Feminism is tribalism?

[omegaspan]

Well, i am new to this forum so i would first like to greet you all.

I am a man so my opinion will be biased, but what isnt in life?

So here are some of my thoughts about feminism, a subject i have studied and thought about for a very long time:


It seems that women are crying out about the "unfairness" of "male opression", but when they finally do get the chance, they act as opressors themselves, not trying to actually change anything between the two sexes or society in general exept for promoting female superiority of course.

Deep down, the historical struggle between the sexes, results to the conclusion that what feminists actually want is to "give them away" our patriarchal rights, without a fight, when in all history it was a matter of which sex would prevail over the other! In our civilised nowdays however women try to cheat us about "equality" and then when they get in positions of power, act as masters all of a sudden! (i am aware this is a bit raw for an opinion)


If we regard men and women as two equal pieces of meat, removing their gender identity, then it would be fair for these pieces of meat to have EXACTLY equal opportunities in life. But then we would be killing femininity and masculinity, two human elements that are the cause of -i dare say- most of our human artistic expressions and spirituality!

It strikes me as a bit strange, that many women talk about the supposed similarities between men and women, in order to be able to act as men as well as women, while men on the other hand just act natural, being men. Could this be because of a feeling of inferiority women have, because they are not currently living in a Matriarchal society? possibly. Could it be because women as human beings are indeed lesser and inferior than men? Could it be that women are souls incarnated just one step before a male reincarnation, thus having the deeper metaphysical need to be like men? (again this last assumption is propably out of place in this discussion, but i propose it nonetheless).


To a man, like me, it seems as if men just act natural as men, while women on the other hand want to get involved and "fight" against men in the field of life, even though most of them are not fit to do that by nature, and moreover, men would not like them to be possible opponents, cause they already have the rest of the men to "fight" with/against in the wide field of life!

[captainusa1]

^^I think that women should develop their mental and physical abilities to the fullest. They shouldn't be restrained by cultural sexism. I believe in the unique merits of the individual, not their gender, which is fair. Only an insecure man is afraid of a competent woman.

[Crimson Guard]

Feminism to me always seemed the product of Socialism...

[Ilmatar]

crimsonguard said:

Feminism to me always seemed the product of Socialism...

If you think so I suggest you to visit, let say, Wikipedia, and you will find out that feminism predates socialism at least by half a century.

[omegaspan]

Men seem to prefer the nurturing and feminine (not femiNIST) side of women, i m sure i do.

However there do exist women who possess more "manly" qualitites than the ordinary female does. These are the women responsible for feminism and the feminism propaganda.

I believe that most men find it emotionally unreasonable and even unethical to compete with women in full terms in life. Some feminist women may be capable of such a competence with men in equal terms, but most women are NOT, nor do they seem to want to get involved in such a competence. Why should all women cope with the standards a few feminists are proposing because they suit the idiosyncracies of these feminist women?

[Ilmatar]

Under which rock are you living, Omegaspan? I find it offensive, not as a woman, but as a human being, that you think that being nurturing and being smart would be somehow mutually exclusive. I find it offensive towards many smart and nurturing men I know (I crew up with one after the "natural nurturer" of my family died) as well as those women who are totally capable of using their education and their wits in the professional field while being incredibly supportive not only to their children and husbands, but also friends and other relatives.

And while I think that the modern society is incredibly competitive and makes loads of people feel inadequate, it's not just the women who are suffering from it. Men do suffer it equally, but sinceirly I don't think that returning to the gender roles ("femininity" and "masculinity" that you are referring to aren't exclusively biological conscepts, they are actually culturally constructed. This means that what's considered "feminine" and what's "masculine" has varied from time to time and culture to culture...) of the
Victorian era will solve anything here.

[Tautamus]

feminism is cool when the women are good looking and like men otherwise who cares

[nockwasright]

Feminism was useful when laws were discriminating against women. Now it's just one of the many pressure groups, i.e. gangs who form along the social way to get something from others' pockets via state.

Women and men have some wired brain differences (for instance hormones play an important role in brain cells, and they differ extremely between the sexes), that's proved. Many behavioural differences have been inferred from such brain differences plus psychological experiments, but none has been proved.
However it seems brain and behaviour are very plastic, culture and willpower can bend them a lot.

I think that the fact that women, given equality before the law, freely choose to work, be independent and do all the things that were not considered femminine once, its good proof that those things were not femminine after all. We should define what is femminine on the grounds of what women free from constriction choose to do.

For what it counts, in my personal experience I noticed women want to be independent and in control of their lives as much as men, and are able to do it as much as men.

[omegaspan]

So, we do have feminists in the forum!

Under which rock are you living, Omegaspan?

Under no rock. I have been living on the surface since Master released me from the botomless pits of the Abyss (humor)


I didnt say that women cant be smart. They can indeed be smart, they can be stupid, they can be cunning and a lot of other things. What i am saying is that women should primarily be nurturing towards not only men, but towards society as a whole.

Also, this is how men want women to be, mostly. If you DONT CARE AT ALL what men want from women and how they want them to be, then that is a whole different issue, having to do with your personal female ambitions and lack of respect towards the other sex. But if you dont care, dont expect the men to care about your ambitions either.

those women who are totally capable of using their education and their wits in the professional field while being incredibly supportive not only to their children and husbands, but also friends and other relatives.

Being supportive. What kind of support are you talking about exactly? Because according to my experience the only "support" working independent women have been giving their kids since their "liberation" is money to survive and maybe homemade food in the holidays, if the kids are lucky! Apart from that, in the western world especially kids are raised by their TVs their PCs and if their lucky a nanny because their moms are working! So dont talk to me about support because you cant have everything dear: either you ll spend your time with your kids or you ll spend it working and fullfiling your ambitions.....unless you have a clone of yourself to leave at home while you are at the office practising your "independence" and your "equality".

Whats considered masculine and feminine is not "culturally constructed", it is NATURALLY constructed, even a child can understand that.

At the end of the day, i cant have babies and you cant have a d*ck!

[Ilmatar]

Sinceirly Omega, you start to sound just as bitter and angry as the feministsb were. Only that your anger is directed against women who don't somehow conform to your ideal of femininity, not towards men who oppress the women.

I understand your personal need for a nurturing motherfigure. However, I hate to see you blaiming the fact women work and aren't with their children (and I'm not talking about babies, who really need to be fed and looked after, but children who already go to school, have their friends and their hobbies) 24/7 for all the bad things that happen in the society. I don't like the fact that you are presuming that the rest of us would be as unhappy with this situation that you are. Coming from a country where most women have worked outside home since, well, practically ever, I know plenty of people who have come out of that situation without any trauma. I also know
people raised by mothers who stayed home for all their childhood, but weren't able to give their children the love and sense of security, and who are still struggling with their issues.

So, dearest,being a good mother or a good father - let's not forget that children have fathers too - really hasn't got much to do with genderroles , but rather with emotional maturity, stability and responsability.

[omegaspan]

Ok, i have to say its really tiring to get into such conversations with women who share your opinions, not because you cant understand but because you dont want to understand the points of the discussion.

Sinceirly Omega, you start to sound just as bitter and angry as the feministsb were

As you know, Physics tell us that when there is an action it will be followed by a re-action.

your anger is directed against women who don't somehow conform to your ideal of femininity, not towards men who oppress the women.

I m not really angry. I m just discussing. My anger is not directed at men, because i dont regard motherhood as "opression" as the semifemale feminists say. Actually i regard motherhood as something sacred and of the outmost value. Capitalist societies may have turned some women to money hunting individualists but they cant change the way you are physically built.

As for "opression" in other cultures apart from the western one, respect towards women can have many different ways of being expressed, not necessarily by leting them work, make money, or the other western standards of equality.

I understand your personal need for a nurturing motherfigure.

Thats really kind of you. But why then do you question my proposal of the nurturing model for women? It must be because even though you understand my need, you dont really care about it, but you re rather interested in your personal ambitions. Thats why i should also say, i understand the need of women to be independent and free, but hey, who gives a f*ck? I ll just follow my personal ambitions anyway. See what i mean? Its the same thing. You just make it seem as if your point of view should be more apreciated than mine...

So, dearest,being a good mother or a good father - let's not forget that children have fathers too - really hasn't got much to do with genderroles , but rather with emotional maturity, stability and responsability

As most women who share your opinions you are unfortunately blinded by your egoism and your self centered need to prove yourself as "strong", "independent", etc.

How can you claim that being a good father or a good mother doesnt have to do with gender roles? This shows your complete lack of knowledge for human character. A father has to be a MALE figure especially for the boys of the family, and the mother has to be a FEMALE figure, especially for the girls of the family. And what do you mean "gender roles"? There are no "roles" in this situation, there are (should be) true and honest naturally built gender based characters. What you re proposing is some kind of unisex "biological socialism", but that cant happen dear, not in this world!

By the way, i m guessing you re american or scandinavian?

[Ilmatar]

omegaspan said:

Ok, i have to say its really tiring to get into such conversations with women who share your opinions, not because you cant understand but because you dont want to understand the points of the discussion.

Well, in case you find hearing differing opinions and getting to heated arguments I suggest you to keep aweay from the Internet messageboards. I personally love these places just because one has a chance to "meet" people with opinions that differ very much from mine.

I m not really angry. I m just discussing. My anger is not directed at men, because i dont regard motherhood as "opression" as the semifemale feminists say. Actually i regard motherhood as something sacred and of the outmost value. Capitalist societies may have turned some women to money hunting individualists but they cant change the way you are physically built.

Well, would you be surpriced if I say that many of the die-hard separatist feminist of the '70 shared your view on the "sacredness" of the motherhood ? There were feminist who built their whole theoretical framework on the idea of the "otherness" of the female body in the World where the male body was seen as an unversial ideal.

That said, not only feminists but also many sociologists, anthropologists and historians have studied something called "myth of the motherhood". You see, motherhood has always been a source of many myths. And these myths have been just as opressing as, let's say, the current myth of the eternal youth and beauty. It's these myths that some of the feminists attack, not the motherhood - childbaring and childrasing - itself, kept in high regard by most feminist theoretics.

As for "opression" in other cultures apart from the western one, respect towards women can have many different ways of being expressed, not necessarily by leting them work, make money, or the other western standards of equality.

I agree. Anyhow, in such societies women is really in the mercy of who ever provides the roof over her head or food to the table. In an ideal case the provider is a good person willing to take the opinions of the people who are somehow depending on him in consideration. In many cases the provider is a selfish b****** only concerned of his own needs.

On the whole, I can't see how any person without financial independecy could really be free to express themselves
freely. This doesn't only go for women who aren't independent financially, but also the children, elderly people, or even the poor workers totally dependent on their employers.

Thats really kind of you. But why then do you question my proposal of the nurturing model for women? It must be because even though you understand my need, you dont really care about it, but you re rather interested in your personal ambitions.

As most women who share your opinions you are unfortunately blinded by your egoism and your self centered need to prove yourself as "strong", "independent", etc.

Well, you are right I couldn't care less for your need for a nurturing woman. After all, you are just some guy from a message board living either under a rock or in a country which has, if I should believe your description, only got the worst of the 20th century.

And regarding your character analysis on me, I guess you have only been reading my contributions to this
thread. Senior Dodonians probably don't see me as this egodriven-career-crazed-manlike-singlegal you think I am but rather something else.

How can you claim that being a good father or a good mother doesnt have to do with gender roles? This shows your complete lack of knowledge for human character. A father has to be a MALE figure especially for the boys of the family, and the mother has to be a FEMALE figure, especially for the girls of the family. And what do you mean "gender roles"? There are no "roles" in this situation, there are (should be) true and honest naturally built gender based characters. What you re proposing is some kind of unisex "biological socialism", but that cant happen dear, not in this world!

Again, what is truely feminine and what is truely masculine? People tend to have very different perceptions on that. For instance, 50 years ago men with a longer hair were considered effeminate sissies here in the Western World, yet long hair was considered the "crown" of the warriors in many cultures before. How come even some work, such as cooking, is considered a "feminine" as long as it's done between the domestic walls but becomes "masculine" the moment it's done in a restaurant ?

I'd say that if we are excluding the childbearing and the breastfeeding there really aren't no inheritably masculine or feminine "tasks". Women have developed psychological qualities that will help them to get through the pregnancy
and breastfeeding (both trying experiences physically). But on the other hand nature has also given men psychological qualities which should help them to get attached to their initially rather helpless offspring.

By the way, i m guessing you re american or scandinavian?

Nordic actually, since Finland really isn't part of Scandinavia. And living in that "biological socialist" dream you don't think is possible. You know, my mother breastfed me, but my father changed my napkins. And I grew up just fine.

[omegaspan]

You know, my mother breastfed me, but my father changed my napkins.

So, the man gets to do the "dirty work" again. (humor)

[Ilmatar]

He hardly could breastfeed, could he ? (Humour)

[omegaspan]

Well, actually i take the joke back


for some reason, i thought that napkins means baby panties, or diapers, you know the ones that babies wear cause of their inability to go to the bathroom theselves....