Update, and controversy! Daybreak Dev Diary #2: Let's discuss gender roles and feminism.

Daybreak v3ch5 is out. For you war-fiction fans, sorry no battle. For the rest of you, enjoy as we delve more into worldly differences, macroeconomics, and relationship turbulence.

Also, since many readers have complained about the large cast and trouble remembering them all, I created a list of reoccurring characters for your use. I'm trying to keep it spoiler free while leaving it informative enough to tickle your long-term memory banks. Suggestions for improvement are welcomed, as always.


Now, onto the feminist-yet-anti-feminist rant ^o^ because in many ways, as a genderbender, Daybreak is written in ways precisely because I am tired of the gender-stereotypes pervading media.

This topic actually arose out of a conversation between me and Kadi on gender equality. One of the key points I've alway strove for in writing Daybreak on Hyperion in to portray a society that sharply examines the differences in gender by contracting the traditionally patriarchal attitude that dominates the commoners (and immature cadets) and my best attempt at 'equality' among the educated upper classes.

Yes, I consider myself a supporter of gender equality. However, I do NOT consider myself a 'feminist'; because modern feminism often forgets that it is supposed to be about equality and not about womens' rights in the way that the racial supremacists champion 'rights of X ethnicity'. There has even been a potent (if somewhat misguided) backlash because of the misandry that is spreading throughout modern feminists.

In short, 'feminists' are starting to give the rest of us a bad name.

So throughout Hyperion I try to paint this picture: a nobility where women have just as much inheritance rights as men, where 'matrilineal marriages' are a thing and the main character (Pascal) faces the prospect of being married off to a foreign land, where exalted leadership positions see both women and men...

These are all what feminists champion in the modern world right?

But what about the other side of the equation?

Throughout the history of mankind, men were considered the disposable, sacrificial gender. It was the obligation of men to fight floods, to plunge flames, to work the deadliest occupations from dam construction to underwater recovery. Even today, not a single liberal country have compulsory military service for women; not even Finland, among the top scorers of the gender equality index... yet they do for men.

Why don't most feminists point out that men also dominate dangerous jobs like firefighting and disaster rescue, or poverty-stricken occupations like garbage disposal? Why aren’t feminists campaigning for equality of dirt and danger in say... Universal Conscription. Truly?

Families continue to expect men to bring the bacon home. But women? Awww it's alright if the cute wife lose her job. She'll always be beautiful to him anyway.

How can we have gender equality in such a culture?

 

 

This is my fundamental problem against the modern goals of gender equality and feminism. We're too focused on statistics, numbers! Stuff like the number of female executives and politicians and world leaders, of the income pay gap and how many women work in lucrative careers like engineering and business.

Well of course there is a pay gap, when men are ever pressured by societal demands to make more money than women (and therefore more willing to take the risk of asking for raises or switching jobs for better opportunities); when 'marrying into riches' is considered an achievement for women, but simply earning less than the wife will -- in most countries still -- get a man ostracized by his peers.

What do you call a man who waits for a rich woman to decide whether or not she wants him? - Prince Albert, The Young Victoria

Too many people these days want the shortcut. They want results without the work. They want to shape reality without changing the foundation that built reality in the first place.

In my years of reading, culture has always stood up to me as the driving force of civilization. Not just in nationalistic propaganda and sociological academia, but everything from childrearing books to psychological studies to the spread of religion. Even business administration books stresses the importance of company culture as the single most valuable asset of corporations: companies like Google are successful because of their culture for diligence, foresight, and creativity -- positive influences that could be felt throughout the company thanks to its founders.

To have true gender equality, we must have equal gender norms and expectations.

I'm reminded of a shocking tale an Asian company executive once told me, that he actually told his subordinate, a department head, to "stop hiring women". Why? Because said department just had a case where half its employees -- four women -- all took off for maternity leave at the same time, leaving the rest of the team incapable of getting their work done during a rush season. Yes, painstaking childbirth means that mothers deserve a break for that. But guess what happens if four men in a small department all took six months of 'family-related vacation' time during the busiest season?

They tend to get fired.

Not surprisingly, people want to hire other people who are actually available when they're needed.

( Insofar as I've read, Sweden offers the most interesting solution to this. Simply by leaving it for the parents themselves to decide, they are encouraging dads to take a bigger role in childcare and parenting, so moms aren't left with all the burden, plus their careers have negotiation room. )

Men need to learn compassion, benevolence, sensitivity, the list of male lacking goes on. Traits like modesty, humility, patience, and nurture (parenting skills) should not be considered feminine, but universal virtues. People should remember that saintly men often display behavior that fit neatly into what society claims as 'feminine', as though they are virtues that the rest of the male gender have forgotten.

But in exchange, women need to learn courage, tenacity, and stoicness. Boys are taught from an early age to not cry, not scream, to suck it up like a man and carry on.

Girls need to receive the same education.

Some of you may have paid attention to the way I write Ariadne. Having strong menstrual flows that leaves her somewhat anemic, a condition surprisingly common among young ladies? Well... sorry, the battle isn't going to wait for her. She sucks it up, pulls arrows out of her chest, and keeps on killing.

What soldier could claim women aren't as good as men when they see THAT!?

In Hyperion, army girls like Ariadne aren't even the exception. They're not that unreachable, untouchable hero figure depicted in female-audience novels. They are the norm! (whether they want to be or not). Sylviane's internal dialogue helps to showcase this: the army expects her to lead the charge, to face death and stare back. The fact she is a Princess and not a Prince? Irrelevant!

...Meanwhile individuals like Reynald find himself attracted by female gallantry in the same way that girls will swoon over male badassery. His manliness isn't endangered because the virtues of courage and integrity stops being male traits. It is expected of noblewomen as well.

Feminists love to uphold kickass women like the amazons, or vikings, when they forget that amazons will cut off a breast to show their toughness, and there are claims of viking women doing similar self-mutilation in order to intimidate their enemies. Crude and barbaric, yes, but it goes to show that you can't expect to stay clean and pretty AND still come out as equals to men in the relentless struggle known as real life.

I don't want to get into a deluge of philosophical discussions in-chapter. As much as I would love to, it's dry and boring to many readers. But I did push this new scene in:

Volume 2 Chapter 9:

"I don't know," Reynald gave a half-hearted shrug of his own. "Gerd's attitude offended plenty of ladies at the academy before he stopped talking about it. Even Ariadne lost her patience once at how commoners only see women as some household commodity... I bet none of them would feel comfortable sitting here."

Wait wait... Nobles!? As the more liberal, progressive, forward-thinking social class!?

Kaede's eyebrows shot straight up. The thought was just absurd.

"Okay, please do explain. Why do the commoners have that cultural view while nobles often don't?"

"Well..." the redhead crossed his eyes as he grasped for an answer in unfamiliar ground. "For one, women of noble birth are subject to the Writ of Universal Conscription. So... when both sides are equally called upon for the most dangerous job of them all, it's pretty darn hard for men to uphold the belief that you girls are somehow weaker or need us for protection by being kept at home."

A social equality that began with the equal chance of being killed, she mused.

Historical truths did agree that patriarchal societies also saw men as the 'expendable' gender. After all, assuming an abundance of food, one men and ten women could potentially reproduce as fast as ten and ten. So while cowardice was often seen as cute and attractive in girls, it grew to become the most intolerable sin for men, as they were the ones called upon to fight wars and oppose disasters.

In traditional governments where state power rested with the military, this meant it was the men who would seek 'special privileges' for their sacrifices. Furthermore, significant losses of men which resulted in skewed gender ratios would even prompt society to give them preferential treatment.

Kaede's motherland was actually a good example of this. Despite accepting women into its combat units, the Soviet Union lost nearly three males for every female in the Great Patriotic War. The postwar gender imbalance was so great that there were widespread calls for the legalization of polygamy. It was rejected, but the need to replenish the population nevertheless encouraged the men to sleep around, while their obligations as fathers were met by social programs of the state.

Needless to say, this was disastrous for the gender equality cause. Countless Russian men grew pampered and irresponsible, expecting women to treat them like kings while chain smoking and binge drinking themselves to an early demise.

"I'm guessing this attitude in shared responsibility between genders runs down to other aristocratic roles as well?" she asked next, to which Reynald nodded vigorously:

"Oh definitely! Every noble man or woman who doesn't have a respectable occupation means wasted magical resources for the nation, whether that's in military power, industrial productivity, or administrative efficiency. It is the call of Noblesse Oblige that we must harness our magical gifts for the country -- or at least here in Weichsel! No self-respecting woman of noble birth would only stay home to raise kids! Only commoners do that!"

I have said this many times: one of the key reasons why Daybreak on Hyperion is a genderbender is so I can explore this aspect with as much fairness as possible without breaking character: Kaede is a guy turned into a girl, and therefore can see the argument from both sides of the fence.

 

P.S. I should note that I am no proponent of telling women to 'suck it up' towards sexual harassment. That's like telling men to 'suck it up' when they see violence and murder. It is the obligation of everyone to uphold the standards of society.

P.P.S. Yes, I recognize that Weichsel's generals are overwhelmingly male; because Weichsel emphasizes its cavalry. The defining attribute of successful cavalrymen throughout history is aggression -- which male testosterone offers in spades, much to the detriment of anger management D:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

90 thoughts on “Update, and controversy! Daybreak Dev Diary #2: Let's discuss gender roles and feminism.

Open Message Board
  1. aj

    The greatest equality is...not giving a shit about gender. If you flip the gender and nothing changes than that is true equality, I feel like you are focusing too hard to subvert a standard that isn't there.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      "If you flip the gender and nothing changes than that is true equality"
      That only happens if you have a genderless race. So long as biological differences exists (and they do for humans), that just isn't true =P

      Reply
      1. Hiour

        If a statement became racist/sexist/etc just by changing the noun/pronoun the it is racist/sexist from the start.

        Reply
  2. Akane

    (Sorry for my english, I'm not sure to be able to contribute and convey my point effectively due to my poor english skills)
    So how do you explain why feminism is like that now? Did they got drunk with their power and just can't stop wanting more?
    Good thing is, there is the feminism paradox: feminism is supposed to be something to help women but the majority of them don't consider themselves as one, proving that something is wrong with that today.

    I have two examples:
    - We have a feminist group in my university composed of students, teachers and others. They came 3 years ago to ask our class (physicist students) if we wanted to participate in some thought group (4-5 people) about how to improve the place of women in the university or gender equality etc with some restriction on a group: 1) The leader must be a woman. 2) All the other members must be men.
    They must write some kind of essay about the subject they are assigned to. Then all essays are judged and the best one is gifted by a 3 days trip in London. The catch is, there is only one person who can go: the leader. When we asked why only the leader could go on the trip: they said they didn't have the money for more. We asked why only women can be leader if we have to speak about gender equality and all that: they said that it was because women were not represented enough in company and they have done that to compensate for it. We asked why only one woman can be in a group: (the worst) they said it was because they wanted to show that women are good leader and if a women had to obey to order it would be a nonsense(it kind of sounded like it would be unfair because she wouldn't be able to go on the trip but that just what we thought when she said it...).
    They started to get pissed and said that if men want someone to protect their rights they should create a group like feminist and that we have to stop bothering them with that.

    - I was eating with a friend at the university and one of her friend came eating with us. She started ranting about why there is no ratio (something like : it should be mandatory to have exactly 50% of women and 50% of men in all fields of work/ study). She said field like : Math, physics, sport, computer, politics etc. When I asked about what to do with field like biology or nurse study. She responded that it should stay women focused because they were better at helping other than men.

    I'm sure that most people who think that they are feminist are perfectly reasonable but sadly in a group it's the loudest and most retarded part of them that represent the whole group. And the fact that more and more women and even more weird, men (who might like being insulted and degraded, because I have no idea why they would agree with their point of view), is really frightening.

    Sorry again for my pitifully bad english level.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      I'm no historian of the feminist movement and any explanation I give would just sound cliche xD
      You're actually using English much better than most native English speakers.
      Those are good examples; though I'm not entirely sure they're still the 'minority'. Just everywhere you turn, you see more of such blatant hypocrisy =\

      Reply
    2. Hiour

      There men rights groups. They being harrassed by groups that claimed to be feminist. One incident is at Toronto where a men's right convention has to be cancelled because they pull the fire alarm.

      There are also mgtow(men going their own way) who avoid unecessary interaction with women. They reject male gender roles . They won't be alone with women without any recordings. They won't help women. The highest type became hermits.

      Reply
  3. no u

    There's a distinction between those who claim feminism and those who practice feminism, though the two are not mutually exclusive. Those who proclaim themselves as feminists are more likely to engage in impulsive behaviors that goes beyond the boundaries of a given definition of feminism; negative behavior is easily focused on by the media, which almost invariably has a bias towards negative events.

    Expecting men and women to be paid exactly exactly equal goes against the principles of capitalism, where money is used as a tools of efficiency. As Aorii said, women are more likely (har de har) to go on pregnancy/maternity leave. The skew of women going on maternity leave than men going on paternity leave is... expected not just because of cultural reasons, but also because women are more likely to lactate and babies should generally be breastfed through their first year of life.

    A lot of the current cultural trends can be traced back to cave men era. Tribes in which women focused on child rearing (and thus feeding babies milk) most likely had better survival rates due to less infant mortality. Individuals tend to conform, so this behavior became predominant among eveyrone. As the nature of earning income has changed, the concept of "man as breadwinner" should start becoming less dominant; the rate at which it has done so however has been slowed due to societal resistance to change. The feminist movement can be seen as a natural response to push against the resistance to change, but as with all movements, has a wide multi-dimensional spectrum of players. This leads to the problem stated in the first paragraph.

    Daybreak is an interesting world because certain areas of cultural development have surpassed that of our current world, whereas the technology which would usually be associated with this cultural development is inferior to ours (such as the lack of the internet which would accelerate the speed of communication).

    Reply
    1. krytykkrytyk

      I'm highly sceptical of the movements that "push" for the changing of things our ancestors have been creating for thousands of years. I don't think feminist movement is natural in any way, the resistance is natural, the feminist "pushing" isn't. Our civilization has reached its peak on certain values, overturning those values and forcing ideology changing the current culture might be catastrophic.

      Change should happen naturally, therefore I'm against all the "modern change" movements. There's a thin line between evolution and degradation.

      Reply
    2. Hakurei06Hakurei06

      While they lack internet, they do have an analogue to a wireless telephony (more peer-to-peer than cellular). On the other hand, it's restricted to the nobility and yeomanry, so good luck using it in a peasant uprising.

      As an aside: farspeak and other telepathy spells should have plenty of safeguards against being tapped surreptitiously as a matter of course, but shouldn't it still be relatively easy to trace a speaker's location with it?

      Reply
      1. AoriiAorii Post author

        It's kind of hard to intercept a spell when you have no concept of 'where it is'. This isn't radio which is broadcasted across the open waves (even directional radio covers huge areas). That being said, there is a mage specialization focused on communications which, when they're "sufficiently high level" (lol!), can block or even intercept Telepathy.

        I really need to make a counter note against capitalism -- it has uses, but don't embrace it too hard. Capitalism through the Dutch East India company committed genocide in Malaysia/Indonesia... and just one of countless cases.

        Reply
  4. bladerain

    Women who want gender equality yet want men to stick to their roles may just simply want special treatment which isn't gender equality at all. I mean, men had many harsh tasks like being a soldier or something else. Gender Equality is achieved when equal work equals equal pay. But, women and men have different standards. For example, in some cases, the men bear a harsher job than women so they should be payed higher although it's the same job. And vice versa. Any other alternative where the same job is easier for one gender is having an easier time and less burden for the same job while it's harsher and more demanding for the other while the pay is equal is gender inequality. You have a really good point. Anyways, I think the other people who push for the gender equality thing but want their treatment to be "special" are hypocrites. Regardless, this is still subject to an intense debate... And besides, isn't it similar to communism? Ideal communism is where there are no elites but that's only possible in heaven. And that kind of world, is a world where advancement is impossible. I mean, look at those countries where they claim theirs is communism. There are still elites leading them isn't there? To be honest, needs are the mother of ingenuity right? In other words, inequality lets those people think to improve their needs. Many great inventions were created because of that. In a perfect and equal words, advancement is nearly impossible. In such a world, ask yourself this, "Why do I need to work harder when no matter how better my product is, my treatment won't be any better?" or "What's the use of inventing this when I won't even be able to enjoy it?". There is simply no need at all to improve.

    Reply
  5. Tinkerlin

    You just opened the hornets nest ^^',

    lets be honest, these are the sort of topics which no one will ever be able to agree on, as fun as they are. Equality on its own is a touchy subject as there is always the question of what exactly defines equality. Are we looking at absolute equality? (the dream of communism) or the equality through quality. to put it simply, is it everything is worth $1, or is everything going to be worth what it gives you. While the choice seems obvious at first, most would choose the latter, keep in mind that if you work less, you are paid less with that form of equality.

    I, for one, fully agree with your views, while i do see what these feminist movements are about, and i do see what they aim to accomplish, and i do agree what women have in the past, and still are treated unequally to men, i do not believe in the feminism. And this is for the simple reason, that men are not women, and women are not men. if the two are not equal to each other to begin with, and what we expect from them is different to begin with, how can we expect the rules of our society to be equal? No matter what people say, men are expected to be the bread winners of the house, regardless as to whether you are a man or woman. Guys are expected to be taller, girls are expected to be shorter, if not, people find it funny. Guys are expected to be physically stronger, girls are expected to be more delicate, if the girl wins at arm wrestling, the guy gets mocked, you just got beaten by a giiirllllll!!!!! what we expect from each gender play very harshly into how we treat each other. So long as we find it acceptable to use phrases like "you hit like a girl!" or "be a man", we are already creating a divide between the genders and cannot really expect true and proper equality.

    As a male from a country which has National Service (for those of you who do not know what that means, it means i have to enlist into the army, and undergo training for two years and returned every so often until i am 50+, this is going to prevent me from going to university), it is a given that all the guys have to go, or face imprisonment. The ladies do not have to join, there is a volunteer group, but it is not expected of the ladies to join. For those of you who cry, "of course! women are at risk to things like rape after all!", i am not arguing about the consequences of putting women in the army, i am talking about the expectations placed on gender. The men are expected to go to the army, the women are not. Fullstop. Is this equal? no. is this logical, well... yes. is this acceptable? to most, yes. But is isn't equal... who cares! you're a man, suck it up! ok, chill out...

    The feminist/anti feminist argument will continue so long as men are men and women are women, even if the men turn into women or the women turn into men, but those start up their own equality issues. But i also find the general tilt towards the pro feminists (with all their pointing at how terrible men are and how badly women are treated and how they have changed that) abit unsettling. Honestly, the issue with female abuse is not much of a problem anymore in the "developed" world and is more of an issue in the developing world. Sure, you will find problems popping up here and there (difference in pay, number of ministers... etc) , but there are plenty of other problems that pop up in our everyday society, and its not like the current way doesn't work. Could it be better? yes, could it be worse? yes. Don't fix what isn't broken.

    I feel your novel has made a very interesting way of changing the expectations placed on each gender, as well as how it has been divided in the classes or rich and poor, i have never thought of a possibility where the rich are the progressive but i had to change my thinking, thank you for that. I seriously enjoy your series, much approve, so wow. Looking forward to your next post!

    Reply
    1. Desuworks

      Phrase of the day, "Equal yet different." I am honestly not sure about feminism as a whole. But I can understand the reason. And of course they don't mention stuff like universal conscription. It's the elephant in the room, the thing no one wants to talk about unless you are trying to damage the argument. As the first commenter replied. Everyone is different.

      You barely touched on the topic of things women do that men don't. I'll use the example that you gave, maternity leave. Yes women get leave if they are having trouble working while pregnant and men don't. But that's because they may physically be having trouble working. When you're on rehabilitation because of an injury that could affect your work don't Males sometimes get leave too?
      You also forgot to mention that pregnancy is the biggest reason that women were not always given the hard labor. Women are our only way of ensuring the next generation. So we want to protect them. This doesn't mean that we don't make them work just as hard as men in different jobs. Equal, but different.
      Gender roles were created because there are differences in the physical and mental aspect of the male and female. The reason women are more accepted when marrying up is because they can produce an "heir of the family blood." Yes technically they could cheat, the reason for the virgin check that lasted for years, and the blood belongs to the male too. But the 'mothers affection' makes them the most important influence on most children's lives.
      that does not mean that you won't find exceptions to the rule, after all everyone is unique. But our roles developed from noticing the differences and using them where needed. Of course now that we can produce test tube babies women are not quite as protected. And with the advocacy of women's rights their mindset as a whole is changing. But that does not mean that the traditions and gender roles were without meaning or useless. They are just outdated and slow to change.
      The biggest problem is that everyone but the opponents of equal rights ignores the dark aspects that equal rights would have so they don't get discussed and we can't discuss that equal is not synonymous with same. We are getting closer to equality, were just still having differences. A true equal society would find you a position based on your skills and give you the opportunity for growth. This is not forgetting the ability to get a new position once you gain more skill.
      But what people usually want is not equality, it's better treatment. This is why elephants like "universal conscription" are not brought up. Because we want our lives to be better, so we preach about things that we think will make our lives better and try to avoid the things that will make them worse.

      That was a long rant that may have gone off topic a lot. But it was fun :) P.S. the last paragraph is my thoughts on your average 'feminist' ( have not actually met with a serious feminist other than what I hear on the news, so I don't know any of the theory and cannot say my rant is anything other than personal opinion based on possibly fictional ideas. Just like my rants on religions. Until I read the theory I can't say any of my ideas make sense.)
      Enjoyed your rant too, have a nice month.
      Desuworks

      Reply
    2. Courioius

      The purpose of a debate is not to convince the opponent you are right but to influence those who have not decided yet or opinions formed.

      Reply
  6. Frog-kun

    So am I the only one here who likes modern feminism (warts and all)? :P

    It seems like two things are going on when people criticise feminism in its current form. Sometimes, the person hasn't read feminist theories and is complaining about a strawman. Other times, they're not commenting on the theory so much as the behaviour of the self-proclaimed feminists they've encountered. It's fine to criticise the behaviour of certain individuals, but you would make a mistake by assuming that they represent all of feminism.

    If we look at the effects of the global feminist movement, the picture is positive. Women have much more social mobility than ever before, and none of this has come at any cost to men's legal rights. In fact, living standards have overall improved for everyone, because gender equality is not a zero sum game.

    The good thing about modern feminism is that it isn't centered around upper-middle class women in rich countries anymore. Modern feminist theory is all about intersectionality - how does sexism intersect with racism, classism and so on? Although having said that, you could argue that feminism still is more concerned with rich women over poor women, because it is their concerns which still get the most attention in the media. You sorta alluded to this when you talked about statistics and the pay gap. But this is a criticism that many feminists have pointed out themselves and actively seek to correct. Overall, women's issues (rich and poor) get talked today about more than ever before, and this is a good thing, because the first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that it exists.

    Are there problems? Heck yeah. If you've based your observations of modern feminism on stuff you've seen on social media, then no wonder you have a poor opinion.

    Some of your other complaints seem to reflect common misunderstandings about feminism, though.

    modern feminism often forgets that it is supposed to be about equality and not about womens' rights in the way that the racial supremacists champion 'rights of X ethnicity'

    Feminism bases itself on two premises:

    1) That women generally have it worse than men
    2) In order to achieve gender equality, women's issues need special attention

    It's the same logic behind any kind of affirmative action, really. The argument is not that women are superior or that men are evil, but that you can't solve inequality by pretending that everyone is already on an equal playing field.

    >misandrist

    To be honest, the word "misandrist" is so loaded. You'd have to show me an example of what you consider a "misandrist" argument before I can respond :P

    Throughout the history of mankind, men were considered the disposable, sacrificial gender.

    And who decided that? Think about who was in charge back in those days.

    Not to mention that these same societies often saw women literally as akin to cattle. That's about as disposable as you can get. Mind you, I wouldn't want to live as either sex in those times.

    As for conscription, there are plenty of feminists who object to the fact that it's male-only. See here, for instance: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/ff-acfp-the-military/

    (Personally speaking, I'm against conscription. Period.)

    maternity leave

    I like Sweden's solution too. I think that most feminists approve of paternity leave because they don't like the idea of childrearing being solely the mother's duty. If there was more paternity leave, then employers like the one in your anecdote wouldn't think of women as ticking time bombs who will cost them extra money when they get pregnant. If everyone got proper leave, that would reduce the grounds for gender discrimination. That's killing two birds with one stone.

    equal gender norms and expectations

    One of the things I like about Hyperion is that it does explore gender roles in an interesting way and none of the main characters are confined to stereotypes. It's an intelligent use of the genderbender theme. Although just between you and me, I dislike the badass Amazon-type character. I like seeing characters who are vulnerable and human. That's not really a criticism of your writing, since you have a good balance. It's just that I don't think that girls have to be tough like men in order to be awesome characters. The Hollywood action heroine is usually a boring character, anyway :P

    This ended up being almost as long as your post but tldr; traditional gender roles suck. Feminism is okay.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      Has the overall achievements of Feminism in the past century been positive? Resoundingly yes. But this is a movement that really needs to reexamine itself so it doesn't start pushing into the realm of 'excess', as countless social revolutions have.

      Modern populist feminism is rapidly approaching that. It grows increasing similar to say, Catholicism before the Reformation: while they preach nice things and there are still exemplars devoted to the doctrine, what many practitioners actually do are often the exact opposite. There are plenty of feminists who kept their eyes on the 'equality' agenda, but there are just as many (if not more) who only demand equality when it serves them, but will happily reap the benefits of 'benevolent sexism'.

      Actually, even in societies where women are treated like property, men were still considered more disposable. The reason for this is simple. "Manpower" is a resource for nation and society, especially for the ruling classes who have to consider long-term interests (such as a nation's capacity to wage war three decades later). For a nation to recover from manpower loss you need women, but men? Pft, you need some, but the rest are of no long term value -- send them into the meat grinder. Polygamy societies where women have less rights also make this 'disposability' worse for men.

      The problem with affirmative action is that when you try to level the playing field through external pressure, you involuntarily CREATE unfair practices and injustices, which is no better than the trends they were created to solve in the first place. As an Asian in the US, I've always taken this with a grain of salt. We're the minority group who never gets minority benefits. We didn't need any lame quotas or to accuse people of racism. We changed how society view us through hard work and guts -- because when a group is proven to be more diligent and productive, a capitalist market's Invisible Hand will naturally want them.

      Reply
      1. Absum

        A feminist that does not strive for gender equality technically isn't a feminist. I do not know what the majority of people who call themselves feminist do and have never seen any good evidence for either option. I do feel that the word feminism is currently almost useless, as too many people use it with differing meanings. This is not good for anyone, as it greatly confuses discussion on and attempts at progress in gender equality. I do not think this is really fixable right now, but regardless we can all try to work on gender equality and contribute a little.

        Apart from that your last paragraph (in the comment above) confuses me. I don't know enough about US history to say whether your claim is true or not (although I can say that working hard did not lead to acceptance for migrants in my country), but I do know that I do not like the implication that all other minorities, or even minorities in general, just aren't working hard enough. Especially considering that minorities that are discriminated against generally suffer from poor social and economic status, and such an environment when growing up combined with discrimination makes it very hard to work your way up.

        My apologies if any of this is rude, I feel it is not really my place to speak of these things considering my lack of knowledge. Still, I feel it is very important to emphasize that working hard can only serve to mitigate being born to alcoholic parents in the poorest area of town with awful educational institutions (not my circumstances, to be clear).

        Reply
        1. Absum

          Now that I'm awake again I'm gonna apologize for this post because it was made when I was angry and it has too much stupid shit in it and no proper explanations. Regardless though I won't comment about it again, it's not something I should be trying to discuss.

          Reply
      2. Orick

        As a man I think what has befuddled so called modern feminist is that they fundamentally misunderstand what the original feminist movement was about; and that is legal rights for women. The original feminist movement was about securing Legal Rights for women and it happened during a period where traditional political organization were seeking rights for the common man. it wasn't about the equality of the sexes in general but about equality Before The Law.

        In this regard there is no misalignment between what the feminist sought and what they got. Where the feminist failed was in linking their quest for suffrage to one for all women of all Class, Colour, Race or Creed. Consequently their aspirations became stratified and class goals divergent.

        Equality as a concept can only be realized Before The Law because no 2 individuals can be said to be truly equal, let alone 2 genders; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

        On a side note:
        As an African I have to take exception with your Naive Comparison of the Asian experience in the USA to that of the African; such a comparison is laughable. Having travelled a bit I've come to understand through experience that East Asians in particular are bigoted against Africans and are completely clueless about the tragic history of relations between Caucasians and Africans.

        There is a vast difference between the prejudice against Asians and the systematic racial oppression of African Americans. Asians and African Americans have no common ground in experiences. Asians receive a treatment similar to east Europeans and the only time the Asians received treatment even remotely similar to African Americans was the Japanese during WW2; and that was brief. African Americans live in a country that is inherently Hostile to them, and hard-work was inadequate to close the gap; therefore Affirmative action. (Unless you think slavery wasn’t hard work, and of-course wholesale enslavement of Africans was a capitalist design to thwart competition for planters from independent white farmers)

        I grew up in post Apartheid South Africa and during the time I worked in the USA I came to understand the plight of the African American in the Mid-west heartland; racism is endemic in the US. When my contract was over I had no interest in signing up for another 4 years and hurriedly went back South Africa because even though the economy is smaller there are far more opportunities for an African with 4 Degrees in SA than in America. The capitalist market you have such faith in is run by people, and people are prejudice.

        Caucasian racism is prevalent in SA but here Affirmative Action is in place and the Government is African and will no longer tolerate the Deliberate racial motivated Economic Exclusion based on race and gender.

        By the way Affirmative Action has worked wonders for woman in South Africa.

        Reply
        1. AoriiAorii Post author

          I apologize if I created any offense on that comparison. It is true that since I'm not part of the African-American community I would be unable to notice and unique obstacles they come across. Asians faced the same type of prejudice as say, the Hispanic, because we were 'cheap labor' in the eyes of white men (first brought over for the continental railroad and all). But just as the Mexicans are moving upwards through a reputation of diligence and reliability now (despite all claims of border walls), we did back then. So to us it feels like there is a trend.

          To note that yes, East Asians as a general tend to be bigoted towards Africans, although this cultural view was rooted far before racism. The thing is: asians can get very pale but also tans very easily, therefore white skin was a sign of wealth and scholarly education while black skin was a sign of life in the fields. So even before we met any Africans we already associated black-skinned individuals with "simple-minded and good for only physical labor". Myths of Africa's pre-colonial history about having no kingdoms and only tribal structures didn't do any favors for a group of cultures that venerate ancestral heritage.

          Reply
    2. StealthAria

      You might need to read up on some of these modern feminists, they complain about things like "man-spreading" where a man places his legs shoulder-width apart on a train or bus but turn a blind eye to women that take up 2 or 3 seats by placing all their baggage on the seats around them. They don't even claim to be about gender equality, they outright admit that they're all about women's equality, not "equality for women" but "women's equality," not "equal rights" but "women's rights."
      You mention male rape to a modern feminist and they immediately bring it right back around to female rape, sometimes even treating the topic as a joke. A company or government office cuts the funding for a female rape clinic by even 0.01% and feminists rage and protest, but a male rape clinic has it's funding slashed by 100% and they don't even care. They even go so far as to change the definitions of words to suit their needs, lessening the value of words like "rape" by saying that they've been raped when all that happened is some random guy complemented her.

      Feminism at it's core isn't really about gender equality at all, it's all about women's rights. If you're looking for a group that's about gender equality try egalitarianism, they're about equality for all.

      Has feminism been beneficial? Sure, they brought women up from barely having basic human rights to being actual members of society with all the same rights as men. However, in more recent times all they've been pushing for is turning the clock back to the 50's with flipped gender roles, and then they'd be complaining that men aren't doing enough.

      Reply
    3. Courioius

      The problem with feminism is they only against something that affect men is that it is increasingly affect women. They didn't care about majority of men paying alimony back then. They are only doing something now because women are increasingly paying alimony and projected to shift. They are also silent on their so called renegade elements . That is "No true scotsman" fallacy.

      Affirmative action will just breed resentment. As long as it exist no woman will be viewed as capable even if she is capable . First impression is she is just there to fill the quota. That also goes to reduced standards on hiring .

      So feminism want to be treated special yet equal? That is just as a middle eastern proverb go "women want fried ice" . You just proving them right.

      The ruling class also include women even before the renaissance. Mothers teaches daughters while fathers teaches their sons. So both sex uphold gender roles. Remember spartan mother kill their sons if they return without their shield or any hint of cowardice.

      Speaking of gender roles feminism . They want women to reject gender roles yet demand men to stick to theirs. There are lots of "where are the good men gone" and "manning up " articles . Those men to refuse to marry are belittled while women that refuse to marry are " independent strong woman". They complained when the Concordia ship sank men did not let them go first. One also complained at Philadelphia that no man protected them from purse snatching/murder when it is 2:40 AM . AM! There is also marital obligations that women can't be forced to give. They could withold sex with impunity and yet when men withold sex just like what happen at france can be fined. Note the silent of mainstream feminism about the issue and some radical feminism sites applauded. Just imagine the backlash if it is the guy who sued his wife.
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3119109/posts?page=66

      http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/05/french-man-ordered-to-pay-ex-wife-nearly-12000-in-damages-for-lack-sex/

      Reply
      1. AoriiAorii Post author

        Feminism failing to control its "renegade elements" is probably the biggest issue. Forget actually stamping it down, you rarely even see articles from famous feminists denouncing radical elements of their own movement, which in turn causes those populist radical elements to grow. Worse yet there are few voices opposing the outspoken radical elements when they push too far, which in turn gives the entire movement (and independent women in general) a bad name and reputation.

        Reply
  7. 天魔神ディー

    about rapists and sexual offenders though, I remember reading an interesting piece of opinion somewhere (i don't remember where....)
    a woman can't be called a rapist since a rape is defined as "forcefully inserting your weenie into a vajayjay" (again, i don't remember, but i hope i get the point across), but she may be called a sexual offender if she forces herself on a man
    any thoughts on this?

    but still though, i just realized that Daybreak is an original novel, and here I thought you guys translate it from somewhere...
    silly me

    Reply
  8. k

    Well done, you actually make me do something some novel i read can't: Reading long-ass paragraph without blinking. Though, after reading what you said and the comment, i (for myself) realize one extremely ironic thing: Man and Women are pretty equal when it's come to the combined quality and quantity of privilage and suffering. I don't even realize myself that what i'm supposed to do actually isn't fair in term of being equal , so maybe ,like you said, we need to do something about that before we talked about equality.

    And hey, maybe i'm going to read your novel for a change

    Reply
    1. k

      I also realize that evolution ,in general, seem to make so that human female get weaker and more fragile along the generation. So maybe nature already screwed us and said fk you when we complain about equality.

      Reply
  9. Reaper Phoenix

    There were cases when I was younger where husbands getting beat up by their wives were just laughed off by the cops that responded to the domestic violance call. Any attempt to make people more aware of the inequality or take the cases to court were blocked by feminist groups. Is it still like that today? I mean it has been two decades since.
    In regards to equality between genders. I don't think true equality will be achievable at our current tech level. When all wars are fought by remote control, all manual labours are done by robots, all babies are born from artificial wombs, then we might get true equality. Might.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      I shiver to think of when wars are fought entirely using remote control.
      That's when human life truly becomes a statistic.

      Reply
      1. Reaper Phoenix

        At least there's still humans involved in the controls even if it's by remote. Some people are promoting fully autonomous war machines.
        Anyway, the reason I mentioned remote control warfare is because it would eliminate women's disadvantage in warfare (at least infantry warfare).
        Personaly if I have to send women into the frontline I would send them as pilots and drivers. Women are generally smaller than men so their vehicles can be made to either carry more ammo or bigger weapons.

        Reply
      2. Desuworks

        But all numbers are equal to other numbers of the same size aren't they? It would be equal if we were practically a statistic. But it would be crazy and dystopian too. This is why the phrase everything in moderation exists.

        P.S. I should have read all the comments before I made my rant :)
        DesuWorks

        Reply
    2. StealthAria

      It's still like that, you could even say it's worse now. Any thing that a man does to a woman that has even a hint of violence or aggression will land him in court or at the very least the scorn of his peers, but as long as the woman doesn't kill the man then she can get away with just about anything, heck, those around will likely even help her do it. Plenty of videos around that demonstrate this, like the one linked by Aorii above.

      Reply
  10. Owl

    Hmm.. had a post on women in war that went MIA. Maybe it will turn up later.

    Long story short, if you want women in the front lines, you have to have very clear guidelines on the negative consequences of that, especially of nobles and royalty. Part of which is the children born out of battlefield rape and their legitimacy. A simple soldier having a kid out of wedlock might be socially embarrassing to her and won't affect her future prospects much but an heir to one of the big duchies who has a lineage to the enemy is a disaster and would seriously affect the continuity of the line as other nobles might not want to marry "leftovers". Do you accept the child as a future heir with the possible complication that the enemy might now have a claim to your house? Treat it as illegitimate? Now try that for the royal family and think of the succession disputes that can flare up. Some will support the "firstborn", some will support the "legal successor" and everyone will have a nice civil war.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      Uh, children of rape are bastards just as any illegitimate children, and therefore unqualified for succession (unless the parent wants them to, as legitimizing bastards are a thing). But... mothers often don't treat such children very well for what they remind them of.
      Nothing can stop forced succession through "bigger army diplomacy". Forget someone of actual blood; there's plenty of adopted children and even impostors starting up rebellions/wars over thrones.

      Reply
  11. Owl

    One thing you can think of story-wise in the setting is what happens if the female gets raped on the battlefield? Is the resultant child a valid heir to the noble property or even worse, royal throne? An easy way to cause chaos in an enemy country, rape the heir to the throne until she gets a child then send her back and watch the chaos. You want a claim to the enemy's throne? Get your king to rape her then set the kid up as the next heir and you got a legitimate claim to the enemy kingdom. This is part of why noble houses try not to send their daughters to battlefields, apart from the possible shame and difficulty in getting married in the future.

    Small scale, you can easily wipe out any ethnicity by causing mass rape and causing most of their next generation to be "half-bloods", can't remember the historic case study I did for this but there was one. Or simply kidnap their women ala Rape of the Sabrine Women.

    This is why small communities/towns/countries try to protect their women, too many ways to wipe the country out if the enemy has easy access to them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_rape

    We are very "westernized" or even "modernized" in our thinking, we don't think of any battle as an opportunity for rape, but that is what happens in the past up to WWII where after that "Conventions" were put in place to regulate war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

    Try to look up Rape for the Allied forces online, you won't find a lot as compared to that on the Axis powers. Part of the "victor writes the histories" syndrome.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      Rape... is a touchy subject to portray in fiction. Because people react very poorly to it even if it IS used to make a thematic point or provoke intellectual thought. But yes, mass rape is considered a form of 'ethnic cleansing' and has been used throughout history to achieve that end. That being said, being raped is still better than being dead, which is the 'generic treatment' for men in the same situation.

      I've actually read a lot about what the Russians did when they pushed back into Germany during WW2 (which you can find plenty of since Soviet-bashing was a thing during the Cold War). But can you really blame them? When they just marched across thousands of miles of landscapes where entire villages were brutally exterminated? I once read an article about how a German woman in Berlin pulled a Soviet officer to stop his men from raping, and when he did, one of his soldiers starting crying on the spot -- because years prior, he had watched the Germans raped his own sister and how unfair this is in exchange. It really hits home on just what war does to us.

      Reply
      1. Owl

        Aorii, unless there is a "no prisoners" order, men are usually captured. Women are captured *and* raped. Most armies don't simply kill everyone they meet.

        Of course this is also very dependent on the cultural context, some cultures are "death before dishonour" while others are a lot more lax, so depending on the cultural importance, to some, dying is preferable to rape. Part of the reason why the Japanese were such assholes with regards to POW treatment during WWII was because culturally to them surrendering was worse than death and those that surrendered gave up all rights to decent treatment, hence they rather slit their own bellies than surrender for a lot of them. So we really can't say rape is better than dying. To some with different cultural or value weightage, it actually is the opposite. In fact I suspect it can even be said to go as far as "individual preference", some would rather die while others would rather live. It all depends on the person I would say.

        Reply
        1. AoriiAorii Post author

          Actual, treating prisoners of war properly is a fairly recent thing (as in, the last 2-3 centuries). Go back a few hundred years and even randsoming prisoners was considered 'chivalrous'. Most just met the sword. It wasn't until the Enlightenment when unconditional surrenders became a thing because they could still expect to live (before that you had to negotiate any surrender). But read a few books on even say, 17th-18th century warfare, and one still notices that when a village is sacked, they usually just kill the men.

          You're right that there's personal preferences and cultural values involved. Though as far as I know, even in Sengoku japan with their whole 'death before dishonor' most people still chose 'dishonor' over 'death' (the Samurai are still a elite minority after all). Rape is a form of torture. It's terrible and traumatizing but it IS possible to recover from it and not "the end". Nothing recovers from death, because they're dead.

          Reply
          1. Owl

            And yet some would rather die, so it is hardly a catchall statement. More than terrible and traumatizing, it strikes at a person's sense of self worth, especially the conservative cultures that puts a heavy emphasis on "purity". Why do you think people commit suicide? Because their sense of self worth was damaged beyond what they can personally bear, and rape does that. There is a correlation between rape and people who commit suicide because of it so not everyone recovers from it. I suspect "virgins" have it worse than women who have already had sex because of the change of viewpoint towards sex post intercourse over a long period of time. To a virgin, it is something to be saved for that "special someone" while to a married/experienced woman it is "meh.. men and their ****s".

            This can affect post-rape trauma handling.

  12. lesstea

    If by feminism you mean something said by tumblrina with rainbow-colored hair tipping their fedora, then I don't feel the need to make any comment. Why are we making a serious argument about something that's definitely a joke created by a bunch of super-beta losers trying to justify their loser-ness. :)

    I don't really like the concept of gender-equality, because imo it's a misused concept that's easy to be exploited. You should ....identify(? I can't find the proper word to describe it) human by their role, not by something they were born as. And each person should get the appropriate level of treatment suitable for their role, whether they're a man or woman.
    Gender-equality means man and woman should get the same treatment. Can you imagine a pregnant woman forced to work when she's on her 40th weeks? If you look at it from gender-equality's PoV, she should keep working because she's being employed and being paid for her works. But if you look at her from role's PoV, then as a soon-to-be mother and a pregnant woman, she should be allowed to take maternity-leaves.

    I don't ever want to be bothered with feminism tbh. Sure, I feel the need to be kind when dealing against woman. Not because feminism or muh patriarchy's obligation, but because generally woman are born as a sensitive creature, and I'm pretty sure any sane person shouldn't be that stupid enough to be rude dealing against them if they want to build a good relationship.

    If they want an increase wage, then feel free to do so. But please don't give the audience an utter bullshit like patriarchy or female being oppressed etc.
    They should focus on why their arguments are passable and rightful, not about why their opponent is the wrong one. They're not a five-years old kid, duh.

    Reply
    1. Rgal

      > Can you imagine a pregnant woman forced to work when she's on her 40th weeks? If you look at it from gender-equality's PoV, she should keep working because she's being employed and being paid for her works. But if you look at her from role's PoV, then as a soon-to-be mother and a pregnant woman, she should be allowed to take maternity-leaves.
      Yeah, but the same applies to pregnant men as well :P
      Seriously, though, it it obvious to me (but not to you, apparently) that gender equality means that, *everything else being equal*, two people of different genders should be treated the same way. You wouldn't fire a man because he is injured and is forced to take sick leave, would you? And pregnancy is kinda like that, except the employer can be informed about it before maternity leave becomes needed, not out of the blue, meaning that employer can plan around it better.

      Reply
    2. AoriiAorii Post author

      Men can request days off too when they're preparing for or recovering from a surgery, which is pretty much what childbirth is when the medical risks are taken into account. There's a reason why the Spartans considered "died in childbirth" as the only honorable end of women, just as "died on combat" is the only true end for men.
      There just isn't a special law and a special vacation for it.

      Reply
    3. Desuworks

      My only response to this is it should allow for advancement too. Because many dystopian series have judged people by role. That role is usually decided fairly early and with no way to change it. Thus the problem.

      Reply
  13. Rgal

    This rant ignores pretty much every point in http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Myths_about_feminism , which I am pretty sure is written by actual feminists. This raises the question: if the views you describe as "feminist" are not what feminists state their views are, and the views that you describe as "not feminist" are what feminists state their views are, then where did you get your stereotypes about feminism?

    Reply
    1. Owl

      Actually Rgal, I know someone who wrote a book on that. The problem was apparently ideological drift. She wrote in the preface that if you had asked her if she was a feminist before she wrote the book, she would have said yes, but after the research on it, she would now say no.

      From what I gather (from the book as well), an equality movement (which I'm for), gradually had sections that went down extremist lines and became "women's liberation", which had less to do with "liberation" and more to do with "male degradation".

      Equality, Liberation etc are all fancy slogans, but sometimes the ideals hidden behind the facade are not all that fancy. As the person found out on further study.

      Book was Feminism by Kristin Burkett.

      Reply
    2. AoriiAorii Post author

      Yes, and Communism is supposed to be about social equality for all -- look where that got us? "Some are more equal than others" indeed.
      Christians are suppose to follow the example of Jesus and love everyone, even their enemies; yet so far they've given human history more religious wars than any other system of belief.
      What an ideal claims as its goal and how people who follow that ideal carry it out are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things.

      I got my 'stereotypes' by talking and reading to the works of actual self-claimed feminists. Are they true to the idea of feminism? Perhaps not. But as I say, they're what the movement produces and it's giving 'feminism' a bad name.

      Reply
  14. Anon

    You know there was an excellently tasteless joke that showed the unfortunate truth of just how unequal men and women are...

    THE HUSBAND STORE

    A store that sells new husbands has just opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates.

    You may visit the store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors, and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is, however, a catch: you may choose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!

    So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband...

    On each floor the signs on the doors read:

    Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

    Floor 2 - These men have jobs and love kids.

    Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love kids, and are extremely good looking. "Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads:

    Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and help with the housework. "Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!" Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads:

    Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak. She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads:

    Floor 6 - You are visitor 3,261,496,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

    THE WIFE STORE

    Floor 1 - has wives that love sex.

    Floor 2 - has wives that love sex and have money.

    The third through sixth floors have never been visited.

    --------

    All jokes aside, the current status of men in society is an utter joke in regards to men, so when feminazis are screaming for "equality" I just cringe.

    Here is a laundry list of the so-called "equality" that women don't talk about, but currently enjoy...

    A father has just a meager 4% chance to receive custody in a divorce, even if the mother has glaring faults (sex offenders/drug addicts/adultery/alcoholism).

    Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers make up 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions.

    96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands, when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them].

    Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II. Which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].

    Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors, and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women for this crime.

    The male suicide rate is almost 5 times higher than women.

    Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women.

    Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate NINE times that of men. (1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women)

    Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder. (men 17 years, women 6 years)

    Male life expectancy is shorter than women, yet men only receive 35% of the government expenditures for health care and medical costs.

    The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.

    Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action.

    Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.

    There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men.

    Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.

    ======================

    That's not even close to a complete list either, that is just breaking the tip of the iceberg of the heavy inequality that favors women.

    Let's not forget the joys that the radical feminazis bring, such as the case of Greg Elliot, a man in Canada facing 6 months in jail for merely disagreeing with feminists. He was also placed under an order banning him from owning any device which has access to the internet for the duration of the trial (this started in 2012), and which means his job as a graphic designer is kaput. The arresting officer testified in court that nothing constituting a threat of any kind was made, yet the court still pursued him. Keep in mind that no evidence of threats or harassing behavior was provided for, they merely ACCUSED him of harrasing them, and he was arrested, and faced the possibility of being immediately jailed for the remainder of the trial if not for his lawyers persuading them to grant bail. If you want more info on this story check out http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/19/a-life-ruined-by-feminists-and-the-state-only-the-internet-can-save-gregory-alan-elliott/

    This kind of stuff happens ALL the time, feminist cries wolf, mans life gets ruined, feminist is never brought to justice. Merely disagreeing with feminists is likely to get you internet lynched, having angry feminists calling your place of work to get you fired. The sad part is, most employers don't even care whether you actually did some perceived wrong or not, as soon as they start getting those angry feminists calling you're likely to be fired.

    There is so much to talk about on this topic you could spend weeks and never cover it all.

    PS: Since I know some angry feminist is gonna be all hurr durr where did you get your statistics from; well I got them from their related government agency, i.e. Dept. of Health, Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Labor, Census Bureau, etc. Then again feminists never cared about facts, so I'm sure they will file all these little facts into their no ****s given folder in their brains.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      For the Husband vs Wife Store part? :
      Biologically, men are supposed to represent the quantitative aspect of reproduction, while women the qualitative. Only by combining these two can a biological species be expected to both survive AND improve itself/evolve. As a general rule, men tend to be happier when they sleep with more women, and women are happier when they sleep with better men. There is a limit to sexual endurance, but there is no limit to aspirations for perfection.

      As for all that other stuff... ugh, that's worse than I had thought.

      Reply
    2. Courioius

      The solution to that is to that is to have only necessary interaction with women .Never help them. Never be alone with them in a room, avoid them if they are drunk. Record interaction even if they are illegal(recording it has little punishment compare to ruin reputation)

      Oh wait ...that too they are so against it
      http://nypost.com/2015/05/26/why-powerful-men-now-hide-behind-open-doors/
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11904203/Well-done-feminism.-Now-man-are-afraid-to-help-women-at-work.html

      Reply
  15. AReaves

    Bravo! This is my first time actually posting on a site, after jumping from multiple sites to read for years. You have literally said just about everything i could think of when it comes to this topic and i believe you put it perfectly. Thank you for your hard work and putting your views out there. I made an account just to tell you i am grateful. Thank you again.

    Reply
  16. Psudowolf

    This, all over. I've been saying for years that equality, and especially gender equality, isn't as simple as evil people doing evil things to the oppressed, but this much more eloquent than anything I've ever been able to manage. Equal rights should mean equal responsibility, no exceptions.

    Reply
  17. Red_Shade999

    This post has summed up my feelings on the topic of feminism as well, however you have done it in a more concise way than I ever could. Thank you for this. Also the font on this site does weird things when you have r and n together, it looks like an m. rn m

    Reply
  18. Iz

    of course we are not equal no person ever is as we are unique. i agree that the over the top idea of getting a job BACAUSE youre female trough quota is rediciulous. but there should be an evaluation process for getting a job that places no relevance on gender and only on the persons ablility to do the job. basically if have the abilities/qualifications you should be able to get the job and have the same pay for the same job done. so if the female cant run the required miles for military service she is out. not because she is female but because she cant do the job. same with any other job too.
    it should not be frowned upon when the man takes time off from work after his child is born as can be the case. the same way a woman should get no comments about Not taking time off and starting to work again as soon as she is able. both of these things are sadly still common in in many countries.
    sorry if im ranting, just felt the need to say this
    oh right and about the hitting thing: no matter what gender if i hit someone i have to take into account that i can or will be hit back. sorry if that makes little sense,im sometimes quiet bad with words >:(

    Reply
  19. BeRsErk

    If anyone thinks that the gender pay gap exists, it does, and in favor of men, but that's only fair. In college the 5 highest paying majors equally open to men and women are dominated by men, and the 5 lowest paying majors, are even more dominated by women. Men, on average, also work more overtime, and women, on average, take more time off. And in cased anyone missed something huge, that's right in the middle of a woman's career, there's childbirth, and after building that long emotional bond with a child, like I have with my iPod(lol) you won't exactly let it go easily. Also, for any dollar a male makes, a woman makes 80 cents, but this is also true when you compare Asians, and whites. I don't see anyone protesting Asian privilege. I don't even care that Asians make more, but why do people care so much more about the pay gap between men and women when it's the same gap between Asians and whites. Anyways, thanks for the chapter.

    Reply
    1. Courioius

      If you take to account the female only benefits of companies and the government that supposedly gap vanish or tilt toward females . They don't complain when male models are payed less than the female counterpart.

      Reply
  20. solali

    hohoho i am the one who OPPOSE gender equality puih i even OPPOSE equality between men

    what are you comunist or something?

    everyone in the world is difrent that what make you unique that what make precious in your own way

    diffrent capabilities lead to difrent responsibilities lead to difrent right

    yup those who blabering about right equality is the same as noble bad guy in LN doesnt do their responsibilities but asking for right

    Reply
  21. leoid

    "Kaede's motherland was actually a good example of this. Despite accepting women into its combat units, the Soviet Union lost nearly three males for every female in the Great Patriotic War. The postwar gender imbalance was so great that there were widespread calls for the legalization of polygamy. It was rejected, but the need to replenish the population nevertheless encouraged the men to sleep around, while their obligations as fathers were met by social programs of the state.

    Needless to say, this was disastrous for the gender equality cause. Countless Russian men grew pampered and irresponsible, expecting women to treat them like kings while chain smoking and binge drinking themselves to an early demise"

    So that's why all russian always act like spoiled kids in online games.

    Reply
  22. Courioius

    That is just the tip of the iceberg. There is also mra and mgtow. Mra are campaigning for rights and mgtow are avoiding any unecessary relationship with women.

    Reply
  23. Falinmer

    I agree with what you've written, but when you brought up the soldier point, I felt a need to chime in. I am a soldier in the US Army, a Sergeant, and a squad leader. I absolutely agree that women and men should be treated equally, but along with this, we also need to recognize the physical differences between the two. Men are naturally stronger, they take less effort to maintain their physical strength and require less strenuous hygiene standards than women. Although you can have a woman who can operate on the same levels as a man, from a soldiers perspective, for a front line fighter, I wouldn't want any women, they just take too much maintenance to keep them functional in the field. One of the main reasons for this, is sometimes you can get stuck with a mission where you can't take a shower for extended periods of time, and due to our body shape, men require less maintenance. On women, they have a shorter urinary tract due to not having a penis like a man, and this makes them susceptible to urinary tract infections, they also have areas such as under their breasts which are susceptible to yeast infections. It's a variety of little things like those that make women require more than men. As I said before, I agree that both genders should be treated equally, but this also includes recognizing irreconcilable differences that cannot be overcome. Men are in general physically stronger than women, and when you get in a firefight and have to drag 300+lbs of a wounded ally around, I'd rather have a man who can maintain himself more easily than a woman who requires much more effort to make par.

    Reply
    1. AoriiAorii Post author

      One of the things about Communism I really respect is that they DO believe in giving women sharing combat and labor duties. During WWII, the Soviet Union actually discovered that yes, women don't make as good infantrymen as men, but there are certainly roles they actually outperform men in. For example snipers and marksmen, as women are naturally more patient, methodical when dealing with enemies, and is better at dealing with the psychological stress of murder (women can internally justify anything as long as it is to protect their family/people/country); they are also better at logistics management, since from birth female culture is more attentive to details and better at supporting the needs of others than men (keep in mind that 60% - 80% of modern combat divisions are all support troops and not frontline troops).
      The military employs a lot of roles.

      Reply
  24. krytykkrytyk

    Feminism ends when there's a need to carry a wardrobe to eighth floor.

    And on a serious note, I do not believe in gender equality. Women aren't men, and men aren't women. There are differences between them like stature, physical strength, very often intellectual dispositions, the role in reproduction. As such there will never be "total" gender equality. Not until women start impregnating men and not the other way around. I for one, do not discriminate women from doing any work, and I believe they are capable of doing most... but I don't know female miners or females working around in garbage collecting, for example.

    For thousands of years, women were more often family-oriented, with mostly men working or fighting, and women staying home raising the children. That model of family was the "healthiest" over the ages as children had good care with their mother always around. Again, I do not discriminate women from working if they wish for it - everyone has a freedom of choice, but there's a reason why the culture was patriarchal over the ages.

    Modern feminism looks down on women who would like to live that way, it is part of the reason why most women need to work to live, but because of that, the family duties are ceded to outside institutions like nurseries...

    Since you tackled the topic of working women and pregnancy, maternity leaves. My personal view is that men should be paid enough to feed their entire family without his wife, or the women they are with working if that is the family model they wish for, while women should still be able to work, again, if they wish for that . No nursery, kindergarten or babysitter can ever properly replace a parent when it comes to bringing up children. Unfortunately, in current work-driven societies, this family model is seen less and less these days, which is a cause of many problems in families.

    In any case, feminism has no right to exist outside of countries where women's basic rights are trampled over. Feminism worked when women lacked rights, but now it is a political movement motivated by hatred for men, basically, it's an instrument for fighting over high jobs and stuff.

    Anyway, I could continue with the comment-rant, there are a lot of aspects of feminism and the male/female differences in society... but I guess this much is enough.

    Now, to final statement. Men and women aren't equal, because they are different in many aspects, but "equal" doesn't necessarily mean "good". Dear men, treat women with respect and treat them precious, because they are more fragile than we are, but in exchange, they are much more pleasing to the eyes and for socializing with.

    PS: Sure, call me a man of early 20th century, I can't help it for being kind of conservative.

    Reply
    1. Sanngrior

      does this wardrobe have to make it up in one piece? fully assembled? with or without content?

      I am weak as all heck, and I would still try to carry it up even if it was a piece at a time.

      I come from a single parent family, raised by my mother so I like to think I have a pretty decent view into this whole concept.

      as a "person" she is able to do more than enough by herself to look after a relatively large family, and do things typically expected of men, in my judgement a lot of what she does, she does better than most other people.

      the key point being when she finds something she cannot do, she calls the appropriate person to come do it for/with her.

      now it may not be the best example since she came from a farming family, so the expectations of "gender" had no time to exist during her childhood. which makes her different from the typical 'norm' in that he grew up handling what were considered 'male roles' while also living her life and doing more 'normal' female roles.

      she has always said that the thing people are too focused on are what is expected of them as compared to what they expect of themselves. my mom grew up with the mindset of tackling everything with 100% effort and persistence, as for all the people who told her she "can't" or would "fail", she just used that to motivate her to prove them wrong.

      now she has a uni degree, plus extra coverage and teaches. she came from a farming background and got herself something none of her parents had and proceeded to live her life.

      as for how we view things, despite key differences we see things in the same way. her as a devout christian and me as an agnostic. we don't consider them "equal" because they were never meant for the same things. we simply care about the balance.

      men + women exist for a reason. if both could do what the other did, then why bother having 2 genders to the species in the first place? why not be a single gender. it's because the 2 do what they can as best as they can that they work together so well.

      why do people look for a significant other? ;) they look for something they lack that they see in others.

      (and while I say that, it doesn't matter who they see it in. whether it is of the same sex or the other. if they find it then they have found it.)

      as for men carrying babies... unsurprisingly, there are actually people looking into that as awkward a thought that it is. bother for homosexual couples and for those in relationships where the woman cannot carry (though surrogate does sound a little easier and cheaper)

      Reply
      1. krytykkrytyk

        Obviously, it's in one piece, fully assembled.

        (how many of them have I carried, received no help from any feminist)

        Reply
        1. Ved

          I'm wincing a bit at how sound bite-y this is.
          I'm reminded of that cartoonish bit where the Britannian Emperor from the Lelouch anime started conflating equality before the law/ethics with physical or intellectual equality. That's a false equivocation there. It's fine for the cartoon because he's basically a super villain using a strawman argument.

          I have some thoughts about gender roles and all that that interest me intellectually, but the political dialogue surrounding the whole mess that is the internet has made me weary of the discussion at all. And it's because of the tone of posts like this one. There are, of course, opportunistic ambulance-chasers like Sarkeesian and a few people looking for whatever substitutes for a cult (which, as far as I'm concerned, is every damn religion) or a political party.

          As for a tangent:
          Men prize women because they are sexually attracted to them. It definitely works the other way too. Just the girl has more social incentive to embroider herself artificially for whatever pop evo psych or cultural reason you'd like to dredge up.

          We've all know the bro who was into a girl simply because she was a girl. Whatever substance that lay under her mystique was clearly not there. (Nietzche had a wonderfully succinct turn of phrase to describe this. As is appropriate for the dead existentialist.)

          The concept that I might feel this way about another dude is foreign to a heternormal dude like myself, since I simply find nothing magical about being a guy. In fact, I find myself wanting to punch most confident and fit guys, sometimes at the urging of my native hostility and spitefulness, but also to see what I can learn from the process.

          But you don't really have to go far to find softcore smut like Twilight to find this force at work for the women.

          Reply
          1. Owl

            "(Nietzche had a wonderfully succinct turn of phrase to describe this.)"

            Penis envy?

          2. Ved

            No. And I feel insulted.
            Roughly paraphrasing, some women are masks, which is what makes them mysterious objects of pursuit for some men. While such men are to be pitied, his point is that it's easy to love something when you can hold up an ideal about someone or something that doesn't exist. In fairness, this force does exist for women as well. It isn't just a gender issues thing for him, but something that holds true in art, religion and politics as well. It's easy to be a patriot or the party-man. Less so to think critically about the things you love.

    2. AoriiAorii Post author

      I don't believe in total gender equality ever arriving either, just as I don't believe in racism ever being abolished. As a species humans are simply too judgmental and thus will always resort to stereotypes. But just because each gender has its own role doesn't mean they can't be given the same opportunities and treated with an equal level of respect -- right now that's quite lacking in the world, as women get harassed all the time and men are always faulted for whatever conflict that happens.

      Remember that by tenant, modern feminism is supposed to be about giving women choices. Thus, if they want to be a housewife, they should be able to. But then, since this gets in the way of truly equal treatment (since it makes people feel women can more afford to lose their jobs/careers), feminists end up swallowing their words and attacking their own.

      However at the same time keep in mind that there are plenty of women who does want a career more than they want a family, and they should be given the same opportunity as men to achieve it.

      Reply
      1. krytykkrytyk

        The problem start when such ideas as feminism starts to become a philosophy in politics and starts being enforced politically, much like socialism, communism, multi-culturalism. Instead of a bottom-to-up movement, it starts becoming top-to-bottom movement whereas feminists actively try to force their agenda and views on others. And, if you know any hardcore and influential feminists - it's quite cancerous in such aspects that those people very often fester hatred for men, make demands for themselves and such. To give an example, there was one old-date politician who kissed a woman's hand as a gesture of good manners - you watch movies, you know what I mean, and the woman - feminist has reacted with disgust, insulted him and sued him for treating her as "worse" or something like that. I feel this be quite parallel to how women are treated in countries with Shariah law, where a man does his best not to touch a woman because he deems he'll get unclean. It's a sign of unhealthy extremism.

        These days feminism is very often counter-productive and goes against the wishes of many women, feminists exude pressure (lobby) on law-makers and courts to create law and give judgement according to their doctrine - which are in fact very trivial things turned "crimes", like earlier mentioned suing of a man for his good manners, or to sue someone for accidental touching in the train. They pressure courts to favorise women in processing against men... well, lots of stuff. They do lots of stuff to expand their influence, but majority of it is needless. The results are often extremely strict laws that can break up families with ease.

        I mean, look at the "pu**sy riot* and "femen" groups, what do they do? Walk around showing off bare tits ("fuck me" written on it) and profaning Christian churches and sacred places because they deem Christian church "the enemy of women". Although Christians are the ones who do least family violence in Europe, source below.


        Surprisingly(?), most feminist and liberal countries have most family violence and violence towards women (Graph 1. Overall family violence, Graph 2. violence towards women).

        On the other hand, I hardly see feminists protest against islam, shariah law in Saudi Arabia and other countries as such. The one or two times feminists have gone to islamic gatherings to show off their bare tits, they were severely beaten up by the attendees. It's a very rare thing to see them fight against the role of a woman in islamic civilization, they prefer concentrating on Christian church which is supposedly their "greatest enemy", because Christian church won't beat them up to a pulp and will bend under the influence.

        Ugh, moved onto politics, feminism as a political movement and feminism against religions...

        In any case, I don't scorn women wishing for their own rights, freedom of choice and such, but I believe modern feminism has become something that doesn't necessary reflect that. It has largely become a female-only movement that has their own political and cultural view and tries to force it on everyone else, their efforts are very often misplaced. It's very much like racism, or anti-semitism. You can't say a bad word against someone black or a jew because you are a "racist" or "anti-semitist", same to modern feminism - it's the cancer of political correctness.

        Reply
        1. Ved

          I don't understand the point you're making with the video. That feminists will get beaten up by angry Muslims to prove a point? Doesn't that mean that they *are* targeting Islam?

          Reply
          1. AoriiAorii Post author

            Actually, feminists in Islamic countries have been pushing pretty hard. Pakistan's recently lost female fighter pilot certain made headlines, and so did the Saudis when they invited women into the top levels of government administration several years ago.
            They just don't use any of the more garish methods. Baring chests? That's the behavior of poorly educated individuals who can't eloquence their way into getting what they want so they resort to shock tactics <_< Public nudity is never acceptable in a conservative society, male or female.

          2. krytykkrytyk

            The thing is that feminists very often disrupt and target Christian churches, never suffering harm. But when they - very rarely try to do a similar action against islamic conference, they get brutally beaten down. The result? They focus on mainly on raiding Christians because they are an "easy" prey. All that despite the fact that as true feminists - they should focus on improving the status of women in radical islamic culture where they are unmistakably often treated as worse or simply sub-humans (to give some examples, would be separating women from men in countries with shariah law, not allowing women to get driver's license etc). But feminism ends where they risk being beaten, irreversibly hurt or killed, I guess.

            In the west alone, these days feminists focus more on destroying the conservative culture than anything. It feels like they have some bone to pick with it.

          3. Kemm

            The reason why that kind of feminists work so hard into "destroying the conservative culture" stems from the very same reason why teenagers usually quarrel with their parents and, with an alarming frecuency, engage in behaviors for the sole reason that their parents wouldn't approve of them. It's just, on one side, "new" against "old"; "new" must be hailed while "old" must perish, and you are better than the rest if you side with the "new". On the other side, it's the search for "freedom", symbolized in the breaking of the "shackles" that those regarded as "authority" supposedly have us trapped with.
            The Church (of any christian confession) has a long history and also has had a lot of influence in the West, as oppossed to any other religion (since one of the biggest mistakes of post-apostolic christianity was the demonization of other cults), and throughout its history has had a lot of dark records, so it's a trivial target for all those movements.

        2. Kemm

          Waitwaitwait!
          According to that source, Spain is tied with Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia at the 4th place of European countries were women suffer the less number of aggressions at the hands of their male partners. However, if you just follow the news and mouth-to--mouth (or social networks), they want everyone to think that we are one of the most problematic countries in that regard (if not the most). Man, they even mention Finland and Denmark as countries whose example should be followed to "stop violence against women" (respectively second and first countries with the highest count of cases).

          Way to go, misinformation.

          Reply
          1. Ved

            This is just the typical "we Christians are being picked on" complaint.
            Even by your own words, they're only doing it because apparently Christians are easier targets. Not that they wouldn't pick on Muslims if it were safer. (And the women in the vid were doing that anyway.)

            And let's be blunt:
            I don't know the last time conservatism meant something other than reactionary politics or bigotry. In the States, it's supposed to mean smaller goverment, financial responsibility and tradition blah blah blah. But it really doesn't behave that way in practice.

            Gay marriage is still be fought pretty hard over here. A lot of that fight is fought because of religion, rather than in spite of it. And while you can say "most Christians aren't like that," it's not surprising somebody might have an axe to grind with conservative religion.

          2. Kemm

            I cannot, in all honesty, say that "most christians aren't like that". I can only say that "it goes against Christ's techings as shown on the Gospels", since both Old Testament and non-Gospel New Testament show seeds of that behavior (and of other behaviors that go against Christ teachings on the Gospels).
            A quick glance to what we know here as "beatas" ("overpious", in feminin since there are by far more women than men) or "beatillas" ("li'l overpious", ditto) shows that the average christian is a close-minded bigot. Not that people that take the average as the rule are not.

            Society has to evolve, and "evolution" refers to a gradual change ("gradual" in the sense "bit by bit", since the bit changed can have huge connotations). It should be based on the errors of the past to keep them in mind so as to no repeat them. The problem is that what's usually understood as "progressivism" are ways of thinking that search to end the past they regard as "evil" by erasing every trace of it (which not only makes them resort to down-right lies and misinformation with an astounding frequency, it leaves them prone to repeat mistakes that should've been already learned), and what's usually understood as "conservadurism" goes beyond regarding "change" as "evil" and tends to go backwards (or even change to a way that never was) in reaction to any word progressists say, making them fall into old mistakes with an astounding frequency (and many new ones courtesy of the "new old ways").

            If your car's engine needs an oil change, you change the oil, not change the engine to an experimental F1 engine neither you change it for a string engine (even if the last one is more eco-friendly).

  25. Phantom Starlight

    Haha. This is something I am constantly pointing out.

    I first questioned this type of thing when I was like 2, and first heard "boys shouldn't hit girls" and I asked. "so it's okay to hit boys?" or "so it's okay for girls to hit?" or something along those lines

    Reply
    1. Sanngrior

      yeah I remember thinking along the lines too. In fact I ended up with a worse conclusion than most (which is either 'rebel' (hit women anyways) or 'conform' leave it to take out on men.) For me it ended up as a passive mentality that any form of physical aggression was an unhealthy blend of pointless, worthless and too shortlived. this leads to bottleing up emotions and councilling+therapy years down the line.

      Reply
  26. Kemm

    These kinds of discussions tend to remind me of a certain advertisement from a major household appliance maker. There's this woman that gives of a vibe of "serious bussiness" (dress her in a suit and give her a briefcase and she could plat the part of a Wall Street shark or a highly successful highbrow lawyer) who's walking around her house; she then enters a room a finds a man, seemingly her husband, who's giving a vibe of total stupidity and is puzzled before an opened washing machine, checking the contents. He says something like "it failed again", which means that something has gone wrong and the laundry's not totally clean, and that it's not the first time it happens. Hearing that, not only her vibe, but the woman's face spells 2serious bussiness" and she makes a call. "It doesn't work", she says, "I want an exchange. No, not a repair, an exchange.", and then a pair of labormen from said company in coveralls appear, take the rather confused husband one by each arm and take him out, always under the calm and approbatory gaze of the woman.
    Supposedly, the ad means that their washing machines are so easy to use that if something goes wrong it's the user's fault, and it's intended to be comical. Had the roles been reversed, lobby pressure would have made it to be taken down and sunken the company.

    In a movie where a man slaps a woman, either the man is the bad guy and lowliest scum and gets afterwards his just desserts or campaign is done against it (sometimes the second case happens even in the first case). A film where a woman kicks a man in his nether region only has the scene as a comic relief, even though it's not only more painful, but can leave the receiver infertile or even dead (and scenes of women slapping men mean either that he's done something awful or that he's a wimp).

    The thing with not only these radical feminists (feminazi) but also with all those paladins of "justice" and donquixotes is that the equality they brag about so much, for some reason, was called before "double standards".

    Reply
    1. Phantom Starlight

      The problem is these issues have been pointed out so much that everyone jumps on them the second they see them, but the reverse isn't ever highlighted so isn't such a sensitive thing.

      Reply
    2. Sanngrior

      It is as if they forget that regardless of numbers, both genders are capable of the same things. rape, murder, fraud, adultery... et cetera.

      I remember a news story where an 'of age' girl slept with an 'under-age' boy, she got pregnant and the boy was the one set as guilty, despite having been lead into it. just because that situation happens 99x more the other way round doesn't mean it is fine to hear the words "boy, girl, underage, pregnant" and state "boy = guilty".

      how long did it take for government to finally break free of religious control? will it really take that much longer for society to break free of this one-sided view?

      if I have 2 employee's who aren't doing their job, I will fire them, regardless if one of them is female or not. If necessary I will deal the any resultant crap that pops up on the grounds of "injustice" without swerving from my view; "don't want to work? don't have a job then." labels won't mean anything when the context is that clear. the same balance needs to be struck everywhere else and not "we are better or needmore than you do" :(

      Reply
      1. Kemm

        All I know is that when a couple is going to divorce, the staple advice lawyers give to women is to demand their soon-to-be-ex-husbands for "gender violence" (the term that's become popular in my country to mean "a man physically or psychologically abusing a woman they are in a relationship with"), since, even without proof, breaks the already favorable terms for them to turn them into even more favorable, as that kind of demands tend to bypass presumption of innocence. It's almost laughable that a man punching a woman they are in a relationship with is punished way harsher (and by miles) than a woman gruesomely killing their husbands/boyfriends/whatever (and in the last case, the consense is "he must have done something to deserve it).

        Not long ago, a video of several girls ganging up on a boy younger than any of them and giving him a good thrashing (and one could infer that it was not the first time it happened, but an everyday thing) surfaced, and the news spoke of "alleged assaulters". Not long before, a man was arrested as a suspect (just the first person the police would suspect in the case, no evidence to support, just unfounded prejudice at the time, even though further investigation may support it later) and the news were "the criminal allegedly". The place you put "alleged" at speaks by itself, and crystal clear.

        Reply
        1. Courioius

          That is the reason at least from mgtow point of view on why marriage is in decline. Marriage is too risky with little to no benefit to men.

          A mere accusation could ruin a man's life. This is not an isolated case. It could kick you off college and scholarship, your job even after it was proven wrong and the accusser get litlle to no punishment.

          Reply
          1. Kemm

            And worst of all, even if proved wrong, the claim isn't taken out from the man's record (and often not even tagged as "proved wrong" or "dismissed"), so it becomes an indelible tarnish that could ruin his life even if he gets away of his former one AND in case of a new demand they are treated as reincidents without checking if any of them was true.

          2. AoriiAorii Post author

            The reason for marriage's decline is simple:
            Social security =P
            Kids used to be the only way most people can fund their retirement. Nowadays? Meh.
            Also back in the day when people were arranged marriages, they actually worked hard to keep the family going. Nowadays both partners simply expect the other to change.

          3. krytykkrytyk

            Kids still are the only way to fund your retirement, no matter how does government dress it up as social. If people don't have kids, there'll be no one to pay taxes so that people on the retirement received any money at all. Despite that, you could say people are deceived that they are "saving up for their own retirement", whereas in every country in the world, the current retirement is always funded by the working generations, the system is a perfect financial pyramid.

            PS: In fact, its worse now that your kids have to fund someone else's retirement, if such a person decides not to have kids at all.

          4. Courioius

            The situation at japan is there is more elderly than young . The funds for elderly benefits ,retirement and pensions came from the labor of the those at their prime. With the declining population the pressure is increasing to a point that some say it is too much trouble with little benefits. . this lead rise to herbivore(Sōshoku(-kei) danshi) where they only work just enough to enjoy their lives. Less work means less salary and less taxes collected. They also refuse to get married or have kids. There would be further population decline . This would have been eased by immigration(like what is europe is doing) but japanese are not too keen in letting immigrants in. That is why the herbivore situation alarmed the japanese government.