|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2010 7:18:36 GMT -5
no lad. you are dismissed because you choose to express an opinion that is patently absurd and has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. What I think is absurd is you telling anyone else they're post is patently absurd, when so often I find myself rolling my eyes in your general direction. and i thank you for that, but unlike a lot of guys, fluttering eyelids have never done much for me
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2010 7:20:15 GMT -5
I am not his 'lad' - and probably older than Jumbo - nor do I know anybody with that arrogant dismissal of anybody with ideas different from them, and if I have met women as feeble as modern 'feminists' define, they are the ones my female friends were seeking 'liberation' from. I have given what women who call themselves 'feminist' told me and why I can no more accept their denigration of women than the women I knew 40 years ago standing up against exactly that same prejudice, and believed themselves then 'feminist' - but more likely just 'wiccan' or 'matriarchal' or 'green'. Feminism is the reaction against recognising 'female' values as equal to male, and women as leaders of men instead of complaisant followers of the same subservience as traditionally demanded of men. In the 1980s, a few women set themselves up as Lesbian communes believing themselves such natural inferiors to men that they could only be inferiors in men's presence. They were wrong in detail because it is only feminist dogma that indoctrinates women to feel inferior to 'men' and then only to the false image they create of 'men' that is really what they want to be. If they had not thought of themselves as natural inferiors to their (reactionary) idea of men, they could have built an alternative culture for both sexes instead of perpetuating traditional exclusion of men from equality with women and the 'humane' values that women upheld against Industrialism until Thatcherism took them over to serve the Corporate State and join men instead of to oppose it and demand men join them as equal human beings. A year ago, Jumbo was justifying rape to me, that I must be crazy or perverted in his eyes (and that of the paederast pervert Jean Hartrick) to think anything wrong about forcing sex out of somebody knowing they did not want it. "If I want to watch football and my wife demands sex, am I being raped?" Yes. What kind of person would treat another to demand sex they know that other does does not want?That is the DEFINITION of rape, sex with somebody who does not want it. What kind of creep could enjoy sex knowing the partner does not? Jumbo says he could. It would and did disgust me no my boy, i am not arrogant. arrogance is a fault, and i don't have any
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 19, 2010 8:03:51 GMT -5
Do you see being stubborn as a positive jumbo?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2010 9:40:52 GMT -5
Do you see being stubborn as a positive jumbo? obviously, it all depends. knowing what is right, and refusing to capitulate to wrong, even if it's the popular belief, is NOT stubborn. the key is in KNOWING what is right and not following the crowd just to fit in. knowing that right and wrong are absolutes which are immutable, from the beginning of time to the end of time, and not being swayed by those who simply want what is easiest. so you see, i am NEVER stubborn
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 16:52:22 GMT -5
Knowing what is right is one thing; believing that you know what is right is quite another matter, Jim.
It is a FACT that water boils at the same temperature whether or not you measure it in Celsius or Fahrenheit.
It is an OPINION that either men or women are inherently inferior or superior (or indeed equal to one another.)
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 20, 2010 15:33:53 GMT -5
If you believe a social opinion to be true and act on it, then you will make it true. That is why I find victim-feminism better at creating a 'patriarchy' than any 'patriarchy' that might actually exist. Despite their us of the term, find myself most sympathetic to the movements described here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jun 23, 2010 16:33:52 GMT -5
What a load of bollocks, Erasmus!
There's no such THING as 'victim feminism.'
Quite honestly, your whole idea of what feminists believe is about as believable as what the Nazis used to say about the Jews!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jun 23, 2010 18:11:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Jun 23, 2010 18:57:33 GMT -5
Ok.....I've gone back a couple of pages on here....and I have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore. I can't decide whether I need to drink more or whether all of you need to.........lol
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 23, 2010 23:20:17 GMT -5
I have to admit one time that Jumbo has admitted something that feels right.
There is absolutely no way I can believe whining feminists and traditional women any more entitled to the privilege they expect me because of my sex to provide for them, or to pretend they are sexless inferiors so choosing to open their legs and pretend to respect me as equal is a favour I should pay for, any more than they should pay me.
Men pretend to be far less fussy about sex partners than women, so it's obvious that sexual reticence is female, not women being too feeble to assert sexual independence against 'patriarchs' that 'feminists' pretend. All female animals choose the male, it is only 'feminists' who pretend the female inferior incompetant victim of the dominant male, and whom most 'liberated' 'normal' women who have not learnt to believe feminist inferiority to glorification of male domination, who choose to revert to a fantasy of female inferior grovellig that exempts them from equal involvement as too inferior - and there is the real truth of it: 'feminists' do not really believe themselves inferior to men at all; they are the old-fashioned girlies opposing equality by pretending 'traditioinal' feeble female horrified at the loss of sexual domination that reduction to equality and liberation from pretending that 'sex' was a service they provided with shame and no personal interest in, deprived those females of who did not want men to achieve quality (not that we have!) Because "I don't want equality with men because I'd lose too much" And 'feminists' know they can never allow it because equality would mean respecting men too much for their prejudice.
We tried to break through to equality around 1970, but it was premature, and 'feminism' was part of the Thatchetite corporate reaction against everything that "Women's Liberation" had sought to change. So Stalin and Trotsky were both 'Communists'. So Anarcho-feminism and its reactionary 'feminist' imposition of all that men have been trying to liberate themselves from upon women both claim the name 'feminist'. - but which do we choose as real? - the feminism that wants to join in demanding women heading the board and flying nuclear combat missions and calls freely sexual women 'objects' subservient to men and believes only women can love women equlaly, or the feminism that believes there are humane values women have retained that men should adopt and pickets Greenham Common instead of wanting to be part of it, and wants to blow the Corporate Boardroom up so that they and we all can direct what we want instead of what we are given?
Do we want feminist suppression of women to equality with men from belief in female inferiority or woman's liberationist respect for women as leaders for men to follow?
I want the latter. Feminists oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jun 24, 2010 17:05:38 GMT -5
Women are as individual as men. So are feminists.
In your delusional universe, Razzle, everyone fits into nice tidy boxes.
Life just isn't like that are not are people!
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 25, 2010 16:28:12 GMT -5
It is the feminists themselves who insist on placing everybody into little boxes, mostly defined by long-obsolete stereotypes of the Sugar and spice and all things nice versus Slugs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails variety straight out the 19th century. The descriptions I give of feminism come directly from what women who call themselves feminists om these boards have been telling me they stand for, and more importantly, what they claim to stand against for years. All of which fully supports my view that like punk, unions, and the whole political ferment that we associate with the 1960s but really became increasingly dangerous to the supremacy of traditionally masculine values during the 1970s, had to be defused by either discrediting it (a job Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten did superbly reducing the political aspects of punk to safe inarticulate yobbery) or by taking it over to serve conventional values instead of opposing them with better ones. I do not know whether I put these links on this thread or even this board (after 36 hours awake, I'm not sure what I know!) but I am putting again the simple wikipedia links to what I used to call feminism and still believe in with the proviso that men are capable of holding exactly the same values and priorities as women. Feminists (at least as self-represented on these board) have huffed and puffed with outraged indignation at every single point in there, including the one that it is men who need to learn how to more as expected of women far more than vice-versa - especially that one in fact. They are the Stalinist backsliders to the old ways under new names denouncing those who have kept the faith as traitors. From Wikipedia AnarchistEcoDo your own research for more precision. You might also read Christina Hoff Summers and this critique of her, as well as Renegade Evolution's links to what she has to say about feminists and they about women like her who don't conform to their sexual fear and sense of inferiority to men, before pretending that everything I have quoted is some invention of my own. And remember
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jun 25, 2010 18:55:10 GMT -5
No, Razzle, it is NOT the 'feminists' who place people in boxes.
It is YOU
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 26, 2010 18:43:39 GMT -5
Nyaa nyaa time I see. You must have learnt from Jean. When provided with links and argument showing what you have said to be crap, ignore it all and repeat the same crap over and over again hoping to be joined by a chorus who will do exactly the same because they have exactly the same agenda.
When people very aggressively (and usually offensively) identify themselves as a group supporting very definite beliefs and hostile to others, why do you say I am putting them in boxes for using the name they give themselves to identify them?
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Jun 27, 2010 22:24:09 GMT -5
Used to be, that women who called themselves feminists were the first to oppose traditional values and want men to participate as equals in personal-domestic relationships. Now, it is the women who call themselves feminists who are about the only ones to be the most hostile to that and to prevent women as well as men from anything that is not thought of as traditionally masculine. I hate it: I want equality for women to accept me as equal on the same terms as they value themselves, not as an outcaste somebody makes a partial exception for.
I have never read anybody who calls herself feminist to say she believes in anything different from what just about everybody takes for granted. So there is nothing in what they claim to distinguish them from anybody else: it's like saying "I'm a special case because I believe the world is round". All it really means is that 'you' live in some fantasy world where you believe that nobody else thinks the world is round.
Where it does make a difference is that these self-styled feminists argue incessantly against everything that feminism used to stand for and support everything it used to opposed; they are arch-Thatcherite believers in the inferiority of all things they consider traditionally feminine and superiority of all things they consider traditionally masculine - the absolute opposite of valuing traditions of the the sexes equally and allowing men as much equality with women as women equality with men.
They believe beyond question in supremacy of whatever they think of as masculine and invent a Patriarchy excluding women from equal influence on society and confirming male-chauvinist beliefs that what men have traditionally done is all that matters, what women have done was just insignificant support work. That denies equality of the sexes. That defines Misogyny. Men are just as capable as women of traditionally feminine activities and values, and those of at least equal value to traditional men's activities. Most 'normal' people agree. Only the loony fringe male chauvinists and the women who call themselves feminists on boards like these insist upon defining women as subordinates to their fantasy of the Mighty Macho Male Monster.
After all, I've had enough flak from feminists for quoting original feminism and sexual equality at them. They hate it and lie and play every trick in the book and a few more beside to deny the sexes are equal and resuscitate the long-dead weaker sex 1950s image fluttering in fear of men as dominators so they can demand compensation as 'traditional' poor little feeble females. There is not one woman I have ever met who really believes herself that kind of inferior to that kind of male or wants either. It is purely something that a few sexist reactionaries shit-scared of men pour out on Internet boards because nobody else will waste time on them in Real Life that they can't cope with as human beings equal to men or the women they denounce as tools of the Patriarchy for not feeling as inferior to their image of men (or expecting men to conform to that image) as themselves.
We are almost equal. It is true that women expect to behave just like men while continuing to deny men equality of dress and behaviour with themselves, but that is changing. It is a 'conservative' feminist feature of belief in masculine supremacy' in teaching women to conform to expectations traditional upon men and despise those traditional to women, so that they cannot respect men who would value women's traditions equally and adopt them. Again, most women are pleased to find men respecting and wanting to be part of traditionally female concerns equal with them. The only women I have ever seen to argue against such equality call themselves feminists. The only people who define that women can only relate to men as subordinates and cannot assert themselves in an equal relationship call themselves feminists.
They are a direct reaction of pusillanimous and inferior girlies to the women of 40 years ago who did not just relate as equals, but expected to run the show. Feminists are the feeble little females who still cannot match up to believing the sexes equal and try to drag the world that has left them behind back to their fifties-feebleness whining how inferior they are to their own phallic-envy fantasy of the stomping dominant rapist they wish they could be and despise men who are not. Why the hell do feminists get so much support for their reaction against equality any more than the BNP or religious loony equivalents? But then on all boards, political fascism features far more strongly than in Real Life. They are outcasts in Real Life, so look to boards to find other outcast perverts.
|
|