John

I get men like this are about showing how manly they are. They like to confront problems head on and under most circumstances I'd agree that to be the best tactic. But when dealing with feminist why keep pushing to take the bull by the horns when all that'll do is make these women look like bigger victims. Victimization is what give these women power and allows them to get away with disrespect. So why fuel their motive (that being to portray themselves as victims.)

Another point, if a particular tactic no longer works because your opponent has adapted than why continue to use that tactic. Its like men are hell bent on climbing uphill, sword and war hammer hand. No shield mind you. While the feminist are well protected in their fortress gigging with longbows aimed at male chest. And I can't help but scratch my head... Are we men really this stupid. Or are we just stuck in our tradition ways unable to function other wise. Even male feminist are tradition men, they've just sense of self respect when interacting with women. They still function off of the same concept of tradition masculinity. Which is why they submit in order to call themselves real men.

Anyway, can someone help me understand the logic behind this foolish "bull by the horns" business? Especially when its not working.

Wondering this for some time. I'm a man that supports equality. Equal rights, equal opportunities, and etc. But whenever I tell feminist to fend for themselves, handle their business like the strong independent women they are, feminist, or more specifically male feminist oppose. You guys will even quote traditionalism, which I find strange. A feminist quoting traditionalism is like a heritic quoting the bible. It seems traditionalism is only plausible when it benefits your perception of what is gender equal. This is such a juicy contradiction it can't even be used in a starburst commercial. I only want to hold women to the same standards that I would hold a man. And understand, I don't mind helping people that help themselves. But I do mind doing work for people that feel entitled that I do the the work for them. Especially if traditionalism is used to enforce that entitlement. (Yea, A juicy contradiction indeed.) so what exactly do you male feminist consider to be equal. Please explain.

There are countless men out there willing to conform to social engineering. Tons of men that would gladly live a life of servitude to women. So what's wrong with a few men choosing to live for themselves. Whats wrong with men teaching other men this lifestyle. Women did it... And in a very disrespectful manner mind you, and then they were praised for it. So why is it a problem now that few men are doing the same.

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

So in truth everything before this point Adam and Eve were equal. It wasn't until Eve decided to disobey God (That is by eating the forbidden fruit.) that God then gave Adam dominion over her.

So... why is God sexist? Can someone explain?

I'm not a feminist nor do I consider myself MGTOW. Like minded to MGTOW sure, but I'm not MGTOW. Anyway, there being no such thing as true equity It feels like this is complete rubbish. I'm sure you've heard it before, feminism is bias equality. It's based off of what feminist feel is but not what actually is equal. In terms of being equal there are gains and losses, it's feminist and women that don't want to face the loss in order to achieve it. But women aren't the only problem. Men don't want to give up the last of their already fleeting power. Yet even worst, we seem so stuck on following the rules of traditionalism that we men simply don't have the balls to enforce true equity on the very women that claim they desire it. My point is, there is a such thing as true gender equality. It's just nobody really wants it... except maybe me of course. So the question stands, why do people use this catch phrase when it makes absolutely no sense?

It's about acceptance. Women are gonna do whatever they want to do regardless of how men feel about it. If that disregards the fact that men have needs and feelings too then so be it. Feminist have proven time and time again that the ends justify the means. So rather men complaining in some futile hope that feminist will suddenly change/care. Wouldn't it make more sense to accept feminist for who they are, accept gynocentrism, accept why relationships are rarely in a mans' favor, remove the negative portion from your live and move on.

First off I'm disconnected from worldly things. To me wrong is wrong, there is no justification for poor behavior except innocents. If you choose to do wrong that its wrong along with consequences that go with it.

I was raised as a traditional male but find traditionalism destructive to men when applied to modern women.

1. Most women today don't add complement to traditionalism cause they aren't traditional women.

2. Most women don't respect the sacrifices traditional men are willing to make.

3. In my book for one human being to call or treat another human being obsolete is wrong. Even if women never say it, most show it in their behavior. This is privilege women have come accustom due to remnants of traditionalism.

4. As a person I have no intention to provide or protect/serve another individual that has no respect for me. I don't understand why traditional men haven't come to this same conclusion.

5. Through traditionalism we've spoiled women, it teaches men leniency towards behavior which is why the patriarchy has become more in favor of women.

6. Traditionalism puts women at the center of masculinity. It puts women in a position of power over our self identity and our since of purpose. Mind you this would be fine if women cared for men. but If they did, they wouldn't have allowed feminism to get out of hand as it has.

There's more but I'm out of room. Why do u insist on returning to servitude through traditionalism, clearly women don't respect it.

Anytime I hear feminist claim independence I respond that we should get rid patriarchy/traditionalism, completely. Remove the label of men and women and judge each other based off of character, the things we say and do. It's funny because everyone looks at me like I have three heads when this is presented, but I'm a very literal guy and I know feminist base what is equal from what they feel is equal, but not what actually is equal. which is why there equality is bias.

However this got me thinking, feminist/women don't seem interested in dismantling the patriarchy. If a system of true equality replaced it women would no longer be seen as victims, feminism would lose power and support. Seems women would rather re-purpose the patriarchy to benefit women instead.

Now if you look at the patriarchy as the ultimate alpha male this makes sense. It's female nature to extract as much resource from their male counterparts for a better life for women and children. The truth is women still looking for provisions and protection in the form of the patriarchy. Though women claim feminism is about tearing down gender roles and traditionalism... it's really not. It all comes down to relativity and perspective. It's just the same old system except from a womans' point of view.

Whilst studying feminist and the mindset they instill in woman I came to an interesting theory. Feminism seemed so be an Ideology built upon the principle that (all men are forever privileged and all women are forever oppressed.) This got me thinking, though feminism is a bias equality meaning an equality based from one perceptive. It's not really an equality about equal rights for women. It would be more appropriate to say it's equal privileges for women.

This would explain why feminism is still pushed even though equal rights have nearly been achieved. This also explains why everything seems unfair for women. You being a forever privileged male have no right to speak out against a forever oppressed female, even if it's completely warranted. It explains the hypocrisy, the flaws in their behavior. Feminist aren't about equal right but instead equal privilege. But as we all know men aren't forever privileged. There just happens to be some natural privileges women can't obtain. This put their quest of equal privilege in an intangible state. And so the idea of forever male privilege lives on. This assessment goes much deeper, but i think i've said enough for now.

What do you think. Do you think this boxes feminist and there ideology?

I mean I'm all for fighting inequality, but I can't shake the feeling that this is another tactic to get men to conform. Part of it is due to the title for the movement. He for She??? So where does the She for He come into play. And how can this movement claim feminism to be about equality for men when the whole foundation of feminism is based on women being oppressed by privileged men.

Just confusing that's all. I think her intentions are pure but for some reason something just feels... off. Penny for your thoughts.

Sat down with men after the woman's right campaign and worked with men to build a better system for all.

I can't help but wonder has feminism or should I say, how feminist have utilized feminism weakened men and if so, wouldn't in turn make use weaker as a country?

A few days ago someone asked "is it true that feminism isn't about equality at all?" This was my response.

Yes and No. IMO there are three definitions for equality.

1. 50/50, equality of the most purist form.

2. Bartering and communicating a fair agreement between parties

3. Equality based on your own perspective. Mind you this is the most bias form of "equality" but it's still a kind of equality none the less.

feminism doesn't push for definition one. And when was the last time feminist sat down with men and bartered equal terms? Thus definition 3 fits the bill just fine.

(You have to keep in mind why feminism came into play. Its foundation is based on a concept of Men are in power and women are oppressed. Hence it's only purpose by design is to liberate women at all and any expense. As long as women are being freed from what feminist feel is classified as male oppression, from a feminist prospective it is equality. Understand any byproduct of this feminist point of view type equity that is or maybe harmful to men becomes irrelevant.

Now is that equal???? Well that depends on whether your a man or a woman.)

My own answer that got me thinking, if these women are for only, that being they only care about female feelings, female needs, and more importantly female equality from the feminist perspective. Then should we consider them women for men? Should we consider them our other halves? Wouldn't it be dangerous for any man to become one with these women?

First off what I mean by dissociate is financially and responsibility, not relationships. I asked this question last night and the feminist got defensive real quick.

Wouldn't it be easier for us men rather than trying to reason with modern women in terms of male and female issues to simply handle them separately. Just an idea as we could split congress in two. Half women and half men. Male issues get handled by men and female issues by women. Male funds would come from men, support men, and only be used for men. Same for women. This way we can finally provide some much needed male only space. Teach boys about masculinity and help them grow into better men for themselves. We men can create better education environment for the youth ultimately increasing the success of male graduates. Mind you we wouldn't be abandoning our roles as provider and protectors, merely re-purposing it.

We men should provide for and protect the future of young men.

What do you think?

Just saying, wouldn't it be easier than trying to reason with modern women. So why don't we split congress in two. Half women and half men. Male issues get handled by men and female issues by women. Male funds would come from men, support men, and only be used fore men. Same for women. This way we can finally provide some much needed male only space. Teach boys about masculinity and help them grow into better men for themselves. We men can create better education environment for the youth ultimately increasing the success of male graduates.

Of course we'd get involved with women for the sake of the future and children, but that's a whole other story.

So what do you think?

Why do feminist have a problem with submission. Honestly, submitting doesn't mean doormat. You still be an individual and be self empowered. You can be a CEO of a company and submit to the man you trust. As long as there's understanding a mutual respect in kind of submission a man and women discusses there shouldn't be a problem? Yet these so against the notion. So I want to know why.

I'm asking because it was us men that defined women as compassionate, selfless, and elegant beings. We were in power and that was the image that we placed. But now that the element of chose has come into play most women have started painting a very different picture. Sure women still fill this role for children, but that only due to maternal instincts. This made me question the female role in relevance to men. Maybe women were never compassionate, at let not to men. Nor did the ever want to show compassion. Maybe the definition of women was a fabric of male imagination. The elegance, the selflessness. It was only real because women had no chose and we men wanted it so. However that's not the case anymore and over the years a lot of truths have been revealed through modern female behavior.

I know this may spark a few flames but I feel I've stumbled upon a revelation. I need different opinions other than my own before I set this in stone. After all no one man's an island.

So were we men wrong to define women a compassionate beings.

No hate please, only reasonable answers, thanks.

I see this bought up a lot by feminist, pornography being considered a form exploitation of women. But as far as I'm concerned it's just adult entertainment. Something enjoyed by both genders. In many cases considered fantasy. To add women in the porn industry choose who they share scenes with, control what goes on in them, and get well paid. If she chooses to stop mid scene she has every right to. The director and her partner have no say.

Could someone explain the feminist point of view on the subject? Much Obliged.