Whilst I am all in favour of freedom of speech, and would exercise mine
to say that the below is rubbish, I do wander what this sulpherous rant
has to do with London Transport!!

Avenger wrote:
Feminism

Fools and Feminists

Feminism has achieved this for women. Feminism has achieved that for women.

But this is just not true.

Feminism has achieved very little for women. If anything, it has retarded
the progress of women. And, furthermore, it is likely to push back the
'progress' of women in the near future.

Women enjoy greater freedoms today because of progress in the areas of
science, medicine and technology, not because of feminism.

Those who have doubts about this should try to imagine how feminist policies
or attitudes could possibly have succeeded 100 years ago - or in
impoverished places in the world today.

Ask a poor woman in Afghanistan why she still wants to wear the burka when
she walks about in the street. Ask her why she would still much prefer to be
married to a man who has some real concern for her welfare.

Women - feminists or otherwise - have probably always got what they aimed
for throughout History. They were biologically designed to manipulate and to
use men for their own purposes. This is why they survive in so many
circumstances in which men do not.

The less harsh is the world outside, and the less vulnerable that women are
to it, the more do they venture out into it.

When human beings were living in caves the women said to the men, "You go
out first."

And they did.

And this is the way that it has been ever since.

But in most societies 'going out first' was not a sign of liberation.

And only fools and feminists would think so.

It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today 'liberated'
western women to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

Relatively safe contraceptive devices and abortion methods have saved them
from being burdened by unwanted pregnancies and unwanted offspring.
Computerised well-funded welfare systems and incredible economic
developments have enabled them to survive without the need for men solely
dedicated to their well-being. Going out into the world of work is
enormously more pleasant, safe and comfortable than it ever was.
Communications, transport and security systems are more widespread, more
effective and more powerful by a long way than they were, say, even fifty
years ago.

These are the sorts of things that have truly 'liberated' women - and,
indeed, men.

Feminism has been of virtually no significance at all in comparison.

It is also often argued that women in western societies were unfairly
discriminated against in the past with regard to various 'important' jobs
and roles that were more or less denied to them. The truth, however, is that
they were discriminated against on very good grounds indeed!

For example, the vast majority of women were going to end up having
children. This is what they wanted to do.

And it is still what most of them want to do!

And it was wasteful for society - and for individual families and
organisations - to expend huge resources in training women over many years
for jobs that they were extremely unlikely to end up doing.

Even fifty years ago, what would have been the point in training women to
become, say, doctors or lawyers - thereby denying men such training - when
the vast majority of such women would have dropped out pretty quickly to
create their own families?

And what makes anyone think that younger women in those days actually wanted
to undergo the serious long-term training that was required in order to do
such jobs when they knew full well that they were extremely unlikely to want
to do them?

Even today, the UK's National Health Service is suffering from significant
inefficiencies and failures because women doctors are dropping out of work
for years on end in order to have children - with some never to return.
(e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

In other areas of work where physical fitness and strength were important -
such as in the police force or in the army - where was the value to society
in employing women to do such work when men were not only available to do it
but were also able to do it far more effectively? Even fifty years ago, such
jobs were far tougher than they are now.

Can you imagine women police officers patrolling the streets alone fifty
years ago, on foot or on their bicycles? - with a whistle being their only
communication method when trying to rally some help in times of trouble.

Just look at the construction industry today. You will not find many women
wanting to lay bricks or to climb scaffolding. But, of course, if ever there
comes a time in the future where such work can be done merely by pushing
buttons while chatting to one's colleagues, then women will want to do it!

And, no doubt, the feminists of the future will then perpetuate the lie that
today's women were discriminated against in the construction industry and
that they were mostly desperate to lay bricks and climb scaffolding!

Furthermore, in the past, where paying jobs outside the home were not very
plentiful, and where there were no significant welfare systems to protect
the unemployed, it would have been absolutely disastrous for communities if
many families had no bread-winners at all, while others had two, or even
more. And it was clearly in the interests of everyone that jobs were
distributed among families as best as possible.

You only have to look at impoverished communities today to see what happens
when the men - particularly the young ones - are unemployed.

And these are the reasons why, in the past, women often had to give up their
jobs if they got married. The idea was to make their jobs available to men
who had to support families, and the assumption was that married women would
be supported by their husbands - which they were.

And for similar reasons, women were sometimes paid less than men for the
very same jobs.

And, believe it or not, even most women in those days would have thought it
unfair had they got paid the same as the men! They were not as selfish as
the women of today, and they recognised that men had a financial
responsibility to look after their wives and their children.

For example, In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, "Should a
married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?" By
overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not.

But thanks to science, medicine, technology and men, - and, of course, the
growth in the economy that they have brought about - women nowadays have
greater access to the world of work, should they so desire it.

And feminism had very little to do with this.

Younger women also often claim that they are glad to be alive today rather
than in earlier times not long gone. And they seem to believe that the
feminists of the 70s are largely responsible for the better circumstances
that now exist for them.

This is hokum.

There is no denying that life is decidedly better in many ways nowadays than
it was in the past - for both men and women - but what, exactly, did
feminism achieve - apart from the long catalogue of disasters listed in the
piece sarcastically entitled The Benefits of Feminism?

It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in
loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine
and women feminine.

But was it?

Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading
the way in this area it was the gay movement not the women's movement.

Even the entrapment of people into fixed gender roles brought about by the
huge influence of religion was loosened far more by the developments taking
place in science (discovery of DNA 1953) and the very rapid growth of a
'youth culture' with its defiant pop music (during the 1950's) than it was
by the later influences of feminism. (For example see the short piece
entitled The Shackles of Masculinity?.)

It is also often claimed that men and women now stand far more on an equal
footing than they did some decades ago.

Oh really?

In what areas, exactly?

Women can nowadays kick their husbands out of their homes, deny them access
to their own children, and, in many western countries, even make them
continue paying for children who are not even theirs! There are now some 20
times as many men in western prison cells as women. Men currently die, on
average, some 5 years earlier than women. And so on.

This is greater equality?

Indeed, it would be interesting to know on what basis there is greater
equality today than there was in the past. And how does one measure it?

For example, does the fact that women were once not entitled to vote (as was
true for most men) not somehow balance the fact that men alone could be
conscripted into the army?

Does the fact that - even only 50 years ago - the vast majority of men had
to do really awful jobs for very long hours in order to cater for themselves
and their families not somehow balance the fact that the women were mostly
stuck at home with the kids?

So what, exactly, is more gender equitable about today's western world?

The feminist trick that infects the ether is to hold up examples of what
appears to be unfairness toward women in the past, but to hide the
unfairness that was being heaped upon men.

The suffering of women is highlighted and exaggerated and the suffering of
men is denied and hidden. For example, look at the way that the
domestic-violence industry still caters only for women and denies the
existence of such violence against men. (Indeed, the UK government's
previous Solicitor General - Harriet Harman - and the Home Office itself
purposely ignore domestic violence against men; e.g. see Good Luck Ms
Harman.)

And the modern-day history books have been cleansed by the left wing and the
politically-corrected in the educational establishments and in the media in
order to hide the suffering and the achievements of men and to elevate
unduly into the public consciousness those of women.

And the extent to which these lies are continually perpetrated is absolutely
astonishing.

As just one example, last year western TV viewers were subjected
persistently to images of the Taleban police in Afghanistan whacking away
with their sticks at the women (mostly at their heavy clothing) as they 'got
out of line' in the long queues for food. Over and over again the same
images were presented to us to drum into our heads how badly women were
being treated by the extremely religious Taleban. But in one scene on the
BBC - which was shown once, and never shown again - a TV reporter asked one
of the policemen why they were not whacking the men! He chuckled and said
that they did not need to do this because the men were so terrified of them
that they always did what they were told!

And, sure enough, the men could be seen standing in an orderly line without
the pushing and shoving that was taking place among the women.

And so what these images really showed was that the women were completely
unafraid of the policemen wielding their sticks while the men dared not put
a foot out of line.

The truth of the matter was the complete opposite of what the media were
persistently trying to portray.

Even men's rights activists seem to think that feminism has benefited women
in some major way. For example, in his truly excellent piece Fundamental
Feminism even Richard Davis says,

"In contrast to progressive feminists, fundamental feminists do not seek
gender equity. Their goal is gender superiority and authority. There is no
question that women and men now live in a more gender equitable world than
the one this author was born into. As a father of three daughters and two
sons this author expects and demands equity of behavior and equal
opportunity for all five of his children. Most of the credit for this
contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism."

Pardon?

"Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be
given to progressive feminism."

Where is the evidence for this?

And what on Earth is 'progressive feminism'?

I have never even heard of it! - despite years of being involved with the
men's movement.

How can it possibly be that this 'progressive feminism' can be given the
'credit' for our current view of 'gender equity'?

Where? How? When?

WHO?

What the Hell is it?

And what about the 'independent' feminists, the 'equity' feminists and
goodness knows what other types of feminists who are also often alleged to
have brought about this current view of gender equity?

Do they count at all?

And have the gays not contributed most significantly to the current view of
gender equity?

And what about black people?

Yes. Even the black racial activists witter on about gender equity.

And even many raging white male anti-feminists, if not most of them, are
pretty sold on the idea of 'gender equity'.

And so the idea that feminists - of any kind - have some superior claim when
it comes to the successful promotion of 'fairness' and 'justice' toward
women is just nonsense. They are but a small fraction of the hundreds of
other groups that have sought goodwill, justice, fairness and peace on Earth
etc.

And the worthwhile achievements of feminists are almost non-existent.

Richard talks about wanting the same opportunities and the same fair
treatment for his sons and his daughters.

And quite right too!

But if you travel back fifty years in time and beyond, what meaning could
this possibly have had?

There was just no way that normal young males and females could have been
treated the same way and the results be equitable.

For example, how could it have been 'equitable' to insist that your son and
your daughter both train hard for several years and to imbue them both with
high professional expectations when the daughter would most likely want a
completely different life for herself as an adult? - i.e. marriage to a
suitable young man.

Do loving parents who believe in 'equitable' treatment fill their children's
heads with grandiose ideas and expectations knowing full well that they are
extremely unlikely to achieve them, or when they do not even want to achieve
them?

And what, for example, if one lived in a mining community?

Would it have been 'equitable' to treat the boys and girls in the same way,
and expect them both to work down the mines for 12 hours a day as a future
career?

Similarly, allowing your 15 year old daughter to stay out until midnight and
not requiring her to have an escort home would have been the height of
madness fifty years ago. Even today, most responsible parents will have
somewhat different rules for their boys and their girls when it comes to how
they view their socialising habits.

And, of course, girls who got pregnant fifty years ago would have found
themselves in all sorts of trouble.

It makes no sense at all to believe that society could have treated men and
women the same way fifty years ago. And if it had done so, the results would
certainly not have been 'equitable'.

Indeed, if feminism had been of major influence in those days our societies
would have collapsed completely.

You only have to look at the effects that feminism has had on our poorer
communities to see what a disaster it has been for so many people.

Indeed, if western economies were to deteriorate significantly in the
future, and if millions of jobs were lost on a permanent basis, there is no
way that feminist policies could be implemented or enforced.

For example, people might demand that jobs were distributed on the basis of
one income-earner per household. And if, for some unimaginable reason, the
only jobs available were onerous ones, or the world outside became a
particularly dangerous place to be - as it used to be - women would
willingly rush back into being housewives again.

And just imagine what would happen if, for some strange reason, abortions
became unsafe and the contraceptive pill disappeared!

When you look back even fifty years ago, it is quite clear that women were
not being oppressed by the 'patriarchy'. The patriarchy was serving them
very well indeed, given the circumstances in which people lived.

In summary, feminism has achieved very little indeed.

It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today 'liberated'
western women - and men - to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

Feminism has damaged our society. And it continues to do so.

Not only is it a hugely destructive force but any society that is largely
influenced by it is actually doomed to disappear.

The birth rates in feminist-dominated societies have plummeted to well below
their population replacement rates, and the children who are being born are
increasingly the offspring of those with lower levels of ability.

Well, with any luck, science, medicine, technology and men will, once again,
manage to deal with the problems that will arise from such things.

But, firstly, this will not be easy. And, secondly, feminism has got to go.



http://www.angryharry.com/esFoolsandFeminists.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paula Thomas wrote:
Whilst I am all in favour of freedom of speech, and would exercise
mine to say that the below is rubbish, I do wander what this
sulpherous rant has to do with London Transport!!

Avenger wrote:
[snipped]

So why repost all 2,934 of his words? Just put him in your killfile,
then you won't be bothered by his rants, and we won't have to suffer
your reposting of them.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)