all 18 comments

[–]Tums_is_Smut_bkwrds 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Feminists also just wanted equal treatment. But modern feminism is all about elevating women at the price of men. Today anyone claiming to be a feminist but who only wants equality will be turned on and eviscerated by 'true' feminists.

This is a characteristic of victimhood. It always starts off with morality and fairness as the driving consideration. However once their demands start to be met they (the demands) will escalate, increasingly and without end. Feeding into victimhood fuels their hunger and it will never be sated.


[–]wylanderuk 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Feminists also just wanted equal treatment

Horse shit, they wanted the rights but not the responsibilities...

[–]Wanderingthehalls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ah no, that's the clear horse shit. Many feminists wanted to work and have jobs. That was the biggest part of second wave feminism. Which wasn't a bad idea in and of itself but it was massively short sighted and showed no thought had been given to the most obvious economic outcomes. Which has resulted in most families needing to do at least double the amount of work outside the home for a lower standard of living.

[–]Dontcaretoday 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are economic outcomes from women joining the work force, but the biggest reasons for a woman to want to work are pretty legit though. If a divorce happens and the woman has no job to support herself she's going to be fucked. This could leave them stuck in abusive relationships or unable to leave a cheating spouse for financial reasons. There's also a possibility that the man ends up being unreliable and can't hold down a job for whatever reason, and the woman and children end up with a lot of stress and financial problems and can't do anything about it even if she wants to stay with him. Then the fact that you would have to find a man to support you in the first place.

[–]wylanderuk 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry but nope, not buying it...No fault divorce with alimony/spousal support unchanged is just pure having their cake and eating it. The only time you generally hear anything about reforming that from feminists is when a woman gets hit with it.

Just look at the blow out over Florida killing lifetime support going forward recently.

But in my opinion if you get a divorce because the spark is gone or your just not feeling it anymore why in the ever living fuck should your ex partner have to support your arse going forward?

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

Of course no one should have to support an ex that walks away for no good reason. My point was just that women working can prevent them from being trapped in a bad situation. Men should have protections also to not end up ruined if they need to leave because of a bad situation where the wife is the issue, or have to pay to support an ex that leaves for no good reason.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which wasn't a bad idea in and of itself but it was massively short sighted and showed no thought had been given to the most obvious economic outcomes. Which has resulted in most families needing to do at least double the amount of work outside the home for a lower standard of living.

The thing no one ever thinks about is the negative economic outcome at a societal level. At the individual level giving women the freedom to leave the house and survive without being forced to marry is great but at scale we basically flipped a switch and doubled the number of available workers. This has secretly been terrible for labor because the supply of workers is now so high that corporations can operate in such a way that they knowingly work their employees into the ground because it's far cheaper to just abuse them until they quit. I have a ton of downstream examples of what this has done to the power dynamic between labor and capital but i think we can all imagine the far reaching scenarios.

[–]xoenix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To make a mark, activists can't just hold the line, they have to push the line further and make the last generation look too moderate or turn them into villains.

[–]LtGreenCo 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Career activists have no choice but to keep pushing. All of the time they spent being activists means time not spent developing valuable job skills and if/when the time comes when they've achieved their goals and the charity-well dries up then they'll be forced to either keep pushing the activism envelope or get a job at Wendy's.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There's always been a subset of insane people in basically every movement. Look at early feminist causes like the suffragettes and you'll see the same kind of crazy insane women in those as you'd see in modern feminist movements, though as the goal posts move the crazies slowly are the only ones still pushing for them.

Gay rights, civil rights, don't need to go far into any movement to find the crazy. For every person preaching equal rights you'll likely find another preaching crazy hotep nonsense.

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

While you're right, the problem is that the crazies use the sane people as their motte and bailey move and say if you disagree with the crazy shit, then it's clear you don't actually want the sane shit. And we're at a point where the more it's done, the crazier the people get who say this and get away with it.

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

"Vae victis" -Brennus

[–]clownworlddropout 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The problem with activist groups is they can't stop.

If an activist organization accomplishes it's goal it doesn't then disband and start looking for a real job, it ups the ante. The direction only goes one way, to more and more extreme assertions and demands.

So today we have:

  • Women's Rights = Men are violent oppressors
  • Black Rights = White people shouldn't exist
  • Gay Rights = Sexual orientation and "gender" are social constructs

Activism is a societal cancer.

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

Take off the rose coloured glasses, they had their fuckwits as well.

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They all just want revenge for some perceived slight that happened decades before they were born.

[–]OuroborosTheory 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the flip came when they said "you don't need dysphoria or to actually DO anything to be trans," so that opened the door to all the Ben Franklin impersonators taking toilet selfies (which the radfems accused the gays and the "truscum" of wanting): heck, Ed Wood was all about fetishistic transvestism and he managed to make it work

problem is we just get a DIFFERENT extremist with each shift

[–]slavdude0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah. It came in the 80s when they let out the dick swinging weirdoes at the pride parades.

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

Gays just want to be themselves.

Trans people hate themselves, and they don't know what they want, except to make other people as miserable and confused as they are.