Feminism - morality = destruction of feminism

[OCinBuffalo]

Thought I'd write about something that wasn't sequester-based.

 

A couple of different news stories over the last months have started me thinking about this, and the "Miss Teen USA does Porn" story kind of seals it for me, given the deafening silence from feminists. They better wake the F up, and realize that both historically and practically, their movement is entirely self-destructive, without a full and consistent commitment to morality. Without morality, not a part of their argument, but the basis for it, they will be the cause of their own destruction, and take many women down with them.

 

Consider:

 

1. In college, I had a friend who was fond of saying: "Don't make fun of sluts. The more sluts there are, the more we ALL get laid". Remove the emotion from your mind, now, logically: he is right, isn't he? Next, replace the word slut with: slave. If you wanted a slave to continue accpeting their condition, why would you make fun of them? No, the last thing you would do is anything that might rally them to think they deserve to be treated better, and choose different behavior. Thus encouragement of immoral behavor amongst women, only serves to lower them both individually and as a group. When this is done on a mass scale? Well? Paris Hilton sex tapes-->the rash of teenie self-shot videos and pics-->a friggin new norm.

 

To extend my friend's logic: The more sluts there are, the more women that are treated like sluts. How is that in line with feminist's stated goals? There used to be feminists, in the 70s, who fully recognized this. Where the F are they?

 

2. The great, sweeping feminist movements in history(however misguided) were all predicated on morality. Temperance movement: it's immoral to get drunk, come home, and beat your wife(misguided part: focused on the drinking, not on the beating). Suffrage: It's immoral to require women to pay taxes, yet, deny them the vote. In the 70s, the ERA failed. Why? Because this is the first time that some immorality was introduced into the premise. While it is immoral to have a purposeful policy to pay women less, partial-birth abortion is even more immoral. While it is immoral to deny women the right to compete for any job, it is even more immoral to demand that we accept the single mother family as an equivalent to the standard nuclear family. To be sure, we must tolerate and even support single mothers, but we should NEVER act like it's ideal, and we have to hold all those who created that situation accountable.

 

Taking 1 and 2 together...it's not hard to see where this goes: The more immoral you are, the less respect you get. Feminists seem to think they can scare people from challenging them, specifically politicians. We know that leadership based on fear is vastly inferior to leadership based on respect, and therefore, is easily undone. Without the moral high ground, feminists are fooling themselves if they think they will be taken seriously, since it is the markedly increased immoral behavior of women itself, that is markedly eroding their position, and therefore, their power.

 

But, more importantly, personally, if you don't have any self-respect, because you are an immoral person, you will inevitably end up as a lesser person, and no amount of laws can be passed to prevent this. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if we are talking every woman in the USA? The lowering tide lowers all ships.

 

Personally, this ain't my problem. This is a feminist problem that they are bringing upon themselves. This is 100% on women in general, and they have to accountable for how they behave, and accept the results of that behavior. I will go along with whatever, because...have you ever tried to argue with them about things like this? Utterly pointless exercise.

 

This is not a "it takes 2 to tango" situation at all. Feminists are literally making their own bed, and deciding who, and how, they sleep in it.

[B-Man]

Ignore Reality, Double Down on Death, the Sisterhood Demands

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez

 

 

Last night I caught the end of the PBS documentary on the feminist movement in America and, as I was made aware earlier in the day during a segment on MSNBC, its final victory will be trumping religious liberty! The documentary wasn’t complete without an insistence that there are people who are trying to take birth control out of the hands of women. Does anyone else find the fundamental denial of reality here alarming? Whatever you think of their position on abortion, contraception, sterilization, or much of anything really, plaintiffs are in court asking for protection so they can simply not offer insurance they find morally abhorrent. Evangelical and Catholics schools and business owners, among others, simply want to protect religious liberty in America against an immediate, direct threat to theirs.

 

The coercion here isn’t coming from the churches and others who object; it’s coming from the government — from an administration that believes mandating this insurance coverage is more fundamental than its duty to protect religious freedom.

 

In the United States today, we are in a situation where religious liberty, and therefore freedom itself, is threatened by the HHS mandate policy not because we had a vote and everyone determined that birth control and abortion are fundamental human rights that trump religious liberty, but because the issue was successfully obscured. It has been asserted, as it was last night in that documentary, that to oppose the Obama administration here is to oppose women’s access to contraception, to even move to make it illegal. Besides that being untrue, does anyone even believe that would be feasible? Have you noticed the ubiquity of birth control? Have you noticed how our lives have been adapted to its realities and expectations? There’s great denial here, too, as Mary Eberstadt has well noted.

 

And today I see this in a New York State paper:

Tara Sweeney, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, said the state’s relatively high abortion rates should not be used as an excuse to restrict abortion rights or as a factor in women’s decisions

.

 

 

So the official word from the feminist sisterhood on Andrew Cuomo’s abortion-expansion push is: Ignore the fact that we have alarmingly high abortion numbers in New York. Ignore that that may suggest some women don’t feel they actually have a choice — that is, an alternative to abortion when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Ignore all that safe, legal, rare nonsense we used to spout. Follow our lead, and don’t think about the fact that we’re becoming a culture where women’s very freedom seems to be contingent on her ability to medicate her fertility as a disease, to suppress and reject the most creative force within her.

 

This is miserable. Can we quit the rhetoric and do something to help rather than hurt life (women, men, children)?

 

When people stop to reflect, they tend to agree this is a shocking state of affairs.

 

Can we listen a little to the fine doctor here? We can have a much healthier discussion about women in our culture and politics rather than these insulting scare tactics.

 

.

Edited March 1, 2013 by B-Man

[B-Large]

Thought I'd write about something that wasn't sequester-based.

 

A couple of different news stories over the last months have started me thinking about this, and the "Miss Teen USA does Porn" story kind of seals it for me, given the deafening silence from feminists. They better wake the F up, and realize that both historically and practically, their movement is entirely self-destructive, without a full and consistent commitment to morality. Without morality, not a part of their argument, but the basis for it, they will be the cause of their own destruction, and take many women down with them.

 

Consider:

 

1. In college, I had a friend who was fond of saying: "Don't make fun of sluts. The more sluts there are, the more we ALL get laid". Remove the emotion from your mind, now, logically: he is right, isn't he? Next, replace the word slut with: slave. If you wanted a slave to continue accpeting their condition, why would you make fun of them? No, the last thing you would do is anything that might rally them to think they deserve to be treated better, and choose different behavior. Thus encouragement of immoral behavor amongst women, only serves to lower them both individually and as a group. When this is done on a mass scale? Well? Paris Hilton sex tapes-->the rash of teenie self-shot videos and pics-->a friggin new norm.

 

To extend my friend's logic: The more sluts there are, the more women that are treated like sluts. How is that in line with feminist's stated goals? There used to be feminists, in the 70s, who fully recognized this. Where the F are they?

 

2. The great, sweeping feminist movements in history(however misguided) were all predicated on morality. Temperance movement: it's immoral to get drunk, come home, and beat your wife(misguided part: focused on the drinking, not on the beating). Suffrage: It's immoral to require women to pay taxes, yet, deny them the vote. In the 70s, the ERA failed. Why? Because this is the first time that some immorality was introduced into the premise. While it is immoral to have a purposeful policy to pay women less, partial-birth abortion is even more immoral. While it is immoral to deny women the right to compete for any job, it is even more immoral to demand that we accept the single mother family as an equivalent to the standard nuclear family. To be sure, we must tolerate and even support single mothers, but we should NEVER act like it's ideal, and we have to hold all those who created that situation accountable.

 

Taking 1 and 2 together...it's not hard to see where this goes: The more immoral you are, the less respect you get. Feminists seem to think they can scare people from challenging them, specifically politicians. We know that leadership based on fear is vastly inferior to leadership based on respect, and therefore, is easily undone. Without the moral high ground, feminists are fooling themselves if they think they will be taken seriously, since it is the markedly increased immoral behavior of women itself, that is markedly eroding their position, and therefore, their power.

 

But, more importantly, personally, if you don't have any self-respect, because you are an immoral person, you will inevitably end up as a lesser person, and no amount of laws can be passed to prevent this. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if we are talking every woman in the USA? The lowering tide lowers all ships.

 

Personally, this ain't my problem. This is a feminist problem that they are bringing upon themselves. This is 100% on women in general, and they have to accountable for how they behave, and accept the results of that behavior. I will go along with whatever, because...have you ever tried to argue with them about things like this? Utterly pointless exercise.

 

This is not a "it takes 2 to tango" situation at all. Feminists are literally making their own bed, and deciding who, and how, they sleep in it.

 

I am too tired from drinking last night to articulate a reponse to what is probably and well thought out post, instead I underlined some of my favorite portions....

[We Come In Peace]

[sodbuster]

My favorite fem argument is the "rape narrative." Any time that anybody suggests that a woman should be more careful and avoid potentially dangerous situations, which seems like common sense, those unshaven she-Hitlers scream that you are somehow condoning the physical mistreatment of women. Ugh.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

My favorite fem argument is the "rape narrative." Any time that anybody suggests that a woman should be more careful and avoid potentially dangerous situations, which seems like common sense, those unshaven she-Hitlers scream that you are somehow condoning the physical mistreatment of women. Ugh.

 

I hear you on that one. When we say that a woman should avoid potentially dangerous situations we are not saying that if she doesn't she deserves to be raped, we are not saying she was asking for it. It's just common sense to avoid those situations.

[Meathead]

B word had it comin

[3rdnlng]

Thought I'd write about something that wasn't sequester-based.

 

A couple of different news stories over the last months have started me thinking about this, and the "Miss Teen USA does Porn" story kind of seals it for me, given the deafening silence from feminists. They better wake the F up, and realize that both historically and practically, their movement is entirely self-destructive, without a full and consistent commitment to morality. Without morality, not a part of their argument, but the basis for it, they will be the cause of their own destruction, and take many women down with them.

 

Consider:

 

1. In college, I had a friend who was fond of saying: "Don't make fun of sluts. The more sluts there are, the more we ALL get laid". Remove the emotion from your mind, now, logically: he is right, isn't he? Next, replace the word slut with: slave. If you wanted a slave to continue accpeting their condition, why would you make fun of them? No, the last thing you would do is anything that might rally them to think they deserve to be treated better, and choose different behavior. Thus encouragement of immoral behavor amongst women, only serves to lower them both individually and as a group. When this is done on a mass scale? Well? Paris Hilton sex tapes-->the rash of teenie self-shot videos and pics-->a friggin new norm.

 

To extend my friend's logic: The more sluts there are, the more women that are treated like sluts. How is that in line with feminist's stated goals? There used to be feminists, in the 70s, who fully recognized this. Where the F are they?

 

2. The great, sweeping feminist movements in history(however misguided) were all predicated on morality. Temperance movement: it's immoral to get drunk, come home, and beat your wife(misguided part: focused on the drinking, not on the beating). Suffrage: It's immoral to require women to pay taxes, yet, deny them the vote. In the 70s, the ERA failed. Why? Because this is the first time that some immorality was introduced into the premise. While it is immoral to have a purposeful policy to pay women less, partial-birth abortion is even more immoral. While it is immoral to deny women the right to compete for any job, it is even more immoral to demand that we accept the single mother family as an equivalent to the standard nuclear family. To be sure, we must tolerate and even support single mothers, but we should NEVER act like it's ideal, and we have to hold all those who created that situation accountable.

 

Taking 1 and 2 together...it's not hard to see where this goes: The more immoral you are, the less respect you get. Feminists seem to think they can scare people from challenging them, specifically politicians. We know that leadership based on fear is vastly inferior to leadership based on respect, and therefore, is easily undone. Without the moral high ground, feminists are fooling themselves if they think they will be taken seriously, since it is the markedly increased immoral behavior of women itself, that is markedly eroding their position, and therefore, their power.

 

But, more importantly, personally, if you don't have any self-respect, because you are an immoral person, you will inevitably end up as a lesser person, and no amount of laws can be passed to prevent this. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if we are talking every woman in the USA? The lowering tide lowers all ships.

 

Personally, this ain't my problem. This is a feminist problem that they are bringing upon themselves. This is 100% on women in general, and they have to accountable for how they behave, and accept the results of that behavior. I will go along with whatever, because...have you ever tried to argue with them about things like this? Utterly pointless exercise.

 

This is not a "it takes 2 to tango" situation at all. Feminists are literally making their own bed, and deciding who, and how, they sleep in it.

 

 

It's not as if Murphy Brown didn't have a conundrum.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Feminism has fractured into two irreconsilable position camps: The ultra-sexual "kitty is Power" camp, and the man-hating "All Sex is Rape" camp. It's no-longer a cohesive movement, which is good because the the world has moved on, and it no longer needs to be.

[RkFast]

I wish someone would kick Sandra Fluke in the c-

[LeviF]

I hear you on that one. When we say that a woman should avoid potentially dangerous situations we are not saying that if she doesn't she deserves to be raped, we are not saying she was asking for it. It's just common sense to avoid those situations.

 

Oh, but remember: all men support a rape culture (whatever the !@#$ that means) because men haven't yet created a world in which women can dress however they want and go wherever they want and not get hurt.

 

Or there's my personal favorite: "If I'm drunk and a man is drunk, he needs to be of stronger constitution, better judgement, and stronger resolve than me and stop sexual relations from occurring between us, otherwise he's a rapist."

[sodbuster]

Oh, but remember: all men support a rape culture (whatever the !@#$ that means) because men haven't yet created a world in which women can dress however they want and go wherever they want and not get hurt.

 

Or there's my personal favorite: "If I'm drunk and a man is drunk, he needs to be of stronger constitution, better judgement, and stronger resolve than me and stop sexual relations from occurring between us, otherwise he's a rapist."

I got dragged to some feminist feminist lecture when I was in college, and one of the speakers basically said that if a man doesn't engage with his female partner in pegging at least once, he will never see himself as equal to his significant other. Being the immature prick that I am (and being half drunk didn't help either), I couldn't stop laughing for the last hour of the discussion, and using pegging in corny pick up lines with all the girls around where I was sitting.

 

Come to think of it, I was walking back from watching the game at my friends place after the first loss week 5 of the 08 season. I think it was Arizona...

Edited March 4, 2013 by sodbuster

[Meathead]

what is pegging

[sodbuster]

what is pegging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_(sexual_practice)

[We Come In Peace]

... the the world has moved on, and it no longer needs to be.

I wish someone would kick Sandra Fluke in the c-

Clearly.

[sodbuster]

Clearly.

That doesn't mean anything. I say all the time that I wish someone would kick Tom Brady in the johnson. Does that mean I am sexist?

[3rdnlng]

That doesn't mean anything. I say all the time that I wish someone would kick Tom Brady in the johnson. Does that mean I am sexist?

 

I think it means you're thinking too much about Brady's dick. Is the name "sodbuster" code for something, since you plow dirt?

[Meathead]

you see this spot back here, this little dark oasis surrounded by a vast sea of pastiness, well thats a no pegging zone

[BuffOrange]

My favorite fem argument is the "rape narrative." Any time that anybody suggests that a woman should be more careful and avoid potentially dangerous situations, which seems like common sense, those unshaven she-Hitlers scream that you are somehow condoning the physical mistreatment of women. Ugh.

 

I hear you but to be fair I always do an internal facepalm when someone blames a car break-in on "the idiot who left their GPS on the passenger seat" (and I never leave stuff out or have my car broken into but still...)

Their problem imo is more pretending it's still 1961 and quoting the $.72 on the $1 as fact (which everyone knows is bogus).

Plus (and I think Bernie Goldberg wrote this in one of his books) - what if the gender ratio of college grads today were flipped? The NOW would be on the evening news every night crying bloody murder. But as it is favoring girls you don't hear a peep about it.

[Joe Miner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8RtYfusw4qw