all 6 comments

[–]censorshipment 2 insightful - 10 fun2 insightful - 9 fun3 insightful - 10 fun -  (6 children)

Eh, I'd say the focus on reproductive rights and abortions was the most detrimental. It's all I've really heard about since the 80s (I was born in '83). Feminists should've been fighting to separate themselves from men in general. Husbands wouldn't have been wearing their wives' lingerie if women weren't marrying men in the first place. Why weren't most feminists also separatists? What was their problem with living among women only and building communities without men? Or simply being a lone wolf fighting to liberate women from all forms of relationships with men?

Why isn't this sub much bigger than it is? - https://www.reddit.com/r/wgtow/comments/mgln8d/why_isnt_this_sub_much_bigger_than_it_is/

Women aren’t stupid or being held back by some imaginary hand. They like being with men and would rather be with them than by themselves, despite the evidence that men are a waste of time and a bad investment. Women want to be housewives and serve men, that’s why most reject wgtow ideas. They don’t feel they have any value as a person without a husband. Doesn’t matter how miserable they are deep down, they need to show the world they can get a husband for validation. We need to be honest about women too.

[–]MarkTwainiac 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why weren't most feminists also separatists?

Coz most human beings regardless of our politics are opposite-sex attracted. And most people experience an urge/desire to mate and reproduce.

Humans are just one of the millions of animal species on earth, and all animal species have evolved to perpetuate themselves. Humans have bigger brains & more developed intellectual capacities than other animals, but we still have animal instincts that most of us find hard to override or ignore.

[–]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really don't know how separatism is viable at long term unless you want to go either the extinction or transhumanist route. Plus, most people are heterosexual and want to have biological kids, so it's not surprising this is not a popular position to take.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Separatism is never going to work in huge numbers. It can work for singular persons here and there, but it' s never going to make any impact on the larger scale. It' s not practical and most women find it undesirable anyway.

Most people desire company and sexual relationships, women included. And most women are heterosexual. ANd that' s without even taking into consideration that to have full separatism we should live on a country with no men and perform sex-selective abortions, which I personally find abhorrent no matter which sex is being aborted.

It' s never going to happen.

[–]Archie 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lack of access to abortion is a direct cause of death and/or suffering for women and hard a direct cause of women being forced to stop studying/stop their career and being forced to end up at home, dependant on a man to even survive.

It has to be a feminist cause. It is indeed one of the most important ones still, because it isn't solved at all in the US, unlike other feminist issues.

[–]our_team_is_winning 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Husbands wouldn't have been wearing their wives' lingerie if women weren't marrying men in the first place.

It pains me to see women settle for a man, any man, no matter how awful, or to stand by one who does such abusive things.

Most people desire a partner, and most people are heterosexual. Still, women could use stricter standards.