|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group libel. Overblown hypberbolic group think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group libel. Overblown hypberbolic group think.
What stunning insight! What scintillating wit! What incisive and scathing exposure of illogic! Be still, oh my heart! I tremble at the point by point refutation presented herein.
Well, I can hope. Instead, as is usual, what we have is the typical, knee-jerk, factless, name-calling response by a Pheminazi when someone speaks out against them.
Ever notice that whenever a member of some "protected minority" speaks out against the politically correct current wisdom, it isn't a second before some piece of leftist white trash pops up to slap them down and try to keep them back on the plantation? And it almost always involves some labels - most of them meaningless and delivered out of context - intended to shame them?
Of course, Lorrianne will stridently claim not to be a feminist - but let's look a little closer. What sacred cow is being slammed here? What Holy Ox is being gored, what ideology is being "Libelled" as a group? Let's look at the record:
What's so remarkable about the feminist charade was how long a run it had before a few women caught on to it. It didn't even pass muster as a leftist ideology, focusing on material objectives such as money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions. It was utopian ("You can have it all") but in the end really not much more than pseudo-intellectual hedonism.
Hmmm. Could it be - PHEMINISM? I knew you could say it.
Overblown and Hyperbolic. How cute. The last is actually four syllables. It's just extreme. It's out of proportion. Never mind that sweeping generalizations are not made, but what is homed in on with Fiori's pen are very specific stupidities, and the exposure of some very dirty little secrets that the pheminista pseudo-intellectuals don't want you to know; namely that women can run the race in stupidity, cluelessness, viciousness, promiscuity, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, and shallowness stride for stride with any man - and in many cases beat them. Ye gods! Can't have that! Why, the moral superiority and emotional maturity of women is a cornerstone of the pheminut dogma!
Now wonder Angela is accused of "Group Think." It's a typical (and sadly unoriginal by thousands of years) charge laid by doctrinaire ideologues against heretics; ironic in that such apostates are going against the "common knowledge" group think that they want everyone to be in line with.
Oh, Bravo, Lorianne, Bravo! In just two sentence fragments you have illustrated that this article is a "Must Read" for everyone. The shrill panic engendered in your words shows what a danger this woman is to your pet cause, and what an emergent and potential treasure she is.
Cheers! ;-)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @03:46PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh, Bravo, Lorianne, Bravo! In just two sentence fragments you have illustrated that this article is a "Must Read" for everyone. The shrill panic engendered in your words shows what a danger this woman is to your pet cause, and what an emergent and potential treasure she is."
I am going to read it right now. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libel again... this is the second time I've heard this today from a feminist. Over on ifeminist.com there was threatened litigation for calling a rad-fem on her man hating bigotry, now here the libel term pops up again.
Is this laying the groundwork for a new feminst initiative? Censorship through legal intimidation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @05:23PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists should join forces with the Church of Scientology. They could get a lot done together!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It (feminism) didn't even pass muster as a leftist ideology, focusing on material objectives such as money, prestigious jobs, and physical possessions.
Actually, I'd modify this a bit. There are three things that feminism promised women and that made the movement irresistible to so many women. (This cracks me up, because we're so often told in derogatory tones that these are the only things that men care about.)
What did feminism promise women? Money, sex, and power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:-D
Oh yeah, baby. I'm grinning from ear to ear as I read this. A virtual high-five to ya, Thomas, for banging the nail right square on the head, and driving it home in one blow.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @06:01PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Angela Fiori is one great writer. Where have all the good women like her gone? She's intelligent. She's courageous. She's funny. And she's also rather good looking. Oh God, among these waves and waves of dour-faced, goose-steeping pheminazis, please send me one Angela Fiori!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the end of his essay Rothbard cut to the real motive of the feminists: the campus date-rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren't motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.
The only point I'd add is that the regulations the feminists were proposing applied only to men, not to the hordes of lecherous dikes teaching in "Wymyn's Studies" departments whose most prized occupational perk is brazen sexual harassment of young women with complete impunity.
...Wow...
BRAVO!!!
I love it when someone calls these Hitlerian genderfem "teachers" on their real motivation: ensuring an endless supply of supple young lesbian flesh for them to tear into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @06:10PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100 per cent. The "womens studies" departments are staffed by nests of lesbians who are "on the make".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @08:19PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood and deep down they have an innate desire for it, no matter how sublimated nature can be to social idiocies such as feminism"
I stop reading polemical essays once the word God is spoken. Especially after the matter of fact statement that some individual god of the myriads of gods somehow created us out of nothing. I just can't take it seriously. And I supose God created men to be womens protectors and providers as well. It's unscientific, and doesn't give any meaningfull answer to why things are the way they are or can be changed since of course it's gods laws (that I encourage to break). NO Gods NO Masters
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @09:58PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the God she refers to allegedly made human men out of the clay of the Earth and human woman from the rib of human man to be his partner. Just because this woman has religion negates everything else she says? Is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @10:20PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
it's just hard to tak eit seriously, I'm used to reading from secular sources. My family is religious. I still have love for religious people.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @06:22PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"....somehow created us out of nothing".
According to scientists, all matter in the universe was created in a moment of creation. Thus all human beings were ultimately produced from this act of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood..."
This is nonsense. Females were around aeons before marriage was invented. The article is vitiated by in-principle unverifiable claims like this, which have more autobiographical than factual and substantive sociological content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you replace "God" with "Nature" or paraphrase it in any other way to be secular, it winds up saying the same thing, and holding the same truth. What are the thirty and forty-something women whining about? They got lied to; they can't have it all, and the old biological clock stopped ticking when it reached zero and menopause set in. What do they look forward to now? Their declining years married to some man - or the long-term girlfriend of some man who doesn't want to be burdened with marriage - running in second place to the kids he had with another woman years ago.
Go ahead and get uptight about someone else's belief in God. Throw out every insight they have and tell yourself you have to believe the exact opposite because they "believe in God." Don't even name God. Call him god, g*d, G_D, gawd - call them xtians or whatever. Go ahead, marginalize, mock, and alienate anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with your personal prejudices.
Last I heard this was a men's issues board; and fella, I tell you what - short of taking it to the streets we need to have the downfall of pheminism start from within its own ranks, to have women see that they have been lied to by this power play by a bunch of fugly, misandric dykes bent on taking revenge on every man in the world for the cosmos having the temerity to not bestow upon them a "Y" chromosome. We need to have women stand up and say "Phuck Pheminism, it's useless horsecrap, and totally irredeemable."
Look about you, Aaron - call it God, Biology, Nature, whatever you will - fact is we've all, through genetics, been dealt a hand, and pheminism is about a bunch of bitter women who resent having to play with the cards they have been dealt. They resent not being strong and big, they resent not having aggression (and how to deal with it) a key compnent of their makeup, they resent their yearnings to motherhood, they same motherhood that demands the presence of a man to do it effectively. Since they can't strike out at the universe, guess what? You have what they want, so you get to be whipping boy, because if they can't have it, you will be punished for having it.
As for me, give me a thousand Angela Fioris. Quite frankly, I value those like her above Wendy MacElroy, because she's not trying to redeem some bloated monstrosity of a concept like "feminism." I don't care if they are wearing habits, or huge gold crosses marching in the streets singing "Glory, Glory." It's those like her who will stand up, walk away from NOW and their ilk, proclaiming loudly, "Not me, don't call me your sister, I'm totally against you" who will be the critical point from where "feminism" can be hurled into the cesspool of history, with all the other useless, outdated, and disproven philosophies of human experience.
I've long said that even though I may not believe in the rightness of some things, what should be done is to goive pheminists everything they demand, but make sure the bad goes with the good. Give them full and unrestricted access to abortion - and with sole power give sole responsibility for a purely elective procedure. Give them the right to fight in the front lines - and die by the thousands. Give them careers, no glass ceilings - and the alienation from family and a life that we men have endured for millenia. By all means, if they want to throw away all the best things about being women, trade them gladly for all the worst things about being a man. Throw away chivalry, put it up on a shelf somewhere, and when they claim it, smile, shrug our shoulders, and say, "Now, now, girls. Can't be patriarchal and sexist, can we?"
It's at that point, when like the prodigal son (daughter?) they come back hat in hand, then we can dictate terms. This is the point I've reached in my life - it's like Mick Jagger said, decades ago - she's under my thumb. I don't even have to crack the whip anymore for the women in my life to snap to, because I've given them their independence, in spades, where all I have to do is walk away from them and let them fend for themselves. No risk, no investment for me. I'm male. I'm not a social maven. I don't require constant validation; they do, and my validation of them is conditional on their pleasing me with instant, absolute, unquestioning and total acquiescence to my decisions - otherwise, walk your own path alone, sister.
The women that I deign to be associated with in my life all have come around to Fiori's way of thinking, and most of them finally get it - they see why I will not be trapped into marriage. They see why I will not make a long term commitment, namely, because I will be held legally accountable for it while they will not, and they will damn well have to put up with uncertainty about their future with someone de facto so long as I have to de jure.
And if they want to utter the word "God" in the process - BFHD.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @12:39PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to respond and say that I read your post the gonzo kid. I think you're right I should have more respect for people who are religious. I myself have family who is religious. I don't agree with your whole post but I understand your anger towards feminism.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @12:41PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah when I get some time I'll read the rest of the article from where I left off. I"ve had too much religion shoved down my throat, that's my deal.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 07, @10:04PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look, you have to understand, belief in God is a delusion, but that doesn't mean it's easy to shake. Like Angela, I was raised Catholic, and if the feminists and other radicals hadn't killed everything that was superficially beautiful about that religion I'd still be trapped. I'm now a fairly happy atheist, much happier than when I was Catholic. I don't know why she hasn't been forcibly shaken loose, I suspect she lives in an insular community that managed to avoid some of the nastier effects of the radicals on "Holy Mother Church." (Incidentally, this has nothing to do with scandal. The Church was every bit as corrupt when it was beautiful, but it had an extremely beautiful facade which is how it hung on for so long.)
It's a hypnotically beautiful religion, if you can see it free of the taint of the radicals. You will have to search long and hard these days, but the old church lasted so long because of this hypnotic quality. (Try listening to some Catholic Church inspired classical music to see a glimpse of what I mean. Or some of the great Catholic art that was produced in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages. The Church used to be run by master manipulators, and the Italian branch was the seat of their power. )
However, just because someone isn't strong enough to throw off Catholicism, doesn't mean they are all bad. I've read her stuff, and she understands what's going on between the sexes today. She may draw some wrong conclusions now and then, but overall she's very insightful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the best posts I've read in a long time! Dude, if we were in the same room I'd shake your hand!
*bows down in obeisance to Gonzo*
:o)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @08:39PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Angela is right to complain about the state of the world and blaming men for lack of activism along with feminism/socialism. For too long now men have been lazy and irresponsible about caring for family, national and world matters.
Western nations were built by pioneering men and women of solid stock who toiled under extreme conditions. They built a world of democracy, liberty and justice. Over the last thirty odd years or so, it's all but gone.
Women like Angela, can see it. Great. I can see it too. And maybe some of you can.
The price of freedom is responsibilty. Slavery comes for free, just do nothing.
It's all up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @09:53PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Stop BS all of us when you post something that you know you totally agree with...
What pasrt of that article do you not agree with?
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The writer made some very good points, however, I would disagree on:
(1) The Friedanite 'Women's Movement' had absolutely nothing to do with the Suffragette Movement of the turn of the 20th Century ! The current Feminazi Movement is like Mick Hucknall's hair - Red to it's roots !
The current crop of 'femitwits' that pass for women thses days are nowhere near the calibre of the Emiline Pankhurst and Edith Cavell generation.
(2)The idea of 'Collective Woman' is another piece of fantasy. If 'Collective Woman' had collective knowledge why does each new generation make the same mistakes as the old one ? The "I can change this handsome,immature, philandering jerk through marriage" nonsense keeps surfacing again and again.
Keep up the good work Miss/Mrs Fiori - but keep your History 101 text-book handy !!
Thunderchild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are three things that feminism promised women and that made the movement irresistible to so many women. (This cracks me up, because we're so often told in derogatory tones that these are the only things that men care about.) What did feminism promise women? Money, sex, and power. Bravo! In a nutshell.
This is nonsense. Females were around aeons before marriage was invented. As I understand it, current anthropological thinking is that "marriage" was invented considerably before the appearance of homo sapiens: "By 4 million years ago the sex contract had been made. Early hominid females could make love daily [i.e. even when not fertile] and they formed bonding relationships with males who helped them raise their young." (Helen E. Fisher, The Sex Contract ) True, female sea urchins don't marry, but female humans always have -- until recently.
...fugly, misandric dykes.... Is that a typo? If so, it's a slip of genius.
Quite frankly, I value those like [Angela Fiori] above Wendy MacElroy, because she's not trying to redeem some bloated monstrosity of a concept like "feminism." Agreed. Always nice to meet an intelligent woman -- though I'm less than enthralled by her Devvy Kidd-like scolding of men toward the end of the article. She still wants to have it both ways. Graham Strachan's reply to Kidd is relevant here as well.
...what should be done is to goive pheminists everything they demand. Yes! With one exception: no more male slaves, no more front men, fall guys and whipping boys. They want it all? Let 'em have it, and let's go fishing. It was a bore anyway. Great post, Gonzo.
Angela is right to complain about the state of the world and blaming men for lack of activism along with feminism/socialism. For too long now men have been lazy and irresponsible about caring for family, national and world matters. Western nations were built by pioneering men and women of solid stock who toiled under extreme conditions. They built a world of democracy, liberty and justice. Over the last thirty odd years or so, it's all but gone.
Sorry, you don't get it. It's all gone because women have thrown it away. "Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." (Bob Dylan said that; happy birthday, Bob!) The irony of feminism is that the power they think they want ("male" power) is subordinate to the power (maternal, sexual, emotional) that women have always had and can never lose. Women decide and enforce the basic moral values of a culture. Women decide what sort of men their sons will be -- and American women for the last century and more have been systematically crippling their sons, sexually, emotionally and spiritually. Freud famously asked, "What do women want?" The answer is simple: What we have is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create. That they use their power almost entirely unconsciously does not make it any less effective -- more so if anything -- but is the reason why wiser cultures of the past (which did not infant-circumcise their sons) barred women from politics.
The Friedanite 'Women's Movement' had absolutely nothing to do with the Suffragette Movement of the turn of the 20th Century! The current Feminazi Movement is like Mick Hucknall's hair - Red to it's roots! The "sufragette" movement began with the Seneca Falls convention in 1848 (the same years the Communist Manifesto was published), whose "Declaration of Sentiments" was pure Marxism, merely substituting "gender" for "class" in the war it declared. Read it; apart from some 19th-century language, it could have been written yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pair-bonding is hardly unique to homo sapiens. Some species of waterfowl do this as well. Also, do you really believe we should bar women from politics? I have a pretty hard time swallowing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pair-bonding is hardly unique to homo sapiens. Some species of waterfowl do this as well.
Well, sure. Never said any different. Here I was responding to a comment that took issue with Angela Fiori's assertion that "Women were designed by God for marriage and motherhood...": "This is nonsense. Females were around aeons before marriage was invented." Just thought I'd set the record straight on this point.
Also, do you really believe we should bar women from politics? I have a pretty hard time swallowing that.
No, I don't believe "we" (who's we?) "should" (a word I don't generally use) bar women from politics. Too late, anyway; the cow is out of the barn, and I doubt she'll go back in -- and she's bigger than "we" are. But until it is made illegal (and I wouldn't be surprised) I see no reason I shouldn't remark on how things have gone since women have begun taking part directly in politics. For a detailed examination and analysis of this point, see the "Men's Tribune" site linked in another nearby thread.
Actually, Angela Fiori already said all that needs to be said in the very article that is the subject of this thread:
"Average men continue to be outraged by this perennial female adulation of either sociopaths or extremely good looking men who use them up and move on. They see no rationality in such a warped set of preferences. The key word here is rationality. The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future."
I'll bet she didn't really think about the implications of what she wrote regarding women's participation in politics ... but you can. Remember, no less an authority than Gloria Steinem proudly told us that Bill Clinton was the first president elected by women. (Actually, I don't think he was the first, but that's another essay.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, sorry, "The Men's Tribune" is not linked in another nearby thread; I thought I had submitted it, but that was the "AntiFeminist Page." You can find it here.
Need I say, very politically incorrect -- and highly recommended. A thinking man's commentary on "gender issues."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't Warren G. Harding, that handsome Republican from Ohio, the first president elected by women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't say much more about it. Damn good article!
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This one of the best articles that I have ever read in my life.It articulates everything that I have been thinking for years.
Twenty years ago when I was a teenger I actually considered myself a feminist.One of the reasons was that I thought feminism would benefit decent men like me and bring down the bad boy.
Wow,was I ever on the wrong track!Feminism has been brutal for the good man and a blessing for the predator males.Bad boys have become the norm.Look at popular culture,the top selling musical artists is 50 Cent,a tough as nails thug full of tattoos and bullet holes.How ironic,feminism has brought us the roughest,toughest,and crudest males the world has ever known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
