Being against feminism is like being against the Atlantic Ocean. It is too big to fight: a broad, deep transformation of all of society. So, some disclaimers: I don’t want to go back to the 1950s of Mad Men, or the 1870s when the angels of the house wore crinolines. I have no soft spot for Russia,
My beef with feminism is the lack of curiosity on the part of the feminists. Why does there need to be feminism? Why didn't our female ancestors fight against the unfairness? What is the reason for the unfairness and why was it maintained? Why is it only in the last century or so that it began to change?
My beef as such with feminism is that it is not a set of values or beliefs, or even a vague collective of sets of values and beliefs. It is (like many things these days) more like a Team. Wear your team colours (or t-shirt) and always support it is the main dictum. While I share many values and beliefs that can be described as feminist, I feel more comfortable with letting values and beliefs shape identity and not vice versa.
A major part of your argument is flawed, because men do not need to strive to earn more than women if they want to get married and reproduce, they merely need to find a woman who earns less than them.
Therefore salary discrimination cannot be justified on the basis that otherwise men would not find women to marry.
Also, I can confirm that many men, like you do, feel no compunction in making anti-feminist arguments.
You are in no way a repressed minority, however much you would like to claim that position.
I find the idea that it's men who's responsible for the patriarchy utterly simpleminded. What about my grandmother who told me to wear this and that, showed me what and what not to do in society, while my grandpa died before I was born and who was a couch dweller reading the newspaper type while he was still alive. Now who is really responsible for the patriarchy there? I see a phenomenon there. I think all those hyperreligious grandmothers were perhaps more responsible of the "patriarchy" than men were, which means that we have been living in a secret "matriarchy" all this time and matriarchs were using physically superior men as their bodyguards and who were somewhat meaningless for most of history. I'm somewhat exaggerating that last part there.
I reckon that a large number of those "wife killing" stories you heard from the Middle East were to a large extent perpetuated by wise old women who were the harbingers of their millennia-old religious traditions. Perhaps there's a bit of a sexual selection thing going on there, where the women who survived religious conformity ended up being the most influential out of their age and gender combined. Your Greta Thunbergs would have been stoned to death already in 9,800 of the last 10,000 years of human history.
My beef with feminism is the lack of curiosity on the part of the feminists. Why does there need to be feminism? Why didn't our female ancestors fight against the unfairness? What is the reason for the unfairness and why was it maintained? Why is it only in the last century or so that it began to change?
My beef as such with feminism is that it is not a set of values or beliefs, or even a vague collective of sets of values and beliefs. It is (like many things these days) more like a Team. Wear your team colours (or t-shirt) and always support it is the main dictum. While I share many values and beliefs that can be described as feminist, I feel more comfortable with letting values and beliefs shape identity and not vice versa.
A major part of your argument is flawed, because men do not need to strive to earn more than women if they want to get married and reproduce, they merely need to find a woman who earns less than them.
Therefore salary discrimination cannot be justified on the basis that otherwise men would not find women to marry.
Also, I can confirm that many men, like you do, feel no compunction in making anti-feminist arguments.
You are in no way a repressed minority, however much you would like to claim that position.
I agree with this.
I find the idea that it's men who's responsible for the patriarchy utterly simpleminded. What about my grandmother who told me to wear this and that, showed me what and what not to do in society, while my grandpa died before I was born and who was a couch dweller reading the newspaper type while he was still alive. Now who is really responsible for the patriarchy there? I see a phenomenon there. I think all those hyperreligious grandmothers were perhaps more responsible of the "patriarchy" than men were, which means that we have been living in a secret "matriarchy" all this time and matriarchs were using physically superior men as their bodyguards and who were somewhat meaningless for most of history. I'm somewhat exaggerating that last part there.
I reckon that a large number of those "wife killing" stories you heard from the Middle East were to a large extent perpetuated by wise old women who were the harbingers of their millennia-old religious traditions. Perhaps there's a bit of a sexual selection thing going on there, where the women who survived religious conformity ended up being the most influential out of their age and gender combined. Your Greta Thunbergs would have been stoned to death already in 9,800 of the last 10,000 years of human history.