The Vigilant Citizen Forums

“Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.”
― Camille Paglia

@DesertRose That's disingenuous since feminists were some of the first people to actually start a discussion on the way that gender roles and expectations take a harmful toll on men. Feminists were the ones to open this discussion and branch it out to address men as well as women since both are connected and everyone in society is effected by sexism.

That quote is kind of ironic because men would not have to "cripple" themselves to provide for women and children if they worked together with women to support and help each other in an equal partnership. They can provide for each other and support their children equally... they could share the weight of the relationship.

@mecca I disagree equality should not equate to sameness. Also, you wrote this below and I take issue with that.
"There's a lot of anti capitalist feminists who recognize that trading one master for another isn't beneficial"

We can agree to disagree. Here is a interesting video on this topic.
Alain Soral on Feminism, subtitled.
https://youtu.be/Do5zrdTb-yI

@DesertRose What do you disagree with? The existence of anti-capitalist feminists? Because they certainly exist. People are capable of seeing the ways in which sexism and well as capitalism/wage slavery are harmful. Or do you disagree with the idea that it's wrong to make women serve their husbands in a lesser position? Both wage slavery and sexism are wrong and should not be supported, feminists are against both.

Just because wage slavery is bad, that doesn't make it okay to restrict women from becoming financially independent. In order to have a beneficial and healthy relationship, there can't be an extremely unbalanced power dynamic where the man has all the control and all of the money.

No one is talking about restricting women from becoming financially independent but I am correcting several erroneous notions.
1. That only women serve in homes. Men serve as well. Unlike the materialist outlook Muslims are all servants of God.
2. No sexism in a household we are all servants and helpers of each other. My husband has served me and I have served him.
3. Once you have kids they require unique service.

@DesertRose Ok... then what does that have to do with what I said? I never stated any of those notions in the first place. You told me you disagree with anti capitalist feminists...

It is very hard to explain things to the brainwashed.
I wish we could take czs to the Palestinian territories and ask them if that is okay.
I wish you could experience breastfeeding and the overwhelming understanding about how an infant needs its mum and dad is needed later because breast is the best. That being a mum is a job as well and that it deserves more respect and support than i.e assistant bank manager.

You said this : "There's a lot of anti capitalist feminists who recognize that trading one master for another isn't beneficial."
Cherie, a husband is not a master. We should not generalize all family life.

"It is very hard to explain things to the brainwashed."
Excuse me?
I never said that being a mother wasn't a job that should be respected... That exactly a point that many feminists address. The work that women do in the home is not respected or compensated, it's belittled and minimized... but work that men are expected to do is monetized and respected as a career. I feel like you're going on off topic randomly.

This to me is brainwashed territory. "There's a lot of anti capitalist feminists who recognize that trading one master for another isn't beneficial." Okay I guess then we are addressing different topics.

@DesertRose
Before women got equal rights, husbands treated their wives as lesser. Wives were expected to serve their husbands they didn't have an equal standing in the relationship. Women were in a subordinate position... Trading one subordinate position for another isn't beneficial and many feminists recognize that, which is why they are against sexism as well as capitalism. It's simple and idk why you disagreed.

I categorically said that men and women in families serve each other and that not all families should be generalized. That quote is offensive because it generalizes all families as living in a sexist paradigm. As such many will think that service to one's family is subordination and it is not.

A husband is not supposed to be a master but unfortunately sexism does exist and many women were/are placed in a lesser position within a marriage... our society had and still does have the view that women are lesser and that men and that sadly does affect the way that people think a good marriage should look. Marriages have not always been an equal partnership, and sometimes they still aren't.

I never said it applies to every single marriage... it really only applies to the ones with an unequal power dynamic. The quote was referencing the past, when women were in far worse standing marriage wise than today... and that's what I was talking about as well. In the past, women didn't have many rights within a marriage (or society) at all, they were literally seen as second class. Financial independence is good.

As with all institutions we need people to have better understanding not discouragement from marriage because all men are 'masters' or sexist.

right@mecca that sure does not sound like a quote about the past. 'Recognize' is in present tense and the designation anti-capitalist feminist sounds new to me, but whatever you say sis.
you said: "There's a lot of anti capitalist feminists who recognize that trading one master for another isn't beneficial."

Ok... I never once stated or implied that all men are sexist. There's absolutely nothing wrong with marrying a normal, non-sexist man who you love. There's nothing wrong with being in an equal marriage where both people love and support each other and neither one has authoritative control over the other. That's what any healthy relationship should be like... but in the past it wasn't really like that.