comes responsibility and that is recognised. We've won many great freedoms - so far - and it is the cause of feminism that has achieved that.

There is still a long way to go.

The argument is not that fathers are irrelevant and not valuable, it's just that there isn't any actual NEED for their input into the development of a child that would make it an overwhelming requirement to have one.

The following may sound nasty and sexist but it isn't if you give it some thought: (takes deep breath before going for it). There is nothing a father can teach a child that a mother can't. And if men seem to think that those activities best suited to being driven by testosterone are "necessary" life skills, well, our society should be moving away from them rather than clinging to them.

It is also true that there are many children brought up in male / male families and they overwhelmingly are successful and well adjusted, but it's been found that in those cases, it is because the men involved have focused on a more female oriented approach to parenting. It is the fathers who have adapted, not the other way around.

The divisive element in the "Need For A Father" clause was that, in effect, it made same sex parenting as good as illegal. Two women bringing up a child went against a lawful Act of Parliament and could therefore be successfully challenged in the courts.

There were a number of cases where children were taken away from perfectly stable, loving relationships and placed into State care. Just imagine that. Happy, normal, well developed children forcibly wrenched from the only family they know......... where they have been loved and cared for...... to be placed into the care of strangers who, no matter how well meaning or capable, are not their "family". The emotional trauma alone is a crime against humanity.

This was especially traumatic for children in cases when the birth mother died. The State ruled that the non-birth mother had no claim to custody of any children and they would be taken away by the State and again, put into foster care.

Not only did those children have to cope with the death of their mother, but they were then forced away from the only remaining parent they ever knew.

Can you imagine what that must have been like..? Some horrific stories emerged during the 1980s and 90s and those - now adults - have told tales that would (or should) tear your heart out.

All this for the sake of masculine pride..?

My wife and I discussed with our sperm donor over many long hours the implications of what we were going to do. We consulted with (expensive) lawyers on the legality of our situation. We came to written agreement with each other as to a plan that would truly be in the interests of the child that would result from our actions. Of course, the written agreement is only binding in honour. It wouldn't stand up in court, but for us it is still meaningful and places a moral obligation on both parties.

We accepted that, in years to come, the child we parented biologically and would grow up in a two woman family may want to know who their father is and may even want to meet him. The father agreed that, although he wished to have no parental input into our child, he had a moral obligation in that respect.

We agreed that we would ensure that our future contact details were kept by a willing third party who would keep them confidential until our child attains the age of 18. At that point, if they want to contact their father, the third party would release the contact details to me (the birth mother). I would then contact him and we would arrange a meeting. He would be willing to receive his biological child and recognise it as his.

By that time the child would be of majority age and he would have no legal obligation for its care.

In the event of both mine and my wife's death before that time, there is (agreed) provision in our joint will for our extended families to take over the conditions of the plan.

Our daughter is aware that she has a daddy somewhere, but hasn't asked if she can see him (yet). She may do one day, but we have a plan in place to deal with that eventuality and believe it won't be a problem.

Same sex parenting is still a minefield but it's one that can be navigated. We are bringing our little girl up in our own way and she is happy, loved and growing up to be an intelligent, feisty, well balanced girl who loves school, is doing well, has many friends and has declared (the little madam) that one day she wants to win an Olympic gold medal for Cornwall..!! She'll be 8 in a couple of weeks time and we're hoping to have a party for her if that's allowed under Covid rules. She's already made out the invitations to her friends and is quite excited about it after long months of lockdown. Does that strike you as a child having problems in her upbringing...?

All this without a masculine role model in her life. We must be doing something right.
 
OP
DS86DS

DS86DS

Staff member
Administrator
Member
You certainly sound like a good mother Jenny, and it should be none of the state's business whether the child has a father or not. So long as the child is safe, being looked after and cared for, then that's all there should be to it.
 

Jad

Member
Thank you for that kind comment. One of the things that is often overlooked is what we have to go through in order just to become parents at all. It's a long, hard, gruelling process that exhausts you both mentally and emotionally before you even get to the stage of conceiving. The hoops you have to jump through, the legal constraints, the tests and screening processes, the interviews with sociologists and then the social barriers put in the way by every religious group, every men's group and every prejudiced naysayer who will tell you how unfit you are to have children without the slightest understanding of what you are prepared to go through in order to achieve something they could do easily and without constraint in the back of a Ford Fiesta.

The fact that we're prepared to go through all that should be proof enough that our intention is sincere and done for the right reasons. Nobody would go through this on a whim.

And then, of course, there are the allegations of "Politically correct motivation" and "Bloody lesbo man-hating feminazis" who only want something that is the God given right of "decent people" only and shouldn't be allowed because it's "not natural".

We have gone through all these things and the fact that we've been able to get where we are today is a victory of perseverance and determination as much as assisted fertilisation technology.

It's easier now than it was, and one by one the barriers of social acceptance are being broken down, but that's only because women are prepared to speak out, loud and proud, rather than look down at the ground as if they were guilty of some dreadful sin.

Feminists have fought for these rights and without them, no matter how hard we tried or how many hoops we jumped through, we wouldn't be where we are.

We've endured centuries of misogyny, enslavement, exploitation and discrimination by men. You don't treat people you love in that way. At least, not to my way of thinking.

Do women want to retaliate against men in the same way..? I don't think so. I don't think women want to become what they behold. I certainly don't and I can honestly put my hand on my beating heart and say that I don't know of any woman who does.

Perhaps you mistake female assertion as some form of hatred for men. Perhaps you miss the point. What a woman might despise is the sin rather than the sinner. Unfortunately, the sin......... say for instance, rape........ is perpetrated by men and challenging rape by demanding greater protection under the law, or stronger sentences for rapists is SEEN as anti-man because in all cases, the crime is being perpetrated by men. To challenge rape is to challenge a male action and by extension, is misinterpreted as an anti-man attitude.

But this is a false assumption. The woman does not necessarily hate all men, she simply has a valid reason to despise the act of one particular man.

Feminism has championed the cause of women's rights ever since Mary Woolstonecraft* wrote "A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women" in 1792, She wrote this in response to "A Vindication Of The Rights Of Man" by Edmund Burke in 1790. For the first time ever, a woman argued back and it was inspirational.

Woolstonecraft was widely condemned for her writing and the attacks she faced were no different then to those that feminists face today. Sadly, these are more a result of male insecurity than female aggression. For some men, the woman is supposed to be submissive. She is supposed to "know her place". She is supposed to defer to her male partner in all respects and especially with her body.

This is an archaic concept that has no place in any modern society. Women have increasingly become empowered. The word "Obey" was taken out of the marriage vows a long time ago. A wife vows to love and honour her husband, but she is no longer required to "obey" him. For some men, this is seen as an erosion of their marital rights..... the result of feminism taking away their hegemony..... their power over women.

That power is no more. A man's wife is no longer his property. She is his partner and his equal. And she can say "No" to him.

These are the sort of things that lead to the kind of thinking that women "hate" men. And in my opinion this is a falsehood that damages relationships and causes rifts in society. But we must still take this stance because in some cases, and with some men, attitudes are still entrenched and they have to be challenged. We can't stop fighting now. This generation owes it to those who went before to keep fighting until we have that precious prize in our hands. Equality.

Women will no longer tolerate being chattels. We will not be kept chained to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. We have aspirations of our own and are prepared to seek to achieve them. We seek our own fulfilment and we also expect our labour to be rewarded, and our achievements to be recognised, equally. This is not unreasonable....... and it certainly doesn't mean that we hate men.

We will wear our own clothes as we please and will cut our own hair if we want to. It's OUR hair to do with as we wish. This too is not an anti-man attitude.

I bear no grudge against any man save for that which he does to offend against me or my family. And then the redress I seek is based entirely on his actions, not his gender.

I think I speak for the feminist movement, and the broad mass of women in general.

This is a little number I learned at uni when I was involved in the Women's Rights movement there. I played and sang it at a number of meetings and it went down pretty well. I like it not just for its simplicity and truth, but its inspirational honesty. I've not played it in more than 15 years now and I've lost the tab that had the chords, but I can remember the words as clear as day.


THERE 'S LIFE IN THE OLD GIRL YET

She is Lilith born with Adam
And she stood there at his side
She would not be subjugated
She would not be denied
They consigned her to the underworld
For she would not be his bride
But there's life in the old girl yet.

She has struggled through the centuries
To make her voice be heard
She was burned alive and tortured
For the meaning of the word
When they called her witch and heretic
She spoke on undeterred
And there's life in the old girl yet.

(chorus)
There's life in the old girl yet
And sister you'd better bet
We can't afford not to remember
What the world wants to forget
That there's life in the old girl yet.

When she wrote her stories down
She had to change her woman's name
But the spirit deep inside her
Was never to be tamed
Even in the darkest mills
she felt the rising of the flame
And there's life in the old girl yet.

When she fought and died for franchise
She was ridiculed and scorned
But the day of a woman voted first
She knew the tide had turned
And while celluloid and sentiment
Would like her to return
There's life in the old girl yet.

(chorus)

Now they tell us it's all over
And the battles have been won
That it's only for the history
That this song should be sung
But the spirit of young Lilith lives
And she'll outlast the sun
For there's life in the old girl yet

She lives in every woman
Who will no more bear the blame
For the violence she suffers
In the patriarchy's name
She lives in every young girl
Who will never wear the shame
For there's life in the old girl yet.

There's life in the old girl yet
And sister you'd better bet
We can't afford not to remember
What the world wants to forget
That there's life in the old girl yet.
 

Jad

Member
I'm incredibly wary of any argument that specifies "Wokeness" as a major issue in any cause. In my experience, when this happens, the poster is less concerned with the cause at hand (in this case, feminsim), but is more likely to be attempting to attach a label to that cause in order to attack it.

In these cases, I usually start with a definition. Woke (adjective): Alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
,
Clearly in this instance we are not talking about racism, but feminism is an area where injustice in society occurs and so the use of the adjective is appropriate. The question I ask is: What's wrong in being alert to injustice in society..?

The word "Woke" has become the hard right's pejorative of choice for any pursuit of social justice. If you want to protest against racism by "taking the knee" at a football match, then taking the knee becomes labelled as "Woke", with that word used in a derogatory manner.

If some people protest against slavery by pulling down statues of historic slavers, then pulling down statues becomes "Woke". (Actually, it's criminal damage but that seems to matter far less than ensuring the "Woke" label is applied to the act)

You don't specify which area of feminism being used by these protesters is so radical that it deserves to be called "Woke". May I ask exactly what it is these women are doing...?

Historically, we tended to chain ourselves to railings, put bombs in letterboxes, burn politicians (empty) holiday homes down, throw bricks through shop windows, and stand in front of charging racehorses to draw attention to our grievances.

None of these things were, to the best of my knowledge and belief, considered "Woke."

I get the feeling this is more about attempting to denigrate feminism by attaching a - by now - recognised pejorative label......... possibly for right-wing ideological purposes.

I repeat my former request. Please tell us what it is that is so radical that feminism deserves to have such an arbitrarily negative label attached to it.


My feminist slogan of choice: Well behaved women seldom make history.

If that's Woke, then I'm woke and proud.
 
'Feminism' has been an unmitigated disaster for the West

Well worth a watchlisten 👇

By Prof. Edward Dutton: The Jolly Heretic..

 

Mowl

Member
After my Father's untimely demise, I grew up in a house where my Mam ruled with an iron fist. She's a tough little nugget and always stands her ground, no matter who she's dealing with. After Dad died, she mourned for a long, long time. It was tough to live with, and I felt it too. As the years passed, Mam met someone new, but he was an old Dubliner type of bloke who didn't take any shit either. This resulted in my Mam making sure she was on top by breaking the fucker down and showing him how things were going to be.

My elder sisters learned from this and did the same to their men: broke their balls and treated them like lapdogs.

Whether Mam or my sisters - when they said jump, these twats asked how high - and I always laughed at them.

Over time, they tried to treat me the same - because I was the eldest male son. That didn't last too long and they learned the hard way that I too learned from watching how my Mam handled things. The thought of me taking shitty orders from any woman other than my Mother was a joke. But I watched how they did it with their blokes and always laughed into their faces when they rolled over and played dead, then fetched the bone on command.

I see that same mindset in many young single-Mom Irish families, and as the years pass, it'll only spiral out even further.

Yes, there's something good in turning the tables, but no - I don't fetch, roll over, or otherwise.

This causes lots of tension, but that tension is palpable in almost all family homes in Ireland, whether single parent or married couple.

I don't buy into it though - if the ground isn't level, I walk away and continue to do things my own way.

Modern Irish women are among the worst humans to deal with, in my opinion.
 
Top Bottom