I’ve been a victim of feminism most of my life, from when my dad was kicked out when I was five, to when he was forced to take responsibility financially for my sister who is not his, to when my stepfather was booted later on, and all along as my sister was treated as princess while myself and brother were treated as less then.

Then came my marriages. Every women I’ve lived with has either hit me, or thrown things at me. I’ve never done a physical thing against any women in my life but all I hear about is the voilence against women, which now even included so called financial voilence, which is so loosely and broadly defined that the mere act of limiting to any degree your wife’s access to your money or credit cards is financial abuse…..the act steal contains many references to a women’s right to financial independence though. So how can a man have financial independence………it’s actually impossible if he lives with a women…..because you’re no longer entitled to have any control of your own money…and that is the legal position……..it’s the law here in OZ. So now I can be thrown out of my house because I don’t give her a credit card with unlimited limit…….and don’t ask what she spent it all on either….that is financial abuse……just get that god damned limit increased whenever she max it out………..cause limiting her is financial abuse. Financial independence is something you obtain by earning your own money…….qualifying for your own credit cards……and “SAVING”………..not spending other peoples money with no responsibility………….no matter……….women make the law based on what they emotionally want the situation to be……not reality………..moral considerations.

My experience of feminism is that it has proved that their should have been total rejection of women’s right to vote. What future can society have when half the population votes on selfish……emotional reasons…..ignores reality………..and a good deal of the other half go along with them in the hope that they might get a blow job or two before civilisation collapses.

Reality………women were made to nurture children………..men were made to look after women so they can do that……….since men are providing the means for womens and childrens lives to be possible……..they get to run things…………thats how it should be. Do any of you women think your not totally dependant on men………..think your independant……..really…….where do all the metals come from for everything you have made of any kind of metal…..where do the buildings come from that you live in…….work in……etc…….how would you go anywhere without the roads…….footpaths……plains………..trains. Think you provide your family with food do you………..did you grow it…….transport it…..did you raise those animals……….where do you think the electricity and gas and fuel comes from……..men invented and discovered everything……and continue to do so………every life on this planet is totally dependent on the work of men to sustain it……..and we can do our work without womens presence and without any service provided by you……you can’t do anything without us…….because you wouldn’t even have pencils and paper to write you stupid man hating theories down without men providing them for you……….the only thing you can do that men can’t do…….is have babies…….thats it girls………..you are nothing but a way for men to make more men……….thats all you are……….you are nothing else………and never have been anything else…….and never will be anything else. You will always be totally dependent on men providing you with every essential for life…….you can not escape that fact…………and for the last 50 years…….you have been doing a lot of biting the hand that feeds you…….I suspect your going to find a lot less hands willing to feed you for that……..eventually none.

Gilesy, as others have pointed out, this is not an accurate characterization of the criticism.

One aspect of the criticism is that feminism dishonestly labels issues as women’s issues, and arrogates to itslef the perogative of pronouncing on those issues, which are just as men’s issues as women’s issues. Rape is obviously one of these, and so is abortion, other aspects of parenting, and many more.

The disingenuous claim that feminism is the cure to gender role issues and thus serves men’s interests is not the issue here. The bottom line is that feminists have shown time after tiem after time that they are inimical to men’s interests. It would be wonderful if they would ignore men and men’s issues.

They just need to but out of discussions in circumcision - it’s our dicks, not theirs - and rape - when they start getting lynched and sent to prison for false rape accusations they will begin to have something to say - and abortion - it’s about children, not their stank bodies - and fatherhood - they haven’t a CLUE - we would be satisified with their inviolvement in the debate.

Many feminists assume that the perspective of the elite is one-sided unless there are more women up there, because without women, the only perspective is the “male perspective”.

Actually with the way some act its “the male perspective” and rather than the “male perspective” difference being that the former implies that those few elite joes at the top somehow represent the entire gender (again implying that due to sharing gender with them all men somehow have access to the top).

Traditional islamic culture has pros and cons for both sexes. The question is not really whether a traditional culture can be justified or not, it’s more of a question of traditional gender roles arising because they make sense at a certain stage of techno-economic development.

The women are neither weak nor stupid. Just like the men, they are accepting the role that society needs them to play, a role which will maximize their own chance of surviving and passing on their genes.

Spot-on again, Patrick.

Many feminists assume that the perspective of the elite is one-sided unless there are more women up there, because without women, the only perspective is the “male perspective”.

What baffles me is: How can you (correctly) denounce the notion that women managers would act completely different from the way male managers do, and yet embrace the idea of one “male perspective” and one “female perspective”?

Feminists are not our mothers, and we do not need to seek their approval or ask them to act on our behalf. They are our equals, and we need to establish the ability to argue with and against them as equals, not as suppliants.

at this link - http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/19/teaching-kids-that-there-is-a-battle-of-the-sexes/comment-page-1/#comment-101861

RE: “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” t-shirts
“True that the shirts were started up by men but they would not do too well if the women they were marketing to weren’t responsive.”

Its a point I make to feminists all the time about living in a capitalist democracy, feminists don’t speak for everyone cos there are many women who actively enjoy gender-stereotypes - God knows I lived with one.

“While at the same time critiquing a minority is an act of oppression or something.”
Theres a lot of critiquing going on within feminism, between feminists, but its a lot easier for them to talk about emotional issues like rape, cultural attitudes to rape, personal experiences with rape etc when no outside force is making them justify every step - why they think you were raped, did you lead it on, were you ambiguous, are you lying for a court payout/sympathy. Or questions irrelevant to personal accounts - prevalence of it, what about false-male convictions etc

They can tackle those questions if they want in their own time. Those are obviously harsh questions pushed into the safest space for them to talk about emotional issues. The Assumption has to be ’shes telling the truth’ etc to create that safe environment, unfortunately that lack of critiquing, while empathetic & needed may colour some perceptions of other men unjustly, ie. ‘if one thinks thats ok from cultural attitudes, why not the next person.’ Hearing accounts of rape are obviously horrid, and it has an effect of making you extra-wary, same way media mass-panic paedo-hysteria hit the UK, emotive stories & no-one let their kids out, despite no increase in abductions.

I think there can be mis-communication (either deliberate or accidental) over issues like rape, when talking about statistics, people can feel like you’re undercutting personal accounts, or saying its not legitimate.

“some assumption of gender based superiorty?”
Theres an element, but I think its more like regular anger, if you want to change so much, and don’t have enough power, people taking that away from you or dismissing your opinion can be extremely frustrating, especially if they are made to justify everything over and over. The ’superiority’ comes in with insider perspectives, they live the life of a woman, experiencing stuff we just don’t, explaining the whole world of being a woman is too much for any conversation, at least with other women they share many common experiences. Imagine justifying male disposability, having no say in whether your partner aborts your child or not, the damage a throw-away slander of rape can do and them just not getting it. Once again, its the same for both sides.

Its kinda circular for everyone - “they’d only undercut my perspective if they didn’t understand what we face”