|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HI! Everyone. Please go read this website, it confirms the Frieden story posted here, there is some article concerning this issue and how communism is affiliated with the feminists and other goups too. I hope you wil go there at:
www.savethemales.ca.
Henry Makow is very eloquent and to the point.
There is a lot to read there. Especially his ordeal the the University of Winnipeg.
ENjoy and take care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Friedan not Frieden. Accountable. But who cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @10:54PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"Please go read this website, it confirms the Frieden story posted here, there is some article concerning this issue and how communism is affiliated with the feminists and other goups too"
Other groups such as the Illuminati! That super-secret organization that runs everything in every country and controls our lives that nobody can ever prove exists! Sorry mate, I just can't take that kind of source seriously. Besides, who cares if Frieden was a communist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @05:03PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"I understand Elizabeth Cady Staton not only belonged to and frequented church, she also owned her own personal copy of the Bible! I hope that comes as a real eye opener for everyone. Yes, Christianity has a long history of affiliation with the Feminist movement."
Although the 1st statement may or may not be true as no supporting evidence was listed, it could also be stated that the exact same is true of me, yet I think some would say that I'm the antithesis of a feminist. I would suspect that Elizabeth and I both, also drank milk before we formed our opposing viewpoints. Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two. Jeesh, try harder to establish a link when you postulate a viewpoint.
The 2nd sentence, the one maligning Christianity as having a long history of affiliation with the "feminist movement," is so apparently ludicrous that I have to really wonder why the author made no effort to support his brief statement. In fact, I was so concerned by the lack of support the author gave his position that I tried to defend his supposition in a post about domestic violence. Still, when you look at one of the largest, if not the largest, Christian women's organizations out there, that 2nd statement goes down like a dingy in a hurricane.
ergo:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3602/BLI/dotcommentar y/
"Janice Crouse at the United Nations
The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women Conference is now over. But what happened? Did radical feminists gain the upper hand? Did the Far Left succeed in demonizing masculinity? What did President Bush say that some countries found so deplorable? What happened when delegates refused to agree?
The Beverly LaHaye Institute invites you to click onto the links below and catch up on highlights you won't see anywhere else!
Day 1: Pro-Family Delegates Evoke Fear at U.N.
Day 2: Playing the Blame Game at the U.N.
Day 3: Legalizing Prostitution at the U.N.
Day 4: The U.N.'s Bully Pulpit on CEDAW
Day 5: Cause to Celebrate
Day 6: Battling it Out at the U.N.
Day 7: U.N. Delegates: Let's Talk About Porn
Day 8: Inequality in Housework = Violence Against Women?
Day 9: Are Women More Vulnerable to Violence?
Day 10: Shutting Down the Feminists
Recap: U.N. Adjourns in Chaos
Sincerely, Ray
It isn't what you know that harms you, it's what you know that just isn't so that really puts a hurtin’ on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @05:19PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation
by Kate Weigand
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801 864895/qid=1070140742/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-922665 1-7246307?v=glance&s=books
Betty Friedan and the Making of "The Feminine Mystique": The American Left, the Cold War, and Modern Feminism
by Daniel Horowitz
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558 492763/ref=qid=1070140948/sr=50-pd_sr_ec_cs_b/ref= sr_50_pd_sr_ec_cs_b_b/104-9226651-7246307?v=glance &s=books&st=*
No spaces in the web links. Sometimes spaces show up in the copying and pasting of these addresses.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @05:28PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the modern feminist movement, the domestic violence movement, and other areas heavily influenced by feminism like family law are heavily "laced" with Marxist-Leninism. "Government as daddy" has been merely one of many anti-male by products coming out of this collusion. It's just "herstory," and the basis for most of the oppression men are facing in our legal system today. Other refuting viewpoints are invited, but please offer some support if possible.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @05:54PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Roberts:
I posted your story on Mensactivism:
/articles/03/11/29/0615 233.shtml
Ironically, I found that one of the web people responsible for posting there made snide comments about Christianity in the process. I don't care if people say something and are able to support it with facts and truth, but he didn't offer any support that I could see. Furthermore, I fail to see much a connection between the modern militant feminist movement and Christianity.
All that being said, I really enjoyed your story and greatly look forward to future installments. Obviously, this is something that some men are reluctant to admit, or see the connection to, for some reason. I suspect that perhaps the socialism of the feminist may too closely resemble a number of the social policies advocated by a certain political party. Perhaps this could be clarified in some future article, if that is possible, i.e., "The Perversion of Benevolent Democratic Social Policies by Feminist Misandrists."
Thanks again for your hard work. You seem to have hit on a topic not without some controversy by some within the Men's Movement.
Sincerely, Ray XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX XX
P.S. If there are connections between the modern radical feminist movement and Christianity, in any way, don't hold back. I tried to respond to this with what I knew about the CWA (Concerned Women of America), and their recent activities at the United Nations:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3602/BLI/dotcommentar y/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @10:47PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, slow down Ray. Three posts in reply to the top message already? What is it about that analogy which has inspired such panicked "defending the left from my attacks is intolerable" attitude? What are you afraid of?
"Mr Roberts:
I posted your story on Mensactivism:
/articles/03/11/29/0615 233.shtml
Ironically, I found that one of the web people responsible for posting there made snide comments about Christianity in the process."
Are you going to tell his mommy on him too? Don't forget to mention to Mr Roberts that in this case "snide comments" is a synonym for "obvious analogy that clearly proved the point he was making".
"I don't care if people say something and are able to support it with facts and truth,"
Except when they're attacking the left, in which case any amount of evidence will be considered proof.
"but he didn't offer any support that I could see."
Certainly not more than Mr Roberts offered linking feminism and Marxism.
"Furthermore, I fail to see much a connection between the modern militant feminist movement and Christianity."
But if you were as passionately opposed to Christianity as you are to liberals, you'd see a connection.
"All that being said, I really enjoyed your story and greatly look forward to future installments. Obviously, this is something that some men are reluctant to admit, or see the connection to, for some reason."
LOL, he used the same crappy evidence Hombre used in the analogy!! Do you really think if Frieden was a marxist it proves a hill of beans? Didn't Carey's own article mention how the Communist Party USA REJECTED her membership application? Yeah, I'm convinced.
"Oh how little evidence he needs, for proof of that which he wishes to believe" - Voltaire
"I suspect that perhaps the socialism of the feminist may too closely resemble a number of the social policies advocated by a certain political party."
So you are calling feminists Marxists in order to attack the left then. At least you're honest about it. How it's supposed to be any better than calling feminists Christians in order to attack that group and alienate them from the men's movement I couldn't tell you.
"Thanks again for your hard work. You seem to have hit on a topic not without some controversy by some within the Men's Movement."
He has attacked some within the movement and isolated them no less than people who'd use phrases like "Christian DV industry" and mean it. But this sort of obnoxious propaganda is why I, a men's rights supporter, refuse to read that site. Of course alienating me isn't a big deal to you, since I'm a liberal after all.
"P.S. If there are connections between the modern radical feminist movement and Christianity, in any way, don't hold back."
PS, I've discovered connections between feminism and bipedal motion! Every famous feminist in history was a biped!
Here's a question similar to what you might find on an IQ test.
Many feminists are liberals.
All liberals are therefore feminists.
A.True
B.False
Considering the answer, are anti-liberal slurs appropriate and intelligent to use when battling feminism?
Don't forget that many feminists are Christians and what's good for the conservative is good for the aethiest as the old saying goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @10:58PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Not panic, just trying to ferret out the facts, but I would say that there is a defensiveness on the part of some people who post here. Hey, if you've got a version of the truth you want to post here. Bring it on anytime.
Ray
It is what you know that harms you. It's what you know that just isn't so that really puts a hurtin' on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:26PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually that should read: It isn't what you know that harms you. It's what you know that just isn't so that really puts a hurtin' on you.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:02PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't forget that many feminists are Christians"
Show me. Most of the virulent militant feminists I've encountered are spawned in women's studies programs and other liberal places. If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:10PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"But if you were as passionately opposed to Christianity as you are to liberals, you'd see a connection."
If that were that case, which it is not, you'd be the 1st to know about it on this site. But it is not the case, and what I have stated is supported by the documentation I've offered.
Your lack of facts to support your opinion, leaves me wondering why you bother to state points you are having so much trouble supporting. How about some facts? No really, how about some facts to support what you are saying? It will take a lot more than what you've offered so far to change anyone's mind, but please if you have facts to support your views, please bring them on. You would be doing us all a service.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:16PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"P.S. If there are connections between the modern radical feminist movement and Christianity, in any way, don't hold back."
PS, I've discovered connections between feminism and bipedal motion! Every famous feminist in history was a biped!
--------------------------------------------------
From my previous post:
"I would suspect that Elizabeth and I both, also drank milk before we formed our opposing viewpoints. Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two. Jeesh, try harder to establish a link when you postulate a viewpoint."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:48AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
From my previous post:
"I would suspect that Elizabeth and I both, also drank milk before we formed our opposing viewpoints."
Elizabeth and I are both liberals, yet we also have opposing views regarding feminism and the men's movement.
"Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two."
It isn't even a question of cause and effect. Being a liberal doesn't cause one to be a feminist and being a feminist doesn't cause one to be a liberal either. Get that through your thick head already!
"Jeesh, try harder to establish a link when you postulate a viewpoint."
A lesson you and Mr Roberts would do well to learn, and I believe the main point of the original comment about Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:50AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"It isn't even a question of cause and effect. Being a liberal doesn't cause one to be a feminist and being a feminist doesn't cause one to be a liberal either. Get that through your thick head already!"
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two, BUT THERE MAY BE.
I stick by my original statement and add to it what is written in capital letters. Furthermore, I believe I have nothing to get through my head (thick or otherwise) from a patronizing, disrespectful person such as yourself. There's no need to keep resorting to personal attacks just because you can't make a decent refutation.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:31AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"It isn't even a question of cause and effect. Being a liberal doesn't cause one to be a feminist and being a feminist doesn't cause one to be a liberal either. Get that through your thick head already!"
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two, BUT THERE MAY BE.
Correct, but you haven't shown any cause and effect between communism and feminism, or how they're even anything more than tangentally related, (as are all major political groups).
I stick by my original statement and add to it what is written in capital letters. Furthermore, I believe I have nothing to get through my head (thick or otherwise) from a patronizing, disrespectful person such as yourself.
When the same comment you originally made about the left was applied to Christians you called it snide. Seems like you're using different standards to determine what is a personal attack based on who it's targeting. Sorry if I've disrespected you, but you didn't exactly earn my respect with your intellectual dishonesty in pretending not to recognize the Christian comments as an analogy, and your letter to Mr. Roberts was a very weeniesh move. Plus people who try to push leftists out of the men's movement piss me off. Just because I think the wealthy should be taxed doesn't mean I can't see a problem with DV shelters, jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:08AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"Correct, but you haven't shown any cause and effect between communism and feminism, or how they're even anything more than tangentally related, (as are all major political groups)."
Absolutely wrong, I have shown plenty, but you merely say I haven't. Militant feminism is a Marxist-Leninist scam that is destroying American families, and America. There is abundant proof of that. Do I need to post those two books I cited word for word?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:17AM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
I stick by my original statement and add to it what is written in capital letters. Furthermore, I believe I have nothing to get through my head (thick or otherwise) from a patronizing, disrespectful person such as yourself.
"When the same comment you originally made about the left was applied to Christians you called it snide. Seems like you're using different standards to determine what is a personal attack based on who it's targeting."
You are the one who is being abusive and initiating name calling not I. I am merely quoting and pointing out to you, your abusive language. Just quoting your abusive language may seem snide to you. Think how it feels to the target of your abuse.
Are you upset that I called you patronizing and disrespectful? How insensitive of me to percieve your abusiveness so hurtfully to me. I apologize for being hurt by your patronizing and disrespectful language. I'm going to lay by my front door now and practice being a doormat.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:20AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"intellectual dishonesty" "weeniesh move" "piss me off" "jerk."
Hmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @11:57AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Militant feminism is a Marxist-Leninist scam
And I suppose Napoleon is responsible for the Patriot act?
There is abundant proof of that. Do I need to post those two books I cited word for word?
How about just the logical argument part? Just the list of facts which those authors presented which conclusively prove that liberal = feminist = communist = Leninist, (would a Trotskyist be in this list too? Lenin deported him you know).
PS - Is legalizing drugs a very feminist idea? I know it's considered a very liberal idea, and feminism doesn't seem at all related, but since you have all this "abundant proof" that feminist and liberal are the same then maybe it is a feminist idea. What do you think? Is there a difference between feminist and liberal? Which does your favorite men's site oppose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:00PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"intellectual dishonesty" "weeniesh move" "piss me off" "jerk."
Hmmm?
You're intellectually dishonest, the letter was a weeniesh move, people who want to distract the men's movement from fighting for men's issues to fighting "liberals" piss me off, and you're a jerk. What's not to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:15PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
You are the one who is being abusive and initiating name calling not I.
No, you initiated it by calling liberals, ("me"), feminists, ("names"). You should see the vitriol shit your friend Gonzo writes, (as if to hide his lack of argument).
I am merely quoting and pointing out to you, your abusive language. Just quoting your abusive language may seem snide to you.
You didn't get it, (intentionally perhaps), so I'll try again. You have written the words "Marxist domestic violence industry" many times yet called the phrase "Christian domestic violence industry" a snide attack. Whether or not it is snide is entirely dependant on which group it's targetting with you.
Are you upset that I called you patronizing and disrespectful?
Not at all. You've been disrespectful to the liberal guys in the men's movement many times, why should I be respectful towards you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have written the words "Marxist domestic violence industry" many times yet called the phrase "Christian domestic violence industry" a snide attack. Whether or not it is snide is entirely dependant on which group it's targetting with you.
Difference is, his is both logical and true. Yours is an utterly unfounded and contrary to fact cheap shot based on your vitriolic hatred and bigotry against a religion.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should see the vitriol shit your friend Gonzo writes, (as if to hide his lack of argument).
I've yet to see one of you left wing rat-bastards who could summon up so much as two consecutive sentences of cogent and coherent argument to anything I point out, which is why long ago I dismissed you as a bunch of crackpots who are utterly useless to anything.
Oh, wah, wah, wah. Somebody come running quick, the anony-troll needs his nappy changed. So I might alienate a few people who collectively are about as useful as tits on a boar hog, and whose ideological brothers and sisters are already my mortal enemy. Oh horrors. Boo-fucking-hoo. Gee golly whiz, next thing you know I might piss off a pheminist, or some lamebrain like Tom Sylvester, the ever-perennial advocate for ineffective half-measures.
OH, THE HUMANITY!!!!!
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:17PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"How about just the logical argument part? Just the list of facts which those authors presented which conclusively prove that liberal = feminist = communist = Leninist, (would a Trotskyist be in this list too? Lenin deported him you know)."
I don't think a body count of men who have been destroyed by the Marxist-Leninist feminist scam is necessary. There has been abundant proof offered for the connection in previous posts, Yes, Marxist-Leninism in its involvement ideologically with the feminist movement is a big time contributor to the oppression of men. Also, read my post at the bottom. Mr. Roberts will be substaniating the connection in future installments. Is there causality? Without a doubt. Stay tuned, and perhaps you should just read the books and offer us your insights after digesting them. Unless of course you are afraid of new ideas.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:21PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
"You're intellectually dishonest, the letter was a weeniesh move, people who want to distract the men's movement from fighting for men's issues to fighting "liberals" piss me off, and you're a jerk. What's not to understand?"
==================================================
Your perceptions are as off target about people as they are about ideologies and your brilliant style never ceases to impress me. Such rants as the one above are more effective at undermining your untenable position than any reply I could make.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:33PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
"No, you initiated it by calling liberals, ("me"), feminists, ("names").
"You have written the words "Marxist domestic violence industry" many times yet called the phrase "Christian domestic violence industry" a snide attack. Whether or not it is snide is entirely dependant on which group it's targetting with you."
The 1st is based in fact, the 2nd is not, since you have offered no factual substaniation of that 2nd statement that I've seen. Factual substaniation of the 1st has been given. You argue from a mute point, and appear to spew nothing here but your personal bias.
Please offer a connection for the Christian Domestic Violence Industry statement you made. I believe I have offered more substantial evidence of the domestic violence movement trying to infiltrate the Christian Church with its deception than anyone on this post.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:36PM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
"Not at all. You've been disrespectful to the liberal guys in the men's movement many times,"
When liberals defend Marxist-Leninist feminism a movement that has caused great injustice to many innocent men I do not consider them a vialbe part of any men's movement. With friends like that who needs enemies?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:57AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"Jeesh, try harder to establish a link when you postulate a viewpoint."
"A lesson you and Mr Roberts would do well to learn, and I believe the main point of the original comment about Christians."
--------------------------------------------------
Lessons and main points get lost in your non sequitorial gibberish. Once again, please try harder to establish support for your ad hominem refutations.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:18AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"Lessons and main points get lost in your non sequitorial gibberish. Once again, please try harder to establish support for your ad hominem refutations."
Okay, I'll try harder. Since you mentioned non sequiturs, see if you can identify the fallacy in the following.
Assumption - Frieden was a Marxist
Conclusion - Men's rights have been trampled in America under feminist, anti-family laws similar to what has happened to people in Marxist-Leninist countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:21PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"but he didn't offer any support that I could see."
Certainly not more than Mr Roberts offered linking feminism and Marxism.
--------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roberts linked the book by Daniel Horowitz, and MND mentioned that this was the 1st installment so there are more to follow. Just imagine, since you didn't like this, there are going to be more following.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:26PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
"but he didn't offer any support that I could see."
Certainly not more than Mr Roberts offered linking feminism and Marxism.
--------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roberts linked the book by Daniel Horowitz,
Which apparently offered nothing more than evidence suggesting once upon a time one feminist was also a communist.
and MND mentioned that this was the 1st installment so there are more to follow
No kidding. If they continue with the plan of arguing feminism=communism one feminist at a time they're gonna need millions of follow-up articles.
Just imagine, since you didn't like this, there are going to be more following.
It's no skin off my nose if MND wants to embarass itself with such logically impaired drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:24PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you going to tell his mommy on him too?"
Sorry I don't have her email address.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:27PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you going to tell his mommy on him too?"
Sorry I don't have her email address.
Weenie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:44PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you going to tell his mommy on him too?"
Sorry I don't have her email address.
"Weenie."
+=================================================
You offer up a childish insult, then I hold a mirror up for people to see your comment, then you offer up another childish insult. Your style is becoming more apparent for all to see.
Once again, you reserve the exclusive right, based on a bullying style, to be right while everybody else is wrong.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 29, @11:42PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
" Do you really think if Frieden was a marxist it proves a hill of beans?"
Yes, it shows how men's rights have been unconstitutionally trampled in America under feminist, anti-family laws similar to what has happened to people in Marxist-Leninist countries.
--------------------------------------------------
"Didn't Carey's own article mention how the Communist Party USA REJECTED her membership application?"
Yes, but did you read the next bullet in his story. Here are both and little more, just for perspective.
"In 1944, Friedan requested to join the American Communist Party. According to her FBI file, Friedan was turned down because "there already were too many intellectuals in the labor movement" (p. 93).
From 1946 to 1952, Friedan worked as a journalist (some would say "propagandist" is the more accurate term) at the radical United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America. According to historian Ronald Schatz, this labor union was "the largest Communist-lead institution of any kind in the United States." (p. 133)."
"But this much is clear: beginning in 1940, Betty Friedan became a committed and articulate advocate for the American socialist movement. It is true that after 1952, her views become less strident. But Friedan's basic outlook still reflected the socialist worldview of capitalist oppression and female victimization. "
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:52AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
" Do you really think if Frieden was a marxist it proves a hill of beans?"
Yes, it shows how men's rights have been unconstitutionally trampled in America under feminist, anti-family laws similar to what has happened to people in Marxist-Leninist countries.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!! It doesn't prove ANY of the assumptions in that reply! By the way, when you respond, it's best to wait until you're done typing to hit Submit. Keeps conversations linear and easy to follow that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:15AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"It doesn't prove ANY of the assumptions in that reply!"
More empty hot air.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:34AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"It doesn't prove ANY of the assumptions in that reply!"
More empty hot air.
If it does, then you can write it out as a syllogism and demonstrate as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:01AM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
What does that mean anyway?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:35PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
What does that mean anyway?
It means I called you out and you're ducking the challenge. You claimed that if Frieden was a Marxist it proves that "men's rights have been unconstitutionally trampled in America under feminist, anti-family laws similar to what has happened to people in Marxist-Leninist countries."
If that is true than you should be able to write out a syllogistic string proving as much. So do it or admit that whether Frieden was a Marxist or not doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Friedan was a communist
2) A main plank of communism is doing away with the traditional and nuclear family
3) Friedan founded pheminism
4) A main point of pheminism is the dismantling of the traditional and nuclear family
5) Pheminism and Communism both oppose or support many of the same things - traditional religion, redistribution of wealth, government fixed wages, and so on and so forth.
It sure looks, walks, and quacks like a duck from here.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:50PM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
What does that mean anyway?
It means I called you out and you're ducking the challenge.
1st off your ducking my question by not responding specifically to what I asked. I'll try again. This appears to be an acronym. Can you provide the words that follow each letter?
R
O
F
L
M
A
O
You writing really does appear to me to present an air of a false sense of superiority. A little more dispassionate, to the point, communications would really help if there is some valid point you are trying to make.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:00PM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
"So do it or admit that whether Frieden was a Marxist or not doesn't prove anything."
The fact that Friedan was a Marxist-Leninist underscores how the ideology of Marist-Leninism has been incorporated into the militant feminism that has destroyed so many men's families. Government as daddy is a byproduct of that Marxist-Leninist thought in which so many men have been destroyed. That is a direct product of Marxist-Leninisms social constructs, and it has primarily been felt by men. Yes, Marxist-Leninist feminism meddles in families, takes control over families, sees families as a function of state and targets and destroy's Fathers and men. Additionaly, there is another book called "Red Feminism" (mentioned previously) that adds additional support to the facts and I suggest you read it to have a better understanding of all this.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:21AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way, when you respond, it's best to wait until you're done typing to hit Submit. Keeps conversations linear and easy to follow that way."
I prefer the way I post, and will continue to post that way. Call it diversity in posting style. Can you tolerate that?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:31PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the way I post, and will continue to post that way. Call it diversity in posting style. Can you tolerate that?
Of course. Your attempts at ambiguity and muddling the debate haven't derailed me from being linear yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:05PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
"Of course. Your attempts at ambiguity and muddling the debate haven't derailed me from being linear yet."
Don't look now, but your rhetoric is neither unambiguous, linear, or unmuddled, and it appears to me you derailed any cogent presentation of alleged facts on your 1st post. Once again, you presumptuously assume to be the authority on all things, but you clearly are not.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:06AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"But this sort of obnoxious propaganda is why I, a men's rights supporter, refuse to read that site. Of course alienating me isn't a big deal to you, since I'm a liberal after all."
So let me get this straight, you want to know what I'm afraid of when I present my points of discussion concerning comments made about the connection between militant feminism and Chirstianity, but you are "alienated" by what you read on "that site," and "refuse to read that site." I presume MND. Then, you put words in my mouth by saying "alienating you is no big deal since you're a liberal after all." Perhaps it is you who are showing fear, when cogent arguements are presented that do not coincide with your personal beliefs. I hardly consider this sound research to be propoganda either.
In case you haven't noticed, militant feminism is a plague that has been destroying innocent men's lives for decades. To say that I am very interested in any and all who support such a virulent hate agenda is an understatement. Let the connections lie where they may, and let the factual truth be told. Opinions, well, everybody has one of those.
So far most of what you have responded with is a personal attack in response specific points I have made. I would appreciate it, if in the future, you would try to keep your refutations more to the subject you are disagreeing with.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:00PM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
"But this sort of obnoxious propaganda is why I, a men's rights supporter, refuse to read that site. Of course alienating me isn't a big deal to you, since I'm a liberal after all."
So let me get this straight, you want to know what I'm afraid of when I present my points of discussion concerning comments made about the connection between militant feminism and Chirstianity,
No, I want to know what you're afraid of when you deliberately pretend not to notice that the Christian comment was an analogy, hastily scribble out multiple antagonistic replies, and write letters to others about heretics who would dare point out flaws in your attack on liberals.
but you are "alienated" by what you read on "that site," and "refuse to read that site."
I don't identify with that site, it does alienate men's supporters on the left, and I don't care to read it.
Then, you put words in my mouth by saying "alienating you is no big deal since you're a liberal after all."
Only defining the attitude you project.
Perhaps it is you who are showing fear, when cogent arguements are presented
No cogent arguement was presented, you just lack the honesty to admit that if once upon a time one feminist was a marxist it doesn't mean squat.
In case you haven't noticed, militant feminism is a plague that has been destroying innocent men's lives for decades.
I've noticed.
To say that I am very interested in any and all who support such a virulent hate agenda is an understatement.
My sister-in-law supports the feminist hate agenda. Are you interested in her?
Let the connections lie where they may, and let the factual truth be told.
Yep, there are connections between democrats and feminists. There are connections between republicans and feminists too. There are connections between Christians and feminists. There are connections between jelly bean lovers and feminists. But the bottom line is feminism does not equal all the groups that some, even many, feminists might belong to. "Liberals" is a different group than feminists, and fighting liberals is different than fighting feminists. Know your enemy.
So far most of what you have responded with is a personal attack in response specific points
Bullshit. I've given you specific reasons why I disagree with each point AND let you know you're a weenie. Quit lying.
I would appreciate it, if in the future, you would try to keep your refutations more to the subject you are disagreeing with.
They have been. Your accusation is baseless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since - as has been demonstrated below - as a liberal you'll be unable to oppose the pheminist agenda without also opposing the liberal agenda as well, what exactly makes you think you're wanted or needed?
For far too long the men's movement has been pulled apart trying to appease every single schnook that comes along and wants to quibble with a single point. In fact, I'm inclined to think that people like yourself are part of a fifth column, bent on if not scuttling the Men's movement, to castrate it to the point of ineffectiveness.
Over the past year I've been very heartened to see finally a crystalization of what exactly "Men's Issues" are, most recently eloquently posted on this very site. (see here: /article.pl?sid=03/11/1 9/0231216&mode=thread - you'll have to remove spaces) Almost without exception, each and every point on these lists are diametrically opposed philosophically and politically to the Liberal position.
Are you gutsy enough to lose your "Liberal In Good Standing" credentials to support what it will take to undo these? I doubt it, because frankly the only thing I have ever seen more gutless than a conservative politician is a liberal one. What it will take is not for the faint liberal heart - for example, undoing affirmative action and set asides for women will undo it across the board. If you believe otherwise, you are living in a dream world.
At least ultra-conservatives can be said to be useful idiots. Liberals don't even measure up to that; they are to the last man-jack of them useless obstacles in the way of doing what has to be done to stamp out this plague.
So, when you talk about "alienating" liberals, you put entirely too much value on your own worth.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My sister-in-law supports the feminist hate agenda. Are you interested in her?
I'm interested in putting her on trial as an accessory after the fact of crimes against humanity. I think about twenty years of community service ought to about expiate her guilt.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:10PM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it is you who are showing fear, when cogent arguements are presented
"No cogent arguement was presented, you just lack the honesty to admit that if once upon a time one feminist was a marxist it doesn't mean squat."
==================================================
The fact that Friedan was a Marxist-Leninist underscores how the ideology of Marist-Leninism has been incorporated into the militant feminism that has destroyed so many men's families. Government as daddy is a byproduct of that Marxist-Leninist thought in which so many men have been destroyed. That is a direct product of Marxist-Leninisms social constructs, and it has primarily been felt by men. Yes, Marxist-Leninist feminism meddles in families, takes control over families, sees families as a function of state and targets and destroy's Fathers and men. Additionaly, there is another book called "Red Feminism" (mentioned previously) that adds additional support to the facts and I suggest you read it to have a better understanding of all this.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:12PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
"Bullshit." I've given you specific reasons why I disagree with each point AND let you know "you're a weenie." "Quit lying."
Hmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:18PM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
"To say that I am very interested in any and all who support such a virulent hate agenda is an understatement."
My sister-in-law supports the feminist hate agenda. Are you interested in her?
==================================================
Yes I'm interested, that's what I said, but only so far as her misguided ideology serves to harm so many innocent people in this country. It is certainly possible that she may also be harming herself by her involvement in that. Yes, it saddens me to see anyone suffer under the abuses of Marxist-Leninist feminism.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:22PM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yep, there are connections between democrats and feminists. There are connections between republicans and feminists too. There are connections between Christians and feminists. There are connections between jelly bean lovers and feminists. But the bottom line is feminism does not equal all the groups that some, even many, feminists might belong to. "Liberals" is a different group than feminists, and fighting liberals is different than fighting feminists. Know your enemy."
--------------------------------------------------
Excellent point, chivalrous Republicans aquiesing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, is the heart of the problem.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:29PM EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
"But this sort of obnoxious propaganda is why I, a men's rights supporter, refuse to read that site. Of course alienating me isn't a big deal to you, since I'm a liberal after all."
So let me get this straight, you want to know what I'm afraid of when I present my points of discussion concerning comments made about the connection between militant feminism and Chirstianity,
-------------------------------------------------
"No, I want to know what you're afraid of when you deliberately pretend not to notice that the Christian comment was an analogy, hastily scribble out multiple antagonistic replies, and write letters to others about heretics who would dare point out flaws in your attack on liberals."
==================================================
Your sentence structure seems to have broken down, thereby ambiguously conveying your message. Please try again.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:35PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
I would appreciate it, if in the future, you would try to keep your refutations more to the subject you are disagreeing with.
--------------------------------------------------
"They have been. Your accusation is baseless"
==================================================
I disagree, but I will let the weight of the body of postings written here be the support for people's opinions as to whose statements are baseless and whose have substance.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:12AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"Considering the answer, are anti-liberal slurs appropriate and intelligent to use when battling feminism? "
I don't think there is one thing that feminists fight for that isn't somehow related to communism. Not only are feminists taking away the rights of men, they are taking away the rights of women, all on an individual basis.
Hopefully we will be able to look at it objectively and learn how to deal with it approprietly.
Dan the man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Furthermore, I fail to see much a connection between the modern militant feminist movement and Christianity."
But if you were as passionately opposed to Christianity as you are to liberals, you'd see a connection.
Here's a clue and a half for you, dickhead. Go to any - ANY - pheminist site and check out what they say about Christianity. Better yet - troll in as a woman and profess to be a "Christian Feminist" and watch them proceed to tell you the two are mutually exclusive.
HELLO? MCFLY?
Pheminism was spawn in, nutured by, and is given aid and succor by liberals. Deal with it. Don't want to be associated with it? Tough. Go clean out your own house first, and then by all means come back here and proclaim that it is "No More." If your fucking "Intellectual Giants" of liberalism, like that old tosspot Ted Kennedy, would stop kissing the asses of the pheminists, then the evil old "right-wingers" wouldn't have any room to make that comparison, would they?
Until then, the shoe fucking fits. If it fucking hurts, that's your fucking problem. It's hardly the fault of the vast, right-wing conspiracy that the liberaal leaders that you have chosen to follow lock-step with have fallen all over themselves to shove their noses up the asses of the NOW and be their fucking Cabana Boys.
And here's another thing for you, shit-for-brains; Any professing "Christian Feminist" I know of tends to be a member of a so called "progressive" (Read: Liberal) Denomination, and are also staunch advocates for gay marriage, ordination of women, and so on and so forth - hardly falling in at all with the beliefs of mainstream orthodox Christianity. They also tend to believe in "Liberation Theology" which is nothing less than Marxism in a fucking Church.
And as my final disclaimer, no, this isn't an ad hominem attack, asshole. You're not wrong because you are an asshole, you're wrong AND you're an asshole. The former is ad hominem. The latter is merely abuse.
Have a nice fucking day. And eat my shorts.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @01:42AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"Here's a clue and a half for you, dickhead. Go to any - ANY - pheminist site and check out what they say about Christianity."
How about this site... http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/
Or this one...
http://home.earthlink.net/~sjgess/
This one maybe...
http://rels.queensu.ca/rels312.php
Here's another!
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/more_reviews.as p?ref=1557865876&site=1
Again!
http://www.ascm.org.au/feminist.htm
More!
http://www.flagstafffederatedchurch.org/CFem.htm
Whoo-hooo, this is fun!
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/saskuc/CFN_Brochure_05 _03.pdf
Feminist books sold at the bookstore of the Church of England?!! Say it isn't so!
http://www.chbookshop.co.uk/category.asp?id=23222
Who's writing these Christian feminist books if there are no Christian feminists anyway?
http://www.crosscurrents.org/ronan.htm
Okay, you've convinced me. There aren't any Christian feminists.
"Pheminism was spawn in, nutured by, and is given aid and succor by liberals. Deal with it. Don't want to be associated with it? Tough. Go clean out your own house first"
Speaking of houses, who controlled the house and senate when the VAWA and VAWA 2 were passed? Who coined the phrase "Deadbeat dads"? In the last US presidential election, Bush had bumper stickers made that said "W is for Women", what support did he show for men? Didn't Bill O'Rielley's henchman once call the men's movement a bunch of fat guys drinking beer and whining about child support? And this in spite of how much well-known feminists have condemned the Republican party.
"If your fucking "Intellectual Giants" of liberalism, like that old tosspot Ted Kennedy, would stop kissing the asses of the pheminists"
Yeah, it'd be nice if the Democrats would start standing up to the feminists. Then again it'd be nice if the Republicans started too. Guess I'll have to let other issues decide which group I support more. What was your point?
"then the evil"
It's your side that undertakes political action for reasons like "fighting evil".
"old "right-wingers" wouldn't have any room to make that comparison, would they?"
But there's room to compare Feminists to Christians and Republicans too. You just don't hate those groups and have less of an agenda to make such a comparison.
"Until then, the shoe fucking fits."
Shoe fits your side too, bubby. And Christianity as well. At least the Democrats have put up a men's rights candidate for governor. Can't say the same bout your team can ya? We've even got a men's rights guy running for president in the next election, Bill McGaughey. When's your team gonna start? Hmmm? If you're the team that's more on the side of men's rights, how come we've got candidates running on that platform and you don't?
"If it fucking hurts, that's your fucking problem."
What if it's just fucking stupid?
"It's hardly the fault of the vast, right-wing conspiracy"
Who said "vast right-wing conspiracy" straw man lover?
"that the liberaal leaders that you have chosen to follow lock-step with have fallen all over themselves to shove their noses up the asses of the NOW and be their fucking Cabana Boys."
I don't "follow" people just because I happen to agree with them on some issues. By the way, who's the right-wing men's issues candidate running for president in 2004? Well, who is it? Cat got your tongue?
"And here's another thing for you, shit-for-brains;"
Reduced to name-calling already? Bad idea. Not because people won't believe that I have shit for brains, but in fact because they might. See, while our fellow readers are pondering the value of telling someone who has shit for brains that they in fact have shit for brains, I might similarly insult your intelligence, say by remarking on how envious I am of the merciful freedom you have from the ravages of the intellect. Now assuming they believed you that I have shit for brains, what would that make you considering I can insult your intelligence in a far more clever way?
"Any professing "Christian Feminist" I know of tends to be a member of a so called "progressive" (Read: Liberal) Denomination, and are also staunch advocates for gay marriage, ordination of women, and so on and so forth"
Right, feminist views. Good observation.
"hardly falling in at all with the beliefs of mainstream orthodox Christianity"
Yet becoming more mainstream all the time.
"They also tend to believe in "Liberation Theology" which is nothing less than Marxism in a fucking Church."
I'm not convinced you even know what Marxism is. Does this "Liberation Theology" actually have something to do the government owning everything and picking out everyone's job for them, all of which have the same wage? No? Then it isn't Marxism.
"And as my final disclaimer, no, this isn't an ad hominem attack, asshole. You're not wrong because you are an asshole, you're wrong AND you're an asshole."
It's still an ad hominem, just not an ad hominem fallacy. I'm surprised you almost understood that.
"The former is ad hominem. The latter is merely abuse."
Yadda yadda. So you think I'm an asshole because I'm standing up for liberals after you guys attacked them. Big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:24AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"Who's writing these Christian feminist books if there are no Christian feminists anyway?"
Liberal Christians that mainstream Christianity doesn't recognize as legitimate.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:43AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
"Who's writing these Christian feminist books if there are no Christian feminists anyway?"
Liberal Christians
Screw you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:21AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Who's writing these Christian feminist books if there are no Christian feminists anyway?"
Liberal Christians
Screw you.
Well, Ray, I guess this means you won that exchange.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:27AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now assuming they believed you that I have shit for brains, what would that make you considering I can insult your intelligence in a far more clever way?"
Hmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:34AM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Speaking of houses, who controlled the house and senate when the VAWA and VAWA 2 were passed? Who coined the phrase "Deadbeat dads"? In the last US presidential election, Bush had bumper stickers made that said "W is for Women", what support did he show for men? Didn't Bill O'Rielley's henchman once call the men's movement a bunch of fat guys drinking beer and whining about child support? And this in spite of how much well-known feminists have condemned the Republican party."
Excellent points, chivalrous Republicans acquiescing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, lies the heart of the problem.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:50AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points, chivalrous Republicans acquiescing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, lies the heart of the problem.
You'll find all the men's rights candidates in that party as well. Just because militant feminists want all their members to tow the party line and align with Democrats doesn't mean we need to respond in a similar fashion. Men's activists come from all political backgrounds, even socialists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:28AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"You'll find all the men's rights candidates in that party as well. Just because militant feminists want all their members to tow the party line and align with Democrats doesn't mean we need to respond in a similar fashion. Men's activists come from all political backgrounds, even socialists!"
Warren Farrell ran on the Democratic platform and also ran on a Father's and men's rights platform, and David Bickford, N.H. is a Republican. Farrell got under 600 votes. Bickford was elected. I'm sure there are more examples to support what you're saying, perhaps you could cite them.
"Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, lies the heart of the problem."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:36AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah, it'd be nice if the Democrats would start standing up to the feminists. Then again it'd be nice if the Republicans started too. Guess I'll have to let other issues decide which group I support more. What was your point?"
Excellent point, chivalrous Republicans aquiesing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein is the heart of the problem.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:53AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points, chivalrous Republicans acquiescing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, lies the heart of the problem.
You'll find all the men's rights candidates in that party as well. Just because militant feminists want all their members to tow the party line and align with Democrats doesn't mean we need to respond in a similar fashion. Men's activists come from all political backgrounds, even socialists!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:32AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"You'll find all the men's rights candidates in that party as well. Just because militant feminists want all their members to tow the party line and align with Democrats doesn't mean we need to respond in a similar fashion. Men's activists come from all political backgrounds, even socialists!"
Warren Farrell ran on the Democratic platform and also ran on a Father's and men's rights platform, and David Bickford, N.H. is a Republican. Farrell got under 600 votes. Bickford was elected. I'm sure there are more examples to support what you're saying, perhaps you could cite them.
"Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, lies the heart of the problem."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @03:38AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a form of locomotion you'll find most feminists preferring. It's called bipedal. Therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @11:50AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Your response is nonsensical, nonresponsive and non sequitor.
From a previous post:
"I would suspect that Elizabeth and I both, also drank milk before we formed our opposing viewpoints. Therefore, just because there's a correlation between one thing and another doesn't mean there's necessarily cause and effect between the two, OR MAYBE THERE IS.
Ray
It is clear from the entire agenda of the Democratic party that there is poor to non existent support of men's issues, while at the same time there is strong support of militant feminist issues, issues that undermine and destroy innocents men's lives.
http://www.sen.ca.gov/womenscaucus/members.htp
Here you will find the driving force promoting and supporting paternity fraud. As you bipedal through this list of feminists please note that they are all Democrats, then look at how the cacus was balanced when it began. I can tell you that two primary reasons paternity fraud still exists in California are Sheila Kuhel and Hanna Beth Jackson. Add to the that former Democratic Governor's veto of meaingful paternity fraud relief.
Yes, innocent men suffer while you simmer in denial about what is really going on with feminist, liberals and Democrats.
Sincerely, Ray
Oh, by the way Farrell, D got under 600 votes in one of the largest states in the nation, CA. In N.H. Rep. Bickford, R was elected and with help was able to get the first men's commission going.
What does that say about party support of men's issues candidates. You can bipedal out of context tools of arguementation all you want I prefer to use concrete examples and facts.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:38AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way, who's the right-wing men's issues candidate running for president in 2004? Well, who is it? Cat got your tongue?"
Excellent point, chivalrous Republicans aquiesing to the militant feminist agenda are a major problem. There is no party for men and fewer candidates. Still, there is a party that you will find the vast majority of militant feminists registered in. It's called the Democratic Party. Therein, is the heart of the problem.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:42AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yadda yadda. So you think I'm an asshole because I'm standing up for liberals after you guys attacked them. Big deal."
Hmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @02:53AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"But there's room to compare Feminists to Christians and Republicans too. You just don't hate those groups and have less of an agenda to make such a comparison."
Let's face it, it comes back to the "L" word. There are liberals who call themselves Christians who support militant feminist views. That light bulb went off when I read Dan's post. I wonder what party they are predominately registered in. As far as a liberal Republican, well, I would say Arnold Shwarzenegger (sp?) is not a conservative, although it remains to be seen how liberal he will be in the liberal state of CA. Liberal Republicans, there are a few, just like there are a few conservative Democrats, Zell Miller comes to mind. Some in both camps would just call them traitors.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this site... http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/
(Much left wing links snipped for brevity)
Okay, you've convinced me. There aren't any Christian feminists.
And? Worshiiping the "Scred Feminine?" Women's studies courses? Left-wingers. Try picking out some orthodox references, instead of things that more closely resemble the Unitarians.
You're awfully good with straw men. In fact, seems like you're obsessed with it.
Speaking of houses, who controlled the house and senate when the VAWA and VAWA 2 were passed? Who coined the phrase "Deadbeat dads"? In the last US presidential election, Bush had bumper stickers made that said "W is for Women", what support did he show for men? Didn't Bill O'Rielley's henchman once call the men's movement a bunch of fat guys drinking beer and whining about child support? And this in spite of how much well-known feminists have condemned the Republican party.
Go talk to the republican half of your Republicrat party. I'm a libertarian.
Yeah, it'd be nice if the Democrats would start standing up to the feminists. Then again it'd be nice if the Republicans started too. Guess I'll have to let other issues decide which group I support more. What was your point?
For you to grow up, accept it, and deal. Yes, virginia, republicans lack spines, and whore themselves for votes. And democrats are willing conspirators, giving the pheminists a place to pitch their tent, and a soapbox to speak from. This is WHY the pheminists are identified with the democrats. The shoe fits. Wear it.
It's your side that undertakes political action for reasons like "fighting evil".
We sure did. Managed to throw out the law that told the Banks to start tattling on their customers, Challenged roadblocks,
Oh, wait. Those are LIBERTARIAN accomplishments, not Republicrat ones.
But there's room to compare Feminists to Christians and Republicans too. You just don't hate those groups and have less of an agenda to make such a comparison.
Well, at least you admit your agenda is motivated by bigotry, and not by anything rational.
Shoe fits your side too, bubby. And Christianity as well. At least the Democrats have put up a men's rights candidate for governor.
Ain't the Libertarian running for any office that doesn't believe in getting the government out of Family's lives. Welcome to the party, even though you're thirty years late. It's too bad when all these draconian Child Support collection measures were getting railroaded in by the Republicrats ya'll were busy calling us mean-spirited old women-haters.
WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!
And Warren Farrel gave hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democrats as "The lesser of two evils" and the Democratic party gave none to him. Very disingenuous of you, bucky.
Can't say the same bout your team can ya? We've even got a men's rights guy running for president in the next election, Bill McGaughey.
At last, a Democrat who can name a Democratic candidate for president.
When's your team gonna start?
1972
Hmmm? If you're the team that's more on the side of men's rights, how come we've got candidates running on that platform and you don't?
Our local libertarian candidate for mayor pointedly said the DV shelters should be run by charities, and under an administration of his, he would order the prosecutor to prosecute denial of visitation with equal zeal or lose funding to run the CS witch hunt.
Who said "vast right-wing conspiracy" straw man lover?
You said vast right wing conspiracy, dick cheese. You're the same anonymous schmuck who comes on here in cycles and pisses and moans about how the right wingers are are taking over and turning the men's movement into their political football.
Same thing, just differently worded, fuckwad.
Reduced to name-calling already? Bad idea. Not because people won't believe that I have shit for brains, but in fact because they might. See, while our fellow readers are pondering the value of telling someone who has shit for brains that they in fact have shit for brains, I might similarly insult your intelligence, say by remarking on how envious I am of the merciful freedom you have from the ravages of the intellect. Now assuming they believed you that I have shit for brains, what would that make you considering I can insult your intelligence in a far more clever way?
Well, in fact, I try to use monosyllabic words with you out of fear you might not otherwise get the joke. I wouldn't want you to go off and have to look them up in the dictionary.
"hardly falling in at all with the beliefs of mainstream orthodox Christianity"
Yet becoming more mainstream all the time.
You can worship Odin, put a cross on a church, and call yourself Christian all you want. Saying you're one, and being one (orthodox) are two different things.
I'm not convinced you even know what Marxism is. Does this "Liberation Theology" actually have something to do the government owning everything and picking out everyone's job for them, all of which have the same wage? No? Then it isn't Marxism.
Liberation Theology, along with its fixation on "Social Justice" is about all of these things.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @12:04PM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"Thanks, Ray.
The Friedan article is the first in a series that will link radical feminism to socialism.
C"
--------------------------------------------------
To those in denial about the connection, or just upset, because this is hitting so close to home, I can only offer this advice, "Get used to it."
It isn't what you know that harms you. It's what you know that just isn't so that really puts a hurtin' on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, let's just take a look at "Men's Issues", see where a rectification of the inequities will put us, and then hold them up to Modern American Liberalism.
1) Affirmative action, set asides, and quotas for women.
This will entail reversing affirmative action. This will also require reversing it in toto, as reversing in for just one group is unrealistic in the extreme.
2) Getting pheminist ideology out of the schools.
It will require in some measure a breaking of the NEA and AFT, both ardent supporters of democrats, and hotbeds of pheminist ideology. Whether this is by charter schools, homeschooling, vouchers or other such things won't matter, as the NEA/AFT and the Democratic party have an uncompromising opposition to all these things.
3) Remove bias for the female in family court and the CSS divisions.
All democratically and liberally populated and driven. Can't make that omelet without breaking those eggs.
4)Remove the welfare incentive for single mothers.
Includes such liberally anathema ideas as workfare, reduction of benefits for more than "X" children, removal of special benefits such as schooling which are only open to the female of the species, etc. etc. In short, the beginning of the dismantling of the welfare state. Since protected minorities comprise a disproportionate bulk of people recieving such benefits, expect to be hit with charges of racism.
5) Dismantling of the Domestic Violence industry
A pet darling of liberal causes. 'Nuff said.
6) Establishment of Men's Commissions to counterbalance women's commissions OR elimination of women's commissions where no men's commission exists.
We already saw and are continuing to see in New Hampshire where Liberal Democrats are the most outspoken critics of such commisions, and in California where the formerly democratic governor rejected suchj ideas by executive fiat despite calls for them.
7) Discrimination against men in sentencing and plea bargains.
Two ways we could do this - Either argue for lower sentences for men on the basis that they are fathers and such things will leave children fatherless. This has already been done, BTW, and has proven singularly ineffective
- OR -
Pushing to throw the book at women like they do at men.
Your call, Buckwheat. Guess which choice will get the Liberal Mommy Brigade up in arms with their, "It's different when a WOMAN does it!" battlecry?
These are just the highlights of it, Ace. Putting yourself on the side of "Men's Issues" puts you squarely at odds with liberal ideology.
Your call.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @07:43PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"1) Affirmative action, set asides, and quotas for women.
This will entail reversing affirmative action. This will also require reversing it in toto, as reversing in for just one group is unrealistic in the extreme."
It all depends on WHY you are getting women out of AA. It could be some want women out of AA because women aren't discriminated against in the US. While other minorities are and might need help to get them out of unemployment and shity jobs. Not that I'm for AA, or even claim that it helps minorities but just because you are against women having AA doesn't mean you must be against anyone having AA.
But in reality AA does pit working class whites and working class blacks against each other in the fight for jobs. Instead of wasting their time doing this they could fight against the whole wage system itself so as to stop having to fight for an employment that lets others live off anothers labor. And they don't the state to abolish it, actually quite the contrary.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @07:49PM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
My last paragraph also applies to working class women and men fighting for employment as well.
This is the true war of all against all in the fight for resources which only a relatively small handfull of monopolists own and control.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @08:12PM EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
This paragraph below applies to people or groups who claim that it's AA that makes it hard for whites or in particular white men to survive. Or instead of blaming AA, it's more directly aimed at minorities themselves. This obviously can be applied to men and women fighting for jobs. (I've seen complaints against AA here when it relates to race quite often).
I'm just pointing out that the economy is one of the causes of racism and sexism.
"the ranks of white supremacist organisations have been swollen in recent years by undereducated and underemployed white youths frustrated by a declining industrial labour market and a noticeably eroding social status [Ridgeway, Ibid., p.186]. Rather than drawing the logical Social-Darwinian conclusion -- that they too are "inferior" -- they have instead blamed blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews for "unfairly" taking their jobs. Thus the neo-Nazi skinheads, for example, have been mostly recruited from disgruntled working-class whites below the age of 30. This has provided leaders of right-wing extremist groups with a growing base of potential storm troopers.
Therefore, laissez-faire ideology helps create a social environment in which racist tendencies can increase. Firstly, it does so by increasing poverty, job insecurity, inequality and so on which right-wing groups can use to gather support by creating scapegoats in our own class to blame (for example, by blaming poverty on blacks "taking our jobs" rather than capitalists moving their capital to other, more profitable, countries or them cutting wages and conditions for all workers -- and as we point out in section B.1.4, racism, by dividing the working class, makes poverty and inequality worse and so is self-defeating)."
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secD11.html
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @08:25PM EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
re-reading the paragraph I saw that a statement in the 1st paragraph could be taken as whites are inferior if it wasn't read in context. My apologies.
So you can cut paste the link if you want.
I just think that intsead of fighting who gets the jobs (AA) ,we could just as easily and more productively fight those who are in control of those jobs.
I believe AA has become the scapegoat, with anger going in particular to the minorities who are the ones supposed to be benefiting from AA. It obviously applies to gender as well.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
