online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Were women better off 50 years ago?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 484 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 7:37:05 PM


The point you made about expressing disagreement in this topic, Feminism, is a case in point. Here, if you are a man and express disagreement, apparently this topic is one in which there are no bound to civility. That it is perfectly fine to leap to conclusions about the disagreers motives, his relationship with women, with his mother. In this venue women who have so much invested in an ideology give each other licence to go directly to war. Listening in this venue is not necessary; that anyone who is disagrees with Feminism or who question some of its claims is an enemy.

Yup , that is very true .
Many guys know that well , and most don't want to deal with the b.s.
They are probably the smarter guys. lol
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Going from Hi to bed??????
Posted: 10/2/2008 7:32:00 PM

Cedar77 wrote: I've read that a woman decides that she
wants to sleep with a guy within ten minutes of meeting him...




DL wrote : I believe a woman decides within the first few seconds if she
does NOT want to sleep with a guy. A "yes" can take hours.


I was speaking of ' in most cases ' , however ...
I believe that NOT can take milliseconds and yes can take years .
But , who has that much time ?

 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 75 (view)
 
Naked Pictures on The Internet? Ok or Not Ok?
Posted: 10/2/2008 7:20:28 PM
On the internet or anywhere else that is public.....
At the very most , and to keep some decency , naked pictures must have a big maple leaf over the privates.
Just one big leaf , and that goes for women as well ...not three leaves , just one.


 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 442 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/1/2008 9:54:14 PM
Msg 439 , Blahblah :

The way I have learned it , it is that women as a group are not able to empathize with men as a group. Women see men as more agressive and bigger and stronger . Which men are . This natural group difference keeps women on the offensive . Women just are not programmed by nature to think of men as being treated unfairly regardless of whether or not men are getting the short end of the stick . Women as a group will take as much power as they can from men as a group , because women will always feel vulnerable.

On the other hand , men have always been taught to be less aggressive towards women , since "gentlemen know how to treat a lady " This is something that is hardwired into men from the very distant past.
This presents a big problem in these modern times , when women want to be truly equal to men in all aspects . Men are very competitive towards other men which is true equality , but , men can't truly be competitive with women and yet feminism demands total equality . In other words , men have one hand tied behind their backs , by nature , and feminists take full advantage of this .
But , it is actually socialist men (politics) in competition with other men ( to control society / other men ) who enabled feminism , which is another story , and the battle should lie with them.

One guy said that if there were ever a true gender war , men could win very easily , but , most men are wired to be nice to women ( as they should be ) and everyone knows that nice guys finish last . (-;



Well, mark me down as one guy who thinks women should be put back up on that darned pedestal.

It's much, much easier to peek up her dress that way.

Good point .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Not attracted
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:37:54 PM
I think that if you feel like you need to completely change your partner , you are doomed to frustration and complete failure.
You can change a person very little at the most , you can't completely remake them .
Dating is the time for getting to know what a person is like , you shouldn't jump into anything too serious without being aware of what that person is basically like.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
 
To improve your marriage -- be quiet (Really ????)
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:26:12 PM
I think that if your read too many pop psych. books and analyze your relationship to death you're going to end up pulling it apart bit by bit.
The fact that you feel the need to analyze to such an extreme and that you feel the need to constantly micro- manage your interaction probably says that you and your realationship are weak and fragile .

The " keep it simple stupid " rule is probably best.... Just try to be happy and be nice to your partner.
Think I'll try that next time around.

 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 402 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 9:14:25 PM

Back to the OP.....the 1950's was a very transitional period for women and men, and many women were not any better off than the Black Afro-Americans were at that time.........forced to work for White Caucasian Males who threw mere scraps their way for the services they rendered so they could sustain their own meager, impoverished lives.


IMO ....this is a very much skewed view of history. Like some sort of far left wing feminist propaganda cartoon like depiction of the past. (like you might get from a university "women's studies" program ? )

More often , it was white men who were going off to work to support their wives and families in the fifties and prior and it was the wives might throw the guys back some scraps by cooking them dinner . (-; It actually worked very well for alot of people including the kids , it made them happy.
African Americans were actually better off in many ways as well in the pre : rap music /gang/welfare state times as well .

I think the point is that society needed to evolve naturally , but , the feminist revolution has in many ways 'thrown the baby out with the bath water' ....in many instances quite literally .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 400 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/30/2008 8:58:21 PM

Back to the OP.....the 1950's was a very transitional period for women and men, and many women were not any better off than the Black Afro-Americans were at that time.........forced to work for White Caucasian Males who threw mere scraps their way for the services they rendered so they could sustain their own meager, impoverished lives.


IMO ....this is a very much skewed view of history. Like some kind of far left wing feminist propaganda cartoon view of history. (like you might get from a university "women's studies" program ? )

More often , it was white men who were going off to work to support their wives and families in the fifties and prior and it was the wives might throw the guys back some scraps by cooking them dinner . (-; It actually worked very well for alot of people including the kids , it made them happy.
African Americans were actually better off in many ways as well in the pre : rap music /gang/welfare state times as well .

I think the point is that society needed to evolve naturally , but , the feminist revolution has in many ways 'thrown the baby out with the bath water' ....in some ways quite literally .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Frugal Non-spenders
Posted: 9/27/2008 1:35:18 PM
Frugal does not necessarily mean selfish. Being careful with your money is smart. Spending your money wisely means that you can make having money possible , so that you can buy the things you really need .
Going into big debt because you want everythng right now is selfish and dumn.
Some of the biggest spend thrifts are often selfish . They just want everything NOW and they can not control themselves .

BTW....do as I say , not as I do.
lol
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Going from Hi to bed??????
Posted: 9/27/2008 1:24:37 PM
I've read that a woman decides that she wants to sleep with a guy within ten minutes of meeting him . In my experience that is true .
Now , that doesn't mean that most women will act on their decision.

If a woman decides she wants to sleep with a guy just because he's hot , then she shouldn't be surprised if it's a one time deal .
If she decides she wants to sleep with a guy because she uses her intuition that he's a decent guy who is honest and sincere and also he's attractive to her , then , there is a much better chance that it will last .

And why is it that if it's a one time deal that it is the woman who is "used" ? I thought we were supposed to be "equal" ....a double standard ?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 111 (view)
 
Is Text Messaging Making It Even Harder?
Posted: 9/26/2008 10:58:37 AM
The novelty of text messaging back and fourth soon wears off .
After that , it should be used to arrange to meet in person or things like that . It should be kept to a few words . As few as possible.

I thought that texting was mostly for teenage girls and boys . Let them have there fun , but , I'm sure that excessive texting for anyone is probably not a good means of socializing with others.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 280 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/26/2008 10:18:46 AM
serenitycw
I was NOT blaming you personally for the state of the world. I'm sure that you have done what you feel is good.
My point was in keeping with " are women better off..... ? " and the fact that you seem to assert that liberalism was a positive development and something to be proud of. I simply feel that , as a whole , it was NOT.
I don't have all the answers , but , I am able to form an opinion on what is good for society and what is destructive .... surely anyone with an open and clear thinking mind can compare the present to the not so distant past .
If you call my criticism toxic or whining or blaming , then , so be it.

PS.
Men hold just as much ( or more ) responsibility for our sad state of affairs as do women , for in the end , it was "greedy" , meglomaniac , elite men who promoted/enabled destructive "social revolutions" i .e . "feminism" .

Soul Union ....
There are way too few who think like you do.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
 
How long do men feel the need to pursue?
Posted: 9/26/2008 12:20:42 AM
I don't really feel the need to pursue . I think it is best when it is an equal kind of thing.
But , If I did feel the need , I would probably pursue until she said " please leave me alone , you're beginning to creep me out"
That's probably time to move on .




 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 277 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/25/2008 11:44:53 PM

we have some good stuff to be proud of. and i hope my kids have similar pride in their accomplishments over the years. it will be a different world though.


The country is practically bankrupt and in a war that most despise. Kids are alienated from their parents , if the parents are together at all . The gap between rich and poor has never been so great and the answer is always more of the same failed and hopeless socialism/welfare state.
Education is in shambles and the culture is a cesspool of degeneracy. Men and women are alienated and at odds , like never before .
The past and traditions have been demonised as evil , and a prosperous and healthy culture has been replaced with greedy materialism , demagoguery and division with all of those wonderful "isms".

The culture war was fought and won , and society my not survive the outcome.
Liberals of the sixties must be feeling ....."what have we done ?" Or " what the %^$# went wrong? "
They aren't proud of their "accomplishments "..are they ?



 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 275 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/25/2008 10:58:20 PM

Frost bite on our legs was common. And the worst memory 46 years ago was a woman who was being choked in a parked car. I was 12 years old, on my bike and frantic to help her. Many people were gathered around the incident doing nothing. Finally, the police arrived and I was relieved...until they said "Awe, it's his wife." and they left. The memory was indelible.



I may be a working stiff but at least my boss pays me well and I spend my money as I please instead of having to work all hours god sends in the home with no contraception having baby after baby - worn out by my forties and having to ask my husband for every penny if there was any left over at all.

Gimme today over yesterday any time


Is that what life was like for your grandmas ...your great grandmas and all of your female relatives of the past ? Were your male relatives , of the past , monsters?
I really don't think so !
It's kind of freaky how feminism has brain washed women into the cult on a massive scale.
Times were different , that is for sure , but come on ! ....let's be real here.

Ps . It has never been acceptable to send girls off in the cold to get frost bite on their legs or to choke your wife , although , now it seems it has become acceptable to cut your hubbies winky off and throw it out the car window (Bobbit). And it's ok to kill "Earl" according to the dixie chicks. In general , men have become targets for reprisal by various means in our mainstream feminized culture. ( man bashing)

IMO....things needed to evolve in society and would have regardless , but , having been taken to the extreme by feminism , neither women nor men are better off than fifty years ago.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 178 (view)
 
is sex everything in a relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2008 10:46:12 PM
is sex everything in a relationship?


No , there's much more .....like , does she cook and clean and wait on you hand and foot ?
Does she iron? What about taking out the garbage ? Does she go to the beer store for you?
Is she rich ?
There's much much more to a relationship!





 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Confusion and Direction, What to do?
Posted: 9/24/2008 10:39:41 PM
Ummmmm.....marital aids?

I don't think you can fix it. If it is going down the tubes , there is not much you can do . Trying too hard is not helpful . You have to be yourself so that if it's meant to be .. it will be . If not , then , you have to move on to the lonely and pathetic life of singledom.. trolling endlessly for a partner that never appears and probably does not exist .
Stay positive . lol
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 261 (view)
 
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 9/24/2008 10:08:24 PM

If you'll notice, I laid most of the blame at the feet of the feminists. They pulled the rug out from under men, so to speak. Unfortunately it is the women that don't follow their militant beliefs that are paying the price. The later day fems have done their damndest to neuter the modern American male and then whine and complain that there aren't any 'real' men left. Of course there aren't many left: you domesticated half of them and belittled the rest into submission.
Oh for the love of God!! pick one! If women want a 'real' man then they need to stop trying to be one themselves.


I agree .
I would add that there is a big difference between how feminists have depicted women of fifty years ago , and what women were actually like .
When I look at my grandmothers , great aunts etc. .....they were very strong women . Stronger than modern feminist inspired women .
Also , they were not subservient to their husbands !

To be fair , modern men also have not faired well . I think that men have been cowed into political correctness and are sadly lacking in back bone in various ways ...
Men allowed that to happen to themselves . You can't only blame feminism.


 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 231 (view)
 
lack of proper grammar and release of the relationship
Posted: 9/24/2008 9:54:21 PM
Accents aside ....
The manner in which a person speaks is a pretty good indicator of general intelligence and socio economic status. People should be reasonably evenly matched in this manner .
If you feel like cringing when your potential partner speaks , you are probably not compatible .

To each their own , but , there is such a thing as compatibilty.

Yee hawww !!
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
What A Voracious Flirt!
Posted: 9/24/2008 9:42:32 PM
What A Voracious Flirt!


If someone is flirting "voraciously" without any intention of acting on it ....
Isn't that what you call a voracious tease?

If a person is not happy in their realationship , they should probably work to fix it or they should end it .
Being a tease is definately not the answer.

 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
How do you stay out of harms way?
Posted: 9/24/2008 9:33:43 PM

How do you stay out of harms way?


I think the reason that anyone hurts another is because they feel hurt themselves. Some people are in a constant state of feeling hurt and feeling sorry for themsleves.
Avoid people who feel like they are victims .They can be very mean/hurtful and often they are probably not even conscious of being so .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 240 (view)
 
Black-focused (not black-only) schools
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:02:24 PM
I think that people have to ask the really tough questions.... like :
Why is it that certain communities continuosly fall behind in every society the world over ?
Other communities overcome historical repression and many become very successful .

I think a big part of the problem is that some communities are constantly told they are victims and are patronised in that they are almost expected to fail . Expect somebody to fail and they probably will , let's expect people to succeed .
I think that empowering the community within their own community ....on a much more local level (black schools ), would be a good step in expecting responsibility , instead of constantly blaming and leaning on a crutch and falling behind .
The blaming whitey thing is not fair , but , even worse , it is very destructive to ALL .

Also , I believe in freedom and therefore freedom of association , so that ideally and working within practicality , people should be free to associate with whom they choose , and this encompasses race and/or religion .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 98 (view)
 
Plan to Destroy America
Posted: 2/22/2008 2:50:07 PM

Nope, the controlling element of ALL countries is monetary in form.

The US has the Federal Reserve Bank... and every other country in the world has a variety of these parasites controlling the economy. Politicians are just put there to give everyone the marvellous illusion of control over our own affairs. However they are all just puppets.

It doesn't matter if the system is democratic, socialism, communism, republic, monarchy, capitalist or what have you.

The real "behind the curtain people" make money with all of them.

I agree , but , in order for the money power to really entrench their power , they promote socialism . Socialism is being ,and will continue to be , brought in by creating the social problems as spelled out in the OP.
They fear a free society where people still have freedom of speech.
They also see the internet as needing to be "controlled" .

Today's Quote

"Inflation has now been institutionalized at a fairly constant 5% per year. This has been determined to be the optimum level for generating the most revenue without causing public alarm. A 5% devaluation applies, not only to the money earned this year, but to all that is left over from previous years. At the end of the first year, a dollar is worth 95 cents. At the end of the second year, the 95 cents is reduced again by 5%, leaving its worth at 90 cents, and so on. By the time a person has worked 20 years, the government will have confiscated 64% of every dollar he saved over those years. By the time he has worked 45 years, the hidden tax will be 90%. The government will take virtually everything a person saves over a lifetime."
-- G. Edward Griffin
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Why are some men intimidated by a woman who knows cars?
Posted: 2/22/2008 6:59:19 AM
I wouldn't be intimidated.
Why do women like to think men are intimidated when women are the least bit non-conventional ? We aren't.
I do think that the fact that a woman is interestd in mechanical type stuff does say something about her personality . It says she's a certain type.
Personally , I tend to prefer more of a feminine woman , but , some guys like more of a tom- boy type and there is nothing wrong with that.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 422 (view)
 
Are too many favorites a turn off?
Posted: 2/21/2008 7:49:12 PM

I saw a woman who have 500+ on her favourites .. and Toronto is not far for many and she did NOT post in forums. She was very good looking and that is why she had so many. She is looking for a serious long term but the GOOD men will NOT bother to email her .. since they got lost in the crowd .... with 500+ favorite.. means how much email is she getting.

Many men add to their fav's and don't really pursue these women.
However, I do think there are plenty of women who are only here for flattery at the expense of guys who sincerely want to use this for what it should be for.....to meet someone for real.


Behind every profile and email is a PERSON ...who has feeling .. people forget that

Any woman who routinely does NOT reply to email does NOT deserve to find someone since they are showing a poor character trait ... rudeness

Yes , but you have to realise that many people are just here for a bit of a lark and this includes men. Women are already a bit skittish for obvious reasons , so that they can't be blamed for being leary as well. You have to treat a profile as a profile until you meet a real person and take it from there.


The reason many people who are SERIOUS about finding someone are still here is because too many people treat POF as a joke and a way to kill time and how do you figure out thoese people to avoid

It is mostly a joke. That's why until you find a non-joke real person who you find attractive and meet in real life , you can't take it too seriously . Are women more responsible for making it a joke ? .....maybe , I really do not know.

You can't know who is real , that's the problem . Personally , if I am interested in a profile I suggest we meet right away . This scares many women off and some may have been legit , but , it also avoids me wasting time on those who are only here for virtual only .
I have a theory , if they really sincerely like your profile , they probably will meet you.

Bottom line is that I know what you're saying . This internet dating thing is a bit wacked since it's full of games and b.s.
But , like you said yourself , people actually do meet someone for something REAL on the internet as well .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 172 (view)
 
Black-only schools
Posted: 2/21/2008 9:09:46 AM

Actually due to "white flight", redistricting and areas where minorities are made to feel unwelcome..there are NUMEROUS "White" schools across the US.
Don't see people complaining about that fact.

Yes , people do vote with their feet . As opposed to what they often actually say. "Limousine liberals" are are very famous for that.
Would you like to build a big cage to contain them ?
You might notice that "minorities" , (the global vast majority soon to be most every nation's majority) , self segregate as well ....the topic of this thread.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 165 (view)
 
Black-only schools
Posted: 2/20/2008 11:30:37 PM

The truth is "racist" or is it "supremacist" ? or is it just "ignorance"? ...."hate" ? ...I'm not sure which ..all four?
Maybe some of the "enlightened ones" on this thread can put the proper label to it .



Kind of Ironic considering you're copying and pasting from a white supremacist webpage. SUCH original thinking.

Ahhh , the truth is labelled "white supremacist" ....thanks , that was "enlightening"


No no no no , the safety and educational success of your kids comes second to political correctness . Get with the program . Again , I'm sure the "enlightened ones" on this thread will explain why . lol


Explanation :

Meh, it's just the usual group of hard done by white people. Waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaaah my children might have to go to the same school. Booooo hooooo they might have to use the same drinking fountain.

Have a kleenex.


Brilliant!
Such original thinking.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 420 (view)
 
Are too many favorites a turn off?
Posted: 2/20/2008 11:11:59 PM
Being on many favourites (Canadian spelling) lists means very little . Many of them come from the forums and also many of them are too far away to be realistic about dating.
I think that most anyone who is on many favorites (American spelling) lists would trade them all in for one good quality real life date in one second flat.

Anything online is not very real , .... not at all . I don't think anyone should take a compliment or a rejection too seriously when it's only "virtual" and not real life. It's just a profile and a pic.
It's not an ego boost , it's just kind of rude to delete them without any good reason. It's not a bad thing to be on many , but , it's not a big deal.

Also , I find that someone who is on many fav's has been here for a while and yet they are still here . I think that says alot . It might say that they are very tough to match or atleast quite possibly very jaded . It might well mean that they are not very serious about meeting someone for a real date and prefer to get some virtual flattery.
I know , I'm on quite a few fav's and yes maybe I am tough to match and I definately am jaded about internet dating . I find it to be mostly a big phoney game with the rare good experience.
Also , in my defense , I live in a fairly unpopulated area .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 160 (view)
 
Black-only schools
Posted: 2/20/2008 10:19:49 PM

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

“It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing assault against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

rpburnsusa....
I think there is a huge problem here . Everything you posted above is the cold , harsh and undeniable TRUTH.

The truth is "racist" or is it "supremacist" ? or is it just "ignorance"? ...."hate" ? ...I'm not sure which ..all four?
Maybe some of the "enlightened ones" on this thread can put the proper label to it .

Personally , I think the truth is always best for ALL people . Although , many people find the truth to be disturbing .
Truth good ....PC bad.


Not only that, I am going to heat the curling iron up and burn my tongue off.It is sad that a mother would want the best for her child. I am so unfit for sending her to a school that not only has less violence, but is not a "child left behind school" like the school is in this district.

No no no no , the safety and educational success of your kids comes second to political correctness . Get with the program . Again , I'm sure the "enlightened ones" on this thread will explain why . lol
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 131 (view)
 
Black-only schools
Posted: 2/20/2008 5:09:26 AM

Opening up a White (Euorocentric? Anglocentric?) Alternative school "that will focus on the sources and knowledge and experiences of peoples of European and/or Anglo descent as an integral feature of the teaching and learning environment". Oh wait, we already have these schools all over the place......its called the public school system.

I do not agree.
I believe that modern public schools are concentrating on political correctness and social engineering , where European heritage (white ) is slandered and demonised at every opportunity. This , despite the fact that Europeans have very much to be proud of ...as all cultures should be.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Guys??? Need to know! Was I played??
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:57:47 PM
IMHO...
I think that guys will not disappear if they meet a woman that they find very attractive and she treats him well . It does not really matter how quickly you sleep together , it has more to do with the amount of attraction a guy feels towards the woman.
I think women get "played" when the guy just thinks she's ok and available. If women were more able to know the difference then they would not get played . I think SOME women go after the really great looking guy and then cry about being played when it does not last.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 129 (view)
 
Black-only schools
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:15:32 PM
IMHO...multi-culturalism is very destructive and a contradiction both in terms and in practise .
If you create an environment where people are not able to retain their culture ... where they are forced to homogenise into a politically correct borg like culture , then , you will have succeded in destroying diversity ....not to have supported it.
I believe in people's basic freedom to associate with whom they choose.
I support diversity , whether it be religious or for blacks or whites or any colour.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Why do some/most men jump to HUGE conclusions about sex?
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:03:49 PM


Why do some/most men assume that if the topic turns to sex, the woman is instantly turned on and in "cyber" mode? Can't it just be a discussion about sex without turning into something lewd and crude? Just curious!


- I don't think it should ever be lewd or crude.
- I do think that if the woman was not atleast a little bit "turned on" then we probably don't have chemistry.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 118 (view)
 
Abusive relationships...
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:46:35 PM
Equates feminism with being anti-male, or lesbian.


Personally and quite honestly , I consider too much of feminism to be anti-male and some very prominent feminists ARE man hating lesbians .
This certainly does not make me abusive.
Feminism has been known to be very abusive towards men .

Women are just as capable of being abusive as are men .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 54 (view)
 
why do men look for Russian women???
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:38:21 PM
I have found that there are many scammers who go after guys under the guise of being beautiful Russian women . They have the scam routine where they mail that they are interested in a guy for a serious relationship and they will be flying in from Russia ....but they have no money and are stuck at the border and need the guy to send cash . Not likely!

I have answered these scam mails with a hot young russian girl in a bikini by asking her to send me money if she wants to meet me ....I tell her I am in very bad need of a new big screen tv.
They usually stop mailing soon after that.

I don't know how much of the russian bride thing is legit.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
 
How is looking for an Activity Partner bad
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:26:07 AM
A while ago , there was a profile of a woman who said she really was into golf. She was also about my age and I found her picture attractive.
I mailed her that if she ever wanted to get out for a round , then that would be great. She lived in toronto and I was interested in playing one course in particular there.
I really did think of it as only a good round of golf first and foremost ,but , if we really got along well, then who knows . But , I was sure it would at least be a good golf day.

I didn't hear back from her , I guess she wasn't interested. I thought to myself , what would it hurt to get out from behind the computer and play a good round ? However...
I do think that this is more about dating and less about activity . People are here to meet a match , or for some , to play games endlessly on the computer like they are ...only .
Not for an activity buddy .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Kiss and Tell
Posted: 1/21/2008 8:37:15 AM


As men, what are you looking for in a kiss?

A pretty face , nice warm moist lips , but not too much slobber !


What is about a woman when you first meet her, that makes you want to kiss her?

When there's that magic in the air , or possibly after many beers.


When kissing us, what makes it spectacular?

It's spectacular when you find yourself kissing for hours and the windows get all fogged up.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Why do men assume that you're not bi...
Posted: 1/20/2008 10:15:53 PM

Does anyone even care? I am straight, but I don't feel the need to announce it to the world. Who the hell cares?


I don't think anyone does care .



Why do men assume that you're not bi...


I don't assume anything . I think most women are not bi , but , if someone is , then , I really don't care.


Maybe guys are sooooo sick of fake bi women, the kind that will get really drunk and kiss another girl and claim "ooooh, I'm so biiiiiii" that they want proof that you could actually handle being with another woman and that you're not just calling yourself bi because you think it turns men on.

I think that is definately a fad.


As with the above posters as well I say go lick the carpet, stamp it on your forehead, get the cap and shirt then stop asking stupid questions.


Good suggestion.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 183 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:39:43 PM

I've always had a lot of respect for Christina Hoff Summers. My biggest problem with feminism -- and, for that matter, a vast majority of movements these days -- is that they present baldfaced lies as facts. It gets to the point that the lies are so entrenched in mainstream society that nobody thinks to question them.

If a cause is worth fighting for, then the facts need no embellishment.

I agree . Anything built on lies can only be very destructive .
Feminsm is literally chock full of lies , the mainsteam media repeats these lies and people believe.
IMO ...Our feminised politically correct society could use a good debunking...

http://www.debunker.com/texts/noblelie.html

Feminism, the Noble Lie

Robert Sheaffer

(A shorter version of this article appeared in
Free Inquiry Magazine, Spring, 1995. New text added June, 1996. Minor revisions April, 1997)



Plato argues in the Republic that in order to build a proper Utopia, it will be necessary to depict the gods as virtuous, regardless of what Homer and other authors may actually have written about them. Hence censorship and deception were seen as requisite for instilling virtue: "The lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful."[1] This has come to be known as Plato's "Noble Lie". In the present age, another would-be builder of Utopias has, almost unnoticed, adopted the Noble Lie in pursuit of its goals, utilizing censorship and deception while somehow yet retaining an aura of moral rectitude: the Politically Correct feminist movement, which reigns virtually unchallenged in academe and in government.

The world as depicted by contemporary feminist scholarship is a peculiar one. It teaches a history that is at variance with that taught in history departments, a view of science incorporating only selectively that taught in science departments, and a paradoxical, illiberal approach to morality in which the correctness of an action depends to a large extent on who is performing it. The world-view created by contemporary feminism has much in common with that of the illusionist, who can conjure an impressive scenario, but only when viewed from a certain angle, and only when all attempts at critical scrutiny are muted. Indeed, it is difficult to quell the suspicion that the reason feminists have always insisted on a separate department for their "Womens Studies" program is because they require exemption from the peer review and critical scrutiny that their material would otherwise receive were it taught as history, philosophy, or science.

Feminists have largely gotten away with these deceptions because the widespread and highly-successful inculcation of male guilt allows feminists to claim that any critical scrutiny of their dubious claims amounts to "blaming the victim." Additionally, chivalrous feelings make most men feel it is somehow unfair to "attack women," even if those same women are spouting bizarre nonsense in the process of vigorously attacking men. (The fallacy in this logic is, of course, the assumption that the agenda promoted by feminists is actually in the best interest of most women. A pro-woman agenda would promote harmonious relations between the sexes, and strengthen the family; the feminist agenda, doing the opposite, harms most women as much as it does men.) The result has been that a great deal of selective truth, half-truth, and even untruth has been unquestioningly accepted by a large portion of the educated public. In Plato's Utopian state, the rulers would have a monopoly on the right to tell lies; through the enforcement of "hostile speech" codes on campus (and in some instances questioning feminist doctrine has been construed as "hostile speech"), modern day academic feminists seek the same privilege.

One of the most obvious absurdities taught as women's history concerns the supposed "Idyllic Goddess" era, whose best-known proponents are the late Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler and which has spawned a large number of uncritical, emotionally-charged articles and books. This is a new twist on the "ancient matriarchies" theme that has long been popular among Marxists and feminists. Feminists often speak derisively of the last few thousand years as the period since "the rise of patriarchy," a statement intended to create the entirely spurious impression that things were once otherwise. Gimbutas, who was a professor of Indo-European Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, claims that Neolithic Europe enjoyed a peaceful, egalitarian, gender-equal but woman-centered society before its invasion by brutal, patriarchal Indo-European invaders more than four thousand years ago. She promoted this idea in several large, beautifully- illustrated books depicting the supposed universal goddess of this period.

Virtually all of Gimbutas' professional colleagues dismiss her 'idyllic goddess' visions, typically with comments like "Gimbutas has gone too far," or "oh my God, here goes Marija again". [2] The proponents of the Idyllic Goddess theory of history teach a variant of the "lost Garden of Eden" myth. In this new version the human race was ejected from a paradise because of the sins of men, but not those of women; in the Genesis version, the woman may have sinned first but both committed the offense. Note that in the feminist fable, men alone are responsible for evil, and women represent everything good. This sentiment is encountered again and again in feminist thought, clearly implying the moral superiority of women. Other feminists claim to find gender-reversed or gender-equal societies in other always-inaccessible places. Alleged matriarchies., like alleged occurrences of psychic powers, exhibit a "shyness effect," and can never be observed directly. Some claim the existence of actual contemporary "matriarchies." in a remote place in Africa, Asia, Madagascar, or wherever, but when pressed for substantiation invariably there is none. The most recent sighting of a "nonpatriarchal society" was on remote Vanatinai Island near Papua New Guinea [3]. However, on close inspection it turns out that, even though some women sometimes become very influential there, the great majority of the influential persons are men (exactly as in our society).

Some people simply confuse existing "matrilineal" or "matrilocal" societies (denoting the primacy of the mother's role in inheriting property or in determining residence, respectively) with nonexistent "matriarchal" ones (ruled by women). In a matrilineal or matrilocal society, the woman typically is subjected to the authority of her mother's male relatives, rather than her husband. The late anthropologist Eleanor Leacock, a feminist and Marxist, cited as a supposed gender-equal society the seventeenth-century Montagnais-Naskapi of Quebec, whose gender-equal status was said to have been recorded by early Christian missionaries before those Native Americans were supposedly corrupted into their current patriarchal state by Western colonialism and oppression. [4] However, Leacock's claim is wholly spurious, requiring the selective omission of statements such as "I never heard the women complain because they were not invited to the feasts, because the men ate the good pieces, or because they had to work continually", [5] while quoting another statement from the same paragraph!

Other feminist scholars misrepresent, either through carelessness or deceit, Margaret Mead's somewhat disingenuous description of Tchambuli men as "effete," claiming that this demonstrates a society in which the usual sex roles have been reversed. This conveniently ignores the fact that the Tchambuli men were literally headhunters, who kept as trophies the severed heads of enemies. To call such fierce warriors "effete" is to misuse the word. Mead herself repeatedly denied ever having discovered any sex-role reversed society. Yet sociologist Steven Goldberg found that 36 of 38 new introductory textbooks of sociology cited Mead's supposed discovery of the "role-reversed" Tchambuli as "proof" that sex-roles are environmentally determined. [6] Such are the lies that are being fed to students today in the pious name of feminism. The harsh reality is that the entire history of the human race, from the present time to the earliest written texts, is an unbroken record of so-called "patriarchy", presumably extending back at least as far as our earliest primate ancestors (since chimp society displays extreme male dominance). In every human society, without exception, leadership is associated with the male, and the nurturing of children with the female.

Those who argue that "socialization" must somehow explain sex roles find themselves unable to explain why socialization always proceeds in a uniform direction, when according to their assumptions it ought to proceed randomly, resulting in a patchwork of matriarchies. interspersed with patriarchies. Why does every society, without exception, socialize men for leadership, and women for domestic tasks? Why not the reverse?

Thus the strict environmentalist explanation falls into an infinite regress, and finds itself postulating an uncaused cause: the male dominance we observe in every society is said to be caused by "socialization," yet the socialization that always results in male leadership itself has no cause, and somehow "always was". Steven Goldberg argues persuasively that the popular claim of "socialization" to explain sex roles gets the causality backwards. He writes that feminist theorists "make the mistake of treating the social environment as an independent variable, thereby failing to explain why the social environment always conforms to limits set by, and takes a direction concordant with, the physiological (i.e. never does environment act as sufficient counterpoise to enable a society to avoid male dominance of hierarchies)" [7] In other words, it is not true, as feminists claim, that societies invent arbitrary sex roles, then develop pseudoscientific concepts of biological sex differences to justify society's norms. Rather, societies observe the patterns of behavior that biology seems to render inevitable, then attempt to socialize women and men into roles that it is expected they will be able to fulfill. Hence according to Goldberg "socialization" is the dependent variable, not the independent one, as is commonly supposed.

If sex roles really are arbitrary constructions of society, created to keep women "in their place," why is it necessary to give transsexuals - individuals who already display many characteristics of the opposite sex - hormones of that opposite sex, prior to and separate from any surgery, to enable them to genuinely fit into their new role? Invariably these male or female hormones are reported as having profound mood-altering characteristics. For example, in the documentary film Max by the lesbian director Monika Treut, a pre-surgical female-to-male transsexual comments on the profound effects experienced upon being administered male hormones in the course of treatment. She reported that her energy level suddenly increased dramatically, as did her sex drive. Her moods were greatly affected, and she found herself unable to cry as much and as easily as she did before. This is not an isolated reaction, but rather such effects are the norm. Indeed they are the very rationale for the treatment: in order to produce behavior that will be seen as genuinely male or female, it is necessary to have the proper balance of sex hormones circulating in one's body. Feminists, however, attribute such behavior in men to "socialization".

Now if the feminist 'society-is-responsible' hypothesis were true, sex hormones would have no effect on behavior, and transsexuals could presumably be trained into their new roles just by reading a book. The reason that the feminist theorist attempts to force us to ignore the powerful role of male and female hormones as determinants of behavior is that we would then have to acknowledge that sex roles are not only not arbitrary, but are in fact permanent and ineradicable (short of radical medical intervention). Contemporary Politically Correct feminists, like Marxists, feel obligated to postulate a purely environmental explanation for all sex-related differences in behavior, because as soon as biological differences are admitted as relevant factors, the presumption that women are "victims of discrimination" cannot be supported. Should any male/female differences in behavior and career choices be admitted as innate and real, then the "null hypothesis" - the assumption that in the absence of discrimination, no differences in the two groups would be observed - is no longer tenable. The feminist would then be placed in the position of needing to separate the effects of so-called "discrimination" from those of biology, a clearly impossible task. Hence, male/female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto to have no possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the epithet "biological determinism", carrying "implications of absolute rigidity," is "a straw man set up for the convenience of polemicists; we would do well to ignore it." He adds,

"to suppose that human behavior is uninfluenced by heredity is to say that man is not a part of nature. The Darwinian assumption is that he is; Darwinians insist that the burden of proof falls on those who assert the contrary."
Philosopher Michael Levin wryly describes feminist theory as a form of "Creationism," which he defines as
"any refusal to apply evolutionary theory to man. It is irrelevant whether this refusal is sustained by a literal reading of scripture or commitment to a secular ideology."
He chides "scientists like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, who take a wholly naturalistic stance toward all living creatures apart from man." [8]
The fact that men have much greater physical strength than women cannot possibly be admitted as a factor causing men to predominate in strenuous jobs; the dearth of women in such jobs is instead attributed to a "hostile working environment" created by sexist men. If it is admitted that few women actually want to do such work, this must be explained away as a consequence of them having been brainwashed into accepting negative patriarchal stereotypes. That men predominate in higher-paying positions is itself seen as evidence of a vast conspiracy to keep women out of better jobs, in spite of the fact that when we correct for factors such as the number of hours worked, the number of years of education and in the position, etc., the differences all but vanish. [9] That women spend far more money on themselves - money presumably earned for them by the exertions of men - is never even considered. If it were really true that women were being paid 59 cents (or whatever number you choose to believe) for every dollar that men make, for doing the same work at the same level of skill, then no business could possibly be competitive if it employed any men.

That differences in career choices might arise from mutual preferences and independent choices made by two groups having significant innate psychological differences is not a permissible hypothesis, even though it has seemed obvious to every other society except our own. No explanation will be satisfactory to contemporary feminists unless it depicts men as exploiters and women as victims (a depiction that itself belies feminism's claim to believe in "strict equality").

In order to defend the employment conspiracy hypothesis, feminists must argue either that there are no genuine, innate differences in the skills, attitudes, and abilities, of women and men, or else that such differences may exist, but have absolutely no observable effect. As soon as such differences are admitted as a meaningful factor influencing career choices and performance, the case for the supposed omnipresent "discrimination" vanishes. Now, in virtually every sport for which records are kept, men consistently and significantly outperform women. These differences are not trifling; it is routine for talented male athletes in college to challenge the womens world record in their sport.

Most feminists will reluctantly admit that, at least in sports, the difference in performance between women and men is a result of innate factors, and not social conditioning. No amount of political indoctrination will transform a female athlete into a respectable linebacker for the National Football League. This then places the feminist in the curious position of arguing that innate factors account for the profound difference in male/female performance in every sport, but in absolutely nothing else. This violates parsimony. Michael Levin argues that it is absurd to claim that there is no paid job, outside athletics, where the kind of skill, stamina, and speed manifested in athletics conveys advantage. [10] Of course, once feminists admit the reality of sex-differentiated abilities, they must concede that mens' superior average performance in those strenuous jobs is due to innate factors, and not to "discrimination" or "socialization". Truly, it is ideology, not logic, that prompts the hypothesis of absolute male/female interchangeability (or, more accurately: feminists will disavow the claim of interchangeability, yet vigorously defend everything that follows from it!).

Contemporary Politically Correct feminism with its emphasis on group rights and group offenses is fundamentally illiberal, a dramatic break from the long humanistic tradition which emphasizes individual rights, rewards and punishments. It attacks free speech wherever freedom is used in ways it does not approve; feminists have recently joined forces with the Religious Right to attack so-called "pornography". (Another coalition of feminists with the Religious Right, crusading against alleged "Satanic Cults," is rapidly turning into a "witch hunt" in a literal sense! And the zealous use of highly-dubious "repressed memories" to uncover supposed "forgotten incest" is largely a feminist-led campaign, one of its biggest cheerleaders being Gloria Steinem).

This ideology seeks to replace the liberal ideal of "equality under the law" with the sinister "some are more equal than others," awarding women special rights and special protections unavailable to men. One of the most glaring examples of the feminist demand to be More-Equal-than-Others concerns the status of single-sex schools. The small number of remaining all-male colleges, mostly of military orientation, such as Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel, are under unrelenting political and legal pressure from feminists to end their single-sex policy, which is held to be "discriminatory." And perhaps it is, you say? Yet when a few years back the directors of all-female Mills College in Oakland, California decided for reasons of their own, completely without coercion, to begin admitting men students, this same relentless feminist juggernaut bore down upon them to preserve single-sex education, forcing the directors to reverse their decision, and keep Mills College exclusively for women. (When speaking to a naive audience, however, the feminist will claim that she "only wants equality"! But in reality, any feminist who claims to "want equality" had better be willing to specify which privileges she is willing to give up.)

The justification offered for keeping Mills College single- sex was that men tend to dominate classroom environments owing to their greater levels of aggressiveness, creating the need for women to have a 'league of their own' where they can learn and discuss at their own more relaxed pace. And I do not doubt that men indeed dominate classroom discussions and activities more often than women do. Feminists who argue this way, however, are in the delicate position of maintaining that while male dominance of classrooms is caused by the male's greater aggressiveness, male dominance of the business world has nothing to do with male aggressiveness, but is entirely the result of an unfair, secret conspiracy against women. In the wonderland of contemporary feminism, sex-segregated education is either very necessary or very evil, depending on which sex is being excluded, and the average male's greater aggressiveness both does and does not allow him to overshadow women within the same organization, depending on the conclusion it is desired to prove. All arguments within feminism are ultimately ad hoc: one uses whatever arguments one can muster to prove what it is desired to prove at the moment (victimization, discrimination, oppression, persecution, whatever). There is no requirement that the argument one uses today be consistent with the ones used yesterday, or will use tomorrow. Men both are and are not more aggressive, better at math, more persuasive, etc., depending on what is required by the exigencies of the moment. The feminist need not worry that anyone will object that today's argument is inconsistent with yesterday's: anyone who might do so would be branded an "enemy of women," and drummed out of the movement. The properly-sensitive, Politically Correct feminist never criticizes a sister feminist, no matter what she may say, but instead simply "listens to the multiplicity of womens' voices."

It is invariably objected that the kinds of positions and doctrines objected to above are those of "the extremists", and that "reasonable" feminists and feminist organizations do not hold them. The critics of feminism are accused of concentrating their attacks on so-called "extremists" such as Catherine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin. , But Mackinnon is the inventor of the legal concept of "sexual harassment"; do "reasonable feminists" reject that concept as 'extremism? Of course not; this line of argument enables them to "savor the fruit" of Mackinnonism while "cursing the vine." If Andrea Dworkin is such an "extremist," why has she been praised so lavishly by Gloria Steinem? (And if Gloria Steinem is not 'representative of feminists', then who is?)

The question I next ask is: just where are all these "reasonable feminists"? The answer invariably is that they are sitting next to me, or in the office down the hall; yet somehow these supposed voices of "moderation" manage to play absolutely no role whatsoever in the formulation of major public policy. Some more-or-less reasonable, yet politically ineffective, feminists defend their roles by pointing to minor success where 'good feminists' like themselves were able to slightly mitigate the harmful policies (coercion, censorship, etc.) of the 'bad feminists'. My response is that if all that the 'good feminists' can accomplish is to oppose, with less than 100% effectiveness, the harm done by the 'bad feminists,' then society would be better off without feminists altogether.

We are asked to believe that the largest feminist organization in America, and the largest-circulation feminist magazine, each of which endlessly promotes the image of women as "victims" while vigorously lobbying for special preferences and quotas (and is (or recently was) each headed up by a lesbian[11]), are somehow "unrepresentative" of what the supposedly typical feminist does and believes. Again, this is just a cheap rhetorical trick: by definition, the largest organizations and publications in any movement are representative of that movement. Were they unrepresentative, some other spokes-women would step forth, and gather a following larger still. One is forced to conclude that, all of the reasonable feminist goals having been met long ago, the effort is now being redoubled to attain as many unreasonable ones as possible before any significant opposition is able to develop.

No reasonable person, it seems to me, could deny that women and men ought to have the same legal rights in matters of a career, of the ownership of property, etc. And in practice, rarely if ever are such rights today denied. Yet likewise no reasonable person could expect that "equality of opportunity" would automatically turn into "equality of result" for two groups as different as women and men. Yet the primary complaint of contemporary feminists is that it has not, and the difference is held up as evidence of a supposed "discrimination" resulting from society's supposed unfairness and bigotry towards women. Yet this "discrimination" claim treats all differences in the real-world situations of women and men as resulting from a single cause: the supposedly selfish and unfair behavior of men who are unwilling to "share" their supposed "privileges" with women. All other factors and varibles are automatically ignored: the differences between women in men in physical strength and stamina; the effects of pregnancy and child-raising that take women out of the workforce; the very real differences between the male and female brain; the mood-altering effects of male and female hormones, etc. None of these very real differences, we are expected to believe, could possibly account for the differences in male and female roles; all such differences must be attributed to male perfidy and greed.

It also seems to me that no reasonable person could deny the moral equality of women and men: that neither sex has any credible claim to greater "goodness" or cooperative behavior than the other. Yet this is precisely what contemporary feminism attempts to deny. Some state outright that women are the morally superior sex [12]. Others would deny such an explicit claim, yet the claim lies implicitly in all feminist writing nonetheless, by way of the incessant depiction of men as cruel exploiters, and women their innocent victims. How can one claim to believe in the 'moral equality' of two groups while simultaneously maintaining that one of the two has supposedly "exploited" and "oppressed" the other in every society that has ever existed? The belief in the 'moral equality' of the sexes implies the belief that the universal human expectation of male dominance and female submission are in some sense 'natural' and proper; to deny one is to deny the other.

The rhetoric of the feminist movement portrays history as a dismal scenario of the unending oppression and subjugation of women, for the selfish benefit of men. (That men might themselves be a "victim" class, given that men have made up 100% of the cannon fodder of every battle in history, is not worthy of consideration.) But the depiction of woman as Perpetual Victim does not survive critical scrutiny, most especially not today. Whatever rights women may not have had at various points in history, such as the right to vote, had typically only been won by men a short time earlier. Throughout most of history, nobody had any rights, outside the ruling elite!

As for contemporary American society: women live an average of seven years longer than men; female-headed households have a net worth that averages 41% higher than those of male-headed ones (and this in spite of the fact that the average woman works far fewer hours per year than the average man). Women make up 55% of current college graduates. They claim to be discriminated against in politics, yet cast 7 million more votes than men in electing presidents. They win almost automatically in child custody disputes. Victims of violent crime are overwhelmingly male, and wives assault husbands more frequently than the reverse. Women can murder a sleeping husband or lover in cold blood, then claim the "battered woman" defense, and very likely receive only the lightest sentence or perhaps even no sentence at all, even in the absence of any proof that they were actually "battered!" (There is no "battered man" defense.)

If convicted of a felony, a man serves out a sentence averaging more than 50% longer than a woman convicted of the same crime, and a man in prison is more than ten times as likely to die there than is a woman. Mens' suicide rate is four times that of women. Twenty-four out of the twenty-five jobs ranked "worst" in terms of pay and working conditions by the Jobs Related Almanac have one thing in common: they are all 95%-100% male. Of those killed in work-related accidents, 94% are men, as were 96% of those killed in the Gulf War. If men have supposedly arranged everything to be so wonderful for themselves, then why are they dying, being mutilated, murdered, or killing themselves at rates vastly higher than those of women, who end up with more money in spite of having worked less? [13] By ignoring inconvenient facts like the above, feminists continue to promote the myth that women are the "victims" of an unjust society created and run by powerful, uncaring males for their own personal gain. In reality, it makes much more sense to call contemporary American women "privileged" than "oppressed!"

The world-view erected by contemporary Politically Correct feminism, the only kind that plays any role in shaping public policy, is a house of cards. It requires its adherent to jump from one unsteady limb to another, never quite sure whether sex differences in behavior are illusory, or very real but ex cathedra insignificant; uncertain whether women behave exactly the same as men, or are emotionally and morally superior, oriented toward life (unlike men, who love death); switching from "absolute egalite" to "special provisions," depending on which confers greater advantage in the circumstance. Women are simultaneously strong and independent, fully prepared to prevail in the hell of combat, yet at the same time so weak as to need special rules under which they receive compensatory advantages to assist them in competition with men; they also need legal protection against unwanted sexual advances and dirty jokes. This is much like a magician's silk that appears to have a different color each time it is revealed. Experience has shown that these objections to feminist absurdities are answered far more with ad hominem insults and expressions of moral outrage than with reasoned argument; such are the defenses employed by illusionists who are infuriated when their deceptions are revealed.

But there can be great harm in falsehood unopposed, especially when it results in suspicion, hostility, and envy between the sexes, where love frequently used to exist as recently as a generation before. In no other countries has Politically Correct feminism gained such power as in the Anglo- American world, especially in the U.S. and Canada (which is itself interesting: why have European women largely declined to fight in the War Against Men?). As a consequence, we have here what is almost certainly the highest divorce rate in the world, a crumbling educational system, and a seemingly unstoppable spiral of rising crime and related social pathology. Recent studies demonstrate a powerful correlation between this social pathology and the children of fatherless families [14]. It remains to be seen whether any society can remain intact largely without viable families in which to raise psychologically healthy children; history provides no such examples. One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against womens' roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince.

Nietzsche warned against systems of morality grounded in what he called ressentiment, which pretend to represent compassion while actually embodying the covert destructiveness of those who impotently desire revenge against those they envy. He cited Christian morality as the primary example of such a system. [15] While feigning an attitude of passivity and love, the early Christian actually worked to bring down any person or institution esteemed for worldly success. We must not fail to note that contemporary Politically Correct feminism, itself a child of Marxism, are both manifestations of ressentiment [16].

In spite of its success in masquerading as a harmless, even noble, movement dedicated to 'simple fairness', the contemporary feminist movement is in fact a Noble Lie. No matter how many people may have been sincerely persuaded to believe its pronouncements, the empress has no clothes. And a "noble lie" is nonetheless a lie.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTES:
1.Plato, The Republic, Book II (382c).

2. See "Idyllic Theory of Goddess Creates Storm" by Peter Steinfels, New York Times, Feb. 13, 1990. For a detailed critique of the "goddess" claims of Gimbutas and others, see Ronald Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), Chapter 2.

3.New York Times, March 29, 1994.

4.Leacock, Eleanor: Myths of Male Dominance (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981); "Women in Egalitarian Societies", in Becoming Visible, Koonz and Bridenthal, eds. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977).

5.Paul LeJeune in Jesuit Relations, Vol. 6 p. 235, R.G. Thwaites, ed (New York: Pageant Book Co., 1959)

6.Goldberg, Steven: Feminism Against Science, National Review, Nov. 18, 1991.

7.Goldberg, Steven: When Wish Replaces Thought (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), p. 173.

8.Hardin, Garrett: Naked Emperors. Essays of a Taboo Stalker (Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1982), chapter 8. Levin, Michael: Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987), chapter 3.

9.See, for example, George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), chapter 12.

10.Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1987), Chapter 10.

11.Patricia Ireland, the head man at NOW, is technically married, but admits that she does not live with her husband, but instead with a female lover. Robin Morgan, until recently the chief editor of Ms. Magazine, and still on its editorial staff, has been openly lesbian for many years. "Full-time feminism" is dominated by lesbians, and not surprisingly, what is touted as the feminist agenda is really the lesbian agenda (careers are everything, marriage is a trap, husbands are evil, babies are a nuisance, etc.). If feminism today really represented the interests of ordinary heterosexual women, it would be working to make life easier and more harmonious for wives and mothers, rather than doing everything it can to blow the family apart.

12.for example, see Barbara Walker in The Skeptical Feminist, Phyllis Chesler in Patriarchy - Notes of an Expert Witness, or Robin Morgan in The Demon Lover.

13.These statistics come from Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993).

14.see "Dan Quayle was Right" Atlantic Monthly, April 1993.

15. Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, Book I. See also Sheaffer, Robert The Making of the Messiah (Prometheus Books, 1991),  4" 4  chapter 2.

16.Simone de Beauvoir is generally acknowledged as the Founding Mother of contemporary feminism. In her tome The Second Sex, she explicitly grounds her theory of the 'exploitation' of women in "historical materialism" (i.e., Marxism), and in particular in the now- discredited historical speculations of Engels concerning supposed 'ancient matriarchies'. Today, the feminist establishment, and socialists, are on the same side of every significant political issue. NOW proclaims attempts to cut welfare to be a "war against women".
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 181 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:09:54 PM

The difference between misogyny and misandry is that misogyny is carefully monitored, declared politically incorrect, and publicly berated. Misandry is barely even noticed, it's normal and accepted. It's even acceptable to discriminate against men in the law of the land.
Three cheers to the the women that acknowledge that we live in a misandrist society.


I agree .
But , I don't think it's anything to cheer about.
Here's a very mainsteam example of our misandrist society....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-02-08-ncguest2.htm

V-Day twists holiday into male-bashing event

By Christina Hoff Sommers

Saturday evening, thousands of women will gather at Madison Square Garden in
New York City to observe "V-Day."

The sponsors of this "Violence Against Women Day" intend to transform Valentine's
Day into a "holiday" that deplores men's brutal treatment of women. "V-Day," say the planners, "proclaims Valentine's Day as V-Day until the violence stops. When all women
live in safety, then it will be known as Victory Over Violence Day."

One might expect strong resistance to the idea of changing a charming and well-loved romantic holiday into a day of outrage. In fact, V-Day now is in its fourth year, and its popularity is growing.

V-Day originated in the mind of Eve Ensler, author of the off-Broadway hit,
The Vagina Monologues. This play is loosely based on interviews with more than 200
women on the subject of their intimate anatomy. Theatergoers find some of the
comments amusing. But its more serious preoccupation is exposing male insensitivity and violence. It offers a rogues' gallery of oafs, brutes, adulterers, rapists, child molesters
and vile little boys.

An information sheet assures us that "it isn't the style or substance of V-Day
to bash anyone." But apart from this disclaimer, V-Day, like The Monologues, appears dedicated to the proposition that women are from Venus and men are from hell.

Dozens of luminaries, among them Oprah Winfrey, Brooke Shields, Winona Ryder
and Calista Flockhart, are scheduled to participate in Saturday's gala. Activities wil
l include speeches against rape and battery, "empowerment" workshops and dramatic
readings from The Vagina Monologues.

Jane Fonda, who just donated $1 million to the V-Day campaign, is honorary chair.
Celebrity acolytes refer to themselves as "Eve's Army."

An unassailable goal?

V-Day supporters justify their movement to redefine Valentine's Day by pointing to
the high purpose this serves. How, they ask, could anyone possibly object to a holiday dedicated to diminishing battery and murder?

The first thing to say is that choosing Valentine's Day for any such purpose is
grossly inappropriate. Why pick the one day that celebrates all of the good things
that happen between men and women and turn it into a day that focuses on the
bad things? By this twisted logic, we should be working to turn Mother's Day into
a "holiday" condemning all of the vicious things some mothers do to their children.

V-Day's sponsors portray the United States as one of the most repressive and
barbarous places on earth for women. One "fact sheet" they distribute says
"22% to 35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for injuries related
to ongoing abuse."

Too many, but not that many

These numbers are egregiously wrong. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports
that about one-half of 1% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for i
njuries related to domestic abuse. That still translates into distressingly high numbers
of victims. But the true numbers are apparently not high enough for V-Day proponents.
They are determined to implicate the average American man in an ongoing social
atrocity and to place the United States on a moral par with countries that
practice genital mutilation and bride burnings.

A holiday based on hysterical overstatement about the plight of American women
is a bad idea on any day of the year. But "V-Day," say its supporters, "is a fierce, wild, unstoppable movement."

It certainly has momentum. This year, V-Day will be observed in 50 cities and
300 colleges worldwide. Organizers expect 20,000 women at Saturday's event
and believe it will raise millions of dollars for the cause. Ensler herself is a
formidable asset; her celebrity followers revere her. "She's giving us our souls
back," Glenn Close told CNN.

Can Valentine's Day withstand the V-Day assault? It can and will. The millions
of women and men who quietly celebrate the day in the traditional manner are
its best defense. Their tender sentiments, expressed in flowers, heart-shaped
boxes of chocolate and half-serious little poems, give the lie to Ensler's grim
way of looking at the world.

Eve's Army may be marching in the name of women, but it certainly does not
represent them.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Her latest book is The War Against Boys: How Feminism is Harming Our Young Men.

USATODAY.com partners: USA WEEKEND Sports Weekly Education Space.com
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 133 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/18/2008 12:08:57 AM

I definitely advocate any person, male or female, sticking to their beliefs and defending themselves, but the feminist movement took this in the wrong direction.
Women have defended themselves to the detriment of men. I think many men "hate" women because they are tired of being bumped to the back because these days a woman's rights take precedent over a man's.

I don't hate women . Quite the opposite .But some make it difficult at times .

I'm sure you're using the term "hate" in quotations to make a point of how unfair it is to say so .

You've hit the nail on the head.
It's everywhere in movies , tv , education , publishing , law , government : ...
Woman have become "more equal " , special , first class citizens , smarter, only competent , more moral , never violent , always reasonable , wiser, only innocent-never guilty ......and somehow at the same time STILL REPRESSED !

Why don't women know this?
I thought it was extremely apparent.
Is it that most women see the world only from a woman's pov ?
Is it the media and the constant one sided message - man bad / woman good ?
I can see women's points .....when they have a legit one . Why can't so many women see men's points?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 121 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 9:22:20 PM


It seems to me that this post just made my point about my previous one.
It got my attention that OP's profile state is a socialist activist.
By the rationale of the topic of the thread: misogyny, is expected that misandry will shows up as the opposite side for an argument and feminism as the inevitable subject for debate.
Being feminism intrinsic part of marxism theory... is now the socialism doctrine the new topic for discussion?
This is the typical approach for an ideological tactic campaign presenting a public agenda to end up in the hidden one.


Socialist "fellow travellers" do not know who they are actually serving.
Like you said ...it is hidden .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 8:35:37 PM

Cedars.....you forgot to add in the statement that Canada is one of the RICHEST and highest taxed countries in the world. Those taxes pay for health care, education, pensions and other basic life sustaining services and YOU SHOULD BE DAMN PROUD to be a Canadian.

A good portion of taxes are paid on ever increasing interest for money borrowed by the government from the central bank .The central bank is PRIVATELY owned.
There is no paying back this debt since money is created in the form of debt.....fiat paper money created out of thin air. It is a vicious spiral into absolute financial slavery and total control . This is the basis/plan of socialism ...monopoly.



SOCIALISM - Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

Don't be fooled...
The state owns everything under socialism . The people own nothing . Private property rights will be abolished .
The socialist "natural leaders" direct the people and the people are slaves to the state.


Indeed I lived the interesting historical fact that once socialism accomplishes the division and antagonism between classes/genders to fit the agenda for confrontations... once the comunism roots and consolidates its power... the feminism is declared in obsolence since its role is done and is not necessary.
Just check the biography and political ideology of the most radical and prominent voices of the defenders of women's right to understand their hidden agenda behind the public one.

Classes/genders/ races
As I said , despite feminism's tired old slogans , feminism is definately NOT about liberation .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 111 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:23:50 PM
You could argue Jesus's idea of charity and the Jewish laws regarding helping your brethren as radical.
There is nothing wrong with the government intervening against discrimination against women or people of a certain race or religion.

History has shown , it is governments that people should , by far , most fear for discrimination and repression .
Racial/gender discrimination is already practised by the state....affirmative action . This policy is NOT going to change . The state does not retreat. As we have seen with the very popular anti-affirmative action movements .
Also...
There is no room for religion in a socialist state.
The concept of God must be destroyed and replaced.
People must only rely on the state under socialism.
That is rule number one with socialism .
Socialists intend on making environmentalism the universal pseudo religion with the state as the all powerful . I think we can all watch this happening on a daily basis .

But , let's get back on topic.

Anyhoo ....feminism/socialism not good !
(-:

Ps. Maybe cubanguy will explain socialism , he had the pleasure of living in a "socialist paradise"...I believe .
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 6:54:02 PM

But, it's already being put into practice successfully. Also, I'm talking about Socialist Democracies I think more than anything else. I don't think anyone has implemented Marx's ideas as he had explained them. Communism was supposed to come about naturally, not with someone assuming a dictator role individually, AND it was only to come after an industrial revolution, which I don't believe any country that became communist ever went through.

Socialist ideas ARE in practice today.

There is no such a thing as a socialist democracy . Socialism is the power of the state over people , not by people .
I think it's a case where nations are reasonably successful because of free markets and despite socialism . However , socialism is totalitarian . Left unchecked , it's only a matter of time before the state becomes extremely repressive ....which is already becoming the case in western societies.

Why Socialism Is the People’s Choice
by James Ostrowski, June 2003



Why is socialism more popular than capitalism? We have had 150 years to dissect socialism in theory. We have had 100 years to see socialism in action. Socialism, extensive government control over the economy, is a disaster in theory and a disaster in practice. The superiority of capitalism over socialism has been amply demonstrated by Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others. Yet it continues to be the dominant political philosophy, even in the United States. Here, in what the rest of the world sees as an anarcho-capitalist jungle, we have socialized medicine, socialized education, and socialized retirement. The state seizes 40 percent of our income and tells us what we can and cannot do with what we keep. Virtually every aspect of the economy is regulated. The long-term trend is toward ever-greater government control over the economy, our property, and our lives. This trend continues even though capitalism works and socialism does not.

Capitalism works by protecting private property and freedom of contract, thereby encouraging people to use their abilities and resources to produce goods and services that are most likely to be urgently demanded by others. Capitalism works because, unlike competing systems, it does not depend on the quality of its overseers. Capitalism’s overseer is the price system, which, far from being dependant on the will of a small number of politicians, is the expression of the totality of all human knowledge about the value and scarcity of goods, services, and resources. Capitalism works by harnessing, through the principles of specialization and the division of labor, human diversity and inequality, allowing people with different backgrounds and talents to trade for mutual advantage.

Capitalism works because it does not require central planning; rather, capitalism is what happens naturally and spontaneously when there is no such planning. As seen, for example, in prison-er-of-war camps, markets arise spontaneously from individuals acting to advance their own interests. Markets are natural; they just happen. The formula for establishing a capitalist system is: don’t just do something, stand there. Which leads into my last point that capitalism works because it requires no change in human nature and works just fine with the natural tendency of people to act to further the welfare of themselves and their families. Here is a system that arises naturally and spontaneously, is governed by the price system, not by politicians or dictators, encourages people to be productive and cooperate with others, and works well with people as they are.

In contrast, socialism does not work, because it acts, as it must, through the coercive apparatus of the state. Therefore, in its interactions with people, there is always at least one party forced to participate and who is, therefore, abused and exploited.

Socialism does not work, because, while capitalist decisions are made by individuals and firms that know more about their particular circumstances than anyone else could possibly know, socialist planners cannot know nearly as much about the persons and institutions they deal with and thus are forced to make and enforce arbitrary general rules that apply the same to different people and different circumstances, regardless of the absurd or unjust consequences.

Socialism does not work, because, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, people are not clay. They always react and respond to the state’s use of power against them (or for them) in ways that result in unintended and negative consequences from the state’s point of view. This is called blowback in foreign-policy matters; however, domestic examples of blowback include the crime wave unleashed by the “war on drugs” and the Great Society’s destruction of the family structure of the poor.

Socialism does not work, because, instead of allowing the price system to be a vehicle of rational economic planning, it sabotages the price system as much as possible. In its extreme form, socialism would eliminate prices for capital goods — by seizing them — and thereby cause economic annihilation. Even socialism’s less extreme interventions injure the price system. Taxation, inflation, subsidies, occupational licensure, collective bargaining mandates, and so on all distort market prices and cripple their ability to convey accurate information about preferences and scarcities.


Socialism’s popularity

Why then is socialism so popular? The reasons are not complicated. First, socialism allows people to spend other people’s money. Let’s avoid the phrase “steal other people’s money,” because only libertarians see it that way.

Nevertheless, however socialists justify this spending, even they realize they are taking other people’s money. Yes, I know some socialists deny the very concept of private ownership. But even they realize that socialism takes money and property that is possessed by some and transfers possession to others so they can spend or use it.

Reason No. 1: Socialism allows people to spend other people’s money without feeling guilty about it.

Second, there is a related but distinct craving that animates socialism, as noted by many commentators. Envy is a strong emotion that has always had a powerful impact on society and politics. Envy is “a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). Because no one admits to acting on the basis of envy, the term “equality” — robbed of its original and legitimate meaning in classical liberal thought — is used instead. Socialism is the perfect political expression of envious people because it purports to rein in greedy and wealthy capitalists and usher in social equality.

Reason No. 2: Socialism satisfies the deeply felt and widely held emotion of envy.

Third, free-market capitalism emphasizes the individual’s responsibility for his own economic welfare. Socialism professes to place this responsibility outside the individual and with the state. Many people are happy to be rid of this burden and glad to be able to blame others for their problems. Unlike Reasons No. 1 and No. 2, this reason for the popularity of socialism is one trumpeted by its proponents. They do not see the obvious downside of the structural reduction of individual economic responsibility: laziness, profligacy, and passivity.

Reason No. 3: Socialism purports to relieve people of the burden of worrying about their economic well-being.

Fourth, in a secular age, socialism acts as a religion-substitute. Traditionally, religion would offer solace to people facing the numerous traumas of life. Now, for millions of people, socialism plays that role. “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he” could overcome all these problems with socialism?

Utopian socialism — all socialism is utopian — purports to offer a solution to virtually all human problems. In contrast, the claims of capitalism are seen as too modest, and hard work is required as well. There is no need to quote a Marxist on the all-encompassing promises of socialism. Lyndon Johnson will do fine. In a speech given on May 22, 1964, Johnson promised that his Great Society would “pursue the happiness of our people,” conquer “boredom and restlessness,” and satisfy the “desire for beauty” and the “hunger for community.” All this and beat the Viet Cong too. Amazing!

Reason No. 4: Socialism is a secular substitute for religion and offers people (false) solace against the traumas of this life.

I considered giving intellectuals their own special reason for worshipping the state, but I decided that to explain why 95 percent of intellectuals have a ferocious love for socialism you merely have to combine and intensify all four reasons already stated.

These are some of the main reasons that socialism, which is silly in theory and lethal in practice, remains so popular, even in a society such as ours, whose fabulous wealth is the result of the shrinking capitalist remnants of the economy.

James Ostrowski is an attorney in Buffalo and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 6:32:46 PM

The thing is that ultimately there is nothing wrong with socialism or communism as ideologies, but the way people implement them make all the difference. Personally, I think having a Capitalist Democracy rather than a Socialist Democracy for the US is going to very much hurt us in the long run, but to change it around now means possibly hurting a generation or two along the way, so I don't think it will change.



My take on you is that you've joined a religous cult called Feminism-which came out of Marxism -which is itself a religous cult. In Russia, that relgious cult murderered 66 million people. The population of Russia was 120 million when the Bosheviks took over.



CEDAR.......seriously - are you REALLY a CANADIAN???? You seem to be forgetting the FACT that SOCIALISM gave you FREE MEDICAL CARE in CANADA. That's right.....remember that when you go to the Doctor's next time and TAKE SOME PRIDE in the fact that a socialistic idea MADE YOUR LIFE IN THIS COUNTRY better than other's outside of Canada.

Medical care is not free in Canada , we are one of the most heavily taxed nations in the world.
Heavy taxation handicaps the economy and creates poverty and reliance.
Canada is one of the resource richest nations . If it were not for socialism Canadian's standard if living would be infinately better. We should have NO poverty.
Also , I'm afraid , universal healthcare is headed for a meltdown .Wait and see.
But that's another debate.

Is Socialism Good in Theory?
Sheldon Richman, Editor, Ideas on Liberty

Socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, thanks to Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and history. But for many people it has not been discredited on moral grounds. You can tell this by how often people say that while socialism doesn't work in practice, it is good in theory.

Strange notion — that a theory which doesn't work in the world can somehow still be good. Where else is it to be judged? One would think that a theory whose consistent realization requires gulags and secret police would be morally disqualified even if it "worked."

I guess the people who say socialism is good in theory really mean they regret that it doesn't work without the attendant unpleasantness. Why should that be regrettable? The typical answer is that in socialist theory people are not acquisitive or self-regarding; they are more concerned about others. The regret about socialism turns out to be a regret about human nature.

Leaving aside the facts that the taint on self-interest is assumed not established and that one prospers under capitalism by competitively attending to others, is this a valid statement about socialism? Originally socialism promised a superabundance of goods — so much of everything that no one would have to do without anything. Sharing would be unnecessary because scarcity would be abolished. Wasn't that an appeal to acquisitiveness, even gluttony? To be sure, socialism's miserable record has compelled its advocates lately to discover the "age of limits," but that is only to make a virtue of necessity.

Socialism of course did promise to reconstruct humanity, but the message was always mixed. It promised to subordinate the individual to society while liberating him to be fully himself — free of the necessity to make a living. Leon Trotsky wrote that "Communist man . . . will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx." But the nice Bolshevik also said, "In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

Was the new Socialist Man to be a self-centered achiever or group-centered worker bee? It was never clear how both could be accomplished.

Maybe all that people mean when they lament socialism's impracticality is that the theory held out hope for an end to material inequality. As intellectual historian Ralph Raico reminds us, it didn't exactly do that. Marx promised only "to each according to his needs." He never said we all have the same needs. Besides, it is capitalism not socialism that has achieved essential material equality.
(See Donald Boudreaux, "Equality and Capitalism," September 2002, www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5201 .)

The ugliness of socialist theory now comes into focus. Under individualist and capitalist theory (and practice) each person is free to determine his own needs and, through the division of labor and voluntary exchange, to produce what's required to satisfy them. (As the old Spanish proverb puts it, "Take what you want and pay for it.") Under socialist theory the individual's needs are determined and satisfied collectively. Dissent and venturing out on one's own are not options. As Trotsky acknowledged, everyone is an employee and tenant of the collective — that is, the state.

It's a mystery why anyone would find that theory beautiful or regret that it doesn't work in practice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 8:03:02 AM

Women have become equal but they never planned nor prepared for all the power they were granted from men and most abuse it.


The thing is that people should concentrate on understanding the foundation of feminism.
Men and women have and will always be struggling to find their proper roles in society.
Society should have evolved and women's roles along with it. Instead we got radical feminist revolution without consideration for it's destructive effects.

It is natural that women look for advantage and priviledge . This is probably a side effect of women's traditonal role as mothers of a family . Women have the nesting thing happening.
It is natural for men to assert their interests as well .
This is normal .

What is very abnormal is that feminism has gone unchecked , it is the ruling elite (men) that allows/promotes the excesses of feminism . You only have to look at the promotion of feminism through male dominated institutions ( media , education , law, government , etc.) to see that is actually elite men who have promoted feminism where as we should have heard the voice of reason and the voice of male interests. Men's interests naturally include women , where women's interests are by nature (as we have seen) geared towards themselves and other women only.

If it were women on their own promoting feminism , they would not have been successful in radically dominating the culture.
Under normal conditions the men who rule society would act as a check and balance against excessive feminism .
A balance between the genders would be maintained and we would have been able to work in a symbiotic arrangement as intended by nature .

As it stands , the powerful elite establishment and the feminism it promotes is a very potent and destructive combination to contend with.
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 76 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 7:08:59 AM
Western civilisation has been inundated with feminism .
This didn't "just happen"
This was done by a powerful ruling elite (men) , who rule covertly , in order to divide and conquer society .
Feminism was promoted to destroy the family and thereby enabling the establishment of big government socialism possible .
A societies strength to resist tyranny is very much dependant on it's culture . The root of culture is based within strong families as it's primary foundation .
By destroying the family , the establishment has left society weak , divided and disorganised and very easily ruled .
Feminism is nihilism ..it's a tool used in machavelian politics and despite it's tired old slogans feminism is anything but liberating ...

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose. -- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al, tenets of misandric belief.)

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale.)


 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 74 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/17/2008 6:46:50 AM

Feminism is about female superiority what it does is play upon the belief that women are not equal to enact more and more legislation against men.

That is correct.
Socialists (men) promote/enable feminism in order to continuously grow government.
This has been a left wing policy for decades and it is very successful .....(destructive.)


Women only have gained any equality as technology made muscle work in farming obsolete this is why in societies where its still muscle farming women have less power since they can do less work.

I agree .
Ironically , it is men who develop , construct and maintain the technology that enable women to enjoy the standard of living that enables them to have fought for equality and to have become "more equal "
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Guys - what is your take on Misogyny
Posted: 1/16/2008 10:27:47 PM

Before I give you examples of HOW feminism promotes the qualities of tenderness, warmth, gentleness, nuturing I wish for you to state me some examples of how feminism DOES NOT promote them.

Okay . I'd be interested to hear the HOW.
I've already clearly stated the DOES NOT ...

I have seen feminism as only an antithesis to feminity.
I thought feminism was about getting a career and gaining "power" at all costs ....become working stiffs ....paying taxes and having day care raise their kids , if in this quest for "power" women have any family at all ....NOT tender , gentle , warm , nurturing ...quite the opposite ... having the right to abort (kill) your babies.

PS ....you have all night .
Goodnight!
 
Show ALL Forums