Third-wave feminism

[k0llectable5]

What has happened to this movement and ideology? Is it sexist to expect teen girls to behave like ladies and boys like men? Why are some girls picking fights with boys in the school yard, literally pushing and shoving and taunting like "C'mon have a go, you wanna fight" and doing this day after day and if the boy reacts in anyway he is labelled a girl basher, even when it's the girl that throws the first or only punch... And men, why so many feminine men these days? And with movements like MGTOW (Men going their own way), which has spawned in retalliation to thrid-wave feminism,  are we witnessing the destruction of society as we know it? 

[fo-trut]

"Bait Thread" best not to fuel it

[k0llectable5]

---

@morgana2408 wrote:
something %. Can you provide a link for the information.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's from wikipedia.  In the "Rape of males" section; 

Female-on-male rape is under-researched compared to other forms of sexual violence.[12]

Statistics on the prevalence of female-on-male sexual violence vary. A 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 93.3% male rape victims reported only male perpetrators. 1 in 21 or 4.8% of men reported being "made to penetrate".[13] The survey also found that male victims reported only female perpetrators in instances of being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).[13] A 2008 study of 98 men interviewed on the National Crime Victimization Survey found that nearly half of the men (46%) who reported some form of sexual victimization were victimized by women.[14]

Take from that what you will, the fact of it is it's an under researched thing...

[k0llectable5]

---

@fo-trut wrote:

"Bait Thread" best not to fuel it

---

It's not a bait thread.  Whats you opinion on third-wave feminism?

[electric*mayhem*band]

http://www.megawavs.com/movie-sounds.aspx?title=All+About+Eve&qty=22

[electric*mayhem*band]

Ignore above post. Wrong thread. 

Memo to eBay.

A couple more minutes would help, before being timed out. 

[chameleon54]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

  What is wrong with girls being lady like? Women with children being "mothers" "carers" and men being "fathers" or "protectors/providers" 

Protectors; providers. There are one or two fundamental problems with that concept

From what or whom does the modern Australian woman need protecting by her menfolk: man eating wombats, rampaging kangaroos, or could it be other men?

And if protection is the man’s role, then whose role is it to  protect the family while he away doing the ‘providing’

Now let’s consider the ‘man as provider’ scenario. This is not traditional – it is simply a status symbol that came in with the rise of the middle class.   It was in great part the ill paid labour of female mill workers, factory workers, domestic servants, dressmakers etc. that allowed  the nouveau riche to flaunt their non-working wives as a symbol of their affluence; with the result  that  being able to ‘keep’ a wife and family on a single wage became a goal for those aspiring to upward mobility. 

In rural areas women have always worked alongside their men (shepherdesses and milk maids are not figments of the imagination of costume shop owners). The men may have owned the farms and managed the livestock but it was usually their wives who kept the chooks, made the butter and cheese and took the produce to market – on top of running the home and caring for the children.

When we think about the provision of food in the very earliest societies we tend to picture a group of young men armed with spears tracking and killing an animal which they then carry home in triumph to their waiting womenfolk. There is a reason, though, why these people are described as ‘hunter/gatherers?

We have no way of knowing what the division of labour was, and is probable that the men did most of the hunting – they were physically stronger and, biologically, more expendable, but is also probable that the women did most of the gathering, together with the carrying and preparing of whatever they gathered and it is almost certain that what they provided constituted a larger part of the staple diet than the meat provided by the hunters.

So it would appear that, from as far back as the Stone Age,  women, equally with men, have always been both protectors and providers for their families

---

As much as many would like to deny it, I think all humans are still hard wired to our more prehistoric, pre modern society instincts.

This means that men who are the physically stronger sex are hard wired to be protectors and hunters. Testosterone influences mens physical strength and his levels of aggression and willingness to fight to protect his family ( or yes She el, just to fight ). Men are faster, stronger and possibly more agile than woman ( think physical structure ). They also are more likely to take risks and court danger,  making them more suited to hunting.

Woman who are powered by estrogen are naturally more risk averse ( need to be there for the kids ), more maternal and yes often ( though not always ) less aggressive. I wouldn't for a minute dispute she els assertions that woman did most of the gathering in earlier times and yes they probably prepared more of the food and looked after the kids. Basically they may have done more of the work. Many will instantly say  " just like today " . If so you are just proving my point that we as a race are hard wired by millenia for these basic roles.

Does this make it fair ? Probably not. ......Should it change now that we are living in a new world ? Probably.

In modern society men rarely have to protect the family from giant kangeroos although there are still spiders, rats and snakes to contend with. Yes there are times when we may have to protect the family from other males and what is wrong with us doing that ? Probably the biggest thing we have to protect the family against is inequalities in society. We need to stand up for our kids and partner when the school, the employer or the government agency does not do the right thing. ( and yes, woman are quite capable of doing this too, but what is wrong with a man taking a stand for his family ) ???

I cant see the problem with men wanting to provide for the family. A little admission here, I gain a sense of satisfaction and achievement from chopping several tons of firewood at this time of the year and stacking it neatly in the shed to keep the family warm in the cold winter that is coming. It appeases my hunter gatherer instincts. I also do my best to provide for the family financially and like to see my kids have some wonderful life experiences and opportunities. It gives me a sense of purpose and reason to work hard. Is that so wrong ???

Traditional roles build on our natural instincts and give us something to believe in, aspire to and feel a sense of achievement and "self" with.

The problem is that we have moved completely away from nature and our instinctive roles may no longer serve us best moving forward. Humans are experimenting with different ways to live. Feminism, LGBT,  feminine males, woman as world leaders are all experiments in reinventing ourselves for the modern, artificial future ahead. This is probably necessary, but it is fighting our natural instincts.

We no longer have clearly defined roles in society and many young people feel lost as they dont have the clear sense of purpose and identity that traditional role models provide. These problems are compounded as we progressivly adopt roles that are at odds with our natural instincts.

Me, I,m just going to stay defending and providing for the family and to he!! with your modern world role changes.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Me, I,m just going to stay defending and providing for the family and to he!! with your modern world role changes.

But doesn't your spouse/partner also defend and provide for the family?

You also said: 

I think all humans are still hard wired to our more prehistoric, pre modern society instincts.

This means that men who are the physically stronger sex are hard wired to be protectors and hunters. Testosterone influences mens physical strength and his levels of aggression and willingness to fight to protect his family ( or yes She el, just to fight)

I would argue that the prehistoric male impulse to fight had far less to do with protection than control. One could point to the  animal kingdom qand say that the dominant male in any herd fights to protect his females, but it would not be true. What he is fighing for is the exclusive right to mate with them and pass on his genes. This may be a 'good thing' in evolutionary terms, but it is a bit redundant in modern society. As for dealing with spiders or snakes - or even other men. - families ,and society as a whole, are much better served by empowering women to deal with them themselves rather than expecting them to rely on their menfolk to do it for them. 

[chameleon54]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Me, I,m just going to stay defending and providing for the family and to he!! with your modern world role changes.

But doesn't your spouse/partner also defend and provide for the family?

You also said: 

I think all humans are still hard wired to our more prehistoric, pre modern society instincts.

This means that men who are the physically stronger sex are hard wired to be protectors and hunters. Testosterone influences mens physical strength and his levels of aggression and willingness to fight to protect his family ( or yes She el, just to fight)

I would argue that the prehistoric male impulse to fight had far less to do with protection than control. One could point to the  animal kingdom qand say that the dominant male in any herd fights to protect his females, but it would not be true. What he is fighing for is the exclusive right to mate with them and pass on his genes. This may be a 'good thing' in evolutionary terms, but it is a bit redundant in modern society. As for dealing with spiders or snakes - or even other men. - families ,and society as a whole, are much better served by empowering women to deal with them themselves rather than expecting them to rely on their menfolk to do it for them. 

---

As with prehistoric woman, my wife worked very hard to provide for the family before losing her eyesight. And yes she is a ferocious fighter when she feels her kids are threatened by something.

As for mens protective instincts, I think they extend to many areas of family life, beyond just passing on the genes. There is a strong sense of protecting territory ( the family home ), essential in prehistoric times for maintaining a productive food base for the family. There is protection of children, wanting to keep them safe and guide them to be productive, useful members of society. And protecting their partner. I witnessed my mother in law being attacked by a large cow with horns. My father in law instinctively jumped on top of her to protect her, possibly giving his life, to save her. Nothing controling about that.

But yes for many men, there is the control aspect that you mention. This is an outdated, obsolete instinct that many men still carry which serves no purpose in todays modern society and can cause great harm at times. It is a bit like an appendix. We all carry it around, we no longer need it, and when it becomes inflamed it is a real problem.    

I suppose the main point I was trying to make is that the traditional roles for men and woman ARE based around our natural instincts, physical body characteristics and hormonal make-up. They are pretty much a natural fit for who we are as people.

The problem is that we have created an artificial world where many of these old roles are obsolete and will be further changed in future. We as humans are still experimenting with new ways to live and forging new, never before seen identities. Some will work brilliantly ( and true equality for woman is one example ), others may be passing fads. As many of these modern day roles go against our natural instincts, many people are struggling to adapt and adopt new role identities..This is causing problems for many young and not so young people as they no longer have a sense of "who they are"  that they can identify with. 

[k0llectable5]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Me, I,m just going to stay defending and providing for the family and to he!! with your modern world role changes.

But doesn't your spouse/partner also defend and provide for the family?

You also said: 

I think all humans are still hard wired to our more prehistoric, pre modern society instincts.

This means that men who are the physically stronger sex are hard wired to be protectors and hunters. Testosterone influences mens physical strength and his levels of aggression and willingness to fight to protect his family ( or yes She el, just to fight)

I would argue that the prehistoric male impulse to fight had far less to do with protection than control. One could point to the  animal kingdom qand say that the dominant male in any herd fights to protect his females, but it would not be true. What he is fighing for is the exclusive right to mate with them and pass on his genes. This may be a 'good thing' in evolutionary terms, but it is a bit redundant in modern society. As for dealing with spiders or snakes - or even other men. - families ,and society as a whole, are much better served by empowering women to deal with them themselves rather than expecting them to rely on their menfolk to do it for them. 

---

I was so hoping that this discussion wasn't going to turn into a battle of the sexes.  Feminism resonates with you she-ele yes? I understand, you've lived through a massive transition.  You've seen and experienced things that us generation xers and the most modern "millenials" can olny read about in books...  But I feel as though all of these post modern ideals are like the pathway built with good intentions is rapidly leading us towards hell...  Methophorically speaking as a society.  

Women have been empowered now for decades.  Only 30% of school teachers (accross the board) are men:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/men-too-scared-to-teach-for-fear-of-being-falsely...

And look at the state of the education system.  Programs like SSP gets priority, while IT depts cant even provide up to date technology for classrooms.  The education is being replaced with social justice programmes.  Kids are being indoctrinated with sexual ideology rather than being taught how to think critically for themselves...  It's all offshoots of TWF imo.

Yet theres still this false dicotomy engrained in this TWF movement,  that the "patriarchy" is opressing womens rights etc etc.  It's complete bullocks imo.  It's more like TWF is oppressing, demonising and trying to turn men soft...   

[***super_nova***]

And I suppose you cannot see the contradiction of your statements; on one hand women do not have the same strength as men, and the other they apparently go around raping men.  To rape the rapist has to have a superior strength to hold their victim down.  Do men nowadays get unwanted sexual advances as much as women do?  Very likely.  But I do not believe there has ever been a case where woman abducted a man from the street, raped him, and either killed him or left him severely injured. 

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the so called "suitable for woman" professions, except that in our society these professions are not valued, and people working in them re paid considerably less than people in professions needing similar education, but being more male or unisex oriented.  It is not the case in other countries.

Anyway, if any man wants to be the main provider and marries a woman who is happy to be a homemaker, that is their business, and nobody is stopping them.  If other man wants to spend lot of time with the kids, and would prefer to work less and his wife is happy to share all duties including earning money; that is also fine. 

I also wonder why should make up make anybody more or less masculine?  A man without make-up is still the same person if he puts make-up on.  Putting make-up on does not change him in any way as a person.