Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The End of Men (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The End of Men
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A long article, but worth reading.
theatlantic.com

quote:
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences
quote:
What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men? For a long time, evolutionary psychologists have claimed that we are all imprinted with adaptive imperatives from a distant past: men are faster and stronger and hardwired to fight for scarce resources, and that shows up now as a drive to win on Wall Street; women are programmed to find good providers and to care for their offspring, and that is manifested in more- nurturing and more-flexible behavior, ordaining them to domesticity. This kind of thinking frames our sense of the natural order. But what if men and women were fulfilling not biological imperatives but social roles, based on what was more efficient throughout a long era of human history? What if that era has now come to an end? More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?

Once you open your eyes to this possibility, the evidence is all around you. It can be found, most immediately, in the wreckage of the Great Recession, in which three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men. The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance. Some of these jobs will come back, but the overall pattern of dislocation is neither temporary nor random. The recession merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years, and in some respects even longer.

quote:
The economic and cultural power shift from men to women would be hugely significant even if it never extended beyond working-class America. But women are also starting to dominate middle management, and a surprising number of professional careers as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast. A white-collar economy values raw intellectual horsepower, which men and women have in equal amounts. It also requires communication skills and social intelligence, areas in which women, according to many studies, have a slight edge. Perhaps most important—for better or worse—it increasingly requires formal education credentials, which women are more prone to acquire, particularly early in adulthood. Just about the only professions in which women still make up a relatively small minority of newly minted workers are engineering and those calling on a hard-science background, and even in those areas, women have made strong gains since the 1970s.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. I love the reasoning. First they create imbalanced incentives to hire woman, and then they point at the increase of woman in the work-force as proof of something.

Get your thumb off the scale. My bet is that the thing balances out to just about 50/50. Woman outnumber men a bit, but I think there will be a slight break in men's favor due to woman who want to stay at home and raise children.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Her other articles were incredibly predictable. Feminism needs to die and be replaced with something that makes half a gram of sense. I'm all for woman's right and equality under the law, but modern feminism is out of control.

[ June 14, 2010, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My own reaction to this was, "Well, it's about time that women were represented in most jobs close to their own percentage of the population."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: P.S. I haven't forgotten your reply in the religion thread. It's just been a busy weekend.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does it mean to be a Man?
Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's all heart and soul...a gentle hand.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Feminism needs to die and be replaced with something that makes half a gram of sense."

I think a lot of it has. Just because a lot of neo nazi literature floats around doesn't mean that there hasn't been positive developments in equality between races... "It" being feminism, by the way.

Ed. to add: besides, you are just projecting your male phallic hypocritical and dominating meaning of sense on women in an attempt to subvert and undermine female progress [Wink]

[ June 14, 2010, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
modern feminism is out of control
The question is over who gets to define what modern feminism is. There are some nuts on the left who go to extremes, and there are partisans on the right who try to tar feminism by promulgating ugly characterizations of feminism.

I happen to be a feminist, and I suspect a surprising number of you may harbor feminist tendencies as well. If your workplace has some women who have been working since the 1960's, ask them about the work environment when they started. If you are against the feminist movement, then you are siding with those who practiced and promoted abusive, demeaning and discriminatory practices.

I agree with JoshuaD about this article, and there can be a lot of stuff I won't defend put up by both sides in the feminism debate, but without feminism, we would have a much lesser country

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yesterday someone was claiming Sarah Palin was a feminist. Since words can be used as one wants, that could be true by some definitions. But the primary meaning of "feminist" followed from the struggle to secure women's right to vote and otherwise to participate in the political process. Most conservative Christians opposed that at the time, usually citing Biblical texts, however successful Palin herself may be today. Although as I recall her own primary religious identification is with the Assemblies of God, which does I think have a tradition of women taking leadership roles. But just the same including Sarah Palin as a feminist tends to make the word apply to all the women in the United States, which strips it of any useful meaning is differentiating one group from another.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
French feminism is alive and kicking.

quote:
A group of women wearing fake beards stormed the podium at Veolia Environnement's crowded shareholders' meeting in Paris last month, challenging Chairman Henri Proglio over the gender makeup of his overwhelmingly male board. "Is it really wise to allow women to define the strategy of a company, a task requiring intelligence, an ability to react, and coolheadedness?" asked a disguised member of the feminist advocacy group La Barbe, or "The Beard." She taunted the French water utility for having only one woman on its 17-member board.
And they are being listened to by the Government, who may just be happy they aren't on strike.

quote:
French lawmakers are considering legislation that would require at least 40 percent of companies' boards to be made up of women within six years or risk not being able to add new male directors.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yesterday someone was claiming Sarah Palin was a feminist. Since words can be used as one wants, that could be true by some definitions. But the primary meaning of "feminist" followed from the struggle to secure women's right to vote and otherwise to participate in the political process. Most conservative Christians opposed that at the time, usually citing Biblical texts, however successful Palin herself may be today. Although as I recall her own primary religious identification is with the Assemblies of God, which does I think have a tradition of women taking leadership roles. But just the same including Sarah Palin as a feminist tends to make the word apply to all the women in the United States, which strips it of any useful meaning is differentiating one group from another.
OK, color me confused. First you assert that feminism is traditionally about women participating in the political process, but follow that up with incredulousness that Palin could be considered a feminist. By the traditional definition, Palin is one of the most important feminists of the day. Not only did she have great success in that field, but she has also been a strong supporter of Republican women getting involved in the political process, both as voters and as strong candidates.

So why don't you consider her a feminist?

The problem with the "feminist" label is that it has now become virtually useless compared to its traditional value. Let me be broader than hobsen here, and define traditional feminism to be in supporting equal rights and equal opportunities for women. By that definition, the vast majority of both men and women in America are now feminists. Or, more accurately, by that definition feminism has virtually won. And most people don't have a problem with that.

Of course, its not the nature of movements to disband when they win, and thus feminism now means something entirely different. Hence why, despite most people agreeing with equal rights/opportunities for women, most people don't consider themselves feminist.

It seems to me that feminism now refers to one of three definitions: promotion of equal outcomes regardless of differences (eg, demanding equal representations in the sciences despite known differences in male and female brains), pushing for a female dominated society rather than equal rights, or just another name for liberalism/progressivism.

While some will argue that the first is still important, and most agree that the second is too extreme, it's the third that I find most annoying/dangerous. It is my guess that this is why hobsen is skeptical of Palin being a feminist, since she is obviously not liberal.

Why is this definition so dangerous? Because it is so antithetical to traditional feminism. It is sexist, and women who do not conform to liberal ideology end up a victim of very sexist attacks (much like how conservative blacks must deal with severe racism). Witness the Tenn state rep who just yesterday said you had to lift up the skirt of Republican women to prove they were women since they don't vote the right way, for example. And, of course, Palin herself was a victim of several sexist assaults shortly after being chosen in the veep slot, and is still dealing with it.

Yet, as I said, this definition is the exact opposite of feminism. It is basically stating that women should have no choices (by criticizing/demonizing women who freely choose marriage/motherhood over a career) and are not allowed to think for themselves (by criticizing/demonizing women who are conservative/pro-life). Yet those who continue these attacks never seem to get the irony in this. Hence the problem with modern feminism.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Most conservative Christians opposed that at the time, usually citing Biblical texts

You might want to re-check that "fact," hobesen. You might also want to check the states where women generally first got the vote in the USA.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Feminism has been claiming triumph and "advancement" of "equality" lately in the mainstream media. This article is just the latest...

Heard of the Shriver report? A Woman's Nation Changes Everything

Please note that the "triumph" of "equality" has only reached it's current state...not by the complete and total achievement by women as a gender...no, "equality" has only been obtained by the "MANCESSION." After record unemployment by men and male related industry, all the feminist-minded media pundits that are crowing 'achievement' are focusing on only one aspect of the equation, while ignoring many others.

Female Empowerment is not something that has arrived organically and as a net positive for society.

No, it achieved this new 'zenith' by the dis-empowerment of the male gender.

No amount of Feminist/Womynz studies propaganda can really refute the real statistics behind this.

Women now outnumber men in college.

Women are now 50% of the "breadwinner" role in households nowadays. (Who knows how accurate those numbers are though...I wonder how much child support, WIC, and other welfare handout programs in which the Government takes at least a partial role in "providing" for single mother households plays in that statistic.)

“Men have lost almost 80% of the 5.1 million jobs that have disappeared in the US since the recession started. This is a dramatic reversal of the trend over the past few years, when the rates of male and female unemployment barely differed.”

Just know this, triumphant feminists...everything you believe in is either a half-truth, a deception or an outright lie.

Women were no more "oppressed" than men were throughout the history of the unfairly demonized "PATRIARCHY."

It's simply a matter of myopic perspectives of the past.

Seeing what you want to see about a past caricature that is constructed and presented to you to get you to behave in a manner contrary to your natural inclinations and instincts.

The feminist LIES are based on viewing different social norms, and focusing on the privileges of the male gender roles in Patriarchy, and ignoring the hazards and responsibilities of the male role...

...and also focusing on the responsibilities and hazards of the traditionally feminine gender role, while ignoring the benefits and privileges the old feminine gender roles had...

...and getting most of you blithely oblivious people to accept this caricature view of the past ordering of society with specific divisions of labor, to see only the negative aspects so that you would naively accept 'CHANGE' of the gender roles as a "good" thing.

Wake up and open your eyes and TRY to see the big picture..instead of focusing on your supposed Gender. Last I checked, we are all living in this world together.

The old gender roles that have been vilified and socially engineered into oblivion was a division of labor based on the easily observed differences in the strengths and weaknesses of the genders, and how they would work together to forge strong nuclear families to transmit a culture to future generations.

Under "Patriarchy" gender roles were complementary.

Our current Matriarchy is based on women entering the masculine sphere and COMPETING with men, not COMPLEMENTING men.

This is why women's advancements in the world of professional careers and work have only achieved parity or ascendancy precisely at the moment men are under-achieving, dropping out or not even attending college and facing record unemployment levels.

Is this REALLY an advancement of civilization?

You who naively accept the mainstream mass media views of "feminism" and "sexism" don't even understand just how brainwashed you are by the saturation of messages, both overt and covert, to program you to accept views that are contrary to your natural being as a human.

What most people don't understand, thanks to these lies about Patriarchy being promulgated by mass media pop culture and educational curriculum, is that Patriarchy is what built "civilization."

The only means of investing the male gender into a society, is to support their roles as providers and heads of their family. This is the base motivation for men to enter into the careers that were hazardous and life threatening...jobs of extreme manual labor.

Having a wife and kids at home depending on you to bring home the money to live on is the most powerful motivation that their is to a Man.

By changing the social norms through mass media influence to celebrate single mother hood, normalize no-fault divorce, end the social shaming of promiscuous female behavior and instituting a raft of government programs and a family court system that deliberately strips men of their role as father and reduces them to nothing more than ATM's and sperm donors, the feminist movement has DIS-INVESTED men in society.

Open your eyes and take a good, hard look at the denizens of any inner city ghetto or trailer park where crime is rampant and social pathologies abound.

The most common thing you will see is single mother households dependent on government programs for subsistence.

Males, who's only role models are the string of bad boy thug boyfriends of his single mother. He learns by example that the only thing men exist for is to satisfy a woman's sexual desire and that's it. Don't worry, the Government takes care of the provider role in this Brave New World!

Young men in these situations have nothing to aspire to...other than becoming gangsters and repeating the cycle of Matriarchy - stick around long enough to create the next babies of the Matriarchy, than split and find another baby momma to co-habitate with for a short time, while the mother of his child shacks up with a different thug for a short term and gives her child another half-sibling.

Under Matriarchy, men have nothing to aspire to...other than to fight, **** and live a life of leisure.

This is why NO MATRIARCHAL STRUCTURED SOCIETY EVER ADVANCED BEYOND STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY.

Under Matriarchal societies, men have no motivation to achieve. To build, to create.

This is the new family dynamic of our "Women's Nation."

The cycle of poverty does not come from 'oppression' or 'racism.' It comes from a social contract that gives the males nothing to aspire to.

It is not a "cycle of poverty."

It is the cycle of MATRIARCHY.

And it's no longer confined to the lower economic classes. It is spreading. It is the ascendant cultural paradigm.

It can all be traced back to the breakdown of the nuclear family.

Society and civilization are on a decline...precisely coinciding with the decline of Patriarchy as the fundamental structure of the nuclear family...the building blocks of society.

Thank you feminist movement! You are no longer oppressed! You are no longer shamed for being a slut! You can wear whatever slutty clothes you want...you can sleep with a married man and achieve fame and fortune for being a home wrecker now (look at the mass media vilification of Tiger Woods...contrast with the instant celebrity status of the homewrecking whores he cheated with.) You can destroy your family and your children by divorcing your husband freely...for no other reason than you are "bored" and "unfulfilled!" You can cheat, file false domestic violence charges, and have the court system kick your men out of the house and force him to pay YOU for breaking your marriage vows! You have the freedom to suck an infant out of your womb for nothing more than whim! And let's not forget...you now have the VOTE!

You feminists don't even know how you were tricked into making our Brave New World in the image of that dystopia prophesied by Aldous Huxley.

I think I need a dose of Soma now.

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:
OK, color me confused. First you assert that feminism is traditionally about women participating in the political process, but follow that up with incredulousness that Palin could be considered a feminist.

I shall clear up your confusion, grasshopper. [Big Grin]

The term "feminism" was coined back in the 1960s and 1970s, and so "equality" to many feminists has always meant equality to 1970s males, back in the height of the macho me generation. It's not good enough to merely be equal to the kinder gentler disempowered males of the 21st century. A truly "sassy" and "ambitious" feminist wants to be equal to a 1970s macho prick who gets everything his way. Ninth-wave feminists have realized that in order to accomplish that, it's imperative that truly liberated women aquire the power to oppress and demean other women, particularly those that don't shut up and do what they are told by the female powers that be.

Clear? [Wink]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Under Matriarchal societies, men have no motivation to achieve. To build, to create.
It breaks my heart that you believe this, Daruma. I find myself wondering how badly you were broken, and what it would take to put you back together without the suspicion and heartache.

[ June 15, 2010, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is basically stating that women should have no choices (by criticizing/demonizing women who freely choose marriage/motherhood over a career) and are not allowed to think for themselves (by criticizing/demonizing women who are conservative/pro-life).
I more or less agree with the rest of your post - but being 'pro-life' strikes me as anti-feminist because it actively aims to reduce the choices that women have.

quote:
What most people don't understand, thanks to these lies about Patriarchy being promulgated by mass media pop culture and educational curriculum, is that Patriarchy is what built "civilization."
... and with it large, tyrannical governments, nuclear weapons and war, slavery, and on and on and on. What worked in the past will not work in future, changed systems (a central tenet of Mises' works, btw) need new solutions and new social structures. Its retarded to try to solve the problems of the present regressively. Noam Chomsky writes in Daniel Guerin's wonderful Introduction to Anarchism that "at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to-rather than alleviate-material and cultural deficit." I think he's on to something.

And I'm pretty sure many (if not most) feminists have left behind "patriarchy" when describing the west (which isn't structured around Patriarchs). My favorite is Gayle Rubin's theory of sex/gender systems.

[ June 16, 2010, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, you might want to read a book called "stiffed," by Susan Faludi, a famous feminist, who agrees with the gist of a lot of what you've said about feminism overshooting the mark, and that men need protections as well in order for society to move forward.

Tom, you don't think it's hurtful to hear these folks who call themselves feminists, gloating about male layoffs? And the backlash against Faludi over "stiffed" does suggest to me that there's something rotten in the leadership of the current movement.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"being 'pro-life' strikes me as anti-feminist because it actively aims to reduce the choices that women have."

I'm pro-choice, but that canned argument has always sound silly to me. Many laws actively reduce choices that women have. Laws against infanticide reduce the choices that women have. Prosecuting that girl that gave birth into the toilet during prom, and left the baby to drown, actively reduces the choices that women have. And making a rule that a feminist can't be pro-life, clearly aims to reduce the choices that women have.

[ June 16, 2010, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm pro-choice, but that canned argument has always sound silly to me. Most laws actively reduce choices that women have. And making a rule that a feminist can't be pro-life, clearly aims to reduce the choices that women have.
I agree - all laws are tyrannical and immoral. However laws that specifically prohibit what a woman can do strikes me as particularly anti-feminist as opposed to being merely immoral or tyrannical. ed to add: That being as most people would probably agree that feminism (at least initially) began as a movement to increase the rights that women had over themselves.

[ June 16, 2010, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that all laws are immoral or tyrannical. And if the fetus didn't actually grow inside the woman, if abortion laws didn't actually regulate the woman's medical choices, then I would be wholeheartedly pro-life. Regardless of whether it just "restricted a woman's choices."

That whole little cliche about "restricting women's choices" is part of a trite little coup d'etat within the feminist movement, like when Betty Friedan got essentially kicked out of her own organization. Eventually a new generation of feminists will recognize that it's as crappy to be oppressed and patronized by other women as it is to be patronized and oppressed by men, and I think they will find most of this generation of feminists to be an utter embarassment. (Susan Faludi being a notable exception).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think that all laws are immoral or tyrannical."

Either way, I think that I defined a pretty specific reason why supporting the outlawing of abortion is anti-feminist.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow... Daruma's lost it. That's kinda sad.
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Wow... Daruma's lost it. That's kinda sad.

What he said there is no different than what he's said many times before, and as before it's an extended exercise in begging the question with a dose of evolutionary psychology tossed in on top. All of his points to prove the important of stereotyped gender roles are rooted in assuming that those gender roles are valid to begin with. He looks back to the huge social and economic experiment that the 50's represented and tries to pretend that the failed elements of it were actually representative of anything but that particular point in history. And we might have seen even better results from it if it hadn't been architected to provide white folks coming back with jobs, property, and educations while clearing black people out of their communities and dumping them into urban slums with little extra support. Even then, it still suffered from the basic flaw that when you rip families apart and force them to try to exist as small, isolated clusters transplanted into new neighborhoods rather than close extended networks that are fully integrated into their communities, you remove the essential baseline needed for stability, and the model quickly becomes unsustainable when you reduce or remove the external supports that created it in the first place.

Most of all, he completely denies that sources of motivation vary from person to person. Some certainly are motivated mainly by the desire to provide for others, but most by far are motivated by either passion for their fields and interests or by the simple desire to profit and enjoy greater luxury in their lives, regardless of whether that includes providing for others. (And it's worth noting that economic success, where it exists, generally precedes family . Having to support a family makes it much more difficult, and in many cases impossible without external support, to make the investments needed for long term success

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
"I don't think that all laws are immoral or tyrannical."

Either way, I think that I defined a pretty specific reason why supporting the outlawing of abortion is anti-feminist.

First of all, "you" didn't define it, because that argument is canned goods, you cut and paste wonderkind. [Razz]

Second, the canned argument re-defines feminism in order to exclude some existing feminists, and by nature excludes most of the so-called "first wave feminists" like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On this I agree with a lot of the comments made by Mariner and Pete. The difficulty seems to be that "feminist" has acquired such different meanings that using it to describe someone risks confusing the person to whom you are speaking.

By implication I was arguing for restricting the term to its earliest meaning in the United States, as noted by Wikipedia, or to women working for modern goals closely related to these. But few are likely to do that, as with other words which have changed meaning.
quote:
First-wave feminism refers to an extended period of feminist activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom and the United States. Originally it focused on the promotion of equal contract and property rights for women and the opposition to chattel marriage and ownership of married women (and their children) by their husbands. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, activism focused primarily on gaining political power, particularly the right of women's suffrage. Yet, feminists such as Voltairine de Cleyre and Margaret Sanger were still active in campaigning for women's sexual, reproductive, and economic rights at this time.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Shrugs* If I make up my own argument, I don't care whether somebody else has made a similar argument before. I didn't realize that Susan Anthony and Stanton were ambivalent about the rights of women [Wink] . I see what you are confused about, so I'll try and be clearer.

Nobody is purely a "feminist" except by their own personal definition. Feminism - not unlike *any* tradition of thought - contains many, and often contradicting ideas. That being said, it is possible to be feminist in your actions and views while still holding other anti-feminist views. So Sarah Palin can be a feminist (in the sense that she encourages women to enter politics) and still hold anti-feminist views in the sense that she would like to restrict a woman's right to her own body. Similarly, I would consider Margaret Sanger a feminist while still condemning her views on abortion (opposed) and eugenics (supported) as being anti-feminist. I would also consider Susan B. Anthony a feminist even though she (I am presuming based on your comments) opposed abortion.

In a similar vein, we don't say that the founders of America aren't Americans/patriots/defenders of freedom because so many of them owned slaves. We applaud their bravery for asserting the rights of humanity against the force of tyranny. Does that mean they were able to completely overcome their contradictory ownership and support of slavery? No. However they did allow future generations to see the contradiction and work to improve it.


Again, nobody is a perfect representative of *any* philosophy. We try to improve our accuracy while never really hitting the mark. We can do better with high powered rifles than with muskets, though.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I have some disagreements with what youve just said, you have sufficiently distinguished your position from the canned "outlawing of abortion is anti-feminist because it restrict's women's choices" foolishness, so I am molified.

Abortion bans should be problematic to anyone who has feminist concerns, because they give the government sovereignty over a very personal aspect of a woman's body. Not just any restriction of a woman's choices.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've lost it? [LOL]

Oh you pitiful fools.

I'm speaking the truth, and you can't even see it when it's stated plainly for you.

Perhaps someday, some of you will actually decide to question authority.

To look at the memes and shibboleths that are endlessly promoted in the mass media to influence the culture to behave and think in certain ways that are the antithesis to a natural existence.

To realize how television and movies and pop culture are used to deliberately shape attitudes and role model behaviors that so many people unwittingly follow.

When you see the reality of this for what it is, only than will you finally understand what I'm talking about.

When you read what I wrote, and your first reaction to that is to automatically brand me a lunatic or a "misogynist" or "sexist" or some other lame bull**** like "somebody broke me," spare me your empathy or pity as if I've "lost it." It is you that needs the pity, because you don't even know just how far you've been indoctrinated and brainwashed.

See, I've done my research. I see the big picture. I've studied up on Gramsci, the Frankfurt school and their planned "Long march through Western Cultural Institutions."

Feminism is just the name for what was really cultural marxism.

Destroy the Family, and you destroy society. - Vladimir Lenin

I know the roots of feminism. I've read extensively from the feminist source material. I know the history of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, and avowed eugenicist who deliberately wanted abortion legalized and birth control subsidized to eliminate blacks...which is why the first planned parenthood clinics were all put into black neighborhoods).


quote:
a dose of evolutionary psychology tossed in on top.
I'm an observer of life...not just human life, but all life. I look at the natural behavior of plant and animal species.

Please tell me what other species brainwashes itself into competing rather than complementary gender roles in the breeding and rearing of the next generation?

I'll tell you which species...the black widow that eats it's mate alive once he's served his function as sperm donor.

He looks back to the huge social and economic experiment that the 50's represented and tries to pretend that the failed elements of it were actually representative of anything but that particular point in history.

Quit tryint to tell me what I'm trying to "pretend" you brainwashed ignoramus.

I don't pretend anything.

Women were not "oppressed" by men by virtue of the gender roles that traditional society was organized under.

I laugh at you fools that think women had it so bad staying at home, raising the kids and having her husband provide and support for her...and clueless fembot idiots bleat like sheep about how such women were "comfortable concentration camp internees." (Betty Friedan, the Feminine Mystique). Yeah...the coal miners, steel men, construction workers, soldiers, police and fire men....all those men doing jobs in which they regularly face death or serious injury...they sure had it so easy and glamorous compared to the wife housecleaning and child rearing!

Wake the **** up! Look around you! Look at all of the broken homes and shattered lives of innocent children caught up in psychologically and emotionally devastating divorces, rampant adultery, and the way in which pop culture portrays single motherhood as a virtuous celebration of martyrdom!

Not a person reading this can say they don't know of somebody who's life has been devastated by divorce.

Most of you just blithely accept that this is just the way it is. Unless people are free to make and break families at will to satisfy their sexual appetites, you think people are being unfairly "oppressed."

You want to talk about oppression?

What would you call a man who came home one day to a cheating wife that called the police on him and falsely claimed he abused her or their children...

...and he's served with a restraining order and is not allowed to even talk to his kids on the phone?

In an instant, based on no more than a word from his unfaithful and dishonest wife, he lost the rights to his children, his own house and is essentially homeless in an instant.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

And while he's still reeling in shock, his wife's attorney files divorce papers and pushes for full custody.

Than she gets it, and unsuspecting Daddy all of sudden has to pay child support, alimony and continue paying the mortgage while his ex-wife than has her boy toy lover move into the house that he's still paying for.

And whenever he tries to see his kids on designated, court appointed times, they don't want to see him, because the ex wife has turned them against him by filling their heads full of lies about him?

And if he files a complaint with the court, the court does nothing about her violating his visitation...in fact, the courts do nothing while she takes the kids and moves all the way across the country so as to effectively sever all ties between father and child.

But he still has to PAY.

Even if he gets fired or laid off or injured and unable to work...his child support obligations and alimony are not adjusted to reflect his new situation...but instead is still held liable under the claim of imputed income possibilities.

So he falls behind in his payments, and is labeled a "deadbeat dad." Than he cannot renew his driver's license, any professional licenses he may need to try and work. If he falls even further into the hole on his court ordered payments, he's than sent to jail as a "deadbeat."

This sort of scenario occurs every day in this country.

I'm NOT just making things up or simply reading scaremongering fiction on the internet...I've seen this **** up close and personal in the lives of my friends and families.

You want to know what "broke" me Tom? Seeing the ****ing system AS IT IS AND WHAT IT DOES AND THE LIES IT OPERATES UNDER TO GET SHEEPLE LIKE YOU TO ACCEPT IT THAT AS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

Seeing the hurt in pain of children of family members and friends, who I know and love...torn apart by a "family" court system that encourages their parents to engage in an all out war for the profit of the lawyers and courts.

That didn't "break" me. But it's really REALLY pissed me off.

That's downright oppression in my book.

AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN THIS SO-CALLED LAND OF THE FREE.

Examples of this REALITY are legion. Writ large across the entire culture of the Western world.

See, fools, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School effected their long march by deliberately subverting the culture. By fostering this artificial gender war. By unleashing the social pathologies of Matriarchal culture. They knew damn well what would happen when they promoted sex as nothing more than recreational activity. Aldous Huxley wasn't just making **** up when he wrote Brave New World. He knew what was coming for our society and civilization because he was a member of the Fabian society, who actively worked to implement the Frankfurt School's long march.

They have certainly succeeded in getting everyone to disconnect sex from reproduction in their beliefs, attitudes and behavior. Couple that with a welfare state that took away the role of FATHER for males in society and made the single mother household dependent on the government and/or enslaving a man in child support and alimony servitude as acceptable and now even a celebrated way of life.

They did this **** on purpose.

Feminism is the purposeful and deliberate social engineering of society to effect population control. To destroy the nuclear family as the building blocks of civilization.

They've done an outstanding job in achieving their objectives...and most sheeple mindlessly follow their script.

And some of you tell me I've lost it.

You don't even know how lost and disconnected and blind to reality YOU are.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oooh! Do me next!
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, yes, that stuff happens. It also happens the other way around. I've seen a woman's life ruined because the cops charged her rather than her ex with DV, and had the ex actually admit to me that my client had acted in self-defence while he was strangling her.

I don't think you've "lost it" and I think you have some valid points to make, and hope you can make them without sounding like Mojo Jojo.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It also happens the other way around.

It doesn't make it anymore right if the genders are reversed.

The points still remain the same.

Oh, and Pete, I'm aware of how angry I come across at times.

Well I sick of tactics that involve squirmy, snarky, FAKE "compassion" like "feeling sorry for me being broken."

My first reaction was to simply write "**** YOU" to Tom.

But that's being too magnanimous for such a weaselly attack like that.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I second what Pete said, Daruma. When you refer to everyone as "pitiful fools" it is very hard to take you seriously, or to believe that you are interested in having a conversation.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doesn't he make up for the insults by admitting he used to belong to the insulted group? [Wink]
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
I second what Pete said, Daruma. When you refer to everyone as "pitiful fools" it is very hard to take you seriously, or to believe that you are interested in having a conversation.

Right kid...interested in the kind of conversation in which one person says I've lost it, and the other offers faux, limp-dick condescension disguised as pity and compassion?

[FootInMouth]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This seems relevant to the turn the conversation has taken.

Daruma:

quote:
Aldous Huxley wasn't just making **** up when he wrote Brave New World. He knew what was coming for our society and civilization because he was a member of the Fabian society, who actively worked to implement the Frankfurt School's long march.
You're telling me Huxley was working to hasten the dystopia he wrote about, and was lying about his opinion of it?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
It also happens the other way around.

It doesn't make it anymore right if the genders are reversed.

You're absolutely right. And I've worked pro-bono to stop such injustices, which are caused by arbitrary use of power, as well as by some of the forces that you describe.

quote:
The points still remain the same.

Oh, and Pete, I'm aware of how angry I come across at times.

Well I sick of tactics that involve squirmy, snarky, FAKE "compassion" like "feeling sorry for me being broken."

I hear you. I hope that what I said did not come off that way to you.

[ June 16, 2010, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't pretend to know Huxley's goals or objectives were...but he was a publicly recognized Fabian Socialist and he talked about their plans for shaping society quite openly.

Listen for yourself.

The Ultimate Revolution, Part 1

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Right kid...interested in the kind of conversation in which one person says I've lost it, and the other offers faux, limp-dick condescension disguised as pity and compassion?

Well, your first post called "naive" anyone who sympathized with feminism, and essentially said that anyone supporting it was a matriarch-fascist and an enemy of democracy and civilization. That's not what I would call starting off on the right foot.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
quote:
Right kid...interested in the kind of conversation in which one person says I've lost it, and the other offers faux, limp-dick condescension disguised as pity and compassion?

Well, your first post called "naive" anyone who sympathized with feminism, and essentially said that anyone supporting it was a matriarch-fascist and an enemy of democracy and civilization. That's not what I would call starting off on the right foot.
Yep!
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1