The Land without Feminism

Post Reply New Topic

People never seem to like the freedom of others very much. If someone gets rid of an arbitrary restriction to what they can do with their own life, it must be at someone else's expense or in exchange for some other arbitrary restriction to their own freedom.

Back home (Sweden) the most usual set-up is that women stay home for the first period of time and then men take time off and children start day-care from around 1.5 to 2 years old. The child care is heavily subsidised. It is capped at a certain level in different counties - but we are talking of around 150GBP / 200 USD for a full month of childcare which compared to a country like the UK is very cheap.

Each parent gets 195 days paid time off to be with their child and 45 further days where they are paid but at a lower rate. You can spread the days as you prefer between the two parents but 90 days have to be taken by each and can't be transferred between parents.

It leads to a system where most women are able to return to work after 1-2 years of having a child and can navigate work with childcare. It also leads to a system where men are fairly active and involved dads. In fact you see men hanging out together with their children in museums, play parks and cafes and I notice in my friends' families that the children connect better with their dads.

Here in the UK achieving something similar is near impossible.

So you're saying that if suddenly, by some miracle, 20-40% of men population want to be Stay-at-home dads then that would force the women pairing with them to go for the only other choice left: to work? And they wouldn't like that restriction?

Hmm, it makes sense....that would be bad news for a lot of women.

Men, let's do it!

But that's not the same as having a significant % of male population in Sweden are stay-dad-at-home as a permanent occupation (not just temporary)? 2%? 3%? that's nothing and won't do much of a social change impact.

The Swedish system is all about not having either sex as permanent stay at home parents. For both it is meant to be a temporary idea with the notion that all should be working. I am very frowned upon by Swedes for opting to stay home as long as I have.

But I guess in the Swedish case you could (as a male) potentially get 390 paid days off to be a dad at full pay. But what you are looking for is a case where you stay home and are provided for indefinitely by your spouse? Much more likely in a different country then, salaries are larger elsewhere to survive as a one-income family permanently.

Then it shouldn’t have changed for women, so yes it can happen. Only reason it hasn’t is feminist don’t want it to and most men won’t do anything that might mean women but in time women like me would adjust to the changes

Where do you get the idea that “feminists” don’t want it?

We probably need a masculinist movement, but one focusing on real issues undermining the freedom of men to do with their own lives as they please, not a backlash against feminism, and not about the freedom to enslave women, either. Unfortunately, given the tendency of people to polarize everything, I doubt there’s any chance for such a movement to flourish while feminism is still a thing. The world will have to wait till either male chauvinism is completely forgotten (unlikely, as there’ll always be some more or less insular communities holding on to it) or the progress of feminism is entirely reverted and women are universally regarded as property (which seems unlikely, but I think it’s less unlikely than the alternative).

Because feminism like having well off men with their life together who pay for dates just like most other women. When men try to fight to change it they call them sexist and misogynistic to shut down the conversation.

No one wants to enslave women, wtf dude
We are in 3rd wave feminism and ifs nothing about equality anymore. It’s about making women more powerful then men while keeping all the standards on men as they are.

That has hardly anything to do with feminism. The fact of the matter is that most women can attract men with their life together, who pay for dates. Why on Earth would they reject those men in favor of a poor one with a messy life?



Because trying to fight the preferences of others is an attempt to decide something which is only their business. Doing it systematically to people of a particular sex is sexist. Hating women for not wanting what you want them to want is misogynistic. They don’t need any conversation with anyone to make a decision which is solely theirs to make.



A lot of MRAs do. They want to stop women from getting an education and force them to depend on a man for life, which would render them helpless to resist the man’s whim. There are lots of texts out there saying this very openly.



We aren’t in anything. Everyone is entitled to their own ideas.



Each individual woman can have whatever standards she wants for any men wanting to enter her life. She can’t force anyone else, man or woman, to accept her standards.

I just need to correct you here.
Viking is not a culture. What you are meaning to say is Scandinavian.
Viking was an occupation- typically trader or raider. The word viking was originally a verb meaning to go on a journey IIRC.

Also, the whole shebang about female vikings were blown way out of proportion. There may well have been female viking raiders/traders, but their conclusion that they "may have been as many as 50%" is wildly inaccurate; they base that on women having weapons in their graves. Here's a fun fact: weapons and armor are valuables, and if your husband dies from any of the myriad of reasons one may die in dark age Scandinavia and you weren't able to bury him properly, you're not going to throw those away.

That being said, the laws in viking age Scandinavia were pretty strict, but women had a lot of rights. One instance I remember was that if a husband didn't give his wife they keys to all the locks in the household, that was legal grounds for her to initiate divorce.

Yeah the idea that 50% may have been women is ridiculous. It’s like saying women make up half of today’s armies because of a select few women in the armed forces. And back then, with combat being more physical it would really mean only the top percent of women in regard to physical would be able to fight. Today, the average woman could make it into the armed forces with enough dedication.

I see no reason why women wouldn’t make up a larger portion of Vikings that were traders however

how about we replace "feminism" or "men's rights" with "HUMANism". or better yet, "transhumanism". LETS BE CYBORGS!

I think “viking” could be said to be a culture. When you say “Scandinavian” or “norse”, it’s not clear if you mean modern people or people at some other point in time. We generally all know who Vikings were and can easily look up things about their culture because there were somewhat set beginning and ending points.

It makes sense to refer to "the viking age" (793-1066 A.D.), but less so to refer to all Scandinavians of that time as vikings. The vikings were (with few exceptions) Scandinavian, and their settling, their trading and their raiding did spread Scandinavian culture and influence abroad, so it'd make sense for foreigners to associate the Scandinavian culture with the vikings. But for instance to say that the culture of Birka around 1000 A.D was "viking" is arguably only partially correct.

There is plenty of evidence of what life was like in a land before feminism

Good Wife Training Video