A moderate feminist tells it like it is

Hello, I’m a moderate feminist and I’m a stupid, contradictory, totalitarian piece of shit and….

… AND THEY’RE BLAMING ME FOR INSTITUTIONAL MISANDRY, MYTHS OF PATRIARCHY/RAPE CULTURE/WAGE GAP, FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS, CUSTODY/DIVORCE COURTS DISPARITIES, SJW BULLSHIT AND AN  INDUSTRY OR FEAR, WITCH HUNTS AGAINST ANYBODY MAKING SENSE, BRUTALITY, CULTISM, DISHONESTY AND ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM OF MODERN FEMINISM, OBNOXIOUS FANATICS AND A LACK OF BASIC EMPATHY FOR MEN.

I

I… I just want feminism to be about things that I like. Not what I don’t like !

I want same jobs, same pay, same number of workplace deaths, same number of female firemen and… and…  and for men and women to be same. I just want it both ways. 

WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU ANTI-FEMINISTS TO UNDERSTAND ?!

20 thoughts on “A moderate feminist tells it like it is

    • “Umm I can’t really follow this post”

      I’d like my readers to explain it to her so that I don’t have to? Or is it too difficult to understand for more of you? I thought it’s quite simple.

      ” but I am awaiting eagerly the post you promised me about your view of rape”

      I’d write it even if I didn’t promise you but you have to wait. I told you about my various health problems.

      • I understand and I am sorry you are having so many complications with your health and hope you fee better soon.

        Its just this paragraph:

        “I want same jobs, same pay, same number of workplace deaths, same number of female firemen and… and… and for men and women to be same. I just want it both ways.”

        This does not make sense with the rest of the piece. Is that supposed to be the same person? Is that your voice? Cause I don’t know anyone (no group I can think of!) who supports workplace deaths. Because, if this person *is* supporting all the things in this paragraph then no, they don’t want it both ways. Nothing in this statement actually contradicts internally or with anything above…

        • The point of this article is to mock moderate feminists who believe that only “their” version of feminism is correct – mild, rosy, fluffy bs and who don’t want to be blamed for other things feminism brings.

          It is written from a POW of that moderate feminist who does want it both ways – she wants the “good” things but none of the bad. It’s as if I want most efficient ways of getting energy but no pollution at all.

          And her wishes that”constitute “good feminism” are also mocked, since they are unrealistic, like making men and women the same. As for workplace deaths, I said she wants the same number, not workplace deaths in general – but these will always happen, won’t they?

          So, basically, the point of the article is to say you can either have no feminism or all feminism, lest you want to be seen as somebody who does want it both ways (ie, only good and no bad) and that the “good” you want is usually unrealistic nonsense.

          • Perhaps she’s just articulating a version of feminism that happens to differ from the version you hate. There are other cultural traditionalists — probably including ISIS, whom I mention elsewhere — who share your loathing of women and modern society, yet are properly blamed for phenomena you yourself would prefer to disclaim.

            Would I be correct to attribute to you, caamib, the mindset of: “WAAAAH I want it both ways! I don’t want to be blamed for superstitious barbarism that rejects mathematics and secular education, or for extremist tribalist ethnocentrism, or dogmatic adherence to authority structures, or September 11th! I just want the ‘good’ things, like marital fidelity and modest clothing for females”?

            • “Would I be correct to attribute to you, caamib, the mindset of: “WAAAAH I want it both ways! I don’t want to be blamed for superstitious barbarism that rejects mathematics and secular education, or for extremist tribalist ethnocentrism, or dogmatic adherence to authority structures, or September 11th! I just want the ‘good’ things, like marital fidelity and modest clothing for females”?”

              This comparison could be made but would be very tenuous, since I don’t call myself a Muslim nor am I religious at all.

              But if you want to compare those who share many of my beliefs, yes, you could make this comparison. As silly as it is….

  1. I was annoyed this was an empty “flaming” post, as the young ones call them. Glad to see it’s not in your comments. I only can suggest you should have written that in the body of your main text.

    I despise sarcasm, for it never adds nothing to the discussion except hollow verbal competitions of who is the least respectful towards his opponent in discussion (I teach in a small high school, and believe me it’s a hard work to put some sense into teenager’s heads).

    The internet is a harsh place and a bad example for anyone who seeks a productive exchange of ideas.

    About the equal jobs: whenever I comment it, my friends and fellows remind me.I’m a teacher and roughly half of the teachers are women. And they work as hard as I do. Also, the more physical jobs are slowly disappearing, and only intellect and concentration / technical skills matter in the new job market.

    And given that it’s the same job, it should be paid equally.

    I have my own set of counter-answers to that, but I’m interested in knowing about yours.

    • I am interested in knowing why a female teacher, who is doing the same job deserves less pay then a male teacher doing the same work. I am against artificially raising the wage of traditional female fields to match traditional male fields and paying women to do less (if you work half days to take care of the kids you should get half pay), but I can’t see a decent argument for paying women less who do the same work at the same hours.

      • It’s not related to the work itself, or the productivity, individually understood, but with the greater good for society.

        One of the main causes for today’s society degeneration is the fact that women are incorporated into the workforce of the system. This is a tendency that has become the norm, starting in the world wars and settling in the 60-70’s. Women can’t care for neitheir their home nor their children properly, because their economic support is needed at home or simply because they like to earn their own cash.

        Nowadays, tv and the internet are raising our new generations, leading to many youngs quitting school, falling into drug dependency, etc. Nutrition habits are at its worst, pornography is into each kid’s phone, health and mental issues pass undetected until it’s too late… Because Mommy is at work, instead of caring about her children, cooking and overviewing them.

        Paradoxically, this leads to lots of money going to pay for the children’s care, afterschool activities, and illegal workers who clean and do the woman’s domestic chores, so the monetary advantages are close to none and instead they’re generating new immigration troubles and forcing other women to work for them instead of devoting to their own families.

        A counter-cyclic measure is needed, and a reduction from woman’s salary is the simplest and most effective, discouraging women from seeking proffesional careers unless they are single and really motivated (they need less money, too). It can be done also by taxing them more than males, so the state has more resources for schools and other public services.

        Men would earn more, for they wouldn’t be in competition with such many applicants for each job, and the employers could afford it from the part cut to women, and as the home spendings would be less, everyone would gain in the medium-to-long term.

        So, it’s a political and logical reason, with a broader focus than the egoist short term.

        • Rather then penalize working women wouldn’t it make more sense to incentavise stay at home parents? We give a tax break to married couples with kids, we don’t add taxes to single and childless people. I believe in a lot of traditional things (modesty, chastity, and female submission)….but I was also raised by a stay at home father for my early years.

          There are many families where the hand that rocks the cradle isn’t a woman’s hand your program does seem an unfair hardship on those families. Also on women who for whatever reason are unable to find a partner to marry them. While I agree the vast majority of women can find a date now and again finding a husband is not as simple.

          • That’s exactly the question, that many women aren’t at home and this leads to many problems.

            It’s ok to have a father at home if your mother can’t, for health or any other major reason, but if the reason is that she’s at work, then she is relying in her husband to do her job.

            About incentivising, it usually doesn’t lead to anything, save for some cunning people who exploit that system. We don’t inventivise people for not being criminals, we put in jail those who are, because punishing and penalizing is usually the only thing citizen’s understand. Your community won’t give you a “neighbour of the month” badge for being nice and ok, but will try to throw you if you are influencing it negatively.

            Also, it’s not being discriminated, it’s a legal and political need to tackle some of the most important problems of today’s society. As per single women, it also should be an incentive for stop wasting time in dead-end careers and actively seek a husband, thus also helping to solve grave problems like slut culture, promiscuity, and the sex assaults derived from them.

            Nowadays women are delusional, with dreams of bright careers that always finish in really bad jobs, and then it’s too late and anyway theur pride won’t allow them to say “I was wrong and should have married and stayed home”.

            By cutting their salaries we would be helping them choosing the wise option, not the contrary.

            • The issue isn’t the woman being unable to be a mother for medical reasons so the father stays at home, the issue is when the father cannot be the bread winner and so the mother is at work. I can think of few cases were a woman would be healthy enough to bare a child, but to ill to raise it so the father must. I can think of several were a man would be too ill to be the main income, so the woman must.

              Also incentivize all sorts of things to get stuff done. Every gone paperless to get a cheaper price? Married couples get a reduced tax rate, and you get a further tax break per head on kids. Health insurance companies offer better deals and prizes if you join weight loss clubs or agree to stop smoking. The court often will cut you a deal on your time for the crime you commited if you agree to attend rehab and try to get off drugs. True you don’t get a reward not doing something, but we do incentavize behaviors we want to see more of.

              I think child abuse statistics show that not every woman is capable of being a good mother, I would not want to force women who don’t desire motherhood into doing it for financial reasons. I am not sure if I am 100% comfortable saying that mother/wife is the only suitable/happy role a woman can play. After all I am not 100% comfortable with saying father/husband is the only happy life path for a man. I am trying to settle with a man right now and its not easy! Making woman poorer and men richer won’t change that.

            • If a woman has no desire to have children and does not marry, the she doesn’t need the money that much, and sure she can live on her own earning less. Children are expensive to raise, that’s for sure.

              Gay men have ususally more money to spend in holidays, fancy gadgets, clothing… They’ve got none of the expenses a married man has, so it’s all for themselves. The same happens with all young single women.

              Also, lower salary for women is a good incentive for the man to seek a job, or a better job. It can happen there’s special circumstances, but singularities cannot override the bigger picture and a good measure cannot be cancelled because of a few exceptions, harsh as it sounds.

              • Well 17% of males in the population have some disability roughly 10 million are listed as severe meaning they cannot hold a job, I don’t know about you but 10 million people seems a big enough group of people to at least take into consideration when making laws…

                If the issue is singles need less money and you want to penalize singleness, why not just penalize singleness? After all single men don’t need any more money than a single woman you said so yourself that kids are expensive. The main down side of this being that it hurts men and woman who are trying to tuck money away for their future families.

                I just don’t see where taxing women’s and only women’s wages helps to give kids a stay at home parent. It would make more economic sense to simply tax families where both parents file a W-2. That ensures a parent is at home with the kids now 9 times out of ten that parent will be a woman because woman are more suited to be at home with babies. We tend to be more fulfilled by it and we make milk. However it would also cover the odd ball arrangement when for whatever reason the person staying home is a man. I am not saying the government shouldn’t encourage (although I prefer incentives as opposed to penalties) family formation, I just disagree with your application.

                Although I do have an interesting question…how are women supposed to marry early when men are not encourage to do so? Do you think women should be marrying substantially older men?

              • A high ratio of heterosexual couples have already an age gap, between 3-6 years. This you can see it since the very moment girls start their way to womanhood, and put their eyes in older boys, because they despise boys of her age, considering them puerile and immature.

                About penalizing singles, that would lead to fake weddings and many other problems, and the whole point of it it’s not making people marry against will, it’s a matter of extracting women from work, at their own pace and by their own will.

                Older men will always want to marry younger women (by older I don’t mean “old”, just a few years more). By taxing to both sexes you would be making people like the blogger who initiated the debate even more miserable, cutting their means of living and with no chance of marrying. This would also lead to hurried weddings to cut taxes and irresponsible parenting, more divorces and new hurried weddings to sneak out from taxes… While adjusting the women’s wages would give stability to marriages.

                It’s all about opening women’s eyes early so they can give a good use of their young years.

  2. Feminism is about equality between the genders. I am a feminist woman and I realize that equality was already achieved by the late 1970s. After that the balance shifted and now women who call themselves “feminist” are actually more like female supremacists. No sane woman would be anti-feminist (the core tenets) but no sane woman would also be pro-modern feminism. Not if she ever plans on having a son. Because a modern feminist is a man hater by default. Period.

    Source? Fifty-two years as a woman, mother to two boys.

    • Well, ok. Your opinion is what I’m mocking here and of course I disagree that any sane woman would be against core tenants of feminism but you have the right to it.

      Also, don’t worry about sources here. This is not the kind of blog that wants 13224344 peer reviewed studies for any claim that it doesn’t like while never asking for any support of the claims that fit my views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s