I suspect you might be engaging in a bit of performance artist posting this morning yourself.
Feminism: before and after
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
I suspect you might be engaging in a bit of performance artist posting this morning yourself.
A third option is that while NZ posts a sufficient volume that a chunk probably leans propaganda, as with all propaganda, there are elements of truth....and it is for discerning readers to distinguish between what is useful and what isn't. So, in the reams of posts, there may be links to studies that are legit, perspectives that are valid, and ideas worth, at minimum, giving a few seconds of thought.
Plus, you gotta admit, NZ works magic with the OSI interface to get his stuff to line up like it does.
I try to be seriously ironic. (or is it ironic, seriously?)
So....quantity over quality.
Throw everything up against a wall, and see what sticks.
I admit he has his spam skills well in order. He uses the interface like a pro.
That's a mischaracterization of what I was addressing in regards to Been taking issue with Mega's original response.
Or, because it is the way you choose to interpret what I said, go ahead and run with it.
But I have no response for you, because we are not having the same conversation.
My comment pertains to the spectrum of reasons why Mega might find some value in posts by NZ.
I understand that.
And your comment about that boils down to Mega might be finding the gems of validity or worth in the reams of posts that lean to propaganda.
I take no exception and make no characterization with regards to that possibility as to why Mega might find some value in his posts.
My comment went directly to NZ's conduct. It wasn't a shot at your statement as to why Mega might like or find value in posts by NZ. It also doesn't expressly disagree with your statement. Mega very well be digging through the quantity of reams of posts and finding the legitimate, valuable posts in his opinions.
Feminism is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in an older, less safe world. It only exists where things are easy and soft and people look for ways that they may have, possibly, potentially, been somehow harmed by someone, somewhere at sometime and now require specific advantages that will be required to increase over time to make up for these potential occurrences of harm
Or, it was once a VERY legitimate cause to rally around, women's suffrage, access to the workforce...and as those things have been accepted as normal within society, it has a plank of feminists, increasing as a percent of the whole, who are steering the movement in ways that are increasingly convoluted and hard to support when you drill down into it.
I contend that the entire Dem party is suffering massively from this graft and mission creep.
That's mostly valid.
It almost mimics the timelines of unions. Once it was a great cause, now it is generally just a tool to be used by politicians.
I find it interesting that self-identifying "conservatives" bitch about feminism and then boast how their wives or daughters are so accomplished, educated, etc. They've redefined something and focused all their fire on a very small extreme slice. As usual.
The right wing (specifically, yes, I'll say it -- RUSH LIMBAUGH and his trolling of feminazis) has demonized and re-created feminism. I know many smart, accomplished, women that would self identify as feminists.
I'm a toxically male personality and I loves me some feminists. Nothing is more boring to me than a ditzy, undeducated, unemployed woman. What the cons have done is demonize independent women.
The right wing (specifically, yes, I'll say it -- RUSH LIMBAUGH and his trolling of feminazis) has demonized and re-created feminism. I know many smart, accomplished, women that would self identify as feminists.
I'm a toxically male personality and I loves me some feminists. Nothing is more boring to me than a ditzy, undeducated, unemployed woman. What the cons have done is demonize independent women.
You would be a lot more interesting if you weren't such a shallow thinker. Everything must be so easily identified and categorized for you or it just doesn't compute does it?
You're a feminist. I'm sorry to tell you that, but Rush Limbaugh and those woman-hatin', booger eatin' misogynists have re-defined the word based on some ivy league radicals so they can make money and you've bitten off on it, just like you always seem to do. You guys bitch about the media and then parrot the right wing media to the point it's comical. If you google the definition, you get, "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." I know -- my old fashioned, linear, boring mind looks at definitions still, but that's what most feminists around here believe. As do you, apparently.
If you taught your daughter to be smart, independent, not consider herself as beneath men and expect to be treated accordingly..... you're a feminist. If you married a woman that's intelligent, works, and isn't a door mat for men... you're a feminist. Good for you. Don't let someone co-opt the values you instilled in your daughter and make it sound sinister. That's exactly what's happening.
This messaging that feminism is some radical, anti-man thing is propaganda for the feeble-minded. It may be out there, but there are a few dozen million women that self-identify as feminists and don't believe all that shit that Rush Limbaugh tries to put in their mouth.
In response to @CowboyJD earlier in this thread, I acknowledged that by his definition (and yours kind of), yes, I am absolutely a feminist. I'm absolutely for equal opportunity, but wholly opposed to equal outcome as a goal. And I think once equal opportunity has been achieved, the term 'feminist' like any other once classically liberal term gets bastardized by leftists.
Is Cassie Jaye a feminist? Is Laci Green a feminist? Is Camille Paglia a feminist? Absolutely they are, but they strayed off the groupthink reservation and receive a lot of negative blowback by post-modern feminists.
Only 1 in 3 American women self identify as feminists because the ideology of membership has become too narrow, yet the term too monolithic. My daughter grew up during this 3rd wave of feminism, and finds it ridiculous that she's expected to think of herself as a victim when she has earned everything she's accomplished on her own - competing against young men and women alike. Isn't that exactly what someone like Susan B. Anthony might've envisioned? That a girl could compete with boys for scholarships, education and jobs and vote for her own leadership like any other free citizen? That's been accomplished and at the organizational level, that's not what feminism is about anymore, sadly.
I'm a classic feminist and in many ways, a classic liberal - as I was when I voted for Bill Clinton. I was and still am A guy who believed in individual freedoms and was against the legislation of morality. I am not sure I've ever heard more than 4 minutes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck combined. I'm more of Neil Boortz kind of guy, though I enjoy Tucker Carlson sometimes.
I think your problem is your are too old to really be open minded to the idea that your classically liberal ideals have been corrupted and you are fighting from a vestigial position that moved on without you in recent years. Either that or you are dumb as a bag of dicks, and I am open to that explanation too.
Last edited:
My name is CowboyJD and I endorse this message.
Using these parameters, it sounds like I'm the only guy in this thread that couldn't be labeled a feminist.
@syskatine i think this Georgia race where a woman beat a white man who outspent her 7 to 1 is a good barometer don't you?
Lots of feminist support for her big win or nah?
Lots of feminist support for her big win or nah?
You realize trying to claim a moral victory over that loss is retarded right?
Most expensive house campaign in history. Back to the point - why aren't feminists celebrating this win?
Show me someone who generalizes that all feminists are bitches and I will show you an asshole.
Can you share where you found this definition and why consider it to be bona fide?
Ummmm because they believe that what may be good for a woman may not be good for women?
Must everything be reduced to a 3rd grade level to be understood around here?
Last edited:
7 to 1? Where do you get your facts? Laughable...
If anyone actually cares about the facts of how money flowed into the campaign: https://www.issueone.org/money-behind-expensive-u-s-house-race-history/
I didn't know anything about Cassie Jay or Laci Green, so I looked them up. So Cassie made a documentary, made $$ pitching a "men are victims" message? The other one is a youtuber. I also confess I don't spend much time pondering "post modern" anything. I know how women in my life, that are successful with post grad degrees, self-identify as feminists, never heard of these women, and could give two shits about how the media (including agenda-driven women) spin that stuff for ratings and revenue. They live it and they don't hate men. You've allowed people to re-define the term, make it a divisive issue and profit from it. Always dividing. Always biting off on someone else's narrative.
I didn't see the post ripping "post modern" feminists, I do see posts saying feminists are bitches. I'll stick with my old fashioned, popular, working definition by real women that hasn't been co-opted by someone trying to generate clicks. I wish you'd be more independent minded and quit name calling. This is the same spirit and ignorance that had you supporting a totally unnecessary war. Quit listening to people that try to generate outrage. I don't know if you agree with Cassie's "red pill" thesis but the internets suggest she's peddling a "men are the victim" message. Feminists I know don't hate men, aren't bitches, don't want to rule the world, and are smart and squared away women.
Oh -- Camille Paglia? Rush Limbaugh was devoting segments to her 25 years ago.
This. I should've walked away at that one. Not a peep about it from the self-identifying conservatives. That speaks volumes. Amazing how the narrative is crafted by someone else and they swallow it whole and insult anyone that doesn't follow along
Huh? Put words in other people's mouth much? Where have I claimed a moral victory or wrote about that election? The hysteria over it has been silly and again... driven by media.
There's 17 months until the next elections are held, anybody claiming that race is a harbinger of anything is wrong. Plenty will happen in the next 17 months that will make today's dynamic irrelevant.
Sounds like she's all about equal opportunity. What a bitch?
I didn't follow the race, again -- it was a media-driven frenzy story and I see you've immersed yourself in it. Big surprise.
She's against gays adopting kids so.... kudos I guess. Good job. Maybe Georgia doesn't have kids sleeping in social worker's offices waiting for a foster home like Oklahoma does. Maybe the Georgia republicans will be as good at instilling conservative values in government as Oklahoma's have been.
Oklahoma DHS is a joke filled with leftist ideologues.
Plenty of people are more than willing to adopt but some in OKDHS would rather play God and toy with children's lives as opposed to getting them in good homes.
Orphans in Oklahoma would be better served if the whole system was privatized and idiots in DHS were left waiting in the employment line.
It was a liberal media-driven frenzy. It was a "referendum" on Trump according to that liberal media-driven frenzy and the Democratic leadership. Anybody with a clue knew that Pajama Boy was not going to win in a Republican district, but that didn't stop the idiots on the left from clucking their narrative while immersed in a ridiculous spending spree because Trump.
It looks like a handful of Democrats are finally beginning to realize that they have no message except Trump, and that the lack of a meaningful message is turning out to be a losing strategy just as it was for Hillary's campaign. Ohio Dem congressman Tim Ryan has gone as far as declaring the party "toxic" and that the Dem brand is currently worse than Trump.
Will the Dems do some introspection before the midterms and do something different or will they keep clawing at the mausoleum door screaming "No Trump" hoping that someone will listen to their pathetic clucking?
What's your source for this idea that DHS is playing god instead of getting kids in good homes? Buddy if you're saying that social workers are holding kids back from going to good homes... that's 180 degrees from what I've seen. There are way more kids than good homes. Many kids are so &$^#ed up that they take therapeutic foster homes and it's hard to find good therapeutic foster homes.
It IS privatized -- foster care placement has been outsourced in many cases. In fact, private foster agencies are doing much of DHS' work now.
I've talked with many social workers through the years and not one of them was an "idealogue" for any political perspective. The biggest issue is lack of social workers and foster homes. I guess the biggest issue is failure of huge swaths of the public to take care of their kids. These kids have been conceived and raised in a state exclusively ran by conservative government fwiw.
