Post: #1

Often I hear guys say something along the lines of how they don't like how feminism have turned out today and that it's sad because the feminists back in the old days (first wave feminists) were real women, they went through real struggles compared to the SJWs types who have hijacked it today.

The frame seems to be that the 1st wave feminism was great and all meanwhile most things coming out from the feminism since the 60's have been bad.

But I'm not sure if I have understood what was so good about feminism back in the old days?

I know women's suffrage was a big thing back in the day.
But in retrospect, I believe you could argue that it was rather a big mistake, since women have just made things worse by voting for big government stuff and leftism.

So was there really anything good that came out from the first wave feminism that one can be objective and say that it turned society into the better and that it deservedly and rightfully made things more fair for women?

Post: #2

First-wave feminism refers to the women's suffrage movement and female empowerment from the 1890s to the 1920s, I believe? I don't think many people have really thought about it. Feminists like to refer back to the bad old days when women were denied the vote, but the fact is that most men didn't have the vote before the late 19th century either, as there was a property requirement. The period in which men had the vote and women didn't was a couple of decades long in most parts of the western world.

Post: #3

In a healthy society women wouldn't need to vote. The nuclear family being a form of a "state" within itself, would allow the patriarch to represent the interests of the family. This voting pattern of patriarchs only, would lean toward individualism, which is why collectivist ideologies need to harm the family to thrive. Letting women vote, especially unmarried women, is a one-way ticket to collectivism. I've said it before in a similar thread, but pandering to female voters in one of the biggest harms brought on western civilization. Family courts, certain prohibitions, and the welfare state were born out of the ripples of first wave feminism.

Post: #4

(01-07-2018 11:15 AM)The Alpha Virgin Wrote:  Often I hear guys say something along the lines of how they don't like how feminism have turned out today and that it's sad because the feminists back in the old days (first wave feminists) were real women, they went through real struggles compared to the SJWs types who have hijacked it today.

This argument is just ceding ground in hopes that the enemy will also cede some ground and compromise would be achieved. It's dumb and it will never happen. You give the devil a little finger and he will grab the whole arm.

The first suffragettes were also obnoxious women who had their influential but overtly chivalrous husbands under their heel. It was the same as it is now. There is nothing new under the Sun.

Post: #5

(01-07-2018 01:01 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:15 AM)The Alpha Virgin Wrote:  Often I hear guys say something along the lines of how they don't like how feminism have turned out today and that it's sad because the feminists back in the old days (first wave feminists) were real women, they went through real struggles compared to the SJWs types who have hijacked it today.

This argument is just ceding ground in hopes that the enemy will also cede some ground and compromise would be achieved. It's dumb and it will never happen. You give the devil a little finger and he will grab the whole arm.

The first suffragettes were also obnoxious women who had their influential but overtly chivalrous husbands under their heel. It was the same as it is now. There is nothing new under the Sun.

Yep. Just tossing the dogs a bone before you whack their noses.

Post: #6

Delete wrong thread

Post: #7

(01-07-2018 12:57 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  In a healthy society women wouldn't need to vote. The nuclear family being a form of a "state" within itself, would allow the patriarch to represent the interests of the family. This voting pattern of patriarchs only, would lean toward individualism, which is why collectivist ideologies need to harm the family to thrive. Letting women vote, especially unmarried women, is a one-way ticket to collectivism. I've said it before in a similar thread, but pandering to female voters in one of the biggest harms brought on western civilization. Family courts, certain prohibitions, and the welfare state were born out of the ripples of first wave feminism.

My paternal grandfather was born in 1897. His father died a few years later. That left his mother to raise them all. She had a total of 11 kids, and she was a single mom. She had no vote, of course. There were still property taxes to be paid. In fact, the family lost its vote as well. This was "taxation without representation."

Situations like this were one of the big reasons why women's suffrage was a just cause. It wasn't unusual at all for women to lose their husbands in work accidents or in war. It also simply could have been due to disease, which was the case with my ancestors. When the man died, the woman's advocate in the electoral process died with him.

One could also say that my great-grandmother should have simply married again. Well, her mother had done that after that her father had died. She ended up with a somewhat abusive stepfather. So, my great-grandmother was totally repulsed by the idea of marrying again because of her own experience as a stepdaughter.

Best solution may simply be to allow one vote to each household. I have also suggested requiring any voter to show proof of taxes paid--either property or income tax.

And this my 2000th post.

Post: #8

There may have been problems for women back then, but the correct solution should have been along the lines of what puckerman suggested. Anything more is overkill and introduces more problems.

Today the vote is seen as some kind of sacred, inviolable human right, but that's a 20th century concept. The earlier concept of rights was more about being left alone: free speech/press/assembly, right to bear arms, etc. Unfortunately the distinction has been lost in the mind of the average American.

Not being able to vote isn't a big deal as long as your rights are otherwise respected. For example, as long as you could own property, have a job, run a business, defend yourself, etc. But today, many job fields has much higher barriers to entry die to licensing requirements, for example. And there are much higher taxes on the individual. I'd gladly give up my vote if I didn't have to pay close to $100k a year in income taxes to prop up our dysfunctional society.

Aside from the feminist aspect, universal suffrage has been a disaster for American society. It gives everyone the same voting power, regardless of whether they are thoughtful civil minded people or selfish/crazy/bipolar. It also makes it easier for silver tongued politicians to manipulate the masses into voting for them. Meanwhile the societal problems pile up, but the average voter doesn't have the time or thought capabilities to understand all these complex issues -- including non-manosphere issues like urban development and health care.

Case in point, I see all this trash on the subway tracks in NYC when there's lots of garbage cans around. If these people can't even be bothered not to litter on the subway -- something that causes delays due to fires and cleaning -- why the hell are we giving them (or if immigrants, their children) the vote? Meanwhile the NYC subway service gets worse every year, people complain about it, but no one can even come up with a solution, much less fix the problem.

Post: #9

(01-07-2018 12:57 PM)Number one bummer Wrote:  I've said it before in a similar thread, but pandering to female voters in one of the biggest harms brought on western civilization. Family courts, certain prohibitions, and the welfare state were born out of the ripples of first wave feminism.

This is why I get a good chuckle at how the alt right pedestalizes white women. It's white women who more or less let in the barbarian hordes in scandinavian countries. Jews certainly provided the blueprint in academia and in the media but it's the white women who ran with it making it reality. Scandinavian countries were largely homogenous prior to various social shifts which pushed for more lenient and egalitarian migrant policies. Women in power had a huge influence.

All those muslims and north africans didn't force their way in back then. They were invited.

Feminist politics have infiltrated western society to the point of no return really. It would take generations to revert back to normal traditional values. This is something that the alt right and other white nationalist movements have no concise answer for since even their side is heavily influenced by this stuff in a subliminal way.

Post: #10

It's rhetorical. You undermine modern feminism by promoting first wave feminism. When you get a critical mass to embrace the idea that yeah, first wave feminism was superior to modern feminism, then you start pushing the envelope further.

Our enemies played the long game to bring us to this point, we have to play the long game to reverse their cancerous infiltration.

Post: #11

...

1st wave feminism = women becoming public SLUTS!

(In private they have always been sluts...and that's the way I prefer them)


But, back then (in the 1920s) they called them flappers.

Post: #12

Make the vote dependent on draft registration for both men and women.

Then actively pull recruits from the draft list to ensure people are doing it honestly. College enrollment will not be an excuse to escape the draft anymore.

If you aren't willing to serve in the armed forces and potentially defend your country, you don't deserve a vote.

Subsequently also remove federal loans, research grants, and any money to colleges that actively discriminate race in its applicants.

It's not perfect and there will be problems, but it's a start down a road where we need to silence degenerate voices in our society who only seek to destroy their lifestyles.