nairi Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 I find it very odd Nairi - that you express this opinion. You don't strike me as a traditional gal - Surprise, surprise, I don't I grew up in a society and family that forced feminism on me. My natural instincts speak a very different language. And Nairi - how would you feel if you coulnd't drive - VERY GOOD!!!!!!!!!!! I don't drive Thoth. I don't even have a car. I only got my license because I felt I had to in a case of emergy. or be out on your own I'm not happy on my own, Thoth. if you were denied college and an eduacation I could spend my time preparing to become a mother and wife. - but your brother's got such, The pressure to (financially) support a family is on him. if you couldn't vote I don't vote now that I can; I doubt I would have wanted to vote if I couldn't have. or hold property Why would I want that? Btw, I'm not saying we should turn back times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 Bravo Nairi, finally some feminine common sense Why force women to have more of artificial and unneeded status and 'power'? I see no point to go against nature. There is the traditional ignorant repressive habits of the past, and there is the modern way of properly appreciating femininity and masculinity. Let's not confuse these two with each other. Nobody is advocating slavery. Although A's posts were too long to for me to follow, from what I understood he is in no way promoting slavery of women. Thoth, why are you trying to fight for the so called feminism harder than the hard core feminists? Men and women are not the same artificially created "sex" of the dull and unsatisfying non-sex, you know? And the majority of women do not share the feminst views, just like Nairi is expressing. And she is by far not the traditional ignorant woman not knowing her rights. I think all these hard core feminist movements are creating negative tensions and controversy and plaguing the families and the western society as a whole. For example, why on earth does the feminist line of thought deny the child such a sweet thing as a mother's care, and deny the woman such a wonderful thing as natural and proper motherhood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted December 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 Speaking of - A - Mouse - please tell us all about (your opinions regarding) the role of Jews in establishing all of this international socialism (and coruption of good capitalism and democracies...etc) and particularly their role in the feminist movement.... Funny you mention Jews and feminism/socialism. I find it funny that the most vociferous feminists are Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem, both Jews. I find it funny that Marx was a Jew, which then his 'ism' would be applied by some other Jews such as Trotsky and Lenin. Of course why bother stating the facts, since it is bound to get you smeared as a 'anti-Semite', nevermind that modern "Jews" are not in anyway related to Hebrews. Of course this off topic part I will ignore. for all the "of course I'm not opposed to freedon for women" statements that he makes - he fundementally feels differently - as his personal statements attest to You seem to intentionally not understand my personal opinion, versus the argument of feminism being an inversion of anything remotely resembling deductive reasoning. Whether this is intentional or unintentional on your part makes no difference since you are more vocal as a male about the issue of feminism than some of the feminists on this board are. I stated that on a personal level I disagree with how feminism is trying to "change" the natural order of things, meaning destroying the family and the femininity and its never ending battle again women as 'sex objects'. You see underneath it all feminism is really a battle against heterosexuality, the natural roles of men and women, and praise the lord women are sex objects, as men are sex objects to them. but I must say Iam also very disapointed with the other (modern minded?) women of the forum who are either intimadated or perhpas fail to understand what this guy is trying to say...shame...at the very least they could throw a few questions at him so that he can clarify his statements - which I agree ares dense and perhaps confusing (deliberatly so I think...to viel his true postions...) What you may or may not think has no bearing on things, for I have no "true position' that I am hiding. I already stated that on a PERSONAL LEVEL I disagree with feminism, yet the rest of my post is attempting to understand how the sexes are equal, indeed you have continued to dodge the issue of 'equality' and then accuse me of dodging the 'arguments' your side raises. I never said I am opposed to 'freedom' of women, whatever that means, and how you define it. I am opposed to feminism, which is anything but 'freedom', rather it is a social idiocy, much like Socialism, since both are premised on equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted December 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 Bravo Nairi, finally some feminine common sense Why force women to have more of artificial and unneeded status and 'power'? I see no point to go against nature. There is the traditional ignorant repressive habits of the past, and there is the modern way of properly appreciating femininity and masculinity. Let's not confuse these two with each other. Nobody is advocating slavery. Although A's posts were too long to for me to follow, from what I understood he is in no way promoting slavery of women. Thoth, why are you trying to fight for the so called feminism harder than the hard core feminists? Men and women are not the same artificially created "sex" of the dull and unsatisfying non-sex, you know? And the majority of women do not share the feminst views, just like Nairi is expressing. And she is by far not the traditional ignorant woman not knowing her rights. I think all these hard core feminist movements are creating negative tensions and controversy and plaguing the families and the western society as a whole. For example, why on earth does the feminist line of thought deny the child such a sweet thing as a mother's care, and deny the woman such a wonderful thing as natural and proper motherhood? Indeed, for one of the most brilliant articles on feminism by one of the greatest minds in our time, Murray N. Rothbard, I suggest you click on this link. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard4.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted December 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 And see yourself as a vixtim or not - its just reality - consider it being a victim or not - semantics really - still there is no denying the history... How short are the memories that you have - how very few women could live on their own outside of their families. How most all women had no life apart of that with their husband. How most jobs were restricted form women. How birth control was essentially non-exsistant - and how you were basically just a baby factory. etc etc etc Like I said, feminism underneath it all, is a war on the natural heterosexual relationship. Believe it or not, women are there to make babies, since that is their biological role. Indeed the most radical feminists are against this idea of procreating to the further survival of the species, hence why most of the hardcore feminists are butch lesbians with bob hair cuts. So when women are treated as 'sex objects' or 'baby factors' praise the lord they are, for men are the same thing for women. I find it very odd Nairi - that you express this opinion. You don't strike me as a traditional gal - who lives basically only to get married and raise a family (and nothing wrong with that - if thats what you want - totaly legit) ...but am I wrong? Apparently Thoth finds it very difficult that a woman can think for herself and not the imposed will of the collectivist ideology of feminism, which essentially denies free will and assumes that all women should think as a group, much like Marx committing his epistemological error in assuming that all workers should think alike. So here you admit that feminism is really a battle against the hetersexual relationship between man and woman. With "Western society" now steeped in divorce one wonders how feminism has really been an improvement. And Nairi - how would you feel if you coulnd't drive - or be out on your own, if you were denied college and an eduacation - but your brother's got such, if you couldn't vote or hold property, again etc etc... What do the things you mention, if anything, have to do with feminism? I already pointed out how it was the capitalist revolution that gave all the advantages to women that we have today, which you and Anileve both overlooked, perhaps intentionally. Most of what you state is based on each person as an individual. One can make an argument that voting is really stupid and indeed makes no difference, so it's not really much of an improvement. The only reason women were allowed to vote is for politics and politicians to have another special interest group with votes ready to scurry behind, votes in exchange for feminist legislation and 'affirmitive action' and more beaurocracy and more government. That seems to me what happened there. As far as property, that is clearly a result of capitalism that women can hold property. Men have pressure - sure....we all do - one way or another...but similar? I really don't think so. I can't recall any society where women have restricted men's rights the way women have been restricted. So here Thoth says that men and women have different pressures and are not similar, yet the brunt of feminisms claim is 'equality', which assumes the equality of the sexes and that they should be treated the same by big brother. It appears Thoth has made a contradiction, which of course he will deny. And see yourself as a vixtim or not - its just reality - consider it being a victim or not - semantics really - still there is no denying the history... What history would she be denying, that men for time immemorial as we can remember have always been superior? Indeed you wouldn't like the usage of that word, no egalitarian does. I have yet to see how women and men are equal and how you and Anileve will prove that we are equal. And when you will not be able to do that, the cry of the egalitarian morphs into the "just because we aren't equal doesn't mean we can't try". Hilarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 I’ve had a revelation over the course of these forumless days. I gave my beliefs and theories some thought, and decided to take a different approach and adopt and different view on things, here it is. I, Anileve, have decided that it makes much more sense to play a traditional female role in this world, I mean think about the advantages of being a traditional woman, they are limitless. I will follow the path and a role that the nature has chosen for me according to my gender only under a condition of a man generally fitting the standard of a real man, which seems to be deteriorating with this “new” culture short of any moral values. Yes you read it right I want a REAL man. Let me define what our society has lost as a true image of this fabulous specimen… To start with I want a tall and strong man, someone who can protect me, I mean what is the point of me getting a scrawny and petite man that can practically share my pants? Yes, I need a powerful man who shall pick me up in case I womanly-like faint, and carry me to the near cushiony location, a scrawny man won’t be able to do that, considering that I have a heavy baggage . Next, I want a man with a fabulous job, so that he can provide for my family and my obsessive and expensive shopping habits. And certainly to provide a chauffer for me, since women are pretty much bad drivers and cars are really men’s toys. That chauffer has to also possess the looks of Tom Cruise, since I will probably be spending most of my time shopping and picking up my kids, thus my visual should be stimulated at all times to ensure a pleasant experience. He also needs to make enough money to be able to afford college tuition for the kids when they grow up, dance classes for me (so that I can stay in shape for him), vacations to Europe and preferably help out my mother financially. I also must note that before a family sprouts, a “real” man, must assure me that he is a serious provider. He shall always open doors for me (I’m a vulnerable, feminine woman after all), pull out chairs, drive me around in a decent vehicle (since I don’t think women really need to drive, men constantly bash them for driving skills, I will simply conserve any possible traffic hazards), he shall always, always, always pay! I mean women and men are not the same, men are born to be providers, they need to start adjusting to the role! What the hell is this new business with splitting things 50-50? Where is romance in this? Where are the distinct roles assigned by nature? Let me also continue by stating, that I would rejoice in cleaning and cooking and all the further activities, however a man would be responsible in handling economic aspects as well as the maintenance of the house and the technology. It is important to mention that he must be a lot smarter than me and able to enlighten me with every discussion we may have. In addition he must be quite skilled in the art of physical love, since he by nature should have more of an experience than I. In conclusion, this is the image of man that is the ideal and used to exist until this silly and pointless women’s movement came along. Why in the world would you even consider changing things, I don’t know a single woman who would object to such a wholesome image of a man. Although to come to think of it, how many men are out there that really do fit the image of an ideal man? Financially established, great lover, intelligent, a gentleman, tall, strong, practical, responsible, great father, good handyman, great driver and a mechanic, and well mannered…that is a description of a very extinct and endangered specie. Why is it that men are not criticized regarding not fitting the image mother nature intended them to have, yet they expect so much from women…And if it makes men experts on what women should be like, I shall consider myself an MD on what men should be like… Viva enlightenment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Just my two golden EUROs Feminism started innocently as a legal disput over inheritance rights. Evelina, Muahs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Nice Evelina, I think you should fill out an application to Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 how many men are out there that really do fit the image of an ideal man? Financially established, great lover, intelligent, a gentleman, tall, strong, practical, responsible, great father, good handyman, great driver and a mechanic, and well mannered…that is a description of a very extinct and endangered specie Actually Anileve...except for being a good mechanic and handyman - which I am decidedly not - I pretty much fit your bill here (OK some here may argue against my being well mannered..LOL)...but lets see: Financially established - check (no probs here..) great lover - check (please consult references...LOL) intelligent - check (OK perhaps debatable as well...) a gentleman - check (always..I even help old ladies and such cross the street...really I do! etc) tall - check strong - check practical - check (Ok for the most part..) responsible - check - (very) great father - check (I certainly think so - and so does everyone else!) good handyman - (OK borderline here...) great driver - check (the best) mechanic - (no..not that i don't like gettiig dirty...see great lover...) well mannered - check (well i certianly think so - for the most part) ....but since I also cook, clean, shop (grocery, houshold, childrens things & otherwise), watch the kids (like when my wife is away on business ofr 2 weeks or several), play with my kids, help them with their homework, washing up, putting to bed, meals, etc etc etc - well I think I may be out of favor for those traditional gals aspiring for that traditional man. Shame you had changed your outlookexpectations...I was beginning to like you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 I still dont get the Tom cruse part, he is 5.8 for gods sake and by all means if you want a real man learn 3 most essentials in a relationship real man want GOOD FOOD, GOOD f&%#, AND SILANCE I know I will get my arse kicked for this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 You guys are a riot!!! Well actually THOTH, the reason why you encompass all of those wonderful characteristics of an ideal man is because you are partly a feminist. All of the wonderful men I have met have one thing in common, they understand and respect the women’s movement and admire women, and that is the reason they get the same in return from their partners and female friends! Yet men that are simply bitter and judgmental and authoritative without a broader sense of acceptance only receive bitterness from women in return, that is the reason why they sit and complain about the constantly changing roles. They no longer can find a purpose for their "deteriorating" manhood! Application to Anon, Sasun? Interesting, I don't think he fits the bill my dear, he processes only about 25% of the requirements so 25% is all that he will receive in return! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Ani - thanks a bunch...actually it was really good for me to hear you say all that right now (even us pretty self - assured modern men need a little strroking sometime!)...and yes - I agree with all what you have said (girlfriend [meant like "us girls" kind of thing...and my manhood isn't threatened by saying such or thinking that way...and no Dan..i still don't want that dance...but flattered just the same)..anyway - glad to see ya back! And Anon having evn 25% ...well perhaps...he might be a good driver, or good with a hammer...who knows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 (even us pretty self - assured modern men need a little strroking sometime!)... If you meant stroking, ( foreplay, is the modern term I guess) couldn't agree more! All we need is stroke of luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 I still dont get the Tom cruse part, he is 5.8 for gods sake There is nothing to get, he's an epiphany of a real man, and I recently saw an interview with him, not only does he have the most enchanting smile that makes my hair rise, but he also is quite intelligent. real man want GOOD FOOD, GOOD f&%#, AND SILANCE That's interesting, because that is exactly what I want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 I’ve had a revelation over the course of these forumless days. I gave my beliefs and theories some thought, and decided to take a different approach and adopt and different view on things, here it is. --------- Oh my, the sarcasm has me laffing to the point where I'm coughing gastric juices - not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Nice Evelina, I think you should fill out an application to Anonymouse I don't require applications, and besides she wouldn't fit mine in a million worlds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 I don't require applications, and besides she wouldn't fit mine in a million worlds. I was never a good matchmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 You guys are a riot!!! Well actually THOTH, the reason why you encompass all of those wonderful characteristics of an ideal man is because you are partly a feminist. All of the wonderful men I have met have one thing in common, they understand and respect the women’s movement and admire women, and that is the reason they get the same in return from their partners and female friends! Yet men that are simply bitter and judgmental and authoritative without a broader sense of acceptance only receive bitterness from women in return, that is the reason why they sit and complain about the constantly changing roles. They no longer can find a purpose for their "deteriorating" manhood! Application to Anon, Sasun? Interesting, I don't think he fits the bill my dear, he processes only about 25% of the requirements so 25% is all that he will receive in return! Gee, so when someone disagrees with feminisms raving of "equality" they are somehow lacking understanding and suffering from "deteriorating manhood" when initially it is your inferiority that troubles you and you try to compensate for it with some vague ideology of "feminism" which in its core preaches "equality" yet there is no such thing. Then you feminazis go on believing that those who disagree with feminism want to hold women down in shackles, that is not true, nor is what I stated. The problem with your embracing of feminism is that it is based on something not real, such as "equality". So let's recap what Mises said, which I agree with: "So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 I was never a good matchmaker Don't worry lad, feminazis don't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Gee, so when someone disagrees with feminisms raving of "equality" they are somehow lacking understanding and suffering from "deteriorating manhood" when initially it is your inferiority that troubles you and you try to compensate for it with some vague ideology of "feminism" which in its core preaches "equality" yet there is no such thing. Then you feminazis go on believing that those who disagree with feminism want to hold women down in shackles, that is not true, nor is what I stated. The problem with your embracing of feminism is that it is based on something not real, such as "equality". So let's recap what Mises said, which I agree with: "So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature." "I – MAN! You – woman! I kill, you cook, and then we make little Hitlers!" I’m sorry I don’t comprehend chauvinistic talk, care to speak human language or have you been hiding in the caves of the dark woods for too long to remember? Anon I have a great idea for a Halloween costume for you below… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 "I – MAN! You – woman! I kill, you cook, and then we make little Hitlers!" I’m sorry I don’t comprehend chauvinistic talk, care to speak human language or have you been hiding in the caves of the dark woods for too long to remember? Anon I have a great idea for a Halloween costume for you below… Well, classic example of a feminazi resorting to childish name calling. Not surprisingly your insistence on doing encores is greated with cries of "Haven't you inflicted enough humiliation and embarrassment upon yourself in one night?" http://www.rustybrain.com/archives/2000/images/zzzz.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Well, classic example of a feminazi resorting to childish name calling. Not surprisingly your insistence on doing encores is greated with cries of "Haven't you inflicted enough humiliation and embarrassment upon yourself in one night?" http://www.rustybrain.com/archives/2000/images/zzzz.gif What? I am sorry my visual is getting a bit blurry; all I see is a bunch of swastikas. Hail HTLER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Was hitler against feminism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 He used his companion Eva Braun mercilessly and was pretty much about everything illogical. That should be enough of a parallel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 (edited) What? I am sorry my visual is getting a bit blurry; all I see is a bunch of swastikas. Hail HTLER! I'm sorry I don't follow. But back to the topic. Are you a rational being capable of a rational discussion? Edited January 16, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.