Re: Feminists "love" men. Sort of...

In article <1193550416.456597.228050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:24 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1193237310.197359.278...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





patrick.bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:26 am, "dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Feminists Have More Fun
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 17 October 2007 08:00 am ET
Share this story

Email
Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new
study suggests.

"Suggests". Not proves. Correlation is not causation.

Busting stereotypes that peg feminists as men-haters, a new study
shows that having a feminist partner is linked with healthier, more
romantic heterosexual relationships.

How does that bust the stereotype that feminists are man-haters?
Isn't the stereotypical patriarch misogynist a father and husband?

Believe it or not, while feminists are not attractive to men



Many men insist - INSIST - that feminists are extremely attractive to
them and that they wouldn't have it any other way. Who was that
engineer dude who was in this ng a few months ago?

I think that's one of the horrifying things about feminism is that
it's turned men into self-enabling liars.

I would hardly say it's "self-enabling", GA. On the contrary: These men
have a low self-esteem and don't think they could get a woman unless
they apologized for their gender and lived under a woman's control.

There are a lot of horrors in Orwell's "1984", but maybe the most
pervasive is when Winston Smith really does start to "see" that two
plus two equal five. There's O'Brien holding out an oustretched hand
with fingers spread and thumb hidden -- but Winston really really does
begin to see FIVE fingers.

That's more horrifying than any of the physical torture that he went
through to arrive at that viewpoint. The fact that Winston REALLY
sees five fingers and is not just saying "five" to avoid more torture.

A lot of atrocities are committed against men in the name of feminism
or of "empowering women" -- but maybe the fact that so many men come
to appreciate them is the most horrifying of all.

But GA, these men aren't tortured. On the contrary, even men in our
culture generally enjoy a good standard of living higher than that of
most people in other countries.

Most blue collar working class men, in my experience, are a little more
cynical to the nonsense of feminism than the upper class men whom I
think are driven to drinking the cool aid because of ego and
soft-living. These men like to think that it's some other man whose
going to be stepped on by the system because he's enlightened and
therefore immune and is afraid to rock the boat for fear of offending
someone in power and losing his privileges.

It's ironic that these wimps, these sellouts, are the first ones to get
thrown over the side of the boat by the feminist system. I just had a
conversation with one, a good friend, who still believes in feminist
nonsense even after his new ex-wife tried to drag him through the
wringer.

In the end of 1984, the protaganist not only begins to see that 2 + 2
equals 5 but even craves execution by the state. That to me is the
scariest part. It's not that someone can be brainwashed by torture but
rather that they can be brainwashed to the point of even welcoming
torture. How do you motivate them away from that?

I saw a look in these men's eyes when they met my sweet wife and saw
that I could still express myself, fully and openly, without fear or
submission. It made them look irrelevent.

So it's clear that even the oppressive state of 1984 does still
recognize the importance of these men and give them a role, even a
self-destructive one, that makes them feel important. Take away their
importance and their fragile egos becomes playdoh again.

I have seen
them take more masculine approaches to dating and therefore tend to land
men more quickly than many passive women in the states.


If anyone "loves" men, it's feminists. Without men, there's nobody for
them to blame all the world's problems on (besides themselves and we all
know they won't do that! :-) and in addition most are beneficiaries of
patriarchal men giving them the luxury to indulge in such nonsense in
the first place.




Nonsense, hell! Look at our next president! Receiving the White
House as a gift isn't trivial.

Pulease. Hillary has a lot going against her the least of which being
that she really believes in her own fabian marxist tripe.

The doctors' unions and pharmeceutical firms alone will kill her
presidential run not to mention all the other enemies she's made.

The study, published online this week in the journal Sex Roles, relied
on surveys of both college students and older adults, finding that
women with egalitarian attitudes do find mates and men do find them
attractive. In fact, results reveal they are having a good time, maybe
a better time than the non-feminists.

The key here is "egalitarian attitudes". Feminists today are not
about egalitarian attitudes anymore.

Victim-anti-male feminism has been dominant since the late 70's. Even
before then there were usually more "bad feminists" in charge of things
and making the decisions with a few nice feminists providing cover. But
after they sensed that their legal agenda was pretty solid they
abandoned the silly pretense of egalitarianism.

In modern society saying "Do you
think women should have equal rights as men?" and saying "Are you
feminist?" are NOT the same question.




It IS the same question.



I find that even with most leftists I know, they don't believe feminists
are for equality either. But that said, sadly, many MRA even now
believe in "equal rights for women" even as women clearly require
special protections and privileges that are not available to men or most
men.

Both men and women are prone to holding negative views of feminists,
the authors say. Along with the sexually unattractive stereotype, some
women also view feminism as a movement for victims, or for women who
aren't competent enough to achieve success on their own merit,
according to the Rutgers University researchers.

I find the negative views the article chooses to present interesting.
In particular I note the absence of the view of feminists as being
sexists themselves and wanting special entitlements. The only
negative views the article presents are either patently stupid -
"sexually unattractive" - or are actually pro-feminsim in disguise -
saying that women are too strong and too confident to consider
themselves feminists. No resonable anti-feminist attitude is even
covered.

Of course, it's because they don't want to give that view ammunition or
even coverage.

What they ARE afraid of is that many normal women themselves are afraid
of being perceived as a hairy legged feminists and even worse, expected
to foot their own bill.

Feminism is a movement that sold itself successfully to normal women by
saying that they would be able to "double dip" and get wealthy men to
pay the bills while they could have well paying hobby jobs. That isn't
panning out and they're concerned that angry women are going to get the
torches and pitchforks and come for them. Which they should.




I really wish that I lived in your world.

You see feminism dying.

I didn't say that. I said I see the BENEFITS for normal women dying.

Granted, just as drug addicts may become more addicted to drugs even as
their life is harmed by them, but my point is that feminism has now
become openly unhealthy for women.

I remember in the heyday in the 1980's when double dipping was possible.
Career women were graduating by the millions and spending their money on
massively expensive baubels while their husbands paid all the bills.
The cost of living in metro areas was still low. All that has changed.

I see a Holocaust on the horizon. The science behind it is in place.
Remember, the Y chromosome is said to be some sort of genetically
defective organism which is going to die out in a matter of time
anyway.

Given that males (it isn't believed) aren't really human and (it is
believed) aren't good for anything, what harm in speeding up the
process by eradicating them?. It can start by encouraging females to
abort male children and thereby start to eradicate the virus.

And then whose going to pay them "child" support? :-)

Without men, the women are stuck paying the bills ALL ALONE and we both
know most can't handle that.

The eradication of men and boys is is a platform that women (and many
men) can get behind, regardless of whatever else divides them.

You see this in terms of left and right, but many conservatives feel
the same way.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire082801.shtml

I read this article too.

Most conservatives, especially the blue blood rockefeller types that
write to NRO, generally do sympathize with feminism and equal rights for
women and chivalry. I never denied that. That's why they kicked out
Ann Coulter, one of the greatest authors of our time.

Psychologists Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan carried out a laboratory
survey of 242 Rutgers undergraduates and conducted an online survey of
289 older adults who had an average age of 26 and typically had been
in their current relationship about four years.

So it is an online survey which means it is self selected. Not a good
sign for it being valid.

Older adults have more life experience "and thus may be more likely to
show an incompatibility between feminism and romantic relationships,"
Rudman and Phelan write. While younger females likely grew up with the
attitude that "women can have it all," the researchers note older
women may have come of age in the era following U.S. women's suffrage
(1919) or during the women's movement that emerged in the 1960s.

The researchers looked at people's perception of their own feminism,
their partner's feminism and whether they had positive views of
feminists and career women. Other survey measures included overall
relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship
stability and sexual satisfaction.

What I would like to know is how many people were forced into being
identified by the survey as feminists by defining feminism as being
for equal rights. I believe this could account for what I mentioend
above -- the idea of feminism not actually being about equality being
completely missing from the objections to feminism.

Sounds like a "cosmo quiz". :-)

The very notion of "women having it all" is a sexist one and highly
unrealistic.





For example, relationship quality was measured with questions such as:
How often do you and your partner laugh together? And how often do you
and your partner quarrel? For stability measures, participants
answered how often they considered terminating the relationship, as
well as how often they thought their romantic relationship had a good
future.

Among the findings:

College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also
reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than
couples involving non-feminist male partners.
College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners
reported more equality in their relationships.
Older women who perceived their male partners as feminists reported
greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction.
Older men with feminist partners said they had more stable
relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
Overall, feminism and romance do go hand in hand, the scientists say.

Notice among the findings how little is said about completely non-
feminist relationships. So essentially what this boils down to is
saying "relationships where one partner is feminist are happier when
the other partner is also feminist" Gee, thanks for pointing that
out, Captain Obvious. People get along better with those who share
their views than with those who don't. Amazing discovery.

Wait, they're SCIENTISTS so they have to be right. Now get some
leeches! :-) Science has been so warped by the left into a priesthood
for leftism that it's now a self-mockery. Whenever I hear someone refer
to "scientists", I think of "Christian science".



Global warming. Global warming. Global warming. Global warming.

That's another "science" that has been perverted by politicians and
opinion-makers for radical ends -- think of RFK Jr. asserting that
anyone who doesn't believe in it is a "traitor" (the apple doesn't
fall far from the tree).

It's funny to hear such a word used if what you say is true because it's
usually the left that derides patriotism to traditional American values.


The "global warming" hoax, as far as I can determine, is running on an
entirely different track from the "males aren't fully human and are
disappearing anyway" hoax.

Most females would like to see males eradicated, but many of those
females would balk at - uh - having to do their part to reduce CO2
emissions by giving up their SUV's or anything along that line.

I joked about this too. THIEF! :-)

Indeed, it doesn't make any sense including calling someone a "traitor"
for disagreeing with them or the popular leftist accusation "liar!"
(I'm reminded of Michael Jackson's famous interview where he calls the
people who accuse him of child molestation "ignorant." "They're
ignorant.")

Indeed, feminists are between a rock and a hard place with leftism
trying to stay relevent by slashing the women's primary standard of
living. Democrat middle class women don't want to take the bus or do
their own yards or cook meals from scratch. They love all the
technology that evil republican males have created to serve them.

America is still a racially segregated country with the whites having
swapped with blacks and minorities the cities and the suburbs and rural
communities. It was all fueled by oil and sprawl. Al Gore can't even
be bothered to go through airport security so he has to have his own
747. It's simply preposterous.

So again, the "global warming" hoax likely runs on a different track
from the "male virus" hoax, but both have widespread followings and
both are promoted by elitists who want to acquire and maintain power.

There's different motivating factors behind the global warming hoax and
feminism. Men like feminism because it made women more slutty (at least
they think so) and helped push along the sexual revolution. I have
heard them tell me this outright.

Global warming is about the left scaring people so that there will be
more government money for leftist boondoggles.


Scientists (in the "traditional" style, pardon the pun) know not to
trust self-assessments. Naturally, PAM's (Pussified American Males) who
are feminists are going to report that their relationship is "equal"
because that's what his "equal" feminist girlfriend told him to write.
:-)



Oceania was at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia.
Oceania had ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with
Eurasia.



In feminist dogma, women are both equal but superior feminine goddesses
whose baby whelping skills men are in envy of but at the same time
helpless victims of men. So if she can breath, the typical male
feminists will claim that she's living up to egalitarian standards.



Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia.
Oceania had ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia and in alliance with
Eastasia.

I actually heard this from my commie friend when he said: "Affirmative
action is about "evening out" things and it's also about putting the
past behind us."

While they aren't sure how feminism works to enhance relationship
health, the researchers have some ideas. Feminist men might be more
supportive of their female partner's ambitions than are
traditionalists. Men with feminist partners may enjoy the extra
breadwinner to share the economic burden of maintaining a household.

It's no wonder they aren't sure how feminism works to enhance
relationship health because it doesn't. That is manifestly obvious in
the rise of single parenthood, incidence of depression and loneliness,
etc since the rise of feminism. The only thing they have shown is
that given one feminist person, that person will be happiest with
another feminist. That points out the obvious about human
compatibility, and says nothing at all about feminism.

Er, no. What they have shown is that if, through some miracle, some
Pwhipped guy stays with a feminist or if she doesn't dump him for some
construction worker she'll CLAIM to have a perfect life probably because
she won't want to admit that her ideology doens't work.

No surprise that the feminists who write that they are married to a
nonfeminist are miserable. No surprise. He's not living up to her
ideology but she stays with him. Now think about that: If she REALLY
was so misersable why did she marry him in the first place and stay?

So what we may have here are feminists married to wimpy feminist men who
are miserable about having a man who won't stand up to her but she is in
denial about it WHILE on the other hand, feminists who got the
traditional breadwinner they crave claim to be miserable even as they
don't want to go anywhere.

Either way, feminists are in huge denial and these are the ones who have
a relationship.

regards,
PolishKnight


"Hey Butthead! I had a nightmare last night. I dreamed that
everything sucked."

"But Beavis, everything DOES suck!"

I love that show. Sometimes it sucked, but sometimes it bordered on
brilliance.

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Quantcast