ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

My Blunt Response To Feminism 2.0

Updated on April 3, 2014
Source

Feminism 2.0

Disclaimer: Firstly this is not targeted directly at women in general. If you are a woman and truly respect men and regard them as equals, then this is not targeted at you. This is targeted at gender ideologues and women with an entitlement mentality that share the thoughts in the video that is the subject of this article.

Recently I came across a promotional video regarding a supposedly "new" form of feminism called Feminism 2.0. Lets just say I was not exactly won over by what I watched. I have attached the video directly below and my rather savage response follows on from it. Hopefully this serves as a reality check for some and a reaffirmation for the rest of us, on exactly why feminism and gender equality are mutually exclusive.

Feminism 2.0

My Response

So let me get this straight. After 50 years of telling men they are garbage, marginalising men in society and even discussing the genocide of men in academic circles, feminists want men to be good boys and get back on the treadmill to work for women’s benefit while they die sooner? So after all this “liberation”, some women are now back-pedalling as they realise how “privileged” being a man in this world really is. ROFL. A snowball has a greater chance of surviving in hell than feminism does of convincing modern men to be slaves for women.

I don’t see any difference between this brand of feminism and mainstream feminism. The same wilful indifference and dismissal of men’s interests, needs and perspectives is there. As is the belief that women should tell men who they are and what to do with their own lives. What gives feminists or women in general the right to tell men who they are and what to do? Absolutely nothing. A vagina and the word “no”, does not magically grant women special powers to tell me what to do or other men for that matter. What it does do instead, is to send a red flag to any male, that such women are manipulative and are likely out to exploit them. We tend to give such women particularly in today’s culture a wide berth. Getting more men into relationships and eventually marriage for the benefit of the state by asking women to refuse to give sex to men, will fail. Oh and yes your agenda really is that clear. The looming government debt and the drop in the fertility rate is a worry isn’t it? No more government funds or new tax money. This is what happens when movements merge with state powers, enact decades of unrestricted social engineering and attempt to impose their will on the general population without any regard for the public interest or the long term consequences.

Believe it or not, but there is a limit to the value of sex for men and we really do have other interests that we get far more enjoyment from. It is all about biological tradeoffs and relative risks and returns in various activities. Men are also well aware now of how rigged the family courts are and how biased the divorce settlements can be. There are men in jail right now for failing to pay alimony and child support to their free-loading ex-wives which exceed their incomes. Debtors’ prison is a reality and the human rights of men are routinely discarded by our legal systems. More men are now aware of this than ever before and that number is growing. Son's have seen what has happened to their fathers. Marriage in modern times is nothing more than legalised slavery for men and withholding sex will simply underscore the manipulative and toxic nature of relationships for men in this sick society. I don't see any acknowledgement or discussion of these realities in this video with it's obvious gynocentric slant. That is typical to say the least.

This new brand of feminism speaks of dignity and self determination as if they are rights that are exclusive to women. So men are to respond to the word "no", get a good pat on the head when they are a “good boy” and be servile lap dogs for women? Here is an amazing thought, maybe men don’t care anymore. Maybe men are sick and tired of listening to what women want. Maybe men are saying to themselves, it is time for me to form my own identity on my own terms and direct the course of my own life in my own way for a change. But that is what is really behind Feminism 2.0 isn’t it? The realisation by feminists that all men have had to do all along is withdraw from marriage and society in general, to bring their agenda to a screeching halt. Men thinking and acting independently of female influence is a very scary scenario for insecure women, feminists and the state isn’t it? The slaves have escaped the plantation and the wool has been pulled from men’s eyes. The MGTOW social phenomenon and the men's human rights movement has got them worried. Too late, men spoke, feminists did not listen and now men have responded. You reap what you sow.

Men are not civilised by women. This might surprise feminists, but men are not animals. Like women we do have humanity, but unlike women society spends two decades in childhood and adolescence dehumanising men so we can be good disposable drones for society in adulthood. That is what the messages of "manning up" and being a "real man" are all about. If feminists bothered to see men as human and not as utilities they would see that, which clearly this video indicates they still don’t. Secondly, helping remove fathers from young boy’s lives which feminism has helped do for more than three decades with the state, has had the affect of creating a number of dysfunctional young men. If you want to uncivilise men, the removal of fathers from young boys lives by the feminist movement and family courts, reads like an instruction manual. You civilise men by respecting men and valuing their humanity and this version of feminism fails to do both of these things in a spectacular fashion.

This video speaks of a partnership between men and women. How is women telling men what to do by saying “no” indicative of a partnership? That is an example of a dictatorial social dynamic and only an ideologue would claim otherwise. If this was a really a partnership, then men would be listened to and their needs and concerns would be incorporated into the discussion. I see none of that in this video. As per usual, it is all about women this, women that and how men need to change to suit women’s needs. No attempt is made to value the male perspective on gender and society.

I am a generation Y male and I would like to say on behalf of young men that we don’t give a dam. We really don’t. This sick gynocentric culture has told us continually since birth that we are defective and inferior beings. We are done with your garbage and we are going our own way. Personally I am looking forward to watching your house of cards implode.

Get over your entitlement, gynocentrism and victim mentality and start respecting men and then perhaps we can start a partnership.

Until then go to hell.

Yours sincerely,

A generation Y male.

Alyss Majere And Her Take On Feminism 2.0

Comments

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.

  • MasculistFeminist profile image
    Author

    Ryan 3 years ago from Australia

    Not at all, share away. The more people discuss issues like this the better.

  • profile image

    Crimsonfalke 3 years ago

    Hi, I was at a time interested in posting here but closed that account since the people here are idiots. I hope you don't mind if I share this story.

  • MasculistFeminist profile image
    Author

    Ryan 3 years ago from Australia

    Amy-Thank you for leaving your response. Working together in a partnership requires that two groups respect each other, are inclusive of each others needs and concerns and value each others perspectives. I don't see any of that in this video. What I see instead is a push to get women to control men through saying no to sex (among other things) and to assume men need to be trained by women to become civilised and obedient. I find both of these tenets highly insulting and condescending as a man. Reverse the genders and think of how you would react. When speaking of dignity in this video, it is very clear that self-determination is exclusive for women and that when it comes to saying "no" and the Feminist 2.0 perspective on masculinity, this does not apply for men.

    None of that is indicative of a partnership. It resembles a dictatorship with men's role defined in relation to women's needs and concerns. There is no effort made to accept, let alone understand the male experience and perspectives on the relationship between the genders and society. Seeing beyond just the female vantage point, is critical to having a legitimate partnership. Most importantly there is no attempt in this video to acknowledge and respect the right of men to form their own identity by themselves. It all about moulding men through female social approval. The message seems to be, "We want a partnership but we want it to revolve around women's needs and women's perspectives". That is a fundamental contradiction.

    I agree with much of what you say. The genders have a value that manifests differently but it has equal worth. The human dignity of men and women and the value of their lives is equal. Whilst we are different, it is worth remembering that we have a great deal in common. The genders would not relate to each other, society would not function and this species would have gone extinct, if men and women were too different from each other.

    This society is not a male dominated world. A tiny fraction of men holding overt positions of power and authority does not suddenly mean men run the show. A far larger fraction of men are homeless, unemployed or are low income earners. The rest of us men, have as much power as women do. Women make up the voting majority, spend the bulk of household income, receive the majority of welfare despite the far larger numbers of homeless that are male and have more choice than men when it comes to working or raising a family. Men have no reproductive rights to speak of and the law routinely treads on our parental rights as fathers. I can go on...Again reverse the genders and imagine your reaction to those realities if they faced women.

    Women have proxy power which they exercise through our male leaders with votes and spending decisions. Our politicians and business leaders are ultimately more accountable to women than to men and they respond accordingly. Hence the hundreds of women's organisations, the relatively few men's organisations and the complete indifference to men's and boys issues by our politicans, government officials, media and business leaders.

    Perhaps nothing debunks the notion this is a male dominated world more than women like Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd writing books about, "The End of Men" and why men are obsolete. These women have both gone on international media circuits (The New York Times, Time, TED, Intelligence Squared and many others) to gloat about men's employment struggles and the boy crisis in education and claim some pathological public support for female supremacy. Again reverse the genders and imagine your reaction to such hateful material directed at women.

    If such material was targeted at black people or women, both of these people would have lost their jobs and would have been publicly vilified for their hateful bigotry. Their work is something I would expect would come from organisations like the KKK and yet they have mainstream media support.

    In a male dominated world such bigotry would simply not exist and yet it does. In fact it suggests men are regarded as inferior and second class citizens by our culture, media and public institutions. This society does not elevate men above women, in fact it often elevates women above men. Nonetheless neither gender is free from discrimination or social problems and therefore both men and women's issues should be addressed.

    Women are not always victims and men are not always better off than women. A true partnership between the genders, must recognise that both genders are vulnerable, both can be victims and both can be oppressed, not just women.

  • Amy Naylor profile image

    Amy Naylor 3 years ago from England

    There are parts I disagree with in the video, and there are parts I disagree with in your article, but I won't go into detail cause I could be here all day.

    What I will say is this: I don't think feminism should exist. When I first heard about it I was so excited to become a feminist and prove my worth as a woman! But then I realised that it's greed, it's battle of the sexes, it's each trying to outdo the other. It's like women have seen the male-dominated world (which was, and can still be argued is, a huge problem) but instead of solving the issue in a civilised manner and in such a way as to create equality, they've said: 'we want a bit of that, give us more power, we want your position and more.'

    The bottom line is, men and women are very different. Nature made us that way. It's our culture and our stupid rationality that has lead us to believe that equality comes around by trying to prove that 'I can do what you do too' and even further still: 'I can do it better.'

    We need to accept that we naturally have different roles in this life to keep it sustained just the same as every plant and every animal does in the ecosystem.

    We need to stop worrying about which roles and therefore genders are superior because at the end of the day we're all working towards the same goal: to live. So for the love of God can we please just do it harmoniously?

    I think maybe we're slowly beginning to realise that we need to work together and stop fighting, and this video hints at that. But it's still not quite there yet, we still hold prejudices.

Click to Rate This Article