Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Why are all feminists man hating ugly lesbians that suffer from constant PMS that turns them into literal NAZI's? Why can't they just roll over and accept the D both figuratively and literally?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interview with a Feminist
- Thread starter MysticSang'ha
- Start date
We went to college, read some books, started thinking, decided to have some sex, and then we drank some Kool Aid some hag-like Gender Studies professor told us to drink. Next thing we knew we stopped shaving our armpits and legs and stopped smiling all the time.
It's not our fault. Really.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Totally. Same story here. Except I only made it through half the conversion so I like both and only shave one armpit.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
My evolving perspective is that liberating females must come in lockstep with liberation of males. Otherwise, it seems like it becomes a territory war. What I often see is that feminism is seen as a threat to traditional male values, and that expanding female freedom and privilege must be won by males surrendering such values and behaviors. In that sense, it's not surprising to see some of the blowback that the movement has experienced. In my view, it seems like a key issue is convincing males that they are not emasculated by forming traditionally female values and behavior patterns. Does this ring true? If so, what are some ways to move forward on this?
I personally don't see the surrender of freedom per se as necessary, but the existence of privilege is due to the existence of stratification. This isn't dragging men or masculinity down into the mud. It's elevating women and femininity up to the same power as men. Expansion of scope is therefore helpful, rather than treating power as a limited resource than can only be realistically utilized by scarcity.
I agree with you. Far too often, one of the ways to insult a man is to compare him to a woman, or to "feminize" him. We all should do better to re-think the connotation and value of "feminization" of something or someone.
Male allies are a powerful asset. When straight people started telling each other that gay people don't deserve to be treated like ****, and that queers are just as human as them, the culture reached a tipping point pretty quickly in diminishing discriminatory behavior and speech toward LGBTQs.
When men and those who value masculinity start telling each other that to be "feminized" is just as good as being "masculinized", I predict a wave of furthering the taboo of gender discrimination and seeing gender and sex equality more often in the public and private spheres.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
I don't agree with Clinton's actions - however - how did they demean women?
Did the women not tell friends that she was going after her presidential knee-pads?
She obviously choose to do what she did.
Personally I think she was a set-up to bring him down, - that backfired.
I mean - give us a break, - she carefully saved the dress with the DNA, - rather then the normal washing of such! Set-UP!
*
BSM1
What? Me worry?
You do realize that Monica was just one of a long list of Bill's indiscretions? He was famous for using his position to subjugate vulnerable women.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Where is the proof?
If these stupid women are not totally innocent virgins under the age of sexual consent, then they made the choice to screw the highest ranking guy they could find, - on their own.
All one has to say is NO!
I get a kick out of the media hype trying to make Monica an innocent little thing, taken advantage of. LOL!
She said she was going after her PRESIDENTIAL KNEE-PADS!
She was talking with her friends about fellating the president!
*
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You'd probably like one professor I had. He's a humanities teacher, and he made it point to mention how there is obviously the physical differences between men and women, but beyond that, so what? By the reactions of people in the class to the revelation that gendered differences are entirely socially constructed and really no different than shoe sizes except we put more emphasis on that was a very good indication of why we need feminizm. In the same lecture he also pointed how modern approaches to sexuality has suddenly put an emphasis on heterosexual and homosexual, terms which didn't exist until the late 1800s, and that bisexuals are often overlooked. He also pointed out the conservative ideology of this area and mentioned one indication of it is that you do not see many transsexuals walking around.
I'm really not sure what to make of it. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton was set up. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't. Politicians are known for having affairs and hiring hookers. Maybe Gingrich really had it out for Clinton? Maybe Clinton's appetite got the best of him? Though it does seem odd that Clinton got busted for it, because if "he who was without guilt" cast the votes of impeachment, they probably wouldn't have had enough to do it.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Proof?? Do you even know why he was impeached? Good Grief! Google Bill's impeachment and check out the list of women he harmed. Furthermore, the "Horndog In Chief" seemed proud of it.
No, it isn't.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
He was not actually impeached. He was on trial but it wasn't for sexual excursions. It was for lying under oath about sexual encounters. The women he had excursions with all seem to be willing participants not victims of sexual crime.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Yes, he was impeached. Impeachment is not a conviction of a crime, it's basically saying there is enough evidence to bring charges. He was impeached (rightfully so) but the had enough votes in congress to barely be acquitted. Still doesn't erase his slime factor.
Paula Jones belies your assumption of willingness.
I'll offer my opinion here, but please refrain from turning this thread into a debate thread. This is not the purpose of it.
Extramarital affairs, such as one Clinton swore under oath he had with Gennifer Flowers, and one that she alleged to have with him, are not the same IMO as sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Paula Jones in her case against Clinton never offered anything that showed a consensual relationship.
While I think what people do in their own bedrooms ought to be treated as a private matter, if assault is introduced then the sitting politician in question must be held accountable as much as anyone else.
The good thing that happened from the Clinton impeachment trial was that the public saw sexual relationships as secondary to political platforms. The bad thing IMO was the defamation and smear campaigns against the women who spoke out against Clinton.
The same thing has been said about the many women coming forward about Bill Cosby. They're lying. They have an agenda. They want some attention. They're ticked off because he ended a relationship with them. The stories may change characters, but the narrative remains the same. The men in power in circles of like minded individuals when facing sexual harassment or assault charges are protected above all else and the women coming forward tend to be discredited, defamed, and marginalized.
I see Clinton as predatory. The number of women coming forward with allegations of assault and rape against him can't be swept under the rug.
How many predatory men in Hollywood have been able to get away with rape and sexual assault on the casting couch? Why else would Roman Polanski still be asked to create works of film in spite of his fleeing the country after brutally raping a 13 year old girl?
This is part of how the War on Women is perpetuated.
Extramarital affairs, such as one Clinton swore under oath he had with Gennifer Flowers, and one that she alleged to have with him, are not the same IMO as sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Paula Jones in her case against Clinton never offered anything that showed a consensual relationship.
While I think what people do in their own bedrooms ought to be treated as a private matter, if assault is introduced then the sitting politician in question must be held accountable as much as anyone else.
The good thing that happened from the Clinton impeachment trial was that the public saw sexual relationships as secondary to political platforms. The bad thing IMO was the defamation and smear campaigns against the women who spoke out against Clinton.
The same thing has been said about the many women coming forward about Bill Cosby. They're lying. They have an agenda. They want some attention. They're ticked off because he ended a relationship with them. The stories may change characters, but the narrative remains the same. The men in power in circles of like minded individuals when facing sexual harassment or assault charges are protected above all else and the women coming forward tend to be discredited, defamed, and marginalized.
I see Clinton as predatory. The number of women coming forward with allegations of assault and rape against him can't be swept under the rug.
How many predatory men in Hollywood have been able to get away with rape and sexual assault on the casting couch? Why else would Roman Polanski still be asked to create works of film in spite of his fleeing the country after brutally raping a 13 year old girl?
This is part of how the War on Women is perpetuated.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
No charges of sexual misconduct was actually filed. No one pressed charges.
Also he was not fully impeached. It was not fully processed. No president has ever been fully impeached. The impeachment process began but ultimately failed.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Throw me a bone here, M. The Clinton impeachment had absolutely nothing to with sexual relations. It was him using his office to obstruct justice in a lawsuit brought against him by a woman he low-rented.
For reference (to settle this diversion)...
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was definitely impeached.
But he wasn't convicted.
