26
We have a gardening circle.
An arts circle which is mostly crochet and less so other things.
So why not a baking circle? We could post pics and baking tips and such from bread to cookies, to recipes we find online (family recipes should be discouraged due to potential doxxing).
What do you think? I just wish there was a place where I could ramble about my more “domestic” qualities lmao
Case in point - Afghanistan.
We only saw men running after those US planes that were leaving. Did the Afghan men put up any fight at all against the Taliban? No.
All those men whose wives are now forbidden to leave their homes - they have just shrugged their shoulders and said "Oh well". It's not as if men are prisoners under sex based apartheid.
Which is why the Not All Men argument stinks. The supposed "good" men always let the "bad" men do what the hell they like. Which is why rape doesn't get prosecuted, why men beat women, why women have no support against men being in women's sports, prisons and locker rooms. They all know that women being oppressed benefits them and then they pretend they aren't part of the problem.
Which is why the Not All Men argument stinks. The supposed "good" men always let the "bad" men do what the hell they like.
They all know that women being oppressed benefits them and then they pretend they aren't part of the problem.
Yep, 1000%.
It's always patriarchal reversal.
"Men are protectors" = Men are the predators from whom women most often need protection.
"Men are providers" = Men hoard resources and demand women's labor without compensation.
"Men are stoic" = Men will not regulate themselves and will instead demand that women clean up after their alternating bouts of emotional constipation and diarrhea.
Men hoard resources and demand women's labor without compensation.
I love this sentence. Men are finding out that women did a lot of unpaid labor to keep capitalism going through birthing and raising people to grow up to be corporate fodder. Now they're screaming that we're not having enough babies. Birthing and raising children has never ever been seen as labor. Just something invisible to them.
Also pretty backwards IMO. I see women stick up for others being bullied or assaulted far more than I see men do it. Women cook and clean and raise children. Women don’t generally blow their lids when their favorite football team loses. So why do men get to be called protectors and providers and stoic?
I've never seen men as my protectors. I've always been wary of men, if anything. Especially in this country, with the backlash against feminism and abortion rights, and the rise of the red pill/manosphere, I am much more aware now that a lot of men are misogynists who want women to be subservient and second class to themselves. I've never given men the benefit of the doubt, I'm just glad these men's views are out in the open online, on places like purplepilldebate, I can act accordingly and learn from other women's experiences. What I've read online has really opened my eyes and made me decide not to get involved with any man. I feel that with men, there is always a price when becoming involved with them, but im also a woman leaning bisexual, and I understand and accept not all women and feminists feel this way. And that's okay too.
If they were protectors, single-mothers would be rare because men would feel an innate desire to stick around vulnerable children to act as protector. However in practice, men seem to ramp up violence against the vulnerable, rather than ACTUAL THREATS. Or they run away, as if a soft baby is the threat to them.
The LARP as the strong, brave, noble knight is a pathetic sight to behold. They can't even fight the filth of their hovels, brave the piling dishes, conquer a bunch of clothes while their poor wife slaves away juggling 2 toddlers, a canary and a sick dog, so how do they imagine themselves fighting off a man or a lion or a hungry sea crocodile or something? Only the stench of their unwiped and unwashed butts might scare the poor things off.
As you say, zero responsibility, and I could write entire novels about the way single mothers are treated, completely ignoring the likely cavalcade of male failure that even lead to that situation.
The LARP as the strong, brave, noble knight is a pathetic sight to behold. They can't even fight the filth of their hovels, brave the piling dishes, conquer a bunch of clothes while their poor wife slaves away juggling 2 toddlers, a canary and a sick dog, so how do they imagine themselves fighting off a man or a lion or a hungry sea crocodile or something?
I know right, it’s laughable.
Ask any man "so what are you protecting me from?" and a hissy fit will ensue. Guaranteed. Men really don't like to hear that they really aren't 'protecting' us from bears or lions or similar - they are just pretending to protect us from other men.
I don't know how well they ever managed to protect women from wild animals, but they truly suck at protecting us from their own ilk.
Needless to add, 99.999% don't even mean anything by saying they're "protectors." They just use it to prove themselves they're oh, so useful to us & that we could never survive without their prime protection skills, oh never ever!
I mean, how laughable is that, especially considering that the majority of e.g. rapes are committed by men that are known to their victims (and would therefore be considered 'protectors', if one was to believe in that utter BS...)
Some men are genuinely kind protectors. But the problem is what they're protecting us from: OTHER MEN!!
Sadly, the shitty men outnumber the good ones. And that's the problem
Well. I admit it would be nice if men were good for something. And they could be good at protecting, with all those muscles they can have because their bodies don't need to be capable of pregnancy.
But, a bit like communism, it never seems to work the way you'd like to think it would.
They can use those muscles to build a shed or something, Idk. Or a gazebo, so that we can enjoy some drinks with friends on a hot day. Or, to look attractive to women. I'm sure we can find a use!
They don't do those things nearly often enough, either. (Men put so little effort into being attractive to women, it is baffling.)
And if women want an attractive man they’re shallow but if they want a good provider they’re a gold digger. 🤷🏻♀️
Basically women can be criticized in a variety of ways if she doesn’t want whatever particular schlub is standing in front of her with his dick in his hand at that moment. Men really just want women to be fuck stations who are easily available and accessible and wait quietly until their next use. You know, like public restrooms.
Yes, men require a home model too and their duties are expanded but they should still be in sleep mode when not needed. Because men need to be free to run the world - oops I meant watch porn, abuse women, kill people and animals and slowly murder the biosphere. You know, real complicated stuff that the front hole monsters just can’t do.
Yeah, I was just thinking about the same. While they have their political proxies working very hard for them to restrict our choices and lock us in marriage and motherhood, they're too lazy to make us even want it in the slightest. (This includes growing up, not being a misogynist manchild, etc) and then we're supposed to believe that they'd risk injury or death for us? LOL
Yeah. For all their looking to nature for excuses for their bad behavior, they ignore animal courtship (including bird species with males having the brighter coloring).
Don't forget the male birds providing food, building exquisite nests for her, and doing fancy courtship dances to interest her.
Men are protecting what they see as their property, investments or status symbols from other men. That's why we have scrotes still doing mate guarding even if they don't even like their girlfriends. Their "protection" is transactional and costs women a lot.
The same man who said that men are needed to protect women also believes that a woman who has a lot of sex with multiple partners ("slutting it up" as he put it) shouldnt be allowed an abortion.
Men dont reslext woman as people, only property to "protect" or control.
Im so envious of the lesbiams who are not sexually attracted to these horrible creatures
You're right. Biologically, they should be capable (and willing) to protect. Instead, they socialise themselves and each other to do the opposite. They're not fit for purpose.
Men protect and serve their own interests and their own property in the same way that police protect and serve and protect private property, not people. You are entirely correct. They do not protect women ever for the sake of protecting women. They simply don't want their access to cooking and sex to go away.
I know exactly one who is. He got 'cancelled' by predatory men who identify as 'feminists' to coerce women into unwanted sex with them over the most ridiculous non-issue I've ever heard of. Because he'd intervened before when he caught them being predatory. They then used their role as instigators of that ridiculous witch hunt to claim women 'owed' them (sex, of course). So no, men as a class are not only not protectors, they punish the rare men who try to be while taking credit for it and then try to cash in on that credit for it. And meanwhile the majority of men I've run into who are at best 'neutral' (as in not actively predatory but don't do shit to stop the men who are) tend to be deeply in denial about the problem and actively endanger us through their obliviousness, and get deep in their feels and make it about themselves when the problem is brought to their attention. Because the REAL problem is they feel like rapists and woman-beaters reflect badly on them and how unfair it is that women think there's a possibility they might be capable of doing the terrible things so many men do to us, not that women are being raped and beaten.
The only thing women need men to protect us from is men. So we are compromised when we trust men to protect us from men. Precious few men are invested in protecting women unless they get to own us as property.
My anthro prof explained it like this: the only thing that matters from one generation to another generation is who gets control over one's stuff/property. That's why almost every tribes and nations across the world came up with the concept of "Marriage", independent of each other. A child born out of a "legitimate" marriage is the heir to the father's property.
So, if a woman gets raped, any child born out of her would be considered "Illegitimate"/bastard in the eyes of the society, and couldn't be the heir. So she becomes of zero value in the eyes of men. And these were the times when men were low in supply( died in war and all), so they got rid of the women they couldn't get a "legitimate" heir from
[Comment deleted]
Yeah, more and more as I've gotten older I've realized how much the whole "mEn ArE pRoViDeRs AnD pRoTeCtOrS" trope is just complete bullshit. Honestly if the majority of men really did have an inborn instinct to provide and protect our society would look so different.
Like if most men really were protective of women and children in general so many issues either wouldn't exist or would be incredibly rare. Prostitution and sex trafficking wouldn't exist if they were really so protective. Because how could they even think of taking advantage of impoverished/drug addicted/ traumatized/ pimp controlled women for sex? Shouldn't their "protective nature" kick in tenfold for the most vulnerable and marginalized members of the group they claim to be protecting? Porn wouldn't center around degrading, violating, and hurting women. The anime industry wouldn't be built around pandering to pedos if they men were mostly horrified by sexualization of young girls. TV shows wouldn't be throwing in gratuitous rape scenes to titillate men if they were really horrified by rape.
And if men are instinctively providers, why do they whine so much about paying child support? And why do they abandon their children so much in the first place? Like paternal abandonment rates are WAY higher than maternal, why is that? Shouldn't they all be scrabbling to provide resources for their kids - even if they're not in a relationship with the mother anymore? And if they're such big "providers" why is it that they seem to admire men who hoard resources to themselves like warlords and greedy millionaires/billionaires so much? Like the hero worship of Elon Musk for example - shouldn't men really be detesting Musk for being so greedy and hoarding resources to himself instead of being a provider?
Honestly in reality men "protect" women in the same way cattle ranchers "protect" their cattle. They might "protect" their livestock from getting eaten by wolves. But it's not because they don't want the cattle to be eaten at all- it's because they want humans to be the ones to do it. It's like how beating your wife was legal for so long and still is legal in some places. How can a man go to war but then come home and beat his wife, and claim that that's "protection"? Men don't honestly seem to actually care if women get beat up: they just don't want those other men doing it to "their" women. Men aren't protectors, they're cattle herders.
The oldest profession is husbandry.