posted July 27, 2015 11:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenia:
Could you be more specific? What do these organizations in USA say?

---

posted July 27, 2015 11:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenia:
As long as there are sexists, we need feminism in the Western world. I am pretty sure you prefer to bring the "other" lifestyle here though haha

---

posted July 28, 2015 05:57 PM            

quote:

---

Basically....
They say that men, especially white men, are a privileged group. The ironic thing is most of these women saying this sh*t are college educated women from upper middle class or rich families

---

This is how I've seen the hierarchy thing play out... just my personal experience:

1. Rich, healthy/fit, reasonably young, Western white male.
2. Rich, physically/psychologically ill or 'older', Western white male.
3. Rich, healthy/fit, reasonably young, non-Western, non-white male (in particular Asian, but this includes all cultures and races as long as the level of -wealth- is considerable).
4. Rich, beautiful/attractive, healthy, reasonably young, Western white female.
5. Rich, unhealthy/sick or older, non-Western male.
6. Rich, beautiful/attractive, healthy, young - non-Western/non-white female.
7 and 8. Rich, unhealthy, older - female (Western or non-Western, irrespective of race).

9. Middle-class, healthy/fit, young, Western white male.
10. Middle-class, beautiful/attractive, healthy, young, Western white female.
11. Middle-class, healthy/fit, young, non-Western male.
12. Middle-class, beautiful/attractive, healthy, young, non-Western female.

Factionless (if you've watched Divergent, you'll know what I mean by factionless):

- physically ill or older middle-class people (unless they are academics and considered extremely intelligent)
- ALL lower class people, irrespective of race or gender or age.. e.g. homeless people.

:edit: So actually .. now that I typed this out.. you're partially right AG!
The rich (both young and old, all races and nationalities) women -- are above you in the hierarchy.
But most feminist writings, at least the ones I've come across - do not contest that fact ^

Feminist writers are not comparing Paris Hilton with a random middle class guy (e.g. *you*) - and saying he has more power than she does in virtue of being white and Western. Making that argument would be pretty crazy!

posted July 28, 2015 11:00 PM            

Shout out to the OP for posing a petty, mundane question that started a domino effect of negative energy that has permeated throughout the entire forum.

Also, shout out to Aquaguy (and others) for attempting to reason with these people. Just take the red pill, man, and avoid modern-day/third-wave feminists, you know, the ones who are so delusional that they fail to realize this third-wave of feminism has been counter-productive to the causes that they *claim* to advocate for. They *claim* to want gender equality, yet all I see is further gender division, which, I must say, is not as bad as the gender superiority that they really want.

Here are a few ways you can identify them:
Clue #1: Hipster glasses.
Clue #2: Brightly colored hair; the more colors you see in her hair, the higher the rank of her insanity. Have you noticed how animals that are poisonous are often more colorful to ward off other animals? This leads to the next clue.
Clue #3: Undesirable appearance. She declares that she is body confident, but in reality when people don't accept her physical appearance as healthy, or of their preference, she complains about it on blogs/social networks.
Clue #4: Her approach to solving any and every problem is to complain as loudly as she can until a man comes over and fixes it for her.

I wish you the best of luck, man.

posted July 29, 2015 01:05 AM            

quote:

---

approach to solving any and every problem is to complain as loudly as she can

---

I know your post was exaggerated for humour.
But as I was saying earlier.. this is my issue with some (not all) feminist writings.
There is no balance between -explaining the problem- and -taking steps to actually fix the problem- or at least offer possible solutions (and work on making those happen).

I'm very neutral when it comes to modern feminism though.
I don't believe third-wave feminists fit your overall description, but you probably already know that!
Either way, their physical appearance, their fashion sense and social-skills or lack thereof.. are irrelevant to me (as this has nothing to do with the ideology).

As things are at present - I just don't believe feminism is very influential anymore - or that it does much good or harm in the world.
I can appreciate what feminism has achieved for women historically... but for better or worse, it is becoming more and more irrelevant for the younger generations.

I'm egalitarian because I feel like egalitarianism is a much better, more proactive and useful ideology.

posted July 29, 2015 02:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
I'm egalitarian because I feel like egalitarianism is a much better, more proactive and useful ideology.

That all being said... I'm wondering if you share AG's views... Free Leon?
AG does have a problem with feminism (as you do also apparently). But he goes further than that - in believing that *actually* men are the oppressed and underprivileged ones.
Do you agree with this ^?
I'm asking out of pure curiosity...

---

I don't have a problem with feminism IN THEORY, that is, the advocation for genuine equality among the sexes, but in reality modern-day feminism has become so distorted from the original movement that it has done more harm than good at the individual and collective level for decades now. The destruction of the nuclear family unit (and all of its repercussions), further division among men and women, etc.

From "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness":
"By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men."

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the reason behind this decline is the rejection of sacred feminine energy. I've always found it ironic that feminism indirectly, if not directly, encourages women to adopt more masculine qualities...

I don't see it from a perspective of who is *more oppressed and underprivileged. We should aim to eliminate oppression altogether, not focus on one group just because they are *more oppressed (although I do believe a compelling argument can be made for either side). Both genders are underprivileged and oppressed in different ways.

posted July 29, 2015 06:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I wish these people had the decency, guts, flexibility and imagination to solve their personal problems without implicating global movements and the whole planet. Discretion is indeed an underrated virtue.

---

posted July 29, 2015 06:29 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:

Tell that to the feminists.

---

posted September 13, 2015 09:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
The thing I really hate about modern feminism is it's attack on men, particularly male sexuality. If you read feminist material today it's very clear that they detest male sexuality. One of their favorite terms is "sexual objectification". Anytime a man desires a woman sexually he is "objectifying"her. It's just a bunch of BS.

---

posted September 13, 2015 11:50 PM            

The other (Libra sun) was often with assertive women, though I wouldn't call them "dominant" (neither one was as far as I could tell). When he was talking about how scary some people found him (after I told him how badly he scared me the first time he came up to me) he also said that at least I wasn't like those women who were attracted to him because they thought he was an aggressive "alpha male" type who'd rough them up at the very least, those kind of women left him both cold and sad. But he also had no patience for very bossy or continually angry women either. Actually, his tastes, I'd say, are fairly typical for a Virgo Venus (which he has) as described here.

posted September 14, 2015 05:30 AM            

Strong as in physically strong? Mentally tough, doesn't let insecurities take over? Strong as in assertive, sticking to your beliefs, standing up for your rights?

Generally for a guy, you need to look further than beyond the Moon sign. The Moon sign is like the icing on the cake, but it doesn't give you the whole flavour of the cake right?

Moon --> What the guy most desires in a woman, regardless of whether he likes it or not. He NEEDS it.
Venus --> What he likes physically in a woman, Venus is great at the beginning but can be short lived as the personality of the woman comes out more, the taste becomes too sweet or sour if the guy sees things which conflict with the MOON's NEEDS.

Look at the Placement of both Moon and Venus, what houses? I have Moon in 11th and Venus in 6th. I like Women who are clean and can look after themselves, and who have a strong ambition about them (6th). Also I want someone who I can talk too and share the same humour with (11th).

Lastly, look at the tightest applying aspects to Moon and Venus. If Moon and Venus aspect each other, there is a chance the NEED's and TASTE's are the same OR out of sync. I have Venus trine Mars, I like women who are sporty. Venus square Neptune, women with an artistical side to them. Moon trine Neptune, Artisitical side enhanced. Do you see the pattern? Moon opposite Saturn, need a woman with structure and integrity, not necessary routine.

So I have:

Moon in Virgo --> Saturn in Pisces/Neptune in Cap.
Venus in Aries --> Mars in Leo/Neptune in Cap.

Now you can see the picture, Neptunian influence, who is in control of they imagination and uses it. (Saturn). That's what I NEED, but may not like.
Women who are sporty and are STRONG in what they believe. STRONG ==> Assertive in what they like, but not aggressive.

I hope this helps anyone reading this

posted September 14, 2015 06:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soltze:
The guy I'm seeing know as a Taurus moon. He is the polar opposite of controlling.

Anyway I totally despise men who think I have to obey anything. I've never obeyed anyone my entire life. I do my own thing. I have my studies to do, I wanna be finantially independent. I'm strong as in having a life beyond relationships, having self-esteem and putting myself first.

And I'm still feminine and discreet so I'm not sure I'm getting what the thread is about.

Relationships are based on sex and friendship not obedience. This is so insulting I don't even know what to say.

PLUS: Men in the 20-30s range are usally the most mysoginistic. Thank God I like them older. I was always respected and treated as an equal. Ironic considering they had more conservative education

---