Friday, August 4, 2017

Has Western Society Become Too Influenced By Feminist Values?

Ever since Feminism, we have been encouraging women to be more competitive and "willing to go after what they want" and encouraging men to be more sensitive and "in tune with their feelings".  Our society tells women to be more ambitious and aggressive than patient and understanding, and tells men the opposite. It hasn't really benefited women or men to follow this advice though. Even though women have gotten more "nasty" and/or assertive and men have gotten more "sensitive" and/or passive, they've still maintained a lot of the same problems they've always had respectively - except now they're worse, because they're compounded with a whole host of new emotional problems. This has resulted in more violent females and depressed males with both being overly emotional.

Many people today have become so touchy, that we have begun to change things to cater more to feelings over facts; fantasies over realities. The Millennial generation especially embodies this. Though Millennials are "passionate about social issues" in a similar manner to the Baby Boomers, they are also more widely considered to be "too soft" in a way that Baby Boomers never were - as Clint Eastwood said, "Everybody's walking on eggshells" nowadays.

Most men - and a few women - too often get turned off by the overwhelming emotional nature of everyday conversation these days. Many people have stopped wanting to confront issues that they see, for fear of facing more of the deflection and narrow-mindedness that comes with feelings-based responses. We can't solve problems in society if we can't talk honestly about the problems themselves.

This political correctness atmosphere has especially affected men - as women's narratives, values and preferences tend to dominate mainstream media and marketing. After all, women make up the majority of US consumer shopping and TV watching. We have also neglected a lot of men's narratives, values and preferences. Since there a lot of facts regarding men that women do not particularly like or want to hear, we either brush them under the rug or try to find a way to punish men - either way subjecting men to a lot of behavioral conditioning.

In addition, even though 50 years ago our society was already protecting women from feeling personally embarrassed or uncomfortable, now our society (primarily Feminist-driven) is protecting women from being accountable by automatically labeling them as "victims" and persecuting men for their gender by labeling masculinity as "toxic". We - as a society driven by Feminist narrative - either lie about women's mistakes or just pretend they don't exist but point out all of men's mistakes. 

Just look at the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The majority of mainstream media outlets cried "sexism" whenever Trump attacked Clinton but praised Hillary whenever she attacked Donald - which was sexism in itself (no matter how you personally feel about either of them). This experiment organized by NYU professors switched their genders in an effort to prove that sexism was behind Trump's popularity with the public over Hillary - yet to their surprise, it proved the exact opposite:

As one of the associate professors, Joe Salvatore, said, "I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, 'I kind of want to have a beer with her!'"

Feminism loves the game of "identity politics" which essentially pits everyone against one another in some way or another:

Furthermore, Feminist values are constantly asking others to put themselves in "our" shoes, but rarely encourages us to put ourselves in others' shoes - leading to a lot of self-centered and narrow-minded behavior and attitudes, which are also destructive to our society.

As a society, we are starting to choose superficial values over substantial values, as well as looking at things more from a short-term perspective rather than long-term. In addition, we are inheriting a lot of hypocrisy from Feminism. For example, we hear a lot of messages about "don't judge" yet we're all forced to make judgments every single day (and Feminism is not only founded on judgement but heavily relies on it). Women complain about "body shaming" yet women still choose to use their physical sex appeal to their advantage; women complain about "beauty standards" yet women are the ones who play the biggest role in setting them; women complain about women not being "slut-shamed" yet women - more than men - refuse to legalize prostitution; we warn women about the "mean guys" out there who want to hurt them yet women who are "mean girls" can be just as bad, if not worse; we warn women about marriages that might not work out yet women aren't warned about the jobs/careers that might not work out and we discourage adhering to gender roles yet not when females are the ones who are negatively affected in the process.

Even though most people do reject Feminism, our society is still heavily influenced by the powerful lobbyist group. Those who reject Feminism still sometimes fall victim to "sexism" towards women over men because of inherent values of society, and those who still embrace Feminism are often victims to manipulations and distortions by/of Feminism.

This is what happened with Cassie Jaye in the aftermath of releasing her film, The Red Pill, which documented the men's rights movement from a neutral perspective (though she was a Feminist at the time of making the film).

The good news - and unsurprising to anti-Feminists - is that even though Cassie Jaye was persecuted by Feminists for making this film, learning the things that Feminism had tried to keep from her knowing, elevated her relationship with her boyfriend-now fiancee. This is a recurring theme for women who either let go of Feminism entirely or at least let go of some Feminist values: their relationships with men improve. (Even Laci Green said the same thing!)

As Cassie Jaye explains, her Feminist perspective gave her a "chip on the shoulder" and made her into a more aggressive/defensive position (which inherently invites conflict). Even Marlo Thomas - former Feminist icon - has admitted, "That's how we've been married for 35 years, you don't give critiques." Feminists and modern society is very hard on men but very soft on women. We over-critique men yet under-critique women and it is creating a harmful imbalance in our society.

Cassie Jaye posed some great questions for herself that every (Western) woman should ask herself: "Who really has the privilege in our relationship? If I could change roles, would I want to?"

If the answer is no, shouldn't we steer away from Feminist values and move more towards Egalitarian ones instead?

Monday, July 24, 2017

What Does It Mean To Be Independent?

The most common notion of "independence" - at least among American women- tends to be that being single equates to being independent.

Some people even believe that Feminism started, in part, to grant women "independence". Is being independent of men the best qualification for "independence" though? After all, we all start off independent of a romantic partner, it's not something we have to try to achieve.

Do people really consider single men to be more "independent" than married men with families? That difference is usually referred to as more of a "bachelor" thing than an "independence" thing.

Most Americans see moving out of their parents' house to be their transition into "independence". After all, this is when they truly become accountable for themselves and every choice they make. No more parents at home to bail you out.

That being said, "independent" can be seen and used in a variety of ways.

When it comes to taxes, being "single" (unmarried with no children) really does coincide with "independent".

When it comes to politics however, being "independent" specifically means unaffiliated with any political party etc. - which would include Feminism.

Historically, "independent" has been used as showing a desire for freedom, such as the #WomenAgainstFeminism who show a desire for freedom from Feminist doctrine.

Feminism, on the other hand, looks at "independence" in their own, specific manner:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1f/2b/8e/1f2b8e7f3b1346796b0d0cd55f2c0468.jpg

  1. Not be married and/or not have children.
  2. Economic independence free from men.

Feminist doctrine pushes the notion that women have no identity of their own if they only consider themselves to be a "wife" and/or "mother". They say that you have to have a job title as a woman in order to have an identity. They think that being identified as a "waitress", "maid", "secretary" or "cashier", means you have more identity than a "wife" or "mother".

This completely undermines the value that a wife and mother has on a happy and healthy, stable home. A wife is the most important woman in a man’s life; And a mother is the most important woman in a child’s life, so how does she not have an identity? How would having an easily replaceable job give a woman more identity/value?

This is not to discount the women out there who do have irreplaceable (or harder to replace) jobs like surgeon or CEO etc. However, the average working woman does not have an irreplaceable job; The average woman is a waitress, maid, secretary, cashier or other similar type of job.

Also, why is it dangerous for a woman to rely on her husband when they’re in a partnership and they equally rely on each other? If one cares about gender equality, shouldn’t it be said that it is equally dangerous for a man to depend on his wife for everything related to their health/food (mold could grow if she’s not cleaning; food poisoning could occur if she doesn’t cook right etc.) and the rearing and well-being of their children (not being neglected etc.)? Shouldn't it be equally said that husbands and fathers have no identity of their own, other than “workhorse” or “bread-provider”?

Some people (primarily Feminists) think that relying on a husband/spouse is "dangerous" because what if the relationship doesn't work out and he cheats or leaves you? Yet what if you work in the same job for 8+ years and it suddenly doesn't work out and you never get the promotions/raises you want or even worse, you get fired or let go? What if the company you work for is involved in illegal activity (that you don't know about) and not only do you lose your job of many years, but you also lose any chance of getting a "referral" for any future jobs?

You have far more choice in the matter when it comes to who you date and marry, then who you get to work for. So why would trusting your judgment in a spouse, be worse than relying on an ever-changing market that may or may not favor you at any given time?

The fact of the matter is, being independent doesn't always equal "alone". When marriage and family are done right, the couple becomes a team that is more successful together than they were alone - as they bring out the best in each other and make up for each other's weaknesses. They empower one another.

This is the same with society. Once an adult becomes "independent" of their parents, they start to contribute to society - hopefully bringing out the best in them (work ethic and maturity) and learning from their mistakes in a productive manner (perhaps with some help from family, friends, co-workers, etc.).


Feminism is not a movement about "female independence" but rather independence from (straight) men. Feminism understands the value of teamwork, as it is always trying to make connections with other groups (gays and lesbians, transgenders, ethnic minorities, etc.)

Instead of focusing on "independence" as defined by Feminist doctrine, our society would benefit much more if we focused on "independence" as defined by accountability and maturity.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Did Sexism Create Feminism?

Feminism (in America) is a lobbyist group that acts in many ways, like a religion. They tell you what to believe, what the rules are, how you should live and how to spread this belief to others - including through "radical means". Just like religion, Feminism is a doctrine. Most of the "problems" Feminism raises are distorted or manipulated.

So how did Feminism get going mainstream in the first place?

There were two main acts of sexism that contributed to American Feminism:

1.) A distorted and manipulative, sexist narrative/fantasy that came mainly from 2 women. 

Many women today are at least somewhat familiar with the American Feminist named Betty Friedan and the impact of her book, the Feminine Mystique on Feminism as we know it.

Aside from maybe some news stories here and there in the past election year, many women today are not as familiar with the American Feminist named Gloria Steinem and her impact on Feminism, despite the fact that she may be the most powerful and influential Feminist of all-time.

While Betty Friedan may have been the one to trigger American Feminism as we know it, it was Gloria Steinem who really made it spread and get any kind of steam. Gloria Steinem capitalized on the idea of Feminism as a political lobbyist group and movement. She created the National Organization for Women (NOW) - arguably the most powerful and influential Feminist lobbyist group ever - to try and change laws etc, and she also created the Feminist magazine, Ms. Magazine to spread Feminist propaganda to the public.

Steinem had a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and had to be locked up. As we know, mothers are very important to children and Steinem blamed her father for this because he was the one who had [to have] her locked up. She internalized this and “made the personal, political”. She took the blame and subsequent hate she had for her dad and turned it onto all men and this is what resulted in Feminism - or what many people refer to as "Second Wave Feminism". Despite her emotional problems and sexist outlooks, she was an intelligent woman. She worked in the CIA for a while (not a conspiracy theory) and knew how to manipulate the public, the law and the political system - which is part of why her Feminist movement is still hanging on today despite constant and consistent failure and hypocrisy etc.

2. A “sexist” view in society that was biased in favor of women (and still is today).

Western women have always been among the most privileged in the world, in any time. It is out of that entitlement, the fact that women were used to society catering to their wants and needs, that Feminism was allowed to thrive and get support despite the fact that most women didn’t/don't actually agree with it.

Women in the West have always been respected in a way that men were not: 
  • Marriage has traditionally always been joked about as enslavement of men by women, as the saying went “happy wife, happy life”. 
  • If a woman feels embarrassed or uncomfortable about her role in a situation, their feelings are protected; whereas if a man feels embarrassed or uncomfortable about his role in a situation, he's often teased or ridiculed about it anyways and is expected to "deal with it"/"let it go". (It's even considered socially impolite to bring up a woman's age or weight but not a man's.)
  • Men were the ones who had to suck up the courage to woo and ask out women, always being expected to make the first move and be suave enough to pull it off or be rejected in public. 
  • When a little girl went missing, an entire town would take off work and go out to search for the little girl, whereas when a little boy went missing, they just put out some “Missing” and “Have you seen me?” posters. 
  • If a man ever said something that a woman didn’t like, she has a social right to slap him in public (assault) and no one cares – even if his intent wasn’t malicious. However, if a woman said something that a man didn’t like, it was not socially acceptable for a man to slap a woman in public and everyone who saw it would care and consider it assault.
  • There are thousands of domestic abuse shelters for female victims, but only a handful for male victims - despite the fact that often times, women perpetrate violence more than men. (Even lesbian women reported levels of intimate partner violence and sexual violence equal toor higher than those of heterosexual women.)
  • If a woman was raped, there were always men who wanted to kill the rapists whereas no one really cared about when men were raped. 
  • When people would start dying around a woman, no one would expect her to be the murderer until about the 3rd or 4th body; whereas most men are suspected at the 1st or 2nd body – this is how so many women got away with multiple murders by food poison, especially before they could test for it. 
  • Mothers are more likely to abuse children than fathers, yet women are still more trusted with small children than men - at home and in the workplace.
  • Women are less likely to be convicted and get shorter sentences than men for doing the same crimes. Especially if they are a parent. as mothers are more valued over fathers in our society.
  • Anytime a disaster was to happen such as the famous Titanic incident, women [and children] were always protected before men as they were seen as more valuable and sacred. 
  • After voting rights switched from property requirements to age requirements, men were expected to give up their lives in the case of war because they are considered more expendable than women. When women got the vote, they were not expected to equally give their lives in times of war. Instead, they were expected to stay back – where it was safer - and take on work, forcing women out of their chosen housewife role, so they could keep productivity going with so many men gone as in WW1 & WW2. 
  • The entire notion of Western Feminism is founded on the sexist bias that women are usually victims and men are usually perpetrators: It's easier for people to believe that Feminism started because most men were oppressing most women and women needed to rebel, then it is to believe that Feminism started because a few women had bad experiences with a few bad men.

So when Feminism started the radical claim that "marriage and motherhood were oppressive towards women", many people went along with it or gave it a pass, as they wanted to do the right thing by women - just as they had been doing all along.

What makes some people today so sure that women weren’t given a choice to be something other than a housewife before Feminism? Most women today, many decades after Feminism, still say they’d like to get married, have children and be at home. “The survey said that if staying at home with the children were counted as a job, it would rank as having happier workers than any other trade or profession. Only one in seven stay-at-home parents say they are dissatisified with their role, a level of unhappiness that is less than half that found among civil servants or salesmen and women.

So where is the proof that most women who were housewives, weren’t so by choice? Especially when there were already female college students, journalists, lawyers, doctors, scientists, politicians, police, etc pre-Suffragettes? (You've probably never heard about these women (or many of them) because Feminism doesn't acknowledge these pioneers since they debunk the idea that Feminism gave us the rights to do these things. In fact, Feminism pushes other women instead, modern women who are open card-carrying Feminists; It's the only "female unity" they know.) So what “sexist” law(s) did Feminism change to give women a choice (which they didn't already have all along)?

It's inaccurate to say that Feminism's “primary interest has been to help women have the same rights and respect as men, rather than 'become' a man. Women were already treated with the same respect as men but with the balance of acknowledgement of gender-differences. Feminism wanted to change the gender roles, not make them equal.

The people who claim that “women are still not there yet”, say this because they don’t want “choice” and “equality”, they want “quotas” and “conformity”. It’s not about choice for Feminists, it’s about making their fantasy/goal/doctrine into a reality. Why should Feminism tell us how many women should be in each job, especially so long as women are not limited from that job?

Feminism has never had quality significance - unlike the Suffragettes - because Western women have always had the same respect and equality that men have; they just used to choose to embrace gender differences more so than today. If we decide in modern times that we’d like to focus less on our gender differences, that’s fine but it’s historically inaccurate to say that the people before us were “sexist” or “misogynist” just because they chose differently than we do today.

Monday, July 3, 2017

Why Do So Many Women Reject "Feminism"?

Only 20% of Americans identify as Feminists, yet 82% said they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals." So why don't Americans see these two as the same thing? (Aside from the fact that they're not.) More people consider "Feminist" to be a negative term rather than a positive one. In fact, most Americans did not think that most others would identify as Feminists; Though "among those who identified themselves as either Feminists or strong feminists... 43% said they thought most women are Feminists". (Classic Feminist self-projection onto other women.)


Western women have always been among the most privileged in the world, in any time. It is out of that entitlement, the fact that women were used to society catering to their wants and needs, that Feminism was allowed to thrive and get support despite the fact that most women didn’t actually agree with it. 

When Feminism came out and said in the 1960s-70s that, “Feminism is the belief that women are human beings”, there was a social pressure not to go against it. After all, who doesn't believe that women are human beings? Even the blind know that. Feminism has always been a fascist-like group that works to pressure and bully people into what they want: 
  • They want women to stop being housewives/mothers and work? They claimed being a housewife/mother is oppressive and working is liberating. 
  • They want women to leave their men? They said “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and “we’re becoming the men we wanted to marry”. (Those are clearly anti-male and anti-marriage statements. And who did the studies that said most women wanted to become like men?) 
  • They want society to have more feminine than masculine values? They claim “toxic masculinity”, put little boys on drugs to decrease their desire to be physically active (which is due to natural gender differences, not a mental illness) while cutting recess and focus on “empowering” girls while ignoring boys or telling boys they’re part of the problem and need to change.

Feminism is something entirely different than the Suffragettes, and really shouldn't be considered "Second Wave" as the Suffragettes did not share the radical, female-prejudiced doctrine of Feminism. In fact, the only thing these two groups really have in common, is that they both focused on women, which kind of makes it sexist to lump them in together for no other quality reason.

Suffragettes wanted the right to vote; Feminists (as starting in the 1960s aka "Second-Wave") wanted to change social perceptions and get special privileges and opportunities to make their dreams a reality.

Feminists created socio-economic problems to fix by challenging femininity and urging women to reject their gender role and take on a man's role instead. It backfired because many women still wanted their female role so now they were just taking on both; Meanwhile men never went with that trend of challenging their own gender role as they are generally, more utilitarian of the 2 groups. Ironically, men went with mother nature while women decided to challenge it.

So before Feminism, there weren't any problems to be addressed by Suffragettes other than voting (which they got as a privilege compared to men, since men have to sign up for the draft to vote while women are exempt). Even before the Suffragettes, women were making a lot of 1sts in politics, business, science and even military etc. However, those women were there because they wanted to be, not because a lobbyist group told them they should be.

Feminism pushed women into the workplace saying they "should be" there, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. Then when women got there, the workplace had been accustomed to males and a few women, so it was not able to accommodate the influx of women who were there for a Movement rather than because it was their genuine dream against all odds.

Feminism then used this transition to capitalize, and they manipulated women into doing a lot of things they ended up regretting (like burning their bras, hyphenating their names, divorcing their husbands or treating them badly, and putting work before their families – leading some women to pass their biological clock and lose the opportunity altogether, etc.). Studies show that women’s happiness has declined ever since Feminism. How can it not, when Feminism pressures women to be women and men at the same time? Forcing them to do twice the amount of work in half the amount of time? The only way this will be able to work, is to convince men that they should do the same thing – which most men just don’t want to do (just like most women don't really want to either).

Enter “third wave” aka newest "changes" of Feminism, which focuses more on distorted campaigns like “he for she” and “toxic masculinity”, which are just their manipulative ways of forcing men to submit to the changes they need in order to be successful.

Feminists will tell you that "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes", or something to that effect. Yet when you look at the etymology of the word: "femin-" comes from "femina", which is Latin for "female" and "-ism" is a Greek suffix indicating "a doctrine, system, or body of principles and practices" (or denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination like "racism"). 

So linguistically, feminism means: female doctrine [a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other groupor female prejudice [preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience]. As we see in practice, feminism is a lobbyist group [just like the NRA] that really only focuses on pushing their own agenda [not all women's rights or equality] and they do make plenty of prejudicial assumptions. Like any other doctrine or religion, there are different levels of adherence and extremism etc.

For example, you have those extra-radical Feminists on the street, known as Feminazis like this one:


Or these ones:
http://hellogiggles.com/things-you-need-to-know-about-free-bleeding/
https://twitter.com/KamaPost/status/637006943693967361

Who would want to be associated with a movement that attracts such people as this? Radical movements with radical ideas attract radical people. Sometimes they can be good, like the American Revolution, and sometimes they are not good, like Feminism.

As Cassie Jaye, former Feminist and filmmaker said, "It wasn't learning about Men's issues that made me part with Feminism. It was actually learning about Feminism that made me leave Feminism."

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Is Self-Sexual Objectification Empowering?

There are many feminist agendas to eliminate or decrease men's or the media's sexual objectification of women. One of the things we don't often discuss though, are the women who objectify themselves.


From teenagers protesting school uniforms, to voluntarily sending sexually explicit photos of themselves to seeking out relationships with older men (and often lying about their age), more and more females are embracing sexual objectification. More females (now at younger ages) understand their value in terms of youth and beauty and they know how to use those benefits of theirs to their advantage.

Feminist icons and role models are constantly sexually objectifying themselves and embracing it as empowering.
So is it empowering if women do it to themselves? 

How different is that from men doing it to them, especially if the women involved give their consent - such as women who dress up for their husbands etc?

The reason why women do not like when men sexually objectify them, is because of the "dehumanization" aspect. Studies show that when women present themselves in a sexually objectified manner (such as little bikinis), men actually do see them in the same way that they see tools and objects. So is it not dehumanizing when women do it to themselves?

When it comes to nudity, this can be especially attributed to Marilyn Monroe, who was the first female to pose nude on Playboy's very first issue. She is sometimes hailed as a Feminist/Sexual icon or at least, beloved by many Feminists, despite the fact that she was a "Mean Girl" who was trying to steal a husband away from his wife and family, as well as had publicly humiliated the wife on her husband's birthday.

According to Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, who went undercover as a Playboy Bunny, self-sexual objectification is wrong. According to the founder of Ms. Magazine and former President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), women shouldn't be able to choose to objectify themselves, whether it's just nudity or even sex for money. Ironically, Steinem now claims "Feminists can wear anything they f*****g want," (flaunting what they have).
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2016/03/11/cisgender-white-feminists/

However, some women do choose to get paid for it and they enjoy it very much. They love to flaunt what they have and to get paid for "having a good time" or just "being sexy". Of course this is not all women, but some women do find this to be empowering. Furthermore, some women rate the "empowerment" or "appropriateness" of objectivity based on it's association with "luxury" or "high value".

On the other hand, many of these women can't find other jobs, and this is either the thing that they are the most naturally skilled at, or the only thing they can do properly and get paid for. And now that they are expected to work instead of get married (thanks to Feminism), this is the only work they can find that pays what they need to make. Is it right to tell them that they cannot make money this way, because some men and women will not respect them, even though it's their choice? Is it right to tell them they cannot make money this way, but they have to make money some way and be independent, or they're "setting back the women's movement" - especially considering "by any estimate of porn pay scales, women make more"?


Whether or not you think sexual objectification is empowering, is it really fair or in the spirit of "equality" to hold "objectification" to different standards based on the gender of the person(s) involved?






So if we are going to have a problem with objectification and want to draw the line somewhere, we should really be consistent about it.


Hypocrisy doesn't equal progression.
Can't Complain About Objectification In The Media Then Objectify Yourself; It Warrants No Respect Or Credibility

Friday, June 23, 2017

Are "Mean Girls" Empowered?

We are often warned by society about looking out for guys who don't have our best intentions at heart. Until recently, however, we weren't really warned about the girls who don't have our best intentions at heart. And with this new trend of mean girls, they seem to get meaner and meaner; With more backstabbing and manipulation than previous generations. Mean Girls used to "get what was coming to them" or turn over a new leaf and become a better person. Today, they are more likely to be considered the ones "we love to hate". Today, the Mean Girls are often the fan-favorites or even the lead characters.

But wait! What happened to Girl Code and Best Friends Forever (B.F.F.) and Girl Power and Female Unity and Feminism?

One rarely-mentioned side effect of the sexual, feminist revolution, is that women have become more competitive with each other than ever before. Before feminism, most women wanted to get married, expected to be married and got married. Ever since feminism, however, most women still want to get married today (as much as 80%) yet the share of American adults who have never been married is at an historic high and many women have begun to look at marriage in a bitter way, deeming it an "unrealistic fairy tale". Furthermore, "almost 47% of U.S. workers are women" and "more than 39% of women work in occupations where women make up at least 3/4 of the workforce." So whether in love or work, women have much more competition with each other today than ever before.

Add the fact that women are encouraged to "go after what they want" to be more empowered - using their "talents" to their advantage, yet not always taught how to control their emotions in a mature manner, and you have a recipe for disaster.

The sad part, is that in many cases, being the "mean girl" is encouraged and/or glamorized. Some women think the idea of being a "nasty woman" is empowering, not really caring about how their actions affect other people. They say "if you have it, flaunt it", not seeing the connection of how they make other women jealous and insecure about their own bodies/beauty. The fact of the matter is, just as a man can have a powerful effect on a woman, so can another woman.


Let's leave the men out of this as much as possible for a minute to focus on female-female dynamics: Even if a woman does completely trust her man and he does not do anything to make her jealous or suspicious or uncomfortable; Should we not hold the woman accountable for her actions? She sees the wedding rings, sees that the man is taken by another woman. Where is Girl Code and Best Friends Forever (B.F.F.) and Girl Power and Female Unity and Feminism in these situations?

Feminists are often quick to blame the man in this hypothetical scenario, claiming that "any man who can be baited away by Jolene isn't worth your time". What feminists tend to ignore about this song, is how inherently pro-female it is. Not only is the song written by a woman about women, but Dolly Parton says the woman has the ultimate power and tells the story of a woman choosing to trust in another woman. Men have different weaknesses than women, and Parton's song is asking women not to take advantage of their own strength, nor men's weaknesses, when they know it hurts other women.
Example of A Woman's Strength
Example of A Woman's Power
Women understand other women's strengths and advantages even better than men. This is why, sometimes, women are more suspicious of other women than men are. This is also why women partake in "slut-shaming" just as much as men, if not more. Women know how to use what they have to get what they want. Some women choose to go about this in a mature and respectful way, while other women choose to go about this in an immature and self-centered way.

This isn't limited to relationships with men, either. This female competitiveness can be seen in the workplace and even in schools for popularity and/or success. 

Mean Girls are very real and very hurtful. They can ruin your night, your job, your relationship, your career opportunities or even ruin your life. They do not care about "empowering women", they only care about themselves and getting ahead at anyone else's expense - male or female. Some of them will even pretend to be your friend, pretending to care about you, only to later use that friendship to their advantage and/or your disadvantage. Sometimes they are straightforward about their views, other times they call themselves "feminists" and pretend to care about things like true Gender Equality and/or Female Unity etc.

So how can you tell if you are dealing with a "Mean Girl"? You can't always tell. The most important thing you can do, is to remember that just as there are some males out there who will only use you to get what they want, so there are also some females out there who will only use you to get what they want. 

To undermine the impact that a female can have simply because of her gender would be a significant mistake.

Women are just as capable of hurting people, as men are capable of hurting people - it's just usually in different ways.

We wouldn't hail up "Mean Guys" as empowering, so why should we hail up "Mean Girls" as empowering?

Monday, June 19, 2017

Who Sets Beauty Standards For Women?

It is a true and common saying that women in the world today are far more beautiful than their ancestors and yet women today seem to struggle more emotionally with beauty standards than women before them.

Why is that?

Many people today will be quick to blame Hollywood and the media, laying all of the blame on the movie stars, which is a common answer.

Feminists will be the first to tell you that it's all men's fault (or society's fault, ran by men) for pressuring women into meeting "unrealistic standards".

Rarely, if ever, will you hear "I set my own beauty standards" or "women set their own beauty standards".

The truth of the matter is that it's really a combination of factors, though not all factors are equal. Beauty often works like fashion, going in and out of certain trends, while still maintaining some sense of consistency.
So let's break this down, shall we?

Hollywood's Role in Beauty Standards:
Hollywood Beauties
Beauty standards in Hollywood, as you can see from the picture above, have changed the most and have probably been the most varied. Hollywood tends to reflect beauty standards more than it pushes beauty standards, though. This is because Hollywood is in the business of making money, which means that the audience largely dictates the standards. Obviously Hollywood can try to put whatever they want in front of us, but ultimately it is our choice whether or not to financially support Hollywood's decisions every time we choose to pay for a film.

In Los Angeles, CA where Hollywood culture thrives the most, women are the least offended by "Hollywood body types" and use the term "unrealistic" the least. However, in New York City, New York where Hollywood culture is more looked down upon, women are far more offended by "Hollywood body types" and use the term "unrealistic" at much higher rates, even to the point of accusing those women in Hollywood of being unrealistic and not wanting to see advertisements that have really skinny women. (Celebrities like Katy Perry are even photo-shopped to look thicker, not thinner, than she actually is or her advertisement would make women less likely to buy the product.)

In reality, Hollywood just follows the beauty trends in our society. In the 1980's, there were many more Caucasian buxom blondes who dominated the TV screens and media ads. In the 1990's, there was a shift from buxom to skinny - regardless of race as Tyra Banks and Halle Berry showed - and an expansion from blondes to include brunettes. In the 2000's and 2010's, there was another expansion with petite and multi-ethnic women like Isla Fisher or Eva Longoria.

Hollywood has a lot of problems but setting our beauty standards is not one of them.

Society's Role in Beauty Standards:
Barbie vs. Non-Barbie
The introduction of a "perfect body" Barbie doll leads many to blame society for littering American homes with an unrealistic doll. But did you know that Barbie was created by an American businesswoman and inventor named Ruth Handler? She modeled Barbie after a German doll which was modeled after a TV show character. Are we really going to accuse this woman of having some malicious agenda just because we're not happy with our perceptions of her product? After all, if you look at life-sized mannequins used in American malls and clothes shops at the exact same time, it's easy to tell that Barbie is just a miniature fashion mannequin.
Barbie vs Mannequin
This might upset you to hear this, or it might just make you laugh, but you should know that this body form was used for mannequins - and Barbie - because of how great it highlights fashion. It was always meant to flatter the fashion styles presented as much as possible. After all, you can understand how stores would want to show their fashions in the best possible light to sell them, right? The stores were not thinking that women would suddenly develop insecurities about the mannequins so how could Barbie's inventor - a woman - think that a miniature doll version would suddenly make little girls develop insecurities?

Barbie was always meant as a fashion doll; Not a beauty standards-enforcing doll. That's why Barbie - and mannequins - are not made in "realistic" forms but fashion-flattering forms. Yes, it is an unrealistic body type but women should know that it was never made with any intent to offend or pressure. Mannequins were made to sell women clothes and Barbie dolls were made to sell doll clothes to little girls in preparation for the adult fashion they'd be buying later.

Men's Role in Beauty Standards:
Victoria's Secret Ad
Straight men are attracted to the female form, it is a fact of nature. Another fact of nature is that the female form attracts men for reproduction reasons. This is why men are attracted to what they perceive as fertility factors. In fact, women even become more attractive when they are at their most fertile, according to men and women!

In different areas of the world, there are divergent perceptions of what "beauty factors" are. In colder regions, buxom women are more valued because they have a higher chance of reproduction success since they can withstand the colder temperatures better. In tropical climates, smaller women are more valued because they have a higher chance of reproduction success since they can withstand the hotter temperatures better. This is why they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".


Most commonly though, men just like when women look like women and have feminine features that are different from the features that men have. Believe it or not, men really value the physical differences in women and appreciate seeing a woman that doesn't look like himself. This is why the most consistent beauty factors throughout all cultures, tends to be femininity.

Just as women have standards for men, so men have their own standards for women. However, the media and feminism tends to vastly over-exaggerate what men's standards exactly are.

While it is true that men are visual creatures, they are not quite as picky nor quite as open-minded as they are made out to be. Some women think that men are so attracted to the female form that they are sexually open to any woman so long as she has woman parts, this is not true. Other women think that men focus on tons of nuances and subtleties and demand precise perfection, this is also not true.

While it does depend on a man's culture, again, for the most part men just like women to be feminine as a way to contrast their own masculinity. Young guys who are not ready for commitment are not the same as men. Young guys are much more open-minded since they have a biological necessity that pressures them to find a certain amount of release for sexual tension. Men, however, are much more balanced and do not just rely on physical beauty but personality beauty as well.

A woman's physical beauty to a man can be changed by her personality, for better or worse!

American men don't really pressure women in regards to beauty standards. Of course, they each have their own preferences in women just as all women have their own preferences in men, but that's about as far as their role goes in this context. So if you want to know what kind of beauty is the most ideal to a man, it really depends on his individual preferences and culture.

Women's Role in Beauty Standards:
Heidi Montag famously got surgeries AFTER getting married and having fame; not TO get married and have fame.
Surprise, surprise! Women play the biggest role in beauty standards as well as tend to be the most obsessed with beauty and standards of beauty.

That's right. Women notice "flaws" and criticisms that most men don't even notice!

The sad truth is that many women do far more in the beauty department than they need to because they think or feel that they have to.

In addition, most women rank themselves against other women and use other women as their beauty standards.

Just as little girls love to imitate the pretty princess and wear the princess clothes, jewelry and/or make-up; So do women sometimes end up imitating other women. Or they get jealous and criticize. Either way, this usually has nothing to do with men - aside from one thinking that men find another woman more attractive - or society - aside from one thinking that society finds another woman more attractive.

Take the picture above with Heidi Montag for example. Hollywood didn't make her get surgeries, she had more TV time pre-surgery than post-surgery. Society didn't make her get surgeries, she was known as a "hottie" long before the surgeries. Men didn't make her get surgeries, she found herself a husband who was attracted to her just the way she was before surgery. (Plus, believe me when I say that there are tons of men out there who find her to be more attractive pre-surgery than post-surgery.) The sad truth here is that this woman got all of these surgeries because she wanted them. She criticized herself, pointed out "flaws" in herself and made a drastic decision to "improve" them. She implemented unrealistic beauty standards on herself and in turn, made herself look unrealistic.

Women are each other's harshest critics. Women will notice the most nuanced of details that sometimes even other women don't even notice. We get jealous and we get competitive. Feminists don't want to admit it but the reason is that we want attention for our beauty. We like receiving positive attention for our beauty and we love when someone considers us "beautiful".

Whether you are the kind of woman who only likes that attention from your lover or the kind that likes that attention from as many people as possible, it's just a natural and innocent feminine tendency to want our beauty to be appreciated.

What is not natural or innocent, however, is an obsession with beauty. Some women allow themselves to be so overwhelmed and obsessed by beauty that they actually attack themselves or other women based on their beauty standards and they do so in harsh manners. 

Now I am not saying that women should not have beauty standards or should not allow themselves to embrace certain beauty standards. What I am saying, is that everything in life requires balance, including beauty standards.

The most important and universal beauty standard is healthiness.

As long as you are healthy, you are beautiful in your own way. If you have certain preferences for yourself, that is perfectly normal! Sometimes women prefer to look a certain way and there is nothing wrong with that but you should never destroy yourselves for beauty. In America, no man, society or Hollywood is dictating the beauty standards for women; Women have the power and control to dictate their own beauty standards.

So the next time you are feeling insecure about beauty, try not to attack yourself or another woman. Instead, try to focus on why you are feeling insecure. Should you be feeling insecure? If the only reason you are feeling insecure is because you think another woman might be more physically attractive than you are, do not let that bring you down! Part of what makes us beautiful is our individuality and uniqueness. Physical beauty is only one part of the equation of overall beauty. Personality, attitude and even values are all parts of the equation as well.

The more women choose to focus solely on physical beauty standards, the more they are choosing to objectify themselves by choosing to focus on only 1 aspect of beauty.

Women in America are fortunate because they get to decide what is beautiful:
If they chose to focus more on acting ability, then actresses in Hollywood would be more talented than beautiful.
If they chose to focus more on sociability than fashion then society would reflect personality more than looks in advertisements, etc.
If they chose to date men and not young guys who are too immature for long-term commitment, then those men will value their overall beauty more than their physical beauty.
If they chose to be more accepting and understanding than jealous and competitive, then they would have more female unity than female cattiness and "mean girls".

So remember: Women are empowered in America and women do control more than feminists want you to believe. After all, if you believe you have no control then you're more likely to submit to feminists who claim they can get that control for you, after you donate to their cause, of course.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

The Women's March on D.C.: A Look At The Issues & Relation to Trump

On January 21st, 2016, a Women's March took place to raise awareness of some women's rights issues and oppose the new President Donald Trump.
Issues According to Women's March:

Ending Violence
*Women are grown adults who choose for themselves. Should they have resources for escaping abuse? Absolutely. Do they need lobbyists to create laws to make choices for them, the way we do for children who are not expected to be accountable for themselves? That's demeaning to the notion of women being equal to men. And even more shameful is the assertion that women are entitled to never facing violence, yet the Women's March doesn't make the same assertion for men or even children. They consider that a woman's entitlement, not a human right.

*Women are less likely to be convicted as well as get shorter sentences than men for doing the same crimes, in general. Despite the claim of an "imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the criminal justice system", women are not victims of police brutality and quite oppositely benefit from an inherent sexism to protect and believe women over men by police and society. The Women's March is not advocating for women to be arrested and face legal consequences more equal to men.


Despite inclusiveness of non-heterosexuals, the Women's March also doesn't tackle the fact that lesbian women reported levels of intimate partner violence and sexual violence equal to or higher than those of heterosexuals; Further disproving the notion that domestic violence is a man-on-woman issue.

As far as racial profiling and police brutality against minority groups, this has nothing to do with feminism - other than showing that feminism is decidedly anti-white male. The answers to police brutality in minority communities do not come in the form of feminism. If anything, feminists do more to perpetuate this problem than stop it with their encouragement of broken homes and single mothers.


Reproductive Rights
*The Women's March banned pro-life women from participating, the despite the fact that some pro-lifers are self-proclaimed feminists. Pro-lifers believe that they are fighting for human rights yet they aren't even invited to the discussion for having the wrong starting point.

Reproductive Rights are not a woman's issue, they are a religious issue. Women are more likely to support AND oppose abortion than men. This is because abortion is not a woman's right supported by women and opposed by men, but more of a religious issue supported by atheists and moderates and opposed by religious evangelicals. After all, Roe v. Wade was decided by an all-male supreme court.

The limits to abortion come from the difference of opinion about when life begins, not women's natural role to carry and give birth or opposition to women's right to not have to carry and give birth.

Some clinics offer free birth control, including PlannedParenthood. While advocates of the women's march claim that paying for birth control would be a "curb" on their reproductive rights, they do nothing to make condoms free for men. This is because modern women - especially the feminists - feel entitled to demand free birth control, disregarding the fact that men are not entitled to free birth control. Part of their excuse for this is that they claim pregnancy and abortion are solely female issues since women are the ones with the biological role to carry and give birth.

*Why is abortion a solely female issue? Why do feminists insist on rejecting men's rights to have any participation in their own reproductive rights? If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant (i.e. lying about being on birth control and offering casual sex), he has no right to do anything but be forced to pay for her theft of his DNA should she choose to not get an abortion. If the man wants to have the child that he may or may not believe already has life, he has no right or say in stopping the "death" of his child. The Women's March does nothing to protect father's rights or children's rights.

Reproductive freedom, according to the women's march, is only for women without any regard for the men and children involved because they feel women are entitled.

**President Trump, at most, would support abortion being a state's right to decide. This is not against women but against big government control. He has stated no plans to overturn Roe v. Wade.**

LGBTQIA Rights
*LGBTQIAXOCUSW is really just a way of segregating society into two groups: traditional heterosexuals and everyone else. Instead of the confusingly long acronym, they might as well just call themselves the "non-heterosexual" group. At least 96% of Americans are heterosexuals, so this acronym also serves the purpose of manipulating perception to make the non-heterosexuals seem like a bigger group, in the hopes of making their "rights" a bigger issue.

*So what are these rights? "We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes." It's not illegal to be homosexual anymore, so the "power to control their own bodies" is already a right that they have.

*No one is entitled to be free from other people's opinions. That is NOT equality. The idea that being a non-heterosexual should allow someone to avoid any potentially offensive thought or remark is an immature and misguided conception. Heterosexual people - and all people, really - face societal norms, expectations and stereotypes every day. That is a part of life.

When someone really wants to achieve success, they will not let societal norms, expectations and stereotypes stop them; Just like the Suffragettes did not allow such trivial matters to stop them from earning the right to vote. This is yet another example of how the women today are so much weaker, emotionally, than the women before them. Women today claim that the women before them were so oppressed, yet those women complained a lot less while being much more successful and barrier-breaking than the women today. We have a freedom of opinion and a freedom to judge others - it's what helps us make our decisions and keeps us from choosing a bad decision over a good one. Judging people is what makes us human and gives us a moral background; For some, it even makes us stronger and push through our obstacles with more incentive.

The Women's March encourages people who find themselves on the outside of societal norms not to prove themselves with their own merit, but to wither and cripple, presenting oneself as weak enough to deserve special treatment (like children get). This is an embarrassment to anyone seeking equality and social progress.


Worker's Rights
*The gender pay gap is not transparent. Age, Education, Experience, Health & Other Benefits, Overtime Hours, Parental Status (Including Amount of Children), Part-Time Hours, Vacation/Time Off, Willingness to Negotiate Pay or Ask for Raise, Type of Work (Field, Responsibilities, Conditions [including safety]) are all factors that are not included in the alleged gender pay gap.

*"Access to affordable childcare" is a harmful and illegitimate pursuit. To force a family that makes the sacrifices to have a stay-at-home parent or who make the choices to wait to have a child until they are financially responsible and stable enough to sustain a child, should not be forced to pay for the bad decisions and circumstances of those who did not make the same choices.

If you look into child psychology and the proven negative long-term effects of day careyou will find that it's not about the quality of the day care center, it's about the fact that children need the undivided attention of a constant caregiver to properly develop their emotions and social skills.




"A Harvard Longitudinal Study found that daycare children are significantly disadvantaged in later life by the inability to form psychological attachments. The younger the age at which children are put in daycare, the worse is this effect."

None of this matters to those in the Women's March though, because they want women to be entitled to make any decision they want, regardless of who is negatively affected by it - including innocent children - as well as force others to pay for it.

*Women having "equity" in terms of sick days should mean that women will stop asking for more sick days than men. After all, women take almost 50% more short-term sick leave than men. Yet again, the Women's March doesn't care about real equality but women's entitlement. Women take more sick days so the Women's March advocates for women to be entitled to what they want to do.

*The idea that gender, along with other factors, should have no bearing on health costs is in itself, sexist. After all, women have different costs than men because they have different problems and different solutions. Part of this stems from women being lucky enough to live longer than men on average, while another part of this stems from women using significantly more health services.


And remember, the Women's March claims to recognize, accept and celebrate differences in men and women - except of course when it disadvantages women despite turning a blind eye when men are disadvantaged.

*Paid family leave is another sign that men and women are just not equal. When men made up the majority of the workplace, they did not receive paid family leave. This is another example of feminism and the Women's March only focusing on that which affects women and not anyone else. True equality to men would mean women asking for less paid family leave altogether.

*Healthy work environments were never a male luxury. In fact, when men made up the majority of the workforce, the work environment was far less safe and far more dangerous. Even still today, more men work the dangerous blue-collar jobs than women, while feminists only advocate for women in white-collar jobs, still complaining about an environment not being up to their personal standards and blaming it on sexism rather than acknowledging how much men have sacrificed and put up with in the workplace to provide for themselves and families - something that most women in America were spared from.

This Women's March only cares about getting involved in shortcomings in the workplace when it disadvantages women, despite men having spent far more time in the workplace overall than women. (Yet another point for entitlement because the Women's March believes women - not men - are entitled to better working environments and privileges.)


Civil Rights
*Voting rights haven't been a civil rights issue since women received the right to vote in 1920.

*The First Amendment has covered freedom of worship and speech since 1791.
It's a sham that the Women's March is claiming to stand up for rights that we already have.

*The Equal Rights Amendment was originally written in 1923 by Alice Paul. The biggest reason the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to pass over the last 90+ years is opposition by women. The divisiveness related in women's opinion of the ERA stems from the fact that some women want to be the same as men while other women want to be equal but different from men.

In the 1920s, the Women's Joint Congressional Committee, believed that these gender-based benefits protected women and that the loss of such protection would not be worth the supposed gain in equality. In general, middle-class elements supported the ERA, and working-class elements (and the labor movement) opposed it. The League of Women Voters, formerly the National American Woman Suffrage Association, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment until 1972, fearing the loss of protective labor legislation.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 banned wage disparity based on gender discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned workplace discrimination based on sex, as well as race, religion and national origin. So when the ERA was pushed again in the 1960's, it was again faced by opposition from women. This time, the STOP ERA campaign was led by a female lawyer named Phyllis Schlafly. Also, two female representatives of labor unions voiced opposition to the ERA, arguing that it would threaten protective legislation based on gender difference.

Here are just some of the concerns of the Equal Rights Amendment that warranted female opposition:
  • The ERA does not protect women against involuntary military service; Require women to register to the military draft equal to men. 
  • The ERA asserts gender over all other factors in some financial matters including: cost, effectiveness, experience, proven gender-differences, choice preferences, merit, talent/skills and others. [Especially healthcare costs as mentioned above.]
  • The ERA could eliminate gender-specific bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, dorms, sports teams and other public facilities and programs.
  • The ERA could take away or change the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers including social security benefits.
  • The ERA could eliminate programs that are gender-specific, if they do not provide an equal alternative for the opposite gender, or impose financial penalties. [Example: A high school must spend equal money on a boy's football team and girl's football team. If there are not enough girls who want to play football to make up a team, the boy's team will be eliminated or forced to accept girls - raising the risk of injury and insurance costs,etc.]
Although most women and people support equal rights for women, they do not support The Equal Rights Amendment because it goes beyond equal rights for women. The ERA pushes to make women the same as men, not equal to. The ERA ignores the biological and inherent differences between men and women.

So why does the Women's March advocate for the ERA while hypocritically claiming to accept, recognize and celebrate the differences between women and men?

**It is completely unfounded to believe that President Trump would do anything to regress the First Amendment in anyway. If anything, it is President Trump - a champion of political incorrectness - who represents the fight NOT to curb the First Amendment, especially compared to the feminist groups trying to limit this freedom. He has had to deal with many fascist protesters trying to shut down the right of he and his supporters to exercise their First Amendment.**

Disability Rights
*This assertion by the Women's March is that women need to be protected and treated special, given extra privileges simply based on their gender. After all, they don't say a single thing about men with disabilities and Deaf men, especially when men have a lesser chance of relying on a woman providing for him financially than a woman does of a man providing for her financially. After all, a stay-at-home husband is more likely to be divorced by his wife than breadwinner husband.

*It's great that the Women's March would want to help women with disabilities, except that they turn it into a sexist issue by focusing only on women with disabilities and not men with disabilities. This again, goes back to the Women's March being more about women's entitlement and special privileges over equality and another reason why the Women's March is a slap in the face towards real gender equality and egalitarianism.

**It is completely unfounded to believe that President Trump would do anything to regress the rights of disabled and/or deaf citizens - female or male.**

Immigrant Rights
*Migration is not a human right, it's a privilege. Most countries outside of America have tougher immigration laws than the United States.

*When a legal male American citizen rapes a woman, the Women's March has no problem believing that human being is illegal. This is another example of the hypocrisy of the Women's March. Breaking the law is illegal, period. Immigrants have every right to meet the US immigration standards, which are not unreasonable, without having to break the law and be rewarded for it. No other crime has so much incentive to commit and rewards for committing it.

**It is completely unfounded to believe that President Trump is xenophobic and out to stop all immigration. All that President Trump wants to do, is reform immigration to make it more fair and equal, as well as beneficiary to all legal US citizens.**

Environmental Justice
*Why this is being considered an issue for the Women's March makes little sense but at least the issue itself actually makes sense.

In Conclusion:
The Women's March shows that women have fallen down a long way since the Suffragettes. Modern feminists have caused women to lose their strength, durability, ability to truly overcome obstacles (not just deflect from them) and ability to discern petty trivial complaints to legitimate legal obstacles.




The facts show that women are in control of their own lives and situations, and therefore should be able to take accountability for their choices. Unfortunately, the Women's March is an embarrassment to women, showing that they're not ready for accountability nor true equality. They are not accountable to the facts of President Trump, the facts of U.S. laws, or their own choices as adults. Where the Suffragettes fought for a legitimate right and choice, the modern feminists in the Women's March demand conformity based on their own feelings and opinions about things, limiting the rights of others to choose to think and act differently than them without consequence.

The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. For decades, feminists have made the same false complaints over and over and expecting a different result.


REAL Oppression