Posted on 3/5/2009, 11:55:16 AM by Kaslin
I used to have a friend named Ricky back when I attended G.H. Whitcomb Elementary School. Ricky liked to curse a lot even when we were in the 3rd grade. The only reason Ricky liked to curse was to draw attention to Ricky. But once he had your attention Ricky never had anything intelligent to say. Ricky is a lot like the feminists I work with at UNC-Wilmington.
If you walk over to Randall Library at UNC-Wilmington this month you can see a large display that is sponsored by the Women’s Resource Center (WRC). The display is meant to raise awareness of Women’s issues during Women’s History Month, which was previously known as “March.” It certainly reminds me that a number of our campus feminists really do have serious issues.
In large print on the display are the words “Whores are People, too.” Below that one can see pictures of prostitutes surrounded by derogatory names for prostitutes and for women in general. The c-word is one of the many words meant to draw attention to the WRC display. For those who don’t yet know it the c-word means “C.U. Next Tuesday.” You may finish the acronym yourself. Or just listen to any live interview with Jane Fonda.
One major point of the provocative WRC display is to get people to read some statistics on the plight of prostitutes in America. The feminists who run our Women’s Resource Center use the display to decry the fact that most of those arrested for prostitution in America are women. The feminists consider this a form of oppression. Since most prostitutes are female and most “Johns” are male, their remedy is simple: Arrest prostitutes and “Johns” in equal numbers in order to eliminate gender discrimination.
Their suggestion seems reasonable until you stop to give it some thought. Since the feminists rarely stop to give anything serious thought I wrote this explanation for them. As a public sociologist, it’s the least I can do.
Liberals have long had a moral problem with expanding the war on drugs. In fact, most liberals say that it makes sense to contract the war on drugs by focusing on the arrests of large scale drug dealers as opposed to small-time users. The general idea is, of course, a correct one. No one could legitimately argue that the occasional user of an illegal drug is as morally culpable as the regular supplier.
But few academic feminists have the intellectual energy to apply that logic to the policing of prostitution. If it is wrong to prosecute the occasional user of an illegal good with as much rigor as the regular supplier of an illegal good then, surely, the same leniency applies to the occasional user of an illegal service like prostitution.
It is obviously logically consistent to want to target prostitutes rather than “Johns” if you believe we should target drug dealers rather than drug users. Go after the suppliers. Remember?
But logical consistency has never been the goal of the academic feminists. Their goal has always been the special treatment of women. And that is why the WRC display also has several provocative pictures of topless women with very large breast implants.
These grotesque nude pictures are accompanied by captions that ask whether the very large and apparently botched boob-jobs are “attractive.” The message is simple: Women should not get breast implants.
But this WRC idea that women should not get breast implants because breast plants are degrading is not logically consistent with their previous decision to co-sponsor the film “Trans-Generation.” When the WRC sponsored that movie, which glorifies sex changes, they were, of course, approving of the idea that men should get breast implants. It’s tough to understand why new breasts are degrading to women and a cause of celebration for men. I thought feminists were against sexist double-standards. Confused yet?
And of course the WRC’s entire public display of profanity and nudity is a good example of how they promote double standards along the lines of gender. They actively support speech codes which are used to ban words far less offensive than the c-word. They also successfully kept the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders off campus despite the fact that they intended to keep their shirts on.
I’m afraid that the end result of Women’s History Month may be to promote the ideas that feminists are intellectually shallow, easily offended, and in favor of gender discrimination. Maybe it’s time to arrest these intellectual prostitutes. And cut the average John a little slack.
I remember in the early 70’s my mother taught me that feminism meant “ the doctrine of equality between the sexes.
Somehow it got warped into entitlements and special rights....
if we had it to over again we really should have just passed the ERA.
>my mother taught me that feminism meant “ the doctrine of equality between the sexes.
My mother used to say that feminists weren’t looking for “equality” at all.
Quite the opposite.
Wasn’t the ERA the same sort of thing as the Constitution? Don’t women already have equal rights?
Somehow that warped into a world in which blacks and women deserve very, very special treatment.
Fah!
>>Wasn’t the ERA the same sort of thing as the Constitution? Don’t women already have equal rights?<<
You’d think so under the equal protection clause but it turns out it wasn’t women or minorities who needed the ERA - it was white males - the only people it seems to be legal to discriminate against.
>>Yeah. Way back then people had concepts like “judge them not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” and “Women can be doctors, lawyers, or construction workers too!”
Somehow that warped into a world in which blacks and women deserve very, very special treatment.<<
Its a very strange world where Rush Limbaugh is a more pure feminist than the National Organization of Women.
OTOH it tells me if this isn't an example of sour grapes. And where are the photos of successful "boob-jobs"? Where are the stats showing the proportion of botched v. successful operations?
...just another liberal "selective rage" group
Feminism has morphed into “Equal Opportunity for EXTREMELY ugly and unpleasant women”. . .
I recall a CLASSIC phone call into the old Phil Donahue show, which that day was showcasing lesbians (and the examples on the show were the extremely mannish “diesel dyke” types. . .),back in my College days in the early 1980s . . .
The caller asked if they were lesbians because they WANTED to be, or just because they were ugly and couldn’t get men. . .
The audience, and Phil’s reaction, was hilarious. Phil had NEVER been at a loss for words before. . .
(and before you ask, re-runs of “Mission: Impossible” were on that station immediately after the Donahue show. So we’d always end up catching the last few minutes of Phil. . . )
Sorry, I'm going to need a second opinion on this...
I have had a woman tell me flat out, directly, that if she could have gotten a guy like me, she wouldn't have "played for the other team" (her words...she lives with her "partner").
At a lecture by a male homosexual activist that I was covering for my newspaper, he was pushing the idea that it wasn't a choice of his. I had the great treat of the lesbian activists attacking him about how homosexuality most definitely was a choice--how they chose to get into better relationships than the patriarchal ones of our heterosexual society, etc. Woo-hoo, fur flying!
OMG- Don’t leave us haning... what happened??????
I think it is hereditary, and they shoul not be discriminated agains in any manner- but the PROMOTION of it as a ‘lifestyle choice’ is 100% wrong and should be illegal (especially ‘recruiting’ children)
I base me belief on the most convincing proof I ever could have seen. I went to the park one day on work break just to catch some sun, and there happend to be a lesbian group there having a ‘protest’ of some sort.
I ignored them until they started playing this VERY LOUD music with a narrator stating such ‘statistics’ as “A typical male rapes 3 women on average in is lifetime” and “A typical male beats up his mother and sisters” and some much worse.
I walked over and was going to seriously ask them if they believed it, but i was SHOCKED by what I saw. Many (although certainly 100% women) had facial hair and ‘manly’ features and muscles and man-like qualities that stunned me.
I was so stunned by the PHYCICAL (meaning REAL) differences that it stuck me then and there that it had to be genetic.
I have met many other lesbians since and not ALL have this ‘mannish’ appearance but THIS GROUP certainly did, and as I looked at them I actually stopped in my tracks -i was so stunned but what i was seeing- they started swearing at me and “what the F*** are you looking at - in a very manly manner
I got out of there before they kicked my ass - and I am 6’4 and 220 pounds and played linebacker in school.
My Mother who was a teen mother and high school drop out,
entered workforce age 24 after having 3 children and quickly found her niche —sales. She made more money than my military father.
She was a liberal democrat(pro life & pro military) but LOATHED feminists.
She stated that every feminist she ever encountered were angry about two things:
1) Men—because they couldn’t get one
2) Sex-—because they couldn’t get any (from men)
She also loathed the feminist movement because of their stance on abortion.
She said killing is wrong: born or unborn.
That display sounds disgusting and offensive. Why hasn’t anyone sued the college for sexual harrassment?
“Feminists are People, Too”
I have discovered that “ists” and “isms” are almost never good.
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.