Misandry and female privilege in the way we are taught to form relationships

*PATRIARCHY KLAXON*

It's patriarchy. The patriarchy says that men pick a woman to be their wife, that women are to present themselves the best so that a man will want them. In general, you used to get rejected by the woman's father, or oldest brother.

Of course, since it was realised that women are people, the woman has been able to say no to the man so a beginning to this breakdown of the patriarchal idea of dating and marriage has made it seem like there's female privilege in the situation because we've still got this patriarchal idea of wooing and being a gentleman along with the equal notion that the woman gets to make her own choice.

We've got two options, we go back to full on patriarchy and you go back to having to win over her dad and her not being a real person (keep reading, this isn't going to happen) or we ditch all of the traditional patriarchal ideas and have a completely equal society in which anyone feels they can approach everyone else and everyone has the choice to say no and everyone faces rejection etc.

Guess which one feminists are working towards.

That's literally the result of traditional gender roles. In Sweden, this doesn't happen, there's no "slut shaming" and men often get picked up at bars by women. That's mainly why I'm a feminist/egalitarian.

What a load of sexist nonsense. What alternate reality do you live in where rejection was in the hands of the fathers or the sons? the sexist alternate reality that you feminazis live in where everything bad traces its routes back to men?...get the hell out of here you misandrist....

Its always been the women's approval that is sought and no-one benefits from this knee bowing, crawling on all fours, women pleasing, sexist culture of relationships than women. Hence, I have a stronger case for a matriarchy than you have for a patriarchy if there ever were such things....

The most interesting thing about your nonsensical comment is how you twist reality and distort history in an effort to portray women as the victims and thus make life agreeable with feminist theory....the words Cognitive Dissonance come to mind....I very much doubt that you know what these two words mean...you would benefit greatly from looking them up.

Is this the same Sweden where media openly celebrate female supremacists like Valerie Solanas as a hero? This is the feminist who wrote a book/guide for women on how to kill and sexually abuse men. Is this the same Sweden where men are called 'animals' and 'walking dildos' by public officials and state funded organisations? Is this the same Sweden where boys are taught to walk out behind girls in nursery schools?

Is this the same Sweden where this is acceptable?


You are indeed a feminist and your ignorance emphasises the need to stand up to and fight feminism.

Is this the same Sweden where media openly celebrate female supremacists like Valerie Solanas as a hero? This is the feminist who wrote a book/guide for women on how to kill and sexually abuse men. Is this the same Sweden where men are called 'animals' and 'walking dildos' by public officials and state funded organisations? Is this the same Sweden where boys are taught to walk out behind girls in nursery schools?

Is this the same Sweden where this is acceptable?


You are indeed a feminist and your ignorance emphasises the need to stand up to and fight feminism.

I don't think men and women are the same. They have different strengths and have different desires in life. I think opportunity is more important than outcomes.

I don't think women are victims and I don't think men are either.

I don't think men and women are the same.

I agree 100% with this statement....men and women are different but this difference does not justify abuse. It doesn't justify subjugation. If we identify questionable acts within our culture, we need to question and address these acts. The difference between women and men does not for example justify men crawling on all fours in proposing to women. This nonsensical behaviour needs to be questioned. Why should a man bow to a woman in proposing for a relationship where they are equals? It does not make sense.

We live in a society that is ruled over by feminism. An ideology of people who believe that women and men are not different. An ideology that believes that gender is a social construct...They also disagree with you about women and men not being oppressed. They believe that women are oppressed and men are in a state of privilege and they act on these beliefs. They change society based on these flawed beliefs. What happens as a result of this? women are empowered and men are put at a disadvantage....so you are being victimised because you are being ruled over by a sexist flawed ideology that does not conform with your reality that men and women are not oppressed and are different.

I think you have to draw a distinction between domestic issues and, for example, issues at work.

I don't think we are ruled by feminism. I think that is paranoia but it would be a problem if we got to the stage where feminism was damaging the opportunities for men at work. I don't believe that to be the case.

But in domestic situations, what can be done to influence it? Taking the example of one knee, you say the issue needs to be addressed but what do you want to do to address it? Who is at fault in that situation?

You don't have to do it and others can do it if they wish. Extreme feminists are not a threat. Your relationship is between you and your partner so the feminists can do what they want, it doesn't make any difference to you.

I've got some traditional views on how I want my household to function which some feminists would not agree with but that's fine. They don't have to marry me.

Shape your relationships how you want and don't make any apologies for it.

Please, please read comment 176 in the following thread. Its very very very long but it explains the criminality of feminism and how this ideology is damaging opportunities for men in this country and around the globe in a few select examples...emphasis on the words 'select' and 'few'.

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4102975&page=9

These are just snippets. People, men are ignorant to what is going on around them.

I can write volumes of books about the devastation that this ideology is causing men. This sexist ideology is actively working morning day and night to suppress and oppress men in every aspect of life....and its powerful and it has very deep pockets.....dismissing it is a big mistake.

What a load of sexist nonsense. What alternate reality do you live in where rejection was in the hands of the fathers or the sons? the sexist alternate reality that you feminazis live in where everything bad traces its routes back to men?...get the hell out of here you misandrist....

Its always been the women's approval that is sought and no-one benefits from this knee bowing, crawling on all fours, women pleasing, sexist culture of relationships than women. Hence, I have a stronger case for a matriarchy than you have for a patriarchy if there ever were such things....

The most interesting thing about your nonsensical comment is how you twist reality and distort history in an effort to portray women as the victims and thus make life agreeable with feminist theory....the words Cognitive Dissonance come to mind....I very much doubt that you know what these two words mean...you would benefit greatly from looking them up.

If you're not familiar with history then there's no point in even debating.

I know what cognitive dissonance is, I'm a psychology graduate. I think ignoring history would fall in this, maybe go and have a look at how women were treated before feminism, learn the actual facts and then come back.

History on your planet? No, I'm not familiar with it. I live on Earth and here on Earth Its always been men who are taught to crawl on all fours to propose to women. its always been the men who are taught to provide for women, empowering them at their expense. Its always been men who are taught to seek women for relationships and women taught to be sought....and being made to seek is not like being sought....on this planet this culture of subjugating men and female privilege is inscribed in our 1000 year old religions. Men are taught to carry women and make life easier for them...and no-one benefits from this culture but women...you have no case for your ideology which promotes an idea opposite to that of reality on this planet...the idea that women are at a disadvantage and men in privilege....when reality is the complete opposite....life is matriarchal...everything is provided for you and made easy for you....men suffer the hardships of life whilst you are protected from them....

....I'm not here to debate people like you. I'm here shine light on your privileges, on your sexism, on your hate, on your lies, on your distortion of history, on your nonsense. The battle against feminism, the battle for equality, cannot be won through argument with feminists...why? Cognitive Dissonance.

Or this one here, lol: "We live in a world that sends men off to war to solve world problems and die by the truck loads whilst women sit at home, carry on with their lives, live on and reap the benefits!!"

Men have to gone to war for aeons, yes. Men. We live in a worlds that sends men off to war? You mean in a world where men send men to war.

You're right, but I'd say there are a couple of more significant points to make here.

Firstly, to talk of "sending men off to war" is a very myopic conception of war. It's one based entirely in the modern West, where war is something fought remotely, in a far off country, and in which your civilians are all safely back home, out of the enemy's reach. For most of history, and indeed for most of the world's conflicts even today, this is not what war is like. Instead it is something that happens on your doorstep, something that comes to you, and your civilians are in the line of fire.

Secondly, soldiers have generally historically been recruited not from the ranks of the oppressed and marginalised, but from the ranks of society's dominant groups. There's an obvious reason for this - the latter have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Entrusting your society's capacity for violence and force to its most oppressed members is just asking for revolution. Examples of this exist throughout history:
- In Classical Greece, slaves generally outnumbered free citizens and did just about every major job (Athens even had slave police). Except fight in the army - that was reserved for free citizens, and it would be unthinkable to do otherwise. - The Roman Republic, right up until the Marian Reforms of the 1st century BCE (which would help bring about the fall of the republic), had a wealth qualification for the army - only the rich and middle classes could be soldiers (and they were more or less required to be when the time demanded it).
- Feudal Europe's fighting force was its nobility.
- Apartheid South Africa conscripted whites, made service voluntary for Coloureds and Asians, and completely barred blacks from military service.
- Israel, right up to the present, conscripts its Jewish population but not Arabs.

You wrote so much and yet none of it is relevant to the particular debate in this thread.

It's relevant to why CookieButter's "men are oppressed because soldiers are men" claim is nonsense.

Well that goes without saying.

But what you are saying it is not a gender oppression, but war was a class oppression?