Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Mme. Chaucer]

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about any subject with someone who intentionally "misunderstands" or rewrites history to promote their own point of view.

 

We can't talk about feminism, or men who have problems with feminism, or the existence and purpose of a "men's rights movement" if the people in the conversation won't acknowledge that women did not receive the same "human rights" as men until society made significant changes - and recently.

 

Now there is fallout. Quotas, "affirmative action" stuff, etc. need to be addressed and true equality afforded to all. It's worth discussing. But not with guys who deny that women have been oppressed by patriarchal societal constructs for centuries.

[Wolf18]

LOL at the idea of feminism being "liberating". What is so liberating about having a boss bark orders at you and drain you of your blood? Not to mention it drives the wages down for everyone by flooding the labor market, so we don't even live any better with 2 incomes. Sounds so much better than being at the service of your husband and children huh

[NXS]

So are women generally developing more of a taste for that which is violent and abusive....and if so, is this as a result of feminism? Or an increased availability of drugs? Increasing popularity of sexual fetishism that might involve the woman taking a dominant and aggressive role? Or have there always been a fair percentage of violent and abusive women in society?

 

I suspect it's the latter but it's never been really highlighted, apart from investigations into past institutional abuse.

 

I'm not sure about the role of porn in all this, no doubt it's having a negative affect, however it's my firm belief that the overwhelming majority of both men and women are not paedophiles or rapists and will never commit such acts, ever. So I refuse to get caught up in any kind of fearmongering propaganda insinuating there's a potential abuser lurking around every corner.

 

Feminism has almost achieved one of its main goals: destruction of the family. It has done this through social engineering, government benefits and family courts, and in doing so it has alienated children from their natural protectors - their fathers. Reports on the affects of fatherlessness on children are damning:

 

 

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
  
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
  
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
  

 

In the report you linked to earlier it was the mothers who reported the incidents, so where were the fathers? If there had been fathers in those boys lives, even if they just turned up for the odd training session or match without having to say a word, that paedophile wouldn't have gone anywhere near those boys.

[dasein]

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about any subject with someone who intentionally "misunderstands" or rewrites history to promote their own point of view.

 

Thanks. I agree, that's what I've been saying all along. When I offer historical facts, or demonstrate a type of feminist lie with plain uncontested, incontrovertible historical fact, the "witch hunt" post for example, the rational response dries up. When feminists see that the flimsy distortions of history they peddle fall like a house of cards, then they start in with the childish insults and characterizations because it's all they got. Breeding 50 years of intellectual laziness and dishonesty has consequences, the inability to discuss things rationally is one casualty.

 

We can't talk about feminism, or men who have problems with feminism, or the existence and purpose of a "men's rights movement" if the people in the conversation won't acknowledge that women did not receive the same "human rights" as men until society made significant changes - and recently.

 

It's been dealt with, and conveniently totally ignored. A vast majority of MEN didn't receive the full basket of rights in the U.S. until the mid 1800s, women began to receive them almost immediately afterwards, culminating in a Constitutional amendment in the 20s where voting was concerned. Repeating for the third time now, the difference in time between rights for the average man and rights for the average woman was the width of a gnat's turd in human historical terms. Before the mid 1800s only .5-1% of ANYONE had any measurable rights, and those few consisted of men and women. It took time to fully incorporate the Constitution, and though there was a very REAL civil rights fight in the black American experience. There was not in the American female experience, and if you maintain there was, IT'S ON YOU to demonstrate, define and PROVE it. We aren't just buying whatever comes out of self-interested women's mouths any more, that turned out to be a magnificently stupid historical mistake, never to be repeated again.

 

Now there is fallout. Quotas, "affirmative action" stuff, etc. need to be addressed and true equality afforded to all. It's worth discussing. But not with guys who deny that women have been oppressed by patriarchal societal constructs for centuries.

 

In other words, " because you disagree with my completely unsubstantiated distortion of plain historical facts, you aren't worthy of rational response." Is that so, Your Highness? because that sounds suspiciously like a royal decree. "If you can't see the Emperor's new clothes, then off with your head!"

 

Yeah we've heard that kind of thing before, sorry doesn't work any more.

[Woggle]

LOL at the idea of feminism being "liberating". What is so liberating about having a boss bark orders at you and drain you of your blood? Not to mention it drives the wages down for everyone by flooding the labor market, so we don't even live any better with 2 incomes. Sounds so much better than being at the service of your husband and children huh

 

Women should be able to forge their own path in life like anybody else. Doors should not be closed to anybody because of gender. That being said somewhere along the way feminists got the idea that bringing men down was the only way to bring women up. It wasn't enough to have the freedom to be their own person but they needed to destroy men as well

[NXS]

Thanks. I agree, that's what I've been saying all along. When I offer historical facts, or demonstrate a type of feminist lie with plain uncontested, incontrovertible historical fact, the "witch hunt" post for example, the rational response dries up. When feminists see that the flimsy distortions of history they peddle fall like a house of cards, then they start in with the childish insults and characterizations because it's all they got. Breeding 50 years of intellectual laziness and dishonesty has consequences, the inability to discuss things rationally is one casualty.

 

She feels it's true therefore facts are irrelevant.

 

As I'm sure you're aware she previously claimed all the men posting here want to try and control women, and then tried to misdirect the debate to some takeninhand site as some sort of 'solution'. Having been asked to back up her claim, twice, she still hasn't provided any quotes.

[dasein]

Women should be able to forge their own path in life like anybody else.

 

They always have. One of my prefeminist grandmothers worked and earned as much (maybe more) as my grandfather, she had a college degree, he did not. The other grandmother (she had a college degree also) stayed at home and raised six kids because that's what she wanted, while that grandfather worked in a dangerous, polluted factory. They didn't need feminism to "free" them, and the assertion that they did is not only wrong, but insulting to prefeminist women by characterizing them as a weak slave class. Both my grandmothers remained happily, lovingly married their whole lives. Same of their social circles. I contend that my grandmothers' reality is more accurately representative of the prefeminist female condition in the U.S. than the BS about "emancipation from oppression" the feminists peddle.

 

Another feminist lie is that because women didn't get official constitutional voting rights until 1920, their lives equated to slavery before then. Yet another lie is that feminism started up and grew like a snowball sometime before 1920 and just gained momentum from there. The truth is that feminism plopped out fully grown in the 60s as an academic and political power grab derivative of Marxism, then retroactively created a false past of women "battling for" their rights. There was no connection between early campaigners and movements for women's suffrage and birth control, consisting of females AND MALEs, and the feminist distortion that plopped out on us midcentury. It was a manufactured, Marxist construct that coopted and distorted what it wanted retroactively from history and remains exactly that to date. That we fell for it without questioning it is a mistake we all have to deal with. We were all gullible dupes.

[dasein]

She feels it's true therefore facts are irrelevant.

 

As I'm sure you're aware she previously claimed all the men posting here want to try and control women, and then tried to misdirect the debate to some takeninhand site as some sort of 'solution'. Having been asked to back up her claim, twice, she still hasn't provided any quotes.

 

That was a different poster, IIRC, with the "takeninhand" stuff, but point taken.

[Mme. Chaucer]

News flash:

 

Just because it's possible for a person to Google up an example, or "proof" of anything they'd like to exemplify or prove does not make that person's claim an "uncontested, incontrovertible historical fact."

 

It's amusing that some of you continue to do this while simultaneously accusing others here of "intellectual laziness and dishonesty."

[Mme. Chaucer]

Quote:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

 

These are interesting statistics, and sadly, not surprising.

 

I wonder why some of you would like to lay all the blame of paternal abandonment upon feminism? It would seem reasonable to attribute most of the responsibility for this to the fathers who ditch their children. Yes, I know this is oversimplification, and I'm conversing with people who also blame high incarceration rates upon feminism rather than upon criminals, but come on, fellas.

[NXS]

That was a different poster, IIRC, with the "takeninhand" stuff, but point taken.

 

Oops you're right, it was a different poster.

[donnamaybe]

See woggle? They have no answer other than "you aren't intelligent," "you aren't a real man," "you are blind," "you are an extremist," etc. to those who disagree with them.

No - only posters who act in certain ways via their posting technique.

They can't rationally defend the tenets of feminism because they don't even know what they are

That's because it means something different for each and every person. For you it means feminists are all demons. For me it merely means women having the same rights as men. For other women it means acting in ways in every single circumstance counter to anything that might benefit men. I disagree with those women. And I disagree with you. All you do is spout untruths about history (as in women were never held lower than men which is complete and utter BS) and hatred against women who don't kowtow to your self imposed delusions of grandeur via your long, rambling, hate filled and smug posts.

[Woggle]

Quote:

 

 

These are interesting statistics, and sadly, not surprising.

 

I wonder why some of you would like to lay all the blame of paternal abandonment upon feminism? It would seem reasonable to attribute most of the responsibility for this to the fathers who ditch their children. Yes, I know this is oversimplification, and I'm conversing with people who also blame high incarceration rates upon feminism rather than upon criminals, but come on, fellas.

 

Some of it can be blamed on men who ditch their children but the way some feminists have devalued fatherhood and the two parent family has not helped either.

[dasein]

News flash:

 

Just because it's possible for a person to Google up an example, or "proof" of anything they'd like to exemplify or prove does not make that person's claim an "uncontested, incontrovertible historical fact."

 

1. The Catholic Church persecuted and executed many "heretics" over several hundred years, via the Inquisition, genocide of heretic groups (including "witches"), and general street level oppression consisting of examples such as selling indulgences, etc. Both men and women and their families were victims of this oppression.

 

So, MC, uncontested, incontrovertible historical fact? or just some BS I googled up? Which is it?

 

2. For every historical female victim of oppression, there was at least one man who was oppressed in a similar way, most often by involuntary conscription into an army. Some of these armies were oppressive, some fighting oppression, doesn't matter which, though, ALL the men who died in involuntary service, perpetrating or fighting oppression, died the equivalent of a slave's death, as victims of oppression.

 

Fact or fiction?

 

3. During the 99% of human history prior to Magna Carta, only a tiny % of elites held political power, property ownership, any control of their lives in ways we all take for granted today. The elites who held all the power consisted of both men and women. So for 99% of human history, none but 1% of ANY people were free of oppression, and even some of the 1% were oppressed. It took some time for Magna Carta to spawn political empiricism and natural rights theory, and still more time to spawn the U.S. Constitution. Still more time for average men to gain the basket of human rights we have today, and a fractional toenail's amount of time later, women received the remaining rights they didn't have previously (namely voting).

 

Fact or fiction?

 

Simple facts, simple questions.

 

That's enough for now and will get us to a junior high level understanding of history where the genders are concerned.

[TheBigQuestion]

That's because it means something different for each and every person. For you it means feminists are all demons. For me it merely means women having the same rights as men. For other women it means acting in ways in every single circumstance counter to anything that might benefit men. I disagree with those women. And I disagree with you. All you do is spout untruths about history (as in women were never held lower than men which is complete and utter BS) and hatred against women who don't kowtow to your self imposed delusions of grandeur via your long, rambling, hate filled and smug posts.

 

There are many different branches of feminism, but they are all distinct political movements with necessary and established ideologies. Feminism doesn't "mean something different for each and every person." If you consider yourself a feminist but you can't explain or defend any of its philosophical underpinnings, you simply aren't a very good feminist. You can believe that feminism is simply your notion of equality, but in doing so, you're still battling a very large portion of modern feminist thought.

 

On top of that, no one in this thread is attacking anyone else's individual beliefs in the first place. It's attacking feminism in a broad sense.

 

You can debate the factual content of the posts made in this thread, but I have no idea where you get the idea that dasein's posts are "hateful." Words like "hate," "misogyny," and all other such nonsense get thrown around on this message board in a hysterically indiscriminate manner. Ted Bundy was hateful and a misogynist. No one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Wolf18) is actually being hateful in any way. It isn't hateful to disagree with an ideology and mindset and the real-world results of that mindset.

 

I don't deny that women were subjugated in ways unique only to them at various points in time. What I question is the propriety of using those historical facts as a justification for a movement that pretty much needs to instill the harmful (and mostly erroneous) belief in women that they are a victim class. Interestingly enough, the only female poster in this thread who even entertained that possibility without resorting to any sort of ad-hominem attack was Taramere (hardly a surprise, as she is easily one of the brightest and most level-headed LS posters).

[Mme. Chaucer]

Some of it can be blamed on men who ditch their children but the way some feminists have devalued fatherhood and the two parent family has not helped either.

 

In fact, I am not interested in "blaming" at all.

 

But you cannot relieve all responsibility for individual choice in situations like parental abandonment. The abandoner has to have personal responsibility for their own choice and behavior, regardless of the social environment.

 

Yes, the nuclear family has been breaking down for a long time. Many will argue (intelligently!) that its usefulness in our world today has passed. Whether that's the case or not, lots of societal pressures have contributed to its demise. Feminism has played a role in that - including making it possible for a woman to initiate divorce. Back in the "good old days," this was permitted for husbands only.

 

Now, to save all you haters and history rewriters and deniers from exhausting yourselves with frenzied typing, frothing at the mouths and gnashing of teeth, I have found the website that evidently provides most of your "uncontested and incontrovertible facts." To save you time and trouble, here is a link so everyone here on LS can share in your wisdom and knowlege about all things Feminist:

 

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

[dasein]

That's because it means something different for each and every person.

 

Oh, so what feminism is entirely subjective? Like Santa Claus? Then your definition of feminism includes the qualifier "subjective belief system." There's a word for that, "religion." In philosophy another word, "metaphysics." But fair enough, feminism and religion have lots in common, belief in the imaginary for one thing. So because I don't automatically ascribe to your religion, I'm stupid? There's a word for that too, see if you can think of it.

 

All you do is spout untruths about history (as in women were never held lower than men which is complete and utter BS) and hatred against women who don't kowtow to your self imposed delusions of grandeur via your long, rambling, hate filled and smug posts.

 

And for the lurkers, see how the house of cards folds up in a breeze? Feminists offer no facts whatsoever, imperiously expecting compliance for 60 years... that's right, we have given credence and untold political power to a doctrine with no factual underpinnings whatsoever for 60 years. Then when we have the outright gall to drag all the lies into the light of day, we "hate women," "are delusional," "grandiose," "rambling," and our opinion is "full of hate." It really is all they got in the form of response, a screeching tirade of insults. THAT'S feminism.

 

That "feminism" = "women" is a lie.

That disagreeing with feminism is "hateful" towards women or anyone else is a lie.

Edited November 15, 2011 by dasein

[soserious1]

Some rambling thoughts, not in any particular order

 

1. Women out number men in applying to colleges and in obtaining degrees, personally I think we need to put women to the back of the priority line when it comes to Pell Grant money for college & we should begin a national "No Boy left behind" program.

 

2. Selective service, upon reaching age 18 all young women should be required to register for the draft, if there is no draft

then they should be required to perform 4 yrs of community service .. no exceptions. Men would be exempt from these requirements as part of affirmative action which recognizes how men have been unfairly discriminated against in the past in this area. Men of course, could continue to chose to enroll

in the armed forces ie "the volunteer Army" they would be given generous GI Bill benefits for such.

 

3.Men should be allowed to formally "opt out" within the 1st trimester of a woman's pregnancy.. a prospective father would legally notify a pregnant partner that he had no desire to actively parent or to support a child & his rights, along with his obligations would be terminated. This would be handled in much the same way as adoption is in many places now.. records sealed till the child reaches age 18 & then the adult child being allowed to obtain info about their birth parents. A woman who's partner has opted out can then chose between abortion, adoption or rearing the child alone.

 

4. Marriage, divorce, child support & alimony- when couples apply for a marriage license both should be legally required to sign their agreement that in the event of a divorce that the legal presumption would be for 50/50 shared legal & physical custody of any children born of the marriage with no child support changing hands & that alimony would not be granted to either party.Obviously there would need to be exceptions to all of this but the take away message would be that the state was getting out of the business of legislating family business.

 

5. We have fatherless children for a lot of reasons one of the biggest being that men & women get sloppy with birth control

& reproduce without having the educational skills to get jobs that will support families at even subsistence levels. I'm not sure how we solve this but I do think the concept of social shaming needs to make a come back... the child isn't the embarrassment.. parents who deliberately brought that child into the world are...

[Woggle]

When you look at the problems that the breakdown of the two parent family has caused in kids it is clear it has not outlived it's usefullness. I am no conservative by any means but it is this kind of stuff that gives liberalism a bad name. It's easy for some elitist progressive to make this kind of statement when they don't have experience with groups that have been harmed by the breakdown of the family.

 

Men who walk out on their family are very wrong but on the other hand women who do everything in their power to destroy a child's relationship with a father or think it is some grand statement of independence to raise a fatherless kid are very wrong as well.

[NXS]

Quote:

 

 

These are interesting statistics, and sadly, not surprising.

 

I wonder why some of you would like to lay all the blame of paternal abandonment upon feminism? It would seem reasonable to attribute most of the responsibility for this to the fathers who ditch their children. Yes, I know this is oversimplification, and I'm conversing with people who also blame high incarceration rates upon feminism rather than upon criminals, but come on, fellas.

 

Here's some relevant videos:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyhn6Oi1Drw&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR82K58PBTQ&feature=related

 

[donnamaybe]

There are many different branches of feminism, but they are all distinct political movements with necessary and established ideologies. Feminism doesn't "mean something different for each and every person." If you consider yourself a feminist but you can't explain or defend any of its philosophical underpinnings, you simply aren't a very good feminist. You can believe that feminism is simply your notion of equality, but in doing so, you're still battling a very large portion of modern feminist thought.

 

On top of that, no one in this thread is attacking anyone else's individual beliefs in the first place. It's attacking feminism in a broad sense.

 

You can debate the factual content of the posts made in this thread, but I have no idea where you get the idea that dasein's posts are "hateful." Words like "hate," "misogyny," and all other such nonsense get thrown around on this message board in a hysterically indiscriminate manner. Ted Bundy was hateful and a misogynist. No one in this thread (with the exception of maybe Wolf18) is actually being hateful in any way. It isn't hateful to disagree with an ideology and mindset and the real-world results of that mindset.

 

I don't deny that women were subjugated in ways unique only to them at various points in time. What I question is the propriety of using those historical facts as a justification for a movement that pretty much needs to instill the harmful (and mostly erroneous) belief in women that they are a victim class. Interestingly enough, the only female poster in this thread who even entertained that possibility without resorting to any sort of ad-hominem attack was Taramere (hardly a surprise, as she is easily one of the brightest and most level-headed LS posters).

And that other poster doesn't use language that mocks other posters for their beliefs? Sorry. He does. It's the derogatory and snide posting style that positively screams his disdain and arrogance. And to say that women were never in history held at a lower class than men is just a lie and one might even say it is said just to piss people off.

[soserious1]

When you look at the problems that the breakdown of the two parent family has caused in kids it is clear it has not outlived it's usefullness. I am no conservative by any means but it is this kind of stuff that gives liberalism a bad name. It's easy for some elitist progressive to make this kind of statement when they don't have experience with groups that have been harmed by the breakdown of the family.

 

Men who walk out on their family are very wrong but on the other hand women who do everything in their power to destroy a child's relationship with a father or think it is some grand statement of independence to raise a fatherless kid are very wrong as well.

 

The state has assumed the role of Dad, government benefits, wic, food stamps, medicaid, section 8 housing & the myriad of other support programs both public & private when added up provide a far greater standard of living than marrying the father of your child & then having to somehow figure out how you & your equally unskilled husband are going to manage to support your kids on the minimum wage jobs.

[donnamaybe]

Oh, so what feminism is entirely subjective? Like Santa Claus?

See the derogatory and snide remarks? And he accuses others of "shaming" tactics.

[donnamaybe]

The state has assumed the role of Dad, government benefits, wic, food stamps, medicaid, section 8 housing & the myriad of other support programs both public & private when added up provide a far greater standard of living than marrying the father of your child & then having to somehow figure out how you & your equally unskilled husband are going to manage to support your kids on the minimum wage jobs.

Do you really think there aren't lazy arse men taking advantage of this system? Look around.

[dasein]

 

Now, to save all you haters and history rewriters and deniers from exhausting yourselves with frenzied typing,..

 

Spare the rhetoric and answer the three simple factual scenarios I posted in response to YOUR contention that I am just "googling stuff up."

 

But ironic and amusing that you yourself just "google something up" instead of answering my plain, direct questions.

 

I couldn't make my own points any easier than feminists themselves make them for me. It just takes getting feminists talking (or shouting rather) for onlookers to see the plain truth. Feminism really is Emperor's new clothes.