If you do you're not just a fool, you're a dangerous fool.
Posted on 03/21/2011 6:50:52 AM PDT by flowerplough
The word turns off a lot of men -- and women. But here's why black men should be embracing the "f" word.
"... Like most guys, I had bought into the stereotype that all feminists were white, lesbian, unattractive male bashers who hated all men. But after reading the work of these black feminists, I realized that this was far from the truth. After digging into their work, I came to really respect the intelligence, courage and honesty of these women.
Feminists did not hate men. In fact, they loved men. But just as my father had silenced my mother during their arguments to avoid hearing her gripes, men silenced feminists by belittling them in order to dodge hearing the truth about who we are.
I learned that feminists offered an important critique about a male-dominated society that routinely, and globally, treated women like second-class citizens. They spoke the truth, and even though I was a man, their truth spoke to me. Through feminism, I developed a language that helped me better articulate things that I had experienced growing up as a male.
Feminist writings about patriarchy, racism, capitalism and structural sexism resonated with me because I had witnessed firsthand the kind of male dominance they challenged. I saw it as a child in my home and perpetuated it as an adult. Their analysis of male culture and male behavior helped me put my father's patriarchy into a much larger social context, and also helped me understand myself better.
I decided that I loved feminists and embraced feminism. Not only does feminism give woman a voice, but it also clears the way for men to free themselves from the stranglehold of traditional masculinity. When we hurt the women in our lives, we hurt ourselves, and we hurt our community, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at theroot.com ...
well, there is this: the belief that there are fundamental inequalities built in to a capitalist society because power and capital are distributed unevenly. Thus, it's not enough for women to individually work to rise to powerful positions in society; rather, power needs to be redistributed throughout society.
and there is this: the need for dramatic social change in order to achieve genuine equality for women. Radical feminists believe that society is extremely patriarchal, and until patriarchy is transformed on all levels, the system will remain unjust. A minority of radical feminists are separatist feminists, who believe that men and women need to maintain separate institutions and relationships.
if feminism today were all about "equality" like you say it is, feminists would not hate Sarah Palin... in fact, they would admire her... she picked herself up by her boot straps and worked her way from the PTA to Governor of Alaska, to VP nominee... she didn't benefit from her husband paving the way for her or from any other relationship... (as Hillary Clinton did benefit from her husband)... but they can't stand her... why? because she's not a socialist... she's not pro-abortion... worst of all, she is a Christian... wife and mother...
Women’s suffrage over time
By John R. Lott, Jr.
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2, 2007, New York Observer
...Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
Wow, look at that. Women and men behave differently. Maybe it’s because men and women are different. Maybe equality is nothing but a myth.
You say the dictionary definition of feminism shows feminism’s benefit, I contend that the proof is the practice. Feminists, including you, I assume, promote abortion, except the sex-selective abortion of unborn females. Not in the dictionary, I suppose, but a fun feminist fact, eh?
Because it illustrates just how testicle-impaired the writer is and it repeats the long litany of bogus assertions by the Feminazi crowd.
Did women always get the same pay for the same work
"Did" is irrelevant. They do now, mostly, and studies back it up.
As far as the entire right to vote thing goes I'll go on record as saying that issue should be revisited. Far too many people have the Franchise these days and it's killing our Republic.
I was around when the sixties feminists started making noise. And the noise I heard was definitely anti-male. It was also anti-America. Most of the loudest, loud-mouthed feminists sounded extremely angry and a great number turned out to be lesbians. Another thing, many of these harpies came from well-to-do families, graduates of elite colleges who were given everything by their parents which I assume included their daddies. The facts are: most of these people were angry, unhappy, maladjusted, leftist shriekers. Think Andrea Dworkin. There were/are a lot of feminists just like her.
“It was American capitalism of the 1850s, the corporations, the big producers who gave jobs and education to women.”
It was the Reformers who gave education to women. In America, it began with Puritan fathers, who were notorious for doting on their daughters. Again, in early America, women in general were always literate and so were the men.
Feminism is just the ladies’ auxillary for various forms of socialism.
Really now. 'nuff said then.
Really really.
Never in History has a 'warm body democracy' lasted more than a hundred years or so without tearing itself apart in slaughter and ruin. We're living right at the cusp of that now.
51% of the people have realized that they can vote themselves 'free' stuff from the other 49%. How long do you think that can last?
So why don't you take that gigantic chip of your pretty little shoulder sweety and take a few minutes to think, I mean really think about what I said before you consign me to the heap of crotch scratching neanderthal mysogonists.
I'll go in the direction of more education (private, talk radio, free republic) instead of feeling superior enough to decide who qualifies to vote....
You do get it.
I'll go in the direction of more education (private, talk radio, free republic) instead of feeling superior enough to decide who qualifies to vote....
Another Freeper who thinks she's smarter than the Founding Fathers. We so deserve what's coming....
Ninety-nine percent of our seniors have discovered that they can vote themselves free stuff from everyone else. Now that nearly all of our seniors are on welfare, the system may have to go bust (as it soon will) in order to restore common sense.
If you do you're not just a fool, you're a dangerous fool.
They frequently do so not only as a means of expressing Progressive solidarity in criticism of traditional values, but in order to validate their own sense of alienation and often, deep personal unhappiness. When a man joins them in such an effort, one might reasonably suspect a difficult or even hostile paternal relationship as a motivating factor, as the author of this piece all but admits.
So, what you do think women’s roles are in this world?
Essentially, the same as men. To be the best people they can be. To live and enjoy the life that has been given them and demand no less, consistent with their effort. To give birth to and help raise a new generation of children, assisted by (and not abandoned by) the fathers to whom they voluntarily entrust a portion of their lives, just as men are required to do, the violation of which duty comes at the expense of honor, even if our society presently chooses to deny such virtue and shun objective value. To use their minds toward productive effort, the same as men, even if the facts of biological nature militate toward somewhat divergent, and yet voluntary choices. To act not as servants or slaves to ideology or to human masters but as free and independent people. Your life belongs to you: the good is to live it.
My objection to feminism is not that it promotes "women's rights", for it does not: it promotes anger and alienation in the pursuit of political power and State control. Human rights come from God, or, if you prefer, from our nature as rational beings. Either way, our nature is immutable and ordered liberty, our birthright. Any man or society of men that denies to women their equality as free human beings denies both our nature and, in my opinion, God's design for us, which is a partnership whose foundation is one of love and mutual respect.
Sexual politics are poison. Love, borne of earned respect, is the antidote. I hope that answers your question.
However, I don't look at feminism the way you do:
My objection to feminism is not that it promotes "women's rights", for it does not: it promotes anger and alienation in the pursuit of political power and State control.
Sometimes some anger and alienation in pursuit of political power is a necessary and good thing. Like us Conservatives with the tea party.
I should of added however, that I don’t see feminism as ‘wanting’ political power....just some equality....like ‘voting rights’ for instance.
Why add the word ‘feminist’ to the same sentence regarding the abortion issue?
Because women are the baby-carriers, and feminist women are the primary baby-killers. When one discusses feminists, one occasionally qualifies the term with “pro-life”. Pro-life, anti-abortion feminists are the exception, and are called out as such. Feminists are known to promote abortion, for fun and profit; it’s the rare, splinter-group feminists who don’t want to kill and don’t want to help others kill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.