No,no it isn't and I'll explain why it isn't. Women have never been oppressed so therefore a feminist or women's movement is not only unneccessary but stupid and reactionary.
But one may say: But Masc,wasn't feminism about equal rights and the same pay for the same work?
No,not it the U.S. anyway. You see the 2nd wave feminists marched in 1968 however women were granted equal pay by the Pay Equity Act of 1963 so to say that feminists marched in 1968 for equal pay is assinine because women were already paid the same as men for the same work and a law guaranteeing women that has already existed for 5 years in 1968.
Okay,Masc,why did the feminists march in 1968?
Abortion was the main theme for marching and it was the one thing feminists did not already have. The Supreme Court,piecing together constitutional rights that have nothing to do with abortion and unhampered by the fact that abortion flies in the face of the Constitution's right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness,especially life's,legitimatized abortion.
I don't want to talk about the morality of abortion as I will leave that up to you if you wish to respond to it and I will let the pro-life and pro-choice crowds argue that point. The one thing I wish to elaborate on is the sexist manner in which abortion,along with other reproductive rights,is denied to men. Now I'm not talking about putting a condom on it or taking other birth control measures short of vasectomy because in some jurisdictions a man cannot be granted a vasectomy without his wife's permission yet she can terminate a child against the father's wishes even though that is half his child and there is not a damn thing he can do about it and there lies the rub. Imagine that,a wife can determine if a husband receives a vasectomy or not,even though his reproductive equipment belongs to him alone but a potential father has no say,even though the kid is half his,in whether his kid is born or not and how he feels about it,whether he is distraught because the child he wanted is dead or he is forced to finance a burden he didn't want in the first place.
Then we come across the most hideous yet most honest form of feminism in the '90's called "gender feminism" but I believe it is just feminism being honest in being the female supremacist system that it alway tried to hide being. It is during this time the most misandry started that still haunts us to this day.
But Masc,how did this start?
Rewind back to 1848 when the first feminist conference met in Seneca Falls,New York that tried to sell everyone on the fact that women were oppressed.
Was this true?
In fact women enjoyed legal immunities that men never enjoyed,in that time or this one and none of the women in at this feminist conference could be said to be oppressed nor could they be said to be working women. No,they were women of lesuire that were the wives of successful businessmen who provided the means for these women to gather in one place and show off their lesuirely wealthy lifestyles while they bitched about how oppressed they were and they demanded the right to vote and they didn't care about legalities or what threats they had to use to carry out their objectives.
Now around WWI women were flexing political muscle even though they had not yet gained the right to vote in the U.S. The Women's Temperence Christian Union,which caused not only alcohol prohibition but outlawed prostituion as well making them 0-2 in a realist's eyes. This was done under the banner of "morality" but it in truth was more about preserving a monopoly. A monopoly on controlling pussy and free access to sex thus controlling men and the government helped them and this is before they had the legal right to vote. Don't try peddling that "women are helpless" line on me.
Then in 1919 they get the right to vote and that is when things change. Politicians catering to women and with men dying in wars,on the job and other ways mean that there are fewer men to cater to and now politicians don't even bother catering to us anymore.
So from 1919 to 1968,a span of 49 years,women's voices were heard and added to the political process just as men's were and yet being coddled they still screamed oppression,even though they were not drafted for Viet Nam the way men were,they were not labelled "cowards" if they didn't go and they were spared a lot of hardships men weren't. But I think the one thing that is annoying is "the white feather" women who would hand a white feather to men who could not or would not fight in a war even though these same women were exempt from going.
In 1976 the feminists pushed the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) which would have gotten women to serve on the front lines of a war along with men. Yep,you guessed it. This legislation was abandoned by the feminist's constituents so fast I don't believe the ink had time to dry on the proposed legislation and it died. So much for equal responsibility.
Now we come to '90's feminism,perhaps the most rotten apple of the bunch and the most contagious in the disease of "misandry" as misandry is now everywhere and running amok. It was about this time that various western governments enacted "safe haven" laws that allowed a new mother to abandon her baby in a hospital,police station or fire station or some other designated location without legal problems. On the other hand nothing short of death would excuse a father from his and the courts and society made sure of that.
Masc,why were the "safe haven" laws enacted?
In response to women abandoning their newborns in dumpsters and prosecutors were getting scared to try these women out of fear of angering the feminist hordes so the legislators came to their rescue to enact these laws to give women a "choice". Choice,now where have we heard that before?
Masc,did these new laws do anything to save newborns from being thrown in a dumpster by allowing women a choice?
No. No,they did nothing to allievate the problem since the problem was not being properly prosecuted in the first place.
Masc,how did '90's feminism really kick off?
Like anybody introducing a product or service you need good marketting to find a demographic to sell your product or service to and the feminist are no different in this regard. For feminists they are going to have to find the right victim to sell to the right demographic thus pushing their agenda.
Now all they need is the right person.
Enter Anita Hill.
Anita Hill alledged (lied actually and was caught lying by the Senate) that then Supreme Court hopeful Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor when both worked in the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and that he made comparisons to himself and a black male porn star around her. Nevermind that Hill had truely sexually harassed one of her male students when she was a professor of law at Oklahoma University or that her character is in question. Nevermind all that. The feminist got what they wanted: sexual harassment became a household phrase and it became poltically viable as proposed legislation,which it did from state to state and on the federal level. Nevermind that "sexual harassment" because a source for women to blackmail men with. Nevermind all that,feminsts got what they wanted and that is all they cared about. Not only did they get their "product" (sexual harassment) passed by they also provide "services" (misandric services to brainwash women into believing they are victims) and have gotten the taxpayer (mostly men) to foot the bill.
Now,nearly 160 years later feminism,the female supremacist movement it truly is,had damaged not only the genders interactions with each other but has bankrupt society as a whole.
Feminism truly is the big lie.