#1 Dating Site for Successful Singles and Admirers

Home > Millionaire Forums > Men > Feminism = Fascism Previous topic Next topic
Jump to:
Feminism = Fascism
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Mar 18, 2006 17:41

Good Life,
I cannot disagree with you in general. I am sure there are exceptions. You have enlightened us with this information so how is this supposed to change my inner being of a Man? I don't mean this in a condescending way OK? You have probably read some of my post that say men think differently than women right? So is this just one of those differences?
I honestly do not know that this perception will ever completely change in our life time.
Does a mutual respect for each other lessen the degree of how a mate thinks in this terms?



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Mar 18, 2006 14:19

Gents, the suggestion that people SHOULD be definined by their sex also suggests that people are considered to be lacking definition without it. I was just nudging folks towards the logic of it (or lack thereof).

Trying to remain gender-neutral adds nothing to the debate. I posit here that men, generally, are NOT defined by their sex. Men are typically judged as individual humans with individual wants, needs, skills: "He's a great guy. He is a (adjective) man who works as a (whatever) and does (whatever) during his spare time . . . etc. etc." Only rarely is a man described in terms of his sexual function. Granted, men are also described as good husbands or fathers, but their traits as individuals are considered paramount, and nearly always mentioned first in conversation.

However, when a man describes a woman, even a woman he loves, he usually describes her primarily in terms of her womanly function(s), especially as they relate to how she serves others: "She's a great wife/mother/girlfriend." Women are generally defined IN RELATION TO men, and in terms of what their female selves can offer to men. Even when a woman is not affiliated with a man - - let's say she is a total stranger - - she is judged primarily in terms of her physical attractiveness (her ability to please the generic male gaze), or her actual or potential usefulness to him (personally or professionally).

It's hard to see the hidden sexism in the way we see other people because it IS hidden; it's so reflexive we think it's "natural." Even in so-called "liberated" America, woman are still members of The Sex Class, a glorified servant class supposedly put on earth to serve men's needs. It's downright biblical - - Eve taken from Adam's rib to be his "helpmeet!"

Dworkin stated that women deserve better than this. "Radical," eh? I don't think so. But perhaps that makes me radical. So be it!



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Mar 18, 2006 07:20

Lombard write:
Goodlife asks "Are you suggesting that, if we were stripped of our sexual organs, we would cease being human"

I am interested in how you interpreted that from my statement. In fact my statements says the opposite. We become a different human being if we are stripped of our sex organs, which proves what a determant they are and contrevenes Dworken's hypothesis.


I was curious on her "comment/interpretation of your comment" as well.

To be quite honest, my opinion is that the sex organs are the primary reason that we are here. To propagate the species as do all plant and animal life species. I think the rest of it is what makes us specifically human. Seeking of certain creature comforts, pardon the pun, is done by both plants and animals. Much of the rest of what we experience/seek in life is a result of our oversized brains trying to find something to do with the excess "processing power".

As I stated before, I believe that the soul is genderless...



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 17, 2006 16:13

Angyson write:
Many of you ladies are not aware of the backlash created by feminists to your relationships. It started with equal pay for equal work, which I support. But why hire a guy when a gorgeous woman has the same qualifications? Suddenly, this is inappropriate behavior or politically incorrect.Inappropriate according to whose standards? Politically incorrect according to which political party?

I love the male chovys of the world,lmao, I would not burn my bra, or save the flies,lol...no barefoot and pregnant here, even though I am a mom of a 22 year old, I like a man to be a man, I'm not a bossy chic who wants to where the pants, and I love make-up and pretty clothing, I believe in god and love my country, total conservative here..I was raised in a loving family without drama, so all the rest is disfunctional to me, just my opinion, not a cut down to anyones beliefs...

  


Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 17, 2006 11:50

Lombard write:
Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing ?the individuality of each human soul,? feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing-a liberal additive of personality, for instance;....

I'll take a stab at deconstructing some o this statement. The central thesis seems to be that a woman would be who she is even without the trait of "womanness". That's clearly a philosophical statement and not a biological statement. I'm not sure how you would test it, clinically. I've got some ideas, but most of them would involve someone's death and my incarceration.

Even philosophically, though, we can see the fallacy in it. Most of our lives are involved with the chasing of our chosen sexual partners or raising the offspring of those unions. That does not include all of the hormonally driven parties, stupidities, competitions and compensations through acquisitions.

We are mostly who we are because of our sex, for good or ill. And yes, that and other factors ultimately add up to an individual who dies alone. Let's hop


Are you suggesting that, if we were stripped of our sexual organs, we would cease being human?



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Mar 11, 2006 02:37

Angyson write:
I recently received a free invitation to attend an all women's fitness club. I called to let them know I was on my way. They called the cops on me. The staff sergeant I spoke to told me he had encountered more cases of men being spousally abused than women over his 25 year career.First they get rid of our all boys clubs; then they create theirs.
Feminism=fascism.End of story.


Right. A six foot, 180 pound man gets the seeds pounded out of him by a 120 pound, 5' 2" woman. Boo hoo hoo.

Yeah, THAT happens!

Spousal "retaliation" and self-defense is more likely.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 10, 2006 19:39

robtest write:
Angyson write:
I recently received a free invitation to attend an all women's fitness club. I called to let them know I was on my way. They called the cops on me. The staff sergeant I spoke to told me he had encountered more cases of men being spousally abused than women over his 25 year career.First they get rid of our all boys clubs; then they create theirs.
Feminism=fascism.End of story.

They are letting women into the Augusta National Golf Club now ???? I missed that headline... :o)

Elitists have always had an over inflated opinion of themselves, regardless of gender. But then again there are those that have little respect for others, and perhaps that is why people seek to be elitists to keep out that riff raf... I guess that is one of the fine lines of the catch22 called life.

I do find it odd that some people want to goto places, not because they really want to go there, but rather because they have been told they can't. Their opinion of themselves (EGO) is so high, that they feel they have that right, and will go to great lengths to prove that their ego is bigger than the people that already exist in the place.

I find that odd because who really wants to hang out with someone like that... LOL


Hahaha! Too funny! There were a couple of MEN ONLY clubs in Calgary until about 10 to 15 yrs ago when a group of professional females sued that it was discrimination and won their case.
So at one of the clubs, women were only allowed in on special occasions (eg Xmas parties), BUT women were only allowed to enter via the back door! NEVER the front door. Today women are still entering the BACKDOOR...they just don't realize it, because the club renovated the backdoor to look like a grand foyay. But anyone who knew where the front door was located knows women are still coming in the backdoor! DUH!
Within the Club walls, there are many areas that are 'off limits' to women. lol Do I care? No. I had a tour of the men's shower/spa/sauna/locker room one Xmas party, by the member...hmmmm...the company was banned from having anymore Xmas parties there. lol



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 10, 2006 05:30

Angyson write:
I recently received a free invitation to attend an all women's fitness club. I called to let them know I was on my way. They called the cops on me. The staff sergeant I spoke to told me he had encountered more cases of men being spousally abused than women over his 25 year career.First they get rid of our all boys clubs; then they create theirs.
Feminism=fascism.End of story.

They are letting women into the Augusta National Golf Club now ???? I missed that headline... :o)

Elitists have always had an over inflated opinion of themselves, regardless of gender. But then again there are those that have little respect for others, and perhaps that is why people seek to be elitists to keep out that riff raf... I guess that is one of the fine lines of the catch22 called life.

I do find it odd that some people want to goto places, not because they really want to go there, but rather because they have been told they can't. Their opinion of themselves (EGO) is so high, that they feel they have that right, and will go to great lengths to prove that their ego is bigger than the people that already exist in the place.

I find that odd because who really wants to hang out with someone like that... LOL



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Mar 09, 2006 10:48

Goodlife wrote:


"For heaven's sake the woman was a prolific writer (many books) who answered your questions to the nth degree and THEN some. I just cut-and-pasted her main thesis. Sheesh!"

Than what was the point of it? Quoting something out of context and expecting a light bulb to go off? I don't care how prolific or not she was. I read what you offered and it did not strike me as particularly insightful. So we are expected to take it on your word that she "answered it to the Nth degree and then some"? Because she is THE Andrea Dworkin? Yeah, that's really rigorous discourse.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 16:34

thegoodlife421 write:
This is my favorite Andrea Dworkin quote. Now supposedly, the late Dworkin was one of the most rabid-braburning-feminists to hit academia. But here is her main thesis. Now tell me, can anyone here find fault with it?

"Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing ?the individuality of each human soul,? feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing-a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life-including each woman?s life-must be a person?s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself. Frankly, no one much knows what feminists mean; the idea of women not defined by sex and reproduction is anathema or baffling. It is the simplest revolutionary idea ever conceived, and the most despised."

-Andrea Dworkin


Interesting. The terms "individual human beings" and soul seem to intermingle there.

I consider that we are each composed of 4 parts: mind, body, spirit and soul. Many would consider spirit and soul to be the same. IMHO, the soul has no gender and is as such free from the bindings that the mind, body, and spirit face being limited by gender and society's pressures to behave in a pre-determined manner...



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 12:14

Benefactor123 write:
Yeah, I have a problem with it - what particular war is she fighting? She postulates that the idea of women not being defined by gender and reproduction is an anathema and baffling and does not offer any examples of to whom and how.

She stakes out her own windmills and goes against them with gusto only who is she fighting with? Where are the people (men, presumably) who are saying "we want to define you women by your reproductive function"? And it's not good enough to answer here "well, it is implied" or "society does" or some such.


For heaven's sake the woman was a prolific writer (many books) who answered your questions to the nth degree and THEN some. I just cut-and-pasted her main thesis. Sheesh!



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 11:16

Yeah, I have a problem with it - what particular war is she fighting? She postulates that the idea of women not being defined by gender and reproduction is an anathema and baffling and does not offer any examples of to whom and how.

She stakes out her own windmills and goes against them with gusto only who is she fighting with? Where are the people (men, presumably) who are saying "we want to define you women by your reproductive function"? And it's not good enough to answer here "well, it is implied" or "society does" or some such.



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 07:46

This is my favorite Andrea Dworkin quote. Now supposedly, the late Dworkin was one of the most rabid-braburning-feminists to hit academia. But here is her main thesis. Now tell me, can anyone here find fault with it?

"Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing ?the individuality of each human soul,? feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing-a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life-including each woman?s life-must be a person?s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself. Frankly, no one much knows what feminists mean; the idea of women not defined by sex and reproduction is anathema or baffling. It is the simplest revolutionary idea ever conceived, and the most despised."

-Andrea Dworkin



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Tue, Mar 07, 2006 23:55

[
Bonnie, my whole point is that Angyson isn't holding beauty contests for his MALE employees. The men in his company can be ugly as toads because it's their competence that really matters to him.

It's called sexism, Bonnie! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . .

________________________________________
I got your point Goodlife..but my point is when we are given choices , the flip side of that is discrimination. Whatever we choose , by the same token we are also discriminating the other choices that we did not choose.
Angyson may choose beauty and brains for his female staff, but he may have done so because his ugly male staff need the incentive to go to work each morning , and that is for the good of his company.
In any case, what is beauty and what constitutes ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the men he interviewed were all ugly , and it could well be the case as I have found in my days doing interviews in the HR dept, especially true of the legal profession in my country.
I found the female candidates carry themselves better and were by far more impressive and competent than their male counterparts, so could I blame the men for choosing attractive and competent female staff? If Andyson is a female boss would you still accuse him of sexism?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Mar 05, 2006 17:10

thegoodlife421 write:
Bonnie, my whole point is that Angyson isn't holding beauty contests for his MALE employees. The men in his company can be ugly as toads because it's their competence that really matters to him.

It's called sexism, Bonnie! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .


Are you sure? He might be holding beauty contests for them too but didn't want to share that with us! ROFLMAO...

Perhaps "people" SHOULD be hired on the basis of their looks and paid with a signup bonus, as beauty is fleeting... Is it sexism if equally applied to both genders?

I for one would love to see the return of the good part of the feminist movement of the 60's with bra burning and freelove!

And yes, that was all sarcasm, well except for the free love part! If flashbacks were only as frequent as they said they would be... LOL ;o)



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sun, Mar 05, 2006 06:53

Bonnie88 write:
Angyson write:
Many of you ladies are not aware of the backlash created by feminists to your relationships. It started with equal pay for equal work, which I support. But why hire a guy when a gorgeous woman has the same qualifications? Suddenly, this is inappropriate behavior or politically incorrect.Inappropriate according to whose standards? Politically incorrect according to which political party?



If both sexes are equally competent in their intellect and ability to perform the job on equal pay..then is it fair if the employer picks the better looking one or one with a more attractive personality or fantastic EQ...male or female?

It is a bit like going to the supermart to pick the various brands of washing detergent that are on the shelves ..and if they are all the same price how would you choose..if you choose one that has better packaging and gimmicky advert that strikes your attention..are you discriminating the other brands or are you just falling for your own choice..Is choice seen as discriminatory or politically incorrect if we choose a better packaging and fall for the exterior too if the interior content is about the same?? What constitutes freedom of choice if we are considered politically incorrect if we chose one against the other on pure exterior packaging given the content is about the same and they all do the job just as well..do we need to redefine the constitution?
I used to work for an international bank with 80% of the middle to top management comprising efficient and extraordinarily beautiful women, they get through the doors of their male clients easily and get their target deals done at full speed..you bet our competitors were green with envy and had lots to bicker about..but can we blame the bank for doing what is the obvious? Discrimination or just plain savvy with their choice?


Bonnie, my whole point is that Angyson isn't holding beauty contests for his MALE employees. The men in his company can be ugly as toads because it's their competence that really matters to him.

It's called sexism, Bonnie! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Sat, Mar 04, 2006 01:52

Angyson write:
Many of you ladies are not aware of the backlash created by feminists to your relationships. It started with equal pay for equal work, which I support. But why hire a guy when a gorgeous woman has the same qualifications? Suddenly, this is inappropriate behavior or politically incorrect.Inappropriate according to whose standards? Politically incorrect according to which political party?



If both sexes are equally competent in their intellect and ability to perform the job on equal pay..then is it fair if the employer picks the better looking one or one with a more attractive personality or fantastic EQ...male or female?

It is a bit like going to the supermart to pick the various brands of washing detergent that are on the shelves ..and if they are all the same price how would you choose..if you choose one that has better packaging and gimmicky advert that strikes your attention..are you discriminating the other brands or are you just falling for your own choice..Is choice seen as discriminatory or politically incorrect if we choose a better packaging and fall for the exterior too if the interior content is about the same?? What constitutes freedom of choice if we are considered politically incorrect if we chose one against the other on pure exterior packaging given the content is about the same and they all do the job just as well..do we need to redefine the constitution?
I used to work for an international bank with 80% of the middle to top management comprising efficient and extraordinarily beautiful women, they get through the doors of their male clients easily and get their target deals done at full speed..you bet our competitors were green with envy and had lots to bicker about..but can we blame the bank for doing what is the obvious? Discrimination or just plain savvy with their choice?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 03, 2006 09:14

Goodlife & Hope, I really enjoy reading your post. So do either of you lovely ladies have a sister that you would like to introduce me to? Be kind in your response..... LOL.

Have you ever stopped to think Agryson is really just a troll? Maybe BOB is just having a field day with this profile...



Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Fri, Mar 03, 2006 01:40

REcently Betty Friedan, one of the staunchiest stalwart of Feminism in the 60s made a very poignant comment.

To paraphrase her words, she felt that the New Woman of the 22nd century now enjoys the fruit of her predecessors' fight for equality on all fronts from the right to vote to equal education , pay ..now that she enjoys all the same opportunities as her counteparts..she has the choice to do as she pleases, to marry up or down and to stay home or work or do both..but whatever her choice maybe ..her counterparts, especially her female sisters ought to respect her for her choice.. the women who choose to stay home and devote her time to the family have to be respected by all , especially the breed of superwomen who often despise them for not having a career..and forget that running a home and mothering is the toughest job that any woman or man could ever take on..so earning RESPECT for each others' choices is the all important agenda in this gender game today..

The corporate glass ceiling is increasingly no longer determined by the men but women themselves. I come from a country which gave women equal opportunities far more readily than even the west, and with the help of abundant cheap domestic help and the extended Asian family concept, women were able to pursue their careers and have cohesive families and happy marriages, and yet with all their wish lists answered,a lot of women themselves in the professions have chosen not to climb the corporate ladder when the oppportunities present themselves..strangely their maternal instincts take over in that equal playing field..why?

Left to our own device and absolute free choice, strangely women still believe after achieving all they could in their career path..many feel that they don't really want to be that ambitious because the price they need to pay is too high, they reassess their priorities and will admit that time with family is far more precious than time devoted to an artificial corporation.
Creating a happy home and family life is as vital a goal as running a high powered successful corporation, the former in the long run is far more enriching and rewarding, after all who remembers your achievements long after you leave a souless corporation but your family members will certainly remember you long after you die..the skills of human resource management in a corporation or a family are the same., hence women make great organisers and corporate leaders given the same opportunities...a better family unit breed happy children for the future and a better community and country...so says Confucius 2000 years ago..have we not come a full circle in life's never ending evolution?

Should men then be given the equal opportunity to be stay- at- home house husbands for those who are inclined? >Quite a few have in my country and the wives are the breadwinners and have proven that it could work..so Equal opportunity is now available too for men who want to wear the apron..and we should respect them for that too..should we not?



Reply / add comments      Quote      Report abuse   Bookmark and Share
Available only
to logged in members
Posted on Thu, Mar 02, 2006 16:49

Thank you Rob! I suppose a little history lesson is in order; those of you who want more can check out Wikipedia:

1. The First Wave of Feminism (early 20th century) focused on voting/education rights, and the social and moral equality of the sexes.

2. The Second Wave of Feminism (1960's thru 1980's) focused on female independence, political action, and economic equality. Radicalism grew out of this movement, with a SMALL SUBSET of feminists turning to lesbian-separatism and advocating the overthrow of patriarchal culture. (NOTE: The feminist charicature adopted by the anti-feminists is based upon the demonization of this SMALL SUBSET of second-wave feminists).

3. The Third Wave of Feminism (1990's to present) focuses opon challenging our very ideas about gender and sexuality, including how race and class bear upon these ideas. There is DECREASED emphasis on the overthrow of patriarchal society, with more energy focused on general equality between the sexes.

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone today who thinks feminists are a bunch of radical butch dykes in sensible shoes wreaking havoc on so-called "normal" society is 15 years behind the times, PLUS he/she has his/her head planted firmly in his/her posterior for buying into a decades-old anti-feminist charicature.

And to any woman who says she is not a feminist, I have this question: Do you vote? Did you go to college? THANK A FEMINIST!