|
Crazy Feminatzis
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
Ok, I'm no expert in Feminist theory but apparently these women are supposed to be prominets Feminists. Do a wikipedia search for them. This was a list of some quotes an aqauintence sent me (although I'm pretty sure their crazy-ass quotes wouldn't be on wikipedia). I used to be pretty sympathetic towards Feminism until I ran into this :
| quote: |
Catherine MacKinnon
All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.
|
^^^ :wtf:
| quote: |
Catherine MacKinnon
When women choose women sexually, this is a very powerful challenge to male dominance. This is a choice that symbolizes the fact that men are not essential to life and to sex. But one of the strategies of male dominance to subvert this power is to make lesbians sexy and thus take possession of them for themselves, as an instrument for their pleasure. |
| quote: |
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Motherly love ain't everything it has been cracked up to be. To some extent it's a myth that men have created to make women think that they do this job to perfection. |
| quote: |
Gloria Steinem in the “Feminist Family Value" wrote:
I suggest that we declare the last five-to-ten thousand years an experiment that failed. Let's declare this the first meeting of the post-patriarchal, post-racist, post-nationalist age. |
| quote: |
Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981 wrote:
Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that. |
| quote: |
Robin Morgan wrote:
We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. |
| quote: |
Robin Morgan wrote:
I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. |
| quote: |
Claudia Card, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 1996 wrote:
The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse ... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem. |
| quote: |
When Betty Friedan asked Simone de Beauvoir whether women should have the right to choose staying at home and raising children the writer answered, 'Women should not have such a choice because if such a possibility really existed too many women would use it'. |
Could someone who's done research and is VERY familiar with feminist theory and prominet Feminists' work (and second wave Feminism) please tell me what the these bitches are babbling about? I thought Feminism was supposed to be about equality, not hateing men and ignoring maternal responsibilities.
EDIT: :wtf: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I don't know, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a Supreme Court justice. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Some feminists just doesn't know where the hell to stop.
In Sweden we actually have a new party that is now running for parliament, and their only platform is feminism. And they are taking things way way too far. For example they wanted to change all the roadsigns so that 50% of them would have females in them, and the other 50% males. They have lots of ing crazy proposals like that with no roots in the real world. Also they are generally pro-woman and it is the party that has the worst female-male ratio of all parties, equallity my ass.
Needless to say I lost all my faith in feminism long time ago. Nowadays I'm against feminism, but pro gender-equallity, sadly it's not the same anymore, at least not in this country. |
|
|
| Dervish |
I'd love to be a women (stay with me here..). If you deside to be a housewife (a choice we don't get) you get to stay at home and do whatever you like. If you work you get leave for when you have kids, then when you come back you get more time off (say working a three day week) to build a relationship with the kid. (not something I'm against actually).
What I am against though is the fact that women get to retire at 60 here while men are at 65!!! They live longer too!!! And with all the leave and so on work less!!!
1) That means say a women on average lives 5 years longer.
2) Take a pension 5 years early
Thats 10 years extra taking a pension. Contributions to the pension fund for at least 5 years less too.
So in effect a total of 15 years net advantage. Which when you consider the working life of a man is about 40 years is pretty significant. Obviously excluding child birth and so on because thats totally required (especially with the declining population).
And as anyone who knows much about pensions will tell you the time you contribute is HUGELY important (more so than the size of the contribution size, that is the monthly rate or whatever).
So on three counts they contribute less or take out more to/from pensions!!! And now they don't even want to have kids to support the pension system in the future!!!
I say they get a pretty good deal! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I'll bet cha most of those women quoted are ing awesome little wildcats in bed! Some probably have terrific racks.
Wait, did I say that out loud? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Could someone who's done research and is VERY familiar with feminist theory and prominet Feminists' work (and second wave Feminism) please tell me what the these bitches are babbling about? I thought Feminism was supposed to be about equality, not hateing men and ignoring maternal responsibilities. |
I'm hardly very familiar with feminist theory, but I did read a book about it once (well... a chapter of a book anyway - this one to be more specific) and the academic rationale behind second wave feminism is pretty interesting actually.
Basically (if this book is to be believed), feminists from this time were "neo-Marxist culturalists" (they took Marx's theory of Historical Materialism and applied it to theories of culture), who held that the nature of culture was ultimately defined by the modes of materialistic production and that the nature of materialistic production was ultimately defined by the prevailing culture. What this basically means is that those who were in charge of production (both economically and artistically) had control over the nature of the prevailing culture and once they had this control over culture, they could determine the nature of production to perpetuate this control. Given that most of those in control of both artistic and economic production at the time of the second wave of feminism (50s - 60s) were male, the argument of the feminists was that - because all men are, of course, inherently boarish, phallocentric pricks - the culture of the subjugated woman would persist until women took it upon themselves to contribute equally to the production process.
So if I've got this right here, the reason these feminists would find the thought of a stay-at-home mum (or even a married woman, given that she's likely to have children at some point and therefore become a stay-at-home mum) to be so repulsive, is that they believe that by doing so these are removing themselves from the process of "cultural production", tipping the balance of cultural production back in favour of the males, and therefore assisting in the propogation of a phallocentric society. In other words, unless all women adopt more typically "masculine" roles in society, then those who don't are basically going to ruin it for everyone else.
But as for the quotes posted above, yes, they really do sound a bit ing crazy. No wonder they can't find a man...  |
|
|
| Renegade |
Oh and as for the quoted women themselves, the only one there that I've heard of is Simone de Beauvoir and I don't think she'd be quite as loopy as the other ones listed there. She was actually a very accomplished author and philosopher first and foremost, just one who happened to be interested in feminism. It is, however, much harder to take her seriously as a feminist when you realise that, in her personal life, she was always faithfully submissive to her lover (monsieur Jean-Paul Sartre) even though he treated her like and frequently slept with other women with her permission.
Score one for women's rights, huh? |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| I've been called a feminist and I DO go on a rant from time to time about feminism... but only when I actually see a situation when men are being favoured above women, and only when I actually hear about a law that is trying to be passed that places more men in the dominating spot. I've been called a feminist, but I wouldn't consider myself one. I'm an equal rights activist. I stand up for equal rights for everyone, not just women. I've protested for gay rights, for african american rights, for native american rights, for womens rights... my major at the UNI was International Politics for a long time... I was a huge activist. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I googled Ruth Ginsburg's quote to see if indeed she said that, and although I am still inconclusive on that, I did find a good article about about how Feminism has actually made women worse:
Read:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduct...111roberts.html
From my experience, second-wave feminism only gained traction initially when it came out in the 60s, where women and most the population misunderstood its true nature and platform.
When its true nature, of militant feminisim, slowly crept out and people started recongizeing it for what it was: women who are trying to start a gender war, it basically brought an end to feminism as an acceptable mainstream movement.
Now, basically feminist, much like other fringe groups; white supremisits, cults, black supremisits, environemtnal supremisists, are viewed in suspicious and bewilderment, as they preach intolerance in a nation that has already come to embrace tolerance. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
I've been called a feminist and I DO go on a rant from time to time about feminism... but only when I actually see a situation when men are being favoured above women, and only when I actually hear about a law that is trying to be passed that places more men in the dominating spot. I've been called a feminist, but I wouldn't consider myself one. I'm an equal rights activist. I stand up for equal rights for everyone, not just women. I've protested for gay rights, for african american rights, for native american rights, for womens rights... my major at the UNI was International Politics for a long time... I was a huge activist. |
What are you talking about?! You refered to your boy-friend as a "boy-toy" and couldn't agree to Occrider's most reasonable set of rules for you to become his obiediant and loving girlfriend. You most defintely are a feminist!:mad:
:disbelief :p |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I'm hardly very familiar with feminist theory, but I did read a book about it once (well... a chapter of a book anyway - this one to be more specific) and the academic rationale behind second wave feminism is pretty interesting actually.
Basically (if this book is to be believed), feminists from this time were "neo-Marxist culturalists" (they took Marx's theory of Historical Materialism and applied it to theories of culture), who held that the nature of culture was ultimately defined by the modes of materialistic production and that the nature of materialistic production was ultimately defined by the prevailing culture. What this basically means is that those who were in charge of production (both economically and artistically) had control over the nature of the prevailing culture and once they had this control over culture, they could determine the nature of production to perpetuate this control. Given that most of those in control of both artistic and economic production at the time of the second wave of feminism (50s - 60s) were male, the argument of the feminists was that - because all men are, of course, inherently boarish, phallocentric pricks - the culture of the subjugated woman would persist until women took it upon themselves to contribute equally to the production process.
So if I've got this right here, the reason these feminists would find the thought of a stay-at-home mum (or even a married woman, given that she's likely to have children at some point and therefore become a stay-at-home mum) to be so repulsive, is that they believe that by doing so these are removing themselves from the process of "cultural production", tipping the balance of cultural production back in favour of the males, and therefore assisting in the propogation of a phallocentric society. In other words, unless all women adopt more typically "masculine" roles in society, then those who don't are basically going to ruin it for everyone else.
|
Interesting. Well atleast I understand the rationale behind it. Although I still think it's a little obsessive and higly impractical for any sane and functional society to operate that way.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But as for the quotes posted above, yes, they really do sound a bit ing crazy. No wonder they can't find a man... |
:stongue: You're right about that. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Oh and as for the quoted women themselves, the only one there that I've heard of is Simone de Beauvoir and I don't think she'd be quite as loopy as the other ones listed there. She was actually a very accomplished author and philosopher first and foremost, just one who happened to be interested in feminism. It is, however, much harder to take her seriously as a feminist when you realise that, in her personal life, she was always faithfully submissive to her lover (monsieur Jean-Paul Sartre) even though he treated her like and frequently slept with other women with her permission.
Score one for women's rights, huh? |
Dude, I totally agree. You are so right about that. There are especially many girls in college who claim to be "feminists" yet let guys treat them like and objectify them. I go to Uni in Austin, TX, which is probably why I get to see alot more of it. |
|
|
|
|
