# Is this feminism?



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Iceland.

So here is an interesting article, the gist.



> More than two-thirds of Icelandic babies -- 67% -- are born to parents who are not married.


Here is the money quote in my mind. 



> The island may have been settled by marauding brutes, but it is now the most feminist society on the planet


So my question is this feminism? It show why I would never call myself a feminist anymore. To me it basically proves what I have come to believe. Modern feminism is self centered. Anti-family, anti-marriage and misandrous. It's hard to argue when you have articles like this on CNN (doesn't get more mainstream than this) about how the 67% of kids born out of wedlock, in some cases to separate fathers is a feminist paradise. This isn't morning the lack of good men. It removing them from the equation. I wonder how many of these men get joint custody? Personally I think it is toxic idea, bad for kids, bad for families, bad for women. Sexbots can't some soon enough.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Feminism long since passed from being about equal legal standing into being about misandry and being anti-family.

Looking at Britain since I am familiar with it, women I know there who are middle aged or younger do not seem to be happy with the non-marriage society. They have several children but only one with each male partner. It seems the men move on after a few years to a new partner. To me, it seems to favor the men rather than the women. The women end up stuck with the kids, while the man moves on to another woman.

Marriage is not some kind of burden placed on women by men. It is a joint effort which places obligations and benefits onto both spouses. Somehow, though, the radicalized feminism has successfully promoted the message that the patriarchy is suppressing women, including with marriage. To some extent radical feminism has been led by men-haters rather than by women seeking fair and equal treatment.

Ironically, the anti-male and anti-father courts have led to men avoiding the legal trap of marriage. This is not to the benefit of women or mothers. I expect we'll see the social pendulum swing back in another generation towards traditional families.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Discussions about what other people mean by words rarely get very far.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

CNN said:


> More than two-thirds of Icelandic babies -- 67% -- are born to parents who are not married.


I don't get what the connection is between feminism and not being married. 

However, the article makes a common confusion by not distinguishing (as far as I could see) between whether these are couples in stable relationship but just not legally married, or whether we are talking about children growing up with only one parent, and no model for how to conduct a relationship.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Iceland.
> 
> So here is an interesting article, the gist.
> 
> ...


I don't give a **** whether the kids are born in or out of wedlock. All I care about is if they are being raised to be happy, law abiding citizens and from the looks of it, they are. 

Iceland has the 3rd lowest crime rate in the world even though they are avid gun owners. They consistently rank in the top 5 happiest countries (annual survey on happiness.... Can't remember the name). They have longer, healthier lives than most westernized countries. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Many Scandinavian countries have lower marriage rates. But that doesn't mean the family's not together. 

These same countries also have paid paternity leave so dad can have baby time. 

In fact, in Iceland mom gets 3 months, dad gets 3 months, and they get an extra 3 months to split however they want.

Women are also working more and getting equal pay, so men pay less alimony.

Please explain how this is anti male.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

You have to factor in that the couple could be a lot more able to game the system in a socialist society by being a "single mom". It may be a lot more financially beneficial for a couple to remain unmarried than married in these societies.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I have read that in a most of the socialist countries that marriage rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates are pretty high. Basically couples (men and women) are living together and not getting married because the mother and children get more social benefits this way. 

I knew a woman a few years ago from Demark. They were not married. He was a window washer and made the equivalent to $150 US a year income because the country has income/salary mandates. They had a young child. She was not working at the time because as an unmarried woman, got an income that was about the same as her working fulltime from the state... the income was based on her with one child. They were as strong and committed a couple as any married couple I have ever met.

I think that what is going on in Iceland has more to do with socialism and lack of religion than feminism.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

My post was not about Iceland or the whys that this happens (though I agree that some of these women are gaming the system or whatever). My post is about the fact that a top 5 trafficked website seems to be publicly stating that having children while not being married is a feminist ideal. They don't even hide it anymore. This is now an open agenda, a goal, something to strive for. 

To me it speaks to the same type of thing that my other post a few weeks ago when we were talking about the term "toxic masculinity". There is a very definite misandrist or at least anti marriage agenda in 21st century feminism. It is quite evident. The gist of this article at least in how I read it is men are not even necessary to have kids they have very little role to play accept to provide genetic material. 

So once again I will ask is this really the end point of feminism? This is the kind of thing that even 5 years ago Rush Limbaugh would say and people would call him reactionary. Well here it is on the middle of the front page of CNN with a picture enticing you to click on it. There is a definite agenda, and in my mind it is a destructive one. Those of you with fathers and husbands how can you support such a toxic ideology? Does it at least bother you?

Like I have said before on here. When it was about equal pay, and freedom I would have stood there and marched with you. But this, this is wrong. It hurts men and women, but mostly kids.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> My post was not about Iceland or the whys that this happens (though I agree that some of these women are gaming the system or whatever). *My post is about the fact that a top 5 trafficked website seems to be publicly stating that having children while not being married is a feminist ideal.* They don't even hide it anymore. This is now an open agenda, a goal, something to strive for.


That's not at all what I got from reading that article. I didn't read anything correlating feminism to the increase of children born out of wedlock in Iceland. Tbh, I don't think the article "blamed" anyone for the phenomenon. They just reported the facts which are a) over 60 % of children born in Iceland are born out of wedlock, b) icelanders are not religious, and c) they provide a very generous maternity leave for both parents. 



sokillme said:


> To me it speaks to the same type of thing that my other post a few weeks ago when we were talking about the term "toxic masculinity". There is a very definite misandrist or at least anti marriage agenda in 21st century feminism. It is quite evident. The gist of this article at least in how I read it is men are not even necessary to have kids they have very little role to play accept to genetic donors.
> 
> So once again I will ask is this really the end point of feminism? This is the kind of thing that even 5 years ago Rush Limbaugh would say and people would call him reactionary. Well here it is on the middle of the front page of CNN with a picture enticing you to click on it. There is a definite agenda, and in my mind it is a destructive one. Those of you with fathers and husbands how can you support such a toxic ideology? Does it at least bother you?
> 
> Like I have said before on here. When it was about equal pay, and freedom I would have stood there and marched with you. But this, this is wrong. It hurts men and women, but mostly kids.


The article didn't say a thing about men not being needed for anything beyond genetic material. It discussed why people in Iceland don't feel the need to marry prior to having kids. Marriage does not automatically make people better parents and the icelanders are proof.

And to your assumptions that all of this is due to feminism....oy vey! You are reaching sokillme. 

A man doesn't have to be a husband to be a great father; he doesn't have to be married to be an involved parent; he doesn't even have to be the biological DNA donor to be an excellent parental figure. For all we know based on the information provided, Icelandic men may be the happiest men because they can be the best fathers out there without having to deal with legal bs surrounding marriage. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> That's not at all what I got from reading that article. I didn't read anything correlating feminism to the increase of children born out of wedlock in Iceland. Tbh, I don't think the article "blamed" anyone for the phenomenon. They just reported the facts which are a) over 60 % of children born in Iceland are born out of wedlock, b) icelanders are not religious, and c) they provide a very generous maternity leave for both parents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's pretty simple to follow actually the premise of the article being

the most feminist society on the planet = More than two-thirds of Icelandic babies -- 67% -- are born to parents who are not married.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> It's pretty simple to follow actually
> 
> the most feminist society on the planet = More than two-thirds of Icelandic babies -- 67% -- are born to parents who are not married.


Who cares? I mean really, who cares whether these are traditional, egalitarian, or Amazonian cultures choosing for themselves to legally wed or not before having children? Based on the happiness ratings, they are obviously happy people, no? From the crime rates, these are happy men and happy women raising happy, well adjusted children. 

Why all of the assumptions that men are excluded from raising their kids? 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Many Scandinavian countries have lower marriage rates. But that doesn't mean the family's not together.
> 
> These same countries also have paid paternity leave so dad can have baby time.
> 
> ...


It isn't, nor did the OP (or any other poster prior to your post) insinuate the country was anti-male.

However, the CNN article was pretty overt in how it stated the key phrase the OP pointed out.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

sokillme said:


> My post was not about Iceland or the whys that this happens (though I agree that some of these women are gaming the system or whatever). My post is about the fact that a top 5 trafficked website seems to be publicly stating that having children while not being married is a feminist ideal. They don't even hide it anymore. This is now an open agenda, a goal, something to strive for.
> 
> To me it speaks to the same type of thing that my other post a few weeks ago when we were talking about the term "toxic masculinity". There is a very definite misandrist or at least anti marriage agenda in 21st century feminism. It is quite evident. The gist of this article at least in how I read it is men are not even necessary to have kids they have very little role to play accept to provide genetic material.
> 
> ...


The fact that previously women did not really have the choice to raise children outside of marriage (and neither did men, basically) unless forced to (which then brought shame upon them all including the children, which is ghastly and unfair) is yes, part of the many problems in society that feminism wanted to address. 

But as far as I'm concerned, the dropping marriage rates are good for everyone. Men should also be allowed to have children but not have to be married. They should be allowed to adopt or hire a surrogate or whatever, without shame or stigma about why he would want to have a child but not a wife. These changes in society help us all, because those who really want to be married before having children can still do so....the rights of others who wish not to be married do not impede the rights of those who do.

Also, there is less pressure on men to marry a woman just because she is pregnant with his child. It used to be, this was an immediate shot gun wedding situation, otherwise shame be upon all involved and their extended families, too. Yet this is ridiculous. Unless two people WANT to be married to each other, what good does it do to shame them into doing so, thereby modeling for their children a forced marriage that was not wanted. How is that healthy? It isn't. And thankfully these days that truth is obvious.

There is no evidence that "marriage" as we know it in the US is the one and only thing that will guarantee a child has a good future. In fact in some cases, marriage specifically is the reason some children have horrible futures. There are civilizations everywhere on the globe that do not have the same thing we call "marriage" and yet raise their children in loving, happy ways. Once this has gone on for a few more generations in the US, your fears will be put to rest as you will see there will eventually be as many well adjusted adults that came from unmarried parents or one parent as there are that came from married parents.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Faithful Wife said:


> here is no evidence that "marriage" as we know it in the US is the one and only thing that will guarantee a child has a good future. In fact in some cases, marriage specifically is the reason some children have horrible futures. There are civilizations everywhere on the globe that do not have the same thing we call "marriage" and yet raise their children in loving, happy ways. Once this has gone on for a few more generations in the US, your fears will be put to rest as you will see there will eventually be as many well adjusted adults that came from unmarried parents or one parent as there are that came from married parents.


Your wrong.

The statistics don't bare this out.

This is pretty consistent though with another unfortunate trend of modern feminism, that being that is pretty much seen through an upper middle class to wealthy lens. For women who are well educated and financially stable, yes they have the resources to survive an unwed pregnancy their kids probably will be OK. For lower middle class and poor women, it's really a non-starter.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> It's pretty simple to follow actually the premise of the article being
> 
> the most feminist society on the planet = More than two-thirds of Icelandic babies -- 67% -- are born to parents who are not married.


Here is a figure from http://worldfamilymap.ifstudies.org/2014/articles/world-family-indicators/family-structure










You'll note that most of the countries with the highest rates of children born out of wedlock are considered "traditional" or non-feminist. I can't see the correlation you are trying to make. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> It isn't, nor did the OP (or any other poster prior to your post) insinuate the country was anti-male.
> 
> However, the CNN article was pretty overt in how it stated the key phrase the OP pointed out.


His OP clearly asks if the country's position on marriage was mysandrous. I took that to mean anti male.

That is what I addressed.

Perhaps I've misunderstood.

Fyi, I think paternity leave is a great idea, and I happen to think this comment was uncalled for.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Co-habitation in Scandinavia and Iceland is common because the of the cradle to grave socialism in those countries.

People rent. Healthcare is universal. Education is free. Public transportation is adequate. Retirement support is available. Since there is no reason to amass wealth, then there is nothing to split up when the couple splits up. and no need to have a marriage license to regulate the split of assets.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

sokillme said:


> Your wrong.
> 
> The statistics don't bare this out.
> 
> This is pretty consistent though with another unfortunate trend of modern feminism, that being that is pretty much seen through an upper middle class to wealthy lens. For women who are well educated and financially stable, yes they have the resources to survive an unwed pregnancy their kids probably will be OK. For lower middle class and poor women, it's really a non-starter.


As I said, you will have to wait a little longer to see the results of what I'm saying. In the meantime you have pulled up out of date articles that focus on an old study. The more time that goes by, the more it will be seen that the "reasons" you hold so dear are not the real "reasons" at all. 

Mark my words....you will see. These new generations are much smarter than we were and won't be pigeon holed the way you want to pigeon hole them.

Or you can take the path of most older people in every generation: claiming that your generation's values were the very glue to society, while claiming that the young people's generation is tearing society apart.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Funny article:

https://studybreaks.com/2017/02/21/feminism-2/


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> Here is a figure from Family Structure | World Family Map 2014
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not the point.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

lifeistooshort said:


> His OP clearly asks if the country's position on marriage was mysandrous. I took that to mean anti male.
> 
> That is what I addressed.
> 
> ...


Nope my point and only point was this article seems to equate having kids out of wedlock with the feminist ideal. It that the case? Do you agree?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Not the point.


What IS your point? 

I've shown you that % of out of wedlock babies cannot be correlated to feminism because many very conservative countries have high rates of out of wedlock babies. So no, feminism is not destroying the sanctity of marriage... and no, having kids out of wedlock is not an ideal of feminism. It happens even in some of the most traditional countries in the world.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lila said:


> What IS your point?
> 
> I've shown you that % of out of wedlock babies cannot be correlated to feminism because many very conservative countries have high rates of out of wedlock babies. So no, feminism is not destroying the sanctity of marriage... and no, having kids out of wedlock is not an ideal of feminism. It happens even in some of the most traditional countries in the world.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


See above.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

sokillme said:


> See above.


I edited my post to include a response to your question to faithfulwife. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RoseAglow (Apr 11, 2013)

TAM is an interesting place.

On the one hand, there are threads like this that blame the lowering marriage rates on Feminism, or something like that.

Then you have many more posts saying that men are the ones driving the lower marriage rates. Men no longer have to get married. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? It's not women but men who are refusing to get married.
@sokillme, to your direct question: No, it has never been a feminism ideal to get rid of the need for men. The goal of feminism has been to allow women the opportunities to be able to support themselves and not need to depend on the goodwill of others. This means allowing women to vote, own property, to get an education, to have equal opportunity to work. This puts women on equal footing. It is not eradicating men but allowing men and women to both have livelihoods, educations, careers, etc.

Feminists are not anti-marriage, or anti-partnership. Feminists have worked to make sure that women (and men, as noted above) had the option to marry or not to marry, and still be able to have a decent quality of life either way. I am a 40-something woman in the US and it's within my mom's generation here that women had very little hope of a comfortable life without marriage. It is one generation before mine that marriage meant the end of decent paid work for women. 

Beware of conflating correlation with causation. Drownings increase along with ice cream consumption! But one doesn't cause the other; rather, both happen during summer. I think what you're seeing in Iceland is egalitarianism aligned with socialism, so that resources are ample. Feminism thrives in an egalitarian society, but they are not the same. Witness the number of people who state that they believe in equality but are not feminists.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

RoseAglow said:


> TAM is an interesting place.
> 
> On the one hand, there are threads like this that blame the lowering marriage rates on Feminism, or something like that.
> 
> ...


Again with Iceland. The point is not Iceland it's the context of the article. It could have been mars for all I care. I actually agree with your point about the country, it how their lifestyle and how it's being sold that is the problem. 

Personally I think you are wrong in the sense that in the past what you say about feminism was true but there are very definite forces at work in the movement who very much want it to be as this article states. The word *has* should be highlighted (and was) your quote for me. It becomes clearer every day.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

I love women, I'm all for equality, but the word feminism has taken on a toxic meaning at this point.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Is this feminism?

That depends on your definition of feminism. Like so many things, different people with different agendas co-opt the same word/movement for their own purposes. 

There are people who consider themselves equally ardent feminists who disagree sharply with each other. 

Of course, anti-feminists will latch onto the most extreme and unreasonable in the movement to discredit the entire concept. This is not unique to feminism. Liberals parade out the most hateful, frothing, racist "conservatives" as representative of all conservatives. Conservatives parade out the most vicious, two faced, communist "liberals" as typical examples of liberalism. 

Like any other ideology, feminism has its more and less reasonable practitioners. It's unfair to paint all with the same broad brush, even if they all self-identify under the same label.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Is this feminism?
> 
> That depends on your definition of feminism. Like so many things, different people with different agendas co-opt the same word/movement for their own purposes.
> 
> ...


Seems pretty mainstream when it's one of the main stories on CNN. No broad brush, just the quotes of a story that is on the front page. This is not some conservative narrative of feminism, this is an article which attempts to present a feminist perspective.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

sokillme said:


> Seems pretty mainstream when it's one of the main stories on CNN. No broad brush, just the quotes of a story that is on the front page. This is not some conservative narrative of feminism, this is an article which attempts to present a feminist perspective.


That it was reported by CNN doesn't mean it is an accurate representation of all feminists. 

I would consider myself "feminist" inasmuch as I believe in equal work for equal pay, equal opportunity, and the freedom/security to be able to live your life without physical threats from the (generally) physically stronger sex. 

I don't shy away from those feminist positions because some self proclaimed feminists would have us believe all men are violent brutes and that all sex is rape, etc.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That it was reported by CNN doesn't mean it is an accurate representation of all feminists.
> 
> I would consider myself "feminist" inasmuch as I believe in equal work for equal pay, equal opportunity, and the freedom/security to be able to live your life without physical threats from the (generally) physically stronger sex.
> 
> I don't shy away from those feminist positions because some self proclaimed feminists would have us believe all men are violent brutes and that all sex is rape, etc.


I agree with all you positions but I would say you and I are now outliers and I no longer would call myself a feminist because of that fact. I think that article and it premise which was written by combining the two quotes are very much what modern feminism goal is now. The reason why it is on the front page of CNN is because it's mainstream though.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> That it was reported by CNN doesn't mean it is an accurate representation of all feminists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not just talk about equal rights? Why call it feminism? Do many people still consider themselves as such?
In Europe, it has gotten a pretty bad name because of what is happening and not so much because of what it is supposed to have originally represented:

“Feminism
Judging by what it does feminism is a movement that seeks superior rights and privileges for women while hiding under the guise of "equality"

Feminists tend to claim that their movement is about "equality" and often use the dictionary definition as proof. But the thing is that what the dictionary says and what feminism does are two completely different things. Actions speak louder than words, therefore feminism should be judge by what it does instead of by what the book says. And through its actions the feminist movement has constantly shown that it isn't about equality, but is actually about female supremacy and misandry - skewed the system in women's favor, seeking superior rights & privileges for women, demonizing men & boys etc.. It is very obvious that "equality" is nothing more than a mask that the feminist movement uses to conceal its female supremacist and anti-male agendas.”

Can’t say I know enough about the ‘movement’ to either agree or disagree with that but that’s the general perception over here and nobody really takes the movement that seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

This is very funny:


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Since when is getting impreganated out of marriage and "keeping" the baby an act of "feminism"?

Really?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

sokillme said:


> Nope my point and only point was this article seems to equate having kids out of wedlock with the feminist ideal. It that the case? Do you agree?


 The feminist ideal is a somewhat vague phrase. As I understand it the feminist ideal means equal opportunity for women..... that's all. And maybe women not being forced to marry or stay married. I don't know what benefit there would be in having less marriage as a goal. 

I happen to think that marriage is good for families, but I also operate from a different cultural norm. So i don't know what is driving this. Perhaps feminism causes women to have more options so they opt not to get married, rather then less marriage being a goal. It could be collateral that way. 

But I'm not seeing how mysandry is involved if many families are still together and men are getting good paternity leave and are encouraged to bond with their children. Sounds like societal norms are just different.

Icelandic society doesn't seem to be breaking down over it.


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Geeze- maybe put a rubber on and if that fails- you are bashing women who don't abort ?

What?


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

This topic is disturbing.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Ey? Meh


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

To me, it once meant equality. Full stop.

Whether male, female, a midget, paraplegic, transgender, Furry, or whatever. Because we are all human beings that deserve equal rights, especially when we perform equally (or comparably) in terms of our contributions to society. When I first learned about feminism, apart from its original roots in history, I never heard "woman, women, or female" mentioned in its definition until I was in college. 

Now there will always be inequalities, since men cannot (yet) carry children and give birth, and other situations that are impossible to really make "fair" across the board due to genetics and physiology and other things that science cannot yet control or influence.

What bothers me is when a cause uses hate tactics, marginalization, and social media shaming to further its agenda, curry favor, and indoctrinate. That to me is just petty, no matter what your cause is. I'm frankly sick to death of hearing about feminism, because it is quite literally in the present day, so far removed from its original mantra and purpose, that I simply cannot support its methods. Not my personal style. 

The three best bosses I've ever had were old fashioned men who weren't jerks or anti-women. They were just older and grew up with certain values, like holding doors for women and taking "charge" as the managerial face of the business. They had daughters and they respected my hard work. I won't allow myself to think negatively of them or any men that have taught me well and directly or indirectly supported my personal and career goals. THAT to me IS feminism.


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Ey? Meh


What does that have to do with getting pregnant and keeping the baby?


Ohhhhh- these impregnated fembots make money and have maternity leave?

Darn.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

"Just you wait, another two generations and you will see." I have acquaintances my age 50ish, who were raised by single parents. I'n not sure what we are waiting for. Waiting for a generation to be smart enough to make this mess work? 

Here is the deal. I'm not going to make a decision today based on the evidence you assure me will be available in 40 years. There is no logic in that. There is no sense in that. Choosing a study that may or may not take place 40 years from now with indeterminable results over an antiquated 40 year old study with questionable results is not going to get you any closer to the truth. The weather forecast is more accurate.

But really from my personal, unusual, and somewhat warped point of view, I don't care. I won't be alive in 40 years, and my youngest childless child will be 60 and only care about the super parentless generation when the little brats smash his pumpkins on Halloween.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> This is very funny:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKd7SVh1_d0


Check out her latest post, guess her social media boyfriend cheated on her. Wow that was down the rabbit hole, she should come on here. We would help her. She does a good job of articulating what it feels like to be cheated on.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

sokillme said:


> Check out her latest post, guess her social media boyfriend cheated on her. Wow that was down the rabbit hole, she should come on here. We would help her. She does a good job of articulating what it feels like to be cheated on.



Yes, it seems like he has been cheating on her all along...poor thing. I wonder if that will change her outlook on ‘feminism’ in any way...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Yes, it seems like he has been cheating on her all along...poor thing. I wonder if that will change her outlook on ‘feminism’ in any way...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not the first time she's been cheated on, plus the boyfriend very publically cheated on his previously gf.

So I doubt it.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Yes, it seems like he has been cheating on her all along...poor thing. I wonder if that will change her outlook on ‘feminism’ in any way...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was actually thinking the same thing. Sounds like he had a history of cheating with girlfriends. It was nice to see all the responses that thought it was awful. Even people doing videos about it. Guess Ester Peal doesn't have as much influence as she wants.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

sokillme said:


> So my question is this feminism? It show why I would never call myself a feminist anymore. To me it basically proves what I have come to believe. Modern feminism is self centered. Anti-family, anti-marriage and misandrous. It's hard to argue when you have articles like this on CNN (doesn't get more mainstream than this) about how the 67% of kids born out of wedlock, in some cases to separate fathers is a feminist paradise. This isn't morning the lack of good men. It removing them from the equation. I wonder how many of these men get joint custody? Personally I think it is toxic idea, bad for kids, bad for families, bad for women. Sexbots can't some soon enough.


 @sokillme

From what I can see, you're just looking for reasons to pine for sexbots. Which is fine, but call it what it is.

The quote you are making so much out of says that Iceland is feminist, not that it is feminist because of the number of children born out of wedlock. And if you read the article, it says that Iceland is feminist because women have choice. Real choice.

All the rest, you are just importing into the conversation, I assume because you would rather have a sexbot than a woman with real choices. 

(See what I did there?)


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

wild jade said:


> @sokillme
> 
> From what I can see, you're just looking for reasons to pine for sexbots. Which is fine, but call it what it is.
> 
> ...


Yeah sure that is what I am doing, this post is obviously an excuse to advocate for sexbox :slap:. The sexbot statement was joke if you can't tell that then I am not sure how you can participate in this dialog, or was that meant to insult me in some way? By the way women will be using sexbots just as much as men and you could argue they have a centuries head start. It's not like using technology to achieve orgasm is a new concept, but I digress. 

Again you make this about Iceland. The post was about the choice of words in the article as it relates to the philosophy. Again it could have been mars. The implication is the choice to have kids out of wedlock is an empowering tenant of feminism. By the way I not talking about a situation where the guy knocks up the women and then chooses not to take responsibility for his child (as I am sure this is the first thing you will point to) I would have been and will be the first to call out such people. 

No I am talking about a willful choice to not give the child the best opportunity because the child is really just seen as an extension of the mother and her rights. I think it is irresponsible myself and by the way there was never anything stopping people from having kids out of wedlock in the past, except the stigma. I guess we should all be happy as feminism has taken the stigma away. At least that seems to be what you are saying. Personally I think they are hurting these kids with a very selfish ideal, and now it is mainstream enough to be celebrated as empowerment on one of the most trafficked websites in the world. 

We should all be calling this out. Especially women as they are probably the ones who are hurt the most.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Did I hear the word sexbots?

@sokillme, how do you like these sexbots?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

But seriously, I think it's a bad idea to have children outside of a stable relationship, preferably married one.

I've noticed on Ask men, a couple of women have asked for advice because the father is not stepping up to support their child born of a fly by night relationship.

The male posters dance around it saying, you know you could file child support ....... as if garnishing the minimum wages of usually a 20 something is going to make a difference.

I did lose my PC patience with one of them and pointed that with freedom (to have sex with whomever and whenever you damn well) comes responsibility....... Is that something only a woman can say with impunity?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

@sokillme

You're clearly not at all seeing my point. Yes, I twisted your words. In the same way that you are twisting the words of the article. 

The article did *NOT* say anywhere that having children out of wedlock is the ideal of feminism. It just pointed out that marriage is a dying institution in Iceland. And that Iceland is one of the most feminist countries.

All the rest is you twisting words around so you can reinforce your biases.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

People should stop using the word ‘feminist’, it’s offensive to women! 🤫 (and seahorses where the female feminist doesn’t even get to get pregnant)
Gender equality is what I’m proposing. For all 89 sexes. Otherwise it’s sexist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

