What's Your Opinion On Feminism?

[ToHellWithMe]

It was not about who was supporting families. Rather, it was about gender privilege and control.

Ok this is not gonna sound good, but I don't buy this argument. First part is right, but the conclusion is a loser's conclusion. Company leadership will do anything they must to cut expenditures. If an employee can be paid considerably less than her value with some bogus reason, then it will be attempted, and it's her job to call the bullshit and demand a raise or get a new job. To put it more simply and harshly: it sounds like your mother blamed patriarchy for her own lack of backbone. Man eats man as well. A man would have to stand up for his rights as well, if he has given reasons to assume that he is exploitable, and then gets tried. Women may suffer from that assumption more to begin with, but that's really all the difference as far as I will buy it.

[Jutta]

 

 

 

...my gender automatically reduces my credibility.

 

Your gender is irrelevant. You managed to destroy your credibility by your own words. 

 

 

 

one quote... by someone who obviously disagrees with me.

 

Pay better attention to what people actually post. That remark in no way implies any disagreement with whatever content you may have presented, or even your opinions. It speaks only to your attitude and behavior here toward others. You came in looking for a fight and when you got some resistance you count it as a win and proof for whatever point you're trying to make.

 

My post was in regards to the attitudes shown towards other posters, specifically regarding feminism. Crowding them out, outnumbering them, giving each other rep points, making insinuations that they are b&tches, little girls, brats... while most female posters run and hide. Why am I constantly having to repeat this over and over again? 

 

Would this kind of behavior happen if we were discussing-- perhaps-- the rights for people over the age of 60? The right to Social Security and Medicare? Age discrimination? 

[mymistake]

 

It was not about who was supporting families. Rather, it was about gender privilege and control.

Ok this is not gonna sound good, but I don't buy this argument. First part is right, but the conclusion is a loser's conclusion. Company leadership will do anything they must to cut expenditures. If an employee can be paid considerably less than her value with some bogus reason, then it will be attempted, and it's her job to call the bullshit and demand a raise or get a new job. To put it more simply and harshly: it sounds like your mother blamed patriarchy for her own lack of backbone. Man eats man as well. A man would have to stand up for his rights as well, if he has given reasons to assume that he is exploitable, and then gets tried. Women may suffer from that assumption more to begin with, but that's really all the difference as far as I will buy it.

 

 

 

I think it was more of a problem in the distant past.  The prevalent attitude was that women were suppose to be supported by a husband thus male managers felt they could get away with paying women less.  And of course Feminists did fight this during the Civil Rights era and won more equal pay.

[Ravenstar]

 

It was not about who was supporting families. Rather, it was about gender privilege and control.

Ok this is not gonna sound good, but I don't buy this argument. First part is right, but the conclusion is a loser's conclusion. Company leadership will do anything they must to cut expenditures. If an employee can be paid considerably less than her value with some bogus reason, then it will be attempted, and it's her job to call the bullshit and demand a raise or get a new job. To put it more simply and harshly: it sounds like your mother blamed patriarchy for her own lack of backbone. Man eats man as well. A man would have to stand up for his rights as well, if he has given reasons to assume that he is exploitable, and then gets tried. Women may suffer from that assumption more to begin with, but that's really all the difference as far as I will buy it.

 

Ya.. doesn't work that way. In the 70's and even 80's.. maybe 90's you'd just lose your job. Constructive dismissal. As a single mom, with no support, I could not afford to 'rock the boat'… unfortunately. There are more employment standards now than then… and more resources… it's like that damn professor, but I was too young and too naive to do what I should have done… and reported him to the Dean, or the Human Rights Commission… damn, I probs could have gotten a free education. But women aren't raised to confront people, especially people in authority. At least they weren't back then.

 

I've come across this MANY times… where an employer pays women less for the same work, or pays them the same but expects more from them… or threatens to give your hours away because you need to find a babysitter to take shifts at a moments note.. etc.. Many, many times. None of the ones I worked for were stupid enough to give a shady reason, and I've even been told by some men friends they were told not to discuss their salary with other workers. But it's there… still.

 

Corporate jobs expect insane hours that no one raising kids can do..(60, 70, 80 hours a week) and if you can't do them you don't get promoted, no matter how capable you are.

 

It's better now, but this shit still goes on. Unless you've experienced it.. sorry - you can not believe or believe, but I've lived it.

[Jutta]

 

 

It was not about who was supporting families. Rather, it was about gender privilege and control.

Ok this is not gonna sound good, but I don't buy this argument. First part is right, but the conclusion is a loser's conclusion. Company leadership will do anything they must to cut expenditures. If an employee can be paid considerably less than her value with some bogus reason, then it will be attempted, and it's her job to call the bullshit and demand a raise or get a new job. To put it more simply and harshly: it sounds like your mother blamed patriarchy for her own lack of backbone. Man eats man as well. A man would have to stand up for his rights as well, if he has given reasons to assume that he is exploitable, and then gets tried. Women may suffer from that assumption more to begin with, but that's really all the difference as far as I will buy it.

 

Ya.. doesn't work that way. In the 70's and even 80's.. maybe 90's you'd just lose your job. Constructive dismissal. As a single mom, with no support, I could not afford to 'rock the boat'… unfortunately. There are more employment standards now than then… and more resources… it's like that damn professor, but I was too young and too naive to do what I should have done… and reported him to the Dean, or the Human Rights Commission… damn, I probs could have gotten a free education. But women aren't raised to confront people, especially people in authority. At least they weren't back then.

 

I've come across this MANY times… where an employer pays women less for the same work, or pays them the same but expects more from them… or threatens to give your hours away because you need to find a babysitter to take shifts at a moments note.. etc.. Many, many times. None of the ones I worked for were stupid enough to give a shady reason, and I've even been told by some men friends they were told not to discuss their salary with other workers. But it's there… still.

 

Corporate jobs expect insane hours that no one raising kids can do..(60, 70, 80 hours a week) and if you can't do them you don't get promoted, no matter how capable you are.

 

It's better now, but this shit still goes on. Unless you've experienced it.. sorry - you can not believe or believe, but I've lived it.

 

What she said. Sorry, but if I negotiated for a better wage now, they'd tell me to walk. This same situation probably goes for most men as well.

[mymistake]

I'm curious Ravenstar.  What country and what field was that?  Maybe my experience was different because I was in California.  The only field I worked in that was dominated by men was delivery service back in the early 90's.  There was only one woman at the whole company and she was a dispatcher - which made her out rank the supervisors but lower than management.  However the drivers were making minimum wage plus a nickel per hour per six months experience.  That job sucked.  When I worked retail I had a female supervisor.  When I worked advertising I had a female supervisor and there were women as managers.  When I worked health care it was dominated by women and there would occasionally be a male manager.

 

Clearly we have not reached equality yet but it seems to me that things are going in the right direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(edited for word choice)

[themonkeyman]

The girl I worked with made a complaint because I joked about her being a woman but some how its OK for me to hear about which guy she slept with on the weekend

[themonkeyman]

Same happens with children my father in law works in a school and he's petrified of the kids as even if they make a joke it could damage his reputation for life innocent or not.

[Jutta]

The girl I worked with made a complaint because I joked about her being a woman but some how its OK for me to hear about which guy she slept with on the weekend...

Same happens with children my father in law works in a school and he's petrified of the kids as even if they make a joke it could damage his reputation for life innocent or not.

Now that's just wrong of her.

Kids can make teachers' lives miserable over here... or should I say.. the parents can make the teachers' lives miserable over here for the most bizarre issues.

I'm kind of surprised you'd have that problem over there...correct me if I'm wrong-- but don't you live in the area of Ireland where there's a great deal of religious violence? I would've guessed that would be a bigger problem than sexist teachers.

[themonkeyman]

I feel in my profession that women are harder to work with. Engineering is hard but ive found women who refuse to admit there wrong that cobbled with the fact that they shout equality if I say their work is bow standard makes it difficult

[Jutta]

I feel in my profession that women are harder to work with. Engineering is hard but ive found women who refuse to admit there wrong that cobbled with the fact that they shout equality if I say their work is bow standard makes it difficult

Could any of the women who do that actually get you fired? I'm just curious because over here, at least where I work, you'd have to go through "human resources" and file a complaint, have some kind of proof before getting a co-worker in trouble.

Couldn't your co-worker describing her sexual habits be considered "workplace sexual harassment"?

[Overcame Faith]

 

It was not about who was supporting families. Rather, it was about gender privilege and control.

Ok this is not gonna sound good, but I don't buy this argument. First part is right, but the conclusion is a loser's conclusion. Company leadership will do anything they must to cut expenditures. If an employee can be paid considerably less than her value with some bogus reason, then it will be attempted, and it's her job to call the bullshit and demand a raise or get a new job. To put it more simply and harshly: it sounds like your mother blamed patriarchy for her own lack of backbone. Man eats man as well. A man would have to stand up for his rights as well, if he has given reasons to assume that he is exploitable, and then gets tried. Women may suffer from that assumption more to begin with, but that's really all the difference as far as I will buy it.

You're right about the conclusion being a loser's conclusion, and it was my mother, and many other women in similar circumstances who were the losers. You, of course, never knew my mother so your conclusion that she lacked backbone has no basis in fact. She had considerable backbone, but what you don't seem to understand is that the whole system at the time was stacked against her (and other's at the time). Do you not think she desperately wanted and needed more money to support herself and her five children and did everything within her power to secure more pay? Of course she did, but the bottom line was that women at the time were discriminated against at all levels and and leaving one employer was no solution when they all had similar mind sets.

 

It is true that if an employer can pay a man less they would do that. The thing was that my mother was training men to be managers and no matter what she wanted and needed, she, the knowledgable trainor made less than the men she trained. What is more, even though she knew everything about management (as evidenced by her training managers), the company would not make her a manager because "that was not a job for women".

 

You may not believe the world was that way, but it was.

[florduh]

Why am I constantly having to repeat this over and over again? 

 

So people will eventually believe it's true?

 

I don't see that anyone denies there is discrimination, and everyone is agreed on equal work equal pay.

 

But I have a question I've posed before; perhaps someone can shed some light this go around.

 

Through no effort on my part I happened to have or have had women doctors, a woman dentist, women bosses, and there were two woman owned businesses I have worked for. When I had my own business in the 1980s half my clients were women/business owners. One young lady I worked with way back in the 1970s left for a job as a city firefighter. We have a large number of female judges, soldiers, cops, CEOs, and high ranking political office holders. Women make up a slight majority of the population.

 

So it seems to me that women have the numbers to vote themselves some advantageous laws, and many women already hold positions of power. Why don't women use those numbers, the influence and power to change things to the way they want?

[Jutta]

 

Why am I constantly having to repeat this over and over again? 

 

So people will eventually believe it's true?

 

But I have a question I've posed before; perhaps someone can shed some light this go around.

 

So it seems to me that women have the numbers to vote themselves some advantageous laws, and many women already hold positions of power. Why don't women use those numbers, the influence and power to change things to the way they want?

 

Same reason they scatter when certain posters here try to shut out a pro-feminist poster-- the confrontation is often a no-win-situation for most of us normal women in the real world. Some women simply parrot the feelings their significant others/ fathers have, since that was how they were raised-- otherwise, there wouldn't be so many fundamentalist women voting against their own interests.

I'm not a CEO, highly ranked official, judge, or lawyer-- those particular powerful women are not in the majority. They might stick out on your radar while you ignore the women scrubbing the toilets in the bathrooms, vacuuming the offices at night, bagging your groceries, brewing your coffee at the donut shop. I see a cross section of women where I work, and the ones with the money and power are often married or born into it. More often than not, to reach that kind of success via career, a woman usually needs the support of a wealthy parents-- or, one has appeal to the men, even if it requires putting their own gender down--and of course, be attractive, at least in my experience. Think of the bizarre female politicians who support fundamentalist belief systems that cripple members of their own gender-- they want to maintain the power they have, and appealing to their male counterparts ensures that they keep it. They're not going to "bite the hand that feeds" them. 

Still, I've seen similar posts in the past regarding feminism on this forum, and see posters get shut out in the same way. Unless they tip-toe around the issue or dismiss women's rights as nonsense and give examples of how wrong it is, they tend to get pushed off the threads about this particular topic. No anger on the part of the female posters is tolerated, although certain male posters are allowed to be as acerbic as they please.

 

If these threads were discussing an issue such as age discrimination, would the outcome be the same? What if I said all people over 65 shouldn't have any "entitlements" like Medicare, social security, or any laws preventing them from abuse? What if I claimed all of those things weren't necessary anymore, and pointed out unusual circumstances where such programs were being abused certain individuals born before 1950? What if I claimed convalescent homes need no oversight, because "our government fixed all those negligence problems years ago in old age homes!"? What if I said, "hey, I'll be working till I'm dead, why should that guy get money from me just because he's older?". Would you have no right to be pissed, being close to that point? Would it be right if I were to shut you out of the thread along with a group of my 30 year old cohorts, and call you a "geezer" and make a bunch of geriatric jokes? 

[Thurisaz]

Thinking about Germany vs US-- don't they have kindergarten at a very young age? 3 years old or so? And some kind of stipend paid to parents for each child born?

 

Don't nail me down on the exact age but 3 sounds about right. And yes, if you have children over here you can request financial assistance from The Man, called "Kindergeld" in German. Ironically this is (if memory serves... I may be wrong) one of the few good things the nazis have ever done that survived the reich, along with some other measures to support mothers. Of course the Austrian moustache started that so that women could be good baby machines and produce many many lil' soldiers for the coming wars, but well... today it has its advantages, regardless of origin.

 

One of the issues I find irritating in my country, is the lengths to which pro-lifers go to create barriers between women and contraception, access to abortion. Yet these same individuals comprise the same groups that are against any forms of public assistance in any shape or form.

 

I've long given up trying to rationally understand what that kind of people babbles. It's tribalism, nothing else. They care fuck about whether it makes sense, they just claim it because it shows to their fellow dumbfucks that they belong to the right group and obey the right führers. It's nothing but a method to distinguish between Them™ and Us™.

 

Naturally, the number of women who raise children skews the female/male wage ratio, so I agree with DefyingGravity-- it's bizarre for some women's groups to expound on that while dismissing stay-at-home mothers as if they weren't working at all. There is no incentive to stay at home and raise one's children during their infancy here. I was allowed six weeks unpaid leave after my son was born-- after a one day hospital stay after having him. From my understanding, some men in Europe get long paid leave after children are born, let alone women. If we demanded that in this country, we'd be considered freeloaders, "socialist commie femi-nazi pinkos", or worse.

Yes the issue of childraising is one of several things that skew that statistics. One way to approach it is to decide that, for the sake of fairness, if women get x weeks of leave when having kids, the dads should just get the same leave. Definitely introduces more fairness for an issue that, asshole-ish as it sounds - I admit that - is legitimate from the point of view of an employer. It's a fact after all that men don't bear the children, they won't have to go to the hospital for x time when it's time to give birth.

 

Again, don't nail me down on the exact numbers, but German dads have the right to take a leave too to help raise their kids, called "Elternzeit". I'm quite confident the time available for that is at least very close to the time the moms get. And it gets used a lot, as I can testify from my workplace experience. I've been working in the VW bank user management for quite some time, we dealt with those requests a lot (to block and later unblock their user accounts so that no one can abuse them while the owners are gone).

 

There's other things that distort the seemingly simple numbers about the "wage gap" issue. I'm not claiming it doesn't exist at all (if only!) but the issue is much more complicated than the blanket statement "women still earn x % less than men for the same work!!!" suggests. The 4thwavers blog that got linked before in this thread has a nice article on that.

[Thurisaz]

If these threads were discussing an issue such as age discrimination, would the outcome be the same? What if I said all people over 65 shouldn't have any "entitlements" like Medicare, social security, or any laws preventing them from abuse? What if I claimed all of those things weren't necessary anymore, and pointed out unusual circumstances where such programs were being abused certain individuals born before 1950? What if I claimed convalescent homes need no oversight, because "our government fixed all those negligence problems years ago in old age homes!"? What if I said, "hey, I'll be working till I'm dead, why should that guy get money from me just because he's older?". Would you have no right to be pissed, being close to that point? Would it be right if I were to shut you out of the thread along with a group of my 30 year old cohorts, and call you a "geezer" and make a bunch of geriatric jokes?

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, yes the outcome would be the same.

 

As I've said during this entire thread, I don't have any issue with feminism as officially defined, well other than maybe the choice of name but that's a cosmetical and therefore very minor issue.

 

My issue is with something that's (sadly) very human. Take any group of people that's sufficiently large and you find some assholes within it. With "gender issues" in a general sense, on the male sides the assholes are the MRA nutjobs, and the female side has those who call themselves "feminists" but make it clear with every word they say that what they want is not gender equality, but a reversal of gender superiority. These are the ones who, for example, cry "SEXISM!" when something is said against women (and justly so) but apparently have no problem at all if pretty much the same thing is said against men.

 

If I may ask you... if a statement, any statement, is "sexism" when pointed at one gender, how can it then not be sexism when pointed at the other one?

 

This is the issue I have. Not with any feminist who deserves that title, anyone who really fights for equality. My issue is with those who (yes I will repeat this yet again) demand that men be stripped of their human rights whenever a woman claims to have an issue with them, and similar. Those who demand that any claims of rape are automatically believed 100 % and that the accused men are therefore automatically guilty (to just name one example, one that has been mentioned here already). Yes there are probably rather few false rape claims and such in total, but still... any decent court system has to start from the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In dubio pro reo. That has to be universal, or we can just scrap the entire system altogether and set up a new Volksgerichtshof™.

 

Sadly, the greedy unscrupulous media ("if it bleeds it leads!") and other asshole groups in our oh-so-modern societies love those batshit insane nutjobs. If they have their way they'll tell the story such that apparently the entire group consists only of those assholes. Case in point, for most of my life I literally wasn't even aware that reasonable feminists exist... because all I ever heard, and all the women calling themselves "feminists" that I ever met, was this misandric bullshit.

 

It's sad, no doubt. It doesn't invalidate the good cause of feminism as officially defined, not at all. But these fuckturds do exist and they give the entire movement a reputation of hatred and insanity... therefore the issue must be dealt with. And one way to definitely not solve but amplify the problem is... to ignore its very existence.

 

Did I make myself clear here or do you have any questions on that? If the latter, please ask. Because, believe it or not, I'm tired too of these threads almost always ending the same way.

[Castiel233]

I think what happens in these threads is a "champion of the cause" pops up....throws around a few insulting posts, adds in false claims of being denied a voice, begins to USE THE CAPS KEYS, veers off point and goes car crashing all over thread while ignoring direct questions which are awkward.The same insults are often repeated 

 

With no time at all self congratulatory posts are posted "owning other peoples "shit" etc, and words get twisted and complaints repeated ad neuseam to stifle debate 

 

The champion( often a new poster) must have the last word, the ideology must shine out.

 

In this case its feminism , it could easily be its male counterpoint......it could far easily be Christianity....the ism changes , but the behaviour of its champions tread a familiar and depressing path....dissent is discouraged with insult and by claiming to be shut and crowded out..........It does not matter what gender or what the  ism is , once a prophet of "truth" steps forward from the desert, the thread is doomed........

 

The net result often is the new poster (regardless of which ism he or she is protecting) flushed at first with the joy of spreading the good news to the heathens, soon finds themselves ignored as regular posters tire of dealing with them.............

 

This is of course a win in their mind, they are ignored as they have "The Truth" and others "can't handle it..........

 

They then decide to either visit all your old posts to find something to attack you with , leave, or rejoin under a new name to start the cycle all over again...............

 

I might be wrong in my assessment , but that's how it looks

 

 

isms......I am not a fan

[ToHellWithMe]

I could not afford to 'rock the boat'… unfortunately.

You, of course, never knew my mother so your conclusion that she lacked backbone has no basis in fact.

...

women at the time were discriminated against at all levels and and leaving one employer was no solution when they all had similar mind sets.

...

the company would not make her a manager because "that was not a job for women".

Ok, having read the responses of you two, I stand corrected. OF, To assume that your mother lacked backbone isn't required for a working explanation. Your perspective makes sense. Thinking about it, that's how the "merchant class" should play such a situation out.

 

If there is a demographic that is being systemically paid less for the same job, then it's something to be treaded carefully with, as not to make it think it can ask for more. The merchant class is tapping into a common resource, ie workforce, and if someone among them starts to give the cheap ones a better pay, then that someone needs to be snuffed out. A business depends on other businesses in the area, so not dealing with the offending one is likely to make it go bankrupt.

 

What I still stand by, however, is my view on the "gender war" aspect of it. Women may have been the largest single demographic to be exploitable that way, but no gendered oppressor is required to explain that. Just pure economics, greed, and natural tacit cartels.

 

(EDIT: strike-through. I just realized that my reasoning is probably not very interesting to anyone else.)

[Ravenstar]

 

Why am I constantly having to repeat this over and over again? 

 

So people will eventually believe it's true?

 

I don't see that anyone denies there is discrimination, and everyone is agreed on equal work equal pay.

 

But I have a question I've posed before; perhaps someone can shed some light this go around.

 

Through no effort on my part I happened to have or have had women doctors, a woman dentist, women bosses, and there were two woman owned businesses I have worked for. When I had my own business in the 1980s half my clients were women/business owners. One young lady I worked with way back in the 1970s left for a job as a city firefighter. We have a large number of female judges, soldiers, cops, CEOs, and high ranking political office holders. Women make up a slight majority of the population.

 

So it seems to me that women have the numbers to vote themselves some advantageous laws, and many women already hold positions of power. Why don't women use those numbers, the influence and power to change things to the way they want?

 

I think we do, but still the overwhelming majority of those in power are men. Weird, but true.

 

"For the first time in Canada's history, and exactly 90 years since the first female Member of Parliament strode into the green chamber, women make up a quarter of the 308 seats in the House of Commons." 2015

 

"Women have served in the United States House of Representatives since the 1917 entrance of Jeannette Rankin, aRepublican from Montana. Nearly 300 women have since served in the House. As of January 2015, there are 84 female representatives, or 19.3% of the body.^{[1]" (wikipedia)}

"Before anyone gets too excited about these milestones, keep in mind that women make up over 50% of the population. Women make up less than one-fifth of Congress, even after hitting the 100-member mark."

[florduh]

From the statistics I see here I can only conclude that most women, at least in America, are not interested in using their superior numbers at the voting booth to advance a feminist agenda or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

It seems evident to me that the first order of business for feminists would be to sell the program to women, then there's no way a minority of men can thwart a unified front that wants to take over the reins. Until all women agree with feminist ideals and are willing to use their voice, you have no hope of changing anything. Minorities regularly vote in a block, minority business owners favor their own group, why doesn't the majority do the same?

[Jutta]

I wish I could reply and give some credits to people-- good posts! I'm on my lunch break and typing on a little phone just isn't my thing--- Thurisaz, I appreciate hearing about your experiences living in Germany-- it's easy to grow tunnel vision having lived in this region of the U.S. for years. Florduh you raise some interesting questions-- I wonder if the difficulty in creating a female voting block is because (as men) we all differ greatly, have different priorities, loyalties, experiences...

[Thurisaz]

*bows thankfully*

 

My pleasure to have helped

[Ravenstar]

From the statistics I see here I can only conclude that most women, at least in America, are not interested in using their superior numbers at the voting booth to advance a feminist agenda or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

It seems evident to me that the first order of business for feminists would be to sell the program to women, then there's no way a minority of men can thwart a unified front that wants to take over the reins. Until all women agree with feminist ideals and are willing to use their voice, you have no hope of changing anything. Minorities regularly vote in a block, minority business owners favor their own group, why doesn't the majority do the same?

The problem is that all women are not even close to being on the same page - neither are all men, are they?

 

There are traditional women, religious women, minority women, non-traditional, new age women, lesbians, transgender, immigrant women, feminist women, radical women…etc, etc, etc..  all you have to do is look at the abortion debate to see this.

 

Could you bring all men together based on gender alone?  Doubtful.

[mymistake]

 

I think we do, but still the overwhelming majority of those in power are men. Weird, but true.

 

"For the first time in Canada's history, and exactly 90 years since the first female Member of Parliament strode into the green chamber, women make up a quarter of the 308 seats in the House of Commons." 2015

 

"Women have served in the United States House of Representatives since the 1917 entrance of Jeannette Rankin, aRepublican from Montana. Nearly 300 women have since served in the House. As of January 2015, there are 84 female representatives, or 19.3% of the body.^{[1]" (wikipedia)}

"Before anyone gets too excited about these milestones, keep in mind that women make up over 50% of the population. Women make up less than one-fifth of Congress, even after hitting the 100-member mark."

 

 

Twenty precent is an underrepresentation but the number keeps growing.  I expect to see a female US president very soon.  I predict it will happen within the next thee elections.

[florduh]

Could you bring all men together based on gender alone?  Doubtful.

 

 

If not then why, as a minority, are we "in charge?" After all, feminists claim that men in general conspire as a group to keep the ladies in their place.

 

Groups who perceive that they're oppressed in some way always do band together because the change they could effect would benefit them. Except for the majority, apparently.

 

The fact is there are many American women who are content with their lot in life and have no use for feminism. Some even speak out against it. Perhaps feminism sounds good on paper but too many women see a downside. The irony is there are male feminists who fight for rights for women who don't want them. 

 

Is it any wonder that men frequently say they can't understand women? Hell, women can't understand women!