Feminism isn't about equal rights, forget it, it's about privileges for women under law. They want privileges, no matter for what reason, they just want them, period. If they can convince you by any reasoning, fine. They'll get what they want, and you don't care (until your interest collides with that of a woman, in which case you may regret your past decision, but then it'll be too late)
What's really sad is that Schlafly was the fallgirl for the ERA. Feminists blame her for killing it singlehandedly. Yet the reason she was against it was because it would've ended female privilege!
I don't understand one thing. Didn't women already have equal rights before the "2nd wave" of feminism? I thought the 2nd and 3rd waves were just meant to bag more and more privileges for women.
I used to have an account called RejectFeministLies a couple of years back and I really enjoyed your vids. I've wondered why I've never seen you on MensNewDaily or the Spearhead as your vids on marriage were classics.
Anyway I just spotted now that you're going again and it's great to see you back at work.
@TheEditorialist Fair enough. But if you want to see good "beatings up' of feminists in all their double standards and hypocritical glory the Spearhead is rocking. They just put up a piece on a woman sentenced to life for having a 13 year old boy fondle her breasts. The women are all shocked and bawling while the guys are saying "how'd you like equality? guys get life just for looking these days". I'd never even heard of The Spearhead before but they really get stuck in.
"$4.00 an hour to cafeteria workers (mostly women) compared to $8.00 an hour to janitors (mostly men) in comparable jobs creates a disparate impact that hurts and thus, discriminates against women. Another example is a minimum height requirement of 6 feet for police officers. Height does not classify by sex "facially" but it certainly guarantees that few women will qualify, while a substantial number of men will qualify."
I looked in to this a little further. It turns out Phyllis Shlaffley is right wing and conservative and on an anti-feminist platform. Apparently NOW and other feminists groups fought her anti-ERA campaign.
Yeah, they fought her anti-ERA campaign so hard, that they completely stopped pushing for the ERA, almost simultaneouly with the publication with her "infamous" anti-ERA manifesto.
But no matter what you believe, the question bears repeating. Why did they stop lobbying for passage of the ERA when it was so close to ratification and had so much momentum behind it?
I've read that House Resolution 61 (same as ERA of 1972 but without a ratification time limit) was introduced last year and that NOW is still supporting it. Apparently NRLC (a pro life organization) is fighting against it.
I think it depends on the feminist - certainly any feminist supporting Affirmative Action would fight it tooth and and nail. Pro-lifers are also an obstacle since ERA requires equal treatment for "medically necessary procedures".
Interesting. The last time I perused the NOW site, I could've sworn they had replaced the originally worded ERA with some grossly convoluted pos that was about six paragraphs of caveats...you know, Canada style.
I looked into it deeper and you're right. They made up some horseshit called the "Constitutional Equality Ammendment" which is 7 sections long!
Section 4 "prohibits discrimination through the use of any facially neutral criteria which have a disparate impact based on membership in a class protected under this article"
There is no such thing as equality of individuals... there will always be differences. Equality of OPPORTUNITY is the only thing truly able to be offered. Unfortunately for women, they will often have to work much HARDER to try and keep up with men on many things. What feminists want is a bullshit enforced equality of result... which kills innovation and pride in hard work.
@bahamutkod They don't have to work HARDER, they have to work as HARD as men. The problem is, they are not as competitive, more risk-averse and les strong than man. SO in most environments they cannot compete.
Brilliant! You're back with a bang, brother! There was a famous psychological experiment in the '70s in which students were encouraged to literally electro-shock a little puppy whenever it disobeyed or didn't complete a command. Only 50% of the male students went along with the experiment , but 100% of the female students shocked the puppy. Why? Their psych professor was conducting the experiment so the girls thought they'd get a better grade if they complied. Females are evil and selfish.
@TheEditorialist As you wrote,'females are much more deferential to perceived authority.' Similarly, Orwell wrote in 1984 that females make the most ardent fascists. That's one of their evils--they are natural fascists, a trait that was kept in check by men's natural dominance. But with Nature overridden, at the barrel of a gun, by feminism, that trait has arisen unchecked to fascistically oppress males. Selfism can be positive or negative. Female selfism is generally childish and illogical.
@TheEditorialist I'm not sure if the e.r.a would be any different then what we have now,but if it was. It would be nice to be on a level playing field! In this gender war,I'm an M.R.A & will have to say that your video's opened my eyes to feminism along with a few others. Back in the old days when feministing dominated youtube & with in only a few years,m.r.a's are now outnumbering feminist on youtube. Weve come along way!
The ERA would strike down laws like VAWA and put women in combat. Women have so many privileges today that it would be contradictory for them to support the ERA.
Great vid. Yes: Feminism is a BUSINESS, an INDUSTRY. The feminists don't actually want equality. Equality would obviate their victim-status. Without victim-status, they have no basis for for existence. The feminists will NEVER claim victory, no matter how many privileges and preferences they secure for women and girls. To claim victory would sound their death knell. Again, GREAT VID. Thank you.
OMFG! What an excellent video!! I remember learning about the ERA in college when I learned all that feminism BS. But no mention was made of Schlafly or why it never passed. I had absolutely no clue, it was before my time. To me this is the smoking gun that reveals the true motivations of the "professional feminists".
Actually, you're wrong about equality being possible only in maths. The equation 2X=2Y is wrong, as X and Y are two different things(unless you define them to be the same thing.) Two different things in space cannot be equal - because they are two different things. Complete equality is logically impossible. However, you can have equality in some aspects, which in the case of humans may be legal, economic, social, etc.
"The equation 2X=2Y is wrong, as X and Y are two different things"
>Don't try this in algebra class unless you want to fail. Just sayin...
"However, you can have equality in some aspects, which in the case of humans may be legal, economic, social, etc"
>Well you can have the assumption of equality for rhetorical purposes, ex: in a court of law. But the conclusions drawn from the assumption will never be equal.
Let's say we both commit the same murder (partners in crime), we can both have an equal presumption of innocence going into the trial. But if your lawyer is better than my lawyer or some other unequal factor exists during the trial, the conclusion (either verdict or sentence or both) will not be equal.
Thus, equal protection is an unreal abstraction. it only exists on paper, not in reality.
But I really don't want to debate philosophy. It gives me a headache. Let's stop.
Look dude, the equation 2X=2Y is wrong if X and Y are defined as two different variables. I don't really want to debate about this, because it's just wrong.
And yes, as I said, two different things can have equality in some aspects, but not all.
Well if that's what you meant then it's right. But then if you define the variables to be the same thing, they'd be the same thing, not two different things. Therefore, absolute equality between two different things is logically impossible.
Long time no see - All things considered, i think feminists just want attention above all else, since they already have what they originally wanted, and now they just want to make themselves out as 'Victims'.
Interesting video, as usual. I'm pretty sure nobody intelligent actually thinks feminism is about equal rights or equal treatment. I wonder if feminists have the mental capacity to be honest with themselves and realize that they're in no way even close to being victims. They simply enjoy complaining, and will always find some perceived injustice to complain about.
I don't really mind feminists. They're pathetic, vile women. I just wish more people would fight against their endless demands.
@ghostfacee They cant fight, because if they fight that person or person's would be considered a bully. See heres the thing, everyone is using the plight of the African American experience to further their agenda. The feminist do it, the gay's do it everyone does it. It's a way to ensure yo get what you want without any resistance from those you claim are victimizing you.
There is already "equality" enshrined in law. It's called the 14th amendment. However, chivalry justice will always put men in prison over women. There are laws that prohibit paying men more than women, it still doesn't stop fema-fascists from complaining about a "wage gap." I'll agree that women didn't want the ERA passed, and for similar reasons that you claim. Professionals don't want to be put out of a job. But women will never be subject to a draft.
Feminism isn't about equal rights, forget it, it's about privileges for women under law. They want privileges, no matter for what reason, they just want them, period. If they can convince you by any reasoning, fine. They'll get what they want, and you don't care (until your interest collides with that of a woman, in which case you may regret your past decision, but then it'll be too late)
bormisha 4 weeks ago
What's really sad is that Schlafly was the fallgirl for the ERA. Feminists blame her for killing it singlehandedly. Yet the reason she was against it was because it would've ended female privilege!
DustyLeffers 1 year ago 2
I don't understand one thing. Didn't women already have equal rights before the "2nd wave" of feminism? I thought the 2nd and 3rd waves were just meant to bag more and more privileges for women.
jupta00 1 year ago
I used to have an account called RejectFeministLies a couple of years back and I really enjoyed your vids. I've wondered why I've never seen you on MensNewDaily or the Spearhead as your vids on marriage were classics.
Anyway I just spotted now that you're going again and it's great to see you back at work.
summerlight67 1 year ago 2
@summerlight67
I sensed someone was missing from the welcoming committee.
When feministing quit youTube (they got beaten off, I might add LOL) I ran out of material.
I needed those yammering imbeciles. I can't just go after anyone. I need to attack some semblance of a structure, an organization.
The only feminists left on youTube are amateurs. I don't feel right beating up on amateurs.
But if a group of feminists ever rears its ugly head here again, I'll be on them like white on rice.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago 2
@TheEditorialist Fair enough. But if you want to see good "beatings up' of feminists in all their double standards and hypocritical glory the Spearhead is rocking. They just put up a piece on a woman sentenced to life for having a 13 year old boy fondle her breasts. The women are all shocked and bawling while the guys are saying "how'd you like equality? guys get life just for looking these days". I'd never even heard of The Spearhead before but they really get stuck in.
summerlight67 1 year ago
The antifeminist Editorialist is back & hes taking no prisoners! This is my action movie!
crypter27 1 year ago
@crypter27
Thanks man!
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist You can still go after feminist,but instead of going after invidual feminist I would go after the movement!
crypter27 1 year ago
i dont know enough about the history of feminism to say i agree, but its definately interesting, and wouldnt suprise me if you were right.
mrlowdangle 1 year ago
I learned something new today, thank you!
Flare400 1 year ago
Here's their pathetic excuse:
"$4.00 an hour to cafeteria workers (mostly women) compared to $8.00 an hour to janitors (mostly men) in comparable jobs creates a disparate impact that hurts and thus, discriminates against women. Another example is a minimum height requirement of 6 feet for police officers. Height does not classify by sex "facially" but it certainly guarantees that few women will qualify, while a substantial number of men will qualify."
Flare400 1 year ago
I looked in to this a little further. It turns out Phyllis Shlaffley is right wing and conservative and on an anti-feminist platform. Apparently NOW and other feminists groups fought her anti-ERA campaign.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog
Yeah, they fought her anti-ERA campaign so hard, that they completely stopped pushing for the ERA, almost simultaneouly with the publication with her "infamous" anti-ERA manifesto.
But no matter what you believe, the question bears repeating. Why did they stop lobbying for passage of the ERA when it was so close to ratification and had so much momentum behind it?
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist Good question.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist
I've read that House Resolution 61 (same as ERA of 1972 but without a ratification time limit) was introduced last year and that NOW is still supporting it. Apparently NRLC (a pro life organization) is fighting against it.
I think it depends on the feminist - certainly any feminist supporting Affirmative Action would fight it tooth and and nail. Pro-lifers are also an obstacle since ERA requires equal treatment for "medically necessary procedures".
Flare400 1 year ago
@Flare400
Interesting. The last time I perused the NOW site, I could've sworn they had replaced the originally worded ERA with some grossly convoluted pos that was about six paragraphs of caveats...you know, Canada style.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist
I looked into it deeper and you're right. They made up some horseshit called the "Constitutional Equality Ammendment" which is 7 sections long!
Section 4 "prohibits discrimination through the use of any facially neutral criteria which have a disparate impact based on membership in a class protected under this article"
Flare400 1 year ago
@Flare400
"...based on membership in a class protected under this article"
*
Hoot, there it is!
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
Bad memories but a lot of guys here don't remember the freak show. It's good that you remind then...oh, and very glad that you're back.
pinegrove33 1 year ago
There is no such thing as equality of individuals... there will always be differences. Equality of OPPORTUNITY is the only thing truly able to be offered. Unfortunately for women, they will often have to work much HARDER to try and keep up with men on many things. What feminists want is a bullshit enforced equality of result... which kills innovation and pride in hard work.
bahamutkod 1 year ago
@bahamutkod They don't have to work HARDER, they have to work as HARD as men. The problem is, they are not as competitive, more risk-averse and les strong than man. SO in most environments they cannot compete.
KnightFrank 1 year ago
Brilliant! You're back with a bang, brother! There was a famous psychological experiment in the '70s in which students were encouraged to literally electro-shock a little puppy whenever it disobeyed or didn't complete a command. Only 50% of the male students went along with the experiment , but 100% of the female students shocked the puppy. Why? Their psych professor was conducting the experiment so the girls thought they'd get a better grade if they complied. Females are evil and selfish.
SirFrancisDashwood15 1 year ago 2
@SirFrancisDashwood15
I can't go along with the statement that females are evil. Of course they're selfish, but I'm selfish too.
Anyway, what the experiment you mentioned tells me is that females tend to be much more deferential to perceived authority.
"Professor X has a higher social rank than I do, therefore I will submit to his authority for fear of negative consequences."
Guys are more likely to say, "Fuck this Professor X. I reject your authority and to hell with the consequences."
jmo
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist As you wrote,'females are much more deferential to perceived authority.' Similarly, Orwell wrote in 1984 that females make the most ardent fascists. That's one of their evils--they are natural fascists, a trait that was kept in check by men's natural dominance. But with Nature overridden, at the barrel of a gun, by feminism, that trait has arisen unchecked to fascistically oppress males. Selfism can be positive or negative. Female selfism is generally childish and illogical.
SirFrancisDashwood15 1 year ago
@SirFrancisDashwood15
BTW, thanks for the high fives SirFrancis.
I appreciate your support.
I just can't do good vs evil the way I used too. I was never really good at, buthat damned Nietzsche ruined it for me.
If I could go back in time, I'd kick his ass.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist I'm not sure if the e.r.a would be any different then what we have now,but if it was. It would be nice to be on a level playing field! In this gender war,I'm an M.R.A & will have to say that your video's opened my eyes to feminism along with a few others. Back in the old days when feministing dominated youtube & with in only a few years,m.r.a's are now outnumbering feminist on youtube. Weve come along way!
crypter27 1 year ago
I'm glad you're back in YouTube land Ed'!
WizardKing78 1 year ago
The ERA would strike down laws like VAWA and put women in combat. Women have so many privileges today that it would be contradictory for them to support the ERA.
Markohoppis 1 year ago 4
Great vid. Yes: Feminism is a BUSINESS, an INDUSTRY. The feminists don't actually want equality. Equality would obviate their victim-status. Without victim-status, they have no basis for for existence. The feminists will NEVER claim victory, no matter how many privileges and preferences they secure for women and girls. To claim victory would sound their death knell. Again, GREAT VID. Thank you.
emdee1973 1 year ago 2
"Women's Trade Union League put immense effort into fighting the ERA in an effort to preserve their hard-fought-for legal protections."
cut n paste from wiki ,hmmmm interesting , you seldom see feminist on you tube debate .
sausage4mash 1 year ago
No flaws in this video.....pure truth, and thanx!
BH60xx 1 year ago
OMFG! What an excellent video!! I remember learning about the ERA in college when I learned all that feminism BS. But no mention was made of Schlafly or why it never passed. I had absolutely no clue, it was before my time. To me this is the smoking gun that reveals the true motivations of the "professional feminists".
SpazzzDog 1 year ago 9
Actually, you're wrong about equality being possible only in maths. The equation 2X=2Y is wrong, as X and Y are two different things(unless you define them to be the same thing.) Two different things in space cannot be equal - because they are two different things. Complete equality is logically impossible. However, you can have equality in some aspects, which in the case of humans may be legal, economic, social, etc.
jupiviv 1 year ago
@jupiviv
"The equation 2X=2Y is wrong, as X and Y are two different things"
>Don't try this in algebra class unless you want to fail. Just sayin...
"However, you can have equality in some aspects, which in the case of humans may be legal, economic, social, etc"
>Well you can have the assumption of equality for rhetorical purposes, ex: in a court of law. But the conclusions drawn from the assumption will never be equal.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago 2
@TheEditorialist
Let's say we both commit the same murder (partners in crime), we can both have an equal presumption of innocence going into the trial. But if your lawyer is better than my lawyer or some other unequal factor exists during the trial, the conclusion (either verdict or sentence or both) will not be equal.
Thus, equal protection is an unreal abstraction. it only exists on paper, not in reality.
But I really don't want to debate philosophy. It gives me a headache. Let's stop.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
Look dude, the equation 2X=2Y is wrong if X and Y are defined as two different variables. I don't really want to debate about this, because it's just wrong.
And yes, as I said, two different things can have equality in some aspects, but not all.
jupiviv 1 year ago
@jupiviv
Look dude, the equation 2X=2Y is wrong if X and Y are defined as two different variables.
*
Two different variables can equal the same number.
x=3, y=3, x=y
It was just an example anyway. x and y represent two unknown numeric values which may or may not be equal, okay?
In my example they are equal.
Jesus Christ!!!!
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist
Well if that's what you meant then it's right. But then if you define the variables to be the same thing, they'd be the same thing, not two different things. Therefore, absolute equality between two different things is logically impossible.
Anyways, I like turtles! :-)
jupiviv 1 year ago
Long time no see - All things considered, i think feminists just want attention above all else, since they already have what they originally wanted, and now they just want to make themselves out as 'Victims'.
In short, i agree 100%
Estocavio 1 year ago 2
Interesting video, as usual. I'm pretty sure nobody intelligent actually thinks feminism is about equal rights or equal treatment. I wonder if feminists have the mental capacity to be honest with themselves and realize that they're in no way even close to being victims. They simply enjoy complaining, and will always find some perceived injustice to complain about.
I don't really mind feminists. They're pathetic, vile women. I just wish more people would fight against their endless demands.
ghostfacee 1 year ago 3
@ghostfacee They cant fight, because if they fight that person or person's would be considered a bully. See heres the thing, everyone is using the plight of the African American experience to further their agenda. The feminist do it, the gay's do it everyone does it. It's a way to ensure yo get what you want without any resistance from those you claim are victimizing you.
SimonDB2006 1 year ago 2
Good Vid!
ORVX 1 year ago 3
There is already "equality" enshrined in law. It's called the 14th amendment. However, chivalry justice will always put men in prison over women. There are laws that prohibit paying men more than women, it still doesn't stop fema-fascists from complaining about a "wage gap." I'll agree that women didn't want the ERA passed, and for similar reasons that you claim. Professionals don't want to be put out of a job. But women will never be subject to a draft.
Nerotique 1 year ago
@Nerotique
If you're talking about the equal protection clause, that clause is in no way equivalent to the rights enunciated in the ERA. Though I wish it were.
jmo
TheEditorialist 1 year ago
@TheEditorialist Point taken, I didn't realize that though. Oh and BTW, I wish they were the same too (now that I'm in-the-know). Great vid.
Nerotique 1 year ago
If you leave a comment that highlights some minor flaw in this thesis, I'm going to delete it.
The same goes for some little strawman you think you can hold up to obfuscate the general thesis. Save yourself the effort.
Discuss the big issue or bug off. You've been warned.
of course comments on my tiny penis size or the fact that I will never get laid in a million years are welcome, as always.
TheEditorialist 1 year ago