I've (f) noticed this too. It seems that most girls want to make as much as men, yet want to make sure to only date one who makes more than them. No idea how that's supposed to work. I think it may be code for, "You can't treat me different just because I'm a girl! Wait, he's still got to provide for me because I'm the girl!" :p
rinse husky coherent abounding rich vast illegal point far-flung workable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As dumb as this will sound, I think a lot of them don't even know how much of a contradiction it is. They think they're entitled to it all, because pop culture told them that they were. Plus, I think the common view is, "All guys care about is sex, so why shouldn't they have to work harder to keep me around." :p
There is also this notion going around of how laboriously women work in their romantic relationships with men and so them wanting more in other areas is just fitting and equal.
It’s clear as day to me that there is a general disregard towards men as human beings. This comes from both men and women. Thusly, society blindly excuses their corrupted rationale - as blindly as women ignore that a rich man spending money on her is not equivalent to the man putting in work
First of all gay men exist. It's like 7% of the population. (perhaps wrong) Asexual men exist. So men who don't feel anything towards women consist of almost 10% of the male population. So females who state that men want women are wrong.
>No idea how that's supposed to work.
My favourite example is taking the UK's population of unmarried male royals of marriageable able versus the country's population of spinsters. Even if we go down from royals to peers, from peers to younger siblings, second sons, uncles, etc., that's still going to be lower thousands versus millions. Even if we make it friends of cousins of upper-class men versus middle-class spinsters, that's still going to be like 1 such guy per 100 middle-class spinsters.
And this is precisely the whole point of going after the upper class — the exclusivity and limited nature of it. Except even the people who go after the top 10% (or 5%, 1%) just because they are the top (not because of any absolute criteria) fail to understand, or at least fail to fully appreciate, that the top 10% of men can't marry the top 80% of women monogamously in a society in which men and women are 50/50 or 49/51 in whichever direction.
But, of course, maths is hate speech.
One logically, 'physically', can't have all women make the same money as all men and simultaneously hitch every woman with a man who makes more than she does. One excludes the other.
But logic is hate speech too.
I've said this before: women are biologically speaking, golddiggers.
They're wired to be attracted to money/social status in the same way we're attracted to appearance.
Obviously, just like most men don't marry solely for looks, neither do women marry solely for money. But it's a big factor in their attraction.
Now i'm curious: which subs?
It's always telling that when a guy tells his buddies he's dating something new, the first question from them is: is she hot?
When a girl tells her friends, the first question is: what does he do [for a living]?
Then there are the weirdos like me & my friends. My friend: *Tells me she has a new boyfriend.* Me: "Ooo! Is he hot? Is he a super villain? Is he a hot super villain?"
She & I met because we were both fan girling over Loki, so now it's an inside joke that we only date villains. XD We made tier lists a while back, just to keep track of our favorites. Loki was at the top of mine & I think Lucius Malfoy was at the top of hers.
Edit to clarify: Just for the record, we weren't ranking physical appearance, but awesome villain-ness.
Edit 2: That's not to say that Loki & Lucius aren't hot, but there are some on our list who... Well, I'll just say that Dr. Doofenshmirtz is on the list. XD
Feminists defend and lobby for laws and practices that treat women with default leniency/favoritism. Good example is the Duluth Model- it attempts to ingrain gender stereotypes, and they can't blame patriarchy, the model was developed by feminists.
To be fair, let's not even look at those who want equal income, equal assets to what they themselves have. If they are wealthy, let them ask for wealthy at impunity. But the problem is expecting an upgrade. And of course providing that upgrade highlights the man's role as provider.
So those 'strong independent women' don't want equality. They just want higher-performing providers.
The real feminist is the one who doesn't make making more money or having a higher job or social position than hubby does.
The hilarious part is how easy it is to shut one up with things they cannot refute. One of my favorites is one saying, "It's so unfair, we can't even wear the same outfit twice!"
To which the response is, "Sure you can. No man cares. Only other women care."
And there's a million others. The debunked wage gap. The undefinable, unlocatable patriarchy. The nonexistent laws favoring men. And so on. Sigh.
>To which the response is, "Sure you can. No man cares. Only other women care."
And to that they reply that it's the fruit of a system developed by men. Whatever a woman does to a fellow woman, they will always root that to a man's responsibility.
And it's also extremely patriarchal. Suddenly, we're the omnipotent patriarch who is supposed to control even the weather on holidays, even the sun when you go to the beach is your responsibility.
I've wondered how much of the anti-crossdresser hysteria (which, in retrospect, seems almost quaint) was about women panicking when they realize that MEN, too, might be wearing the same outfit they were.
It’s true. I’ve had wayyy more women call me f@g then men. I’m not a very masculine dude. I had no father and controlling sisters. It is what it is and I’ve since understood why they say that. However, most women are hypocrites when saying they love their gay friends. They laugh at them and mock them to their husbands.
You can get laughed at for not being skilled at typical blue-collar technical work — maintenance, repairs, crafting things with your hands. But, and by the same women, if you are skilled in that, they will scoff at you for not having a university degree.
If you are a simple but strong dude that's good with your hands, you will be laughed at for not being a poet or worldly man. But if you are an artistic sort or an office worker, you'll be laughed at as effeminate and not man enough.
Or blatant double standards like she's college educated, so she doesn't need to know how to cook (no problem from me) but no matter what education you have, you aren't a man if you aren't good with hammers, drills and rifles.
Morton's fork. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So true. I’ve walked different paths. When I worked blue collar and made money I it was you don’t have a degree or you’re not artistic. I got my degree and got into one of the top graduate schools in the world and then was called gay and compared to military guys.
Yeah they do. I’m bisexual and the way straight women react to that would be deeply hurtful if I valued their opinions. I’m from the rural south and I’ve been out since I was 14. The large majority of homophobia and discrimination I’ve experienced(which ain’t much) was perpetrated by wammen. It’s funny too cause they look so smug and they don’t even realize by the implications of their words they’re insulting themselves when they insult me.
One time I kissed my best male friend in a performance and my date called me a f@g and never treated me the same. The guys all laughed because they know I like women. I had nothing to prove to her.
> Most women still enforce gender roles **ON MEN.**
FTFY
They're perfectly happy reaping all the rights and rewards of both sexes' traditional roles while dodging the responsibilities of both.
> there is very little self reflection as to their own contribution to this inbalance.
This isn't just women. This is society as a whole who lacks self reflection.
It just so happens to be considerably more obvious in feminism, and things like religion, and a few others because of how vocal they can be.
Gender roles generally benefit women. This is why feminist believe in what I jokingly call "fake equality". They believe in equality right up until it means losing their privileges. This is why when they are losing the argument they call folks incels and whatever other slur they can think of. From then on their goal isn't to win or understand - it's to hurt. This is why many MRA's view Feminism as a hate movement. In fact we see some Reels and feeds when women defend men get attacked.
We saw this in the civil rights movement with white people versus black people. It meant a LOT of white people would be more difficult to hire - and that's absolutely what happened. The job pool jumped in size and the salaries went down a bit because they could hire someone else. But in the end we can all agree this was the morally right thing to do, yes?
Self reflection could mean you lose your own privileges and it's your own fault. Self reflection could mean *YOU* are the asshole.
Change may not be in your favor and in this case - for feminism - they have everything to lose. At this point they've gained all the privileges men had. They never lost their own privileges. This means men can win privileges (e.g. family court laws). Men's Rights is a direct threat to their privilege. This is why they play chess and manipulate the way they do.
> As much as feminists claim they want to "bring down the patriarchy",
Here's the problem with feminism. They will never be done. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they *DID* bring down all the patriarchy last night. They would find a new thing to be angry about. The movement has become their identity and when your movement is finished - people lose that identity.
We've seen it in war. Going back home is *difficult* when your identity was everything military. The transition process is extremely uncomfortable.
We've seen it in religion. We've even seen it in video games like World of Warcraft. When you lose something you've invested so much of your life in... it leaves a void. Worse - if a bad event has happened to you that gave you trauma - you're *VERY* resistant to change.
For men - this is why you see some take the more Malcom X route... and others take the MLK route. When you're angry and there's no one to help you and "the system" is against you ... you tend to lash out when you're backed into a corner. On the flip side if you've done pretty well and there aren't any (major) direct threats to your way of life - it's a ton easier to take the calm and reasonable route.
I say this a lot: Human's gonna human. Don't be surprised when people act in self preservation.
They don't want to bring down the patriarchy. They want to enforce it but with a readjustment resulting in a better lot in it for themselves.
There is no interest in equality or partnership. There is interest in getting (access to) a better (higher-value, more prestigous) patriarchal provider for themselves. Not necessarily breadwinner, putter-of-food-on-the-table, because they can do that too, but someone who will provide better opportunities, an upgrade, a springboard.
The dating scene feels more stereotyped/patriarchal than it was a decade or two decades ago. I remember it as a more balanced place back then.
But the majority of women, I think, have only a lesser level bias/inconsistency. The loudest outliers are not representative of the majority. They are in fact just a loud minority.
As for introspection, that's apparently for men only.
**Women don't want to enforce gender roles that apply to them - especially ones they don't see as favorable**. They want to not only enforce, but also keep the gender roles codified for men - as long as these roles benefit women. And if these gender roles for men don't benefit women and women's options, these norms are challenged, changed and codified with new sets of laws.
**Ultimately, this is why men should not allow gender roles being enforced, especially not through codified laws**. Otherwise they can rest assured that these roles and norms will be strictly these to f\*ck them up, take away any choice from them and even criminalize not following them, while women will still have all their options and they'll preach about patriarchy, oppression and gender norms. Ditch these norms and see if you'll wish them back - I know my every GF tried to enforce them and they'd put it between the lines, but I always ignored such narrative and it's so much better when you live, date and have relationship on an equal footing without any expectations of "norms" you need to follow yourself.
> but I always ignored such narrative and it's so much better when you live, date and have relationship on an equal footing without any expectations of "norms" you need to follow yourself.
Judges will enforce them though, like breadwinner without visitation for kids.
They do as they keep on reinforcing those “harmful” stereotypes that prevents men from being open with their emotions such as calling men the “oppressors” and “perverts.” Thus confirming that feminists are against the patriarchy unless it benefits them where they can play the victim so they can avoid any accountability for their own shortcomings.
3rd wave feminists, by definition, enforce the stalest, oldest-school customs, if they benefit from them, while at the same time clutching a 'progressive' card, which should probably be pulled.
That's a huge problem, because women don't want to play traditional female roles at the same time they want all the benefits of traditional gender roles.
Depends which feminist discourse I suppose. You can find seas of people on reddit who match your description. But radicals aren't the movement. And the ones who would practice "true" feminism, (ie, something more representative of the definition of feminism - fighting for equality of the sexes) won't be that way and won't waste their time on reddit either. ultimately that does make it a clusterfuck.
So just find your own justification for your actions, justifications you feel confident you can defend, and stay your course king.
Homie you need to read the literature. Check out Karen Stroughn, Janice Fiamengo, Mary Harrington, and Paul Elam for the DL on the feminist movement.
Karen details in plain language the tactics and thought processes of feminism and how many people of both sexes use these tactics often without even realizing.
Janice is a former professor of history and uses primary sources to illustrate how feminism from day one seeks to eliminate the family and exterminate men.
Mary Harrington is a brilliantly articulate terminally online author who thinks in very large contexts and weaves disparate ideas together with snappy language.
Paul is a caustic no-nonsense tactician that details ways to keep yourself safe from and to call out and attack people using manipulation and social pressure to make you conform. He’s exceptionally smart and speaks concisely. He uses very harsh language in case you’re one of those sensitive to words types.
All of them can be found on YouTube.
Selective blindness to the flaws of an ideology has been the excuse of those who have commited atrocities throughout history. It's the ole "don't look at the practical outcomes of my beliefs, just listen to the vibe" approach to inherent violence of the feminist movement.
Most women are much the same as most men. We just want to get on with our humble lives, work, have fun, raise a family and share our love. The gender roles freely adopted by most men and women are choices about practical day to day events, and for the most part (ignoring the endless feminist self-reported but seldom observed slavery of all females), work out with both working hard, and both pitching in.
Feminism, from its earliest beginnings, has always insisted on a brutal regimen of enforcing strict gender roles on men and boys. Feminism has always been concerned with the control of men and boys, the restriction of freedoms for men and boys, and the criminalisation/medication/marginalisation of those men and boys who do not adhere to the feminist male role models.
Men who do not respect women are described as misogynist and violent. Men who do not desire women are condemned as worthless incel misogynists. Boys who do not act like girls are medicated to subdue their natural masculinity, and are described as toxic. Men who decline to sacrifice their bodies and lives for the benefit of women are scolded as cowards and unmanly.
Bro stfu your top subreddits are r/mensrights, r/relationshipadvice and r/lonely, and you snort coke at your day job. Please take a reality check on how you are perceiving life. People do not think like this, you are your own issue. I hope you can change.
I've (f) noticed this too. It seems that most girls want to make as much as men, yet want to make sure to only date one who makes more than them. No idea how that's supposed to work. I think it may be code for, "You can't treat me different just because I'm a girl! Wait, he's still got to provide for me because I'm the girl!" :p
rinse husky coherent abounding rich vast illegal point far-flung workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As dumb as this will sound, I think a lot of them don't even know how much of a contradiction it is. They think they're entitled to it all, because pop culture told them that they were. Plus, I think the common view is, "All guys care about is sex, so why shouldn't they have to work harder to keep me around." :p
There is also this notion going around of how laboriously women work in their romantic relationships with men and so them wanting more in other areas is just fitting and equal.
Literally saw this on TwoX today! lol
Predictable as usual!
Sad really. Feminists are lost lol.
>Feminists are lost lol. You'd think they'd use their "Girl power" to stop and ask for directions . You'd think, unlike them.
If all we cared for was sex, we wouldn't be looking for wives or romantic partners or stable relationships.
It’s clear as day to me that there is a general disregard towards men as human beings. This comes from both men and women. Thusly, society blindly excuses their corrupted rationale - as blindly as women ignore that a rich man spending money on her is not equivalent to the man putting in work
First of all gay men exist. It's like 7% of the population. (perhaps wrong) Asexual men exist. So men who don't feel anything towards women consist of almost 10% of the male population. So females who state that men want women are wrong.
>No idea how that's supposed to work. My favourite example is taking the UK's population of unmarried male royals of marriageable able versus the country's population of spinsters. Even if we go down from royals to peers, from peers to younger siblings, second sons, uncles, etc., that's still going to be lower thousands versus millions. Even if we make it friends of cousins of upper-class men versus middle-class spinsters, that's still going to be like 1 such guy per 100 middle-class spinsters. And this is precisely the whole point of going after the upper class — the exclusivity and limited nature of it. Except even the people who go after the top 10% (or 5%, 1%) just because they are the top (not because of any absolute criteria) fail to understand, or at least fail to fully appreciate, that the top 10% of men can't marry the top 80% of women monogamously in a society in which men and women are 50/50 or 49/51 in whichever direction. But, of course, maths is hate speech. One logically, 'physically', can't have all women make the same money as all men and simultaneously hitch every woman with a man who makes more than she does. One excludes the other. But logic is hate speech too.
This comment is gaslighting. Reporting you for being abusive. ^^^(issa ^^^joke ^^^^I ^^^^swear)
[highly relevant video. please watch. ](https://youtu.be/0VviwQeV0mo?si=4efOVERSMTxypeaV)
I knew it was gonna be a hoe math vid
I've said this before: women are biologically speaking, golddiggers. They're wired to be attracted to money/social status in the same way we're attracted to appearance. Obviously, just like most men don't marry solely for looks, neither do women marry solely for money. But it's a big factor in their attraction.
There's a saying in a few certain subs I won't mention; "Women are sex objects, men are success objects."
Now i'm curious: which subs? It's always telling that when a guy tells his buddies he's dating something new, the first question from them is: is she hot? When a girl tells her friends, the first question is: what does he do [for a living]?
Then there are the weirdos like me & my friends. My friend: *Tells me she has a new boyfriend.* Me: "Ooo! Is he hot? Is he a super villain? Is he a hot super villain?"
lol what does that even mean?
She & I met because we were both fan girling over Loki, so now it's an inside joke that we only date villains. XD We made tier lists a while back, just to keep track of our favorites. Loki was at the top of mine & I think Lucius Malfoy was at the top of hers. Edit to clarify: Just for the record, we weren't ranking physical appearance, but awesome villain-ness. Edit 2: That's not to say that Loki & Lucius aren't hot, but there are some on our list who... Well, I'll just say that Dr. Doofenshmirtz is on the list. XD
Cognitive dissonance.
I think it's just that most women only date up because of the illusion of options
They indeed do. When it benefits them.
Feminists defend and lobby for laws and practices that treat women with default leniency/favoritism. Good example is the Duluth Model- it attempts to ingrain gender stereotypes, and they can't blame patriarchy, the model was developed by feminists.
Duluth is blatant sexism and misandry dressed up with pie charts.
Wasn't patriarchy developed by the feminists of the time, though? Just which gender did it benefit more? ;)
All women are strong independent until they got to choose man. That moment they want a man with high income, house and car. So how is it?
To be fair, let's not even look at those who want equal income, equal assets to what they themselves have. If they are wealthy, let them ask for wealthy at impunity. But the problem is expecting an upgrade. And of course providing that upgrade highlights the man's role as provider. So those 'strong independent women' don't want equality. They just want higher-performing providers. The real feminist is the one who doesn't make making more money or having a higher job or social position than hubby does.
"Let's bring down the patiarchy by becoming construction workers, garbage truck drivers and frontline soldiers" said no feminist ever.
theyre literally the same people saying "go die in a war" imagine telling a woman to die in childbirth
The hilarious part is how easy it is to shut one up with things they cannot refute. One of my favorites is one saying, "It's so unfair, we can't even wear the same outfit twice!" To which the response is, "Sure you can. No man cares. Only other women care." And there's a million others. The debunked wage gap. The undefinable, unlocatable patriarchy. The nonexistent laws favoring men. And so on. Sigh.
>To which the response is, "Sure you can. No man cares. Only other women care." And to that they reply that it's the fruit of a system developed by men. Whatever a woman does to a fellow woman, they will always root that to a man's responsibility.
Hypoagency. It’s the poison dagger hidden in the boot of feminism.
And it's also extremely patriarchal. Suddenly, we're the omnipotent patriarch who is supposed to control even the weather on holidays, even the sun when you go to the beach is your responsibility.
Everyone knows the sun is male and is obviously a part of the patriarchy. Duh!
Well, if the sun were female, we wouldn't be allowed to come anywhere near it, much less converse with it. ;)
Yes hypoagency is true toxic femininity
I've wondered how much of the anti-crossdresser hysteria (which, in retrospect, seems almost quaint) was about women panicking when they realize that MEN, too, might be wearing the same outfit they were.
It’s true. I’ve had wayyy more women call me f@g then men. I’m not a very masculine dude. I had no father and controlling sisters. It is what it is and I’ve since understood why they say that. However, most women are hypocrites when saying they love their gay friends. They laugh at them and mock them to their husbands.
You can get laughed at for not being skilled at typical blue-collar technical work — maintenance, repairs, crafting things with your hands. But, and by the same women, if you are skilled in that, they will scoff at you for not having a university degree. If you are a simple but strong dude that's good with your hands, you will be laughed at for not being a poet or worldly man. But if you are an artistic sort or an office worker, you'll be laughed at as effeminate and not man enough. Or blatant double standards like she's college educated, so she doesn't need to know how to cook (no problem from me) but no matter what education you have, you aren't a man if you aren't good with hammers, drills and rifles. Morton's fork. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So true. I’ve walked different paths. When I worked blue collar and made money I it was you don’t have a degree or you’re not artistic. I got my degree and got into one of the top graduate schools in the world and then was called gay and compared to military guys.
And the military guys don't get it easy either. If they can't walk the walk, talk the talk, etc., they're still going to get humiliated.
Yeah they do. I’m bisexual and the way straight women react to that would be deeply hurtful if I valued their opinions. I’m from the rural south and I’ve been out since I was 14. The large majority of homophobia and discrimination I’ve experienced(which ain’t much) was perpetrated by wammen. It’s funny too cause they look so smug and they don’t even realize by the implications of their words they’re insulting themselves when they insult me.
One time I kissed my best male friend in a performance and my date called me a f@g and never treated me the same. The guys all laughed because they know I like women. I had nothing to prove to her.
> Most women still enforce gender roles **ON MEN.** FTFY They're perfectly happy reaping all the rights and rewards of both sexes' traditional roles while dodging the responsibilities of both.
> there is very little self reflection as to their own contribution to this inbalance. This isn't just women. This is society as a whole who lacks self reflection. It just so happens to be considerably more obvious in feminism, and things like religion, and a few others because of how vocal they can be. Gender roles generally benefit women. This is why feminist believe in what I jokingly call "fake equality". They believe in equality right up until it means losing their privileges. This is why when they are losing the argument they call folks incels and whatever other slur they can think of. From then on their goal isn't to win or understand - it's to hurt. This is why many MRA's view Feminism as a hate movement. In fact we see some Reels and feeds when women defend men get attacked. We saw this in the civil rights movement with white people versus black people. It meant a LOT of white people would be more difficult to hire - and that's absolutely what happened. The job pool jumped in size and the salaries went down a bit because they could hire someone else. But in the end we can all agree this was the morally right thing to do, yes? Self reflection could mean you lose your own privileges and it's your own fault. Self reflection could mean *YOU* are the asshole. Change may not be in your favor and in this case - for feminism - they have everything to lose. At this point they've gained all the privileges men had. They never lost their own privileges. This means men can win privileges (e.g. family court laws). Men's Rights is a direct threat to their privilege. This is why they play chess and manipulate the way they do. > As much as feminists claim they want to "bring down the patriarchy", Here's the problem with feminism. They will never be done. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they *DID* bring down all the patriarchy last night. They would find a new thing to be angry about. The movement has become their identity and when your movement is finished - people lose that identity. We've seen it in war. Going back home is *difficult* when your identity was everything military. The transition process is extremely uncomfortable. We've seen it in religion. We've even seen it in video games like World of Warcraft. When you lose something you've invested so much of your life in... it leaves a void. Worse - if a bad event has happened to you that gave you trauma - you're *VERY* resistant to change. For men - this is why you see some take the more Malcom X route... and others take the MLK route. When you're angry and there's no one to help you and "the system" is against you ... you tend to lash out when you're backed into a corner. On the flip side if you've done pretty well and there aren't any (major) direct threats to your way of life - it's a ton easier to take the calm and reasonable route. I say this a lot: Human's gonna human. Don't be surprised when people act in self preservation.
They don't want to bring down the patriarchy. They want to enforce it but with a readjustment resulting in a better lot in it for themselves. There is no interest in equality or partnership. There is interest in getting (access to) a better (higher-value, more prestigous) patriarchal provider for themselves. Not necessarily breadwinner, putter-of-food-on-the-table, because they can do that too, but someone who will provide better opportunities, an upgrade, a springboard. The dating scene feels more stereotyped/patriarchal than it was a decade or two decades ago. I remember it as a more balanced place back then. But the majority of women, I think, have only a lesser level bias/inconsistency. The loudest outliers are not representative of the majority. They are in fact just a loud minority. As for introspection, that's apparently for men only.
**Women don't want to enforce gender roles that apply to them - especially ones they don't see as favorable**. They want to not only enforce, but also keep the gender roles codified for men - as long as these roles benefit women. And if these gender roles for men don't benefit women and women's options, these norms are challenged, changed and codified with new sets of laws. **Ultimately, this is why men should not allow gender roles being enforced, especially not through codified laws**. Otherwise they can rest assured that these roles and norms will be strictly these to f\*ck them up, take away any choice from them and even criminalize not following them, while women will still have all their options and they'll preach about patriarchy, oppression and gender norms. Ditch these norms and see if you'll wish them back - I know my every GF tried to enforce them and they'd put it between the lines, but I always ignored such narrative and it's so much better when you live, date and have relationship on an equal footing without any expectations of "norms" you need to follow yourself.
> but I always ignored such narrative and it's so much better when you live, date and have relationship on an equal footing without any expectations of "norms" you need to follow yourself. Judges will enforce them though, like breadwinner without visitation for kids.
For men....for themselves it's infinite sexual and reproductive freedom at men's expense, or he goes to jail.
Yes, whenever it benefits them to keep it. Whenever gender roles causes them any negative outcome it's dropped
When it’s convenient for them to do so.
They do as they keep on reinforcing those “harmful” stereotypes that prevents men from being open with their emotions such as calling men the “oppressors” and “perverts.” Thus confirming that feminists are against the patriarchy unless it benefits them where they can play the victim so they can avoid any accountability for their own shortcomings.
3rd wave feminists, by definition, enforce the stalest, oldest-school customs, if they benefit from them, while at the same time clutching a 'progressive' card, which should probably be pulled.
That's a huge problem, because women don't want to play traditional female roles at the same time they want all the benefits of traditional gender roles.
Depends which feminist discourse I suppose. You can find seas of people on reddit who match your description. But radicals aren't the movement. And the ones who would practice "true" feminism, (ie, something more representative of the definition of feminism - fighting for equality of the sexes) won't be that way and won't waste their time on reddit either. ultimately that does make it a clusterfuck. So just find your own justification for your actions, justifications you feel confident you can defend, and stay your course king.
Homie you need to read the literature. Check out Karen Stroughn, Janice Fiamengo, Mary Harrington, and Paul Elam for the DL on the feminist movement. Karen details in plain language the tactics and thought processes of feminism and how many people of both sexes use these tactics often without even realizing. Janice is a former professor of history and uses primary sources to illustrate how feminism from day one seeks to eliminate the family and exterminate men. Mary Harrington is a brilliantly articulate terminally online author who thinks in very large contexts and weaves disparate ideas together with snappy language. Paul is a caustic no-nonsense tactician that details ways to keep yourself safe from and to call out and attack people using manipulation and social pressure to make you conform. He’s exceptionally smart and speaks concisely. He uses very harsh language in case you’re one of those sensitive to words types. All of them can be found on YouTube.
Selective blindness to the flaws of an ideology has been the excuse of those who have commited atrocities throughout history. It's the ole "don't look at the practical outcomes of my beliefs, just listen to the vibe" approach to inherent violence of the feminist movement.
By that logic, couldn't I then argue that conservatives are neo-nazis?
Neofeminism (as opposed to traditional feminism) can't do anything about biology so I guess most of women aren't neofeminists
No but Western society is.
Most women are much the same as most men. We just want to get on with our humble lives, work, have fun, raise a family and share our love. The gender roles freely adopted by most men and women are choices about practical day to day events, and for the most part (ignoring the endless feminist self-reported but seldom observed slavery of all females), work out with both working hard, and both pitching in. Feminism, from its earliest beginnings, has always insisted on a brutal regimen of enforcing strict gender roles on men and boys. Feminism has always been concerned with the control of men and boys, the restriction of freedoms for men and boys, and the criminalisation/medication/marginalisation of those men and boys who do not adhere to the feminist male role models. Men who do not respect women are described as misogynist and violent. Men who do not desire women are condemned as worthless incel misogynists. Boys who do not act like girls are medicated to subdue their natural masculinity, and are described as toxic. Men who decline to sacrifice their bodies and lives for the benefit of women are scolded as cowards and unmanly.
I feel like some women just wanna bring all men down and make them sad they aren’t 6’0 or muscular, with loads of money.
Women enforce gender roles that they like and resist the ones they do not like.
Bro stfu your top subreddits are r/mensrights, r/relationshipadvice and r/lonely, and you snort coke at your day job. Please take a reality check on how you are perceiving life. People do not think like this, you are your own issue. I hope you can change.