Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
@BS- You confuse me, perhaps because I'm not sure what your issues are.
"Are you implying that feminism does not affect men? OR do you mean that if men understood feminism they would not be wimps? Do you mean that feminists only teach good and holy things and can never be wrong or bad? Do you mean that all things women do to men are not wrong or bad unless feminism decides not to endorse them?"
All I'm saying is that feminism-you know, that radical notion that women are human beings with the same rights as men- does not make men wimps. Why does giving respect to someone else diminish you? It certainly isn't the cause of the political apathy and general ignorance that's led to the current political situation.
I never implied one was tied to the other. Certainly women can lobby for men giving women more respect AND women can also exact various schemes in society that tear down men and boys and that teach them to be passive. The two can both be implemented simultaneously.
Do feminists teach only "good and holy" things? Well, feminists are people. People are imperfect. So, no, just because a feminist says something doesn't make it "good and holy." But, the basic principle of equality is valid, and I don't see how it makes men "wimps" to treat women as equals.
Again, I never implied the two were tied together. There is much more to feminism than this one tenet and feminism has an impact far beyond its stated intent or even its active participation in society.
Where are you even getting that I think women can do no wrong? I'm fully aware that people of both genders are capable of being jerks.
Also, at the moment, our armed forces are voluntary (and hopefully will stay that way). The current all-male selective service system is a vestige of a pre-feminist era, when women's role in society was more limited.
Still does not answer the question. Women's destinies are supposed to be unhindered by anyone, men's are not seems to be the rule among feminists.
"We have already determined that we dirty inadequate men, as oppose to you perfect untouchable women, are forced to deal with situations that determine our destinies that we are not in control"
"We" have not determined anything of the sort. "You" are putting words into my mouth.
More to the point, what the hell does any of this have to do with W getting elected?
W remained in power for 8 years, raping this nation at will, because there was no effective opposition, thanks to feminism and its teachings. This much seems OBVIOUS to those who have spat out the feminist kool aid.
Of course, you seem to live in fantasy world populated by caricatures like Akasha from Queen of the Damned and Nurse Ratched from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Never seen either film.
Also, to you, everything (apparently including the last 8 years) appears to be part of some feminist conspiracy. I suppose we should give you some points for creativity in your paranoia...at least you're not blaming the Jews.
Not a conspiracy, but one cannot deny that feminism has impacted society in myriad ways. Denial of this by feminists is futile and laughable.
it appears that the original topic is so trivial that the vacuum it opened up pulled in the gamut of irrelevancies that has ensued.
So mote it be.
Myself, I initially got involved when someone made an astoundingly cheap shot at Christianity, followed up immediately by a commentor pontificating (and I believe that term to be entirely appropriate) that religion is the most malevolent and bloodthirsty force on the planet.
Anyone who lays the full responsibility- or even the primary responsibility- for the election of George W. Bush on Christians and Christianity is making an indefensible and easily refutable claim based on nothing more than popmedia hype- hype that they've chosen to buy into uncritically, because it accords with their preconceived personal agenda.
And those who seek to shift the blame to "religion" for the 20th century wars and genocidal atrocities committed by admittedly atheistic political movements, cults of personality, and tribal conflicts is indulging in a spurious and inaccurate redefinition of the term "religion"- moving the goalposts so that they don't have to reassess their own thinking on the matter.
My personal observation of the political behavior of "non-religious" humans in this society is that their thought is very often marked by appeals to authority based on their idealization of human thinkers; that they very often approach politics with an unwholesome fervor, demonizing their adversaries and ceding an excessive amount of personal power to their favored leaders, typically fated to play out either as uncritical loyalty or bitter disappointment; that notwithstanding their avowals of strict rationalism, many of them embrace various superstitions, fetishes, and taboos that comprise sign-specific traits in their self-selected social/subcultural niche; and that many of them subscribe to the twin mythologies of a golden age of humankind before the curse of religion spread across the land, and of the millennnial age to come, when the religious impulse is forever banished from human consciousness.
Good luck with that.
Party on...
Laura Bush was on Fox and Friends this morning. She had accepted a Christmas (my apologies to Salon for using the "C" word on their website) tree ornament on behalf of a young girl with a brain tumor.
This must have been her.
When the ornament "artist" first found out she was selected to do an ornament, she said:
"Why would I want to put a smiley face of tacit approval on an administration famous for lies, greed, warmongering and religious fundamentalism?"
Perhaps because she represents those who are famous for calling people liars when they're not, sophomoric Utopian beliefs, cowardice, and nihilism.
Perhaps she was selected for her vapid postmodernist intellect that sees failings in religious faith, but continues to have zealous fervor for governments that routinely fail their people -- no matter the party.
Perhaps she was selected to cause her to reflect on how she is protected daily by better men and women than her -- those who keep her freedom of speech protected, and protect my freedom to call her a dumbass.
Hmm...maybe it was just a misdelivered envelope....
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
