Feminism is the theft of privilege.
Feminists want women to enjoy the privileges of being a man and of being a woman, without paying the costs. Feminism wants women to have both feminine privilege (without paying the cost), and masculine privilege (without paying that cost either).
What are the feminine privileges and their corresponding costs?
Here are a few which still exist in most societies:
A woman is protected by men, and the cost is that she exercises restraint in her behavior.
A woman is treated with chivalry, and the cost is that she acts like a lady.
A woman’s life is considered more important than that of a man, and the cost is that she considers motherhood to be her primary role.
A woman is promised lifelong maintenance by her husband, and the cost is that she honors her vows and brings happiness to him.
A woman is never to be physically assaulted, and the cost is that she is to be non-aggressive and non-insulting.
…
What are the masculine privileges and their corresponding costs?
Here are some which are already almost, or completely, extinct:
A man is considered a leader of society, and the cost is that men are asked to lay down their lives defending their community.
A man is considered the head of the household, and the cost is that he is responsible for his family’s survival and well-being.
A man is not shamed for being promiscuous, and the cost is that he has to win over a woman’s affections.
A man is given full custody of his children if his wife ends the marriage for no fault of his, and the cost is that he has to bring them up without any assistance from her.
A man is celebrated for heroism, courage and honor, and the cost is that he is expected to put himself in danger if the situation or job demands it.
…
Feminism is ill-at-ease with the costs of being a woman, and with the privileges of being a man. It seeks, for women, the abolition of all costs, and the privileges of both genders.
Feminism is theft. A modern feminist is implicitly an implicit defaulter of cost and a robber of privilege.
Men have been patient with feminist rhetoric for almost a century now, but the tide of anger is now rising. We predict that within a decade, the revolt against feminism will reach mass proportions.
We are proud to be spearheads of that eventual reckoning.
purushatma 
100 % agree !
LikeLike
Good post – More on privilege at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-issue-of-respect/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A man is not shamed for being promiscuous, and the cost is that he has to win over a woman’s affections.”
Both of these notions are false. Men are shamed for being promiscuous, that’s why we have expressions like womanizer, lothario, casanova, cad, lecher, rake, playboy, etc. These expressions are all derogatory in nature. It’s a feminist myth that players or gigolos are praised for their exploits. Just look at how the press treats men like Tiger Woods.
On the other hand winning over a woman’s affections is not a cost for anything, it’s basic human biology at work. Men want sex way more than women, it’s the laws of supply and demand that put women in the position of power in this regard. Like with many animal species, humans work in a way that males display and females choose. Men are practically forced to pursue women by the simple fact that other men will already do that without any outside motivation. This has nothing to do with social conventions.
Other than this it’s an exceptional article.
LikeLike
You make an interesting point, but I will have to disagree. Male promiscuity requires charm, effort and skill, not just an attitude of laxity or immorality. And I would debate that “Lothario”, “Casanova”, “Playboy” are not epithets, but contain some measure of admiration. Traditionally, there have been no such adjectives with positive connotation for women. Religious morality has been contemptuous of male promiscuity, but religious morality has also been (generally) disfavoring of amassing wealth and power, while wealth and power is looked at with envy by most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course womanizing requires effort and skill, but it doesn’t mean womanizers are praised for it. Other men might secretly envy them but everyone denounces them in public. They were shamed under christian morality and they’re now shamed under feminist morality. If the masses “accept” male promiscuity it’s in the form of “what can you do about it? men are pigs”, which is still a form of shaming.
Male promiscuity goes hand in hand with sex before marriage and the infidelity of married women, which were huge problems for fathers / husbands in earlier ages without contraception. It was not uncommon that womanizers were challenged to duels or just simply murdered.
What I think might be the source of a bit of confusion is that – historically speaking – wives more often forgave the adultery of their husbands than vice versa. This has rational explanations like the fear of losing the man’s resources, no risk of uncertain maternity and a strange form of reinforcment that the man in question is of high value. This wasn’t reflected in social mores though. At no point in history did a moral authority figure (be it a priest, journalist, politician or whatever) told the masses that it’s okay for men to be promiscuous, much less so implying that the price men should pay for this privilege is that they should court women. It just doesn’t add up.
If I were to reframe this point I’d put it under female privilege saying women’s sexuality was protected, but in exchange it was also restricted (hence slut shaming). The ultimate choice of who to have sex with, how and when, always rested with the woman, and men had to respect that. Those who didn’t do so were considered rapists and molesters, and were punished severely. The price for this ultimate power to choose and for men respecting / protecting this female power was that women couldn’t flaunt their sexuality as they saw fit and were expected to be responsible about it. This is something feminists rebel against now while wanting to keep the benefits.
LikeLike