|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Through the Studio 2B, we had a rape counselor come in and talk to our troop about what were ways to prevent it," said Nicole Fawcett, a Studio 2B member.
Get em while they're young.
Maybe we can have homosexuals come in and teach the boyscouts that gay sex is perfectly normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that will happen in the Boy Scouts. They fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to prevent gay men from being Scout Leaders. They were worried about boys being "recruited" by gays at a young and impressionable age. It's unfortunate that they took so much abuse for that brave stance. It appears that the Girl Scouts have no such reservations where their young and impressionable girls are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Boy Scouts is an organization worthy of admiration. They've resisted the PC BS that's pervasive in this country and have suffered for it. The United Way will never see another dollar of my money until they restore full funding to the Boy Scouts (cut because of the Gay PC problem)
I have no problem with homosexuality, but I also have no problem with groups expressing their moral beliefs and standing by them. Don't like their position? Don't send your kid there. The Boy Scouts have done enormous good for this country, what's being done to them is criminal.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @03:40PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it isn't criminal in any way. The United Way is perfectly within its legal rights to decline funding those with whom they disagree.
I have no problems with groups expressing their moral beliefs and standing by them, but I do have a problem with those groups benefiting from tax dollars taken from the very people they exclude from their activities or who choose not to participate. If the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or any other organization wants to be a private organizations, then they should turn down any and all public funding and special benefits afforded them by government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when the goivernment refunds all the dollars from over a century of free work done on parks, preserves, and such in exchange for the right to camp on them, then the government can bitch.
As it stands now, they've broken a deal which has exchanged labor for services, camping rights, and money. Hardly a handout.
Know of what the fuck you speak before you get diarrhea of the mouth, dipwad.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @03:52PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. But I do know what the BSA does, and I think I missed a lot by not being one.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He would've looked damn cute in that charming little uniform. Can I buy you an adult size one?(shivers in anticipation)
LMAO ... sorry Gonzo ... it was way to freaking easy to drop that one on ya.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @08:42AM EST (#115)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you did, too. For example, I doubt that your language would have been looked highly upon by the organization.
That aside, it is irrelevant what volunteer work the Boy Scouts have done in terms of what tax payers owe them. If it was volunteer work, then by definition no compensation is owed.
Now if you are suggesting that it was contract work that was done, then I'd love to see these contracts, how they were bid, who else was able to bid for them, and when the tax payers were allowed to decline participation. Again, I have no problem with an organization (including BSA) discriminating against whom they please for whatever reason they please so long as I am not forced to participate by supporting them with my tax dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Anonymous Coward Wrote:
I think you did, too. For example, I doubt that your language would have been looked highly upon by the organization.
Well I think they would have preferred my integrity, however coarse, over, say, your refined disingenuousness.
That aside, it is irrelevant what volunteer work the Boy Scouts have done in terms of what tax payers owe them. If it was volunteer work, then by definition no compensation is owed.
Legally? Perhaps not, if we wish to define the lowest common denominator of "Legal obligations" as the basis for human interaction. I'd certainly hope that this once great republic of ours might hold higher standards. Well, I suppose once upon a time it did. Which is why it is now "once great."
Now if you are suggesting that it was contract work that was done, then I'd love to see these contracts,
I'm sure they are all a matter of public record.
how they were bid, who else was able to bid for them,
Approaching someone with a deal is the right and purview of anyone in a free society. Unless you are suggesting that only approved and politically correct people be allowed to proffer a deal to the government.
Oh. I see you are. How very fascist of you.
and when the tax payers were allowed to decline participation.
This is a republic, so by definition that would be ... um ...at election time. However, if you are suggesting that the objection of a majority - or even a small amount - or even one person is good enough reason to deny the right of the government or anyone to do business with a legally chartered corporate entity, I do have a list handy of my own...
Again, I have no problem with an organization (including BSA) discriminating against whom they please for whatever reason they please so long as I am not forced to participate by supporting them with my tax dollars.
You contradict yourself. If it is a contract, we have an exhange of "x" for "y" and not a subsidy.
Thanks for playing, though. In the end, it amounts to the same thing - the squelching of politically incorrect speech - some animals being more equal than others. We we can also get rid of the black only, women only, other-politically-approved victim group only group with the same zeal that white, Christian, heterosexual men are, then your stance may have some pilosophical consistancy and integrity. Until then, it's just another plan to get rid of groups whose opinions you disagree with in the name of democracy.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @02:23PM EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure they are all a matter of public record.
Great. Please reference a few so that I can look them up.
Approaching someone with a deal is the right and purview of anyone in a free society. Unless you are suggesting that only approved and politically correct people be allowed to proffer a deal to the government.
No. I am suggesting that some groups should not be able to reap the benefits of deals with government without other groups also being allowed to compete for those deals.
This is a republic, so by definition that would be ... um ...at election time. However, if you are suggesting that the objection of a majority - or even a small amount - or even one person is good enough reason to deny the right of the government or anyone to do business with a legally chartered corporate entity, I do have a list handy of my own...
No, election time does not give me an opportunity to opt out of other people spending my money for me- only to choose who will take it from me despite my objections. However, I do agree with you on your other comment here. We should all be able spend our money as we see fit. Certainly this would solve these sorts of problems quite neatly. Don't like so and so's policy? Don't give them money. Done.
You contradict yourself. If it is a contract, we have an exhange of "x" for "y" and not a subsidy.
There is no contradiction- I ought to be able to spend my money as I see fit and not have others taking it from me regardless of whether it is for contract work (to which I am not a voluntary party) or an outright grant.
Let me ask you this- how would you feel about the situation if everything were the same except that the private organization in question excluded those who believe in gods or practice a heterosexual lifestyle? Would you still be happy about government favors being afforded those groups on a special basis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great. Please reference a few so that I can look them up.
Don't know how to use google? Don't expect me to do your homework for you. Step two of this transparent and tired gambit it to dismiss anything I offer up as "self serving." If you're determined not to believe, you're determined not to believe. Try "Boy Scouts" and "Contract" as starting terms and see for yourself - as I always say, don't take my word for it.
No. I am suggesting that some groups should not be able to reap the benefits of deals with government without other groups also being allowed to compete for those deals.
Apples and oranges. The govvernment publicly offering a contract for x services is different from someone offering the government something for something.
No, election time does not give me an opportunity to opt out of other people spending my money for me- only to choose who will take it from me despite my objections. However, I do agree with you on your other comment here. We should all be able spend our money as we see fit. Certainly this would solve these sorts of problems quite neatly. Don't like so and so's policy? Don't give them money. Done.
Whether or not I agree with you, it's the way things are.
There is no contradiction- I ought to be able to spend my money as I see fit and not have others taking it from me regardless of whether it is for contract work (to which I am not a voluntary party) or an outright grant.
See above. That's the way it is.
Let me ask you this- how would you feel about the situation if everything were the same except that the private organization in question excluded those who believe in gods or practice a heterosexual lifestyle? Would you still be happy about government favors being afforded those groups on a special basis?
Happens all the time. All kinds of "Gay Rights Commissions" and "Atheist Studies" going on all the time. "Women's Studies" is a bulwark of every major educational institution, public or private. Girls at my son's school have access to "women only" programs, and to the "coed by force but used to be men's" programs.
My daughter couldn't have a bible study group meet in her dorm room - but the American Atheists had weekly meetings in the Student Union.
It still boils down to the same thing - I really don't care if queers have their own clubs, groups, or meetings. I don't give a rodent's rectum if the local Humanist alliance agrees not to meet on a Sunday morning, instead of going to church. I don't care if they do it in the park, or on the circle downtown (Unless of course, they're buggaring each other). But for some reason it matters a whole lot to them that Christians and Heterosexuals be silenced and pushed into the closet.
It both raises and answers a lot of questions for me, beyond any argument. Proof is in the pudding, and when it looks, quacks, and waddles like a fascist...
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @02:47PM EST (#130)
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t expect you to do my homework for me. You originally asserted:
Well, when the goivernment refunds all the dollars from over a century of free work done on parks, preserves, and such in exchange for the right to camp on them, then the government can bitch.
As it stands now, they've broken a deal which has exchanged labor for services, camping rights, and money. Hardly a handout.
You are the one making the claim- you are the one who has the burden of proof. If your assertion is true, you can very simply prove your statement by citing but one example in which a contract has been broken by government with BSA for services, camping rights, or money. If your assertion is false, I could search forever and never find anything while you continued to claim that this alleged wrong has been done.
But for the sake of discussion I did, indeed, follow your suggestion to google the terms you suggested. I looked through every link on the first three pages of the web search feature. As it turns out there was not a single link showing that any contract had been broken. In some instances I found that new contracts, extensions of contracts, or renewals of agreements were declined. In another instance, I found that a contract had legally been terminated with 30 days notice as allowed under the terms of the contract. And in one instance I found that a lease had been renewed for 30 years between Orange County and the Boy Scouts on a Newport Beach sea base.
Certainly in none of these instances were the contractual rights of the Boy Scouts violated. Again I ask, what contracts are you talking about?
Whether or not I agree with you, it's the way things are.
See above. That's the way it is.
I never said that isn’t the way things are. I stated that I oppose the way things are.
Happens all the time. All kinds of "Gay Rights Commissions" and "Atheist Studies" going on all the time. "Women's Studies" is a bulwark of every major educational institution, public or private. Girls at my son's school have access to "women only" programs, and to the "coed by force but used to be men's" programs.
My daughter couldn't have a bible study group meet in her dorm room - but the American Atheists had weekly meetings in the Student Union.
It still boils down to the same thing - I really don't care if queers have their own clubs, groups, or meetings. I don't give a rodent's rectum if the local Humanist alliance agrees not to meet on a Sunday morning, instead of going to church. I don't care if they do it in the park, or on the circle downtown (Unless of course, they're buggaring each other). But for some reason it matters a whole lot to them that Christians and Heterosexuals be silenced and pushed into the closet.
It both raises and answers a lot of questions for me, beyond any argument. Proof is in the pudding, and when it looks, quacks, and waddles like a fascist...
Again I ask, how do you feel about these double-standards? Do you approve or want them to continue?
As for myself, I do not approve, and the only reasonable way I see to settle them is for people not to be forced or coerced into funding the activities of others. To that end, I support efforts to end redistribution schemes such as public funding and favors to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and any other service or program which only offers services to some people and not others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The United Way is not funded by tax dollars. It is funded by private contributions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @02:11PM EST (#129)
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Which is why the United Way is not doing anything criminal in declining to fund an organization at its own discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. While I support the BSA in many respects, I have often wondered why they need support from United Way. My suggestion has been for people who want to support the scouts to contribute to them directly, and not to UW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @03:29PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Gay sex *is* perfectly normal for some people- for example, homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @03:23PM EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
But... what if everyone was doing it? Then it would be the norm by the definition there of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offense ANON .... but ANY activity that EVERYONE did .... would either be considered normal or we would be living in an amoral world w/out consequences. Your comment is supposed to elicit WHAT response ... ?
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Kinsey Reports, fully 1/2 of adult males have had at least one same-sex encounter. 38% had orgasms during these encounters.
If we go by the "what it was designed for" school of thought when discussing sex, we must then conclude that any sexual activity that is intended for purposes other than procreation is abnormal. This includes birth control and masturbation. If you have ever done anything like these things, then, by your own reasoning, you are a deviant.
'Course... it's your right to think homosexuality is abnormal... but it's also everyone else's right to point out that there is evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Kinsey Reports, fully 1/2 of adult males have had at least one same-sex encounter. 38% had orgasms during these encounters.
What bull shit! On the face of it this is clearly part of the BIG LIE. Even the very idea that this study would make such a claim should piss off the entire public.
The way that they get these numbers is by redefining the meaning of gay sex. Then they manipulate the numbers to assign gay sexual activities to males that do not claim to have had gay sex. This is they same lie they tell when claiming that 1/3 of all females will experience rape.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, it DID piss off a lot of people. It was published in the post-WWII era, and it incensed a lot of people because it challenged the idea that Americans are all a bunch of Puritains who only have sex once or twice in their lives.
A lot of guys will try it once and decide it is not for them. One gay experience vs. hundreds of times you bang the wife doesn't make you gay.
It is easy to look at this and say "OH NO THAT MEANS 50% ARE GAY!!! THAT CAN'T BE!!!" All it means is that a lot of people have tried it at some point. Obviously, most decide it is not for them.
Kinsey's point was that sexuality exists on a continuum. It isn't a binary thing where you are either gay or straight, there are gradations (six of them in fact) between the two poles. When his study was published, it made such shocking revalations as the 50% figure, and that most people masturbated, and that women enjoyed sex rather than merely enduring it.
Again I must stress than one experience is not very significant. If you try avocados once and decide you don't like them, obviously you are not an avocado lover. (Just don't try to tell me avocados are "abnormal." You might think different if you liked guacamole.)
Now. I will quote my source.
Same-Sex Behavior
Prior to Kinsey's work, an individual was identified as homosexual if he or she had ever engaged in any sexual behavior with a member of the same sex. Kinsey found, however, that many people had sexual experiences with members of both sexes. He reported that 50% of the men and 28% of the women in his studies had had same-sex experiences and that 38% of the men and 13% of the women had had orgasms during these experiences (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953). Furthermore he discovered that sexual preferences could change over the course of a person's lifetime. Kinsey's research led him to believe that it was erroneous to classify people as either heterosexual or homosexual. A person's sexuality was significantly more complex and fluid."
P. 51, Human Sexuality / Diversity in Contemporary America, Fourth Edition, Bryan Strong et al., McGraw Hill 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinsey and all his studies were discredited a long time ago. He was a deviant who created and manipulated his experiments to get the results his sick mind was looking for.
Would you care to offer some evidence in support of these statements? Recently I was "informed" that Ayn Rand had been debunked by a person who, on questioning, was not able to support what they had said. It turned out that the "debunking" was only valid if you accepted certain subjective opinions about the way of things - specifically, that the "warlord" is necessarily the same as the "capitalist." You talk about his "sick mind" and I have to wonder if this isn't the same kind of subjective evaluation.
In all fairness, I would criticise the data collection methods Kinsey used. The data were gathered by face-to-face interviews. Written interviews, especially during that somewhat sexually restrictive period, would have likely given more accurate results, since people are more prone to lie or omit embarrasing personal details in face-to-face interviews. If anything, these estimates are likely to have a conservative skew. Additionally, he considered orgasm to be the "goal" of sex - which is usually true for men but not always true for women, as discovered by Hite in the 1970s.
Now for the meat of the discussion...
Dittohd:
So is everything else in this world (normal to some people). Being normal to some people doesn't make a practice "normal". If something is normal to one person, or a few people, or even more than a few people, that wouldn't make a particular practice normal. Gay sex is not normal. It never will be, no matter how many persons there are doing it.
You might as well say owning cars is not a normal activity, since most people on this planet don't.
Dittohd:
As I said, gay sex is not normal and never will be. There is no "what if". The way our bodies were created determines what is normal.
Hunsvotti:
If we go by the "what it was designed for" school of thought when discussing sex, we must then conclude that any sexual activity that is intended for purposes other than procreation is abnormal.
Dittohd:
I don't agree at all. How could we possibly come to the conclusion you claim based on what I said? Why based on what I said would masturbation not be normal?
It seems fairly obvious to me. You have said, "The way our bodies were created determines what is normal." The way our sexual structures are created is to maximize the chance of pregnancy. If that is true, then by your definition, anything that hinders this process is abnormal, since it goes against the design. I really don't see any other feasible way to interpret what you have said.
Masturbation, birth control, and gay sex are all illuminated in the same light by this line of reasoning: they are diametrically opposed to the biological purpose of sex, which is to procreate. In each case, the person or people involved are having sex WITHOUT reproduction, which is the opposite of what the body was designed for.
People usually have sex (alone or otherwise) for recreational purposes. There are those who believe that recreational sex is abnormal. Are you one of them, or have you used birth control or done other things that have interfered with the natural process of reproduction? You can't have it both ways.
As for birth control, that's not sex, which is the subject to which I was referring.
I brought up birth control to illustrate that straight people have sex for purposes other than procreation. This goes against what their bodies were designed for. If it's normal for straight people to have sex but deliberately interfere with the process of insemination, why isn't it normal for gay people to have sex?
Is there a fundamental difference between a straight couple engaging in oral sex or mutual masturbation, and a gay couple doing the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning Kinsey, I read about this years ago, so I couldn't possibly provide you the exact references that I got the information from, but it was given a lot of media coverage at the time. Here's a few as a start that I had no trouble locating:
1. No "homosexual gene" can be found, new study says. Studies that said that it exists were falsified.
2. "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme", by Judith A. Reisman
3. "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People" by Judith A. Reisman
For details of the two books without having to read them, check out the reviews by people who did, just below the initial Amazon.com book details.
I seem to have really hit a nerve with you on this subject. Are you, by any chance, homosexual?
>You might as well say owning cars is not a normal activity, since most people on this planet don't.
Wasn't this discussion about gay sex? How do you come up with all these irrelevant, off-the-wall, untrue analagies that have no connection to what I said? Are you really a woman in disguise?
>You have said, "The way our bodies were created determines what is normal." The way our sexual structures are created is to maximize the chance of pregnancy. If that is true, then by your definition, anything that hinders this process is abnormal, since it goes against the design.
Your logic fails me. We are talking about gay sex and I say it is not normal. Trying to prove me wrong by saying that birth control isn't normal as a result of what I said makes no sense. Again, birth control is not sex or a type of sex. Are you one of these liberals who believes that everything is relative and there is no right or wrong?
>You might as well say owning cars is not a normal activity, since most people on this planet don't
Huh? Now we're talking about cars? Can we stick to the subject?
>If we go by the "what it was designed for" school of thought when discussing sex, we must then conclude that any sexual activity that is intended for purposes other than procreation is abnormal.
Not so, because men and women can have normal sex together whether or not the woman can become pregnant, regardless of whether it's because of the infertility of the man or the woman.
>Masturbation, birth control, and gay sex are all illuminated in the same light by this line of reasoning: they are diametrically opposed to the biological purpose of sex, which is to procreate. In each case, the person or people involved are having sex WITHOUT reproduction, which is the opposite of what the body was designed for.
I think you're mixing us humans up with animals. Animals have sex only to procreate. As far as I've heard, we are the only species that was created so we can have sex just for the fun of it. After all, women still desire sex (normal) after menopause.
>If it's normal for straight people to have sex but deliberately interfere with the process of insemination, why isn't it normal for gay people to have sex?
I didn't say that it isn't normal for gay people to have sex. I said that gay sex isn't normal.
Come on! Come on! Say uncle already! :-]
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding Kinsey, I don't have access to the reports themselves or to the books that take them to task. In order for me to draw an informed conclusion, I would have to spend time reading the reports, then reading the books you cited, and cross-checking to see what was really going on. Kinsey et. al. aren't really an essential part of what is being debated here, unless we say that A) his numbers are statistically close to being right (and being from a population sample rather than a full census they cannot be exactly right) and B) there is a critical population proportion, above which behaviors are normal, and below which they are not normal. You have already said that the number of people who engage in some activity doesn't determine the normalcy of said activity. I am only interested in providing sufficient evidence to reject the claim that homosexuality (but not heterosexuality) is abnormal in terms of your own logic, so whether or not we accept the Kinsey reports as being valid is irrelevant.
Dittohd:
I seem to have really hit a nerve with you on this subject. Are you, by any chance, homosexual?
No. In any case I don't see why it would matter in this discussion. We're discussing what makes something normal, not what Hunsvotti does on his off hours.
Hunsvotti:
You might as well say owning cars is not a normal activity, since most people on this planet don't.
Dittohd:
Wasn't this discussion about gay sex? How do you come up with all these irrelevant, off-the-wall, untrue analagies that have no connection to what I said? Are you really a woman in disguise?
Hahaha! No, I am not a woman. Let me remind you of what you said, that that was in response to:
Dittohd:
So is everything else in this world (normal to some people). Being normal to some people doesn't make a practice "normal". If something is normal to one person, or a few people, or even more than a few people, that wouldn't make a particular practice normal.
That is what I am talking about. Most people on this planet do not own cars, so for most people it is abnormal. The point I'm making is that you can point at anything that is done by "a few or more than a few" people, like owning a car or playing shuffleboard, and say it's abnormal. As it works out, this is another irrelevant sub-thread, because later on you fine-tuned your definition of normal (within the scope of discussion anyway) as being dependent on the way our bodies are created.
Hunsvotti:
You have said, "The way our bodies were created determines what is normal." The way our sexual structures are created is to maximize the chance of pregnancy. If that is true, then by your definition, anything that hinders this process is abnormal, since it goes against the design.
Dittohd:
Your logic fails me. We are talking about gay sex and I say it is not normal. Trying to prove me wrong by saying that birth control isn't normal as a result of what I said makes no sense. Again, birth control is not sex or a type of sex.
What possible relevance could it have that birth control is not, in and of itself, sex? It is used during sex in a way that substantially alters the likely outcome. In fact the very use of it indicates that the participants DO NOT want to conceive. They are DELIBERATELY using the structure of the body for a purpose OTHER than that for which it was designed. CONTRARY to it, in fact! This is, I presume, the reason why the Vatican says no to birth control. And to masturbation. And to homosexuality. All of these things use the sexual structures for purposes other than that for which they are designed - and by your own logic, that means that they are abnormal. EQUALLY abnormal, for you have not allowed for gradations, just a binary system where things are either normal or not.
Dittohd:
Are you one of these liberals who believes that everything is relative and there is no right or wrong?
I'm not even close to being liberal, and I will thank you to keep the ad-hominem attacks to zero.
Hunsvotti:
If we go by the "what it was designed for" school of thought when discussing sex, we must then conclude that any sexual activity that is intended for purposes other than procreation is abnormal.
Dittohd:
Not so, because men and women can have normal sex together whether or not the woman can become pregnant, regardless of whether it's because of the infertility of the man or the woman.
Your first sentence there appears to begin with a circular argument. You have not proven that their sex is "normal" any more than any other kind of sex. The body was not designed for non-procreative sex, any more than it was designed for oral sex (either orientation) or masturbation. Remember, I'm talking about your premise that normalcy is determined by what the body was designed for. Under this premise, anything other than procreative sex is, by definition, abnormal. Wasting your seed on a barren woman? Your testicles didn't spend all that time and energy growing sperm so you could waste it on someone you know can't get pregnant! You should find a fertile mate! THAT is what you were designed for.
BTW, is there a difference in normality between oral sex between a man and a woman, and oral sex between two people of the same sex? (Pontifex Maximus, alias The Pope, says we should not give or receive oral either.) What about mutual masturbation and other practices that don't involve plugging a hole in the bottom of the torso? None of these things use the sexual structures for their intended purpose. How about when a man does a woman in the kiester?
Maybe the purpose of sex is for more than just procreation. But the only substantial BIOLOGICAL difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is that the gay couple can't procreate... However, your argument is that normality is determined by what the body is designed for, so IT DOES NOT OBTAIN that gays are any less normal than straights who A) have sex after the woman has passed menopause, B) use birth control, C) have sex with something other than a penis or a vagina (i.e. oral, manual, etc...).
If the two middle-agers are having sex after the woman has finished menopause, and cannot become pregnant, any "normalcy" there would have to be related to something other than procreation. But procreation is the purpose of genitals. It feels good in order to encourage procreation, yes? But then, two homosexual people stimulating one anothers' genitals for pleasure would fall under the same domain as a man who has sex with a post-menopausal female.
Hunsvotti:
If it's normal for straight people to have sex but deliberately interfere with the process of insemination, why isn't it normal for gay people to have sex?
Dittohd:
I didn't say that it isn't normal for gay people to have sex. I said that gay sex isn't normal.
So straight sex is normal, and straights having sex is normal... and gay sex is abnormal, but gays having sex isn't abnormal? The reasoning you have to back this up is that normalcy is determined by the design of the body, but I have already pointed out a variety of heterosexual behaviors that interfere with the body's intended purpose during sex, which is to reproduce. In order to counter this, I believe you would have to prove that the body's purpose during sex is NOT reproduction. But reproduction is the only biological division between straight and gay couples.
Dittohd:
Come on! Come on! Say uncle already! :-]
This is a debate, not a pissing contest. Or at least I think so. I'm trying to examine logic and draw conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @11:30PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Today, my daughter is in Girl Scouts. Tomorrow, she won't be.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @07:58PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Shark,
You got that right.
It IS wrong.
The whole thing sounds to me like yet another 'all girls club' type thing where the "ladies" sit around yakking about how EEEEVVVIILLLL men are.
Funny, ain't it, how nearly ALL the feminists and more and more women in general talk as if we men are all meeting in some smoke-filled room somewhere plotting against women!
A quick review of the un-deniable facts will leave one to ask; "Just WHOM is holding meetings to plot against WHOM?"
Frankly, I'm too busy trying to pay bills, keep food on my table, pay off the mortgage, settle loans and just plain SURVIVE, to be doing any PLOTTING against ANYBODY.
something tells me I'm not alone, here.
It sounds to me as if way to many women, today are suffering from some kind of androphobic-paranoia.
=SHEESH!=
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Frankly, I'm too busy trying to pay bills, keep >food on my table, pay off the mortgage, settle >loans and just plain SURVIVE, to be doing any >PLOTTING against ANYBODY.
>something tells me I'm not alone, here.
reminds me of a quote:
"I wish I was a FBI/CIA infiltrator of the radical feminist movement, I could use the extra paycheck."
-a prostitute who was receiving death threats [from women calling themselves radical feminists] for trying to speak at a group about prostitution in a way that didn't suggest it should be banned for its detrimental effect on women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @01:05PM EST (#127)
|
|
|
|
|
So how did your daughter react to being pulled from Girl Scouts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @11:38PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Their reference to rape is pretty clear. When you couple that statement with the fact that college age women will be coming in (Women Studies trained activists) it's not too hard to guess what they're up to.
The goal of that religion is clear. On taxpayers dollars, they want to infest every place they can with the perverted feminasty message that, "Rape is everywhere, and you need to report every act of sex with a boy as rape, if you become unsure afterwards, or he pressured you at any point. That way, women's programs can get more statistics, to get more money, to demonize and criminalize more young men and boys."
V day and the Vagina monologues are coming up in February so it's obviously time to have another campaign bashing heterosexuality coming from the feminist camp (just in time for what used to be Valentine's Day).
The wisest thing any person can do today is train boys and young men that all females are devious batterers who are out to imprison and impoverish their lives any way they can so stay as far away from them as possible, unless it is just to point out how stupid they are for buying into the shame and blame game of the rad fems that seeks to destroy, demonize and criminalize sexual relationships between all men and women.
If women think they can dictate what sexual harassment is (unwelcome advances) and then expect to have any man still show an interest in them, then they had best rethink their expectations, because a cold day in hell awaits their romantic expectations, where they see males lining up to subject themselves to their sexist hate and abuse.
The stupidest thing any male (young or old) can do today is actually believe any female who says, "Oh I don't really agree with what the feminist movement says about men." That tactic is just a trick to get you to let your guard down so they can then show you (prove to you) just how much they've really been influenced by 30 years of the man hating agenda of the feminists.
I have bought my last Girl Scout cookie in this life, or for that matter anything that helps a female.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @11:56PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
it is now time to enlist the Boy Scouts (my son is a scout) into the machine of mens activism.
Let's put our thinking caps on, and work collectively to draft a proposal to introduce our concerns to the scouts. At the same time, we should bring our voices into attack upon that which has now infected the girl scouts. No reason we can't use this opportunity to let the leadership know what they're doing wrong and how it will destroy their membership.
I hate think about it, but picketing a girl scout cookie sale is a distinct possibility. Oh, what have they become.
The Shark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @08:01PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I second that.
Maybe that IS what will have to be done.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @12:13PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
((Hey, Thundercloud,
It's good to see you're still around.))
Thank you, Thomas.
I got a new computer with a ton of "neat" extras.
The problem with that is, the more features a computer has, the more that can go wrong with it, as I have recently learned!
So any time you don't see me for a while, you can bet I'm haveing techical problems, as has been the case, lately.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to dragging the BSA into this... Don't! They are already fighting enough battles indirectly related to this, and cannot afford this much heat. Just as you would have the radical feminists leave the GSA out of this war, I would ask you to leave the BSA out, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as you would have the radical feminists leave the GSA out of this war, I would ask you to leave the BSA out, too.
Good god, man, where in the world are you coming from? In 10 years, those boys are going to be up to their asses in this war. If the BSA is not offering merit badges in "How to fight the femBorg" they they are seriously fucking over the boys they are pretending to help. Teaching boys to be "courteous" to girls who kick them in the balls qualifies as one of the most boy-hating things I have ever heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @01:11PM EST (#128)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, there's no evidence that any of this is the doing of the girls who the writer proposes to picket. Probably they have nothing to do with it given that it is adults who make policy and not troop members. The just thing to do is to target individuals and not treat all males or all females as collectively responsible for the behavior and choices of some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @12:02AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
time to let them know what we think of their new agenda.
Girl Scouts of the USA
420 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10018-2798
Phone:
(800) 478-7248
(212) 852-8000
Speak out locally:
http://www.girlscouts.org/councilfinder/
Speak out nationally:
http://www.girlscouts.org
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before writing or calling I would suggest reading the Girl Scout information
here first. It doesn't look like the GS org is doing anything wrong. It's that they are willing to invite a potentially radical feminist for a "talk" with the girls. Without knowing what exactly was said, we have a weak case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @01:01AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm all for waiting for all the facts (see my arguments within /article.pl?sid=04/01/2 2/1645230&mode=threaded&threshold=-1).
Yet, if they are allowing such visits then I'm all for putting my foot down at once.
The Shark (maybe a bit of a hypocrite right now)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fembots will, no doubt, decry any objection to the new Girl Scouts' agenda as a desire to keep females ignorant and in danger. "Do men's activists think that no female has ever been raped? Do they want little girls to go into dangerous situations and be harmed for life?"
Do I know with absolute certainty that the girls are being indoctrinated with lies from Wimmyn's studies classes? No. But I've seen enough of this sort of thing to know that they probably are. Unless I'm shown otherwise, and I become convinced that the new breed of Girl Scout leaders are just teaching girls to be safe without indoctrinating them with anti-male hatred, I'm going to err on the side of opposing hatred. There will be no more Girl Scout cookies in my home for the foreseeable future.
In addition, one of the things that bothers me most about this whole business is the "Uniquely ME!" stuff. I recently went to a 50th birthday party for a colleague of my wife. There was a stand, where people could perform. One women got her two little girls up there and helped them sing a song that was basically "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me. Oh I'm wonderful. Oh wonderful, unique, great and tremendous me." I swear, my wife was more disgusted than I was. She said that, if she had tried to pull that sort of "me, me, me, me, me, oh I'm so wonderful" stuff in front of adults, when she was a kid, she would have been punished. I agreed and said that I would have been smacked upside the head. I also said that if boys tried it today, they'd be smacked upside the head and told "Get over yourself."
I can easily see a generation of Girl Scouts being raised to be pathologically self-centered.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can easily see a generation of Girl Scouts being raised to be pathologically self-centered.
That's it exactly! And, more than just girl "scouts", it is the entire generation of girls who are being raised to be truly pathologically self-centered.
When the cold cruel world dumps them out of their always-treated-like-princesses childhood, life is going to have some really unpleasant surprises for them. And, you can bet they are going to follow the example of the previous 2 generations of women and blame all their unhappiness on males.
The self-feeding spiral just goes on and on. As these girls' unrealistic expectations are not met, expect ever increasing claims of victimhood from them. By the time they enter the workforce, women probably will be earning $1.10 for ever $1.00 a man makes, and there will be almost no men capable of supporting them in any "choice" they might want to make to stay at home and raise children.
The only silver lining in the whole mess is that as women begin to carry the majority of the tax burden for all these "wonderful" social programs, they are likely to become progressively less enamored of "daddy government".
Parents of sons today really need to be preparing the boys to survive the kind of women these girls are going to become. They really are going to pathological their entire lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the time they enter the workforce, women probably will be earning $1.10 for ever $1.00 a man makes
I suspect that for a given background, ability, and amount of work, women are already making far more than that. Note the fact that, though there are far fewer full-time employed women than men, and full-time employed men work far more hours than full-time employed women, more than half of company officers are women.
there will be almost no men capable of supporting them in any "choice" they might want to make to stay at home and raise children.
This is the only good thing about feminism -- it is a self-correcting aberration. Women will pretty much all have to work full-time. Marriage will have, to a large extent, disappeared. A small percentage of women will choose to have kids, who will be raised during the day by child care workers, only to have to pick the kids up after work, and then have to, as the lone adult, deal with feeding and washing the kids before putting them to bed. Most women will see this as a terribly unpleasant lifestyle and will opt out.
And there goes the society. As the fertility rates drops far below replacement rate, the entire culture will quickly disappear. Bye bye, feminized society.
Bye bye.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can easily see a generation of Girl Scouts being raised to be pathologically self-centered.
Self-centeredness has become a common theme for girls. While researching the local Claire’s store I saw a line of accessories (bag’s, etc.) with the drawing of a pouty girl and the words “It’s All About ME!” under it.
Self-absorption has moved from feminist philosophy to commercial indoctrination of impressionable children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is very well documented that women are indoctrinated with anti-male hatred in women's studies classes.
It sounds like girls in the GS are getting exposed to the same type of propaganda. I think it would be a lot more useful if someone with a daughter in the GS would find out what exactly is being taught so we have something specific to talk about.
Is the whole "me" thing disturbing? Yes. Women in our culture are more and more ruined and dysfunctional. I suppose it's their right to be as fucked up as they want. They certainly exercise that right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but I didn't see anything suggesting they were promoting lesbianism mentioned in the article, and I didn't see anything about the flower charm pic that convincingly suggested otherwise either. What did I miss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @11:45AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Here it is in a nutshell:
Ray
Want to guess which way this is headed?
"The Girl Scouts of America (search) has launched a program called Studio 2B, which allows girls ages 11 to 17 help set their troop's agenda..."
"...and their mentors are college-aged women instead of moms."
"A study by the Girl Scout Research Institute (search) showed that today's teens and pre-teens are facing issues that the traditional Girl Scout message doesn't address..."
"Through the Studio 2B, we had a rape counselor come in and talk to our troop about what were ways to prevent it,"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Hombre. In the thread starter, Thomas made a big deal about taking a close look at the picture of the charm, and I don't see anything other than the slogan "Uniquely Me." Is that the point, that the slogan promotes antisocial behavior? Or is there additional meaning in the charm that I am missing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything other than the slogan "Uniquely Me." Is that the point, that the slogan promotes antisocial behavior?
Taken in isolation, I wouldn't have trouble with the "Uniquely Me," or more precisely, "Uniquely ME!" But this is part of a society wide phenomenon. There are two other examples pointed out on this thread. The case of the girls singing the "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me," (or more precisely "Me, me, me, me, me, me, ME!") song that I heard, and the case of the accessories being sold at Claire's depicting a pouting girl with "It’s All About ME!" And this is the same Claire's that sells merchandise making a joke out of girls violently attacking boys. There's a pattern here. An extreme, society wide pattern. And it's pathological.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two other examples pointed out on this thread.
I'll point out some others that fit in rather nicely here.
Not too long ago, I was driving out to Denver International Airport and I passed by a woman driving an SUV with a bumper sticker that read, "Boys Lie!" Nice way to degrade male children. And a nice way to give girls the message that they are fundamentally superior to boys.
Also, not too long ago, I was in line at the checkout of a local grocery store. A women was in line with a girl and a boy, apparently her children. The girl was about 8, the boy about 10. The girl was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Girls rule! Boys just sit around and drool." The woman might as well have forced her son to wear a T-shirt that said, "I am garbage. Spit on me!"
On another occasion, I was with a man, who lives in my neighborhood and who is a substitute teacher. (I'll say in advance that there was a lot going on, and I decided it was best to let this one go without argument.) He said that in one of his classes he had told the girls that they don't need boys. (And this guy has two sons.) Of course he didn't tell the boys that they don't need girls.
Throughout our society, girls are being told that they are wonderful just for being female. Boys are being degraded, just for being male.
There has never been anything more vile than contemporary feminism.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @12:08AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Just recently I was at the mall and one of those vending machines was full of press on tattoos with those same type of messages. I didn't get the company that makes these tattoos though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The case of the girls singing the "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me," (or more precisely "Me, me, me, me, me, me, ME!") song"
I'm glad you decided to be more precise because when you said the "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me" song I was pretty confused and really didn't know for sure which song you were talking about, but when you clarified that it was actually the "Me, me, me, me, me, me, ME!" song then suddenly it was like a eureka moment and I knew exactly what you meant.
=D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @08:12PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I have heared alot about those 'T' shirts that girls and even women are wearing that have anti-male sloagans on them. I.E. "BOYS ARE STUPID! THROW ROCKS AT THEM!" However I have only seen ONE where I live. It read "SO MANY MEN SO FEW BRAINS". that was about 7 or 8 years ago.
My question is, is this phenomenon consentrated in any particular state or province, like say, California? I live in Indiana, and I was wondering if geography played a part.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @07:24PM EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
My question is, is this phenomenon consentrated in any particular state or province, like say, California?
T.C.:
Good to hear from you again. They are definitely in the Los Angeles area, and I would guess other big city liberal areas of the country.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 25, @12:19PM EST (#109)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
Thank you.
Yeah, That would seem logical, that the more "liberal" a given state is, the more likely and often one might see messages like that.
As I said, I live in Indiana, and it tends to be a more conservitive state.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the slogan "Uniquely Me." Is that the point, that the slogan promotes antisocial behavior? Or is there additional meaning in the charm that I am missing?
Much of the story is contained in the video - the charm is just the symbol of the larger overall message.
The charms are an alternative to the "merit badges" which are considered "old fashioned" and not appealing to today's trendy female. In the GS's new "division", girls can get "entitlement charms" for such activities as shopping.
Look at simplest, most literal, meaning of the words. "Merit" badges were awarded for - gasp!! - MERIT of all things!!! In order to - gasp!! - EARN them, girls had to actually demonstrate that quaint old-fashioned notion that there is something called "merit". They had to accomplish something, do something, and show some tangible result or learning.
They were most definitely NOT rewarded or recognized for what amounts to nothing more than an afternoon of self-indulgence.
As valuable as spending money is to our consumer driven economy, awarding a girl recognition for doing nothing more than spending money, and reinforcing that "merit" and/or accomplishment and/or that outmoded notion of actually EARNING something, does seem like it is promoting behavior which is purely self-serving and does nothing to educate that child regarding her role as a contributing adult member of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Zen. I like how you brought up the work eithic that is being lost to ALL our children. Merit badges celebrated accoplishing FUN tasks that TAUGHT you something. (yes, I was a boy scout - no comments from the gallery plz!) If this Me Me ME shit was being taught to boys I would have the same reaction.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this Me Me ME shit was being taught to boys I would have the same reaction.
That is why I have such a problem with the issue of Legal C4M. As hard as I have tried, I simply cannot swallow it. I keep getting stuck in that old Ayn Rand thing of "either/or" - either we are fighting for men to have rights and responsibilities when it comes to children, or we aren't.
Even as a non-father, I have to throw my vote on the side of dad's rights. I think in most cases men really do want to be dads to their kids, and I think anything which indicates the opposite compromises what I consider to be the most just cause of the men's movement overall.
I probably need to qualify that WRT due process of law. While I think due process affects all men, I see it being used most devastatingly against fathers. Thus, due process is not an end in itself, but rather a means to justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Zen. I agree that GSA is clearly trying to move away from traditional GSA values. And I have my suspicions about the motives of those leaders who are pushing for the shift.
But I have not heard anything suggesting the "Uniquely Me" (Ooops! "Uniquely ME") charm has any misandric or pro-lesbian message. The words on this particular charm can mean anything, so the charm in question has little significance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I have not heard anything suggesting the "Uniquely Me" (Ooops! "Uniquely ME") charm has any misandric or pro-lesbian message. The words on this particular charm can mean anything, so the charm in question has little significance.
I'm sorry, but that statement makes as little sense to me as saying that the blip on the radar screen which shows in the incoming missiles or planes carrying bombs has no signficance.
It is literally the fact that it CAN mean anything which makes it so dangerous.
The phrase "1 in 4" can mean literally anything, but in the context of the gender war it has a specific meaning which has been created in the population through repetition after repetition of "the big lie."
A rainbow can mean anything, but you know that someone who is flying a flag, or wearing a pin, or has a bumper sticker, with the colors of the rainbow on it, is making a political statement.
By itself, the swastika is nothing but a one of many forms of the christian cross, but try putting one on your jacket and wearing it out in public and claiming that it has "no significance."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calm... calm...
All I am asking is can anyone point to any aspect of the charm that has a "more or less" direct link to lesbianism or misandry. I don't see it. I can imagine it, but I don't see it. This is your chance to tell me the phallic dangly thing symbolized a dick in a guillotine, or the number of lobes corresponds to the number of lesbians it takes to screw in a lightbulb.
Proving to me or anyone that the charm has significance is not a critical issue. It is only an issue with me because the thread starter made kind of a big deal about it, and I just don't see it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is only an issue with me because the thread starter made kind of a big deal about it, and I just don't see it.
I, too, don't see a direct connection between the charm and lesbianism. However, as I have already explained:
Taken in isolation, I wouldn't have trouble with the "Uniquely Me," or more precisely, "Uniquely ME!" But this is part of a society wide phenomenon. There are two other examples pointed out on this thread. The case of the girls singing the "Me, me, me, me, me, me, me," (or more precisely "Me, me, me, me, me, me, ME!") song that I heard, and the case of the accessories being sold at Claire's depicting a pouting girl with "It’s All About ME!" And this is the same Claire's that sells merchandise making a joke out of girls violently attacking boys. There's a pattern here. An extreme, society wide pattern. And it's pathological.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's about the subliminal reinforcement of Feminist values through the merchandising.
If they sell nothing but products that essentially say "me, me, me!" all the time, the buyer may/will/must start to believe the message that there is nothing else more important in the world than "me, me, me!". YOU WILL BE PHEMASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
Simple, ne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought we needed something more concrete.
Here is a reference to the University of Toledo claiming the Girl Scouts are a great career path for women's studies majors!
Here is a link the University of Wisconsin women's studies page that describes how WS majors get university credit for speaking at Girl Scouts groups.
Here is a link to Kansas State University describing how a Girl Scout program "Be Your Best" was created my women's studies majors to set themselves up as new role models to replace the potentially negative roles of parents.
So it looks like women's studies departments everywhere have been targeting the Girl Scouts for quite a while. Probably the Girl Scouts still view them as benign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you guys have certainly made your case that the girl scouts is promoting female-elitism. I'm not really surprised to hear that feminists have been working with them, I'd sort of assumed they were all along, but I would be interested in any information demonstrating feminist leadership or the teaching of feminist history/other forms of misandry in the girl scouts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in any information demonstrating feminist leadership or the teaching of feminist history/other forms of misandry in the girl scouts.
Regarding feminist leadership in the Girl Scouts, I Googled as a single search the combination "'Women's studies' rape 'domestic violence' 'Girl scouts'" and came up with a wealth of links regarding involvement and leadership in the Girl Scouts by students and professors of Women's studies.
For example, from the Directory of Community Associates of Women’s Studies (The bold emphasis here and below is mine. I don't mean to shout, but I think the bolding may facilitate skimming all this.) (CAWS):
Kathleen England 388-0589 kje@wizard.com. I am the principal of the law firm of England & Associates, a three-attorney firm specializing in employment discrimination and civil rights law. I'm active in numerous bar organizations and founded the Young Lawyer's Section of Nevada. I have often served on the board of the Southern Nevada Association of Women Attorneys and currently serve on the board of the Clark County Bar Association. From 1993 to 1997, I chaired the City of Las Vegas Ethics Review Board and currently chair the State Bar's Character and Fitness Committee. I sit on the board of the Frontier Girl Scouts Board, the Circle of Advocates for Planned Parenthood, the Foundation for an Independent Tomorrow, and the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations. For the last five years, I have been a volunteer trainer for the rape crisis shelter and am frequently called upon to speak about sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and diversity. I have appeared before the Nevada legislature on reproductive rights issues as well.
And this from the Women's Studies Department at the University of Vermont has:
Girl Scouts
Sharon Baade 878-713
79 Allen Martin Dr.
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Interns have a wide variety of options to choose from including communication, web design,legislative, newsletter publishing, membership, community outreach, program design in sports, science, and technology.
From the department of Women's Studies at the University of Alabama, we have this.
Rhoda E. Johnson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Women's Studies
Rhoda Johnson has been on the Women's Studies faculty since 1986. During that time, she served as Department Chair from 1986 until 1991, and she supervised the implementation of the Master's degree program. She is a specialist in African-American Studies and Social Inequality. Currently engaged in important research on Preventive Medicine for Minority Women, she is a principal investigator on NIH-funded breast cancer research. She teaches courses on Culture of Southern Black Women, Sex Roles, and Civil Rights, and she is author of Women's Studies in the South (Kendall/Hunt). Johnson is active in community projects such as Black Women's Leadership and Economic Development Project, Tombigbee Girl Scouts, and she has chaired the National Register Review Board, Alabama Historical Commission.
Then we have this information on Faith Brown who runs the Girl Scout Cookie Sale and Fall Sale Programs for 18 counties in Central Texas, and who studied Sociology, Multiculturalism and Women's Studies at Southwest Texas State University
From Tulane's Women's Studies we have this. Recent graduates are working in a variety of professions and fields including public relations, philanthropy, medicine, oil and gas, and teaching; as well as in occupations working with women and girls such as battered women's shelters and the Girl Scouts.
Here's the curriculum vitae of one Judith Heady, who has been a professor at several schools, a Girl Scouts, Participant Leader, and has among other things Presented Seminar for Biology/Microbiology and Women's Studies
There's lots more.
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well done research. I really respect well done and BORING research. Just wanted to give you encouragement for your hard work and some of us appreciate how the Men's Activism board often shares the work load. Well done sir!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, if I still had it I'd check my manual from the middle-school/high-school ages. I don't remember anything very specific, one of the groups near my area was raising a vegetable garden for a battered women's shelter. I really don't doubt some leaders incorporated "you're becoming a woman now, these are some things you should know: men are evil" into their program. There might've been something about "when it becomes abuse" about what signs to look for, but I've seen that so many times I don't know if that was girl scouts specifically. My leader never tried anything like that that I remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>"Ferris said that she is looking for any women >who are majoring in women's studies, psychology >or education who would like to volunteer for >approximately five hours per week."
damnit! I'm a nursing major. boyfriend is a psychology major... do you think if I got him to wear [I was going to say a skirt, but then I remembered skirts are an instrument of the patriarchy] a t-shirt with "riotgrr" or perhaps a "boys are stupid" he could pass as a militant feminist? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what the Kansas State University advertisment says:
"We are looking for college-aged women because they are a greatly respected authority, but they're still younger, so the girls really listen to what we have to say, and they take it as gospel," Ferris said.
'Ferris said that she is looking for any women who are majoring in women's studies, psychology or education who would like to volunteer for approximately five hours per week. Anyone who is interested in volunteering may attend a meeting at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday or Thursday in Union 203. '
Women's studies, Psychology and Education: oh YEAH ... those are the Psy and Ed students who have Womyn's Studies as a minor .... silly me. And the line how the girls will look at the Co-eds and hear what these over-privlidged "victims-of-patriarchy-in-training" say and take it as gospel.
If women's studies was about celebrating women and their accomplishments and was about using constructive models and a work ethic for teaching girls I would be in the front of the line. But, since women's studies ( I read the curriculum in 2 of the universities ) is all about power, victimology, presenting DV in the Duluth Model (Duluth was NOT specificaly mentioned, but look for yourself at the premise of WHO the victims are - women&children), and an overall view that all evil is from "the patriarchy", male aggression, subjugation of women ... I don't want these women teaching little girls. Also, on a practical note, most undergrad W.S. majors are getting spoon fed all the lies about men, they have not real-world-experience with what feminism has become (much like communist theory vs practical applications thereof), and are happy, "true-believers", and just GUSHING to educate the world around them all the "truths" that they have learned. Hell, when I became an MRA and found a constructive outlet for my feelings that there was a gender war going on, I couldn't WAIT to tell people all the new things I had learned. However, feminazis view theory and "get-the-results-then-fund-a-study-to-prove-it" as a real science. By the time these wide eyed fem-activists see the real world application of real feminazim they are LONG out of school.
I know I might get dinged on this, but I see a clear corolation (?sp) between this kind of false indoctrination of the young with false feminazi female supremicist theory and the Hitler Youth groups that Hitler used to teach his "truths" to in the 1930's.
Our best weapon is that the Feminazi movement is so damn arrogant because those in acadamia are rarely challenged. When they start asserting their factoids we can easily refute them, but by then so many of our little girls will have heard their "truths" from young, relatively succesful, role models who were eagerly trying to "help" them.
ACK! I can't tell you the more I think about this how much is saddens and sickens me. If mysoginistic men were teaching the boyscouts I would be equally outraged. Using children to further what is, in practical application, a hate movement is so fucking low.
bleh.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @04:03PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
...but I didn't see anything suggesting they were promoting lesbianism mentioned in the article,
It appears the link to lesbianism is very slightyly indirect as I see it.
Women's Studies Instructors advocate lesbianism in college courses (given)
Women's Studies Students (trained to advocate Women's Studies) volunteer to mentor Girl Scouts (given)
results???
Hmmm!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @04:11PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if "V" shaped cookies will soon be peddled by parents around "V" day.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree that this is probably going on, I just want to find something more concrete exposing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a couple links. Officially, the Girl Scouts do not allow activities promoting a specific sexual orientation as outlined here.
But this talks about a Girl Scout program in Boston "Girlz 2 Girlz" for lesbian and "questioning" teens.
Yeah, this is from the National Review, but has interesting stuff about a "Domestic Violence Badge of Honor" for Girl Scouts, and a book called On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience.
My guess is that the feminist promoters of the lesbian lifestyle will do whatever they can get away with in the Girl Scouts until concerned parents catch on and stop them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read his link to the National Review! THERE is the proof about the lesbian indoctrination and this is really bordering on child molestation. I mean, if the leadership supports "educating" young girls into accepting lesbianism when they are just coming into their sexuality, and we have all seen the Feminazis "that's different" attitude towards Girl/Woman sex versus Man/anyone-else is quite prevalant in feminist articles, attitudes (MS boards anyone?), and theories (evil MALE child molestor vs. Vagina Monologues "empowerment"). And when these girls, just coming into their sexuality, are put into camps where there is a permissive attitude towards sex (most co-ed camps go to extremes to avoid sexual activity by campers for fear of condemnation and lawsuits), counselors who are apparently not afraid to express their sexuality (lesbianism is a sexuality, not a haircut - and male counselors at co-ed camps are all given DIRE warnings about sexual activity), and you have a leadership that is openly not only lesbian, but ADVOCATES of LESBIANISM ... well it seems like part of the teaching the LITTLE GIRLS is coming from women who promote age-disparate-relationships, view camp as lesbian "experimenting" 101 (funny, if a MALE expressed a view of a camp full of little girls as potential sexual students I cannot imagine this person/group would not be locked up DAMN QUICK!), and then the lesbian "men are evil" "DV" merit badges, the "come out" Gold Award, and the other plethora of feminist/feminazi supremicist teachings .... well, all told .. this is a sick movement that is endorsing sexualizing children while endoctrinating them to view men (PEOPLE lesbians constantly seem to want to villanize) with suspicion.
TLE ... you got the GOODs on this one man. Fucking HOME RUN!!!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @04:24PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another link:
http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/girlhood.html
and another:
http://jcweb.gmu.edu/communities/wrc/resources.htm
and another:
http://www.ncrw.org/digest/girlscouts.htm
(check out areas of expertise)
There were many, many other links.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL! That heading was dripping with sarcasm so much that I'm LMAO!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a girl scout, I wonder if they'd let me be a leader without having finished the program? [I got up to the highschool level, but then the group was down to maybe 4 girls that could come to every meeting] if they want college women to be leaders...
Seriously, guys, I could teach important stuff like hitting boys is never okay, especially between the legs [if not directly, fellow I know vaguely got kicked something like 15 times in a week from girls at his highschool, one testicle will no longer be functional], and that gender superiority is wrong no matter who is wielding it and things like that.
They'd probably make me sign a statement about affirming their superiority by virtue of having a vagina and crap - but it's nice to dream.
Aside from that: Though I see no direct evidence for promoting lesbianism, I don't doubt there will be some component of "being a lesbian is okay kiddings!" I don't have a problem with that. What I see as problematic is constant "men are evil, men are dangerous, boys lie" type of propaganda, then "lesbians are so nice!" - what's the obvious conclusion young minds are going to come to? That being heterosexual, even if you are naturally, is risky at best. I don't think they'll go for complete lesbian separatist yet, they certainly wouldn't say it's wrong and stupid [as they should].
Okay, once middle school set in girl scouts wasn't really the height of exciting activities, I can remember like two meetings that didn't center around making crafts to raise funds or cookies. some people love making crafts, I just really didn't. So, I would advise some sort of revitalization, but this is really the wrong way to go. Ugh. horrible. die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highly doubtful, if he does it will probably be in the paper or something, I'll post it. I know him through someone else, so I can't pass on the suggestion. But, I sincerely doubt it - the story was that he called some girl a slut jokingly. Another girl thought he was being serious [um. the horror] so told all of her circle of friends to kick him in that area whenever they saw him for it - which resulted in, so it goes, roughly 15 times.
Don't send children to school. Especially schools like this and whatever one Gonzo's kid went/goes to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Luna: "Highly doubtful, if he does it will probably be in the paper or something, I'll post it. I know him through someone else, so I can't pass on the suggestion. But, I sincerely doubt it - the story was that he called some girl a slut jokingly. Another girl thought he was being serious [um. the horror] so told all of her circle of friends to kick him in that area whenever they saw him for it - which resulted in, so it goes, roughly 15 times.
Don't send children to school. Especially schools like this and whatever one Gonzo's kid went/goes to."
Luna, is there something we can do? I know the boy might want to forget this incident, but if your figures are accurate, these are fifteen cases of sexual assault. (A woman in Wisconsin was in danger of receiving 40 years in prison for kneeing someone there. I don't know how that case turned out.)
Just like a website from Australia I followed (and where I stirred up a bit of trouble), I think this needs to be dealt with in the most serious of manners. We all know what would happen if fifteen boys did this to a girl.
Can you refer him to this website to show that people support him? We can even (as a group) contact his school. Think big.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I would be willing to get behind this. We have to fight the single battles and the small fights to win the war. LUNA look into this. I mean, it's YOUR off-line real life and, to me, that's an invioable line I won't cross w/out an invitation. IF you are willing to do this, we're with ya, but if LUNA decides that pushing this issue in her LIFE is not for her, we have to respect that. I KNOW we have to fight the fights, but remember what happened to ME when that Feminazi and I got into a pissing contest online: she went after my 14 year long military career because she lost an ARGUMENT with me. Luna's life is no less real. Let's let her think it over and respect whatever decision she makes. Just my thoughts.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. maybe just pass on the web addresses to the friend of the boy and let him decide if he would like to look into it. I cannot believe that , well, yes I can believe but am outraged, that the doctor who examined him did not demand to know what happened and turn him in as an abuse victim. Grrr.
Which ever you decide Luna, we are behind you. The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are the boy's parents in all this? This is clear cut case of criminal assault. If the DA won't follow it up, then a civil lawsuit should certainly be pressed.
The day when angry little girls can destroy parts of a man's body and life need to soon come to an end, or there will be an entire generation of boys who view that they have the same right to do the same damage to females. There will not be enough prisons to hold them all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us all pay due respect to the perspective and philosophy of My Sweetie Pie, Hillary. To wit: When men's balls are crushed, it's women who suffer the most, because the women have to live with men who have crushed balls.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Crescentluna, please at least look into this, to be sure it isn't an urban legend. If this story is true, the boy really should do something, though it's his call. Who knows how much he despises himself as a result of being taught for years by feminist teachers in schools run by feminist administrators and quite possibly having been raised by a feminist mother?
The story you relate is one of violent, sexual assault. If any of the girls, who truly did do this, were over the age of 16 at the time they committed the assaults, they should be tried as adults and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If life in prison is the maximum penalty for a man, who violently rapes a woman, then they should be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole.
The day when angry little girls can destroy parts of a man's body and life need to soon come to an end, or there will be an entire generation of boys who view that they have the same right to do the same damage to females. There will not be enough prisons to hold them all.
Why does the legend of the Bastille come to mind?
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Crescentluna, please at least look into this, to >be sure it isn't an urban legend. If this story >is true, the boy really should do something, >though it's his call. Who knows how much he >despises himself as a result of being taught for
>years by feminist teachers in schools run by >feminist administrators and quite possibly >having been raised by a feminist mother?
>
>The story you relate is one of violent, sexual >assault. If any of the girls, who truly did do >this, were over the age of 16 at the time they >committed the assaults, they should be tried as >adults and punished to the fullest extent of the >law. If life in prison is the maximum penalty >for a man, who violently rapes a woman, then >they should be imprisoned for life with no >chance of parole.
Even me coming up to this kid in RL confronting him would be creepy, to say the least. boy genteel found the board where he posted it, I'm emailing him through that address. For all I know, this was all resolved long ago. Or is completely fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Even me coming up to this kid in RL confronting him would be creepy, to say the least. boy genteel found the board where he posted it, I'm emailing him through that address. For all I know, this was all resolved long ago. Or is completely fiction."
You're handling this 100% correctly, in my book, Luna. Some others here will also write him if you 1.) are okay with that and 2.) think it will help. I agree with the others: I don't want to compromise your privacy by dragging you into something you don't wish to be dragged into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was correct, he hadn't taken legal proceedings and doesn't want to because
A. doesn't believe that the justice system will actually provide justice
B. girls have enough guilt from knowing that acts resulted in sterility
C. discomfort for him and between his partner from dealing with the situation more.
I don't know if the school did something about it specifically or anything beyond that. I gave him the address for this site, told him which article item I had posted his story, and in my replying email said someone else might email him further about legalities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I was correct, he hadn't taken legal proceedings and doesn't want to because
A. doesn't believe that the justice system will actually provide justice
B. girls have enough guilt from knowing that acts resulted in sterility"
Oh? I'm not sure that any of his assailants feel any sort of guilt. I'm not sure they wouldn't derive extra satisfaction from knowing they disabled him permanently in some way, although (we should remember) that a kick in the groin is sexual assault even if no permanent damage is incurred. Abuse is abuse.
"C. discomfort for him and between his partner from dealing with the situation more.
I don't know if the school did something about it specifically or anything beyond that. I gave him the address for this site, told him which article item I had posted his story, and in my replying email said someone else might email him further about legalities."
Please keep us posted. Do we have any indication as to when exactly this occurred? A few months ago? A few years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was in resonse to TLE and Thomas' posts on the NATIONAL REVIEW article. This article IS proof of the persuasive lesbian advocacy and the "that's different" attitude on camper sexuality that typifies Lesbian Feminazism. Here is what I posted on TLE's post (but applies to Thomas' work too - same article):
Read his link to the National Review! THERE is the proof about the lesbian indoctrination and this is really bordering on child molestation. I mean, if the leadership supports "educating" young girls into accepting lesbianism when they are just coming into their sexuality, and we have all seen the Feminazis "that's different" attitude towards Girl/Woman sex versus Man/anyone-else is quite prevalant in feminist articles, attitudes (MS boards anyone?), and theories (evil MALE child molestor vs. Vagina Monologues "empowerment"). And when these girls, just coming into their sexuality, are put into camps where there is a permissive attitude towards sex (most co-ed camps go to extremes to avoid sexual activity by campers for fear of condemnation and lawsuits), counselors who are apparently not afraid to express their sexuality (lesbianism is a sexuality, not a haircut - and male counselors at co-ed camps are all given DIRE warnings about sexual activity), and you have a leadership that is openly not only lesbian, but ADVOCATES of LESBIANISM ... well it seems like part of the teaching the LITTLE GIRLS is coming from women who promote age-disparate-relationships, view camp as lesbian "experimenting" 101 (funny, if a MALE expressed a view of a camp full of little girls as potential sexual students I cannot imagine this person/group would not be locked up DAMN QUICK!), and then the lesbian "men are evil" "DV" merit badges, the "come out" Gold Award, and the other plethora of feminist/feminazi supremicist teachings .... well, all told .. this is a sick movement that is endorsing sexualizing children while endoctrinating them to view men (PEOPLE lesbians constantly seem to want to villanize) with suspicion.
Also, and this is my addition to the first post I wrote. Folks, I REALLY can't believe all of you guys are missing this point that stood out to me. Read between the lines and realized what was NOT reported:
If **I** (evil smelly Man creature - throw rocks at me) were to write a "Tell - All" book about how I had viewed a camp full of teen and pre-teen girls as a sexual "experimentation" grounds where I could promote my sexuality, my sexual wants/lifestyle, and how me and my subculture (whatever my sexual proclivities are) wanted to promote our sexuality to educate (read: indoctrinate) developing (mentally/physically) teens and pre-teens ... folks .. I would be indicted and jailed faster than Dworkin can spit out false facts (and that is pretty fast). But when the sex book about camp related lesbian sexual experiences, open sexuality of counselor/staff lesbians, and how MERIT (or whatever the fuck they have PC named them) badges are being awarded for LESBIAN related activities (again - see Nat'l Review article) ... THAT is proof that lesbian PREDATORS are looking at the sexuality of teen/pre-teen little girls. PERIOD.
Sorry to write a book, I don't ever shut up in real life too, lol.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And when these girls, just coming into their sexuality, are put into camps where there is a permissive attitude towards sex (most co-ed camps go to extremes to avoid sexual activity by campers for fear of condemnation and lawsuits), counselors who are apparently not afraid to express their sexuality"
Uhm, the camps I went to girl scout and co-ed, also went to lengths to avoid this. I'm not saying that the girls didn't experience lesbianism in their camps, just that there isn't a permissive attitude about it - Counselors had to sleep in different cabins from the scouts. Hmm. wait. I think I went to camp after the book was published. :P
"the "come out" Gold Award"
the Gold Award is award to girls for outstanding community service. The girl in the article was supposed to read to senior citizens, she is petitioning to get her Queer Youth group organizing recognized as the same. It might work, but the Gold Award is not MEANT to be for lesbian activities. My group, for Silver Award [second highest] raised money for and collected duffle bags, suitcases, backpacks etc. for foster kids.
However, I'm mostly in agreement, there is pervasive "being a lesbian is okay!" type of ideal in there [despite my lack of notice]. And it is rather surprising nobody batted an eyelash at such books [to date I don't think one has been published about the scouts, but if there was...]
So lemme put it this way, I'm okay with:
lesbians working in girl scouting
having handbook articles saying being a lesbian or bisexual is okay
I'm NOT okay with:
constant men r evil propaganda
no mention of lesbians as possible predators
Which is the biggest problem, the young girls DON'T REALIZE that sexual abuse can happen from women, that this is wrong. And having constant "lesbianism is good!" with "male sexuality is evil!" crap doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey buddy, I wasn't just making this stuff up. I mean, you were IN the girl scouts and I wasn't. I was taking what I stated from this article( which both TLE and THOMAS submitted ):
http://www.nationalreview.com/23oct00/lopez102300. shtml
Here is where I got what the Gold Star was being given for. Also in this article was the sexual ideas and the tell all book. It's not a long article and it really explains what I was talking about. Crecentluna, I wouldn't go and make stuff UP like that. That's not my style. I hope the article and the excerpt below are helpful.
"For those of us who remember the Girl Scouts as the quiet girls in class who wore their green uniforms on Wednesdays, encountering Katze Ludeke can be quite an eye-opener. She seldom wears her sash for St. Croix Valley Troop 1256, preferring to accessorize with army boots and a lavender bra strap that slides persistently down her bare shoulder. Rather than stitching doilies and tea cozies, the talented seamstress has created her own costume company specializing in "fetish-wear." Instead of going for the Gold Award — the Girl Scout's highest honor — by reading to senior citizens, Ludeke pushed to start her own support group for at-risk teens called Queer Youth Exist. For her Gold Award application . . . Ludeke is submitting her work with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender teens, with the support of her troop."
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know you weren't making it up, I read the article too, and that's why I wanted to clarify points as someone who has been in scouting.
I looked at the sections from that book as a long-standing catholic looks at confessionals from boys who have been abused. I believe that it did happen, I believe it is wrong and measures should be taken to stop it, but it doesn't happen to every single child there and trying to apply it to every camp or such isn't right either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you are saying. And I am not writing a : "ok, yeah, but" kinda response. I respect your personal knowledge of the GS. Something occured to me and I guess now would be a good time to put it down:
Suppose two different situations:
The first being a situation where two Hetero kids were found to be fooling around. I BELIEVE, and cannot prove, that the boy would be questioned as to the question if he had coereced or in some way "enticed" this girl to commit a sexual act. And the girl would be asked if she was there against her will. Either way the boy (and maybe the girl) would be sent home.
Now in a lesbian situation I wonder if the camp would make such a big deal. This group of lesbian advocates running the camp would not want to hurt their cause nor hurt the camp program. It is my BELIEF that it would be treated completely differently.
What do you think Luna?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...fellow I know vaguely got kicked something like 15 times in a week from girls at his highschool, one testicle will no longer be functional...
When I read stuff like this, it convinces me it really is time for males to lose their inhibitions about hitting females. If each of these little bitches had gotten a bloody nose for their assault, this crap would have ended in a hurry. I know that's easy for me to say, given that he would have probably gone to prison. Still, we have to stand up for ourselves at some point, no matter the injustice we'll have to face.
I'm not a violent person, and I have no intention of becoming one. Still, stories like this fill me with a rage I don't know what to call except murderous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it really is time for males to lose their inhibitions about hitting females
The emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.
The emperor has no clothes.
Women ARE capable of being violent and severely injuring men, AND OTHER WOMEN. Women are not always mild, meek, passive, nurturing angels.
Women ARE capable of being violent and severely injuring men, AND OTHER WOMEN. Women are not always mild, meek, passive, nurturing angels.
Women ARE capable of being violent and severely injuring men, AND OTHER WOMEN. Women are not always mild, meek, passive, nurturing angels.
What drives me to a state of near rage is that so many people seem to be incapable of seeing how the level of female violence is rising at a rate which would alarm anyone who was watching. Stripping men of the legal right to defend themselves has given women a blank check to become as violent as they like - with a dozen good female-only excuses for it. And, with a dazzling display of bullshit which would do any presidential candidate proud, manage to define away their own violence as someone not being violence.
A is A. You cannot at one and the same time claim that something possesses a characteristic, and does not posssess that characteristic.
Men need to start pressing charges for criminal assault. The police state is determined to imprison any of us who defend ourselves, so we are left with little recourse except to start holding the system accoutable on its hypocrisy.
The only part of this whole insanity which is "good news" to me, is that women are beginning to get hurt by women's violence. Sooner or later that will force people to look at it. Wasn't it here that someone posted a link to the story about a woman who killed a pregnant woman and cut her open to steal her unborn baby?
I guess when enough women get killed and cut open, BY WOMEN, protecting themselves will become more important to women than lying about women's violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @11:18AM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women ARE capable of being violent and severely injuring men, AND OTHER WOMEN. Women are not always mild, meek, passive, nurturing angels."
This T-shirt kind of says that.
http://www.cafeshops.com/mensbiz.9519643?zoom=yes# zoom (no spaces)
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @11:20AM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
Click on "View Larger Images."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @01:17PM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
"Stripping men of the legal right to defend themselves has given women a blank check to become as violent as they like - with a dozen good female-only excuses for it."
About six months ago me, my brother, sister and nephew went to a movie. On the way out this girl almost backed up into me, then she looked at me and smiled like it was funny. She stopped, then I tried to walk around her car and she turned the wheel and started backing up and I had to get out of the way fast because I would have been run over while she was turning the car at an angle and backing up at me again. Then I looked at her and she had a kind a bitchy smile look in her face, as if it were funny that she almost ran me over twice, she had no care at all. At the same time my brother got pissed and kicked her car hard and yelled at her.
Then all of a sudden another girl comes from another car and starts yelling at him and pushes her chest into him. She kept on pushing him around, and at some points he had to actually touch her breasts to hold her off him, all the while yelling how she'll kick his ass and taunting him to hit her to get the fight started. Her bitch ass small boyfriend was there and wouldn't do or say anything, and all my brother would keep on loudly saying "I'm not going to fight you, I'm not going to fight you" over and over again.
Finally we got away and got in the car, and those girls were laughing at us as if they were all tough and strong.
When we were in the car my brother said, "I could have so easily smashed her face into the hood of the car and knocked ass out, and if it were a guy I would of". My 14 year old nephew said if that happened in school he would have protected himself. My sister (who is his mom) got very serious and very stern and said "Don't ever do that no matter what, if you touch a girl your going to be taken to jail" and then she said "the only reason that girl did that is because she knows a guy won't hit her back and if he did he'd go to jail". And that's the truth. She doesn't even know about mens issues,she knows this just from common knowledge.
The only reason they had the guts to do that even though that girl was so skinny and small (me and my brother are somewhat built) is because she was sure she wouldn't be hit back.
It's kinda funny how feminists make men out to be these mysogonist creatures who would love to hit a woman, and yet women can act like this with almost immunity from the law and men. You would think if men were so bad women would be deathly afraid of even tempting a guy to smack her.
If this were a guy we wouldn't have hesitated in taking him down, yet because of her gender she can act this way without consequences. I'm against hitting a woman in most instances but woman should also be taught that since men are taught not to hit women, they shouldn't be able to take advantage of that with immunity.
Also this thing about kicking the guy in the balls is interesting because of the fact that they are tauight to kick men there for protection, and I'm cool with that if they are getting raped or something. But I think these girls picked up from the media and elsewhere that kicking men in the balls is fun and humorous at the same time. It seems they have picked up on a societal attitude that they almost really "have a blank check" to do this kind of thing.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's quite a story, P George, and, since you were in it, I don't doubt a bit of it. "Every one of those words rang true and glowed like burnin' coals." Bob Dylan, Tangled Up in Blue.
Males have gotten to a point that is, in many ways, like the one that Jews had reached in Germany around 1937, when they had been systematically dehumanized for years by campaigns very much like the one being waged for profit in part by David and Goliath.
Despite that widespread dehumanizing of males today, let's take a look at what equity feminist, Brian Carnell, has to say about our efforts to have the offending merchandise removed from the shelves of retail outlets. But some of the rhetoric about the t-shirt is a bit silly. For example, here's Wendy McElroy writing in support of the campaign... Carnell finishes with the pearl It's a stupid t-shirt, not the harbinger of an anti-male Reich. What he's too blind (read "too feminist") to see is that he is right, but only in a twisted sense. It's not the harbinger of an anti-male Reich. We have long since passed harbingers.
Some (many? most? all?) others on this list may take exception to this, but I feel that in most cases, individual men are getting what they deserve for not fighting the monstrous evil called feminism. When a man tells me that he's been bitten on the ass by this serpent of hate, I ask him what he's done in the past to fight feminism. If the answer is some form of "Nothing," I give him a snide smile and then ask, "And what are you going to do in the future?"
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some (many? most? all?) others on this list may take exception to this, but I feel that in most cases, individual men are getting what they deserve for not fighting the monstrous evil called feminism. When a man tells me that he's been bitten on the ass by this serpent of hate, I ask him what he's done in the past to fight feminism. If the answer is some form of "Nothing," I give him a snide smile and then ask, "And what are you going to do in the future?"
Well, I'm certainly not going to be one of those who disagree with you, Thomas. In fact, I am most likely far more radical than you are on this point.
I have actually had the dubious pleasure of watching some men go through a part of the cycle to waking up to the mess they are in. Some of the men who have argued me to death that "there is no problem" have later gone through family court, and some of them to jail. One of my college roomates is sitting in jail right now.
This is the primary reason I have completely dispaired of the "reasonable and rational" approach which so many men's mouseketeers hold on to, like their blankie, for dear life. It never worked with them before they got burned by the system, I don't know why they expect other men to behave differently.
Time and again I run into what I call the "responsibility transfer". I see a man with a gun loaded, cocked, and aimed at his foot. I say "bad idea" and get back "prove it!" This is a whole lot like "stop me before I kill again."
Rather than accept the transfer of responsibility and get bogged down in yet one more argument, I am quite happy to let that person find out which of is right by the empirical method - go ahead and pull the trigger.
Since it seems that so many women are so fixated on, and derive such glee from, castrating me(n)- I believe it is truly a win-win scenario to skip the operation which I am certain I would find exceedingly unpleasant, and proceed directly to the results they are trying to accomplish: my taking no more notice of a woman than I would of a dumpster.
Of course, we all know that women are "victimized" by that as they are by everything else - but at least I am not. Ignoring women is not illegal yet, unless you are married to one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @02:02PM EST (#118)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you.
I gave up on trying to have any relationship or ANYthing with women.
I know they aren't all bad. In fact most are probably fine people, But like I said once before, 'You can't tell the "good" from the "bad" without a program'.
I heared a saying when I was a little boy, It went something like; "Never dive into a muddy river, 'cause you can never tell if there's a big rock under the water you might land on."
And now-a-days dealing with women is JUST LIKE diveing into that muddy river.
So I simply never go swimming...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @01:53PM EST (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, =Groan=
I get it, It took me a second but I get it, Thomas.
(^_^)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @02:44PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
The whole statement of society mirroring the beginings of nazi germany and the dehumanization of jews, compared to the same type of dehumanizing of men it completely TRUE.
As an American Indian I have sort of a unique perspective on a matter like this.
Anyone who doubts the horrendous power of dehumanizing PROPAGANDA, is fooling themselves.
As an Indian I can tell you with certainty of the destructive powers of propaganda.
After 200 years plus, Indians are STILL seen by many non-Indians as being infirioir, stupid, slow-witted, savage, primitive, supersticious, alchoholics, violent, barberous, dirty.
There are still BILLIONS of people in America and Canada, as well as around the world that still believe that we Indians all live on reservations, in Tee pees! and that we all talk like "ugh, Me want-em," or "ugh, me get-em Kemosabe." or "we smoke-um peace pipe."
They believe that only a FULL-BLOODED Indian is a REAL Indian. although the same is not expected of other ethnic groups. (For instance Marriah Carrie is only about 1\16th BLACK, I think, yet no one tells her "It's not like you're REALLY black...!" and how about Vanessa Williams with those BLUE EYES!?! 'think SHE'S full-blooded Black? well guess again!)
Indians are the victims of just the type of propaganda that we are discussing, here.
like with Jews and Indians, it is primairily the MEDIA that is resposible for the dehumanizeing propaganda now being aimed at MEN in general, that we are seeing today.
And the desired affect is the same.
If the public TRUELY believes that some one or some ones are less than human, then ANY, and I do mean ANY kind of bad treatmennt of said people(s) is acceptable.
After more than 50 years, the Jewish people are STILL feeling the effects of the weapon of propaganda.
After more than 200 years, we Indian people are like wise STILL feeling the effects of the weapon of propaganda.
propaganda IS a weapon. it is nearly if not as effective and devistating as an atomic bomb.
Will men still be feeling the effects of this NEW propaganda bomb that is now being dropped on them, 50 or 200 years from now...? Past history says it is CERTAIN!
Take it from someone who's people KNOW!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 25, @12:24PM EST (#110)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Thomas.
It's good to be back.
Let's hope I STAY back. But that depends on this new fickle computer, of mine. (^-^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An imaginary letter from a post-modern girl scout:
“Hi, I just wanted you to know that I’ve become a grrl scout.
My troop leader’s name is Leslie, but we call her Les for short. Les tells us boys are all evil and will grow up to become rapists and murderers.
I used to like a boy named Tommy before I learned to hate boys. Last week I told Tommy that I’d become an activist for the “wimmins movement.” He laughed and said that “wimmin” sounds like something Fred Flintstone would say. So I kicked him in the groin!
Les said she was proud of me, and awarded me a first place merit badge for grrls activism. Second place was awarded to a grrl who accused her male teacher of sexual harassment. I think she just made it up, but Les said facts don’t matter.
Les wants to take me to a NOW convention on the East Coast. I get to share a room with her! I’m sure it’s safe because she’s a woman.
Oh, I have to get off the computer now. Dad tells me I have to go to bed – the male chauvinist pig!
Bye!"
[OK, so it's a bit juvenille, but this was some prose I wrote some time ago and it seemed like the perfect opportunity to post it].
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bwahahaha, I love it, I love it, I'd give you a plaque for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve (great name by the way!),
That was a great "E-mail". Even if it WAS "juvenille" it so typified the arrogant spoon fed "that's different" moral-relativism that is being taught to today's Grrls. And it WAS damn funny.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @09:50PM EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
"Studio" is for a place where girls can create and "2B" is for the four main goals of the program: to become, to belong, to believe, to build. "
Is it me or does someone in the organization unable to count? I see four "2b"s! So, 4 bs'? Or 4 2 b's making it 8b's?
Whatever, the Girlscouts can officially count my daughter out. No more, enough is damned well enough with this liberal/lefty freakshow takeover in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they meant "2B" to mean "to b____"; ie, "to *B*ecome..." etc. Not in the algebraic sense 2X.
I'm not sure why they find that 2B so clever...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @10:05PM EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it my imagination or is there an increase in the numbers of posts to mensactivism lately? If so,it reflects a welcome increase in interest in mens issues.
However, although discussions like this are helpful and educative, real change will only be achieved by action. As we are in the middle of a David and Goliath battle (literally and metaphorically), I would appeal to all to send those emails and send make those calls!
Regards ,
Anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 24, @10:08PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the typo. I appeal to all to MAKE those calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but you are right, we need to keep reminding people.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
