by cloudier

the futurist: the misandry bubble

It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive.  It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication.  The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is.  In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.

ಠ_ಠ

a comment

Since you deleted my first comment, I’ll try again. This time, I will just address one of your “statistics”

….despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.

According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US.[5] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper.

Source – http://www.bauerfamilylaw.com/divorce.html

And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her.

I have no respect for an essay that uses made-up statistics.

another comment

if you truly looked at culture with the “eyes of the other sex” and reversed the power dynamics in most of the media that is out there today, i believe that you would not come to the conclusion that it is centered around the empowerment of women. maybe you are noticing it because it happens to be a new (and, in cases like ‘cougar town’, jarring) method of the mainstream media to capture women’s attention.

the creators of this media know that this particular audience is a powerful consumer group, and that is probably why they are targeted with shows that appeal to their sexuality. but i think the mistake you are making is that this is more directed to the collective imagination and fantasies of women rather than their daily choices and practices. its dangerous to look at culture and take it at face value. for example, it might be more instructive to look at who is producing the media, and why? maybe it is not created out of the very deepest and most earnest desires of women who are trying to fashion a new reality for themselves, maybe it is a form of escapism??

why are you letting yourself be victimized by the media? last time i checked, the media and the goals of ‘feminism’ (to generalize a movement that has had many goals and theories, not all leftist) were not perfectly aligned. also you have the choice to not watch.

regarding the ‘venusian arts’: this is exactly the kind of cynical ‘instruction’ that any woman can find in cosmopolitan magazine. maybe it contains some form of truth in the means of seduction, but it comes at the expense of dehumanizing your would be partner, and also objectifying yourself and dismantling your personality. is it wrong for women to object to this kind of gender programming? i think not, as it seems to promote the lowest possible expectations of the opposite sex. maybe in this case men have something to learn from feminism. (i had never heard of ‘venusian arts’ or ‘game’ before today)

but to get to the governmental aspect, of enforced child support and the legal favoritism of women and or minorities, that is a problem that both women and men SHARE, and it has less to do with feminism than a rampant government presence in all of our lives, redistributing wealth in ways that are STATED to help women and minorities, but actually are in place to benefit special interest and the powers that be in government. in fact, i believe that it was the bill clinton administration that really pushed the ‘deadbeat dad’ message to america, which served to create a whole new mass of bureaucracy to enforce the legislation and child support payments. so really this pandering is just a means to a political end, always. and everyone suffers as a result, including women, in the form of new tax burdens.

I realise I’m 2 years late but it appears your entire argument is thus: the onus for the stability and functionality of societies and the civilization comprised by them must necessarily be borne by the female gender through the subjugation of her wants, needs and desires.

I’m sure you appreciate that like any other grossly unfair allocation of responsibility this could only exist for so long. Feminism was the inevitable and eventually quite brutal backlash and although that has indeed wrought some terrible consequences for all of us (women included), there was never any logical basis for women to be placed in such a position in the first place – beyond the mere facts of our biology, which we easily transcended (or, at least, counterweighted) many years ago.

In other words, if patriarchy mandated women to be the guardians of wider social morality, if we entrusted them with such a burden, we must also have understood that women had the concomitant right to fuck it all up, and bring dissolution to the traditional family if they so wished.

That, however unpalatable and destructive the outcome, is logical and fair.

GK,

It is not logical or fair. For one thing, the average woman was never systematically oppressed to a greater degree than the average men (see the first section of the article).

Every form of male oppression you discussed (labour, war and financial and legal culpability) is superficial compared to the oppression and partial extirpation of female sexual choice within our species. There have been few more wicked abberations in the history of human nature.

Female sexual selection drives evolution of advantageous characteristics in nearly all mammals. By fostering and maintaining a system where women would always be dependent on men for material resources we sought in effect to wrest this power away from them, to ensure access to sex and reproduction for almost every man regardless of his natural fitness as a mate.

Also, there are solid surveys linked in the article that show women of today to be far less happy than women of 50 years ago.

If you re-read my post I acknowledged as such. That doesn’t mean it isn’t “fair” in the logical sense.

Note that the current state is very unsustainable and hence transitory. A society that alienates and subjugates the productive people (mostly men) cannot persist in that state for long.

From a biological, genetic and evolutionary standpoint the most productive people are women and thus their processes of sexual selection the most vital. The genie is out of the bottle and unfortunately for substandard men everywhere it’s never going back in.

Along with many men I think you are now appalled at the behaviour of modern women which informs the tone of your analysis. What you fail to understand is that women never were natural or willing moral guardians of sexual propriety in the world. They were merely paid by men to be such.

on conspiracy theories

Sunny C: Not really an argument to this, I mean you’re right, there were a lot of “ethically unsound expiriments” in the middle 1900’s…but I mean, just because that’s in the past doesn’t mean now is a squeaky clean ethically waterproof time period either. There’s no way to tell if there are ethically unsound expiriments going on today or not, we only know the illicit, secretive practices of a time period decades later. So, neither of us really are wrong or right yet.

Actually we do know- right now- but the conspiracy theories draw attention away from what is really happening. Waterboarding and playing music at high levels 24/7 are currently torture techniques to break down our inmates at Gitmo.
Also read everything I wrote about advertising in your thread on Toys in Happy Meals, Sunny C. Now that stuff is conditioning. But alot of people don’t want to believe it because it is right there in front of our eyes instead of supposedly “hidden’ in secret messages.

Advertisements