CDZ Are we seeing the nascence of the Women's Movement 2.0?

[OldLady]

View attachment 95230

No partisanship here...

Isn't puritanism fun!

I'm looking forward to all those jocks being ostracized from the team for groping and rape since we're now going to hold everyone accountable.

While we're at it 'get thee to a convent woman' if you have a child out of wedlock.

Next we can reestablish the 18th Amendment...

*****CHUCKLE*****

Respect isn't puritanism.
Puritanism has nothing to do with it. Have fun, just don't think you can help yourself to a woman's goodies without her full and complete agreement. That would include not pinning an attractive stranger against the wall and kissing her on the mouth apropos of nothing.
Puritanism, indeed.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Respect isn't puritanism.
Puritanism has nothing to do with it. Have fun, just don't think you can help yourself to a woman's goodies without her full and complete agreement. That would include not pinning an attractive stranger against the wall and kissing her on the mouth apropos of nothing.
Puritanism, indeed.

What makes you think I've ever forced a woman to do anything against her will?

My whole perspective since entering this discussion has been anything but partisan. I suggest you go back and read and think about what I wrote. The only one being partisan and truly attacking anyone in a partisan manner here has been yourself and 320,... most especially you.

You want people to be mature and grow up?

That means they are responsible and held accountable for their own actions whether they are male or female.

*****CHUCKLE*****





Mod Edit - XXXX

 

[320 Years of History]

Posters here have said it is communist, lesbian, progressive, Muslim loving or class warfare to discuss the Women's Movement 2.0.

Doesn't almost everything that "deplorables" and several other types conservatives say fall into one of those categories when they are either unwilling or unable to make a sound case for one or more substantive points? Seems that way to me, at least.

 

[OldLady]

Respect isn't puritanism.
Puritanism has nothing to do with it. Have fun, just don't think you can help yourself to a woman's goodies without her full and complete agreement. That would include not pinning an attractive stranger against the wall and kissing her on the mouth apropos of nothing.
Puritanism, indeed.

What makes you think I've ever forced a woman to do anything against her will?

My whole perspective since entering this discussion has been anything but partisan. I suggest you go back and read and think about what I wrote. The only one being partisan and truly attacking anyone in a partisan manner here has been yourself and 320,... most especially you.

You want people to be mature and grow up?

That means they are responsible and held accountable for their own actions whether they are male or female.

*****CHUCKLE*****





PS: Don't ever personnally attack me again in the CDZ.

When did I personally attack you in the CDZ? I wasn't speaking personally to you in my last response. It was the Royal "You" as in people generally. I still fail to see where I'm being partisan; I guess if you want me to think hard about what you are suggesting, you should probably point out where I was trying to say this was all a conservative problem. Or isn't that what you meant as partisan? I suggested that men and women should enter on a level playing field and take it from there. You suggested that I was being a puritan. I don't see it. Honestly.

 

[OldLady]

Posters here have said it is communist, lesbian, progressive, Muslim loving or class warfare to discuss the Women's Movement 2.0.

Doesn't almost everything that "deplorables" and several other types conservatives say fall into one of those categories when they are either unwilling or unable to make a sound case for one or more substantive points? Seems that way to me, at least.

The reaction to this topic in general has been a lot more heated than I expected. It is an indication of how politicized some people have made this issue, and I'm sure both sides are equally guilty of bringing it to that point. This seems to stir up people almost as much as an abortion thread. Imagine if this weren't the CDZ.

 

[GaryDog]

Mod Edit: Oops...someone forgot they were in CDZ

 

[320 Years of History]

Posters here have said it is communist, lesbian, progressive, Muslim loving or class warfare to discuss the Women's Movement 2.0.

Doesn't almost everything that "deplorables" and several other types conservatives say fall into one of those categories when they are either unwilling or unable to make a sound case for one or more substantive points? Seems that way to me, at least.

The reaction to this topic in general has been a lot more heated than I expected. It is an indication of how politicized some people have made this issue, and I'm sure both sides are equally guilty of bringing it to that point. This seems to stir up people almost as much as an abortion thread. Imagine if this weren't the CDZ.

What's political at all about how women are regarded and whether an individual accords to women the respect they deserve? Isn't that entirely a social matter?

I have no idea why folks feel the treatment of women is a political matter, but the extent to which they do is a sign of "something;" however, whatever be that something, it isn't a "good thing."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Mod Edit: Oops...someone forgot they were in CDZ

 

[GaryDog]

Mod Edit: Oops...someone forgot they were in CDZ

 

[320 Years of History]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

Red:
If you were the thread creator, I'd accept that as fact. But you aren't, and I am, and I am telling you that you are wrong about what this thread is about.

 

[Camp]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

In this thread, the voices of many people disagreeing have been heard loud and clear. I don't see any of it being shut down, so I'm at a loss to see where being "politically correct" comes in. I'm also at a loss to see where there has been name calling in this thread, although I think one or two of you have been bent on taking this to a personal level. The answer, of course, is to abandon the thread, which is apparently the hope of those who want to take it off track with either personal issues or a nonrelated topic. But that's not really fair, is it?

The key word in the thread title is nascence. Unfortunately there are some who don't know the definition of the word and are too lazy to learn it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

In this thread, the voices of many people disagreeing have been heard loud and clear. I don't see any of it being shut down, so I'm at a loss to see where being "politically correct" comes in. I'm also at a loss to see where there has been name calling in this thread, although I think one or two of you have been bent on taking this to a personal level. The answer, of course, is to abandon the thread, which is apparently the hope of those who want to take it off track with either personal issues or a nonrelated topic. But that's not really fair, is it?

That is the crux of the issue. Politically correct leftists do not see calling people "deplorable" as any sort of name calling.

After all -- it isn't you being called names, is it?

 

[Camp]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

In this thread, the voices of many people disagreeing have been heard loud and clear. I don't see any of it being shut down, so I'm at a loss to see where being "politically correct" comes in. I'm also at a loss to see where there has been name calling in this thread, although I think one or two of you have been bent on taking this to a personal level. The answer, of course, is to abandon the thread, which is apparently the hope of those who want to take it off track with either personal issues or a nonrelated topic. But that's not really fair, is it?

That is the crux of the issue. Politically correct leftists do not see calling people "deplorable" as any sort of name calling.

After all -- it isn't you being called names, is it?

Deplorable is a word with an exact definition. When used it describes a specific personality trait or traits. It is not the same as using foul or undefinable language to disparage.

 

[320 Years of History]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

In this thread, the voices of many people disagreeing have been heard loud and clear. I don't see any of it being shut down, so I'm at a loss to see where being "politically correct" comes in. I'm also at a loss to see where there has been name calling in this thread, although I think one or two of you have been bent on taking this to a personal level. The answer, of course, is to abandon the thread, which is apparently the hope of those who want to take it off track with either personal issues or a nonrelated topic. But that's not really fair, is it?

That is the crux of the issue. Politically correct leftists do not see calling people "deplorable" as any sort of name calling.

After all -- it isn't you being called names, is it?

What people call one isn't what matters. What matters is what one answers to.

 

[OldLady]

Seems the "This is the CDZ, stop it" line is a great stand-in for substance coming from a lot of the know-nothings here.

I often think people are under the impression that "clean debate" = "politically correct"

When those who are invested heavily in the leftist fundamentalist point of view come into contact with those who do not ascribe to such, they assume that they can say all the same things they all say to each other but their targets cannot.

This thread isn't about women's rights per se, but only in furthering the notion that misogyny only arises from those quarters people feel free to attack.

In this thread, the voices of many people disagreeing have been heard loud and clear. I don't see any of it being shut down, so I'm at a loss to see where being "politically correct" comes in. I'm also at a loss to see where there has been name calling in this thread, although I think one or two of you have been bent on taking this to a personal level. The answer, of course, is to abandon the thread, which is apparently the hope of those who want to take it off track with either personal issues or a nonrelated topic. But that's not really fair, is it?

That is the crux of the issue. Politically correct leftists do not see calling people "deplorable" as any sort of name calling.

After all -- it isn't you being called names, is it?

Since I didn't call you deplorable, or anything else, I suggest you address this to the person who did.
You have in posts here called Trump a misogynist and admitted that disrespect for women generally is a non-partisan issue. Thanks for that. I really think that as long as you've got your kids covered, and whatever other kids you are in contact with as maybe a coach or scout leader, it's all I would ask of anyone.

 

[OldLady]

[
Since I didn't call you deplorable, or anything else, I suggest you address this to the person who did.
You have in posts here called Trump a misogynist and admitted that disrespect for women generally is a non-partisan issue. Thanks for that. I really think that as long as you've got your kids covered, and whatever other kids you are in contact with as maybe a coach or scout leader, it's all I would ask of anyone.

Your claim was that there had been no such name calling, not that you were the one who had done so.

How can people have a clean debate when people are not behaving honestly?

So far, I am still the only one who has been willing to address it from a non-partisan perspective. When you and 320 begin to do so, then we might get somewhere.

Once again, the hypocritical attitudes of politically correct multiculturalists hamper the issue of women's right even more than the old-boy networks of the right. Good grief, Britain has experienced MASSIVE rape epidemics involving Muslims selecting British children as targets, yet the politically correct multicultists allowed it to occur for years.

How anybody could possibly state that they stand for women's rights and then turn around and ignore the rape of children is beyond me.

I haven't ignored the rape of children and I doubt if anyone else has, either, who is talking about Women's Movement 2.0. Are you planning to answer 320's question about how this is relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[GaryDog]

[
Since I didn't call you deplorable, or anything else, I suggest you address this to the person who did.
You have in posts here called Trump a misogynist and admitted that disrespect for women generally is a non-partisan issue. Thanks for that. I really think that as long as you've got your kids covered, and whatever other kids you are in contact with as maybe a coach or scout leader, it's all I would ask of anyone.

Your claim was that there had been no such name calling, not that you were the one who had done so.

How can people have a clean debate when people are not behaving honestly?

So far, I am still the only one who has been willing to address it from a non-partisan perspective. When you and 320 begin to do so, then we might get somewhere.

Once again, the hypocritical attitudes of politically correct multiculturalists hamper the issue of women's right even more than the old-boy networks of the right. Good grief, Britain has experienced MASSIVE rape epidemics involving Muslims selecting British children as targets, yet the politically correct multicultists allowed it to occur for years.

How anybody could possibly state that they stand for women's rights and then turn around and ignore the rape of children is beyond me.

Such a massive strawman fallacy. You claim to be "non-partisan" and then in the same breath you lambast "multi-culturalists". The speciousness of such an argument is so ridiculous it's hard to know where to start.

First, those on the left are generally the most anti-religion of anyone on the political spectrum, so blaming them for rapes committed by right-wing, fundamentalist Muslims is illogical at best. The right-wing of the political spectrum is the first to embrace religious fundamentalism, particularly that in the U.S. that has been the most rough on women.

Second, "multi-culturalism" is not to blame for muslims raping women in Europe. The rapists are. Your argument is akin to blaming oxygen for fire. Multi-culturalism is a fact of life in the U.S. and Europe, and it's also one of the primary reasons we're great. And you conflate support for that to tacit support for rapes. Mod Edit -- a bit too far on the personal.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I haven't ignored the rape of children and I doubt if anyone else has, either, who is talking about Women's Movement 2.0. Are you planning to answer 320's question about how this is relevant to the topic at hand?

You should read some Susan Moller Okin on the subject.

Since the discussion involves a new woman's movement and the treatment of women in western societies should concern ALL men living in these societies, I find your need (in the collective sense) to limit discussion to only hard line leftist preconceptions to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to women's rights.

Rather than you people dishing out all your insults against the intelligence of others who simply do not share your conditioned responses on the subject, perhaps you could take the time to consider them, instead. 320's veritable stock in trade involves laying down a gauntlet where he links the acceptance of leftist orthodoxy with intelligence as he magnifies the sense of his own while maligning all others as knuckle dragging deplorables. Such a Manichaean world view belies that impression he is attempting to craft as it is so simplistic in nature.

Once again, you folks feel free to malign anybody you wish while expecting noting but respect in return, and for what -- being an uber conformist?

 

[GaryDog]

I haven't ignored the rape of children and I doubt if anyone else has, either, who is talking about Women's Movement 2.0. Are you planning to answer 320's question about how this is relevant to the topic at hand?

You should read some Susan Moller Okin on the subject.

Since the discussion involves a new woman's movement and the treatment of women in western societies should concern ALL men living in these societies, I find your need (in the collective sense) to limit discussion to only hard line leftist preconceptions to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to women's rights.

Rather than you people dishing out all your insults against the intelligence of others who simply do not share your conditioned responses on the subject, perhaps you could take the time to consider them, instead. 320's veritable stock in trade involves laying down a gauntlet where he links the acceptance of leftist orthodoxy with intelligence as he magnifies the sense of his own while maligning all others as knuckle dragging deplorables. Such a Manichaean world view belies that impression he is attempting to craft as it is so simplistic in nature.

Once again, you folks feel free to malign anybody you wish while expecting noting but respect in return, and for what -- being an uber conformist?

I'm trying to understand how your knee-jerk contrarianism is somehow better than our alleged "uber-conformist" (whatever that is) positions.