What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

a reply to: Astyanax
I'm not sure your linking is doing what you're thinking.

Either that or I'm missing some sort of special post linker plugin.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Now the doors are open and the glass ceiling .... is at least in debate.

I'm 10 years ahead of you.

I was raised there are many roads and everyone needs to find their own. My family encouraged me to do everything.

I grew up In an all boy neighborhood and it really sucked when they got to play Little League, and I didn't.

There is still in-equality, but watching my 14 year old granddaughter --- I can see that glass ceiling shattering.

BTW - I was a stay at home mom, until I divorced. I'm a terrible domestic, but loved being mom. Can't take back those days if you miss them.

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

Either that or I'm missing some sort of special post linker plugin.

Sorry, apologies. Link now fixed.

a reply to: ErgoTheAbsurd

That's not as easy.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Link now fixed.

Danke. Same thing happened here.

And yes, I saw your original reply. My irony plugin is working great.

a reply to: Annee

No.
I call it.

egal·i·tar·i·an·ism

1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs

2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

Merriam Webster

Feminism is not even equal by virtue of it's name.
Much less in how feminists choose to act.

a reply to: Annee

Thank you for providing a irrational, not even addressing her actual arguments, cut and pasta.

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd

originally posted by: Annee
You are assuming I don't know who this person is.

I'm assuming you had to use someone else's words rather than comment yourself on whether you think she is making any worthwhile points or not.

If you search Karen's name on ATS, you'll see she's been brought up before.

The article is a woman who listened to Karen and crtiqued what she had to say. It's a long article. I see no reason for me to personally comment when the article says it all.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Annee

Thank you for providing a irrational, not even addressing her actual arguments, cut and pasta.

If you don't agree with the article, then you don't agree.

I agree.

a reply to: Annee

It's a mess of illogic, misrepresentation, a complete lack of actually factually backing up it's counterclaims, and poisoning the well.

I agree.

Unsurprising.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ErgoTheAbsurd

originally posted by: Annee
Did women ask not to be drafted?

No, that would be man who made that decision for them.

Women were free to volunteer and did.

Women had a choice. Men did not.

Women served where and how men decided.

What a surprise - so did men.

I knew someone would answer that.

And, of course, you know it's not the same.

How is it not the same? Women should be given a special dispensation to disobey orders because a man issued them? Would it also be permissible for a man to disobey an order issued by a female officer then, too?

Or should they just have gotten around the gender issue by saying that "volunteers" could disobey orders, but "conscripts" could not?

originally posted by: diggindirt

I could go with another poster's "Peopleism" but would really prefer "Partnerism" as in we, as children of the Creator can form partnerships to accomplish our goals. Not all partnerships are 50-50 propositions. How about we all look at others as potential partners in making a better community? I simply can't see how fussing and grousing about things that happened a century or more ago is furthering anyone's cause.

I could live with that - so long as i was not made superfluous, somewhere below the value of a test-tube or petri dish.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Annee

It's a mess of illogic, misrepresentation, a complete lack of actually factually backing up it's counterclaims, and poisoning the well.

I agree.

Unsurprising.

What's unsurprising?

That you're a man agreeing with an anti-feminist?

And trying to discredit the journalist that critiqued her?

a reply to: Annee

Contemplate this word please.

con·text
/ˈkäntekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Then get back to me.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Can I be a bigger "traitor". and request one of those girlie mixed drinks with an umbrella, instead? I'll bring snacks!

Ah, the boys' clubhouse.....*wicked grin*

An UMBRELLA? O.M.G.! Next thing, you'll be asking for fruit in it! OF course, of you're bringing the snacks, that changes things a bit... what color umbrella would you like, ma'am?

We have cigarettes hidden in the rafters, too, but don't tell ma!

OOO, fruit....it does a lovely job of soaking up alcohol for a nice loaded bite after the drink is gone! Color? Bartender's choice. Snacks, of course! Cookies, cakes, whatever. As for telling "ma", these days that's me, lol! So, no worries!

Also, it's funny that a "equality" movement is having such debates with the title of "Be it resolved men are obsolete.".
www.munkdebates.com
Chaired completely by female feminists none the less.
Meanwhile, anyone that claims *gasp* men have problems too and try to set up a framework to help them is supposedly a woman hating misogynist.
That's without mentioning the additional insults commonly added of living in basements and the whole neckbeard thing.

Then there is the abysmal treatment the woman that founded the first battered woman's shelter recieved.
All because in her research, she found that a large amount of domestic violence is reciprical.
en.wikipedia.org...

And that's really just to start.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Color? Bartender's choice.

Now, you know you can't DO that! We're GUYS! We'd pick some gawdawful garish color that wouldn't match anything, or maybe even (GASP!) camouflage!

BTW - I've worn cammies and uniforms for almost my entire life for that sole reason - they're like Garanimals... you can't mismatch them!

I have NO problem freely admitting that if I wear anything else, the missus has to pick it out for me. All the "equality" in the world isn't going to enable me to pick out clothes as well as that woman can!

Damned misogynist tendencies!

As for telling "ma", these days that's me, lol! So, no worries!

Note to self: hide the cigarettes better before LGE enters the clubhouse.

a reply to: Astyanax

I don't require character assassination yet here you are. But I noticed you didn't highlight the part where I said feminism is a conspiracy against men. Oh that's right, you invented that part to fit your fictional account. I love it when a self-proclaimed rational mind stoops to such irrational levels. I suppose when you can't quote Dawkins on the subject, there's nothing really else you can offer.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I was pronounced "obsolete" by them 22 years ago, so those are late to the party.

Neck beard? I don't WANNA grow a neck beard!

Can I grow a pornstache instead?

I'm not so interested in the definitions of terms. I think a well defined term can become a tool used to mislead people. No matter how well a term is defined, the shifting nature of the reality the term describes can quickly make the term obsolete. Unscrupulous people can then continue to use the term, in its obsolete sense, to lead people in directions they may not want to go.

Personally, I support the equality of all people under the law. However, this is an entirely theoretical position that has almost no reference points in the world. Nobody, practically speaking, is equal under the law. However, thanks to the efforts of social activists representing many special interest groups, including women, legislated inequalities are gradually being removed from the books.

I think efforts to legislate equality between sexes, in a proactive way, however, are somewhat misguided and can lead to problems.

I don't think men are the mental and physical equivalents of women. I think legislation enacted on the assumption that the two (or more) sexes are equivalent in every way, is very misguided, and tends toward the creation of a cognitively dissonant social order at the least and possibly toward a cynically disguised attempt to cripple human society for authoritarian political purposes.

Many people look at the feminist movement, citing Gloria Steinem's CIA connections, in this light.

www.whale.to...

I can't speak for Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson, but I suspect that some of their antipathy to the feminist movement might derive from a suspicion that it has gone beyond aims, like political and social equality, that most modern people would regard as the right of everyone, to the pursuit of an agenda either misguided or purposely directed toward the suppression of the politically troublesome sex. The sex that, often ably assisted by women, overthrows authoritarian regimes.

I started to question feminism when some feminists assumed the "right" to be female chauvinist pigs. To me that showed clearly that, for some women, the battle for equality was really a battle for supremacy in disguise.