[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I see one of TOL's fag hag's is up and about, and of course defending feminism.

Really? Who's that then? I'm up and about defending ill informed preconceptions about "feminism" from certain planks who seem to equate an equality of the sexes with the militant variety.

And you came to that conclusion from these words?:

"Feminism has done a lot of good things for women too."

Well, yes I did as it happens unless allowing women the vote, the right to work for more than a pittance and being treat as equals instead of second class citizens counts as negatives in your book?

Yeah, it must make moral relativists like you and Rusha feel real good about yourselves taking the side of God on one issue. But then, you're not doing it because God says that it's wrong to murder, it's because "consent" wasn't used, right Arthur?
Too bad you don't follow His word on other important issues.

Pffft. You're one to talk about moral relativism doofus as established previous. If you weren't blinded by your pet fixation with one particular topic you might actually see just how much you ignore so much else. How about starvation, poverty, oppression, suffering etc? I don't see you addressing or showing any interest in anything which doesn't involve your personal obsession. Heck, even abortion plays second fiddle to gays....

And with the divorce rate as high as it is today, are women finding "decent blokes" now?

At least in the present they have more options to do something about it than in the past, where they'd just be expected to put up with it if they hadn't.

I'll gladly pull up statistics showing modern day spousal and child sexual assault/abuse. One would think with women "having a voice", that high rates of spousal and child rape wouldn't happen anymore, right Arthur?

No you flaming moron, it merely means that such in the present is addressed to the fore whereas in times past it wouldn't have even made the back end of a local rag! Attention of something doesn't eliminate it but at least in the present women have a voice that is heard whereas in the patriarchal societies of times past such wouldn't have been to the same extent. Is that clear now, or are you so darn thick it needs to be drawn in pictures for you?

Rape, violence, domestic and spousal abuse don't just magically disappear just because of heightened awareness and elimination of misogyny as acceptable in society. Heck, if you can't understand that then you really are blind.

A job over your family is a sad sad choice. Maybe someday you'll have one and you can relate to what I'm talking about.

Rather a woman (as much as a man) has the choice as to whether they wish to raise a family or not. They also have the choice to raise a family whilst having a career. Women are no longer expected to slave behind a kitchen sink and fulfill one particular role in itself. If women want to stay at home and do so then absolutely fine. If they don't then that's the same, and if that sticks in your craw then boo hoo, have some tissues and cry back to your cave....

[1PeaceMaker]

I'll tell you what I think of feminism. True feminism wants respect for homemakers, equal respect as women who do the "breadwinning." True feminism wants women to have a choice where and with whom she gives birth. And respects her rights to refuse unwanted procedures in birth.True feminism respects that birth is sacred and integral to a woman's psyche. True feminism respects maternal desire as normal and even healthy. More are the children of the barren woman. But that does not mean that the natural desires of a woman are unhealthy. True feminism would not shame our female youth into embarrassment over the desire to wed and be mothers early in life. True feminism would neither torture such young women with unwanted celibacy or encourage promiscuity.

True feminism would fiercely guard young mothers and their children from those who would take advantage of them, rather than sending them to institutions hooked into adoption mills.

[1PeaceMaker]

Studs (men who have sex with lots of women) are not the same as women who have sex with lots of men. You could call those women something, alone. Women want long term bonding and support for children. Males don't give birth, so they don't have the same natural constraints.

Women select for the best male of the species, men are designed to impregnate as many as are in need of a mate without concern for who is the best. This is why males of many species often hold a harem, a flock or whatever.

For those women who share a man, they get the total impregnation package, with an extra child-watcher and only taking care of half or less of that man's needs. I think polygamy is ultra feminist. Too much so for my taste. If it came to a vote, the women could cast more than half the opinion. Who has to work harder, the male or the females? The male must serve multiple females then.

I'm happy being monogamous, but I think feminism in America is ignoring these glaring facts.

[kalliste]

And to think that when I said some people had turned religion into a BDSM fest, someone thought it was "an emotional soundbite"!

[The Barbarian]

I outright reject, and comfortably, your insistence that I must give up my rights as a human being if I reject modern feminism.

She just told you that you had the right to give up your rights, but only if you wanted. She also said you have the right to keep them. Read slowly, if you must.

Modern feminism has nothing for me

Which is fine. Just don't insist that others have to give up their rights to make you "comfortable."

and it is a grievous insult that it lays claim to securing any of the rights you pretend it has. The movement that did those things was poisoned and replaced by this horrible, twisted hag of a movement you want me to pretend is feminism.

You're free to think so. You're just not free to force people to comply with your desires.

Well, no. I'm not going to do that.

As she told you, you don't have to. Your call.

What's more, to hell with your modern mockery of feminism.

And you can surely understand why others have the same opinon of yours. Learn to accept that you don't make the rules.

If I haven't worded this strongly enough, please let me know. I'm sure I can do better.

I know feminists who are shrill and angry, too. But one less of you would be nice.

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

She just told you that you had the right to give up your rights, but only if you wanted. She also said you have the right to keep them. Read slowly, if you must.

BC's implication was pretty obviously that my position amounted to rejecting basic human rights for women. What, you're really going to pretend that wasn't what she was saying?

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Which is fine. Just don't insist that others have to give up their rights to make you "comfortable."

I don't. What are you on about?

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

You're free to think so. You're just not free to force people to comply with your desires.

I don't. Who said otherwise?

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

As she told you, you don't have to. Your call.

Great. Except that's not what she said. Nowhere did she say anything like that. Rather, what she very obviously implied is that I reject my rights as a human being by rejecting modern feminism.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

And you can surely understand why others have the same opinon of yours. Learn to accept that you don't make the rules.

Other people have opinions, you say? Intriguing.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

I know feminists who are shrill and angry, too. But one less of you would be nice.

I know people that like to respond to posts with a lot of blather that hasn't anything to do with the actual post they're quoting. Weird, huh?

[The Barbarian]

BC's implication was pretty obviously that my position amounted to rejecting basic human rights for women.

I think you'd do better to take what she said, instead of what you want to react against.

What, you're really going to pretend that wasn't what she was saying?

I'm kinda literal-minded. Always been that way. It tends to avoid a lot of misunderstandings.

Barbarian suggests:
Which is fine. Just don't insist that others have to give up their rights to make you "comfortable."

I don't.

So why did you object to her saying so?

What are you on about?

Taking people on what they say, again.

Barbarian observes:
You're free to think so. You're just not free to force people to comply with your desires.

I don't. Who said otherwise?

You reacted with a semi-hysterical rant when BC said as much.

Barbarian observes:
As she told you, you don't have to. Your call.

Great. Except that's not what she said.

Well, let's take a look...

BC writes:
If a woman wants no rights, wants not to vote, wants nothing but to be treated like a Muslim woman, than she can still be treated that way here in America, if she chooses. For those that want to be nothing but brood mares to male children, you still have that right.

Other woman prefer some rights in this life.

She just told you, that you can have all your rights, or give them all up, if you like. Read slowly, if you must.

Rather, what she very obviously implied is that I reject my rights as a human being by rejecting modern feminism.

You think asserting your rights as a person is "modern feminism?" You're finding personal boogeymen where they don't exist, it seems.

Barbarian observes:
And you can surely understand why others have the same opinion of yours. Learn to accept that you don't make the rules.

Other people have opinions, you say? Intriguing.

The point is, they have a right to them. Learn that.

Barbarian suggests:
I know feminists who are shrill and angry, too. But one less of you would be nice.

I know people that like to respond to posts with a lot of blather that hasn't anything to do with the actual post they're quoting.

For example, you just responded to BC's post like a Rorschach blot.

Weird, huh?

Just classic Mary.

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

My words and hers are right there. Not interested in obscuring them further with you, Barbie.

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

Pffft.

I know this topic is over the head of someone who thinks that morality is based on "consent", but the modern day feminist movement and the breakdown of the family unit can easily be traced to it's atheist roots (as shown in my first post with a link).

Abortion, single parenting, the masculinization of women, amongst other things, has brought us to the sad state of affairs that our society is currently in.

For our first lesson, let's start with the letter "A" and talk about how the feminist movement is behind the murder of 1.2 million unborn American babies each year.

History of Abortion (from Feminist.com)

"...Antiabortion legislation was part of an antifeminist backlash to the growing movements for suffrage, voluntary motherhood, and other women's rights in the 19th century..."

"In the 1960s, inspired by the [communist backed] civil rights and antiwar movements, women began to fight more actively for their rights. The fast-growing women's movement took the taboo subject of abortion to the public. Rage, pain, and fear burst out in demonstrations and speakouts as women burdened by years of secrecy got up in front of strangers to talk about their illegal abortions. Women marched and rallied and lobbied for abortion on demand. Civil liberties groups and liberal clergy joined in these efforts to support women.

Reform came gradually. A few states liberalized abortion laws, allowing women abortions in certain circumstances (e.g., pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, being under 15 years of age) but leaving the decision up to doctors and hospitals. Costs were still high and few women actually benefited."

"The right to abortion is part of every woman's right to control her reproductive choices and her own life. We must reject all efforts to coerce women's reproductive decisions. The goals of reproductive rights activists must encompass the right to have children as well as the right not to."
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ou.../abortion.html

Are you pro abortion as well as pro faggotry Arthur?

More later on feminism, the breakdown of the nuclear family and the masculinization of women.

[aCultureWarrior]

The Impact of Feminism on the Family

"Gloria Steinem sounded the war cry, "We don't just want to destroy capitalism," she said, "we want to tear down the whole f____ patriarchy."

As the women's movement turned fanatical and ugly in the 1960s and 70s the focus began to shift from reform and equal opportunity. The feminist leaders - humorless, militant, pugnacious, and angry with their particular lot in life, launched programs that were anti-God, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-birth, anti-heterosexual and fostered a virulent hatred of anything having to do with males. They no longer wanted to equalize the status of women, but instead wanted to irreversibly alienate women from men and vice versa.

"The fiction of fatherhood is a giant religion called Christianity."
- Jill Johnston in Lesbian Nation

Home and traditional family values are no longer accepted answers to the questions, "Who am I?" and, "What am I here for?" The preeminent purpose for some women have become their careers, and they decided against the value of home and family.

Taken over by radical leftists committed to adultery, lesbianism, and the perpetuation of "self" over motherhood and family, the women's movement led by the National Organization of Women (NOW), became an adjunct of the Democratic party. The Democratic Party left millions of evangelicals and pro-family Christians when they lurched to the left under George McGovern and his successors. During the 1970s, the Democratic Party abandoned its centrist pro-family base and became captive to the special interest of the radical left, including the feminists, extreme environmentalists and gay rights activists.

Radical feminists linked all the Marxist causes together by writing, "We want to destroy the three pillars of class and a caste society - the family, private property, and the state."
[Peter Collier and David horowith, Deconstructing the Left: From Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, 1991]...

...Dissolving the Family
Betty Friedan, founder of NOW, referred to traditional family life as a "comfortable concentration camp" from which women needed liberation. Sheila Cronan, one of the feminist movements most respected leaders and spokeswomen said, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage."'
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/feminist2.html

Need I say more about the subject?

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I know this topic is over the head of someone who thinks that morality is based on "consent", but the modern day feminist movement and the breakdown of the family unit can easily be traced to it's atheist roots (as shown in my first post with a link).

Abortion, single parenting, the masculinization of women, amongst other things, has brought us to the sad state of affairs that our society is currently in.

For our first lesson, let's start with the letter "A" and talk about how the feminist movement is behind the murder of 1.2 million unborn American babies each year.

History of Abortion (from Feminist.com)

"...Antiabortion legislation was part of an antifeminist backlash to the growing movements for suffrage, voluntary motherhood, and other women's rights in the 19th century..."

"In the 1960s, inspired by the [communist backed] civil rights and antiwar movements, women began to fight more actively for their rights. The fast-growing women's movement took the taboo subject of abortion to the public. Rage, pain, and fear burst out in demonstrations and speakouts as women burdened by years of secrecy got up in front of strangers to talk about their illegal abortions. Women marched and rallied and lobbied for abortion on demand. Civil liberties groups and liberal clergy joined in these efforts to support women.

Reform came gradually. A few states liberalized abortion laws, allowing women abortions in certain circumstances (e.g., pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, being under 15 years of age) but leaving the decision up to doctors and hospitals. Costs were still high and few women actually benefited."

"The right to abortion is part of every woman's right to control her reproductive choices and her own life. We must reject all efforts to coerce women's reproductive decisions. The goals of reproductive rights activists must encompass the right to have children as well as the right not to."
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ou.../abortion.html

Are you pro abortion as well as pro faggotry Arthur?

More later on feminism, the breakdown of the nuclear family and the masculinization of women.

Well what a surprise. Instead of answering point for point lets go for the tried and failed cut n paste routine instead. You're a transparent piece of work ASC and no mistake....

It's typical of ignorant hicks like you to place the blame on a movement without looking to see why women felt the need to rebel in the first place. Now why do you suppose that was?

Well lets see....oppression? Denied the vote and the same rights as men? Denied decent pay and rights in the workplace?

If it wasn't for misogyny amidst patriarchal societies in the first place there wouldn't have needed to be a suffragette movement because women would already have what they were due to begin with - equality

It's also typical of planks like you to deny the responsibility men have where it comes to abortion. How many times do you suppose blokes have run off leaving the woman to "hold the baby", or put pressure on or even forced women to have an abortion? Especially where women weren't given the voice they have nowadays. Are you so damn clueless you deny this as well? Look to your own doorstep as to why movements which you despise so much actually happened to come about doofus.

It's no wonder you couldn't answer my points.

Pro faggotry? Nope....not my food choice as it goes but if others enjoy them then it's cool with me.

Pro abortion? Nope....

Anti Dingbat ignorance? Yup.....

[Sum1sGruj]

The greatest American oppression of women...

..are other women. It's just that simple, really.

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

Well what a surprise. Instead of answering point for point lets go for the tried and failed cut n paste routine instead. You're a transparent piece of work ASC and no mistake....

It's typical of ignorant hicks like you to place the blame on a movement without looking to see why women felt the need to rebel in the first place. Now why do you suppose that was?

Well lets see....oppression? Denied the vote and the same rights as men? Denied decent pay and rights in the workplace?

If it wasn't for misogyny amidst patriarchal societies in the first place there wouldn't have needed to be a suffragette movement because women would already have what they were due to begin with - equality

It's also typical of planks like you to deny the responsibility men have where it comes to abortion. How many times do you suppose blokes have run off leaving the woman to "hold the baby", or put pressure on or even forced women to have an abortion? Especially where women weren't given the voice they have nowadays. Are you so damn clueless you deny this as well? Look to your own doorstep as to why movements which you despise so much actually happened to come about doofus.

It's no wonder you couldn't answer my points.

Pro faggotry? Nope....not my food choice as it goes but if others enjoy them then it's cool with me.

Pro abortion? Nope....

Anti Dingbat ignorance? Yup.....

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

..are other women. It's just that simple, really.

Nah ... only those who allow it. That bothers you, doesn't it?

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by Sum1sGruj

..are other women. It's just that simple, really.

Well 'simple' certainly sums that response up....