Are single women using feminism as a way to hide their void?

Poca

Registered User
Do you know what feminism is really about, or are you content with what you have been told that feminism is supposedly about?

And keep in mind that there is a world of difference between a need and a desire. Throughout the humankind saga the nature of the " needs" women needed from men has changed greatly. Common sense would dictate that it lead to more genuine pairing between men and women but some men still prefer to see themselves on a pedestal even if women no longer need to "look up" to them.

recently a lot of feminists claiming they dont need a man and whatever, like i was watching the bethany show today and the jist of the show was that women dont need men and it appears like they were glorifying singledom

so one of the speakers was saying women can have "battery operated men" to which the guy speaker responded but battery d-i-c-k-s don't have a strong back to hold onto

so this brings me to the point, is it that because women are becoming more successful and more controlling, is it that they don't know how to go about being a good woman to a man?

they are not willing to perform their true roles anymore, a lot of them don't know how to

and their glorifying singledom is a crutch to make it look like they at 100% satisfaction while they truly yearn for a man.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
give it 200 years
we are at a point wherein women are coming out the kitchens etc
schools and power etc

we haven't gone past that far enough to have most get a proper understanding of what their "roles" are
and that is that there are no roles if all are equal

yet certain ___ strng women especially, WILL NOT respect a man they stronger than, richer than, more educated than etc etc

whether that outlook is right or wrong on their part
it leads me to say, morewitegal

an empress, queen or princess should never be confused with a prostitute via mentality
"is she saying what I think she saying?"- blkman
 

SKBai1991

Registered User
if thats looking good on paper then i dont think the majority of THOSE type of guys would end up being a "womanizing azzhole" there are bad apples but its no different than a woman with the same qualities that ends up being shady or crazy as hell.

The issue is the women who are the most vocal are looking for that PLUS a dude that carries himself a certain way, fits a certain persona and will write a "corny" or boring dude off.
bingo.
 

jamaicangirl

Boonoonoonoos
if thats looking good on paper then i dont think the majority of THOSE type of guys would end up being a "womanizing azzhole" there are bad apples but its no different than a woman with the same qualities that ends up being shady or crazy as hell.

The issue is the women who are the most vocal are looking for that PLUS a dude that carries himself a certain way, fits a certain persona and will write a "corny" or boring dude off.
Whats wrong with not wanting to be with someone boring? Who looks for that in a mate?
 

SKBai1991

Registered User
Whats wrong with not wanting to be with someone boring? Who looks for that in a mate?
Its what many women consider exciting that causes issues. Never mind the fact that most women are pretty boring themselves tbh, hardly anyone living a typical middle class white collar lifestyle is gonna be exciting.
 

Verb

Registered User
Do you know what feminism is really about, or are you content with what you have been told that feminism is supposedly about?

And keep in mind that there is a world of difference between a need and a desire. Throughout the humankind saga the nature of the " needs" women needed from men has changed greatly. Common sense would dictate that it lead to more genuine pairing between men and women but some men still prefer to see themselves on a pedestal even if women no longer need to "look up" to them.
by nature women are socially conditioned to put the need/desire of men ahead of their own so all that you say is blah blah
 

TOLOMB

Red Man
<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203213932931499" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10203213932931499">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JasonFarrell78">Teflon Don</a>.</div></div>

:read:
 

Poca

Registered User
Nature and social conditioning are two different things. If it was innate for women to be the way you describe then, there wouldn't be the need to "socially condition " them. It's good to understand the concepts before trying to raise a point.

If we look at the primitive societies ( there are still some vestige of them today) we can see that in those places, the women do not only do the whole maintaining of the house and taking care of the kids but they are also the ones who work the land and tend to the animals. In many of those societies, the men do close to nothing. So other than the idea of men providing a sense of "security "and mating to make babies, these women do not "need" the men. In these societies having a man is mainly a social statement on which women are judged for. Rather and actual need much less a desire.

So yes, I agree women have been socially conditioned to put men's needs above their but there is nothing natural about that. This can better be see. in countries where women no longer depends on men to give them social acceptance. Just so you know the US is not one of those countries.


by nature women are socially conditioned to put the need/desire of men ahead of their own so all that you say is blah blah
 

mz_JazE

Southern Belle
if thats looking good on paper then i dont think the majority of THOSE type of guys would end up being a "womanizing azzhole" there are bad apples but its no different than a woman with the same qualities that ends up being shady or crazy as hell.

The issue is the women who are the most vocal are looking for that PLUS a dude that carries himself a certain way, fits a certain persona and will write a "corny" or boring dude off.
I'm saying those bad apples do happen to show up, and add on to a woman being jaded. Even though I don't think that has anything to do with feminism particularly black feminism.
 

LB

Peace Love n Pretty Tings
by nature women are socially conditioned to put the need/desire of men ahead of their own so all that you say is blah blah
really eh?

social conditioning isn't the same as intrinsic nature. ijs
 

sankofaa

New member
I'm saying those bad apples do happen to show up, and add on to a woman being jaded. Even though I don't think that has anything to do with feminism particularly black feminism.
i think the hyper feminism is a cop out in most of these womens cases, nobody wants to evaluate themselves or what THEY'RE attracted to, or why they seem to have the same issues in every relationship. It's easier to bash men or say you don't need one, which is cool, do you but if you really feel that way why is it so hard to not verbalize that at every chance you get? Let chicks who are in good relationships be in them with no interference and nukkas like me run down to the DR
 

Ananci_7

Registered User
Nature and social conditioning are two different things. If it was innate for women to be the way you describe then, there wouldn't be the need to "socially condition " them. It's good to understand the concepts before trying to raise a point.

If we look at the primitive societies ( there are still some vestige of them today) we can see that in those places, the women do not only do the whole maintaining of the house and taking care of the kids but they are also the ones who work the land and tend to the animals. In many of those societies, the men do close to nothing. So other than the idea of men providing a sense of "security "and mating to make babies, these women do not "need" the men. In these societies having a man is mainly a social statement on which women are judged for. Rather and actual need much less a desire.

So yes, I agree women have been socially conditioned to put men's needs above their but there is nothing natural about that. This can better be see. in countries where women no longer depends on men to give them social acceptance. Just so you know the US is not one of those countries.
Well said, Poca. Reading your responses, the only thing that comes to mind is along the lines of "pearls to swine" and believe me I take no pleasure out of saying that because I always like to think that Caribbean-rooted people have a much wider worldview and so are less inclined to talk some of the utter emotive, un-intellectual rubbish I have read. I'm also beginning to think again how glad I am I never went to university if this is what passes for analytical thinking.

Feminism and womanism, which I'll touch on in a bit, have various strains of thought that are often as varied as the countries in which they exist although at times there is overlap - called intersectionality. Yet over and over this is ignored, all the forms and their complexities are simplistically lumped together and spoken of in the dismissive, irrational, peurile way we can see in this thread. Most of the sensational, extreme forms are what some people - men as well as many women - choose to see because they are too mentally lazy to adjust their thinking.

Volumes of research and online lectures we have now that discredits a lot of what women (and men) are thought to "innately" possess; the egregious stupidness about women being emotional and inclined to monogamy while men are the opposite for example, whenever the issue of non-monogamy comes up is only one such example. These things stem from culture, from social conditioning, but......

There is no doubt that there are quite a few women who play the eternal victim card and/or harbour bitterness perhaps a little too much. But even that should be put into the proper context of living in patriarchal/patricentric orderings of society going back near 3000 years in the Eurasian world. Further, like African, Native American and Asian interpretations of history, a lot of what is dismissed as victimhood and "blaming" is simply these peoples finally being able to identify for points of reference and challenge long-held chauvinist assumptions in history, sociology, psychology and religion. More than that, much of these challenges are outlined with solutions that do not seek the approval of the established order and that is often what is so offensive to the more academic and religious patriarchists: women (and effeminised cultures/peoples) taking charge and not asking for permission.

Take the statement about women being more controlling and not knowing how to go about being a "good" woman. What the fuck does that even mean anyway if not a woman who is passive, subservient and demure? What, pray tell, are their "true roles"? According to whose cultural understanding? The late Dr John Henrik Clarke pointed out in lecture after lecture that in the pre-colonial African societies women were heads of territorial-states and armies with the support of men, scholars like Ifi Amadiume, Cheikh Anta Diop, Gloria Emeagwali, Sir Hilary Beckles, Verene Shepherd show us that in Africa and the Africanised Caribbean, women were entrepreneurs, ran households and the marketplace which were both centres of female economic production (which they were not in the ancient Greek model, something Eurocentric feminists almost always don't understand when they go about cussing and condemning the domestic sphere)

I won't even give the statement "they truly yearn for a man" the dignity of an answer

Now again, some black feminists are overly unfair or not sufficiently analytical in condemning African and Indian-diasporic men. Many fail to see that the patriarchy they rightfully condemn is equally racist in its ideological core and is directed not only at women but also white men considered effeminate as well as non-white men and peoples. They often don't take the time to examine the fact that a lot of the misogyny coming from black men has to do with their own struggles to define and come to terms with what it means to be masculine in societies that rigidly and egregiously define masculinity along European/Euro-American cultural values. They have next to no information about traditional African models so have to refer to Euro-Christianity and Arab Islam, neither of which are of any use whatsoever. We have to actively have conversations about this.

Re mainstream feminism shunning black feminists

Well ahm, if indeed that is the case, my question would then be SO WHAT? The mere fact that such a sentiment is expressed (whatever is mainstream feminism anyway and how did it come to be mainstream? That is the kind of question a Caribbean or African-American person should be asking) shows the person has no clue of the extent to which that feminism so labelled - the white, middle-class strain - is and has always been immersed in the same racist, sexist worldview as the white patriarchy it challenges. This is one of the main reasons why the counter-ideology of womanism was resurrected in the 1990s. To understand that one has to examine the writings of Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Alice Walker, bell hooks, Ifi Amadiume, Ifeyinwa Iweriebor, Adeline Apenya. Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome in Africa and the Academy: Challenging Hegemonic Discourses on Africa speaks about the white feminists and their "Evangelising Missions" that tell African (and African-American) women what their problems are and what they must do to end them.

We need to approach these issues in a more critical and mature way. Using Euro-centred ideas of women needing male validation and the opposite of wholesale rejection of men and masculinity are what is keeping us all so bitter and confused. African and Asian people have an extremely long history of "feminism/womanisn" that was inclusive of both men and women and existed long before these names were around. They certainly existed long before the bigoted, male-chauvinist, murdering sterility cults aka Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so let's start tapping into them for a fucking change.
 

mz_JazE

Southern Belle
i think the hyper feminism is a cop out in most of these womens cases, nobody wants to evaluate themselves or what THEY'RE attracted to, or why they seem to have the same issues in every relationship. It's easier to bash men or say you don't need one, which is cool, do you but if you really feel that way why is it so hard to not verbalize that at every chance you get? Let chicks who are in good relationships be in them with no interference and nukkas like me run down to the DR
that's why I said I don't think it has anything to deal with feminism. some women are just unhappy, and just like anyone who is miserable they want to bring somebody down with them.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
excellent reasoning sankofaa and jaze

jamaicangirl and poca will be making threads next year and wondering 20 years from now whats the issue same way

the issue is that one has to be an individual
and ones mentality or perspective not be formed by whoring frens or "man a hafrican and should have 20 wives" type thinking

you look at A WHOOOOOOOLE LOT of blk people they can easily be described as some type of pimp or hoe
with the "hoes" now liberated and instead of doing something with freedom
they seek to become pimps themselves
that analogy can go with slayvery and many other things
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest

because a like just won't do
by chance are you one of the himix women who doesn't believe in marriage and love?

ananci seemingly had the whole site of hoes saying monogamy aint shit and goes against blk histry and culture

for example under what circumstances would you allow your husband to have a 2nd or 3rd wife?

lol
 

mz_JazE

Southern Belle
by chance are you one of the himix women who doesn't believe in marriage and love?

ananci seemingly had the whole site of hoes saying monogamy aint shit and goes against blk histry and culture

for example under what circumstances would you allow your husband to have a 2nd or 3rd wife?

lol
I was applauding what he was saying in regards to feminism. My husband having a 2nd or 3rd wife must've meant that we didn't work out because I'm not into polygamous relationships.
ETA: Of course I believe in love and marriage.
 
J

Juan Dan

Guest
I was applauding what he was saying in regards to feminism. My husband having a 2nd or 3rd wife must've meant that we didn't work out because I'm not into polygamous relationships.
alrite respect, fair enough

I just sometimes wonder WHAT THE FUKKKKKKKKKKKKK THESE WOMEN are thinking
lol

yet yes ananci had a couple himix women even those married agreeing with that
I am not against it really cause Pimp Carlo wanna fukk every woman in the world that's sexy
yet pastor Carlo knows that's wrong and wouldn't respect such women
and NO MAN I know would respect such women

I dare say its blk peoples MAIN PROBLEM right now
there is hardly a belief in marriage and love is NOT talked about
seems a recipe for damn disaster to me
the devil rules this culture it seems
 

Verb

Registered User
really eh?

social conditioning isn't the same as intrinsic nature. ijs
( torontonian voice) yes really eh,,,,,,and my sayn "by nature" was ongly pokn fun at what naomi campbell said guy,,,,,
 
Top