Jokes on Feminists

You mean Pete Seeger? the singer? Not "cited" but was a tangent used as an example of a person who was adamant about their Socialism yet still remembered fondly decades later, so why should Friedan have to lie? You are really straining, in print for all to see, to toss in as many red herrings as possible towards obfuscation and not any kind of direct response to my posts. I linked the article for the purpose of citing my claims that Friedan was a career communist propagandist, fabricated The Feminine Mystique, and lied about it as THOUSANDS of women's studies profs and feminists also lied about it for decades. The link adequately grounds those claims, your feeble red herrings notwithstanding.

1. That's the exact point I posted directly above, in the clearest language, Horowitz, a socialist, is praising Friedan's communist past. Irrelevant to the fact of the cover up of the Marxism behind feminism and its seminal, fictional text, the actual point you aren't addressing.
2. The source is Salon, not exactly a RW blog, and the author of the article misrepresents -nothing-. He is complimentary of Horowitz, Friedan, Pete Seeger and Jane Fonda. But again, that's NOT THE POINT. The point is that the public was lied to for decades about the origins of feminism and the nature of its formation in an effort to conceal the Marxism/Maoism/Leninism behind it. Patience with the poorly attempted red herrings wearing thin.

Tossing out red herrings isn't an argument or reply to one.

All becomes clear. Will just stand on prior posts because this is a feminist joke thread and your replies are among the more funny of those in it.

 

I got my people mixed up. My bad. It's funny that you're able to figure out that the article goes on a tangent. Tangents don't increase credibility, they undermine it.

I'm not addressing anything because he's not praising the past, he's saying the shift from political activism to domestic life is how to interpret the Feminine Mystique. Your article doesn't cite anything substantial, it misses the point of the article Dr.Horowitz wrote. The point is it's an interpretation. It's not about whether or not it's from the Salon or a blog. It's about how bad the article for research purposes. Your argument goes feminists are bad because they're mean to men and they're commies. How do you prove it? By citing random sources that are sketchy at best half the time and flamebait the other half of the time.

Yes it is. It's a really effective strategy because it forces people to adopt standards to how they argue. If you don't have standards, then please listen to Uncle Joe ramble on about his time watching JFK, Robert E. Lee and Lincoln fighting aliens from Neptune while riding on unicorns made of melting ice cream sandwiches.

Not much to stand on because all I do is point out information you can find on any library website.

 

You have usurped the definition of feminism - into some black vs white paradigm. The average woman (and man) knows nothing of Marxian/Maoist/Lenenist political tactics. (and frankly -you did not mention what these were).

To the average woman - feminism is about not being treated like sht because one happens to be female.

There is a group within the feminist movement - I call them "Nazi Feminists". These are after power and control - not equality. Many of the leaders within the NF movement are of this ilk - you will find this mantra taught in many "Women's Studies" programs in Universities.

There are many other leaders who are not of this ilk- and the younger generation doesn't stand for being put in the role of the victim so the pendulum is swinging back towards the middle in some ways.

If you want to make a case for the marx- commie - welfare scum - you need to do more than just scream marx-commie - welfare scum.

 

You should try not being extremely ugly.

 

And just like that, another LW Irony Universe BANGS into existence. Stopped reading there, stand on prior posts as not refuted.

 

I haven't "usurped" anything into any sort of "paradigm." I have posted claims about what feminism really is and evidenced those claims. You have not meaningfully refuted those claims or bothered to address -any- of that evidence.

1. "Frankly" that's not the case. The Pizzey link went into very specific, credible detail as to -exactly- what those tactics are, as did the link to a LW hagiography of Friedan and communists activists like her. You didn't respond to either. Not surprised.
2. That the average woman and man knows nothing of Marxian social destabilization tactics is correct. That is by design, and thank goodness what the "average" woman and man knows is not the basis for any kind of meaningful understanding of history, politics or anything else.

1. That women have ever been "treated like ****" in relation to men because they are female is a lie narrative of the exact type I have described in prior posts to this thread and detailed in the Pizzey and Horowitz/Friedan links.
2. The primary first aim of Marxian social destabilization political technique is separating groups of people into inaccurate "victim" and "oppressor" classes by appealing to a fantastical, myopic, revised version of history in a vacuum. In other words, lying to people in an effort to get them to falsely believe they have been unduly victimized by other groups when they have not. The aim is to deceive them into substituting a fabricated, negative "group identity victimhood," usually based on wrongs of the past no longer relevant, for the real of their actual, individual, current, personal experiences in measuring their lives and forming reactionary, ill-founded political beliefs that can be more easily manipulated by the state.
3. This is a devastatingly effective technique for tearing social and cultural institutions down and leaving in their place, not a utopia, but an unstable vacuum that leads directly to an abusive, totalitarian state. We have -numerous- historically recent data points in evidence.

Marxian techniques have ironically been coopted to great effect in the U.S. by a fiat capitalist "Complex" of overlapping interests including actual government workers, public unions and their massive armies of taxpayer funded PR shills seen all over this forum and broader media, the gigantic government-education industry, the gigantic, grafty, corrupt crony capitalist government contracting industry, the gigantic, grafty, corrupt grant culture, the gigantic,corrupt litigation culture that enriches and empowers the plaintiffs' bar to all our great detriment, and perhaps the most gigantic division, a vast mainstream media fueled by government redistribution.
4. To the "average person" a refrigerator is something you plug in the wall and it magically cools or freezes food. To an electrical engineer, there is much more going on, and I'd rather speak with the latter about it to gain understanding than the former. You keep appealing to what "the average person" thinks about whatever if you like.

The notion that there are some good, well-meaning feminists "out there" and some malicious group is an intentional façade. Feminism is all one thing, has always been one thing, and will always be one thing, Marxian destabilization techniques applied to U.S. politics. If feminism were truly about equality, it would be called something else, something like... hmmm... let me think... the "rule of law" a principle that predates Marxist feminism by hundreds of years.

I've seen you and others utterly ignore measured, persuasively-evidenced claims and arguments many times on this forum. Not at all surprised at the above or that you are doing it again. The only question remaining is whether you and people like you are doing it purposefully and knowingly or not?

 

1) You painted a black vs white picture and engaged in fallacious generalization by lumping all feminists into one marxist barrel.

2) "That women have ever been "treated like ****" in relation to men because they are female is a lie narrative of the exact type I have described"

The above comment is such preposterous nonsense that it is pointless to continue. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920. Mississippi did not ratify the 19th amendment until 1984.

It is pointless to have a conversation with someone who will deny that water is wet.

 

1. Nonresponsive (again), not surprised. What I did is post claims backed by credible sources that you have ignored (again).

2. It's true that women did not have the right to vote until shortly after the Civil War when many jurisdictions began allowing women to vote... and incidentally that's about the time that many non property owning -white- men who couldn't previously vote either were allowed to vote, but that necessary context is ALWAYS omitted from the various feminist lie narratives. Heading across the pond, a commentator pointed out the irony that many of the white policemen protecting the British suffragette protestors DID NOT THEMSELVES HAVE THE VOTE. Claiming that women didn't have the right to vote until 1920 is grossly inaccurate as a matter of well-documented historical fact and not opinion, 1920 is merely the time of the Amendment, women had been voting all across the country for decades prior.

For the obvious reasons -why- women did not have the vote in early America, just watch or review the Scorsese movie, "Gangs of New York," a dramatization that reasonably reflects the very real physical dangers of having the right to vote. Or go and ask the ghosts of THOUSANDS of white voters in addition to thousands more blacks who were LYNCHED for voting Republican in the early 20th century. Women were protected from that as they always have been. Once those dangers became more remote, women instantly got the right to vote, just like once working conditions became more safe generally, women were able to do more various kinds of work outside the home. These things occurred the very gnats toenail of history, the very INSTANT they could have in terms of human civilization time on Planet Earth, and that's not a product of any fabricated "fight for women's rights" but the glorious invention of the Constitutional Republic, our form of government. So besides debunked feminist narratives on voting, what else have you got?

3. Here's what else I've got, men and not generally women, have been hacked to death in battles protecting women and children against aggressors for thousands of years, often involuntarily enslaved in the worst kinds of slavery ever practiced, conscription, impressment, transport. Men, and not generally women, performed the most deadly, life-shortening work for thousands of years, while women, also hard-working, were a magnitude "safer" in their work.

Make no mistake, I'm not claiming that "men had it worse," that would make me as vapid, historically unaware and deceitful as the average feminist.

What I'm claiming is as stated and ignored in a prior post, looking at history myopically and trying to separate victimologies out of it towards political gain while ignoring vast swaths of necessary context is -propaganda- towards favorable political discrimination in the NOW, not any kind of effort to achieve "equality."

I hope the above historical facts along the lines of "water is wet but so is the mostly empty space between feminist ears" have been edifying for you. Now that you have been educated as to the true, perhaps you will abandon such silly notions and half-truths as "women were treated like ****" when in actuality they aren't, weren't and NEVER were in history... any more than non elite men were.

 

You rambling - not listening to anything I have said - drifting in and out of ad hom fallacy now.

Your claim:
"That women have ever been "treated like ****" in relation to men because they are female is a lie narrative of the exact type I have described"

is proven false by the fact that women did not have the right to vote prior to 1920.

We need not go further- as denial of the above is denial of the obvious. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who will deny that the freezing point of water is 0 C (true story) ... to win an argument.

 

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bummer, that is true. You're done, stick a fork.

 

Your response to information that conflicts with your claim - and in fact proves your claim false - had been ad hom fallacy - and continued denial of the obvious.

You follow that up in this post by accusing me of cognitive dissonance - when you are in denial of the obvious - rather than try to defend your position.

This Classic Projection - Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person.

Then - Predictably - you take your ball and run home to mommy - name calling as you run.

What is also odd is that most of my initial post was in agreement with you but, you made an over broad generalization - which I pointed out.
All this mind twisting , mind bending, fallacious mental denial response was triggered by me pointing out an obvious flaw in your claim.. one which is easily corrected .. which I did for you in the same post ?!

Dubious.

 

Technically I'm on the right side of the political spectrum. I just know things.

 

Let's see your picture, Miss Feminist. Preferably in shorts and short sleeves.
Show your beauty to everyone. I'm sure we will all be SO impressed with it.
I'm happily married to a beautiful woman. You talk like a bitter, single woman. There are so many of them....

 

Then why are women so freaked out by you that saying hello leads to your indictment?

 

I beg to differ. In Pakistan, women have acid thrown in their faces when they anger their barbaric husbands, or boyfriends, or simply spurn them. Throughout the Islamic world, say in Afghanistan, women wear burka and masks over their faces, demeaning and hot in summer. They are beaten with sticks. Young girls undergo genital mutilation in Somalia and Ethopia.

Oddly enough, *feminists* (sick) defend Islam and should you say anything true but negative about it, *feminists* (sick) will attack you aggressively. But I digest. This thread is Jokes on Feminists. How unfortunate that the Yooglies have waddled in here and attempted to derail it.

Back to the subject:

"You can't be a feminist unless you are a lesbian." - Betty Friedan or one of her ugly *feminist* (sick) acolytes

 

Earth to Etbaueer: It's a MEME! Not my picture! Hello.

Moreover, *feminists* (sick) are freaked out by anything that men enjoy and find funny.

Example: A maitre'd greeted *feminist* (sick) Gloria Allred when she entered a restaurant with lady friends: "Good evening, ladies."

Gloria freaked out: "We're not ladies and you're not our lord!"

At a party, a woman asked hateful Gloria, "Is this your husband?"

Gloria freaked out: "My sex life is none of your business."

Party talk, for an angry, hateful, bitter *feminist*. It's no wonder they are lonely and ugly. The ugliness goes to the bone.

Now why don't you show us your *beautiful" picture, hmmmm? And be honest. Or is that too much to ask?
I think it is.

 

Hmm, interesting. I've never had any of these issues. The only time I have seen anything like that was when super creepy guys were harassing someone and then claimed "All I did was say hello!"

 

1) Definitely there was/is Discrimination Against Women. Gender Equality is a noble goal. I agree with Feminists on Equal Pay and Equal Representation.

2) Sadly in Modern Western World men do face severe discrimination. Men are discriminated in Divorce; male offenders get 63% long penalty for the same offense; male victims of DV are more likely to be arrested then helped; men accused of Sexual Misconduct are presumed guilty. Worst of all: anyone who mentions these issues offline is severely penalized -- generally by loss of their career. Addressing that discrimination should be every man's ethical duty. I am grateful to extraordinary women who speak for men, but it is every man's duty to fight injustice affecting him.

 

I think it's a great idea to keep bumping this thread, lots of useful information for the benighted herein. Please continue to do so with the above type of inaccurate, incoherent babbling also in the face of a written record of what was actually posted versus your false assessments, drives my points further home.

 

Even if no rakes are set out for them to walk into, they will manufacture them wholly of their own design. My confirmation bias is getting some huge strokes from this thread, keeps me coming back.

And yeah, other than the MSM celebrities who milk feminism for $$, feminists are almost universally hideous, inside and out. Explains much.

 

All Humans deserve Rights.

Some Feminists and some Leftists claim that Male Victims should not have Equal Protection.

Some Conservatives claim that people with disability should not be helped by the Government.

There are inhumane ideals on both sides of Culture War.

 

Andrea Dworkin
Boner Killer

 

Two groups missing from the elected GOP, WOMEN AND ALL RACIAL MINORITIES????

 

Agree on 1 .. and 2.

2) The pendulum has swung to the extreme in many instances.

"Me Too" - the woman must be believed = the man presumed guilty - Even the CNN/MSNBC commentators were taken aback by that one.

New Rule of law - guilty until proven innocent.

Child support
A man can be forced to be responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral decision of another person - to carry an unintended pregnancy to term.

Two R of Law violations. One person is not to be punished for the actions of another - and Equal Justice under the law.

To the latter - The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of the decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term - abortion, adoption - the man does not.

Be careful what one wishes for - if you throw away the rule book - in order to get Satan - there may come a day when the tide turns and the wave comes back at you.

If it is lawful to force one person to be held responsible for the consequences of unilateral decision of another - with respect to an unintended pregnancy.

Then it follows that a woman could be forced to be responsible for consequences. the unilateral decision of the man with respect to the unintended pregnancy - and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

The 3 Rule of Law violations above is not what Equality is about

.

 

Your projecting again.

Name one inaccuracy ? What false assessment ? - and in the same post say I am the one babbling incoherently ?!

Classic Projection .. Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person.