Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Mme. Chaucer]

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.

 

Woggle,

 

I don't believe that the traditional family unit has outlived its usefulness. I do believe, though, that lots of the structures in place for such a family to survive and thrive need to be overhauled so that this type of unit has a much better chance to make it in the modern world.

 

Gender and family roles evolved because they made sense and fulfilled many purposes historically. Now many of those purposes are obsolete, but the individuals involved in families, as well as society at large, have not evolved to encompass the changes in positive ways.

 

Many of the vocal men here clearly believe that if women would just go back to the way "they used to be," then good times would return for traditional marriages and families. But that is not going to happen. I think we all can at least agree on that.

 

So what is left is for us to do, as members of our society, is to learn how to change individually and how to facilitate societal change (I'm talking about the really big picture and the vast long term) to help things get better. If not for us, for the people who are children now, and their children. Furiously casting blame ANYWHERE is not stepping in that direction, at all.

 

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.

 

No argument from me. Why even say "on the other hand"? People who walk out on their children, or who destroy their child's relationship with the other parent are reprehensible, whether they are a man or a woman.

 

Woggle - you need to separate people with bad ethics from an ideological movement.

 

Feminism really was not launched to hurt men or to wreck families. It came about to provide full equal rights as sovereign individual human beings to women.

[donnamaybe]

Well, since I can literally feel my IQ dropping after reading some of the drivel on this thread, I'm going to bow out. No point in beating this dead horse. Some choose to remain enmired in their delusions and ignorance.

 

Carry on!

[soserious1]

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

 

And who chooses to bed & reproduce with those men? Who goes down to the welfare office & LIES saying that Daddy isn't

around when he is in fact living in her home?

[Mme. Chaucer]

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

 

Donna, I think it's already been established as an incontestable and incontrovertible fact here that shaming is acceptable and appropriate when coming from a man and directed towards a woman. It's forbidden, however, for women to use "shaming" language when speaking to a man. "Shaming" includes disagreeing or arguing with a man, evidently, regardless of the language used.

 

Just thought you needed some educating!

[donnamaybe]

And who chooses to bed & reproduce with those men? Who goes down to the welfare office & LIES saying that Daddy isn't

around when he is in fact living in her home?

Oh, they know in many cases there is a man around. It's not always about lying.

 

One more thing before I truly am done with this nonsense. Here's a link that explains feminism. Definition #1 is just as I stated my belief was.

 

"the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"

 

So HA!

[Woggle]

Feminism was not launched to hurt men or wreck families but it has been used by those with that agenda. It has also attracted women who have been so wounded by the men in their lives that they are incapable of seeing gender relations in any terms other than us vs them. It's sad but people are afraid of standing up to these women because they will be called sexist.

[dasein]

hatred against women who don't kowtow to your self imposed delusions of grandeur via your long, rambling, hate filled and smug posts.

 

Another note to the onlookers, they reserve the right to freely spout longwinded insulting hot air that amounts to nothing such as the above, but don't you dare employ any mild sarcasm, humor or pointed language in the legitimate process of calling their facts or reasoning into question. THAT's just not allowed. LOL.

 

And that other poster

 

Umm, we all know your insults are directed at me. At least own them as such.

 

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.

 

"Those who disagree with me couldn't possibly have a rationally grounded POV, they are just lying and saying things to piss people off."

 

Even for the sake of argument, if my opinion was a lie, you haven't had to listen to my lies your entire adult life, whereas I have had to listen to feminist lies for exactly that long.

[dasein]

It's forbidden, however, for women to use "shaming" language when speaking to a man. "Shaming" includes disagreeing or arguing with a man, evidently, regardless of the language used.

 

Irony, and spouting out insults Springer style is neither "shaming" nor anything even close to "disagreement," but is a violation of the community guidelines of this forum.

 

So, care to address my response to your accusation that I simply "google things up?"

[NXS]

Feminism really was not launched to hurt men or to wreck families. It came about to provide full equal rights as sovereign individual human beings to women.

 

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1908

 

As Ellen Willis, self-proclaimed democratic socialist and founder of Redstockings, a radical feminist group from 1969, stated to left-wing The Nation in 1981: “Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. [...] The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion [...] to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values.” Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir stated that “no woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children […] because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

 

"Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all - that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,... Even in the ostensibly "functional," nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries... Barbara Ehrenreich in Time Magazine

 

"The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity." Gordon Fitch

 

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation

 

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women. Barbara Findlen, "Is Marriage the Answer? Ms Magazine, May - June, 1995

 

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537

 

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it" Andrea Dworkin

 

[dasein]

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...

 

Agree with all these, but as you know, the suggestions above are all irredeemably tainted by "hatred of women." The discussion never even gets to these types of real social issues and prospetive solutions because feminists use every shouting, shaming, obfuscating tactic in the book to chill rational discussion.

[Mme. Chaucer]

The articles you link to and quote are not from the period of time when feminism was "launched," but rather from the later waves of the movement.

 

As I have said already, and we all know is the truth - any one of us can Google articles and quotes, often written or spoken by reliable and respected sources, to back up nearly anything we want to "prove." Doing so does not enhance the credibility of a person's case on an Internet forum; besides, many educated people are already familiar with different tenets of feminism.

 

We all know that every single social, political, religious, intellectual, etc. movement has moderate and extreme members and factions. I think the radical end of all these movements is necessary for ANY changes to be able to happen in gigantic and staid societal structures. A person can certainly still be a feminist, however, without wishing or acting for the destruction of the "family."

[Woggle]

That itself just proves my point that feminism was eventually tainted. Also this extremist wing of the feminist movement in many ways helped cause the rise of the far right in this country.

[dasein]

The articles you link to and quote are not from the period of time when feminism was "launched," but rather from the later waves of the movement.

 

The articles are from -exactly- the time when feminism was "launched."

 

Betty Friedan was indoctrinated into Communism as an undergrad at Smith, first heard the term "feminism" from a Marxist professor there, and cemented her allegiance to the Communist Party as a grad student at Berkely. She then served as a propagandist of the party for years thereafter before writing the "Feminist Mystique" and claiming it was simply the "experience of a suburban NY housewife."

 

Fact or fiction?

 

The supposed "second wave" of feminism, invented the "first wave" out of whole cloth, made it up entirely, because the connections between the "second wave" and Marxism were too obvious and well-documented during the Cold War for the doctrine to gain footing and be concealed. A prior non Marxist history of feminism needed to be made up so that the Marxist second wave could deflect attention from its true, very recent heritage.

 

Fact or fiction?

 

As I have said already, and we all know is the truth - any one of us can Google articles and quotes, often written or spoken by reliable and respected sources, to back up nearly anything we want to "prove."

 

The above is true in certain respects, but in others is a disingenuous nonresponse to someone who took the time to post links that evidence their assertions.

 

Doing so does not enhance the credibility of a person's case on an Internet forum;

 

It certainly does provided whatever is linked is credible.

 

besides, many educated people are already familiar with different tenets of feminism.

 

Interesting that none of those tenets other than the previously dealt with "equality for women" have been expressed here in this thread by people who claim to be feminists and know what feminism is. My contention remains that 90% of feminists don't even know what they are supporting. So far nothing in this thread has proven me wrong.

 

We all know that every single social, political, religious, intellectual, etc. movement has moderate and extreme members and factions.

 

Not so for feminism. It started as a radical marxist doctrine and remains exactly that. It has become expert in hiding under the sheep's clothing of "equality for women," when in actuality it's ostensible goals are the destruction of marriage, the family unit and the vilification of men.

[Wolf18]

Interesting you bring up the Communist/Marxist roots of feminism Dasein. The USSR under Lenin pushed all kinds of radical feminist reforms (he wanted the Soviet state to raise children, not families) like the no-fault divorce and abortion that undermined the traditional family unit, they were later reversed by Joseph Stalin and the nuclear family was once again emphasized due to the epidemic of homeless children, below replacement level birth rate (which undermined his massive industrialization projects), and general social decay.

 

Eventually the Soviet Union disowned the 1960's frankfurt school marxists that were pushing for feminism, because of the fact that they believed identity politics like feminism pitted women against men instead of uniting the workers.

 

Fact is , we had to dumb everything down so that women can succeed. College is just the 13th grade, more women go to college but they also have a much higher incidence of worthless degrees like psychology, queer theory and women's studies. Women statistically read more, but only if you count vampire novels. Don't even get me started on woman owned business' vs male dominated fields like IT/computers (which makes massive leaps by the minute).

[Els]

Agree with all these, but as you know, the suggestions above are all irredeemably tainted by "hatred of women." The discussion never even gets to these types of real social issues and prospetive solutions because feminists use every shouting, shaming, obfuscating tactic in the book to chill rational discussion.

 

You crack me up. You speak of rational discussion, real social issues and prospective solutions... and a solution that you agree to is THIS:

 

"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."

 

and

 

"Put women in the back of the priority line for college grants just because there are more female college grads than men"

 

The poster you quoted and your agreeing with him is the exact embodiment of the extremist feminist movement, and it's hilarious how you managed to completely ignore that fact in your pursuit of 'equality and justice'. Oh, wait, sounds familiar? Those women made a mockery of themselves and of the entire concept of equality by adhering to and supporting extremist dogma - vilify the men to 'recognize how women have been unfairly discriminated against in the past'! Oops, sounds familiar, again? Well, you and soserious come across to us exactly how those extremist feminazis come across to you.

[soserious1]

You crack me up. You speak of rational discussion, real social issues and prospective solutions... and a solution that you agree to is THIS:

 

"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."

 

and

 

"Put women in the back of the priority line for college grants just because there are more female college grads than men"

 

The poster you quoted and your agreeing with him is the exact embodiment of the extremist feminist movement, and it's hilarious how you managed to completely ignore that fact in your pursuit of 'equality and justice'. Oh, wait, sounds familiar? Those women made a mockery of themselves and of the entire concept of equality by adhering to and supporting extremist dogma - vilify the men to 'recognize how women have been unfairly discriminated against in the past'! Oops, sounds familiar, again? Well, you and soserious come across to us exactly how those extremist feminazis come across to you.

 

 

I think you are missing my bigger point here. Women sit here citing examples of past discrimination yet one of the very biggest and most serious of discriminatory acts was committed against men... selective service.. the draft

 

What type of affirmative action will help make right an injustice that's resulted in the deaths, dismemberment or disability of hundreds of thousands of this nation's men?

 

While Sally was home burning her bra & braiding her armpit hair, Sam was forced to go to a rice paddy across the world & risk getting blown into a million little pieces.

[Wolf18]

Too bad women only want the good parts of being a man, not the bad soserious ^.

 

Where are all the women demanding coal mines to hire for exactly a 50% female staff?

 

Women construction workers? Women frontline infantry units?

 

Nope, they just want equality in the cushy, air conditioned affirmative action government jobs.

 

I bet all the feminists talking about male oppression because they had to stay safe and snug in their home in the past just wish they could go back in time and take a lungful of asbestos or get their legs blown off in WWI.

[dasein]

You crack me up. You speak of rational discussion, real social issues and prospective solutions... and a solution that you agree to is THIS:

 

"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."

 

I take it that all the wind-up equates to your disagreement with the above. Fair enough.

 

 

"Put women in the back of the priority line for college grants just because there are more female college grads than men"

 

Feminists use "de facto" discrimination "statistics" as justification for all sorts of real discrimination against men, yet the exact same thing, only applied to women, even suggested in a somewhat tongue in cheek way is ANATHEMA! SACRILEGE! I see.

 

The poster you quoted and your agreeing with him is the exact embodiment of the extremist feminist movement,

 

Huh? I don't follow.

 

Not sure what you are getting at here, but I believe soserious is female FWIW.

 

and it's hilarious how you managed to completely ignore that fact in your pursuit of 'equality and justice'. Oh, wait, sounds familiar? Those women made a mockery of themselves and of the entire concept of equality by adhering to and supporting extremist dogma - vilify the men to 'recognize how women have been unfairly discriminated against in the past'! Oops, sounds familiar, again? Well, you and soserious come across to us exactly how those extremist feminazis come across to you.

 

Once again, Huh? Is there some point in there? Incidentally my "agreement" with what soserious posted was that I agree that those are the types of issues we never even get to the point of discussing due to all the feminist shouting, not that I agree with each and every phrase and clause. She herself stated very clearly that they were just off the top of her head. Reviewing my post, other than inserting "as issues" after "agree with all these," I fail to see how anyone could have misinterpreted my intent.

 

Oh, wait, you're a feminist. I understand now. NM.

[TheBigQuestion]

Anyone want to start a betting pool on how long it'll take before this thread gets locked?

[Elysian Powder]

I was randomly hitting the TV channels when I stumbled into the history channel. A documentary concerning the World War II was airing and it's main focus was on the women who worked to produce the bullets and the provisions for the men. A general came onto the screen and said that women won the war for us. At that moment, my mind returned to that time I saw a woman being highly aggressive to a man who looked like a younger Batista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Batista

 

I quickly took my leave from that place because I didn't want to deny a real woman the right from proving to me that we're equals and all, and now, skipping to the current moment, I envision that women better do something fit to the situation - and quickly - 'cause, regardless of the pain and gore the soldiers had to vanquish Hitler to prevent him from storming his way throughout our coasts and inflict abuse onto our women; women still are the recipients of all merit and are rewarded whereas the men who demolished the Tyrant, aren't even celebrated.

 

Why the hell should I toil for Western Civilization if my superiors are using my blood to appease women and earn more votes from the single mothers block?

 

Women are real enough to flaunt and use their sexuality and youth to derivate presents, favors, rights and enlistments of young men doing it to protect the women back home and they aren't even banging.

 

Older women extort money by applying different methods, but the results are the same and their prideful boasts of having it all done without a man's help(at the same time having their bank accounts filled up by the wealth transfer of men to women, as the consequence of feminizing Democracy to sate the ambitions of the communists who infiltrated the states and probably killed J.F.K to move freely) so, women are more than welcome to join the draft, serve your time for a Nation that lost all it's glory and that now sacrifices the lives of young men as barbaric version of vasectomy.

 

I didn't spend all of these years in a gym to die on a foreign Country that worships Allah; for the Matriarchy that took root in all of the former democratic institutions and wants to burn out as many young men as possible while retaining a certain percentage of the men they still have a use for.

 

At least the Allies had a visible enemy they could readily fight. We have a sick political ideology(socialism, the cause of Greece's death) hiding behind all of the major players to bring forth their communist utopia. I'd rather see anarchy take it's place as our ruling body than seeing the commies moving over.

[soserious1]

Too bad women only want the good parts of being a man, not the bad soserious ^.

 

Where are all the women demanding coal mines to hire for exactly a 50% female staff?

 

Women construction workers? Women frontline infantry units?

 

Nope, they just want equality in the cushy, air conditioned affirmative action government jobs.

 

I bet all the feminists talking about male oppression because they had to stay safe and snug in their home in the past just wish they could go back in time and take a lungful of asbestos or get their legs blown off in WWI.

 

A large part of the problem is that it is impossible to legislate social/cultural norms in a way that will please everyone & that will provide fairness in all situations.

 

Yes, Sarah might have been a stay at home mother for 10 years.. but John might have objected to that strongly argued about it with her weekly.. by the time they get in front of the divorce court judge it's a tangled mess of he said/she said.

 

The solutions I propose remove Federal/state lawmakers from our bedrooms & treats adults as if they are capable of assessing their own risk tolerance.

 

I'm willing to bet if a couple needed to sign an agreement stating that child custody would be 50/50 in event of a divorce that we'd see a lot more parents doing things like truly equally sharing both child care & bread winning implementing fair solutions like Dad works day shift, Mom works nights with the kids being cared for by the at home parent.

 

The Government makes a piss poor mother and an even poorer father.. less government intrusion, not more is needed imho.

[Els]

I think you are missing my bigger point here. Women sit here citing examples of past discrimination yet one of the very biggest and most serious of discriminatory acts was committed against men... selective service.. the draft

 

What type of affirmative action will help make right an injustice that's resulted in the deaths, dismemberment or disability of hundreds of thousands of this nation's men?

 

While Sally was home burning her bra & braiding her armpit hair, Sam was forced to go to a rice paddy across the world & risk getting blown into a million little pieces.

 

Mmhmm, and two wrongs make a right, am I right? The solution to the feminazi movement is to do exactly the same thing they did, just the other way around?

 

I take it that all the wind-up equates to your disagreement with the above. Fair enough.

 

 

 

 

Feminists use "de facto" discrimination "statistics" as justification for all sorts of real discrimination against men, yet the exact same thing, only applied to women, even suggested in a somewhat tongue in cheek way is ANATHEMA! SACRILEGE! I see.

 

Yeah, the poster above's rant was most definitely tongue in cheek. And it IS the exact same thing - my point exactly. Why rant about something when you are agreeing with proposals to do the exact same thing?

 

 

 

Huh? I don't follow.

 

Not sure what you are getting at here, but I believe soserious is female FWIW.

 

Does not matter. There are men who support feminazis, there can be women who support the opposite, it does not make a difference. 'Him' is a universal pronoun. Oh, wait, is it feminazi-ish to use 'him' when referring to an irrational person although it's used in almost all other cases as well? Sorry about that.

 

 

 

Once again, Huh? Is there some point in there? Incidentally my "agreement" with what soserious posted was that I agree that those are the types of issues we never even get to the point of discussing due to all the feminist shouting, not that I agree with each and every phrase and clause. She herself stated very clearly that they were just off the top of her head. Reviewing my post, other than inserting "as issues" after "agree with all these," I fail to see how anyone could have misinterpreted my intent.

 

Oh, wait, you're a feminist. I understand now. NM.

 

If I was the sort of 'feminist' you claim 90% of women are, dear, I would not be equating the two of you to them, would I?

 

And no, there was no misinterpretation. When you say "I agree with all this", it isn't up to me to dissect your post and take that to mean, "I agree with the spirit of this but not half of the things you are saying." Sorry. Not my responsibility.

[dasein]

Interesting you bring up the Communist/Marxist roots of feminism Dasein. The USSR under Lenin pushed all kinds of radical feminist reforms (he wanted the Soviet state to raise children, not families)

 

The destruction of the family unit, devaluation of male influence in families, and substitution of state indoctrinators is an early step in many Communist realpolitik systems of social control. 60 years after the creation of feminism out of thin air, we do in fact have vastly eroded family and marriage institutions in which the role of men has been nearly obviated (other than paying for it... neat trick).

 

State transfer programs and state school indoctrinators, from grade school on up to the serious indoctrination percolators, the postsecondary system, stand in the stead of the traditional family unit in ever increasing instances in the U.S. This comports exactly with the STATED goals of feminism posted earlier by NXS, yet from feminist apologists here, "correlation doesn't equal causation." Maybe not, but after awhile the mountains of coincidental correlations become impossible to ignore. They TOLD us what they wanted to accomplish and 60 years later, they have in fact accomplished what they set out to do.

 

They sit back and chortle at us as dupes still buy the carney pitch "equality for women."

 

Eventually the Soviet Union disowned the 1960's frankfurt school marxists that were pushing for feminism, because of the fact that they believed identity politics like feminism pitted women against men instead of uniting the workers.

 

Too bad we didn't. Marcuse is still celebrated as a "kindly folk hero" here. Astounding.

 

Fact is , we had to dumb everything down so that women can succeed. College is just the 13th grade, more women go to college but they also have a much higher incidence of worthless degrees like psychology, queer theory and women's studies. Women statistically read more, but only if you count vampire novels. Don't even get me started on woman owned business' vs male dominated fields like IT/computers (which makes massive leaps by the minute).

 

It's true that men seem to have a longer distribution curve, we get all the worst nuts and greatest geniuses, but hope to keep this to talking about feminism as opposed to the merits of women v men. I will say that I have seen hundreds of instances of bad affirmative action practices during my career.

[dasein]

And no, there was no misinterpretation. When you say "I agree with all this", it isn't up to me to dissect your post and take that to mean, "I agree with the spirit of this but not half of the things you are saying." Sorry. Not my responsibility.

 

My post and the intent of block quoting soserious couldn't have been more clear, agree or not, I don't care.

[Els]

So, then, you disagree that they should make women do 4 years of draft and not men, as 'payback', and that women should be shipped to the end of priority lists for college grants?