|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 30, @09:19PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could explain your reasoning of your analogy to us.
I'm not sure if your playing head games or what it is your doing. If you are playing head games it really doesn't inspire confidence. And since you yourself have refused to discuss the correalation of feminism and communism it drags on.
There certainly is a justifiable reason to accuse feminists of being marxist inclined and following Stalin's lead for many reasons.
I haven't been around much lately so I'm not entirely sure of what's happening here, so if I am wrong I apologize.
Dan the man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point of this post is to make it clear that Ray and Paul did not author those comments, and also to apologize if anyone felt I was deriding their religion.
The analogy had two points. First to show that attaching a label like "marxism" to the DV industry looks like a political cheap shot which suggests we're opposed to the DV industry because it's a social program, not because of any men's issue. The second point was to show that claiming Freidan's association with Marxism as proof of some conspiracy between feminists and communists is another example of a very weak argument attempting to link feminism with communism touted as a smoking gun. Every argument which could just as well show a connection between Christians and feminists fails to show a significant connection between Marxists and feminists.
"There certainly is a justifiable reason to accuse feminists of being marxist inclined and following Stalin's lead for many reasons."
I disagree. There may have been *some* communist influence in feminist theory, but by and large feminism doesn't concern itself with communism versus capitalism beyond trying to funnel as much wealth to women as possible. There are a lot of feminist books written for teaching women how to be entreprenuers or successful in their careers. There are a lot of wealthy feminist capitalists. Things like Domestic violence shelters don't seem to have anything to do with capitalism versus communism at all.
The most damning case I've seen suggesting marxists are feminists is that they both support some transfers of wealth. Not the same transfers of wealth mind you, just some transfers of wealth. But the fact that almost everyone else does as well negates that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @02:48AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
What about the Stalinist control and destruction of family similar to the "government as daddy" bias men are hit with today in family courts. Much of feminist influenced family law follows the feminist Marxist-Leninist model. The feminists as I see it, just substituted gender for class, and "wa la" they've got a whole new struggle.
I really don't buy your explanation about the "Christian analogy" at all, (it just does not logically follow to me) but I appreciate your apology, and take no offense at your attempt to make a point.
Ray
I guess having worked on a college campus with a virulent women's studies program for 15 years may have made me slightly oversensitive to their politics, and constant preaching of that politics. Did I ever mention that they were still pulling bodies of the World Trade Center when I got an email saying, "Come to a Rally to Protest Bush's War in Afghanistan?" I believe it was in late October. Why are my tax dollars paying for that kind of activism for or against any political party. It's just wrong.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for christians, I just saw a program on christian "horror houses", these are haunted houses inside fundamentalist/evangelical churches during halloween that depict mini-plays to scare people into becoming born again christians.
What are in the plays? Lets see a father raping his daughter was the first play. A gay man going nuts and killing all his classmates. A man doing a date rape. An internet stalker murdering a defensless girl. A guy convincing a girl to take drugs. I think they even threw in a pimp in some of the chruch plays for good measure. The only man in the play that seemed any good was Jesus, oh wait he wasn't in any of the plays.
Those christians always showing us how they support men's rights so much more then the leftists and dirty commies. I always thought the role of the chrurch and the christian housewife was to tame her evil, sinning husband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Those christians always showing us how they support men's rights so much more then the leftists and dirty commies. I always thought the role of the chrurch and the christian housewife was to tame her evil, sinning husband."
Andrew, this is taking one incident and making a wide claim. I think that while some churches are voer the top, the vast majority are the only voices of reason in this liberal snowstorm.
The role of a christian housewife is to support her husband and give him authority over the household, with the knowledge that the husband has her best interests at heart and will try his best to make sound decisions. She in turn is loved, protected and cared for by her husband. If you want my whole spiel on this I can give it to you, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this as 10 years ago I considered myself a feminist, vegitarian, treehugging liberal.
~The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The role of a christian housewife is to support her husband and give him authority over the household, with the knowledge that the husband has her best interests at heart and will try his best to make sound decisions. She in turn is loved, protected and cared for by her husband."
You see I grew up in a Christian enviroment. The church managed to convert my mother and convince her to leave my father because he wouldn't convert. Family values my ass!
Anyway I've seen this in action having grown up in the church. I've seen men work there asses off for their lazy wives. Sure you get the coveted "head of the household" title but what good is that going to do you if you're never home. I've been in youth groups where they teach how men need a good women to persuade them to a moral way of living. Get them married off and with kids quick before they fall into the cesspool of the world and maybe have some fun first. I've been with my mom to church women's groups where they whine and whine about how they have to make dinner and then laugh about how they have their husbands trained like dogs.
Then there is the huge mass of feminist chruches out there that I would say has much more to do with the rise of feminism then anything else in Canada. I never could get when I read something by conservative style christians about the breakdown of the family they seem to blame secularism or atheism. They should take a look within there own churches.
I doubt you are in any way like this I've seen from your posts that you seem to have the best intrests of men/people at heart. I'm just very cynical about christian rhetoric when it regards to the family and I don't want that role of breadwinner for myself. I'd rather have a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, while I grew up Catholic, we went to church then left the religion there. My mother wears the pants in the family, she rules the house and treats my father like an idiot. Dad is conservative. I grew up to be a serious liberal, athiest, vegitarian, have been to Washington to the pro-choice rally, protested nuclear waste dumping and treatment of native peoples, lived on a commune, etc.
It has been through being married for nearly 10 years to a conservative Catholic family (and yes, I got the whole family, all 80 something of them!) and almost divorcing because of my liberal, I want everything attitude that I started re-thinking the Bible, God and my role as a wife. Liberal marriages just don't work for me. I had no respect for my husband or myself then, but I am happier now than I ever was.
Marriage is hard work, and much of the time you are just plugging along, but the big picture of creating a stable family environment is what is important. The modern feminist liberal does not respect that, they feel life should be a Meg Ryan film.
The 'church' and the original Bible are two different things. I do not go to church, I do not buy into much of the new teachings of the modern churches.I am slowly finding my own path in the more traditional interpretations of the Bible, but I am on the very start of my journey. I usually don't talk about this at all, but it came up so..
Anyways. My 2 cents, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @07:43PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"As for christians, I just saw a program on christian "horror houses", these are haunted houses inside fundamentalist/evangelical churches during halloween that depict mini-plays to scare people into becoming born again christians."
Andrew:
Can you provide some documentation on this? I am very curious to explore this further.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know where you could find information about these halloween horror houses. Possibly try a google search. The program that these horror houses were on was W5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 04, @12:03AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
"As for christians" "What are in the plays? Lets see a father raping his daughter was the first play. A gay man going nuts and killing all his classmates. A man doing a date rape. An internet stalker murdering a defensless girl. A guy convincing a girl to take drugs. I think they even threw in a pimp in some of the chruch plays for good measure. The only man in the play that seemed any good was Jesus, oh wait he wasn't in any of the plays."
-------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I found exactly what you were talking about but there are a couple of hits that came up in Google, and I don't see it as totally antimale as you described. Some of what you mentioned is clearly in there, but the 1st one appears to be shot by a nonchristian film crew who may have an anti-Christian agenda. Let me know if you find more. It does appear that these are Pentacostal denominations who are putting on these productions.
Ray
==================================================
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/103102 /coverstory.html (no spaces)
"Ratliff says, as might be expected, that making the film was often an eerie experience. The director and crew looked on as the spook house creators rather clumsily infused each sketch with their own entirely judgemental philosophies. A self-described liberal, Ratliff says the things the creators of Hell House were saying were often “creepy and unsettling."
"One condition Ratliff asked for was that he and his crew be off limits in terms of the Church members’ recruitment efforts. He didn’t want the filmmakers and the focus of the film getting into any theological discussions, nor any attempts at “saving” his heathen crew. “I didn’t want them trying to convert anyone,” Ratliff says."
==================================================
Here's another:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/hallow3.htm
"Warning!" admonishes a sign outside one Dallas-Ft. Worth Texas area "Hell House." "By voluntarily going through Hell House X you will see ... Live Gunfire, Suicide, Blood, Strobes, Drug Usage, Death & Hell!!!"
"The themes are gruesome, but represent a selection culled from the social and theological angst of the devoutly religious. Suicides, teen pregnancy and premarital sex, drug abuse and interest in the occult are usually the targets of dire warnings at "Hell house" and similar presentations."
==================================================
Here's the rape. Just didn't go far enough! I'd say that's anti-male.
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/103098/rel_2.html
"In Chattanooga, the Highland Park Baptist Church is staging a kind of real-life horror show in which out-of-control teens are the monsters and only God's love can save them.
"Judgment Day VI," held in an abandoned elementary school over four nights, uses fake guns and blanks to re-enact a school shooting and raises the issue of rape as visitors walk through the rooms."
Inasmuch as this is Texas (and Tenn), maybe next year these Baptists and Pentacostals could raise the issue of females who run over males with their cars.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hombre,
I really appreciate you ability to be upfront and explain the misunderstanding instead of rising to the bait. Your voice of reason keeps this board from collapsing into the chaos that many boards I have been on tend to do in situations like this.
I also think your point was well made, even if it had to be explained. By targeting a 3rd party to attack, we are spreading ourselves out and creating more enemies, as well as weakening our arguements. Point taken. I think the commie/Hitler/feminism link, while it may have some merits, in the end likens us to McCarthyism. We want to be seen as having a just cause, not a paranoia. So even if it is true, claiming this aloud weakens our cause.
~The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Hombre,
I really appreciate you ability to be upfront and explain the misunderstanding instead of rising to the bait. Your voice of reason keeps this board from collapsing into the chaos that many boards I have been on tend to do in situations like this."
I dissagree, I think it came about in a terrible way. It came out with Hombre finally losing his cool and making a post that pissed off some people because they had no idea where he was coming from. The real issue is his beliefs that feminists are not communists which is what he should have commented on in an open manner right from the beginning. Not only that I've asked him to bring his experience to the table a few times so we could get it out in the open.
He didn't want to so it was left, and because of that it's come to this.
Regardless, feminism is corrupting christian churches that's apparent. Feminists do have entirely vested interests in communist ideals and it was instigated by communists on a large front. This doesn't negate the fact that others capitalize on the conditioned mass that feminism is. I say we expose it. It's un-democratic which is why those on the left should not be worried about it being an attack on the left, if they are still for democracy.
Dan Lynch's Self-Defence (519) 774-2121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I meant the open letter of explaination and apology. Hombre in the past has attempted to talk about the feminism/ commie link and was shouted down by others on this sight. I think that he did the best he could. He lost it, yeah well, we all do, but he had the decency to come forward and admit it.
The replies he recieved the last time this came up were not the type to facilitate reasonable conversation.
I stand by what I said. To bring in the communist angle at this point, I feel, would be detrimental to this movement. MHO, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dissagree, I think it came about in a terrible way. It came out with Hombre finally losing his cool and making a post that pissed off some people because they had no idea where he was coming from.
Um...no. Making an analogy is not "losing one's cool".
The real issue is his beliefs that feminists are not communists which is what he should have commented on in an open manner right from the beginning.
I have said that openly from the beginning. Feminism is one ideology, communism is another. My analogy was not intended to be a way of disguising my views as you seem to be implying, and as I think most people who've read it know.
Not only that I've asked him to bring his experience to the table a few times so we could get it out in the open.
And I've explained to you in the past that I think such debates are divisive and violate the apolitical philosophy of this site.
He didn't want to so it was left, and because of that it's come to this.
It's statements like that which prove my point about the divisive nature of such discussions. This "if not for Hombre none of this horrible inhumanity would be happening" attitude does not attempt to further your position logically, and is nothing more than an unprovoked attack on me.
Regardless, feminism is corrupting christian churches that's apparent. Feminists do have entirely vested interests in communist ideals and it was instigated by communists on a large front. This doesn't negate the fact that others capitalize on the conditioned mass that feminism is. I say we expose it. It's un-democratic which is why those on the left should not be worried about it being an attack on the left, if they are still for democracy.
This is part of the problem. You've just made the claim that because feminists are communists objecting to attacks on the left is undemocratic. That's so far from being logical I don't know if it's even what you meant, or if not what it was you were trying to say. How can I point that out in a way which won't upset you? Should I simply mention that it's self-contradictory, violates the fallacy of the fourth term, and is a non sequitur? Is it better if I explain in detail that you cannot logically weigh an argument until you break it down into sets of three terms, and that even if we accept the idea that feminists are communists it still says nothing about either the left or democracy, and finally that the attempt to use accusations of "un-democratic" to silence dissenting opinions is very ironic and hypocritical? How can I tell you all that's wrong with your argument without upseting you when you're already acting hostile towards me simply for having made an analogy you didn't like?
So now I'm thinking if that argument was all it took to convince you that democracy dictates the people on the left shouldn't defend themselves, what should I expect from the argument which convinced you that feminism equals marxism? You seem to be a little more passionate about that point, so if your argument on that is as bad as this one was, would you pull a gun on me if I pointed it out?
That is a very grandiose claim and it does require something pretty darned substantial to back it up. Saying that Betty Frieden was a communist doesn't cut it. Showing that they both have used brainwashing techniques doesn't do it. Suggesting that they both are anti-family doesn't do it. Showing that they both support some movement of money doesn't do it. Showing how people have been oppressed by both groups doesn't cut it. Showing all of these things doesn't cut it, because all of these things apply to other groups that aren't feminism either. The only way to show that feminists and communists are the same is to show that the things which define the ideologies are the same. I'm pretty familiar with both ideologies, and it is obvious to me that they are not the same. If you think you have something concrete which proves otherwise go ahead and tell us. But if it isn't rock solid, well, know what to expect when I counter your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @08:28PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"I have said that openly from the beginning. Feminism is one ideology, communism is another."
==================================================
http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @11:23PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The communist party doesn't hold a monopoly on communism. Neither does marxism for that matter.
You know the first christians lived in communistic communities. They didn't hold private property, in fact they couldn't, back then christianity was mostly known as a slaves religion. They held everything in 'common' which the Acts of the apostles says---
"Acts 4:32-35
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
Jesus even said that very few rich people would make it to the 'kingdom of heaven', in fact he said it would be easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven.
I know of christians who say that real christianity is socialism (www.catholicworker.org). Even Leo Tolstoy believed that ('The Kingdom of God is Within You', and 'The age of slavery'). Even Jesus told rich men to give all their possesions to the poor, which most christians don't follow. Jesus also said there is no Greek or Jew or man or woman, which sounds quite progressive to me.
It isn't just feminism that can be related to socialism or communism, christianity can be too. It all depends on what kind of social status, religious beliefs, and politics of the particular christian your talking to.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One needs to go no further then the United Church of Canada to find hardcore femmunism. The United Church is the third or fourth largest denomination in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christianity is definatly socialist, but their focus is not on material wealth or the accumulation of it. It is also not enforced at the end of a gun. It also does not focus on hatred to acquire its goal, unlike the Stalinists who use hatred to meat their ends.
Dan Lynch's Self-Defence (519) 774-2121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. George, may I ask whether you are the same person (professor of jurisprudence at Princeton) who authored the piece entitled, "One Man, One Woman: The Case For Preserving the Definition of Marriage"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 02, @12:32PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
The difference is that in Religion there is a moral imperative, something it is impossible to find in an atheistic philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 02, @09:07PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.whitefuture.com/c_corner/oxymoron.html
"Therefore, if feminism is not taught in the Bible, and even further, if feminism is contradicted in the Bible, then there is no intellectually honest way that a woman could call herself, “Christian” and “feminist” at the same time. The Bible is the only source for Christian knowledge, and it therefore must be accepted in order to be honestly a Christian believer."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 02, @09:19PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"It isn't just feminism that can be related to socialism or communism, christianity can be too. It all depends on what kind of social status, religious beliefs, and politics of the particular christian your talking to."
In Matt: 22:21 Jesus said, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Casesar's and unto God the things that are God.
Jesus said these things as a human being living under a dictatorship.
While some Chirstians may be render unto a communist government, it appears that all feminist are rendering unto Marxist-Leninism.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 02, @10:58AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Right, christianity has never enforced anything with the barrel of a gun or with a sword. What planet do you live on again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The imperative being what? Do this or go to hell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you ask forgiveness ten minutes before you die then you can be a genocidal murderer and still not be punished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 02, @07:36PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
hobbes, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not that guy, nor am I a professor.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @12:09AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
You can cut and paste from fundamentalist web sites all you want, I don't see the purpose, I'm not a christian. Although I admire Jesus's bravery in being put to death for what he believed in. He was hated for being against religions dry legalism and was put to death for blasphemy and sedition. I have no doubt quite a number of fundamentalists would accuse Jesus of the same thing and put him to death if he were here today acting as a rabble rouser.
That website seems to be saying that there shouldn't be female pastors or priests, and those christians churches that have them aren't really christian, in fact that they are blasphemous. Or that women were literally made in Eden as sidekicks for men ("helpers").
These christians believe that every word and every statement should be taken as literally from Gods mouth (ie. fundamentalists), which isn't how the bible was looked at until relatively recently. If I remember correctly Saint Augustine was open to the idea that the Adam and Eve story could have been figurative and not literal.
These fundamentalists pick and choose when to take the bible literally. They'll take it literally when the bible says not to have women as pastors---"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church". 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.
The bible also says---"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man". 1 Corinthians 11:7-9. Not to mention this doesn't make any biological sense.
And most angering of all is that men will conveniently take scriptures like this literally----"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression". 1 Timothy 2:11-15 .
How the hell would you feel if you were told by religious authorities that you should subject yourself to your wife, to be told you can't teach your beloved wife, and that you shouldn't usurp your wifes authority over YOU and not only that but you should be in silence this whole to your wife??? You would want to rebel against that shit, I would.
I got these scriptures from that site (I knew about them already). At the bottom of the page it says this---->
"Holy women, Christian women, did and will, subject themselves to their own husbands, by definition. A feminist, by definition, will never do that. A feminist can never qualify as a holy woman, a Christian in good standing. By proudly rejecting that role, she just as surely rejects Christianity, even if she won’t admit it.
These christians are the biggest of all hypocrites (Jesus hated hypocrites the most). They'll take the bible literally when it says that women should be in "SUBJECTION" to their husbands. But they don't even follow those communistic/socialistic actions that Jesus stressed. No, what fundamentalist religious leaders do is sing praises about capitalism, the "most just social system known to men".
Are these guys out there giving all their possesions to the poor? Are they selling their property to give the proceeds to the poor? Are they hanging out and seeing the humanity of prostitutes and criminals, not mention being equal with them?
Are they following exactly how the bible says the first Christians lived? Are they creating a social system where no one was "needy" like Acts 4:32-35 talks about? No they're not, most fundamentalists are rightwingers who care most about their money and aren't interested in social justice.
How is this site about equality between men and women? I thought that was what mens activism was about. No offence Ray but why go to a male chauvinist site that says women should be in subjection to their husbands to prove that real Christians can't be feminist, that a christian feminist is an oxy-moron, only because feminists would never be in subjection to their husband (possibly you didn't read further into that site)?. Who cares? It isn't even a good argument.
Well I've probably made myself altogether unpopular here.
I'd like to make it clear I do care about injustices that happen to men and stoping misandry and bringing equality between the genders. I'm sure most people here agree , but Jesus Christ!
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @12:28AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly you were responding to someone else or you were making a point that I totally missed.. I don't have anything against you personally, I don't even know you. I just thought that site was stupid. And I was raised in a traditional religion and I could just never understand why a woman had to obey those scriptures. It didn't make any sense to me then and still doesn't.
sorry if I offended you man.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @12:55AM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"While some Chirstians may be render unto a communist government, it appears that all feminist are rendering unto Marxist-Leninism."
Before this post you gave a link which said Christian feminists aren't really Christians, (and it wasn't because they were godless commies). I highly doubt those Christian women who claim to be feminists are Marxists considering that most Marxists hate religion (there have been some Christian Marxists but very rare). So, by your own previous post you've shown that not all feminist render unto marxist-leninism. I even doubt that most Christian feminists are even anti-capitalists.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @07:33AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
"I could just never understand why a woman had to obey those scriptures."
So it is clear then, that you do not believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. I understand now.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @07:40AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Can you be a militant feminist w/o being a communist? It appears that all feminist render unto marxist-leninism."
By there deeds I have come to know them.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:15AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
My point wasn't that I thought the bible wasn't infallible.
If YOU were a woman that site would have offended YOU. And if you don't care about that, why should a woman care about you being offended by misandry? You were resorting to a misogynist reference to make some point on a site dealing with misandry. It smacks of the utmost hypocrisy.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:37AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Marxism is a tool used by authoritarians to rise to power. Now I don't believe that Karl Marx meant for that, but he was also authoritarian. Lenin and the communist party used Marxism specifically for power. In fact he killed workers on his way to "helping" them. This is why there is mostly a middle class intellectual interest in it. All these Marxists are imagining themselves in positions above and over the working class people. They imagine themselves in offical positions within the state which would create another class based society, which is their intention. Communism is a classless society, which is something much different then their authoritarian "communism".
This is what the authoritarian militant feminists are doing, in my opinion. They not only want power over men but women as well and they are using Marxism to achieve this.
But as we can also see misandric feminism has it's hold within the capitalist media and is most prevelant in the capitalist states. They are using both avenues to achieve whatever it is they want.
But anyways that's my take on it, I'm sure that not being an anti-communist brands me as the enemy. Oh well/.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point wasn't that I thought the bible wasn't infallible.
If YOU were a woman that site would have offended YOU. And if you don't care about that, why should a woman care about you being offended by misandry? You were resorting to a misogynist reference to make some point on a site dealing with misandry. It smacks of the utmost hypocrisy.
I can probably show you quite a few women who not only would not be offended by that site, but who would be nodding their heads up and down in agreement.
So much for it being offensive to women.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @07:06PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"I can probably show you quite a few women who not only would not be offended by that site, but who would be nodding their heads up and down in agreement.
So much for it being offensive to women."
I have no doubt that you can find women who would nod in agreement to being in subjection to their husbands. Yet this argument can work against you as well.
You and I know we could find quite a bit of men who would not only nod in agreement to misandry from women, but would be their cheerleaders. Does this take away from the men who do find misandry offensive and abusive? Because of these willing manly man haters would it be fit to say "so much for it being offensive to men"?
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:13PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"Therefore, if feminism is not taught in the Bible, and even further, if feminism is contradicted in the Bible, then there is no intellectually honest way that a woman could call herself, “Christian” and “feminist” at the same time. The Bible is the only source for Christian knowledge, and it therefore must be accepted in order to be honestly a Christian believer."
==================================================
"If YOU were a woman that site would have offended YOU. And if you don't care about that, why should a woman care about you being offended by misandry? You were resorting to a misogynist reference to make some point on a site dealing with misandry. It smacks of the utmost hypocrisy."
--------------------------------------------------
I find your judgements purely subjective and lacking in merit. It appears you are using your values to judge others, and then throwing in some name calling on top of that. Political correctness strikes me as the ultimate tyranny of intolerance.
Ray
Here is an interesting insight:
"The creed of tolerance goes like this: If you leave me free to believe whatever I like, I'll leave you free to believe whatever you like, even though in our respective hearts we regard each other's beliefs as false and ungodly. We can argue about it and privately condemn each other, but our differences of belief shouldn't mean that we try to disenfranchise or imprison or kill each other or refrain from entering into relationships of commercial and social cooperation."
Wesleyan University
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:28PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"These christians are the biggest of all hypocrites (Jesus hated hypocrites the most). They'll take the bible literally when it says that women should be in "SUBJECTION" to their husbands. But they don't even follow those communistic/socialistic actions that Jesus stressed. No, what fundamentalist religious leaders do is sing praises about capitalism, the "most just social system known to men".
How is this site about equality between men and women? I thought that was what mens activism was about. No offence Ray but why go to a male chauvinist site that says women should be in subjection to their husbands to prove that real Christians can't be feminist, that a christian feminist is an oxy-moron, only because feminists would never be in subjection to their husband (possibly you didn't read further into that site)?. Who cares? It isn't even a good argument.
Well I've probably made myself altogether unpopular here.
I'd like to make it clear I do care about injustices that happen to men and stoping misandry and bringing equality between the genders. I'm sure most people here agree , but Jesus Christ!"
==================================================
Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Chapter 11, by Robert Bork
"Before the patriarchy took over about 3,000 years ago, Hite contends in a burst of bogus history, mother-child societies existed. (Feminists find it useful to fictionalize the past; for example, that pre-historic Europe was a peaceful, egalitarian, matriarchal society that worshipped the goddess, but patriarchy was forced upon these societies by conquering horsemen from the east.) She seems pleased that there are a large number of fatherless families today because, contradicting all the social science evidence, she thinks males raised without fathers will treat women better. The family is not a religious institution and there is no need to "show respect and reverence for a 'religious' tradition which has as its basic principle, at its heart, the political will of men to dominate women[.] This is not religion, this is politics." She continues with the basic feminist fallacy: "There is no such thing as fixed 'human nature.' Rather, it is a psychological structure that is carefully implanted in our minds as we learn the love and power equations of the family - for life. Fortunately the family is a human institution: humans made it and humans can change it."
These attitudes are not merely the personal idiosyncrasies of these writers. At the Beijing conference, for instance, the word "family" was not to appear in the Platform. Instead, the word "household" was used. The significance of this is to be found in the feminist insistence upon use of the word "gender." There being five genders, unions or marriages involving any gender or genders are legitimate. These unions can be called households. The traditional family is then presented as a household, just one form of living arrangement, not superior to any other. Indeed, since feminists view the family as a system of oppression, and since feminism contains a large lesbian component, the marriages of men and women are often seen as morally inferior to unions involving the other three genders.
The hostility towards the traditional family goes hand in hand with the feminists' hostility towards traditional religion. They see religion as a male invention designed to control women. The final version of the Platform for Action ran to 180 pages. Earlier drafts mentioned religion only when warning against "religious extremism." Due to pressure from traditional believers, a paragraph was finally added in Beijing defending freedom of religion and acknowledging that religion can contribute to women's lives. The feminists in Beijing opposed even that. Diane Knippers, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, reports that in Beijing feminists built a shrine to the Goddesses out of red ribbons in the shape of a Christmas tree decorated with paper dolls representing the goddesses. (19) Women were invited to make and add their own goddesses. The organization headed by Bella Abzug (a former member of the United States House of Representatives) held daily programs, each one dedicated to a different goddess- Songi, Athena, Tara, Pasowee, Ishtar, Ixmuncane, Aditi, and Nashe."
Here is the link to Chapter 11 on Father's for Life website:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/borkch11.ht m (no spaces)
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:50PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"I find your judgements purely subjective and lacking in merit. It appears you are using your values to judge others, and then throwing in some name calling on top of that......
Ray"
Misandrists could just as well say that men are just being subjective in disliking men being kicked in the balls 24/7. I mean it is based on mens feelings. Some men don't even care. You're just trying to repress feminists with PC thought.
"Political correctness strikes me as the ultimate tyranny of intolerance."
Yes, I'm being tyranical in being against women having to be subjection to men. Yeah, I'm the tyranical.....Freedom is slavery, war is peace.
"Here is an interesting insight:
"The creed of tolerance goes like this: If you leave me free to believe whatever I like, I'll leave you free to believe whatever you like, even though in our respective hearts we regard each other's beliefs as false and ungodly. We can argue about it and privately condemn each other, but our differences of belief shouldn't mean that we try to disenfranchise or imprison or kill each other or refrain from entering into relationships of commercial and social cooperation."
I never threatened to imprison you or kill you, I already said I don't have any personal feelings for or against you. But I'am against men saying that women should be subordinate to men, which would be a form of servitude.
P George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @09:53PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"I just thought that site was stupid."
"...I could just never understand why a woman had to obey those scriptures. It didn't make any sense to me then and still doesn't."
I will address what follows that one verse in particular that is so often cited but misinterpreted by feminists (and others) where it talks about "a wife submitting herself to her husband."
Feminists always leave out what follows. It is this:
"Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it;" Eph 6:25.
One fundamentalist pastor and Biblical scholar explains that thusly, "Though the husbands authority has been established (vv22-24), the emphasis moves to the supreme responsibility of husbands in regard to their wives, which is to love them with the same unreserved selfless, and scacrificial love that Christ has for His church. Christ gave everything He had, including His own life, for the sake of His church, and that is the standard of sacrifice for a husband's love of his wife."
Not so chauvanistic after all, eh? I think we also see in this verse where a lot of that right wing chivalry comes from.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:02PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is what the authoritarian militant feminists are doing, in my opinion. They not only want power over men but women as well and they are using Marxism to achieve this."
==================================================
We agree!
"Many people suppose that feminism today is a continuation of the reform movement of the past. They occasionally notice a ranting Bella Abzug or an icy Gloria Steinem but imagine them to be merely the froth of extremism on an otherwise sensible movement. That is not the case; the extremists are the movement. What the moderate academic feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge write about radical feminism in the universities is true of the movement as a whole."
"Today's radical feminism is
not merely about equal rights for women.... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of original sin: The world's evils originate in male supremacy."
Father's for Life website, citing "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," Chapter 11, by Robert Bork
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:18PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"She seems pleased that there are a large number of fatherless families today because, contradicting all the social science evidence, she thinks males raised without fathers will treat women better."
I never said fathers are useless to children. Do you think that me being against Men having power over women means that fathers are usless scumbags? I never once said that or implied that. I've already read that fathers are very useful to their children. I don't agree with feminists separating fathers from their children.
And not only that their being hypocrites to because they are creating a system where women "own" their children, their "property".
And for the rest of the article about feminists being against religion, that's something I already know. I never said people didn't have a right to have a faith. In fact I spoke positive of certain sects of Christianity. And I did say that Marxists usually hate religion (they'll also use the govt. to ban religion).
What I'm against is women being subordinate to men. And I have every right to express the unfairness of it, it is my business. "I'am my brothers keeper".
If a man does not want to be subordinate to women and wants to get rid of misandry then it is only rational and fair to be against misogyny and womens subordination to men. How can you say it's not hypcritical for you to want autonomy and respect for men but not even give women respect or be concerned about womens autonomy?
Men on this site have said that sexism goes both ways. And if that is true then it is an admission that men have been sexist to women (vice versa). You can't just try to get fairness and equality for men and not women, that's what rad feminists do.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:35PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm against is women being subordinate to men. And I have every right to express the unfairness of it, it is my business. "I'am my brothers keeper".
If a man does not want to be subordinate to women and wants to get rid of misandry then it is only rational and fair to be against misogyny and womens subordination to men. How can you say it's not hypcritical for you to want autonomy and respect for men but not even give women respect or be concerned about womens autonomy? You can't just try to get fairness and equality for men and not women, that's what rad feminists do.
================================================== I will address what follows that one verse in particular that is so often cited but misinterpreted by feminists (and others) where it talks about "a wife submitting herself to her husband."
Feminists always leave out what follows. It is this:
"Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it;" Eph 6:25.
One fundamentalist pastor and Biblical scholar explains that thusly, "Though the husbands authority has been established (vv22-24), the emphasis moves to the supreme responsibility of husbands in regard to their wives, which is to love them with the same unreserved selfless, and scacrificial love that Christ has for His church. Christ gave everything He had, including His own life, for the sake of His church, and that is the standard of sacrifice for a husband's love of his wife."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:37PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I know that it isn't so black and white but it still doesn't change the social relationship, women are still bein subordinate to another human being.
I'd be against the most kind and loving king of fairy tales for having the population to subordinate to him or her. It doesn't respect human autonomy.
"Not so chauvanistic after all, eh? I think we also see in this verse where a lot of that right wing chivalry comes from."
Bible--"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home"
I'd say this was very chauvinistic. Just replace the word women with men and husband with women in the above paragraph. Imagine this coming from a feminist textbook about men. I don't think most men would be very happy with it.
And about chivalry, some men here call chivalry slavalry or something to that respect. I believe chivalry is female privilege, and most women don't want to seem to give it up.
I'd also like to say that I totally realize that men have and still do make many sacrifices for women, and that these things are ignored by society and most of all feminists. I believe this is a form of misandry, male sacrifices are not only ignored but expected of men. And that's not fair at all.
I don't see where this is all going. Obviously I did offend you and I might have been harsh where I shouldn't have been. I'm sorry dude, I don't have anything against you personally.
I just think those kind of views about women will make women not care about mens respect and rights, especially on a site that is geared to stop misandry.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:38PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, I'm being tyranical in being against women having to be subjection to men. Yeah, I'm the tyranical..."
==================================================
I will address what follows that one verse in particular that is so often cited but misinterpreted by feminists (and others) where it talks about "a wife submitting herself to her husband."
Feminists always leave out what follows. It is this:
"Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it;" Eph 6:25.
One fundamentalist pastor and Biblical scholar explains that thusly, "Though the husbands authority has been established (vv22-24), the emphasis moves to the supreme responsibility of husbands in regard to their wives, which is to love them with the same unreserved selfless, and scacrificial love that Christ has for His church. Christ gave everything He had, including His own life, for the sake of His church, and that is the standard of sacrifice for a husband's love of his wife."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @10:51PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"Bible--"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home"
==================================================
You'll have to take that one up with God, even though I'm sure the partriarchy will be the ones getting blamed. This religion says there is a divine being who said that. Men are also given a number of areas where they are subjugated to God so just picking this one verse from the Bible as an example of how the whole religion is sexist against women is sexist in itself by not criticising those verse which could be construed as sexist against men. You see, God gives a lot of orders to men and women alike.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @11:11PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men are also given a number of areas where they are subjugated to God so just picking this one verse from the Bible as an example of how the whole religion is sexist against women is sexist in itself by not criticising those verse which could be construed as sexist against men. You see, God gives a lot of orders to men and women alike."
You got me there Ray. While I was growing up in my mother's tradtional christian sect I thought it sounded like a burden to have to take care of another human adult and take responsibility for all the stresses of life. I thought "no way, that sucks", that's what I thought. I had no desire for that.
My mother and sister both agree with most of those scriptures about women that we were discusing. In fact I've argued with my sister about the man being the head of the household. She wants that(so does my mom), and I just don't understand it or agree with it. Now, I believe it is unfair for women abd a lot of women are against that, but at the same time there has to something else going on for them to desire this. These women who want this get something they like out of it. Probably has to do with our protector role. So I don't think it's all mens fault.
And I can understand why you might have been offended with what I said. You've probably had a lot of feminist misandry shoved down your throat. And I feel bad that what I said might have insulted your beloved faith. Even though I disagree a lot with my mothers faith I'm learning to find things I respect about it. I wasn't trying to take your faith in god away from you.
I still haven't changed my basic viewpoint on those particular verses.
I'm just trying not to make nemies.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @11:13PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
"God gives a lot of orders to men and women alike."
I should have given at least one example so here goes. I would consider this one sexist against men, and having been raised on a farm I can relate to it personally:
"...Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of yor life." Gen 3:17
Many will argue that women work as hard as men, but I will merely point out that men are 96% of work place deaths and about the same number of industrail injuries. You don't get those statistics without doing hard, dirty, dangerous work. Women say they are discriminated against for those jobs, but having worked in the trades for 30 years I can tell you truthfully, you don't even see them apply for those unglamorous jobs. It seems they do like to be cops though.
Sincerely, Ray
--------------------------------------------------
"Obviously I did offend you."
Nah, very gracious of you to say that. These are controversial issues, and we are just vigorously stating our opinions.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @11:55PM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"Many will argue that women work as hard as men, but I will merely point out that men are 96% of work place deaths and about the same number of industrail injuries."
This is true. And when we are given workers injuries/deaths it oddly isn't mentioned that these are men.
The place I used to work at this 21 year old (I just moved to this plant soon after his death) guy was crushed to death by a cargo container.
I myself have had to go to the hospital 3 times from work related injuries. One of those times I got this chemical sprayed my eyes that can cause blindness. They said My contacts possibly saved my eyes from serious damage.
It really gets to me that they don't mention the sacrifices men make at work---who work at these jobs to make more money for their families. If this were happening to women I have no doubt their gender would be mentioned to show their oppression. That's life I guess.
I think this is my last post on this thread.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're the one who made the wild ass and unsupportable blanket claim that the site is offensive to women, read: ALL women. Well, as you judge, so shall you be judged.
Mind what you think.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @08:16PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminists do have entirely vested interests in communist ideals and it was instigated by communists on a large front."
Dan:
Here is some support for your statement from a scholarly journal (heavily footnoted) that I found on the internet today:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2005/1_34/655766 70/p1/article.jhtml (no spaces)
"The October Revolution of 1917 brought to power a radical socialist government that denounced the family as a bourgeois institution, undermined the institution of marriage, and promised the liberation of women..."
and, not as scholarly, but still documented:
http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html
"In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's"
and from the same site:
http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html
(Mommy was a Commie)
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Hombre,
I really appreciate you ability to be upfront and explain the misunderstanding instead of rising to the bait. Your voice of reason keeps this board from collapsing into the chaos that many boards I have been on tend to do in situations like this."
Holy cow! How much am I paying you to say this? =:D
Thanks Jen. I think you might be giving me a little too much credit by saying I'm the reason this board doesn't collapse into chaos, but I do appreciate the very nice compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 01, @08:41PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Hombre:
It is always nice to see dispassionate and respectful discussions of passionate and volatile topics. That is often difficult considering the horrible wounds we have all suffered at the hands of feminism's agenda.
Often truth comes to us unclearly, not as black and white, but murky and in shades of gray.
We men have a lot of catching up to do after the past 30 years of feminism eroding our civil rights. If we all try really hard to know the truth, perhaps we can escape our plight using the tiny bit of wisdom we have acquired in the process.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I await your check in the mail ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen men on the street, men hungry, men homeless, men cold, men about to collapse from exhaustion, strung out on dopesuicidal, and all manner of at the end of their rope.
When they try to go to the "Government" and to "Social Services" they are, without exception, turned away because they are male; because they have no money to help them, because they are too busy kissing the pheminist ass to bother with a mere manigger.
Where has, without fail, all the real, my-God-get-out-of-the-cold, you-must-be-hungry, not going to put them deeper in debt, not going to make your misfortune a matter of public record so your ex-wife can use it against you in court HELP come from?
Churches.
Proof is in the pudding.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 03, @11:37PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"I've seen men on the street, men hungry, men homeless, men cold, men about to collapse from exhaustion, strung out on dopesuicidal, and all manner of at the end of their rope.
When they try to go to the "Government" and to "Social Services" they are, without exception, turned away because they are male; because they have no money to help them, because they are too busy kissing the pheminist ass to bother with a mere manigger. "
Your right, the majority of homeless people are men, no one cares about these men. Because they are men and not women.
A lot of religious groups do a lot of things for social justice, like for instance the Quakers. I was too harsh on the hypcorisy of christianity in my above posts. There is plenty of hypocrisy on the left. For instance the way men are treated and portrayed. I see it with my own eyes.
I'm actually thinking about spending some time helping out with this christian group called the catholic workers, I've talked to them personally and they've welcomed me even though I'm not a believer, Some of these experiences with these christians makes me respect them a lot, One of the reasons I would rather do activist work with these social justice christians is because I know I don't have to worry much about misandry, Within the left their is misandry coming from both men and women feminists (maybe not all), but this is one reason I'dm more willin to work with the christians. (although I do agree with a lot of the left's ideals, as do these christians)
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was involved with both Meals for Wheels and the local soup kitchen for years. Both were funded by donations gathered by the local churches and did more to actually help both men and women than all the feminist diatribes in the last 30 years. Actually putting food on the table and providing some companionship and compassion is a great thing. Has anyone thought about making donations to the local charities in the name of men's rights? Perhaps a holiday food drive for dads or something? Hmm, I will have to think on this. Nothing gets better, positive press than donating time and money to the needy. Kind of hard to put down people's motivations when they are helping the needy.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 04, @09:15PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
"Has anyone thought about making donations to the local charities in the name of men's rights?"
Jen:
Deborah, the president of NCFMDFW is doing just that for the holidays. I sent here a small check even though I don't live in Texas. She said that it would be used specifically to help homeless or down and out men with basic things like soap, tooth brushes, a blanket, etc.
Anyone can contact her through the National Coalition of Free Men, Dallas Fort Worth Chapter.
Love that doesn't know where it came from is not lost, and its receipients sense its care no less greatly.
Happy Holidays
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
