Fanatical Feminism

[Si modo]

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.

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.

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]

Which posters are those?

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

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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?....

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]

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

 

[CurveLight]

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.

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.

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

 

[ConHog]

Which posters are those?

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

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Si modo]

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.

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

I know, lover.

 

[ConHog]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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 ****.

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]

Marxist feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samson]

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


Bravo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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 ****.

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.

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.