MISANDRYWhy you shouldn't support feminism at all

submitted by meisthebigdumbTransracial BlackX Rockgender Bispecies from self.TumblrInAction

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

do little to prepare the average citizen to have the ability to understand and make informed decisions on matters of governance and seed a good portion of the power into the hands of propagandists instead

Indeed, which is why diluting the vote by allowing women to vote didn't give women equality, it benefited the propagandists. Same deal with allowing women to work. They earned the right to have to work to earn a living when before they didn't have to. That was a win for industry and not women.

Clearly the best solution is simply to coronate yours truly as Supreme God-Emperor since I can't trust anyone else to make the right decisions

Almost, except obviously I should be King. There is no better system of governance really as long as you have a capable ruler. The issues crop up when inevitably lesser heirs take the thrown however.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The question I'd ask is since when have women been "allowed" to work?

Women have always worked but the work has been largely domestic. I think the biggest issue with the feminist movement has been pushing the industrialist mantra that a woman who does not labor in the factories or otherwise take a position outside the domestic sphere is somehow not doing her sex any favors and is instead engaging in regressive behaviors.

When I've always considered domestic work to be important work in its own right and it seems baffling to me why women would want to demonize others for choosing that when it seems that by and large it is what makes the majority of women happy and it's what they want from life.

It's not that women should be forced to be a housewife if they choose otherwise with their lives, women who don't wish to have children or otherwise don't have domestic obligations should be welcome in the labor force should they be capable. I think the clear problem only comes around when there is no one around to handle the domestic affairs and both parents are working to the detriment of child rearing.

But have women ever been barred from the workforce? I think not. I also don't see being a woman or a man in and of itself anywhere a compelling argument for voting rights. We could argue that if voting rights are limited to landholders or otherwise then it should be irrelevant who the landowner is.

Personally I think a lot of societal issues would be resolved if we merely required mandatory military service for everyone as a prerequisite for full citizenship like is done in other countries such as Taiwan Singapore South Korea etc. Mandatory only in the sense that should you wish to be a full voting citizen then you must go through two years of military service in order to do so. Women would be welcome to serve as well should they wish. And anyone who doesn't wish to serve for whatever reason may choose not to but they do not obtain the right to vote until their service is completed.

You would have to have the military service open to everyone and make some concessions for disabilities and handicaps that normally would be a disqualification for military service, but the goal is to instill a sense of civil responsibility, a sense of comradery with ones fellow citizens regardless of class or racial divisions. And ultimately to weed out the mentally incapable and easily offended via boot camp from the voting pool.

I should think most women would likely choose not to vote rather than deal with military service. And while it saddens me to think they care more about their own comfort than the lofty ideals of civil responsibility, that's the entire point of the system to weed those out. Those who choose to serve are far more likely to bring competence and honor to the society.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Indeed, which is why diluting the vote by allowing women to vote didn't give women equality, it benefited the propagandists.

The problem is that as history marched on and repealed the 18th Amendment, it ignored that the 18th and 19th Amendment were both connected. Women's suffrage was combined with banning alcohol because together, they did give some semblance of equality for the time [beforehand, the man of the house would frequently drink himself into the poorhouse and leave his wife and children helpless with nothing and no hope of a better tomorrow. Ban alcohol, the man couldn't legally drink himself into the poorhouse, and give women some semblance of equality, you could start to give them the chance to have a life of their own in the event the man decided to drink himself into oblivion.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't really follow this logic. This is largely the progressive idea of ban the bad thing fix the problem which rarely works as prohibition showed.

Ban alcohol and the man can't legally drink himself into the poorhouse, so he'll illegally drink himself into the jailhouse first and then the poorhouse and leave the wife and children helpless anyway. A problem I'll add is not really mitigated in any way by allowing the woman to vote or work since now she'll be saddled with both the responsibility of the children and the responsibility of a job which is not a good position to be in for the full realization of either prospect. You can't eat the right to vote.

It makes no sense to be. A responsible husband who follows the law and does not drink himself into the poorhouse is unlikely to do so if alcohol is legal or not. An irresponsible alcoholic husband will do so regardless of the legality of alcohol.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It makes very little sense, but this was the argument given in the 1900s when both laws were put on the books. It sounds absurd now, but we're in an era that realized "prohibition of drugs or alcohol doesn't stop people from using them, you just make people who choose to use them criminals"- and alcohol would double it because it would go past "well, it's still very expensive to be a drug user and most people can't afford it" to "alcohol's still inexpensive to get and a relatively simple science experiment to make it; anyone can get it cheap, you can't arrest literally every adult in the world."