MRA: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?”
Women campaigning for suffrage for no real reason, because not voting was just what women did back then.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if the entire Men’s Rights Movement is an elaborate hoax. Our old friend Fidelbogen weighs in today with a typically pompous post on the cutting-edge issue of women’s suffrage, posted with the almost-too-good-to-be-true headline: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as half-baked satire – except that FB is serious, deadly serious. (And deadly dull, too, most of the time, but I’ll try to keep this snappy.)
Fidelbogen’s thesis:
It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.
While most people are either for or against women having the right to vote – though I’ve never met any of the latter group outside of MRA blogs – FB bravely declares himself “a third way thinker upon this subject.”
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, because Fidelbogen is going to get all philosophical on us:
I would submit that women’s historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.
Hey, it was the olden days. People wore silly hats and watched silent movies and no one had iPhones.
Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?
I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges? Hey, it was the mid-twentieth century – people were just into that shit back then.
Well, FB doesn’t mention either Hitler or Stalin, but he definitely considers women’s former lack of voting rights to be just one of those things that, hey, people were into back then:
[W]as it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? … Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was “all that”? Seriously. . . who are we to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life which we can no longer entirely fathom?
And besides, most men had been denied the vote earlier, so even if it matters and it totally doesn’t, what’s the big deal if the dudes in charge decided to deny the vote to the ladies for a while longer? As FB puts it:
[W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn’t always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?
Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn’t it?
Seriously. Those feminologicalnists are totally retrojecting the fuck out of the pastological period using their standard sneakyfulogicalnistic tricknology.
And besides, even though we’re not supposed to judge the past, and even thought that whole denying-the-ladies-the-vote thing was totally a “morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little,” FB thinks that maybe it was actually sort of, you know, cool.
I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times.
FB decides to leave that case unmade, and returns to the whole “who the fuck cares” argument.
Once upon a time, women didn’t have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such an arrangement. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That’s all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, “oppressed.”
Besides, the whole idea of “rights” is, well, just like, an opinion, man.
Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
And so, if the dudes of the world denied the ladies these “rights,” well, uh, it was “morally indifferent” yet also probably good for some reason.
In conclusion, shut your pie holes, ladies:
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
Well, unless they’re this lady. She’s actually pretty good at tooting a horn.
Posted on October 18, 2011, in antifeminism, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reactionary bullshit, woman's suffrage. Bookmark the permalink. 388 Comments.
Well, now the world has changed, and we recognize past and current forms of oppression and work against them.
Who are you to judge?
Is it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women are demanding equal rights? … Why should it even matter? Does the average man in these days honestly feel that complaining about everything women do is “all that”?
Those were the days. Nowadays most violin concertos would be completely impossible to play on the trumpet. These kids today, composing with their artificial harmonics, their sul ponticello, and their “idiomatic” writing for soloists.
So I guess all the “rights” of “oppressed” “men” don’t “matter” either, then. Since “rights” are a “figment” and all.
Who is St. Fidelbogenus to judge modern feminists? It’s just our culture that says that women who have no say in the legal apparatus that rules their lives are being oppressed. In fact, I would argue it’s a positive good in the context of the times.
His blog header is especially ironic:
It seems it’s only okay when non-feminists criticize culture.
I love the circular argument this idiot constructs. So, a right only exists if it’s established by custom and law. However, if only half of the adult population get to decide what the customs and laws are, that’s okay, because the other half being disenfranchised is just custom and law. Sheer brilliance.
Amused–That’s why he’s the official philosopher of the Men’s Rights Church.
Haec Dixit Spatio Papa
InB4 Meller rolls up and agrees with all of the tripe in the OP.
Fidelbogen needs to have his thesaurus taken away. His ponderous prose is painful to parse.
The monarchy is neither a good nor a bad thing, but rather a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by all of the nobility. [W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the colonial population had absolutely no voice in their own governance during that comparatively trifling span of years? Furthermore, Americans were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, America simply didn’t exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
Now see how fucking stupid you sound?
Slavery is neither a good nor a bad thing, but rather a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by all free people. [W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that slaves had absolutely no civil or political rights during that comparatively trifling span of years? Furthermore, slaves were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, slaves were not considered people in the first place, therefore it was impossible for them to have rights anyhow during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hands in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
Eh, those hunger-striking suffragettes who were brutally force-fed by policemen probably didn’t think voting was all that, amirite?
“Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?”
This is why we have libraries. If the past is unknown to us, we can pick up these mysterious objects known as “books” (sorry, Apple doesn’t make them), and within those books we can find information about the past. Based on the information we find in those books, we can determine that some people at the time did not consider certain things (such as women not being able to vote, or slavery) to be befitting to their world.
And thus feminism (and the anti-slavery movement) was born.
*scratches head*
I mean, it’s not as if “our ancestors” suddenly went whoa, let’s give women the right to vote, and lo it was done.
Women FOUGHT for the right to vote. For some 80 years in this country. Demanded it, protested, served jail time.
So if it was all neutral and cultural values of the time blah blah blah, who were all those uppity wimminz (aided by male allies) DEMANDING it.
Logic, he does not have it.
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
It’s becoming au courant in men’s rights talking to say “Second and third wave feminists,” I’ve noticed – showing you’re up to date on those insider terms used by the oppressive harpies. So who do you think the first wave feminists were, Fidelbogen? What do you think they possibly could have wanted?
The world may never know…
He’s claiming that societal norms can’t be oppressive, yet he complains that feminists want to instill oppressive societal norms, is he not?
I’m pretty sure if I put this idiot in a thinking contest with my new plushy, the plushy would win.
Funny how the past is always perfectly knowable when trying to make sociobiological arguments.
I don’t know…
It’s not that long ago that many democracies had a (bad) census suffrage (like England)… oppression?
It’s only 40 years that in Northern Ireland only house owners could vote in local elections… oppression?
It’s not that long ago that women could vote in a referendum (Australia) if they wanted men to be conscripted… oppression?
It’s not that long ago that in Switzerland only people who served military service could vote… oppression?
Oppression is a strong word, sometimes it didn’t feel like oppression for ANYBODY back then.
Contrary to that, through all the ages you always had people who thought that it was simply not excusable to slaughter innocent people just because they had the wrong religion or belonged to the wrong people or were born “unfree”.
That’s the problem with => “I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges?”
There were Aztecs philosophers that condemned human sacrifices, Romans that condemned slavery, Muslims that weren’t happy with the slaughter and enslavement of inhabitants of conquered cities, and so on.
But there were times when a concept like the female vote was so alien that they couldn’t even come up with this idea.
And what does this have to do with “men’s rights” exactly? Hard to pretend that you’re part of a rights movement when you spend most of your time taking illogical pot-shots at women.Not to mention what everyone else has seemed to pick up on, which is that this particular attack if logical would invalidate the whole men’s rights business as well.
I mean, that’s just crazy dumb.
He’s claiming that societal norms can’t be oppressive, yet he complains that feminists want to instill oppressive societal norms, is he not?
No, no, women are capable of doing this, because we are inherently illogical, and thus capable of warping the very structure of reality around us. Which is also how we decided one day we wanted the vote, and had it, and then decided we were oppressed by not having it and suddenly there had been protests for the vote, without people even wanting it before hand, in a strange ontological paradox rewrite of…
Yeah, let’s challenge him and the plushy to a debate.
Such a philosopher this one. It was neither good nor bad, just a thing. When weighed on its merits though, “It was a positive good in the context of those times.”
That looks as if he’s actually saying it wasn’t, “just a thing,” but good.
Wait… Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
So men don’t have any right to anything. We have it from the great-thinker himself.
I wonder what happens if we apply this to the things he talks about being rights? Does he agree that his philosophy actually rules all of his conclusions invalid?
By his logic men have no reason to complain about the things he thinks are happening. If the state wants to say men aren’t equal to women… so what.
If the state wants to say, “Men aren’t allowed to have access to the children after a divorce”, so what?
If the state wants to say men have to support women; and women can refuse to talk to the men who are assigned to provide that support, so what?
Because there are no, “rights”, only laws, which some portion of the population fixes into custom.
Simon – oppression may be a strong word, but we shouldn’t turn it into another “racism”. Sometimes shit deserves that name, even if the perpetrator didn’t mean it, or the recipient didn’t feel too badly about it.
Yes.
Wrong.
And yet, he calls the 1920’s before women had the vote “mysterious and unknown to us now.” My grandmother was born in 1914 and until the last 5 years or so could tell you exactly how it was back then. There are tons of oral and written stories out there.
But let’s ignore those and instead turn to the stuff we made up just now!
And David, thanks for the introduction to Alison Balsom. She is great!
100 years ago – mysterious and unknown. 100,000 years ago – totally got that nailed down.
I can’t help but wonder, if none of this felt oppressive back then, how the hell did any social justice movement get started? Aliens?
Yes, along class lines.
Given that it wasn’t female-only, no.
In a society with mandatory conscription? Arguably not in the least.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.
AFAIK, this really only coincides with the places that don’t have a concept of the vote *at all*.
Naturally. Like brown people, women are incapable of making their own advances in philosophy and ideas.
Men get turned down for sex. That’s “oppression”?
100 years ago – mysterious and unknown. 100,000 years ago – totally got that nailed down.
I can’t help but wonder, if none of this felt oppressive back then, how the hell did any social justice movement get started? Aliens?
There are, besides men’s rights, no social justice movements, just people whining about feeling “oppressed” – which is a vague feeling of “specialness” that afflictes moderns. This “specialness” allows us to create ACTUAL Oppression With A Capital O – A vague feeling of “unspecialness” that affects men.
Well, sex is a necessity for men. Not like having a say in your own life or government, or not getting murdered for biological traits. Really, we need to consider what’s important.
I seriously thought you were kidding about the “shut your piehole” conclusion then bam! There it was.
Dang! Betcha he slept right through history class!
Seriously, not having the right to political representation is no big deal. We only FOUGHT A GODDAMN REVOLUTION OVER IT.
Indeed, the suffragettes did believe the right to vote was not only all that, but all that and a bag of potato chips. Who could forget Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s famous speech, “We just want to vote and act like we’re all that”? Seriously, though, from now on whenever I vote, I will have the extra satisfaction of annoying misogynists like Fidelbogen.
Wow, I hate winning by default, but I’m really feeling good about my IQ now.
Thanks, Fidelbogen! Your impression of the anti-Spock is great!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/filmmore/ps_ladies.html
MRAs prove again and again that showing up to history stoned is a bad idea.
I’ve found that it’s no long in vogue to say “okay women were oppressed in the past, but feminism fixed that long ago and now it’s gone too far!”, now they just go the whole length of the field and say “WOMEN WERE NEVER OPPRESSED! FEMINISM IS A CONSPIRACY TO OPPRESS MEN” >_>
Honestly, I wonder if they think anybody was ever oppressed xD Cuz it sounds like that as long as they don’t want to believe a group is oppressed, they can handwave any injustice in the past. Chinese head tax? Well, white people were poor too and didn’t have many rights either! xD
Ami – I’ve noticed that too. It’s gone from “nowadays straight white men are oppressed!” to “straight white men are the only group that has ever been oppressed!”
Some sort of clumsily attempted Overton Window shift, I guess. (Or the window has shifted, within their little group, because they’ve said “women aren’t oppressed anymore!” to each other so many times that it’s become the merely moderate viewpoint.)
And the “poor men were oppressed too” stuff makes me double sad. Doesn’t that mean you should be advocating for poor men, not for everybody to be equally oppressed?
zhinxy:
I think it’s a version of NAFALT, and the sort of anti-feminism that takes the form “the core principles of feminism are good, but feminists have moved away from them.”
simon:
Yup. Not sexist oppression, but some kind of oppression. Is that one of those supposed MRA gotcha questions that says more about MRA delusions about feminism than it does about feminists?
Without knowing anything about what you’re referring to, I’m going to guess the referendum came up after Australian women had achieved suffrage, so not oppression. A referendum on conscription might itself be oppressive, in the way referenda on marriage equality are. Gender-based conscription is clearly oppression, but again, not a lot of feminists would say otherwise.
Addressing this is, traditionally, one step away from invoking Godwin’s Law.
“And the “poor men were oppressed too” stuff makes me double sad. Doesn’t that mean you should be advocating for poor men, not for everybody to be equally oppressed?”
This confuses me as well. The fact that people were opressed along class lines doens’t make it somehow okay that people were opressed along gender lines.
It just means there was more opression going around.
It seems like in this modern age I get to use this phrase less and less, but I think this is about as appropriate a situation as any for it:
“What sophistry!”
As a female horn player I’m definitely going to keep tooting my own horn, but not an old rusty one and sadly not nearly as well as Alison Balsom. Though watching that video does motivate me to go practice.
In other news, FB needs to look up the definition of oppression and then check out some history books.
Oh the poor women were always sooo oppressed. Why so many of them seem to remember being unable to vote as if it were just yesterday. I chat extensively with women born pre-1899 about how they felt about their horrible oppression.
Did men fight wars to save their wives and children? Why yes they did.
Did women from aggressor countries cheer men to their deaths to bring them more exotic goods? Why yes they did.
Did women whose country was being attacked cheer men to save them? Why yes they did.
Did men often send the women and children away from danger zones in war to protect them? Why yes they did.
Have men always willingly done the most hazardous work to support their families? Why yes the have.
Have men died in staggering numbers in these dangerous jobs to support their families? Why yes they have.
Did mothers instruct their daughters to make sure they marry a man of means? Why yes they did.
In order to claim oppression, you have to actually be oppressed. Men as a whole, have always had it much harder in every aspect of society than women as a whole. So how can women as a whole claim oppression? If you’re going to point at a tiny handful of elite men who had it better, I can play the same strawman game. Isabella sat at the table with ferdinand and the pope when they divied up the new world. She was a woman therefore all women were oppressors of men. There. See. I played the strawwoman game.
Since in this country, all men weren’t given the right to vote until 1894/women in 1920. Was that scant 26 years in the history of the world too unbearable? I’ve never voted. What’s the point? A politicians promise is simply a promise to take my money, since the States only form of income is debt at interest. The “change” Obama promised has cost so many trillions that your grandchildren are indebted to what he’s spent. How’s that voting thing workin out for ya?
But back to your rights. Do have all you have the right to life, freedom, property and the all too important vote? That’s all she wrote. When you vote for more entitlements and privileges, did you think it was free? You keep voting yourselves more and more of everything. The well has run dry kiddies. Womens privileges are costly, the middle class is gasping it’s dying breath. The poor abound in numbers too great to concieve. You’ve done a bang up job with that vote thingy. Of course you could blame the patriarchy, thereby shifting the blame and women will remain innocent of any wrong-doing. And you can once again claim oppression.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Everyone should be able to vote in a democracy.
Is there one intelligent MRA in the manosphere? Seriously? Can you give me just one? All of their prose and arguments seem to be spurious, making up their own facts on everything from rape to suicide statistics, blaming feminism for their ingrown toenails, historically absurd propaganda. David, how/why do you keep reading this MRA tripe?
NWO, all I got out of your comment was “men exist and they’ve done stuff, so women weren’t oppressed.”
Also your usuals, but just refer back to previous times they were refuted and you didn’t listen because you’re in love with your own ignorance.
Yawn.
Hey NWO is back! :D
What privileges and entitlements do women have? :D
You say we have privileges, but you don’t say what they are o_o Presumably you also think this is true for all the other groups you don’t like right? xD Like queer ppl, etc…
What privileges and entitlements do *I* have that you believe I should not? o:
That’s an interesting alternative history you live in there, NWO.
NWO: For fuck’s sake, would you please read a fucking history book? Seriously, your total fucking ignorance is bugging the shit out of me.
@DSC that’s TRUE history DSC. NWO’s 500 years old *HE* knows xD
Actually I find story time w/ NWO hilarious xD
Can you imagine him having his own children’s TV show? :3
Children gathered around his feet as he has a guitar and sings them songs of the past…
Ami: Whoa, does NWO run around with a sword, beheading other immortals? Because that would be kind of awesome.
Oh fine. God this is a sickness.
Did men fight wars to save their wives and children? Why yes they did.
Men often fought wars for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the women and children in the places they attacked. Also, women serve in the military.
Did women from aggressor countries cheer men to their deaths to bring them more exotic goods? Why yes they did.
No. This is Mars logic.
Did women whose country was being attacked cheer men to save them? Why yes they did.
Oh these evil women, selfishly wanting to not die.
Did men often send the women and children away from danger zones in war to protect them? Why yes they did.
So did (and do) other women. This is a good thing for men to do, but it’s not so uniquely good that completely different men should get special privileges forever.
Have men always willingly done the most hazardous work to support their families? Why yes the have.
Women do and have done lots of hazardous jobs, and are actively asking to be allowed to do more.
Have men died in staggering numbers in these dangerous jobs to support their families? Why yes they have.
See above. Also, do you believe that men with desk jobs should be allowed to vote?
Did mothers instruct their daughters to make sure they marry a man of means? Why yes they did.
Marrying a man of means was necessary when it was impossible to be a woman of means by any other method. Fortunately, thanks to feminism it’s possible for a woman to make her own money, which takes a lot of pressure off men.
I hope this disproves the otherwise-ironclad thesis “women never contribute anything to society because they just lie around and men feed them bon-bons and mammoth meat.”
Yes! xD
HERREEEE WE AREEEEE
BORRNNNN TO BE KINNNNGGGSSSSSS
Someone’s adding all that to the Big Book of Larnin’, right?
@Holly
OH! Talking about Mars logic. I figured out how NWO can work 28 hour days actually! He’s on VENUS! XD so actually he’s slacking off… cuz Venusian days are 224.7 Earth days… so he’s only spending 28 Earth hours of that time working xD
THAT’S where he gets the time to spend trolling all these sites online xD
Oh, now I’m imaginable NWO meeting Methos. Nwo would get his ass handed to him on a platter…
I would really love to hear NWO name which specific wars were caused by ladies’ insatiable lusts for fancy shoes and pretty dresses, or whatever “exotic goods” he thinks those harpies were clamoring for.
@Holly ALL of them
@Kathleen Methos was BY FAR the coolest person on that show :D
Kirby: @Moewicus:
He’s deleted three or four of mine… Yet some snark has been left standing for some reason.
It’s protective cover. When someone says, “He edits things to make himself look good,” he can say, “no, look at the nasty shit they said. I don’t need to edit them, and they are just upset at how bad their own words make them look.”
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, all I got out of your comment was “men exist and they’ve done stuff, so women weren’t oppressed.”
And all you ever say is how women were oppressed not only in the past but even today. Do tell. What special laws are there just for men.
The draft is the only law I can think of that is exclusively for men.
Are there a lot of State sponsored grants, loans, business ventures and other entitlements for men?
Are there a lot of charities and corporate sponsors just for men?
Can you name me a lot of hardships from the past where women suffered disproportionally compared to men? And if they did suffer disproportionally, did men have hardships where they suffered disproportionally?
If men and women each had their own crosses to carry, than no one was oppressed. There’s no patriarchy to blame. There’s no men to blame.
If you insist on blaming men for womens harships in the past, I wil continue to point to all the areas where women are to blame.
If you say patriarchy, this shifts the blame from all women to men systematically oppressing women. There is no patriarchy.
Every time you say women were oppressed. I will use the same tactics as you. Strawman, Ad Homenim. The zero sum game. All of it. As soon as you say, women are/were oppressed it will instantly become a zero sum game. Women were never oppressed.
Did men often send the women and children away from danger zones in war to protect them? Why yes they did.
Sometimes. Sometimes they just drove them out of the city to die.
Ami: Oh, yeah, Methos was awesome. Not nearly so much a stick in the mud as McLeod…
You’re already adept at created Straw Persons, NWOslavey, it’s how you work. We’re neither surprised nor impressed.
You might want to look up the term “Kyriarchy.” We all also know that you disdain “wiki-smarts” but it has its own page on Wikipedia, just sitting there waiting for you to go and read it.
Indeed as you point out, most men have had a hard time of it through history. Most women have, too. Who, after all, got carried off to enemy camps and cities as the spoils of ancient wars? Who was considered whose property in a Roman family? Who was given away to other families by their fathers in order to cement alliances, obtain more property, etcetera? All of that is oppression of women because they are women. Oppression is oppression whether you might be considered in the most comfortable cage or not.
And if you want to go into the stupid game of who had it worse–tell me, how often were wars fought in the ancient world? Who was deliberately told they couldn’t fight, couldn’t develop strength or skill to defend themselves because of gender roles? How do the few relatively short campaigns that most men in history would be expected to participate in compare to being someone else’s property and living in servitude for a lifetime? How do you even stack these things against each other?
Not that I’m playing that game. Most people have been oppressed throughout history. You, on the other hand, seem to think it’s some kind of binary game in which one gender sits on the couch and eats bon-bons while sending the other off to amuse them with a giant game of Risk. That…why, that is just stupid. Your simplistic arguments and views are why you are so thoroughly mocked here and it is why your views will never gain any traction among people who know half a shit about what they are talking.
@Pecunium
“Sometimes. Sometimes they just drove them out of the city to die.”
Oh goody! The zero sum game.
And sometimes women shamed men into dying for them. Will you run away like a coward and let them kill your sons and rape your wive and daughters?”
Ya wanna play some more?
“HERREEEE WE AREEEEE
BORRNNNN TO BE KINNNNGGGSSSSSS”
Wait. I’m an actual Highlander by birth, and I know how to use a sword, and I’m a feminist. Does this make me NWO’s nemesis?
I kind of feel like I deserve a more challenging nemesis, honestly.
NWO: And Greek mothers would tell their sons marching off to war at the ass end of the earth (as they knew it) to “Come home with your shield or on it!” People cheer war, for some stupid, ungodly reason. It’s not just women.
and who started those wars NWO? hint: not women. Who defined the roles of men fighting in wars? hint: not women.
also, attempt to educate yourself:
http://www.warandgender.com/wgwomwwi.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/warwwii/a/military.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/waspwwiiaviation/a/wasp.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/warwwii/a/military.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossdressing_during_wartime
Are there a lot of State sponsored grants, loans, business ventures and other entitlements for men?
No. White people, straight people, and rich people suffer similarly. (There’s plenty of opportunities open to these people, just not specific ones that are closed to other groups.)
Although there are some. My nursing school, for instance, has a “Men in Nursing” scholarship, because nursing is a field where men are under-represented. Men do not get scholarships in fields where they are already represented.
Are there a lot of charities and corporate sponsors just for men?
I’m not sure what you mean by “corporate sponsors,” but there are certainly charities for men’s health, for prison reform (mostly affecting men), and for male survivors of abuse.
Also, a charity isn’t something that the system just hands to you. If you want there to be a men’s charity, start one.
Can you name me a lot of hardships from the past where women suffered disproportionally compared to men?
Well, we couldn’t vote, for one. (Some men couldn’t vote, but this wasn’t because they were men. It was because they were poor or black or other things you don’t approve of.) Also sometimes we were treated like property and it was legal for our husbands to rape us and sometimes beat or kill us and we couldn’t own property and sometimes were married off as children and almost never could hold the same jobs for the same pay as men.
For starters.
And if they did suffer disproportionally, did men have hardships where they suffered disproportionally?
Actually, yes. Men often were the ones to get drafted into the military, for instance. I think this is terrible and that’s why I support women in combat.
If everyone is oppressed, that’s not “fair,” that’s a reason to try to get everyone un-oppressed.
NWO: You are the one who keeps painting the twin games of, “men had it worse” and “men are always sacrificing for women”.
Neither of which are true. Most men have always had it bad. Women are not the reason. The reason is some men played other men against themselves.
But you, you are convinced that it was all better back then, if it weren’t for all the women.
You blame women for all the evils in the world, as it was is now, was in the beginning, and ever shall be.
It’s so not true it’s past wrong, and into the realms of fantasy.
@Moewicus
“And if you want to go into the stupid game of who had it worse–tell me, how often were wars fought in the ancient world? Who was deliberately told they couldn’t fight, couldn’t develop strength or skill to defend themselves because of gender roles?”
Yaay, more zero sum games.
Ahh, helen of troy, the face that launched a thousand ships. Go kill, go die for me. Ahh the anciencts in Rome. The richest women in the world at the time, demanding men kill and die and pillage, to bring back silk and perfume and luxury goods to satiate their every whim.
Women were “told” they couldn’t fight. What didn’t women have the moxie to up and do stuff?
Aren’t we having fun now?
C’mon lets play.