# Fanatical Feminism



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

a.	Feminism has been criticized as exhibiting a rigid intolerance which, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. Said outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing males as partners rather than oppressors; in short, are conservative.

b.	Support for these excluded but self-identified feminists has come from an unexpected precinct: author of Third Wave Feminism, Rebecca Walker.
Her mother is Alice Walker, Second Wave Feminist, and author of The Color Purple.

According to Alice, her mothers absolutist presumptions about male oppression, and the burden of having children, alienated her, and produced the kind of atmosphere which can only be considered child abuse.

c. Read the article which includes
The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother  -  thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.
You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents

But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.with my mother's knowledge, _ started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism.Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters  -  a happy family.
How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart, by the daughter of The Color Purple author | Mail Online_


----------



## Jos (Sep 12, 2010)

Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Jos said:


> Did you have a point, other than that you can't find a man?



Is this you bragging that you have found a man?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 12, 2010)

Feminism has ruined countless lives.
As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 12, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.



I agree.....


They are also a bunch of hypoctites.
Why do you not hear them out in the streets protesting they way that SOME muslim women are treated by the men in their lives?
Why are'nt they happy to see women rising in politics (all be it not their ideology) no matter which side they are on....? They are still women empowering themselves to stand up against the establishment.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 12, 2010)

This is a woman in a great deal of pain.  I think it is unfair to judge either her or her mother...we never know the truth of what goes on behind closed doors, and even if we did, doubtless for these two, there are two different truths.  Mebbe Alice Walker is the horrible person her daughter describes....mebbe there is more to it...but whatever the case, feminism ain't the problem.  Sounds to me like selfishness is.


----------



## Jos (Sep 12, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point, other than that you can't find a man?
> ...


yes i found the man, did you ?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.



I'm not sure about "only marginally effected success in the good things" but I certainly agree with you about where it has gone wrong. 

And Alice Walker, still a feminist with convictions, spotlights a major problem: dissolution of family structure.

Further, the joined-at-the-hip accommodations with political liberalism has blunted much of the good that could have been done.

Given the aspiration to remake humanity, based on the mistaken belief that there are not differences between the sexes, the movement must be totalitarian.
a.	Gender equality requires an assault on hierarchies.
b.	The enormous increase in government that would be needed to produce the changes in humanity has to obliterate the boundaries between public and private, and between the emotional and the intellectual. 
c.	The result must, of course, be anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist, anti-family, anti- religion, and anti-intellectual.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This is a woman in a great deal of pain.  I think it is unfair to judge either her or her mother...we never know the truth of what goes on behind closed doors, and even if we did, doubtless for these two, there are two different truths.  Mebbe Alice Walker is the horrible person her daughter describes....mebbe there is more to it...but whatever the case, feminism ain't the problem.  Sounds to me like selfishness is.



No doubt about the selfishness exhibited by mother Alice, but I doubt that you are ready to agree that
1. Children are a burden to be avoided at all costs...(see article in OP)

2. Women should never be allowed to choose family over career.

a. Logical as it seems that women should be prepared for events such as divorce and widowhood, marriage and family may reduce opportunities for outside work or education. But the solution, according to Simone de Beauvoir in an interview with Betty Friedan is No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma, Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.

b.	Like all totalitarian movements, the goal is not to give more freedom, but to take away choice.

3. Radical feminism proceeds from a doctrine of original sin: The worlds evils originate in male supremacy. Patai and Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Womens Studies, p. 183

4. Sex is merely biological while gender refers to roles.  Radical Feminists claim roles to be socially constructed, which means that everything about men and women, sans organs of reproduction, can be altered by changes in the social and cultural environment. 

a.	This view attacks not only men, but institutions responsible for the oppression, such as the family, and traditional religion. 

b.	Those familiar with the Port Huron Statement of the Sixties radicals with understand the concept that human nature is infinitely malleable and therefore infinitely perfectible.                                                        Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

These are some of the major tenets of said fanatical feminism...

if you disagree with the above, then "...feminism [is] the problem."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Jos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



How dumb can you be?

At least get your prejudice right: it's gook, not chink.

Got it, dummy?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 12, 2010)

Political Chic, the Feminism of my generation is utterly out of touch with today's realities.  We can no longer empathsize with women who were ridiculed or marginalized for their ambitions or intelligence; we cannot recall a time before no-fault divorce, marital rape laws and battered women's shelters.  If we told young women now that they should not get "too educated" because no man will marry them, they'd look at us as if we were nuts.

Any movement that deals with sexual politics is subject to perversion, abuse and just plain stupidity.  Much was accomplished, almost all of it good.  I don't feel like apologizing.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 12, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.




How can you be this fucking clueless?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Political Chic, the Feminism of my generation is utterly out of touch with today's realities.  We can no longer empathsize with women who were ridiculed or marginalized for their ambitions or intelligence; we cannot recall a time before no-fault divorce, marital rape laws and battered women's shelters.  If we told young women now that they should not get "too educated" because no man will marry them, they'd look at us as if we were nuts.
> 
> Any movement that deals with sexual politics is subject to perversion, abuse and just plain stupidity.  Much was accomplished, almost all of it good.  I don't feel like apologizing.



Last things first...what gave you the indication that you have been asked to apologize? There is nothing going on here outside of an intellectual discussion.

1. Since you refer to your generation, let's go over terms:

a. In my estimation, First Wave was the most beneficial, and had the greatest claim on "Much was accomplished, almost all of it good." This was suffrage, and rights to property.

b. Second Wave, to which I believe you refer, personified by Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinham, Shirley Chisolm, Barbara Jordan, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Alice Walker, stemmed from the Civil Rights Movement, and included much of what you write about...but went off the rails in the ways I outlined previously, attacking family, males, etc. 
Further, it required of adherents a worldview that tended toward pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-Americanproponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. 

"As far as "If we told young women now that they should not get "too educated," that is exactly what happened.
Sadly, it also punctured the educational values that you mention, in demanding bogus departments of 'Women's Studies,' over actual education.

c.	"[A] young woman who majored at her university in eco-feminism and graduated with honorswent to Washington, D.C., a city richly endowed with lobbies for ecology and feminism. Because of her dual degree, she assumed that a well-paying job would be waiting. But even ecological and feminist lobbies require people who can read, write, count, and in general ratiocinate; she thus became one of the large number of genteel unemployables.  Robert Nisbet, Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary, p. 245


I would be surprised if you would not be willing to differentiate between the good and the bad...


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 12, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.





PoliticalChic said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Political Chic, the Feminism of my generation is utterly out of touch with today's realities.  We can no longer empathsize with women who were tridiculed or marginalized for their ambitions or intelligence; we cannot recall a time before no-fault divorce, marital rape laws and battered women's shelters.  If we told young women now that they should not get "too educated" because no man will marry them, they'd look at us as if we were nuts.
> ...



Must be something wrong because I see the claim there is nothing but an "intellectual discussion" but have yet to see it occurring.  Maybe all posts are not showing up?

Your OP and Nisbet quote show what I call Flynting Feminism.  You're using scant anecdotal evidence in an attempt to condemn all feminism based on what you consider radical feminism.  Look at your Nisbet quote.  He accused the person of not being able to read, write, count or think.  Like any movement there are imperfections but your hit piece is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 12, 2010)

It seems people are confused between women's liberation - a clear cut positive movement that netted enormous positive change not only for women but for society as a whole, and feminism that dissolved family structures, marginalized the role of motherhood, demonized the role of being a man's wife, outright stomps on the women who choose to be a homemaker...I could go on.

Women's lib - a crucial positive societal movement that continues today.
Feminism - a movement plagued by radicals and men haters.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 12, 2010)

I'm not sure what to call the Feminist Movement I knew.  When I went to law school, they had to modify the building to accommodate the huge increase in the number of women students (install ladies' rooms).  In the decade between when I graduated and ten years before, a sea change occurred and silly arguments about how unsuitable women were for the law were quietly dropped...and yet, by then (the late 1980's) there still were no female partners in any of the law firms in the large Midwestern city where I went to school.  Presumably, this has changed.

Perhaps you are too young, but I can recall grave discussions about whether women doctors could be trusted.  My female secretaries were perpetually confused about whether they should work for me since "I could type for myself, couldn't I?"  

Yes, it is plainly true that children are better off in happy families where one parent can remain at home when they are young....nobody ever argued about that.  But what of the children of unhappy families?  Or families that need both incomes?  Isn't it rather late in the day to be arguing they are doomed?

When you marginalize any group of people without regard to their abilities, and say, "you cannot achieve, we already know what to expect from you", you manufacture misery.  I think my generation helped change this.....and I think it was wise to do so.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I'm not sure what to call the Feminist Movement I knew.  When I went to law school, they had to modify the building to accommodate the huge increase in the number of women students (install ladies' rooms).  In the decade between when I graduated and ten years before, a sea change occurred and silly arguments about how unsuitable women were for the law were quietly dropped...and yet, by then (the late 1980's) there still were no female partners in any of the law firms in the large Midwestern city where I went to school.  Presumably, this has changed.
> 
> Perhaps you are too young, but I can recall grave discussions about whether women doctors could be trusted.  My female secretaries were perpetually confused about whether they should work for me since "I could type for myself, couldn't I?"
> 
> ...



1. I certainly can't argue with your experiences, they are reality. I appreciate your sharing.

2. I must have missed the turn here: "But what of the children of unhappy families?  Or families that need both incomes?  Isn't it rather late in the day to be arguing they are doomed?"

Not sure where the discussion of the radical form of feminism suggests that women should not have careers? 
The point is that the protaganists of same wish enforced careers, as the quote that I presented earlier states.

How do 'unhappy families' fit into this discussion?

As far as 'needing two incomes,' the calculus is purely subjective; it is based on choices.

And who is doomed? And how so? 


3." But what of the children of unhappy families?  Or families that need both incomes?  Isn't it rather late in the day to be arguing they are doomed?"
You seem to imply that I am doing this, or agreeing with this concept....I don't know where you are finding this implication.  Bogus.

Nor am I attacking your generation...

4. I am only too happy to attack any 'feminists' who:

a. insist that women must have a career at the expense of the choice of having a family. The OP and related article bear witness to this path to "manufacture misery."

b.  find that, commensurate with the positive changes brought about by feminism, the distruction of the family unit, and opposition to interdependance with male members thereof, and of morality is necessary.

This has been exhilarating!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> ...



Now, this could be interesting.

1. "Your OP and Nisbet quote show what I call Flynting Feminism."
Please elucidate.

2. "...scant anecdotal evidence in an attempt to condemn all feminism based on what you consider radical feminism. "
Actually, I am condemning radical feminism. Please let me know if you are unaware of the concepts, and/or re-read the thread, as I have given several aspects of same.

3. "He accused the person of not being able to read, write, count or think." 
While the statement is of the broad brush variety, I would be happy to give a fuller exegesis as to the fraud and fluff that has invaded university campuses as a result of demands of said feminists, and the political correctness that has replaced intellectual pursuits.

4. "...nothing short of intellectual dishonesty."
Nothing could be further from the truth, and exposes your real design.
So that I may address you correctly, are you a fool or a knave?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 12, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure what to call the Feminist Movement I knew.  When I went to law school, they had to modify the building to accommodate the huge increase in the number of women students (install ladies' rooms).  In the decade between when I graduated and ten years before, a sea change occurred and silly arguments about how unsuitable women were for the law were quietly dropped...and yet, by then (the late 1980's) there still were no female partners in any of the law firms in the large Midwestern city where I went to school.  Presumably, this has changed.
> ...



I'm truely unaware of any pressure ever applied to young women to keep them from having families.  Much of the work that went on was about valuing a stay at home mom's work, as well as sharing the housework and childcare duties between two working parents.

In this vein, yes I know of some extremists who "opposed relationships with men" but IRL, I don't know a single woman who found this appealing, nevermind persuasive.  This "branch" of feminism came and went in a few years, and did little other than marginalize "Ms magazine".

Unhappy families fit in because in the 1950's, a single woman and her kids had very little hope.  No child support, possibly no divorce, no career options, no child care.....I think things are better now, overall.

It is interesting stuff to discuss, Political Chic....your Ops always are.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



1.  Ubiquitous in the writing of Second Wave Feminists, let me repeat, with emphasis:
"Logical as it seems that women should be prepared for events such as divorce and widowhood, *marriage and family may reduce opportunities for outside work or education. *But the solution, *according to Simone de Beauvoir in an interview with Betty Friedan is No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. *Society should be totally different. *Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. *Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma, Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.
a.	Like all totalitarian movements, the goal is not to give more freedom, but to take away choice.

2. "...some extremists who "opposed relationships with men" but IRL, I don't know a single woman who found this appealing, nevermind persuasive."

a.  From Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan

b. "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" 

c. "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin 

d. "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

3. "...I think things are better now, overall."
That is not in dispute.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2010)

Jos said:


> Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?



How misogynistic of you, to equate a woman's worth with her ability to "find and keep a man".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This is a woman in a great deal of pain.  I think it is unfair to judge either her or her mother...we never know the truth of what goes on behind closed doors, and even if we did, doubtless for these two, there are two different truths.  Mebbe Alice Walker is the horrible person her daughter describes....mebbe there is more to it...but whatever the case, feminism ain't the problem.  Sounds to me like selfishness is.



I believe Ms. Walker's point is that feminism, as practiced by her mother and many other women, IS nothing more than the encouragement and sanctioning of pathological selfishness.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 12, 2010)

Ms. Walker's Mommy did not value and protect her daughter.  She did not value her grand.  (According to Ms. Walker, anyways.)  That ain't feminism, Cecile.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Ms. Walker's Mommy did not value and protect her daughter.  She did not value her grand.  (According to Ms. Walker, anyways.)  That ain't feminism, Cecile.



No, it SHOULDN'T be feminism.  "Shouldn't be" and "isn't" aren't the same things.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 13, 2010)

Strong, healthy self-respecting women do not neglect their kids, Cecilie.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 13, 2010)

If you don't want to be a feminist, don't be. But don't attack women who do.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 13, 2010)

What else is there for a chick to be, Luissa?  Anti-woman?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Strong, healthy self-respecting women do not neglect their kids, Cecilie.



Who ever accused modern-day feminists of being strong, healthy, self-respecting women?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 13, 2010)

Ok, since anecdotal evidence is the rule now, let's see what the two parent family looked like through a child's eyes who lived through the era that gave rise to feminism that CON$ want to return to.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFkBiMgxiA]YouTube - Janey's Blues - Janis Ian.mp4[/ame]

Janey's Blues
Janis Ian

Janey's down, can't get off the ground
Too low to fall, she can't come up at all
Hey, Janey's just an accident
Fatal mistake on the day after Lent
and her parents always say
"We don't need you today,
"and we expect just the same"

She's got a blues-y feeling in her eye
and it's making her sigh
Cry... cry for Janey

Well, her mother plays on the golf course every day
and her daddy, he sits at home and plays with the maid
They've found the perfect alibi
Stay together for the sake of the child
You know, divorce don't fit
and they're too young to split
Think they're martyrs, but they're killing the kid

She's got a blues-y feeling in her eye
and it's making her sigh
Cry... cry for Janey

Now they put her down, 
and they knock it if she hits the ground
Next moment, grab a purse
and take her out on the town
It's either a hit or a miss in the fight
A slap by day, and a kiss at night
You know, their hating sets them free
Loving only wants to see Janey taking sides

She's got a blues-y feeling in her eye
and it's making her sigh
Cry... cry for Janey
Cry for Janey
Cry for Janey
© Taosongs Two. All rights reserved; international copyright secured.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> What else is there for a chick to be, Luissa?  Anti-woman?



Oh, yeah, THAT speaks really well for feminism.  "Agree with us, or you're anti-woman!"  And you wonder why people have such a negative view of the feminist movement.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 13, 2010)

How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?
> ...


No more misogynistic than CON$ equating a woman's intelligence with whether she has a "smart guy around to keep 'em in line." 

July 22, 2008
RUSH:   *when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid?*  I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here.  So* women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically.*  Married women are obviously smarter.  Married women are obviously more conservative.  *Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south. *


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I notice you didn't give a link for those quotes.  Why?

You wanted to know what Flynting Feminism means?  You are guilty of it.  When feminists began getting traction in the legal arena the porn industry tried to fight back and headed by Larry Flynt, began a dishonest campaign to demonize feminists as much as possible.  One method was to attribute quotes to feminists that they had never made and/or take quotes out of context.  

The above quote attributed to Andrea Dworkin is a bullshit lie.  It was actually a quote from a fictional feminist:

"The first appearance of this quote is from P: A
Novel (2003) by Andrew Lewis Conn as a quote from
the fictional feminist "Corinne Dwarfkin". The
original reads "In capsule form, my thesis is that
heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled
expression of men's contempt for women." In the
slightly altered form given above, the quote is
attributed in several books to Andrea Dworkin. Neil
Boyd, in Big Sister (2004) attributes the quote to
Letters from a War Zone, however, this quote, nor
any one with similar phrasing, appears in that work."
Andrea Dworkin - Wikiquote

(If you don't like wiki there are several other sources available.)

You are a self-hating woman who is ignorant of basic facts and like Flynt, showing no regard for honesty in operating your agenda of anti-feminism.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

I can see why politicalchic didn't give a link for her quotes:

Feminism - Conservapedia

If you're too embarrassed to source it shouldn't that be enough to not use it as a source?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

True feminism is fighting for ALL choices women can make.  Some choose motherhood, some choose carreer.  THEY, as human beings, are the only ones who get to make that choice.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.


Only marginally?

Not quite.

But, now that more women are not good little wifeys and mommys, I can see how this threatens you.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> True feminism is fighting for ALL choices women can make.  Some choose motherhood, some choose carreer.  THEY, as human beings, are the only ones who get to make that choice.



In a nutshell, that's it.  As Wittig pointed out, a matriarchy is no less oppressive than a patriarchy; it is only the sex of the oppressor that changes.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > True feminism is fighting for ALL choices women can make.  Some choose motherhood, some choose carreer.  THEY, as human beings, are the only ones who get to make that choice.
> ...


Shit.  Curvelight and I agree.  

(Nah, that's OK.  I figured eventually we all will find something upon which we can agree.)


----------



## editec (Sep 13, 2010)

We owe a debt of gratitude to Feminism for freeing our daughers and sisters from the oppressive social norms that I grew uo with.

Sadly the excesses of misandonists maquading as real feminists still leave a bad taste in our mouths and a whole lotta those manhating gals rode the wave of honest feminism into positions of real power.

I was the S.O. and then married to an honest feminist for a quarter of a century, and I have to tell you she was (is) one of the most stand up people I have ever had the previlege to know.

_Real_ feminists are humanists who have focused their attention on the problems that plague women in this society. 

They don't hate men, they just want to insure that woman are given equal opportunity in society.

Now seriously, what person who is not a misgynist can really object to _that_ goal?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

Luissa said:


> How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.



Excuse me?  You think you have the authority to negotiate deals "generously allowing" me to live my life the way I want to?  Get the fuck over yourself.  I can ALREADY live my life the way I want to, so why do I have to make any concessions to you?

How about THIS?  You fight for the rights of yourself, and stop trying to pretend you're acting in my name without my permission, and I"ll go right on living my life without you pompously trying to take credit for it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



At a guess, I'd say because they're from this medium called "books".  Not everyone thinks truth resides only on the Internet.  Visit a library sometime.  Sheesh.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I can see why politicalchic didn't give a link for her quotes:
> 
> Feminism - Conservapedia
> 
> If you're too embarrassed to source it shouldn't that be enough to not use it as a source?



When unable to argue, put words in the other person's mouth so you can argue against THEM. - CurveLightapedia


----------



## del (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.
> ...



you should take your own advice and get the fuck over your own self, sweetcheeks.

just a thought


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.
> ...


----------



## del (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



she's got some anger issues she's working through

slowly


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

Jos said:


> Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?



I doubt that.  PC is a babe.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I've already proven why the link wasn't given.  Dumbass.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I can see why politicalchic didn't give a link for her quotes:
> ...




I see you're such a stoopid fuck you completely missed the fact a quote attributed to Dworkin actually came from a fictional character.  I'd put my dick in your mouth but I have no interest in sperm banks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

Fanatical feminists can be as self-centered as stay-at-home soccer moms who are constantly hammering their children to excel and win win WIN.

What I admire most in a woman is those who manage to balance a job and their families, and honestly enjoy both. An employer can tell if a woman is only doing a half-ass job because she'd rather be home; a kid can tell if its mother is only doing a half-ass job to impress the other mothers on the block.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

Its 2010.  Is this still _really_ an issue?

FFS, the last Presidential election was essentially a contest between a black man and a woman.

edit - and the next Presidential election will probably be between a black man and a loopy woman or a Mormon.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Fanatical feminists can be as self-centered as stay-at-home soccer moms who are constantly hammering their children to excel and win win WIN.
> 
> What I admire most in a woman is those who manage to balance a job and their families, and honestly enjoy both. An employer can tell if a woman is only doing a half-ass job because she'd rather be home; a kid can tell if its mother is only doing a half-ass job to impress the other mothers on the block.


I also admire those who know their limitations in one realm or the other and make a choice to do one or the other, and to do it well.

I like having choice. A lot.  I feel human and free when I have that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Feminism has ruined countless lives.
> ...



Ah, I was waiting for your *political* take on the subject. So how would you react if the hierarchies remained in place where the little woman is expected to stay home, do the cooking and cleaning, barefoot and pregnant, given your own intellectual prowess? You would be climbing walls, I think.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:
			
		

> 4. I am only too happy to attack any 'feminists' who:
> 
> a. insist that women must have a career at the expense of the choice of having a family. The OP and related article bear witness to this path to "manufacture misery."
> 
> b. find that, commensurate with the positive changes brought about by feminism, the distruction of the family unit, and opposition to interdependance with male members thereof, and of morality is necessary.



I don't see that happening on any large scale, nor did I ever witness any feminist of the 60's era trying to force a woman to abandon her family for a career. There might have been a certain amount of intimidation, but I also recall such feminist loudmouths getting shouted down by women who either chose both a career and a family, or just a family. Even NOW isn't anywhere near as powerful a voice as it was in the 60's and 70's. 

Women are women. We've always known we have dual roles to play in a world designed around men. Men? Not so much, even today.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?
> ...



I caught that too! It's called how to write a retort while too stupid to realize you just made the original point in 20 words or less!


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



Of course ol' Rush is working on his fourth marriage now.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.
> ...



 I think that's what she said, in a less angry tone.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.

And the woman's movement is just another thing that needs to die.

I have a question  though. If you're so equal, why aren't women required to enroll with selective services at 18?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.
> 
> ....


Which posters are those?



> ....  And the woman's movement is just another thing that needs to die.
> 
> I have a question  though. If you're so equal, why aren't women required to enroll with selective services at 18?


If one assumes the government makes rational regulations all of the time, you may have a point.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2010)

PC...why are you always trying to set women against each other?

Who knows what problems these two women have with each other...to blame it on feminism is beyond stupid.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.
> ...



One must NEVER assume that the government is gong to make a rationale decision, but that doesn't change my point. Why aren't these women asking for women to be required to sign up for selective service if they want to be equal? 

Because they are just like any other group which claims they want equal rights, no they don't. They in fact want unequal rights, they just want THEIR group to be the one on top.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...


As the constitutionality of Carter's reinstatement of the draft has been challenged in the courts based on gender discrimination, I guess you would have to ask the courts why it is that way.

Looks to me like the mostly male military at the time argued to keep it that way.  You need to ask the men why; it's men who argued to keep it that way.




Now, which posters are the ones who hate men?


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Doesn't change the point that the feminatzis sure fight men who want keep things that are advantageous to women away from them. Why wouldn't they also fight to get things that are sexist, but not advantageous for women?

And to  your second question. The feminatzis hate men, and there are obviously a few posters here who are part of that group. I won't mention names because of contractual obligations, but they are here.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...


What are you going on about, now?  What part of my saying that the constitutionality of Carter's reinstatement of the draft based on gender discrimination has you so very confused?



> ....  And to  your second question. The feminatzis hate men, and there are obviously a few posters here who are part of that group. I won't mention names because of contractual obligations, but they are here.


I don't know, but if I am going to accuse posters of hating men, I sure as hell will have the balls to say who they are.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2010)

No one should be required to sign up for selective service.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



You're just another woman hating ****.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



CircleJerk once again proves he has nothing of value to bring to ANY conversation. 

You know that's not true. I don't hate women at all, in fact I love women.

I don't want to see any woman forced to do something they don't want to do, not out of fear of a man, and not out of sense of obligation for woman kind.

I don't believe any man should ever abuse a woman in anyway.

Joking aside, I don't think women are sex objects. 

Outside of some obvious exception, I don't think there is anything a man can do that a woman can't also do. 

I was prepared to vote for a woman for President of the United States.

Please tell me how that makes me a woman hating ****.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

Ravi said:


> No one should be required to sign up for selective service.


I agree.  And, if we are going to have it, all _persons_ should be required to sign up at 18 years of age.  That's fair.

I understand the arguments for and against that, but justice without discrimination is an ideal I give priority.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one should be required to sign up for selective service.
> ...


btw...the eye roll wasn't directed at you, you manhater you!


----------



## Si modo (Sep 13, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I know, lover.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

Ravi said:


> No one should be required to sign up for selective service.



I happen to agree with you there, but it is what it is, men are required to sign up, so to should women.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Frankly, I was totally unaware that men _did_ still have to register, so that came as a surprise. Therefore, I seriously doubt the majority of other women know that, including equal opportunity feminists. It isn't something widely talked about. I'm also guessing that the reason women aren't required to enroll is because the draft would be a last resort option in preparation for the final World War and that's something no one really anticipates anyway. That said, if there ever is another great war where tens of thousands of Americans would be deployed, _someone_ needs to stay home and take over the jobs men had been doing (like women did in WWII). I guess the powers that be figure women would be needed on the homefront, since they're also the nurturers of future generations.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 13, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No one should be required to sign up for selective service.
> ...



If ALL persons were required to enroll at age 18, that would certainly solve the dilemma posed by this potential confusion. 

Frequently Asked Questions on Selective Service


> *How does the Military Selective Service Act apply to individuals who have had a sex change?*
> Individuals who are born female and have a sex change are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have a sex change are still required to register. In the event of a resumption of the draft, males who have had a sex change can file a claim for an exemption from military service if they receive an order to report for examination or induction.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.
> 
> And the woman's movement is just another thing that needs to die.
> 
> I have a question  though. If you're so equal, why aren't women required to enroll with selective services at 18?



Because "equal" doesn't mean "identical".  I don't have to have the same skills and physical attributes as a man to be just as much an intelligent human being with a right to self-determination as he is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Two points of disagreement, my friend.  First, there are quite a number of things your average man can do that your average woman sucks at.  That's fair, because the reverse is also true.  We're not interchangeable, and that's okay.

The second is that I most certainly AM a sex object, and don't you ever forget it!    I'm just a lot more besides that.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 13, 2010)

Marxist feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Samson (Sep 13, 2010)

So, after 5 pages have you geniuses discovered that women are not men?


Bravo.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Try to watch your langugage. It is less than becoming.

1. "The above quote attributed to Andrea Dworkin is a bullshit lie..."
Of course, you are wrong, as demonstrated by none other than...you. Dworkin wrote the book, and has never denied the attribution.

It is a major theme of Second Wave Feminists.

2. "the porn industry tried to fight back and headed by Larry Flynt, began a dishonest campaign to demonize feminists as much as possible."
While you statement about Mr. Flynt may or may not be true, the premise that said feminists do not base their philosophy on a sexual freedom well to left of mainstream culture is absurd. 

It is a premise of large segments of the group that 'sexual freedom,' pornography and prostitution is a right of the distaff side that needs to be emphasized.

"Sex markets have been a concern to feminists because, historically, the skin trade has relied predominantly on female service providers and male consumers. Feminist theorists are divided on the question of whether markets in pornographic materials and sexual services pose a threat to women in all contexts."

"The debate over sex commerce extends to a number of social practices, including pornography, prostitution, escort services, erotic dancing and strip shows, phonesex and cybersex, and s/m parlors and swing clubs. Feminist philosophers have primarily focused on the issues of pornography and prostitution, and have subsumed the other practices under one of these broad categories."

Nadine Strossen: Procensorship feminists may well view a woman's apparent welcoming of sex with a man as degrading, but this is because of their negative attitudes toward women's ability to make sexual choices. Other viewers are likely to see such a scene as positive and healthy (Strossen 1995, 162). To illustrate that pornographic texts can produce divergent responses, Strossen examines opposing reactions to films that depict rape, to controversial images of women in popular advertisements or print media, and even to Andrea Dworkin's own sexually graphic novels. Strossen claims that the effect on some viewers, including women, may be positive..."

"...Georgia Warnke notes, anti-censorship feminists might charge that antipornography feminism silences women's differing sexual self-expressions by condemning those with which it disagrees as false consciousness  [and] by promoting legislation that would suppress materials through which women can discover different views of an authentic sexuality and, indeed, different ways of being sexual (Warnke 1999, 124)."

"Martha Nussbaum questions whether the sale of sexual services genuinely damages the persons who provide them or women as a whole...Nussbaum acknowledges that sex workers are currently stigmatized for their profession, but questions whether the stigma that attaches to their work is justified. "

" However, many feminist theorists worry that laws against prostitution will be applied unfairly to women, and will permit the state, though its police force, to persecute women for sexual promiscuity."

I believe that I have decisively proven that feminist writers, and not Larry Flynt, have shown a strong affintiy for and with pornography and prostitution.
The above is covered more fully at Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


It would be interesting to see links documenting the "Flynt conspiracy" to which you have referred in several posts.

Unless, of course, you wish to take credit for the idea yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 13, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



One must wonder why you have such fear of my "*political* take on the subject."

Don't feel up to the debate?

So, instead, you comfort yourself by putting forth some imaginary hypothetical straw man?

Bring something to the table.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 13, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. "...on any large scale..." indicates that you  have seen same on some scale...
Why quibble about your anecdotal report.

2. "...nor did I ever witness any feminist of the 60's era trying to force a woman to abandon her family for a career."
Reading the thread before posting is a good way to be informed.
I gave the quote in two posts.

3. "Even NOW isn't anywhere near as powerful a voice as it was in the 60's and 70's."
You really aren't well versed on the subject, are you.
 I suggest you research Third Wave Feminism, which is a response to a falling off of feminist campaigning.  Here, let me start you off:

The Third Wave of Feminism was founded on college campuses in 1992 that feminism was, in some ways, dead, irrelevant, that women of my generation were apathetic, not desireous of working on behalf of womens empowerment. And my feeling, at that time, was that that was absolutely untrue.
Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Sure , that is why I said some obvious exceptions. Such as in MOST cases men are stronger than women, while women are more nurturing than men.

As for sex objects, I meant solely sex objects.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 13, 2010)

Ravi said:


> PC...why are you always trying to set women against each other?
> 
> Who knows what problems these two women have with each other...to blame it on feminism is beyond stupid.



1. While the premise is absurd as it applies to the OP,  or to me, your statement:
"why are you always trying to set women against each other..."
pretty well demonstrates that that is your aim.
Too bad you lack the gift of irony.

2. "Who knows what problems these two women have with each other...to blame it on feminism is beyond stupid..."

I'm glad that you reminded me that some members of the board need to be spoon fed, i.e. you.

You see, both Walkers are major lights in the movement, and demonstrate, in their personal battles, major rifts in contemprory women's-movement trends. Their differences mirror differences in feminist thinking.

3. In the larger context, such battles take place in many movements, religious, political, and probably every human intellectual endeavor, as thoughtful individuals often differ. Therefore, understanding the battle is consciousness-raising for many thinking people, i.e., not you.

4.  I look forward to future bantering with you, but on matters of substance...not the catty little hit-and-run comments that you seem most comfortable with.
Sorry to  end a sentence with a preposition.


----------



## topspin (Sep 14, 2010)

ConHog said:


> no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.
> 
> And the woman's movement is just another thing that needs to die.
> 
> I have a question  though. If you're so equal, why aren't women required to enroll with selective services at 18?



 I'm sure a lot of woman hate a redneck narc like you. I do to, does that make me a femenist. you fucking knuckle dragging all I could get was a history degree blockhead.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 14, 2010)

topspin said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > no surprise to read hear that a few women on this board hate men.
> ...



lol @ redneck, nice stereotype dude. Does that make you a coon ass?


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 14, 2010)

Hey Politicalchicbitch, Dworkin has denied the interpretation and that specific quote came from a fictional character from a book she did not write.  You are one unbelievably dishonest self hating useless ****.  How was that for watching my language you donkey dick sucking ass slurping coward?


----------



## del (Sep 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hey Politicalchicbitch, Dworkin has denied the interpretation and that specific quote came from a fictional character from a book she did not write.  You are one unbelievably dishonest self hating useless ****.  *How was that for watching my language you donkey dick sucking ass slurping coward?*



not real good, but you'll have some time to work on it. bye


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2010)

del said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Politicalchicbitch, Dworkin has denied the interpretation and that specific quote came from a fictional character from a book she did not write.  You are one unbelievably dishonest self hating useless ****.  *How was that for watching my language you donkey dick sucking ass slurping coward?*
> ...



Its a testament to this board that Curvelight has only been banned twice, at least that I know of.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 14, 2010)

Toro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You mean this week?


----------



## topspin (Sep 14, 2010)

ConHog said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



 coonass or cajun makes no difference and we take pride in it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 15, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> It seems people are confused between women's liberation - a clear cut positive movement that netted enormous positive change not only for women but for society as a whole, and feminism that dissolved family structures, marginalized the role of motherhood, demonized the role of being a man's wife, outright stomps on the women who choose to be a homemaker...I could go on.
> 
> Women's lib - a crucial positive societal movement that continues today.
> Feminism - a movement plagued by radicals and men haters.



I think this guy had it right from the first page: radical groups are radical.  It's clear that the "right" option is not forcing any gender to squeeze into any role, but rather to allow for open choices free from unneeded preconceived societal norms.  Dad CAN stay home with babies now.  Does that mean he MUST so that woman can work?  Well, no.  It means genders can be equalized past biological need.

Unfortunately there are some groups that try to bend the trends in the far opposite direction hoping that the end result is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2010)

Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.

Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.

She is the ideal role model of the lib/fem super woman who has it all.

Yet, they hate her because she doesn't believe exactly like they do.

What a bunch of hypocrites


----------



## rikules (Sep 15, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> a.	Feminism has been criticized as exhibiting a rigid intolerance which, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. Said outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing males as partners rather than oppressors; in short, are conservative.
> 
> b.	Support for these excluded but self-identified feminists has come from an unexpected precinct: author of Third Wave Feminism, Rebecca Walker.
> Her mother is Alice Walker, Second Wave Feminist, and author of The Color Purple.
> ...


_


In all my travels
in all of the various paces I've worked
I don't believe I have ever met such a person as this angry strict feminist

I've worked for career women but not one of them was even remotely like this.

I'm sure even you agree, PC, that EVERY PERSON, regardless of sex  or color or religious persuasion, should have the same opportunities and recieve the same rewards (for the same work)

"I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents"

sometimes that just isn't possible.

one of the parents could die.

but barring that it can be just as bad for the children to grow up  in an unhappy home.

It's a terrible thing for children to grow up with parents who argue and fight all the time because they don't love each other

I raised two daughters on my own....

both of whom went to college and have careers

both are married (they didn't get married until their mid-30s which I consider a personal victory as I believe marrying TOO YOUNG is generally a mistake)

they both have 1 child

so they did ok.....

as for women NEEDING men these days...

I would contend that things are vastly different today than they were 50 or 100 or 15o years ago.

there was certainly a time when a woman NEEDED a man
or children needed 2 parents

but these days that is  no longer the case

a successful woman CAN have a child or two and raise it/them fine without a man around...._


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2010)

99% of the time

Feminism = Lesbianism


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 15, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.
> 
> Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.
> 
> ...



She's the Queen of Con. Read it and weep:

Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury | Politics | Vanity Fair


----------



## Si modo (Sep 15, 2010)

Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.

I find that they are way too biased and cannot grasp the value of the bigger picture - protection of rights and promotion of equal rights through fairness, no matter how painful being fair may be.

Their marginalizing others, men and women, because they do not practice _their_ form of feminism is distasteful, at best.  And, their refusing to call out blatant sexism, even abuse, because of some political agenda disgusts me, as selling out usually does.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.
> 
> Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.
> 
> ...


In reality, she hates Americans that aren't real Americans. That includes you, Sunni.

Personally I just think she's stupid and shrill.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> 99% of the time
> 
> Feminism = Lesbianism


Is that like:

99% of the time
Islam = Terrorism

??


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > 99% of the time
> ...


Nope


----------



## rikules (Sep 15, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



"Sure , that is why I said some obvious exceptions. Such as in MOST cases men are stronger than women, while women are more nurturing than men."


I agree with these statements.
and I think that any woman who wants to be a police officer or serve in a fighting capacity in the military should meet all the requirements (size, height, strength, fighting ability)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 15, 2010)

rikules said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I agree, and would add firefighters to that list.  These positions are not about "fairness" or job opportunities.  They're about public safety first and foremost.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 15, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.
> 
> Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure "they" hate her because she's a moron.  Playing dress up and wielding the role of the positions you mentioned like a child does not afford her support.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 15, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.
> ...


Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## ConHog (Sep 15, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.
> 
> Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.
> 
> ...



All that and you would beat her ass nightly.


----------



## Samson (Sep 15, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.
> 
> I find that they are way too biased and cannot grasp the value of the bigger picture - protection of rights and promotion of equal rights through fairness, no matter how painful being fair may be.
> 
> Their marginalizing others, men and women, because they do not practice _their_ form of feminism is distasteful, at best.  And, their refusing to call out blatant sexism, even abuse, because of some political agenda disgusts me, as selling out usually does.




I think what you're saying is that it won't matter how many beaded necklaces I throw you at Mardi Gras, you won't SHOW US YOUR BOOBS?


----------



## Si modo (Sep 16, 2010)

Samson said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.
> ...


First things first.  That's moot until I burn my bra.


----------



## Samson (Sep 16, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You voted for Obama because you're a Muslim.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/133305-ap-si-modo-is-a-muslim.html#post2739478


----------



## Si modo (Sep 16, 2010)

Samson said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



AP is biased, I tell ya!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...







I don't take her lightly.  I don't take her at all.  Again there's a disconnect between the outfits she wears and the credentials she has to wearing them.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 16, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


One has to have credentials to wear gym shorts, gym shoes,  and a fleece top?  Yikes, I better find out what those are.  Don't want the wardrobe police to ticket me.


----------



## hipeter924 (Sep 16, 2010)

Ever since feminists started supporting Sharia law and Islamic theocracy I have stopped bothering to care about what they think, if most feminists believe that sharia law protects womens rights and gives dignity to women then their minds are too far gone to be helped.


----------



## Samson (Sep 16, 2010)

Si modo said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Are you

36-24-32?

If so, then those are good creds.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2010)

Si modo said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


haha.  was going more for the theoretical "politician uniform".  But yeah, I'd ticket you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2010)

rikules said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > a.	Feminism has been criticized as exhibiting a rigid intolerance which, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. Said outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing males as partners rather than oppressors; in short, are conservative.
> ...


_

1."I don't believe I have ever met such a person as this angry strict feminist,"
I certainly wouldn't think of disputing who you have met...
But I hope you are not claiming that these folks don't exist. The point of the essay is that there is a philosophical difference between the two viewpoints expressed, even within this single family.

2. "I'm sure even you agree, PC, that EVERY PERSON, regardless of sex  or color or religious persuasion, should have the same opportunities and recieve the same rewards (for the same work)."

Without a definition of terms, no, I don't.
If one has fewer years on the job, this may be a reason for a differential.
If one has a degree in 'Women's Studies,' and the other one in Nuclear Physics, and the job is of technical requirements, again, no.
If you choose to obfuscate, i.e. 'sex  or color or religious persuasion' and these are the differences in question, of course.

3. "...sometimes that just isn't possible."
Let's treat each other as thinking human beings, and assume the obvious. 
But I will assume that you are unaware of the tenet of radical feminism that actually sees allowing the father to be wed, to be a participant in the raising of the child, as evils, as negatives.
Would you subscribe to that...in comparison to the idea that the best situation would be two loving parents in the home?
Of course, you wouldn't.

From Coulter's "Guilty":
"Of all single mothers in America, only 6.5 percent of them are widows, 37.8 percent are divorced, and 41.3 percent gave birth out of wedlock. The 6.5 percent of single mothers whose husbands have died shouldn't be called 'single mothers' at all. We already have a word for them: 'widows.' Their children do just fine compared with the children of married parents." -- P.35

4. "I raised two daughters on my own....

both of whom went to college and have careers

both are married (they didn't get married until their mid-30s which I consider a personal victory as I believe marrying TOO YOUNG is generally a mistake)

they both have 1 child

so they did ok....."
I appreciate your sharing that. God blesss.

5. "there was certainly a time when a woman NEEDED a man
or children needed 2 parents

but these days that is  no longer the case

a successful woman CAN have a child or two and raise it/them fine without a man around..."
I'm so glad we reached a disagreement, otherwise these posts become boring.

As you have snuck in that 'successful' woman part, without defining same, let me broaden the discussion a bit, too.
A woman who chooses unwisely and has children without a commitment, i.e. marriage, enrolls her children in the following statistical miasma:

a. In the 'Atlantic Monthly,' Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted that the "relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime."
Eric Holder's Chickens Come Home to Roost

b. According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor  and thus a recipient of welfare  than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable. 
Studies also show a correlation between crime and broken homes. It isnt so much the crime committed by the members of the broken home itself, says Robert Sampson, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, as it is the impact of broken homes on the community. 

"A high threshold of single-parent families in a community means a low capacity for social control of kids," he said. A child is "more likely to find peers in that community who are not supervised." 

Sampson said the relationship between broken homes and crimes "is large and certainly larger than many of the other factors that I looked at in the analysis." 
Other research shows that not only is there a link between single-parent households and crime, but that the difference between black and white crime rates may largely be explained by the difference between their single-parent household rates. 
Bestselling author Michael Fumento investigates: "Is the Great Society to Blame? If Not, Why Have Problems Worsened Since 60s?"

c. The absent father stands alone as the most reliable predictor of social and psychological trouble. Research by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that annual household income is below $30,000 for 65 percent of children in single-mother families, compared with 15 percent of children in two-parent families. Children raised in homes without fathers are more likely to run away, commit suicide, use drugs, be arrested, and engage in a host of other unfortunateand sometimes deadlybehaviors.
Three Proposals on the Black Family by Peter Cove, City Journal 20 November 2009

d. A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes 'are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.' Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts. Coulter, "Guilty"

Please rethink your position on single motherhood._


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2010)

Please rethink yours.  Your studies are valid.  The populations they analyze are not, for the purposes of this discussion.  

Let's do a little thought experiment. Woman A grew up in a poor neighborhood, with a crappy education system.  She forwent college, getting a local job for minimum wage.  She dated around, never even knowing about contraceptive options, and had an unwanted pregnancy.  

Woman B was happily married with children, had a good job, and for whatever reason, divorced.  

Woman C is an established college graduate with an established and growing career.  She decides to adopt.  

Which one is going to have the happiest household?  Whose child will have the fewest psychosocial issues?  Whose child will most likely commit a crime?  The answers, even if stereotyped, seem almost obvious.  So what is the inherent difference between the scenarios?  

*CHOICE.*

Feminism or gender equality has little to do with "oops I just got shoved into a bad situation", and a lot about active choice on topics.  It's no wonder crime is correlated with single mothers.  *Look what demographics comprises single mothers!*  In short: bad things are correlated to poorer areas.

Show me a study that corrects for class discrepancies, and then you'd have a stronger point.  Even then, you'd still have a lot of convincing to do.  

The Relationship Between Single-Parent Status and ... [J Pediatr Psychol. 2010] - PubMed result
Psychosocial differences related to parenting infa... [Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 2010] - PubMed result


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Please rethink yours.  Your studies are valid.  The populations they analyze are not, for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> Let's do a little thought experiment. Woman A grew up in a poor neighborhood, with a crappy education system.  She forwent college, getting a local job for minimum wage.  She dated around, never even knowing about contraceptive options, and had an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> ...



Rather than your hypothetical women, are you actually arguing that there is no difference in the outcomes for children between being raised in a two partent home, versus a single mother (not a widow)?

After you ponder the above, add to the mix the numbers in the studies that I cite, vs. the A, B, and C women that you image...

My point: society is hardly impacted by families that represent fractions of a percent, vs. the much larger populations in said studies.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 16, 2010)

There are differences in outcomes for children based on ANY difference.  The question isn't "are there differences?" but rather "what specific differences are correlated with which outcomes?".

As I said in my previous post: your studies are valid, but their populations are not in the context of feminism and gender equality.  To be blunt: the studies you cited don't mean a thing when it comes to "how how gender equality shaped the country?" unless you go on to prove that divorce and unwed marriages are a result of gender equality.  But as I said in my last post: the outcomes you point out, which are valid and not contested, are largely based on income and psychosocial resources, as I have shown with the studies I provided.  So how do you reconcile that all those poor outcomes you're bringing up have to do with low income and resources on a topic about feminism and gender equality?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 17, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> There are differences in outcomes for children based on ANY difference.  The question isn't "are there differences?" but rather "what specific differences are correlated with which outcomes?".
> 
> As I said in my previous post: your studies are valid, but their populations are not in the context of feminism and gender equality.  To be blunt: the studies you cited don't mean a thing when it comes to "how how gender equality shaped the country?" unless you go on to prove that divorce and unwed marriages are a result of gender equality.  But as I said in my last post: the outcomes you point out, which are valid and not contested, are largely based on income and psychosocial resources, as I have shown with the studies I provided.  So how do you reconcile that all those poor outcomes you're bringing up have to do with low income and resources on a topic about feminism and gender equality?



Here is the fatal flaw in the kinds of feminism under discussion:

""I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents"

There is the distinction between the two views.

All studies find the two parent households are, for the most part, the successful in producing happy, well adjusted children while the stats in so many areas, societal and individual, are dismal for the children of single mothers-  whatever the cause of said 'singleness' outside of widowhood.

You wish to break down the cause and distinctions between various one-parent households...that does not pertain to the feminist view of parenting.

I look forward to debates of every variety, but am puzzled by your premise that suggests that one parent is as good as two....


While peripheral to this discussion, consider the following in terms of the health and welfare of mothers:

According to the US Justice Department crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women living with their husbands. From 1993 to 2005, the number of married women victimized by their husbands ranged from 0.9 to 3.2 per 1000. Domestic violence was about 40 times more likely among divorced or separated women, ranging from 37.7 to 118.5 per 1000. Even never married women were more than twice as likely to be victims of domestic violence as married women. (see Bureau of Justice Statistics Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.)

I think one can see how this would impact children, as well.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2010)

You seem to continue missing one of the largest underlying inherent principles of feminism and gender equality, even though I have put it in bold letters in previous posts.  You even highlighted the principle in the very first line of this thread:

*CHOICE*

Gender equality does not support the idea of women being abandoned.  It is not defined by divorce, or unwanted pregnancy, or any of the other things you seem so fixated on.  You're missing the point.  

And as I've stated in two of my previous posts in a row now, the studies you continue to cite are valid in and of themselves, but in no way indicative of the desires or purpose of feminism or gender equality.  In other words: they have little to do with this.



PoliticalChic said:


> You wish to break down the cause and distinctions between various one-parent households...that does not pertain to the feminist view of parenting.



*YES! * Being blind to those distinctions and instead mass lumping ALL women into one generalized category missed the point of gender equality entirely.  No one has suggested "one parent is as good as two".  This is a generalization, the opposite of which YOU are making, and has little to do with the topic.  The studies I showed you simply shoot down your premise.  In doing so, I have not and do not support the opposite idea that one parent is better than two.  

You're essentially polarizing your view into two narrow-minded possibilities, when the actual topic has nothing to do with either.  Again, you're missing the point because you can only see the end result, when its the PATH that is the focus of gender equality.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 17, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> You seem to continue missing one of the largest underlying inherent principles of feminism and gender equality, even though I have put it in bold letters in previous posts.  You even highlighted the principle in the very first line of this thread:
> 
> *CHOICE*
> 
> ...



The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.

Thanks for agreeing that " No one has suggested "one parent is as good as two".


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.



Unfortunately, you have yet to show in any way the EFFECT of radical feminism on parenting.  No, your studies do not show that.  Once again: divorce, female abandonment, domestic abuse, etc etc etc has nothing to do with radical feminism.

I think I see the problem here though.  This link may help clarify.  Just replace "fanatic" with "radical".  Same principle.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 17, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.
> ...



Try reading the article in the OP.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 17, 2010)

I think PC believes that men shun feminists so therefore it is the fault of feminism that women are abandoned, abused, etc.

In other words, it's all the fault of women. All of it.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2010)

Is there a specific area in it you wish to highlight, or shall I assume you are basing the entirety of your assumptions of the national effects of feminism based on the opinions of one person closely linked to a fanatic?  Did you read that post I linked?  

Radicals are radical.  You wish for people to react shocked when a radical does something.... radical?  If all you're trying to say is that radicals are bad, be my guest.  I just, perhaps incorrectly, assumed you were making a larger statements about how radicals effected their greater communities.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 17, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I think PC believes that men shun feminists so therefore it is the fault of feminism that women are abandoned, abused, etc.
> 
> In other words, it's all the fault of women. All of it.



Ah,...I see the problem immediately: your misuse of the first two words in your post.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 17, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Is there a specific area in it you wish to highlight, or shall I assume you are basing the entirety of your assumptions of the national effects of feminism based on the opinions of one person closely linked to a fanatic?  Did you read that post I linked?
> 
> Radicals are radical.  You wish for people to react shocked when a radical does something.... radical?  If all you're trying to say is that radicals are bad, be my guest.  I just, perhaps incorrectly, assumed you were making a larger statements about how radicals effected their greater communities.



I can explain it to you, I just can't comprehend it for you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Sep 17, 2010)

Get on with it then.  I'll worry about the comprehension.  Let me know what part of the article you'd like to highlight.


----------



## global (Sep 18, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> a.	Feminism has been criticized as exhibiting a rigid intolerance which, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. Said outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing males as partners rather than oppressors; in short, are conservative.
> 
> b.	Support for these excluded but self-identified feminists has come from an unexpected precinct: author of Third Wave Feminism, Rebecca Walker.
> Her mother is Alice Walker, Second Wave Feminist, and author of The Color Purple.
> ...


_

The modern Feminist movement which group out of the 60's and 70's thanks to people like Gloria Steinem has done more to damage the stability of the atomic family unit than anything else.  Started having sex at 13?  That is just downright despicable._


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 25, 2011)




----------



## Phoenix (Apr 25, 2011)




----------



## JBeukema (Apr 25, 2011)




----------



## ekrem (Apr 25, 2011)

Man carries the weight of the society - in peace and in war.
The feminist family-model which is secured by the law-giver does not give answers to the needs of the people. That is the reason why there are so many broken and divorced families, which represents an erosion of civilization which is being replaced by new immigrants who come from countries where gender-peace is still intact. In those immigrant families the man doesn't fear to be plucked like a chicken and loose all realistic rights on the children once there is a divorce.


----------



## ekrem (Apr 25, 2011)

Perseus killing the woman-monster


----------



## ekrem (Apr 25, 2011)




----------

