why do feminists deliberately forget the events on the titanic?

[UnbrokeN]

Feminists always tell us that women have been mistreated, opressed and held back since the beginning of time. of course this is a blatant lie, because Men are naturally very protective of women and children...this is something nature equipped the overwhelming majority of men with, like an instinct. ''you dont hit a girl/woman'' or ''ladies first'' just being two classic examples of this thinking. now how can we study and determine the status of women in the past? yes quite simple, by reading a history book. lets read about the titanic. the titanic had people from all sociatal classes..poor, rich..globetrotters or emigrants. so its pretty safe to assume that the people on the titanic represented and stood for pretty much everyone in the west at the time. so when the ship sank, many of the poor emigrants were locked up and left to die while many of the rich could escape. But WOMEN and children from all classes were put in life boats before the men were. now if feminists were actually right, and women had been seen as ''worthless''
back then, its safe to conclude that womens lives wouldnt of been saved the way they were.

% of men saved 20%
% of women saved 74%
% of children saved 55%


Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

Now, you might think that this was just a coincidence - a happenstance - but you would be wrong.

For example, just take a look at the table below to see how much concern there is throughout the internet for the welfare of men, women and children. You can check the links yourself.



HUMAN RIGHTS

Google Hits 028/Jan/2007

News


Hits


%

Men's Rights


6


0.2

Women's Rights

women's rights

2710


91.5

Children's Rights


246


8.3

Web


Hits


%

Men's Rights


45,500


1

Women's Rights


2,450,000


80

Children's Rights


582,000


19

It is absolutely inconceivable that women would have been given priority for the lifeboats if their welfare was considered to be less important than the welfare of men.

The feminist-inspired myth that women were treated as second-class citizens in recent history is a downright lie - like so many other myths that feminists promulgate.

And these myths - and there are hundreds of them - are designed with one aim in mind - to stir up hatred towards men.

This is what you will discover, if you look closely at what feminists say and do.

[identity-X]

well hell...i guess women HAVE been and continue to be treated as, at least, equals to men. I mean....the case of the Titanic IS in fact a good way to judge gender relations over the entire course of human history.



chivalry doesn't magically erase patriarchy...

[varentao]

Eh?

So, you're taking an example from a time when it was still the social norm for the man to be clearly dominant and the woman to be looked after by him, as an example of how men and women have always been equal (or that because they were allowed to go onto the boats, and men not, because as i've just said, it was the social norms of the day) ..???

Don't be silly. There ARE inconsistencies. Like virtually EVERY movement. But the middle ground of feminism is sound enough. Especially in a world where technology has made man's hunter/gatherer qualities less required (or at least used in a different way, a way women can also compete in).

[SAMARA]

without women there is no future.
yes, men are needed as well.

The rights of Men are unquestionable not denied.

The rights of women encompass that of a child.

Take for example a woman who is homeless and in need of shelter.
A woman who is with child is preferenced.

It is child-rearing that is protected. It is not that of the woman.

If you read a little further into history, you would recognize a woman who is unable to bear a child was with less regard.

This is absolutely the dumbest arguement.

Why not assert that areas that have traditonally been regarded as a Mono-sex priviledge should be embraced unisexually? Why not acknowledge a respect for competition, rather than quarrelling about why you dont menstruate?

just dont hate me because I have mammory glands. Seriously, some guys sound a little like they have been surpassed competitively by women and are intimidated by their intelligence. The other ones seem to be a little fancy and have to endure pressure from men when they get a whoop ass by a woman.


DONT HATE THE WOMAN IF YOUR FRIENDS MAKE FUN OF YOU.

[McGirth]

I don't think feminists want/wanted equal treatment for the most part. They wanted legal rights, and they got them. i agree with varentao.

whats interesting is how these legal rights are shifting slowly in law. They don't grant one the same freedom as they did in the past.
For example, property rights are far more taxed/subject to far more regulations then in the past. In order to stay up to date with these regulations/taxes continued wealth is required. It was once the case that man could sit on his peice of land, take care of it, and be free. This is not the case anymore. You basically have to work non-stop to keep "owning" the land. Property rights have been disconnected from freedom.
To have equivalent freedom today you basically have to have a large pile of money collecting interest.

To add to this, not only have property rights shifted, but property is more expensive then in the past. It used to be hte case that a single person earning a decent wage could buy a house. Today, this is no longer the case. It requires either 2 people earning decent wages OR one person earning a very high wage.

In effect, feminists, and minorities for that matter DID NOT get the rights/freedoms they had in mind they were originally fighting for.

[UnbrokeN]

Originally Posted by SAMARA

without women there is no future.
yes, men are needed as well.

The rights of Men are unquestionable not denied.

yes they are. just take a look at divorce and custody rights..or domestic violence laws.

Originally Posted by SAMARA

The rights of women encompass that of a child.

Take for example a woman who is homeless and in need of shelter.
A woman who is with child is preferenced.

thats utter bullshit. where i live there are plenty of ''women resorts'' and women health and care centers. not thats its wrong, but your argument holds no value.

Originally Posted by SAMRAA

.



This is absolutely the dumbest arguement.

Why not assert that areas that have traditonally been regarded as a Mono-sex priviledge should be embraced unisexually? Why not acknowledge a respect for competition, rather than quarrelling about why you dont menstruate?

yes its surely is a pity that i cant menstruate the way my goddesses can :D

Originally Posted by SAMARA

just dont hate me because I have mammory glands. Seriously, some guys sound a little like they have been surpassed competitively by women and are intimidated by their intelligence. The other ones seem to be a little fancy and have to endure pressure from men when they get a whoop ass by a woman.


DONT HATE THE WOMAN IF YOUR FRIENDS MAKE FUN OF YOU.

yes yes..this thread was all about woman bashing and spewing hate towards YOU, the woman. you ve got it totally right. its quite hilarious that each time a man is confronted with a feminist she will whip out the ''im sure you've been either rejected by women or academically outmatched'' theory.tools..

this thread wasnt about HATING on women, its about debunking myths that the feminists have spread so viciously in the past. oh and..a woman who coudlnt bear life was seen with less regards yes, just like a man who couldnt do any physical Work was seen with much less regards. i guess it was all about the physically ability of the man back then,?i guess men were reduced to nothing more than machines...working and fighting machines...going to war and being sacrificed while the womens lives have usually been spared. but nooooo...it was women who were held back from fighting in bloody wars, working in coal mines and factories. trust me. women were quite happy with how things were back then...

[UnbrokeN]

Originally Posted by varentao

Eh?

So, you're taking an example from a time when it was still the social norm for the man to be clearly dominant and the woman to be looked after by him, as an example of how men and women have always been equal (or that because they were allowed to go onto the boats, and men not, because as i've just said, it was the social norms of the day) ..???

Don't be silly. There ARE inconsistencies. Like virtually EVERY movement. But the middle ground of feminism is sound enough. Especially in a world where technology has made man's hunter/gatherer qualities less required (or at least used in a different way, a way women can also compete in).

it is what it is: an example from a time were women were supposedly opressed and mistreated, get it right.

im not talkign about the feminist movement in general here, im only talking about their flawed perception of the history of mankind.

[x - calibur]

youre taking small examples and taking things out of context.

there are endless examples of societys in history that made women the property of thier fathers or husbands. no rights as an individual, not considered important in society, never having official power (not ruling out de facto) and so on. also, in societys rules of morality, unwritten rules etc, they have often been much stricter on women, and given much more freedom to men. i.e. - being a mack VS being a slut

matriarchy/womens freedom and considered importance, are by far the exception, not the rule.

as for mens rights versus womens rights.. the rights of men dont need much support, because mens rights have existed as a default in most societies.

women couldnt even vote in the usa not too long ago. a change needed to be made, and the feminism movement was needed.

[x - calibur]

of course, women and children have often had special protections, thats natural

it still doesnt change the overwhelming inequality and problems that needed to be corrected by feminism

[UnbrokeN]

coudlnt vote? hilarious, there was basically nothign to vote for if you go back 100 years.. the government was that small

what rights do men posses by default that women havent? and why do men need no support i n terms of laws. there are countless laws that depict men as evil doers and wife beating children abandonign sons of bitches. andsince when is being a mack soemthing to be proud of?such behaviour is de••••cable, people are wrong for approving of such frivolous behaviour. how does it make women disadvantaged because public opinion will condemn women living frivilous lives and not men? they rightfully do condemn these women my friend..but so should be men. its not good to be involved with many sex partners trust me..neither for men or women. but to each his own. i for one see a lot of women whoring around these days..so i guess they could care less.

women have always been considered and ackowledged as very important in society. you make absolutely no sense. women regarded property? this is the worst most blatant lie imagineable by the feminist school.as mothers and sisters, their consult has always been greatly appreciated.look at old pphotos my friend, take your family..and please study if the women in your family looked '''opressed''. women have always been apreciated.and there have been NUMEROUS female leaders in the past..do you want me to name them? and they have all been proving to be No less violent and war mongering than their male counterparts. surprised?

please..what inequalities are you referring to? do you mean women werent allowed to do the jobs men did? has it ever occured to you that women wanted to stay at home and raise children? has it ever occured to you that This is what women were intended to do all along, to assure our survival? you live in a little feminist fantasy world my friend..you dont even know what their cause is. you are just saying what all other feminsits are saying. the bigger the lie, the more people believe it i guess.

[x - calibur]

Originally Posted by UnbrokeN

coudlnt vote? hilarious, there was basically nothign to vote for if you go back 100 years.. the government was that small

lol, what are you talking about?
and it was sooner than 100 years ago

what rights do men posses by default that women havent?

....

and why do men need no support i n terms of laws. there are countless laws that depict men as evil doers and wife beating children abandonign sons of bitches.

huh? are you talking about child support/rape/domestic violence laws? i dont think those laws are saying anything like that about men. the fact is, women/children do need some protection, theyre more vulnerable.

andsince when is being a mack soemthing to be proud of?such behaviour is de••••cable, people are wrong for approving of such frivolous behaviour. how does it make women disadvantaged because public opinion will condemn women living frivilous lives and not men? they rightfully do condemn these women my friend..but so should be men. its not good to be involved with many sex partners trust me..neither for men or women. but to each his own. i for one see a lot of women whoring around these days..so i guess they could care less.

it was just one example of social stigma. that particular one is more justified actually, you could find better examples in different places and before the modern era.. in general, social stigmas have been much more restrictive and harsh on women. have you seen the head to toe black sheets that some moslem women wear??

women have always been considered and ackowledged as very important in society. you make absolutely no sense. women regarded property? this is the worst most blatant lie imagineable by the feminist school.

in many times and places they were.

as mothers and sisters, their consult has always been greatly appreciated.look at old pphotos my friend, take your family..and please study if the women in your family looked '''opressed''. women have always been apreciated.and there have been NUMEROUS female leaders in the past..do you want me to name them? and they have all been proving to be No less violent and war mongering than their male counterparts. surprised?

of course they had influence within the family.. if she was the wife or relative of a powerful man, she could have de facto power. but, education and employment for women was often greatly limited, which greatly reduced thier ability to have independence or influence. im not even touching on the cultural view of them being weaker or incapable of intellectual ability....

please..what inequalities are you referring to? do you mean women werent allowed to do the jobs men did?

much less education/employment oppurtunities than men.. and usually were dependent on a man

has it ever occured to you that women wanted to stay at home and raise children? has it ever occured to you that This is what women were intended to do all along, to assure our survival?

of course. thats the most important thing for human survival, and it should be protected.

you live in a little feminist fantasy world my friend..you dont even know what their cause is. you are just saying what all other feminsits are saying. the bigger the lie, the more people believe it i guess.

im not a feminist.
i dont agree with all aspects of the feminist idealogy.
i think that it was a movement that was needed to help level the playing field.

[UnbrokeN]

Originally Posted by x - calibur

lol, what are you talking about?
and it was sooner than 100 years ago


....

huh? are you talking about child support/rape/domestic violence laws? i dont think those laws are saying anything like that about men. the fact is, women/children do need some protection, theyre more vulnerable.

my point is, women and children arent the only ones who are vulnerable. EveryOne is.

Originally Posted by x - calibur

in general, social stigmas have been much more restrictive and harsh on women. have you seen the head to toe black sheets that some moslem women wear??

how does that relate to our society, where women have never been forced to wear black sheets. i dont agree with women being forced to wear a burka. but this doesnt fit in here. it has nothign to do with the situation of women in the west, which is what we re talkign about here right.

in many times and places they were.

Originally Posted by x - calibur

of course they had influence within the family.. if she was the wife or relative of a powerful man, she could have de facto power. but, education and employment for women was often greatly limited, which greatly reduced thier ability to have independence or influence. im not even touching on the cultural view of them being weaker or incapable of intellectual ability....


much less education/employment oppurtunities than men.. and usually were dependent on a man

you have to ask yourself, why women had significantly less education oppurtunities? let me explain it to you. back then it was normal for a woman to marry in her teens and become pregant..because thats how girls were raised back then, they were raised into becoming wifes and mothers, which is also a job in my view. its in fact the most important job society has to offer. now, the problem with WOmen having an education and going for higher positions and financial independance was, regarding that most women at the time were stay home moms, that once a woman decided to become a doctor for example, she would basically take a job that another man needed to feed his family. and that would have created a lot of conflict at a time before all this equality and womens rights stuff. and besides that, why would the government have supported women to get an education and study for years, only to become pregnant and marry and basically not work in the job field. that would have been a waste of a) money and b) an insult to any Man who could have gotten the education he needed to supply his family but he didint get because a woman who in the end possibly never worked the same amount that the man did, or never worked at all gotten the education. it was unthinkable to let women have the same opportunities as a man..butthats besides the FACT, that the overwhelmign majority of women back then didint want to work the same jobs men did. this is actually the biggest factor as to why women didint want to have financial freedom: they simply didint want to. the devil tells them to be Independant from their man and families, but thats not what women want. women want to be taken care of, deep down. everythign else is leftist feminist social engineering and bascially an act of seperating the two genders from each other. the divorce rate and increasing single mother households being proof for that..and of course..more and more women living without a spouse..


of course. thats the most important thing for human survival, and it should be protected.

Originally Posted by x - calibur

im not a feminist.
i dont agree with all aspects of the feminist idealogy.
i think that it was a movement that was needed to help level the playing field.

now you dont understand one thing: why do you think the feminist movement was allowed to change the social structure of the west? its so easy..trust me, without the approval of a few powerful white men, Nothing would have worked that way..there is a reason as to why women were allowed to become independant: Capitalism

think about it..back then, the man got al lthe money..while the woman took care of the kids and housework. thats one income..now with both men and women having an income, the consume rate boomed..the corperations and businesses become richer than ever ( a few white men). the state can soak up taxes from both men and women alike..basically doubling its income. tfeminism and womens movement was just a TOOl to achieve this..you have to understand that women arent in any way better off today , they are much much worse off. because women, liek men, dont enjoy being alone or hopping from partner to partner..raising their kids alone..its not what They want, but its what society teaches them nowadays..

[SAMARA]

Originally Posted by UnbrokeN

this thread wasnt about HATING on women, its about debunking myths that the feminists have spread so viciously in the past. oh and..a woman who coudlnt bear life was seen with less regards yes, just like a man who couldnt do any physical Work was seen with much less regards. i guess it was all about the physically ability of the man back then,?i guess men were reduced to nothing more than machines...working and fighting machines...going to war and being sacrificed while the womens lives have usually been spared. but nooooo...it was women who were held back from fighting in bloody wars, working in coal mines and factories. trust me. women were quite happy with how things were back then...

i guess you are absolutely right.. when I think of the women in Cuba who prefer to prostitute and raise their children and pay for schools, and households while their men are "working" and conversing about baseball because they are not permitted to discuss politics....


the oldest profession next to a soldier I suppose.

"face down you know the routine"