Some unreal women talk about an unreal world


(Source)

They say: ‘Real women do not need feminism. The problem with feminism is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization. Feminism tries to make women believe they are victims of an oppressive, male-dominated, patriarchal society.’

Do those women try to make women believe society is not patriarchal or male-dominated and women are not oppressed?
Those superficial, silly, stupid, snobbish, selfish unreal women are talking about an unreal world that does not exist. It is like a bunch of delusional people talking about god. I wish they at least knew that without feminist movement they would not be there where they are now. They are not confined to their kitchen and they are speaking their mind.

Miri protested against anti-feminist propaganda.

PZ Myers is angry with anti-feminists.
Ophelia Benson reacted.

Avicenna is angry too.

I would be very happy if patriarchy becomes extinct. But the truth is, it exists. So does misogyny. Sex trafficking, sex slavery, domestic violence, bride burning, bride trade, dowry murder, female infanticide, child marriage, sexual abuse, rape, gang rape, exploitation, stoning, whipping are our everyday reality. Hope those women come out of their imaginary shell to see how real women in real world get tortured and murdered by real men living in real patriarchy.

Women have been fighting for equality and justice for centuries. Not only women, men too. But throughout history misogynist men and women have been very active against women’s basic human rights. Patriarchy would have been extinct long time ago, if anti-feminist misogynist-women did not help men to keep it. It is impossible for men alone to make male dominated society survive without the help of women.

Comments

  1. vaiyt says

    The problem with feminism is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization.

    It’s all in the attitude, woman. If you believe really hard you’re not a victim, then you won’t be victimized! Poof!

  2. says

    People who think that one is a victim only if one thinks one is, are either deluding themselves, or are hypocrites.Those little girls getting raped and killed everyday don’t even know what feminism or victimization is, and yet they are made victims of that Very ignorance and innocence, why?
    And women who say things like,
    “Real women do not need Feminism,are living in a fool’s paradise,for just because life and men around have been kind to them, they think that it is the same with all women.Such women are those who have learnt the art of seducing and manipulating men to serve their needs, and are generally superficial, selfcentered, smug and affected!

  3. Mriganka Bhattacharyya says

    They are not misogynist, just anti-feminist ……………….like not religious, spiritual. :)

    • Hari says

      They are misogynist, Because they think only way of living as woman is submit herself to her husband and sacrifice yourself to maintain this patriarchy. If you read the description that promote this DVD you find it is about biblical Christianity and ask to follow God’s word . So those are religious and misogynist.

  4. says

    Yes, we truely hate children
    We hate them so much that we think that you should not have more of them than you can care for without turning your oldest daughters into stand-in housewife-babysitters.
    How much we hate them by thinking that there should be enough time left to deal with each one of them individually.

  5. says

    Not angry. I cannot be angry when my enemies march under the banner of The Monsterous Regiment of Women… A book that proceeded to flop miserably as anti-catholic and anti-female during a period when the defender of the protestant faith was a woman. The female tyrant they were talking about in that video is in on the SAME side as the author.

    Let’s just say Queen Elizabeth was “not amused”.

  6. doublereed says

    Likewise, it is impossible for the feminist movements work without the help of men. With about 50% of the population on both sides, it’s kind of difficult for either of us to get anything done by ourselves.

    I’m not exactly sure where this idea that women can’t be misogynists or men can’t be feminists comes from. It’s just blatantly incorrect.

  7. Good says

    Do those women try to make women believe society is not patriarchal or male-dominated and women are not oppressed?

    With regards to Western societies (which is where feminism is prevalent), these women are correct. Including third world countries is a straw man. In Western societies, women are not oppressed and these societies are not male-dominated when you look at it deeply.

    Men hold more leadership burdens and responsibilities (because they are more likely to seek them), yet such men put more effort into the needs and desires of women than they do men. This is why there is so much pro-female legislature out there and why men are treated as disposable.

    Women control two thirds of the U.S. disposable income. If men make more money on average than women (due to differences in professions that they seek, etc.), then clearly women are spending their own money as well as a large portion of men’s money. Society is shaped by the dominant spender as is also shaped by female sexual selection. From puberty on, 95% of men’s decisions are based on the wishes of women or what make them attractive to women. This is not oppression.

    A “patriarchy” is generally a society run mostly by men in a way that these men perceive as benefiting both men and women with more emphasis on benefiting women because they see other men as their competition.

  8. says

    patriarchy would have been extinct a long time without the help of antifeminist women—thank you taslima for saying it —i have thought and said the same thing for many years

    and i’m all for learning to seduce and manipulate men if it helps you get more power—anything we can do that helps right the inequality is alright with me

  9. Good says

    • doublereed says

      I’m sorry, what is your point here?

      You’re not addressing anything in the blogpost other than saying “Misogyny isn’t REAL!!” when all you have is economic decisions. This confuses me, because nothing in the blogpost was economic. But I could point out lots of economic arguments like pregnancy discrimination, and sex segregated schools, and such like that.

      And the studies on women making less than men account for the fact that women choose different professions. Even when this is factored into account, women still make less money than men for the same job. Stop with the bullshit please.

      The major problem I see with men today is the hypermasculism which is just so profoundly annoying and distracting to academia and intellectual pursuits. But hypermasculism is a fad, so whatever.

    • doublereed says

      Also, LOL at the Satoshi Kanazawa article, which was basically just evo-psych BS. I have no idea why you think that article, which is really just misandrist drivel, would make your argument seem stronger. Now you just look like a frickin’ joke.

      • Good says

        Of course you needed to bypass 6 links to concentrate on one that you felt comfortable with criticizing and even then, you provided no substance to your criticism other than declaring it to be “evo-psych BS”. Now who is looking like a joke? How about reading more information (start on page 2):

        ftp://ftp.repec.org/RePEc/els/esrcls/displfin.pdf

        • doublereed says

          Well the reason I skipped the links was because I didn’t understood the point you were even getting at. You were just blabbering about irrelevant statistics as far as I was concerned. I didn’t dispute the statistics because I have no idea what you’re trying to show.

          But then you’re also like “Well men do everything just for sex! Therefore there is no patriarchy!” and that just deserves nothing but a huge facepalm. It’s misandrist nonsense, and completely fails to understand gender roles and its relation to patriarchy.

          I have no idea what that paper is even saying dude. I tried. Sorry. It seemed like it was just playing with definitions and jargon. Like “What is this thing called ‘culture’ anyway?”

          • Good says

            “Giliell, professional cynic” asked for citation in comment 7.1. I was providing what was asked for. “Patriarchy” is some phantom force that feminists keep propping up to target. You never get a definitive description of exactly what this “patriarchy’ is. My point is to show that women are not powerless and are actually quite powerful. Women are 55% of the electorate and could easily vote in nearly 100% female politicians. Female power is at least equal to men’s. You just don’t like the way that this power is manifested because it is not readily apparent. But it is there. Modern feminism is just an elite funded victim card game.

            http://rense.com/general75/how.htm

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw‎

          • doublereed says

            “Giliell, professional cynic” asked for citation in comment 7.1. I was providing what was asked for.

            No, I understand why you provided the links, but I have no idea what you were trying to show with those statistics in the first place. It doesn’t disprove Patriarchy or Misogyny. I don’t even understand why you think it does.

            Modern feminism is just an elite funded victim card game.

            Miri’s link up there says it better than I can. The only thing “victimizing” is anti-feminism. Though I’m probably giving you too much credit here. That sounds like nothing more than an “applause light.”

            Women are 55% of the electorate and could easily vote in nearly 100% female politicians.

            So many things wrong. I have no idea why you think “women” are a single block of people like that without individual opinions.

            Women can support the patriarchy, idiot. Not all women are feminists, either, idiot. Not all women want women to be equal to men, idiot. Jesus f***ing Christ stop criticizing concepts you don’t even have a basic grasp of. There’s plenty of places you can go to learn what the Patriarchy refers to.

            Here’s one. Here’sanother.

          • Good says

            Let’s add that not all women are as stupid as you (since you want to kick out weak, childish personal insults). Many women understand human nature and are realistic about the world they live in and don’t get their kicks fighting for imaginary causes.

            Feminism is a destructive force today. It is destroying families. What you call “patriarchy” is probably the most weakest in black America, yet strife and violence is ripe within black American and black females suffer more violence than non-black females in this near matriarchal sub-group. The proof is in the pudding.

            It’s interesting that when one points out female privilege, it is brushed off because it is privilege given to women by men. Seems that men can’t win for loosing. Male legislators, judges, police officers, etc. constantly cater to women at the expense of men, but men are still demonized by the likes of you.

            Also, read this entry and tell me what is the bases for the notion that misogyny is so rampant? Seems to be the other way around:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_are_wonderful

          • doublereed says

            Of course not all women are as stupid as me. Why would I take that as an insult? Do you not think women can be smarter than men?

            “Understand human nature”??? God, do you realize how traditionalist and conservative you really sound? Again, I must ask why you are here? These are the same arguments used against women in the workforce. These are the same arguments against women in the army. These are the same arguments used against women voting. These are the same arguments used for women being property. You’re still on the wrong side of history.

            The facts of nature is that men and women are just not that different. Men are feminine. Women are masculine. It’s not a big deal. But no you have to shove your gender roles into everything and explain why women aren’t acting womanly enough or men aren’t acting manly enough, and why it’s perfectly okay to shame people for not fitting into your restrictive BS.

            LOL dude, did you read your own link?

            The authors concluded that the positive general evaluation of women derives from the association between women and nurturant characteristics; these characteristics qualify women for the domestic role as well as low-status, low-paying, female-dominated jobs and this explains why women face discrimination in male-dominated professions where male characteristics are seen as a requirement.”

            Yea, discrimination against women. It’s a thing. Kind of my point, actually.

          • doublereed says

            And I have no idea where you got that feminism is strong in the black communities. That’s blatantly reversed.

            One of the major issues that is discussed with feminism is the eliteness of it, and it’s lack of concern for women of color. It’s primarily been a upper class white women idea. I have no idea how you concluded that feminism is strong in the black community when Rap and Hip Hop have such obvious issues with blatant misogyny.

            I would say it’s like you’re not paying attention, but actually I think you’re deliberately ignoring the obvious.

          • Dee says

            The author seems to be using the information (that women are liked more than men) to speculate as to the reasons for the notion of women being discriminated against in employment. The problem is that when actually analysed, we see little sign that such discrimination exists today:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2011/03/14/debunking-myths-of-gender-equality-are-personal-choices-and-preferences-whats-really-holding-women-back-from-achieving-parity-at-work/

            Good doesn’t say that feminism is strong in the black community, but rather that the patriarchy is weak and that the black community is the closest thing to a matriarchy in the developed world and beyond. Gender roles are less defined, households are overwhelmingly female headed, the pay gap is narrower while the education gap favoring black women is greater. Black women make up a greater share of the workforce than black men, the share of females in political positions is geater among blacks than in other groups, etc. etc. One study showed that blacks are the only group whereas employers/white employers in general favor hiring the women over then men. The black community in America is arguably female dominated.

            The black feminist types don’t embrace “white feminism” and embrace a black feminism that they refer to as “womanism”. While they push for “Black Female Empowerment”, they also push for black men to “step-up” and be leaders, protectors and providers. This is why they don’t embrace mainstream feminism. The fact of black men are not living up to traditional male roles has been shown to be problematic. Many black women in the “Black Female Empowerment” movement are promoting black women to seek marriage to white men because white men are seen as more traditional husbands. So one can arguably say thatthe weaker patriarchy of the black community has been a detriment seeing the deplorable state of that community.

          • Dr.Cheeselove says

            Dee,

            ‘The black feminist types don’t embrace “white feminism” and embrace a black feminism that they refer to as “womanism”. ‘

            Nope. Black feminism and womanism are two distinct ideological positions.

            I’m starting to think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

          • Good says

            Dr. Cheeselove:

            From Wikipedia entry for “black feminism”:

            “One of the theories that evolved out of the Black feminist movement was Alice Walker’s Womanism.”

            From Wikipedia entry for “womanism”:

            “Walker was the first to use the term to describe “black feminist or feminist of colour” (Collins 2001: 10).”

          • Dr.Cheeselove says

            Good,

            Where is the line in wikipedia that supports the claim that ‘The black feminist types don’t embrace “white feminism” and embrace a black feminism that they refer to as “womanism”. ‘?

            It’s not there. And there’s a reason for that. It’s because womanism and black feminism are two distinct positions. So black feminists types don’t embrace womanism, they embrace black feminism. Womanists embrace womanism. Your stupid-ass logic is like saying, “All those catholic types embrace protestanism.” No, dumb ass, just because one ideology evolved from another doesn’t mean the original ideology vanished.

            How the hell do you and your sexist friend think you’re going to convince us that all the black feminist types embrace womanism when you’re on FTB, a place that has several black feminists bloggers?

          • Good says

            Where is the line in wikipedia that supports the claim that ‘The black feminist types don’t embrace “white feminism” and embrace a black feminism that they refer to as “womanism”. ‘?

            Like, where it says ‘Walker was the first to use the term to describe “black feminist or feminist of colour” (Collins 2001: 10).’ Duh!

            And I’m still waiting for you to provide something to back you nonsense (I won’t hold my breath).

            Oh, and CBS news and Telegraph are pretty mainstream.

          • Dr.Cheeselove says

            @Good

            The wikipedia entry says that womanism is *one* position that *evolved from* black feminism. That means that womanism and black feminism are two distinct ideological positions. Therefore, you are an eejit. and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        • Dr.Cheeselove says

          Of course you would need to bypass the piles and piles of research in economics, sociology and history about women’s status in order to find like six links that you think you can twist to support your position.

          What’s next? You want us to look at like six articles you dug up about how climate change isn’t real? You think we should provide you with in-depth analysis about why the sources that support young earth creationism are wrong?

          Or you could figure out on your own why your tired-ass reasoning has been addressed so many times before that it’s now boring, why you’re not going to win anyone over with a few articles by a guy who got fired from an evo-psych mag for being racist/sexist and why the only thing you’ve got to offer is a bit of confirmation bias for people who don’t want to look into the evidence because they have a vested interest in being sexist.

          • Good says

            Of course, these piles of research that you mention don’t exist which is why you did not present any of them. Claiming something is different from showing something. It is you vested interest in being sexist and bigoted that prevents you from looking at the piles and piles of research that show you and yours to be so wrong.

          • Dr.Cheeselove says

            Good,

            Ah, so you really believe that the position you’re arguing against doesn’t exist? Or you’re just claiming that entire fields of research don’t exist because you’re too lazy and too invested in sexism to actually confront the research?

            If it’s the former, start with wikipedia. There’s an entry on patriarchy. It’s a nice basic source (hopefully basic enough for someone like you) that will sum up the prominent arguments and criticisms in various fields.

            But I suspect it’s the latter.

            Either way, you’re the one who is all up in this thread making claims about whether patriarchy is a valid model or not. The onus isn’t on me to provide you with citations and try to catch you up on nearly a hundred years of research that you are either unaware of or wilfully ignoring. The onus is on you, if you want to be taken seriously, to actually understand the debate you walked into.

          • Good says

            Dr.Cheeselove

            I am RESPONDING to the repeated claims regarding the “patriarchy”. I have provided multiple links supporting my response. Non-feminists don’t go around using the world “patriarchy” in every other sentence that they use. You guys are making the assertion of the existence of some evil, destructive force called patriarchy that must be defeated. The Onus is on YOU to provide the evidence, not on me to provide your evidence for you. Here is more from me:

            http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1196male.htm

            http://www.deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.267

          • Dr.Cheeselove says

            No seriously, you should read the wikipedia entry on “patriarchy.” There is one section of it on feminism. There are other sections from the perspective of historians, etc. Historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc might not go around saying “patriarchy” “every other sentence”, but they certainly acknowledge that it exists.

            And, no, the onus is not on me to address your dumb-ass conspiracy theories*. The onus is on you to stop being an eejit if you want to be taken seriously enough to have a discussion. The smart people of the world are having a conversation. If you want in on this conversation, you need to stop throwing your own poo around for a few minutes and try to grasp what the conversation is about before you join in.

            *Your citations are lulz. Does it not bother you that you can’t find a single mainstream source that will back you up?

  10. says

    “I would be very happy if patriarchy becomes extinct. But the truth is, it exists. So does misogyny. Sex trafficking, sex slavery, domestic violence, bride burning, bride trade, dowry murder, female infanticide, child marriage, sexual abuse, rape, gang rape, exploitation, stoning, whipping are our everyday reality. Hope those women come out of their imaginary shell to see how real women in real world get tortured and murdered by real men living in real patriarchy. ”

    Yeah it’s so evil. Add to that list evil genital mutilation of intersex women, denial of hormone blockers, surgeries and forms of reparative therapy for transwomen (as well as brainwashing in general), and police forces and religious militias hunting down intersex and transwomen in the Muslim world, stalking, beating us up, raping us, and then eventually murdering us and bragging about it to a culture that cheers them on. It may not happen as much in Iran, but it happens quite frequently in every other Muslim country, in fact it’s the norm there. It happens here too in 1st world but it’s hush hush and gets swept under the rug pretty fiercely, and the bigots doing it have to be careful to appeal to secular sounding concepts like ‘trans panic’ or ‘gay panic’.. But it happens here too. Of course if one were to ask one of these self assured women who believes feminism is some delusion they would probably say intersex women and transwomen are delusional too (rollseyes). Trans and intersex women are subjected also to the same realities these ciswomen are in all of these countries if they are accepted as women, and if they are not they are subjected to the same plus worse. When will these religious right women grow up and quit trying to tell us how to live our lives. Anyone talking about real woman is a baby woman, an immature woman.

    So sad state to see these people saying such things =(

  11. S Mukherjee says

    @Good: You claim that stats showing women do most of the shopping for household goods and that girls get better marks in school is evidence that women are not oppressed in the Western world. But how many women are CEO’s of big companies? How many women are in the US Senate? In the UK parliament cabinet? How many women are shortlisted for literary awards? How many women are encouraged and supported throughout their career in the sciences and technology? You should have a look at these stats too.
    Women are better off in general in Western industrialized countries, but that doesn’t mean that there is no oppression against them. Please have a look at sexual violence and domestic violence stats too.

    • Good says

      @S Mukherjee: Have you looked at the domestic violence stats? A multitude of research has shown that men are the victims as much as women:

      http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/

      http://fermat.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry%20-%20corrected-pg255.pdf

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

      And sexual violence stats are ridiculous. Such surveys designate a woman who gives in to sex with a guy because he pestered her about it as having been sexually assaulted.

      Also, unequal outcomes don’t equate to unequal opportunities. I cited a link above showing that women are less ambitious than men:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9579666/Are-women-less-ambitious-than-men.html

      And a blog post that cites evidence that women are held back by other women:

      http://lace-and-grace.blogspot.com/2012/09/women-hold-women-back-not-men.html

      Men prioritize status and power because women are attracted to men who gain such power and status. Men rise to top levels because men are constantly competing with one another for power and attention from women.

      • doublereed says

        Also, unequal outcomes don’t equate to unequal opportunities. I cited a link above showing that women are less ambitious than men:

        First of all, why are women less ambitious than men? Are you claiming this is purely biological? If so, why? There can be biological factors without it being purely biological. Obviously.

        Secondly, where did you get that women have equal opportunities from? I’m sorry, I just don’t understand how you could possibly demonstrate this even if you wanted to. All you have shown back is that other women hold them back. Okay. So do they have equal opportunities or not?

        Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m not sure why you’re here, considering FtB is basically an openly feminist site. Feel free to go to AVfM. I’m sure you’ll be welcome with open arms.

        • Good says

          I was making no claims regarding biology or non-biology. That is another discussion. I do agree about “biological factors without it being purely biological”. I do believer that there are “biological factors”.

          I actually answered your question somewhat above when I pointed out that women are attracted to men of high social status. Men are generally not attracted to social status in women (they can be attracted to a woman of high social status, but it is not because those women are of high social status). With men being predominantly the pursuers of women while women choose among the pursuers, men have high motivation to achieve social dominance.

          Also, people who are goal oriented are more successful than people who are process oriented. Women tend to be process oriented while men tend more to be goal oriented.

          Here is an interesting read:

          http://card.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/female-bosses-are-more-likely-to-discriminate-against-female-employees/

          Also, it is you and others here who assert that women don’t have equal opportunity. So the burden of proof is on you. All you provide is outcome inequality. If you see Usain Bolt cross the finish line in front of me in a race, are you going to automatically conclude that he was given a head start? If there is unequal opportunity, it can mostly be blamed on other women holding women back:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/149360/americans-prefer-male-bosses-no-preference.aspx

          “The majority of men express no preference regarding the gender of their boss, while women are both more likely than men to say they would prefer having a male and a female boss. Still, both men and women end up preferring a male boss — men by 26% to 16%, and women by 39% to 27%”

          Feminist women may want to stop demonizing half of the world’s population and start looking in the mirror.

  12. sahitha says

    I agree that misogynist women also contribute to the abuse of women. These women raise their sons different to their daughters. I do not know how much of this is due to fear. I haven’t met any woman who hasn’t agreed with me that men are responsible for oppressing women yet they fear the consequences of such oppression and “give in”. They fear that if they confront the men in their lives, they have nowhere to go because society is pretty much the same. So they bury this truth deep inside them and twist it to believing that men indeed are superior to women. Again they are only trying to be “safe”.

    These are the women I come up against who do not approve of me being open about equality for men and women. They agree misogyny exists but justify it by telling themselves (and everyone else) men are better than women and hence can treat them as they like.
    I won’t go into writing about the mind-set of misogynist men because right now, it’s exhausting. I am saving it for another time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>