Yet another feminist bashing motherhood

**Marx** · 25th-April-2012

Elisabeth Badinter, Author Of 'The Conflict' On What's Holding Mothers Back

Unsuprisingly, she views motherhood as a form of imprisonment for women.

When asked if men had any part to play, she (being a typical feminist) uses the reference to men as an opportunity to paint us all as useless slobs and oppressors of women.

Q) Where do men fit into your argument? Do they have no responsibility here? Is this entirely an equation made up of women vs. the current messages about motherhood?

A) This is exactly what saddens me the most: the whole issue of "intensive good mother" excludes men from the care of infants. Many men see this as a fine opportunity to escape sharing the work load, some don't know the joy of sharing bottle time with their baby, and others are waiting more or less patiently for the mother of their child to turn back into their wife. But we have to recognize that for once they are not the ones initiating the new slavery of women.

What a typically sexist feminist this Elisabeth Badinter is. How on Earth do feminists expect society to believe their lies that they (feminists) do not hate men, when all they do is portray a hateful image of men?

Is society expected to take such bigotry and chuckle about it as if it's only a gaff?

Anyway, my comment on the article:

Typical feminist using any reference of men to portray us as knuckle-dragging layabouts. How do feminists expect society to believe their claims that they don't hate men when they persistently and predictably send out bigoted messages about men?

Does this 'woman' (I use that term lightly) seriously believe that men only help out with children to avoid other work (does the same apply to women, they use children as an excuse to avoid work)? Does she genuinely believe that men have systematically oppressed women throughout history with the single exception to this issue?

What a sexist bigot - so typical for a feminist.

Someone else wrote a reply:

Quote from blitznstitch

If a woman is married, she wants a parental partner - not a husband to care for on top of the children. If a woman is single, she wants work flexibility to be there for her kids but not risk losing her job in the process. So basically, men need to step up as dads and bosses need to be flexible with their employee work schedules. If this happens, then women would be better off.

To which I responded:

Then the laws need to make fatherhood less detrimental to men. Currently men have zero rights beyond conception while women can choose between abortion, dumping the child, fostering or adopting the child out, she can allow the father limited contact or none at all, she can financially enslave him or - if she's really nice, let him be an active parent in his child's life...
Telling men to step-up to women's choices is pure sexism.

**Percy** · 25th-April-2012

Fine responses Marx. Impressive.

**FloatyBoaty** · 25th-April-2012

Quote from Percy

Fine responses Marx. Impressive.

But, is it worth the time to debate with someone who will obviously not change their opinion nor even attempt to see someone else's perspective? I agree that they are great responses, but might it not have been better to take a different approach?

I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, just to offer some constructive criticism. blitznstitche seems to be a female who has picked the wrong males and has created preconceived assumption about all men, permanently fixing it as part of her cognitive thinking and refusing to see any of the good men that may walk past.

I can't blame her completely, however; feminism has done a good job of shaping her mind. Maybe the best reaction would be to attempt to show the error of this logic and the forced forming by the feminists embedded throughout our society than to attack someone who has been programmed with impenetrable shields.

**byslexic_danana** · 25th-April-2012

As I've said before, feminism is a self-fulfilling prophecy: it does all in its (depressingly-great) power to strip fathers of parental rights, and then decries fathers for not engaging enough in their children's lives. Men rarely used to become deadbeat dads, fifty years ago, or so.......I wonder what could have made the difference, there, hmm? Perhaps not even wishing to be named on your child's birth certificate, has something to do with the fact that you are potentially signing a contract which equates to NO rights, and heavy financial responsibilities.

Personally, I made sure I was listed on my son's birth certificate, despite being aware of the score, as I'm the caring, day I say, 'paternal' type; but I can perhaps see how, to many, the prospect of limited access to one's children (or NO access), mixed with extortionate child support payments, and all while potentially seeing another man live with your kids, is not going to be too attractive. And we all know which hateful group pulls the CSA and Family Courts' strings.....

**Popadibs** · 25th-April-2012

Telling men to step-up to women's choices is pure sexism.

Why be gender neutral in this case? It is pure misandry.

**PokemonMasterTrainer** · 25th-April-2012

Good old feminism = be what you want, but we have to pre-approve it.

**haute macabre** · 26th-April-2012

They're just mad because no one in their right mind would father their children. We have enough batshit parents.

**Marx** · 26th-April-2012

Quote from FloatyBoaty

But, is it worth the time to debate with someone who will obviously not change their opinion nor even attempt to see someone else's perspective? I agree that they are great responses, but might it not have been better to take a different approach?

Yes it IS worth it.

Out there are people, men & women alike, who are still undecided or unaware of feminism. My responses, while on the surface may appear to be a simple & bland reply to a bigot, are actually small tactics of propaganda and awareness-raising. Some folks out there will read this and it will make perfectly good sense to them. They will see and agree. They will realise that feminism IS sexism.

**Popadibs** · 26th-April-2012

Feminism is misandry. Saying that feminism is sexism is being gender neutral when feminism clearly aims the brunt of their hatred at males. We can't use their language, plus, by saying what feminism is, misandric, we'd bring more awareness to what misandry is. When I tell guys about misandry they usually ask me what that means.

**Marx** · 26th-April-2012

Quote from Popadibs

Feminism is misandry. Saying that feminism is sexism is being gender neutral when feminism clearly aims the brunt of their hatred at males. We can't use their language, plus, by saying what feminism is, misandric, we'd bring more awareness to what misandry is. When I tell guys about misandry they usually ask me what that means.

Excellent observation. I often use the word "misandry" precisely for your quoted purposes... to bring it into people's vocabulary.

**Douglas** · 26th-April-2012

Quote from Marx

Excellent observation. I often use the word "misandry" precisely for your quoted purposes... to bring it into people's vocabulary.

One can always cover both the current understanding of words at the same time as bringing awareness of the very possibility of 'misandry.' Just call it "sexist misandry." Most people automatically feel that sexist=bad (when it isn't necessarily) so they will feel that misandry is bad (even if they don't yet know what it is).

**Marx** · 26th-April-2012

That's like the games feminists use.

I've noted on feminist their use of combined words to make phrases that influence people's thinking. One such example of feminist word manipulation is when they talk of domestic violence but later in their talk they use words like 'male power' and 'male violence' or 'female victims'.

They know they're twisting the perception filters.

**Douglas** · 26th-April-2012

These kinds of mental tactics are used all around us, all the time. They are used heavily in product advertising (e.g. "new improved"), shops (e.g. "up to 50%"), warmongering (e.g. "terrorist insurgents" to describe freedom fighters), feminists (e.g. "chauvinist pig") or writers of novels. Use a word that generates the emotion you want along with another label to associate the two in the readers' minds. The literary meaning might not be exact, might not even make grammatical sense, but the emotive content is planted.

And what's NOT sexist about misandry? So "sexist misandry" is at least accurate and grammatical. :-)