Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Immanuel Can]

Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.

That's what people are doing now. They're thinking of women as men.

And just look at how that's working out for women...

[seeds]

Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.

The entity (or "agent") that sits at the throne of consciousness in the human mind - has no gender.

Gender is simply a momentary illusion that one experiences due to the pure (dice-like) randomness of being born with a body that sports either a vagina and ovaries, or a penis and testicles (each with their accompanying flood of specialized hormones that help to establish a body's feminine or masculine features).

As I have stated in other threads, with just a few appropriate edits in the DNA of a developing embryo in the human womb, any one of us could have awakened into life on earth as the opposite physiological "gender" of what we are now, and we would have acted-out our roles accordingly.

I guess my point is that the only thing that women need to be 'liberated" from is the sheer ignorance of any male who fails to understand that were it not for pure chance, then they too would be on the receiving end of the inequality and oppressive dominance that they often make the females of our species endure (especially in Islamic countries).
_______

[Belinda]

Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.

That's what people are doing now. They're thinking of women as men.

And just look at how that's working out for women...

Honorary men .Obviously I have not explained this properly.Please read below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_male.

In modern times there are many honorary men. Girls are now educated to the same standard as boys.

[Immanuel Can]

Think of strong liberated women as honorary men,.

That's what people are doing now. They're thinking of women as men.

And just look at how that's working out for women...

Honorary men .

Why does the "honour" only come if a woman becomes like a man? She gets the high "honour" of being "one of the boys," does she?

Is there no "honour" in women being women?

That's the difference (one of the key ones) between 2nd Wave and 3rd Wave Feminism. The former thought women could only achieve equality from becoming like men. The latter insisted there's something important and irreducible about being a woman, something that should not be reduced to a "male" equivalency.

But then, Feminists have never been able to keep their stories straight, so it hasn't yet come to a conflict. But this "transing" issue may force Feminism's hand -- sooner or later, both types of Feminist are going to have to answer the question, "Are men and women actually the same thing?" And then we'll see a fight. We're already starting to, as young female athletes are protesting the posing of males as females. And it will happen in other areas, too: for affirmative action can only be rationalized if women are at special disadvantage; if they are not, and if a man and a woman are the same thing (it being only a matter of self-identification), then any affirmative-action quotas can simply be filled with trans-males, and nobody needs real women at all.

See how that works out?

[Belinda]

That's what people are doing now. They're thinking of women as men.

And just look at how that's working out for women...

Honorary men .

Why does the "honour" only come if a woman becomes like a man? She gets the high "honour" of being "one of the boys," does she?

Is there no "honour" in women being women?

That's the difference (one of the key ones) between 2nd Wave and 3rd Wave Feminism. The former thought women could only achieve equality from becoming like men. The latter insisted there's something important and irreducible about being a woman, something that should not be reduced to a "male" equivalency.

But then, Feminists have never been able to keep their stories straight, so it hasn't yet come to a conflict. But this "transing" issue may force Feminism's hand -- sooner or later, both types of Feminist are going to have to answer the question, "Are men and women actually the same thing?" And then we'll see a fight. We're already starting to, as young female athletes are protesting the posing of males as females. And it will happen in other areas, too: for affirmative action can only be rationalized if women are at special disadvantage; if they are not, and if a man and a woman are the same thing (it being only a matter of self-identification), then any affirmative-action quotas can simply be filled with trans-males, and nobody needs real women at all.

See how that works out?

Traditionally women have been dominated by their men folks, with few exceptions. Comparatively recently during the recorded past women have become much more empowered than they had been. Traditionally honorary men were women past child bearing who had natural authority. It may help you to see how power sharing between males and females may be accomplished if you think of women's being politically and economically upgraded from the traditional gender stereotype.

There is no threat to people with penises, as these people can participate in what used to be more feminine gender roles and gain personal power thereby.

Feminism is no threat to the nuclear family, and helps nuclear families to stay together, because the traditional roles can be changed according to the personalities and employment opportunities of the man and the woman.

[Immanuel Can]

Traditionally women have been dominated by their men folks, with few exceptions.

Mythical history. The truth is that life has been unbelievably brutal for all people, males, females and children, up until the late Modern era.

Cry me a river about the lot of housewives, when their men were in the mines, or lumberjacking, or building railways, or at war, or even just working in the fields. If you think that was ever fun, you should go and have a try.

Comparatively recently during the recorded past women have become much more empowered than they had been.

There are two main reasons: one is the pill (invented by a man). The other is that men had developed society to the point where it was soft and luxurious enough tha women could even contemplate their alternatives.

But none of that is the issue. The issue now is that women are no longer capable of making an argument that they should be granted any special privileges, because today, even a man can be a woman.

Feminism is no threat to the nuclear family, and helps nuclear families to stay together,

Statistically, that's not at all the case. You may wish it were, but the data proves it's not. https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces. Quite the opposite.

What role, if any, Feminism has played in that, we can debate. Is easy divorce better or worse? Does income equality cause independence? What's the role of the loss of larger communities, or of belief? And so on. But it's definitely not that Feminism has "helped nuclear families stay together." Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?

Again, we can't know. But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all...and that's the direction things are clearly headed.

[Belinda]

Traditionally women have been dominated by their men folks, with few exceptions.

Mythical history. The truth is that life has been unbelievably brutal for all people, males, females and children, up until the late Modern era.

Cry me a river about the lot of housewives, when their men were in the mines, or lumberjacking, or building railways, or at war, or even just working in the fields. If you think that was ever fun, you should go and have a try.

Comparatively recently during the recorded past women have become much more empowered than they had been.

There are two main reasons: one is the pill (invented by a man). The other is that men had developed society to the point where it was soft and luxurious enough tha women could even contemplate their alternatives.

But none of that is the issue. The issue now is that women are no longer capable of making an argument that they should be granted any special privileges, because today, even a man can be a woman.

Feminism is no threat to the nuclear family, and helps nuclear families to stay together,

Statistically, that's not at all the case. You may wish it were, but the data proves it's not. https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces. Quite the opposite.

What role, if any, Feminism has played in that, we can debate. Is easy divorce better or worse? Does income equality cause independence? What's the role of the loss of larger communities, or of belief? And so on. But it's definitely not that Feminism has "helped nuclear families stay together." Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?

Again, we can't know. But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all...and that's the direction things are clearly headed.

Life was brutal for men, women and children . It's debatable whether it was worse for men, for children, or for women. Domination by men of women and children does not necessarily imply brutality, although when there is a general mysogynistic ideology in any society brutality accompanies male domination.

"Housewives" is anachronistic. In past times and in different parts of the world women and children were and are economically active including hard manual work.
For instance in a weaver's household the women and the men both worked at the household loom. For instance in north Scotland the women carried the men on their backs through the shallow water to the fishing boats so the men could fish wearing dry clothes. For instance in some societies the hard work of tending the rice fields is mostly done by women.

The reason divorce statistics in the developed countries are not a full indication of the security of the nuclear family is , before easy divorces, many more nuclear families were unhappy with the women and the children being abused by the male head of the household. Not every divorce is a Casanova's charter.

Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?

(IC)

Misogyny is reported to be plaguing Ireland including among the police. Twenty -three year old teacher, Aisling, was murdered in daylight in a frequented place. Magdalene laundries lasted in Ireland until the last one in 1996. Misogyny is not the same as men: misogyny is an ideological disease.

But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all.

(IC)

What " cachet" ? If you refer to the right of men to be gallant towards women then feminism empowers women so they may be gallant towards men.Surely you have met some gallant women !

[Immanuel Can]

male domination

What an easy myth with which to warm yourself. Women were just victims until the late Modern period. After that, they mysteriously were able to throw off the shackles. What a lovely story.

"Housewives" is anachronistic. In past times and in different parts of the world women and children were and are economically active including hard manual work.

Ah, the myth begins to disintegrate...Yes indeed. Women participated in this world. They always have. But as for the men, life was a brutal struggle to avoid death, for most of human history.

The reason divorce statistics in the developed countries are not a full indication of the security of the nuclear family is , before easy divorces, many more nuclear families were unhappy with the women and the children being abused by the male head of the household.

So you say. But statistics again don't bear you out.

If what you were saying were true, children would be benefitting from having been freed from the tyranny of the nuclear family, and women would be happier than in the past. But women today self-report being unhappier than ever, and beyond question, childen are seriously harmed by the disintegration of even a minimally-functional nuclear family.

Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?

misogyny is an ideological disease.

It's a relatively rare one. Our society is organized to favour women.

Men do more dangeous jobs, have more social pathologies, are incarcerated far more, have more difficulty being employed (prior to childbirth years), are marginalized everywhere in education, have no "affirmative action initiatives, lose their children more often, report more loneliness, and die younger.

But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all.

What " cachet" ?

You don't get it, do you? You can't see the train headed down the tracks at conventional Feminism.

Well, the female athletes certainly see it coming. You should listen to them, before it becomes too late.

If men can "be" women, then we have no need of women. In fact, "being a woman" must be nothing: for any person who merely imagines himself to achieve it can achieve it. So why have a category for "women's rights"? If they're not special, not unique, not valuable in any particular way, why give them the pole position in social situations? A trans-man is supposed to be exactly the same thing. And why talk about "women's history," or "women's studies," or "women's rights," or have particular concern for "violence against women," when there's no substance to the whole category "woman"?

Feminism can lose every gain it made here.

[Belinda]

male domination

What an easy myth with which to warm yourself. Women were just victims until the late Modern period. After that, they mysteriously were able to throw off the shackles. What a lovely story.

"Housewives" is anachronistic. In past times and in different parts of the world women and children were and are economically active including hard manual work.

Ah, the myth begins to disintegrate...Yes indeed. Women participated in this world. They always have. But as for the men, life was a brutal struggle to avoid death, for most of human history.

The reason divorce statistics in the developed countries are not a full indication of the security of the nuclear family is , before easy divorces, many more nuclear families were unhappy with the women and the children being abused by the male head of the household.

So you say. But statistics again don't bear you out.

If what you were saying were true, children would be benefitting from having been freed from the tyranny of the nuclear family, and women would be happier than in the past. But women today self-report being unhappier than ever, and beyond question, childen are seriously harmed by the disintegration of even a minimally-functional nuclear family.

Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?

misogyny is an ideological disease.

It's a relatively rare one. Our society is organized to favour women.

Men do more dangeous jobs, have more social pathologies, are incarcerated far more, have more difficulty being employed (prior to childbirth years), are marginalized everywhere in education, have no "affirmative action initiatives, lose their children more often, report more loneliness, and die younger.

But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all.

What " cachet" ?

You don't get it, do you? You can't see the train headed down the tracks at conventional Feminism.

Well, the female athletes certainly see it coming. You should listen to them, before it becomes too late.

If men can "be" women, then we have no need of women. In fact, "being a woman" must be nothing: for any person who merely imagines himself to achieve it can achieve it. So why have a category for "women's rights"? If they're not special, not unique, not valuable in any particular way, why give them the pole position in social situations? A trans-man is supposed to be exactly the same thing. And why talk about "women's history," or "women's studies," or "women's rights," or have particular concern for "violence against women," when there's no substance to the whole category "woman"?

Feminism can lose every gain it made here.

Male dominance is okay as long as the male in question is a kind man who values his women folk as individuals with the same rights he himself enjoys. There were some leaps ahead for women's equality; one of the most recent was the Great War when women had to man jobs such as bus conductors and ambulance drivers that had traditinally been done by males. Votes for women followed soon after.

There was a date when women became permitted to own property and have rights to their own children. Women became permitted to qualify as doctors and professors. Girls were expected to do science at school, and to publish books under their own names. None of these reforms caused men to be emasculated. Surely you yourself must have met gallant women.

Bullying fathers who abuse their children and terrorise their wives are best got rid of. Better to be a single mother than a dead one.

I know of no men who were "marginalised in education" because they were men. I think that would be against the law.

The category of woman remains defined by both gender and sex, ditto for the category of men. Mysogyny remains active and is the cause of terrible murders.

[Immanuel Can]

Surely you yourself must have met gallant women.

Absolutely. But none of the "gallant" ones thought they were men. They were all real women, and happy to be women.

Better to be a single mother than a dead one.

Of course. I already mentioned the exceptions: addiction, gambling, serious abuse, violence...But exceptions do not speak to the rightness of the rule. Exceptions only apply where there IS a rule.

I know of no men who were "marginalised in education" because they were men. I think that would be against the law.

It's not. And if you do only a bit of reading on the recent "Men's Rights" movement, you'll learn that men are discriminated against in all kinds of ways...and the law has gone right along with that. In fact, in cases like "affirmative action," the law insists upon men being discriminated against. It's required, absolutely.

The category of woman remains defined by both gender and sex, ditto for the category of men.

So what happend to the transers? They say their sex doesn't fit what they claim is their "gender." So what are they? Are those women really women, or are they really men? And are the men who trans really women, or are they men?

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Better to be a single mother than a dead one.

Of course. I already mentioned the exceptions: addiction, gambling, serious abuse, violence...

That's right ladies in Cantopia you will be allowed to escape a relationship in which your life is in peril. If the man you married just turns out to be an arsehole though, you are stuck with him. Poor Mrs Can.

[Belinda]

Surely you yourself must have met gallant women.

Absolutely. But none of the "gallant" ones thought they were men. They were all real women, and happy to be women.

Better to be a single mother than a dead one.

Of course. I already mentioned the exceptions: addiction, gambling, serious abuse, violence...But exceptions do not speak to the rightness of the rule. Exceptions only apply where there IS a rule.

I know of no men who were "marginalised in education" because they were men. I think that would be against the law.

It's not. And if you do only a bit of reading on the recent "Men's Rights" movement, you'll learn that men are discriminated against in all kinds of ways...and the law has gone right along with that. In fact, in cases like "affirmative action," the law insists upon men being discriminated against. It's required, absolutely.

The category of woman remains defined by both gender and sex, ditto for the category of men.

So what happend to the transers? They say their sex doesn't fit what they claim is their "gender." So what are they? Are those women really women, or are they really men? And are the men who trans really women, or are they men?

An honorary man knows she has a vagina not a penis. She is an honorary man because she is old enough or wise enough to be accorded male rights and privileges.
Honorary women is a social class that applies only to some societies where equality between the sexes is not a given.

In all my experience I have never heard of a professional teacher or medic who marginalises males. On the other hand it's usually men who are dangerous to women not women who are dangerous to men. There is a shortage of women's refuges.

While in some respects easy divorce favours adulterers, easy divorce helps both women and men who are married to cruel or dangerous partners. Cruelty includes mental cruelty. The nuclear family is the normal societal unit and has recently opened its arms to single sex partners and parents, and to single parents.

So what happend to the transers? They say their sex doesn't fit what they claim is their "gender." So what are they? Are those women really women, or are they really men? And are the men who trans really women, or are they men?

How does a "transer" identify themself? Any more is none of your business.

[popeye1945]

Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.

[Belinda]

Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.

How one identifies oneself is not the same as how the same individual is identified by others.

[Immanuel Can]

She is an honorary man because she is old enough or wise enough to be accorded male rights and privileges.

What about male responsibilities? For responsibility is the conterpart of "rights and privileges."

Everyone forgets that. They think they can have the best anyone else has, without also accepting the worst...which they ignore.

So are women fit to bear the burden of not having children so that they, like men, have no time out of their careers? Are they prepared to devote 70 hour weeks to their jobs, sleep at the office and have no private lives? If they are, then there's no reason that they, like men are, can be top CEOs or investment bankers. Are they ready to defend the country with their blood, build our bridges and roads with their hands, haul down our trees and mine our resources, and so on, with exactly the same level of strength and effort as men are putting forward, and with the same effects? If they are, they can have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of men.

No problem there.

In all my experience I have never heard of a professional teacher or medic who marginalises males.

Then you have never seen our education system, which is almost entirely shaped to favour the disposition and skills of women, and in which men are failing and dropping out in record numbers today. And you have never realized that 60% of college students are now women, but there is no talk at all of affirmative action for men, or even dropping affirmative action because of the men. Nor have you considered that 76% of teachers and 91% of nurses are female, but there is still no concern about the imbalance there. And good luck getting tenure, or even a university job today, if you are a male...particularly a pale-skinned heterosexual one.

The nuclear family is the normal societal unit

Yes, it is.

So what happend to the transers? They say their sex doesn't fit what they claim is their "gender." So what are they? Are those women really women, or are they really men? And are the men who trans really women, or are they men?

How does a "transer" identify themself? Any more is none of your business.

Then a man can BE a woman.

And women are no longer important, at least not in any distinctive way. We can cancel all the real women in sport...they'll be gone very quickly anyway, unable to compete with the trans-men. And why are we having affirmative action when a man is a woman if he wants to be? Hiring quotas...we can just hire trans-man to fill the female quota. Wage parity? All trans-men can make the same as real men, and who cares about the real women? And what is all this talk of "violence against women," when a man can be a woman? The conversation has to change. And "women's washrooms" -- why should they have any privacy if it makes trans-men feel bad? What is "women's history," when any man can be a woman? What are "women's rights" then? Or a "woman's shelter," or a "women's prison"?

It's already happened. In women's sports, women are being wiped out by trans-men. In prisons, any claiming "woman" is put in the female population. And how that is working out is exactly as you would expect.

They're coming for the real women, B. You just don't know it yet. You've become accustomed to assuming the "victim" position, and you can't imagine you're going to lose it...but in truth, you already have. You're in the new "oppressor" class.