Feminism - Let's just do it

[roger_dodger]

More like the altar of "choice". If it men could somehow get pregnant and have abortions, no doubt the same excuse would be made for them--"but it's their choice!!"

Men don't get pregnant. Fact. Therefore, it is a woman's choice. They sought the "right" and have murdered millions of their own babies. That's not just a few, but millions of American women choosing of their own free will to kill their own offspring.

I realize that they do try to make abortion into a women's rights issue, but if you ask me that's just them trying to get people to react to prolife efforts without using their goshdang brains. (I mean, that argument doesn't even make friggen sense if you think about it.)
They'll use any tactic that they know people will eat up without a second thought.

Who is the "they" you refer to if not feminist women?

 

[reba]

None of those ladies went to church alone, Reba. The men dressed in their "Sunday go-to-meeting clothes" and drove the wife and the kids to church and, yes, was right there with them.

good they were blessed as were their families....

Did men "step out of the picture" as you stated? Yes. Women broke the social contract and refused to be ladies (just as Eve was first in sin, desiring to have equality with God himself), therefore, men no longer felt they should be gentlemen - quite wrong, but understandable.

I am mostly speaking of Christian folks

As far as Christianity being for "sissies", that didn't happen until cultural marxism (including the feminist component) portrayed it as such. - women want a "sissy" Jesus instead of the masculine Jesus who stood up to the Pharisees, often insulting them, and used violence when it was called for.

Your own deliberate refusal to acknowledge that Jesus employed justified anger and physical violence when needed shows the real problem
Some how you read me totally wrong here. His anger was completely justified...My reply was to say unlike most women i would have been very supportive of His anger.. your not listening shows as part of the problem.....

Your final comment was absolutely opposite of reality. The secular feminization bled into the church - which was the last holdout of male leadership as well as scripturally commanded female obedience.

My final statement that men fail to lead and women fail follow the example of Sarah...???

 

[cupid dave]

I agree with you. Cultural marxism encompassed more than one offensive against the social order. However, this thread is about feminism and feminism is one component of that destructive ideology. Feminism is the single greatest contributing factor.

Cultural Marxism is what America will get while the women have worked toward Socialism directed at granting the government the role of the Great Father Figure which these women must install in absence of men in the families, fathers in their household, and husbands working togather to support the families in their communities.

The women have dismantled the military and installed the mercenaries they thoink will really protect us, as did ancient Rome.

The Democrat politicians who have catered to these women, suppported their cries of rights to there own bodies, inacted legal Abortion, and refrained from complaints about the growing Welfare costs and the higher crime rates because of Single Mother Households.

These women insist that the Social Contract is only encumbrant upon the bodies of the men, while they reserve the exclusion of their own bodies from any social controls.

But the Unions, especially the government unions, are now part of an aristocracy which will soon be permanently in office as these women and the Gays, and the Unions, and the College professor, the SS recipients, the whole medical services industry installs them again and again because they gift those entities the Tax payers money.

In the end, the fascism that results will have the power to take away, too, once the votes that bought the offices are no longer needed.

 

[reba]

Cupid i read your post what did it say?

 

[cupid dave]

The agenda of hard core feminists is to be as much in power over men as they perceive men to now be in power over women. 'Equality' is just the palatable and PC way of presenting it to a naive society.

This is true, as it is for the Black Community which also cries about the inequities and racism regardless of whether it exists or not, because it is ton their benefit and they really have convinced themselves they see it everywhere.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Who is the "they" you refer to if not feminist women?

I was referring to "the left", which includes a ton of people. They're the ones who have been crying that "the right" has some "war on women" going on, no? (Like "the right" is just a bunch of men who want to oppress women. Yeahright.)


My stance on what you're talking about--this claim that feminism is the cause of all of our problems, is that there's too much going on to point to one thing.
And it also depends on which feminism you're talking about. If you mean "girl power" feminism, then you may be right in some sense.


If it's having the right to vote and work jobs...then I'm just gonna have to disagree with you. *shrug* I don't think the problem is having that right--I think the problem is encouraging lack of responsibility.
I think the problem is when they're saying "I shouldn't be enslaved to a marriage and family" and expect us to to support their desire to walk out on their responsibilities. That is the problem--having jobs and being able to vote isn't.

I realize that a certain brand of feminism has promoted this irresponsibility, too. I haven't done a ton of research on it, but from what I do know of it I'm no fan of modern feminism. Probably not a fan of the kind that started in the 1960's, either. (Though I know very little about that. But I imagine I'll be reading about that time period later on this year as part of my schoolwork.)

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Men don't get pregnant. Fact. Therefore, it is a woman's choice. They sought the "right" and have murdered millions of their own babies. That's not just a few, but millions of American women choosing of their own free will to kill their own offspring.



Who is the "they" you refer to if not feminist women?

I should point out that the majority of abortionists are male. It's a very lucrative procedure.

Also, there's plenty of women fighting against abortion as well. Lila Rose is possibly the best known, and I'd love to hear your explanation of how she is a "cultural marxist".

 

[DarkHorseRising]

He is oblivious to it because it's all he has ever experienced.

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for that statement?

Just as I suspected - except for the male part (simply because your avatar seems feminine to me) - you are a child that knows nothing from personal experience before feminism except what you've been told.

You have no long-term view because you were born long after the dramatic - and evil - change was made to society. You know nothing other than what you've been told.

How do you know anything except what you've been told? Why are your views "real" and mine aren't? Because you're more bitter than me? Because you really, really want to be right?

I'm starting to think I'll see this topic on Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura next season.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

So, perhaps taking the more extreme rhetoric and setting it aside for one moment... am I the only person that can see some benefits to the historical promotion of women's rights? Women being able to vote, own property, hold a job, be paid fairly for it, and be protected from physical abuse, are these terrible things we've brought into society?

Yes, it's easy to point to the handful of extremists (in ANY movement or ideology), and you can even fool a percentage of the population by claiming those extremists represent a much larger faction than they do. But you have to be fair and look at the whole movement. Deal with the nutcases individually; don't use them to justify a war against anything you dislike.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So, perhaps taking the more extreme rhetoric and setting it aside for one moment... am I the only person that can see some benefits to the historical promotion of women's rights? Women being able to vote, own property, hold a job, be paid fairly for it, and be protected from physical abuse, are these terrible things we've brought into society?

Nope.

 

[BobE]

No and he obviously doesn't. But, blame must be attributed where it is deserving.

The holocaust of abortion is the direct result of feminism. Forty-five million babies ahve been aborted - murdered - on the altar of "equality". That, in and of itself is enough to condemn it in toto.

I'm afraid this is a very uninformed point of view. Many women who have undergone abortion procedures did so largely due to pressure from a male partner. Some of these women were threatened with abuse or abandonment. This kind of control is the opposite of "equality."

In fact there is a well-known organization called "feminists for life" that stands both for equality and for the rights of the unborn. Here's their website:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Equality is simply that: women and men valued and treated as equals. It's not abortion, communism, witchcraft or any other label someone may wrongly choose to apply.

 

[BobE]

I agree with you. Cultural marxism encompassed more than one offensive against the social order. However, this thread is about feminism and feminism is one component of that destructive ideology. Feminism is the single greatest contributing factor.

Jesus said we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Well, that includes men and women. If I follow what Jesus taught, I'm practicing equality. I'm also following Christ's example:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: <SUP class=crossreference value='(I)'></SUP>
<SUP class=versenum>6 </SUP>Who, being in very nature<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP> God, <SUP class=crossreference value='(J)'></SUP>
did not consider equality with God <SUP class=crossreference value='(K)'></SUP>something to be used to his own advantage;
<SUP class=versenum>7 </SUP>rather, he made himself nothing <SUP class=crossreference value='(L)'></SUP>
by taking the very nature<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> of a servant, <SUP class=crossreference value='(M)'></SUP>
being made in human likeness. <SUP class=crossreference value='(N)'></SUP>
<SUP class=versenum>8 </SUP>And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death <SUP class=crossreference value='(O)'></SUP>—
even death on a cross!" (Phil. 2:5-8, NIV)

As far as this relates to men and women, husbands are instructed to have this mindset towards their wives in Ephesians 5:25-26,

"Husbands, love your wives, <SUP class=crossreference value='(AN)'></SUP>just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her <SUP class=crossreference value='(AO)'></SUP><SUP class=versenum>26 </SUP>to make her holy, <SUP class=crossreference value='(AP)'></SUP>cleansing<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> her by the washing <SUP class=crossreference value='(AQ)'></SUP>with water through the word" (NIV). Women are then instructed to follow this example. It's a beautiful picture of love and reciprocal service. Ephesians 5:21 summarizes this picture well: "Submit to one another <SUP class=crossreference value='(AI)'></SUP>out of reverence for Christ." (NIV)

If this is a threat to the social order, then I expect the order in question is not worth preserving.

 

[BobE]

None of those ladies went to church alone, Reba. The men dressed in their "Sunday go-to-meeting clothes" and drove the wife and the kids to church and, yes, was right there with them.

Did men "step out of the picture" as you stated? Yes. Women broke the social contract and refused to be ladies (just as Eve was first in sin, desiring to have equality with God himself), therefore, men no longer felt they should be gentlemen - quite wrong, but understandable.

As far as Christianity being for "sissies", that didn't happen until cultural marxism (including the feminist component) portrayed it as such. Your own deliberate refusal to acknowledge that Jesus employed justified anger and physical violence when needed shows the real problem - women want a "sissy" Jesus instead of the masculine Jesus who stood up to the Pharisees, often insulting them, and used violence when it was called for.

Your final comment was absolutely opposite of reality. The secular feminization bled into the church - which was the last holdout of male leadership as well as scripturally commanded female obedience.

So, if men do not act like gentlemen, it is because women first broke the social contract?

This reminds me of Adam's line when God questioned him about his sin, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate’” (Genesis, 3:12, NKJV). Adam seemed to think he could get away with deflecting attention onto his wife.


The reason God didn't fall for this strategy is because he knew that Adam was right there beside Eve when she was being tempted. He said nothing, and went ahead and ate the fruit with her: “She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6, NKJV).


Unlike prejudiced theologians like St. Augustine and John Calvin, the Bible does not blame Eve for humanity's fall. Quite the opposite in fact:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, <SUP class=crossreference value='(X)'></SUP>and death through sin, <SUP class=crossreference value='(Y)'></SUP>and in this way death came to all people...Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, <SUP class=crossreference value='(AB)'></SUP>who is a pattern of the one to come" (Romans 5:12,14, NIV).

God wasn't fooled when Adam tried to shift blame to his wife. If men do not act like gentlemen, this has nothing to do with women. No, men are responsible for their own sins, and controlling women isn't the solution.

Also, the church was not a bastion for subjugating women until St. Augustine's time, in the third century. In his written confessions, he attempts to blame women for his sexual problems. (I don't think God was fooled by this either.) He then, of course, suggests that if women weren't permitted to roam freely without completely covering themselves (including their heads), men wouldn't be so sinful.

Augustine didn't get these ideas from the Bible. No this was a very Roman, very secular way of thinking. It wasn't until Augustine's time that these prejudices were re-introduced into Christianity. They had been part of the oral law of Jesus' day, but this was successfully refuted by the apostles, one of whom was a woman (Romans 16:7).

 

[roger_dodger]

I should point out that the majority of abortionists are male. It's a very lucrative procedure.

The majority are? Prove it.

 

[roger_dodger]

How do you know anything except what you've been told? Why are your views "real" and mine aren't? Because you're more bitter than me? Because you really, really want to be right?

Well, I was alive at the time - unlike you. I was born in the late fifties and saw the dramatic changes that took place in America during that time period - unlike you. I know what America was like prior to the advent of feminism - unlike you. I have first-hand knowledge of both time periods, the slide down the slippery slope and the swamp we now find ourselves in now - unlike you.
Edited by staff

 

[roger_dodger]

So, perhaps taking the more extreme rhetoric and setting it aside for one moment... am I the only person that can see some benefits to the historical promotion of women's rights? Women being able to vote, own property, hold a job, be paid fairly for it, and be protected from physical abuse, are these terrible things we've brought into society?

A false dichotomy. Women could vote before feminism. Women could hold property before feminism. Women were protected from physical abuse before feminism - more so than today. These things we already had before feminism. You seem to have been indoctrinated to believe (not knowing anything that came before) that all these things began with feminism. As i said, you know nothing but the lies you've been taught.

Yes, it's easy to point to the handful of extremists (in ANY movement or ideology), and you can even fool a percentage of the population by claiming those extremists represent a much larger faction than they do. But you have to be fair and look at the whole movement. Deal with the nutcases individually; don't use them to justify a war against anything you dislike.

No, it's the tiny minority who are committed, ruthless and "extremists who make - or change - history, not the majority who apparently only concern themselves with their own material gain (jobs, "equal" pay, paid child care, etc.).

 

[joethemechanic]

Well, I was alive at the time - unlike you. I was born in the late fifties and saw the dramatic changes that took place in America during that time period - unlike you. I know what America was like prior to the advent of feminism - unlike you. I have first-hand knowledge of both time periods, the slide down the slippery slope and the swamp we now find ourselves in now - unlike you.

Gee Roger don't you remember the 60's?

The men spent luxurious days at the blast furnace and the open hearth while the women toiled with their flower gardens and baked cookies.

 

[roger_dodger]

I'm afraid this is a very uninformed point of view. Many women who have undergone abortion procedures did so largely due to pressure from a male partner. Some of these women were threatened with abuse or abandonment. This kind of control is the opposite of "equality."

Uninformed? Well, feel free to post the statistics to back that up. Otherwise, you're simply making excuses. By the way, how old are you?

In fact there is a well-known organization called "feminists for life" that stands both for equality and for the rights of the unborn. Here's their website:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Equality is simply that: women and men valued and treated as equals. It's not abortion, communism, witchcraft or any other label someone may wrongly choose to apply.

Really? Well, well, well...a group of feminists is against mass-murder! What a great achievement. I'll bet their still for abandoning their families to have "interesting, challenging careers", though. Yeah, we should all congratulate them.

"Valued and treated as equals"? Well, if they are "equal" as you claim, we shouldn't have to lower standards for police officers to have more women, right? Like this:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/doj-l...s-discriminates-against-women/article/2501267

We didn't get the right numbers so...the heck with the standards. Women are physically inferior to men (in case you don't understand that word, it means "not equal") and therefore the cultural marxist federal government will, by force, put women in those positions. Is that the "fair" and "equal" treatment you are referring to?

 

[roger_dodger]

Gee Roger don't you remember the 60's?

The men spent luxurious days at the blast furnace and the open hearth while the women toiled with their flower gardens and baked cookies.

My Dad enjoyed his "interesting, challenging career" in a wonderful coal mine.

But, Joe, we have to admit women - in that era at least - did wonderful things as wives and mothers that made their families and society better. Today, they may as well not even be there (indeed, mostly they're not).

 

[joethemechanic]

My Dad enjoyed his "interesting, challenging career" in a wonderful coal mine.

But, Joe, we have to admit women - in that era at least - did wonderful things as wives and mothers that made their families and society better. Today, they may as well not even be there (indeed, mostly they're not).

Sure the women did a lot of greatstuff then. Women were also greatly respected then. Nobody dare cursed in front of a woman. Lots of things women were protected from.

This idea that women were all abused until Gloria Steinem came along is a crock of something