Why Feminism Isn't Taking Off In Non-Western Countries - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14948960
Feminism is not as ugly as some misogynists and others think. I agree that it exists in Asia and other areas of the world. Like body shapes, it comes in many forms. There is nothing wrong with women objecting to ideals put forward by chauvinistic, traditional patriarchal societies. Male dominated regions can be unbearable and men can be overbearing. Feminism was a response to this. If men respected women more, then maybe feminism would not have gained so much attention. Women wanted to vote and so on and so it began. I am glad and I am grateful that because of the struggles of women long ago, women have the right to attend university or college and they can own property.
#14948982
I have a much simpler theory - men don't put up with bullshit in nonwestern countries. Here in the USA we have government funded abortions and women demanding that be covered in their universal healthcare - and many men in the USA are simply, too passive to put up an argument. SAD!
#14997994
I consider myself misogynous but I don't think Feminism didn't take off in all non-Western countries. In China, for example, women have been, at least portrayed as, very powerful in the last few years. Historical feminist figures like Wu Zetian are being (excessively?) hailed.

And there's the female chief executive in Hong Kong and the female president in Taiwan. They are only criticized for their policies, but gender slurs against them are very rare, if ever. In other words, everybody thinks them to be equals to other (male) leaders, no less.

If you think Feminism didn't kick off in these places, the most valid explanation would be that we are not that misogynous to start with.
#14998217
Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.


Boom, I just blew your collective minds.


Misogynous seek to destroy women for the betterment of themselves. Feminism, at least on surface, does not result in the misogynists' betterment.
#14998246
Godstud wrote::roll:

False, @Patrickov.

Misogynist:
- a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.


The definition does not defeat my point. A person with prejudice should also seek to benefit oneself whenever the prejudice is practiced. If not, which means the person doesn't come out better than the prejudged, then what's the point of it?
#14998269
Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.

Boom, I just blew your collective minds.


The problem with this is the assumption that anti-feminists are actually misogynists at all. Its a slur that was used for propoganda purposes that has stuck for some reason (MGTOWs and INCELS are perhaps a recent exception on this, but that is a separate matter).

The truth is, most anti-feminists are some variety of tradcon who actually love women for their distinctive virtues and would like to see those expressed in their fullest sense of traditional motherhood and wifedom. Tradcons and patriarchal types are critical of women being political, going to war, or working alongside men precisely because they believe it cheapens womanhood itself and makes women into an ugly attempt at a photocopy of traditional male roles and thus they view feminism and egalitarianism (by extension) as the eliminating of the "sacred" notion of femininity that those societies have collectively protected and elevated for a millennia.

It is not a coincidence that anti-feminist societies were also the ones most sensitive to the dignity and virtue of women as encased by manners, moral codes, and chivalry. That feminism killed chivalry is really all the evidence you need that it is truly anti-women and misogynistic at its core.

The reason patriarchal types oppose feminism (contrary to your paradox) is because patriarchal types are the exact opposite of misogynists, indeed they are the greatest preservers of femininity as it has been collectively understood by the majority of the human race for several thousand years.

Women are different and these so-called "haters of women" (misogynists) only wish to see femininity protected, elevated, and preserved as distinct from masculinity.

The real amusing thing to me, is the deluded belief of some feminists that men are "threatened" by women taking roles in politics, war, and the workplace. Being threatened has nothing to do with it, after all, the only reason women are able to do any of these things is because men have "allowed" them too in the first place via concessions and political protections.

If all men collectively did not want women to have those "liberated" roles, they could do so by force and there is nothing women could do about it, do you really think women would be able to rise up and take those rights by force from the men? Get real. :lol: :lol:

Feminism only exists because men have allowed it to happen (usually for selfish, greedy, or lustful reasons), which is an amusing irony that never ceases to entertain my mind.

This is why men shouldn't take loud mouth feminists too seriously, they should be dismissed as the privileged and spoiled little girls they are, only being able to spew their bile because men were gracious enough to concede them such rights in the first place and which could be revoked in an instant by these same men if the collective will were strong enough.

Without a state (operated by men who seek to gain by giving women the "illusion" of power), there could be no feminism or egalitarianism. In a state of nature, traditionalism exists not merely out of a sense of nostalgia (as most conservatives have today regarding patriarchy), but out of pure, natural, necessity.
#14998270
Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.


Boom, I just blew your collective minds.

The real paradox is that "feminists" think that women need to be more like men to get respect, there is a heavy implication there that women are not good enough as they are.

There is also the problem that gender equality would result in women losing very valuable privileges for all the privileges they might gain. Legal and conventional exemptions from military duty or any work involving physical hardship and hard labour for example.
Last edited by SolarCross on 09 Apr 2019 16:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14998272
As far as i can tell, @Hong Wu’s argument has been completely demolished, and non-western women are fighting for feminism according to their specific social conditions.

This makes sense.

Women are as keen to improve their own lot in life as anyone else. So they will want the same respect as men get, and traditional women’s roles are not good enough as they are if the goal is to get the same respect as men.
#14998274
SolarCross wrote:The real paradox is that "feminists" think that women need to be more like men to get respect, there is a heavy implication there that women are not good enough as they are


Indeed, the implicit assumption was that the traditional male role was superior to that of the traditional role of the woman in patriarchal societies.

What can be more misogynistic than saying that exclusively feminine roles like child-bearing were somehow deficient and inferior in comparison to the male's civic participation or role in violence or manual labor?

Sounds like a misplaced Freudian penis-envy gone awry. :lol:
#14998278
If all men opposed feminism, would women be able to take their "feminist" rights by force from the men, or was it necessary for men to concede or grant some their own power and privilege to the women in order for feminist objectives to be accomplished?
#14998281
Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that people who did traditional female roles were treated with a lot less respect, it is historically incorrect to argue that forcing women into only traditional female roles is respectful.

This is basically an ahistorical narrative. It is more generally true to say that men are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for men and women are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for women.
#14998282
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as i can tell, @Hong Wu’s argument has been completely demolished, and non-western women are fighting for feminism according to their specific social conditions.

The only women fighting for feminism that I'm aware of are the Kurdish female fighters and the small numbers of front line women in western armies fighting the sick patriarchal misogynistic Muslim terror groups.
#14998283
SolarCross wrote:This is basically an ahistorical narrative. It is more generally true to say that men are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for men and women are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for women.


Not if you deny women the vote, not let them own land, not let them divorce, force them to carry pregnancies to term, etc.

None of these are signs of respect.

And these things are common in some non-western countries, which is why women in these countries are creating and pushing feminist movements.
#14998288
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not if you deny women the vote, not let them own land, not let them divorce, force them to carry pregnancies to term, etc.

None of these are signs of respect.

And these things are common in some non-western countries, which is why women in these countries are creating and pushing feminist movements.

You don't understand any of those things so I will spell out the reasons why:

1. Government is a military institution predominantly so the privilege of voting is properly extended to those that directly contribute military duties actually or potentially. Having the privilege of exemption from military duties quite properly ought to mean the absence of the privilege of political enfranchisment.

2. It is not generally true that women were forbidden from owning land at least in Europe but land owners are generally viewed as being particularly liable to military duties and for this reason there is an expectation that males should inherit over females.

3. The convention against divorce applied to men also and had to do with maintaining the practice of monogamy.

4. The convention against abortion is simply the understanding that it entails the killing of innocent children, the fact that it applies disproportionately to females is incidental.
Last edited by SolarCross on 09 Apr 2019 16:47, edited 1 time in total.
#14998289
SolarCross wrote:You don't understand any of those things so I will spell out the reasons why:

1. Government is a military institution predominantly so the privilege of voting is properly extended to those that directly contribute military duties even actually or potentially. Having the privilege of exemption from military duties quite properly ought to mean the absence of the privilege of political enfranchisement.


And producing every single soldier is part of that. So is nursing.

And both of these roles have traditionally been done by women.

And the easy way to show respect for women in this way would have been to allow them to fight as well.

Restricting their roles drastically, and then using this as an excuse for disrespectful behaviour towards women, is not an example of respecting women.

2. It is not generally true that women were forbidden from owning land at least in Europe but land owners are generally viewed as being particularly liable to military duties and for this reason there is an expectation that males should inherit over females.


I doubt any of this is true.

3. The convention against divorce applied to men also and had to do with maintaining the practice of monogamy.


Why would men want to divorce a person who is forced to clean their house and raise their kids and whom the man can rape at will with impunity?

4. The convention against abortion is simply the understanding that entails the killing of innocent children, the fact that applies disproportionately to females is incidental.


And yet, men killed innocent children all the time as part of their military duties. And men were treated respectfully for this, while the same excuse is used to restrict women’s roles.

How does this have anything to do with non-western women?

Trump's move is a diplomatic insult too. If he mea[…]

[email protected] have given up. You concede what I[…]

Yeah, we know. But there is a world outside of Am[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, a presumption with no sound evidence. I ju[…]