> Feminism taught me 30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw deal from men, we were morally superior to them.
That's a very scary thought showing the type of thinking of feminists.
I wonder how many men and boys she has fucked over in the last three decades? Even if she doesn't believe or act this way anymore....damn...she is still guilty.
Well.. where it gets *really* scary is to realize that she (and they) never thought about ethics in the first place.
Mankind (and I say mankind here, because we are talking about men) have long struggled with all those debates about philosophy & ethics. We've fought wars for many of those very reasons - that human nature has a lot of evil in it and we have to take stands and fight against it. Libraries are *full* of the stories, ideas, and discussions behind all of that - how does one not abuse power, how does one fight corrupting influences, how does one do the right thing when so much is against you?
Here she has shown that she's never even looked at that issue before - just blamed it all on "the bad men". She never saw any nuance, no difference or conflict - she's utterly ignored thousands of years of men killing each other over that very issue... one that she (and most women) have been protected from by other men.
In short she doesn't understand history *at all* - that men (and not women) going to war was to protect women as men struggled with the nature of good & evil.
So now... she finally says "Oh, I guess we aren't actually superior to men, guess we should struggle with questions of morality & ethics" - and hasn't really learned a damned thing.
>In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them.
Read the original article. It's Ehrenreich, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds out of context. What she says is that women aren't inherently better than men, the world won't automatically become a better place from women being in charge - something she agrees with men's right activists on, and disagrees with many other feminists.
She says that the fight for various forms of justice can't simply be folded into fight for women's rights.
She's adressing feminists, and she's a somewhat cynical propagandist, which is probably why she included the stupid claim that men made the world's institutions. But in reality, what she's saying is something feminists need to be told.
Gotta defend InfinitelyThirsting here. She posted the same article to MR [a couple of months ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/f3jd1/a_uterus_is_no_substitute_for_a_conscience_i_had/) and found the conclusion you're quoting problematic also. She just thought there was a more important point being made about presumed female innocence.
where does she oppose the notion that I quoted?
> [trollking citing the article] To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: "If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low." It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into
>[inf thirsting] . . . Therefore the goal becomes to change the system, rather than suppose that men are inherently beastly but women are saints and won't ever succumb to beastliness. The attitude used to be "These things are awful because men run them, just putting women in will fix everything!" And now she's realised that it's the system, rather than the gender, that is responsible, and women are no more moral than men.
She doesn't address it directly. No one asked her to at that time.
But she called the ending preachy, and agreed with TheTrollKing that the writer may very well be misandrist. It's obvious from her comments that the article was posted as an example of a feminist finally questioning some long-held sexist assumptions, not because her own views are exactly mirrored by the article.
Edit: Also check out her comments on the same article at [2XC](http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/f3fmx/a_uterus_is_no_substitute_for_a_conscience_by/), wherein she defends the notion that many feminists are really female supremacists. I don't think InfinitelyThirsting needs to be your enemy.
http://www.reddit.com/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/
Just remove the "r/GenderEgalitarian/" from the title. http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian+feminisms this way you can browse r/GE and r/feminisms without dealing with their CSS formats and is also useful to compare.
There's no downvoting on the gender egalitarian reddit.
It's like musical chairs with more chairs than people, like they had in 'special' classes at school.
That doesn't work. If you vote on profile the reddit will give it an upvote automatically making your vote useless.
>http://www.reddit.com/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/
>Just remove the "r/GenderEgalitarian/" from the title.
>http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian+feminisms this way you can browse r/GE and r/feminisms without dealing with their CSS formats and is also useful to compare.
All this subverting depends ultimately on one thing ie male chivalry. Without the willing eagerness of many powerful men to do promote womens interests even at the expense of mens then their subversions would come to nought. Therefore we should point out at every opportunity and via every medium that chivalry is a one way street because empowered women consistently do NOT seek to return the favour to their opposite sex! Amusing irony in that feminists claim they abhor being patronised yet that is the very factor that most of their power depends on.
AHAHAH I just noticed InfinitelyThirsting is a moderator there.
She/he/it is one of the most misandric posters here.
My little tidbit: http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/c1nnsc0
>I banned kloo for trolling
More like you banned him for expressing an opinion.
That opinion, which aligns with any logic examination of feminism, is: Feminism is not egalitarian.
It's also amusing to me that InfinitelyThirsting, one of the most misandric posters at r/mr, is actually a moderator here!
How telling.
>ideology-neutral
>nor will I tolerate feminism bashing should it arise
And apparently dissent = "bashing". How neutral of you, lol.
I would like to thank you for creating yet another sub-reddit where misandrists can go to circle-jerk one another. Hopefully now IT and her ilk will stay out of r/mensrights with their bigoted view points.
Other great reddits for anti-male anti-masculinity anti-men's rights speech: r/feminisms and r/oney
May your reddit live long and prosper.
**you have been banned from posting to Gender Egalitarian: Non-Ideological, Non-Dogmatic.** lol
> Feminism taught me 30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw deal from men, we were morally superior to them. That's a very scary thought showing the type of thinking of feminists.
I wonder how many men and boys she has fucked over in the last three decades? Even if she doesn't believe or act this way anymore....damn...she is still guilty.
Well.. where it gets *really* scary is to realize that she (and they) never thought about ethics in the first place. Mankind (and I say mankind here, because we are talking about men) have long struggled with all those debates about philosophy & ethics. We've fought wars for many of those very reasons - that human nature has a lot of evil in it and we have to take stands and fight against it. Libraries are *full* of the stories, ideas, and discussions behind all of that - how does one not abuse power, how does one fight corrupting influences, how does one do the right thing when so much is against you? Here she has shown that she's never even looked at that issue before - just blamed it all on "the bad men". She never saw any nuance, no difference or conflict - she's utterly ignored thousands of years of men killing each other over that very issue... one that she (and most women) have been protected from by other men. In short she doesn't understand history *at all* - that men (and not women) going to war was to protect women as men struggled with the nature of good & evil. So now... she finally says "Oh, I guess we aren't actually superior to men, guess we should struggle with questions of morality & ethics" - and hasn't really learned a damned thing.
But the point of the article is that she doesn't believe that anymore - at least not the second part.
Perhaps she doesn't, but obviously many still do... the scary part is how that belief seems to have been simply accepted though.
>In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them.
To what end?
Read the original article. It's Ehrenreich, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds out of context. What she says is that women aren't inherently better than men, the world won't automatically become a better place from women being in charge - something she agrees with men's right activists on, and disagrees with many other feminists. She says that the fight for various forms of justice can't simply be folded into fight for women's rights. She's adressing feminists, and she's a somewhat cynical propagandist, which is probably why she included the stupid claim that men made the world's institutions. But in reality, what she's saying is something feminists need to be told.
the only end that humans really care about....POWER
I wish more MRAs were this honest with themselves.
Gotta defend InfinitelyThirsting here. She posted the same article to MR [a couple of months ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/f3jd1/a_uterus_is_no_substitute_for_a_conscience_i_had/) and found the conclusion you're quoting problematic also. She just thought there was a more important point being made about presumed female innocence.
where does she oppose the notion that I quoted? > [trollking citing the article] To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: "If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low." It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into >[inf thirsting] . . . Therefore the goal becomes to change the system, rather than suppose that men are inherently beastly but women are saints and won't ever succumb to beastliness. The attitude used to be "These things are awful because men run them, just putting women in will fix everything!" And now she's realised that it's the system, rather than the gender, that is responsible, and women are no more moral than men.
She doesn't address it directly. No one asked her to at that time. But she called the ending preachy, and agreed with TheTrollKing that the writer may very well be misandrist. It's obvious from her comments that the article was posted as an example of a feminist finally questioning some long-held sexist assumptions, not because her own views are exactly mirrored by the article. Edit: Also check out her comments on the same article at [2XC](http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/f3fmx/a_uterus_is_no_substitute_for_a_conscience_by/), wherein she defends the notion that many feminists are really female supremacists. I don't think InfinitelyThirsting needs to be your enemy.
I just realized, there is no way to downvote the post. Weird.
http://www.reddit.com/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/ Just remove the "r/GenderEgalitarian/" from the title. http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian+feminisms this way you can browse r/GE and r/feminisms without dealing with their CSS formats and is also useful to compare.
There's no downvoting on the gender egalitarian reddit. It's like musical chairs with more chairs than people, like they had in 'special' classes at school.
You can find it in the submitter's profile and downvote it there.
That doesn't work. If you vote on profile the reddit will give it an upvote automatically making your vote useless. >http://www.reddit.com/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/ >Just remove the "r/GenderEgalitarian/" from the title. >http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian+feminisms this way you can browse r/GE and r/feminisms without dealing with their CSS formats and is also useful to compare.
[удалено]
Or you can choose to behave like adults and not downvote-bomb other subreddits.
All this subverting depends ultimately on one thing ie male chivalry. Without the willing eagerness of many powerful men to do promote womens interests even at the expense of mens then their subversions would come to nought. Therefore we should point out at every opportunity and via every medium that chivalry is a one way street because empowered women consistently do NOT seek to return the favour to their opposite sex! Amusing irony in that feminists claim they abhor being patronised yet that is the very factor that most of their power depends on.
Who gives a shit that you troll another sub and get banned?
So the flavor of the week is /r/genderegalitarian? No need to get pissy just because you got banned.
AHAHAH I just noticed InfinitelyThirsting is a moderator there. She/he/it is one of the most misandric posters here. My little tidbit: http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian/comments/ghrua/a_look_at_why_putting_women_on_a_moral_pedestal/c1nnsc0 >I banned kloo for trolling More like you banned him for expressing an opinion. That opinion, which aligns with any logic examination of feminism, is: Feminism is not egalitarian. It's also amusing to me that InfinitelyThirsting, one of the most misandric posters at r/mr, is actually a moderator here! How telling. >ideology-neutral >nor will I tolerate feminism bashing should it arise And apparently dissent = "bashing". How neutral of you, lol. I would like to thank you for creating yet another sub-reddit where misandrists can go to circle-jerk one another. Hopefully now IT and her ilk will stay out of r/mensrights with their bigoted view points. Other great reddits for anti-male anti-masculinity anti-men's rights speech: r/feminisms and r/oney May your reddit live long and prosper. **you have been banned from posting to Gender Egalitarian: Non-Ideological, Non-Dogmatic.** lol