National Offend a Feminist Week, Day 2: Equal, But Not Identical?

Posted on | May 3, 2010 | 38 Comments

Our announcement of the 2nd annual National Offend a Feminist Week provokes the eloquent Sissy Willis to muse on “why women can’t detatch their emotions from intimate relationships as easily as men.”

Vive la différence, madame!

This is what is misunderstood by feminists. To reject feminism, in their view, is to be a misogynist, to be anti-woman, an accusation so absurd that one resents the minor effort necessary to refute it.

It is precisely my admiration for women — my high regard for their distinctively feminine qualities — which animates my animus toward feminist ideology, a species of egalitarianism. To state the obvious:

Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal.

Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing may be substituted for the other without any difference in value. Only a fool could believe that men and women are equal in that way, and yet this is what feminists would require us to believe. And any man who dares contradict this egalitarian dogma is a sexist, an oppressor, a reactionary representative of the patriarchy.

All the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same, and therefore are not equal.

This is not to assert any general theory of masculine superiority, except in matters where men are — on average, as a group — demonstrably superior. Human civilization is built upon the abilities and aptitudes of both men and w0men, and I have no argument with those who would say that women’s contributions to civilization have at times been underappreciated.

Feminism, however, involves an egalitarian thesis requiring that society be re-ordered to thrust women into traditionally male occupations because otherwise women would be victims of unfair “discrimination.” It is this nonsensical dogma that resulted in U.S. taxpayers losing a perfectly good F-14 due to Kara Hultgreen’s pilot error.

Larry Summers was drummed out of the presidency of Harvard University merely for suggesting, as a possibility, that a shortage of women at the highest levels of research in the hard sciences could be the result of innate differences between the sexes. Wherever feminists are empowered, all such discussion is prohibited. And because feminism is nowhere more powerful than on American university campuses, higher education has become hostile to truth.

Because our nation’s most prestigious institutions of learning are held hostage by feminists, those who wish to be thought sophisticated and enlightened must defer to the Big Lie of feminism. This requisite deference among the elite — and those who aspire to elite status — necessarily stigmatizes as “lowbrow” all criticism of the feminist project. To state the blunt truth, that men and women are not equal, is to be automatically excluded from the ranks of the bien-pensants.

This is why National Offend a Feminist Week is necessary. For seven days, open and direct dissent against feminist dogma is encouraged and celebrated, so that it may once again be safe to speak truth in the public square.

Now run along, sweetheart, and get me a cup of coffee.

Category: Feminism, National Offend a Feminist Week

Comments

38 Responses to “National Offend a Feminist Week, Day 2: Equal, But Not Identical?”

Steve Burri
May 3rd, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Well put.

It’s a man thing, baby. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.
Steve Burri
May 3rd, 2010 @ 10:39 am

Well put.

It’s a man thing, baby. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.
K
May 3rd, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

This would be a nice post – about 20 years ago. Now it’s just sort of cute and naive in a sort of silly bunny kind of way.

Take some time to educate yourself on what “feminist” means as there are “gender feminists” the one’s you’re actually calling out here and “equity feminists” which want equality of opportunity – which Conservatives insist they’re in favor of.

In addition, it’s actually much worse than you seem to know. Gender feminism is supported by taxpayer funded think tanks on every big campus or “Women’s Studies Departments”. It ties in nicely with Marxist multiculti and has influenced government so much – even under Republican administrations – that men are now second class citizens in their own country. Quotas favoring women are in operation as we speak for any industry that depends on government funding. And . . . well you get the idea.

But thanks for the shallow analysis anyway.
K
May 3rd, 2010 @ 11:15 am

This would be a nice post – about 20 years ago. Now it’s just sort of cute and naive in a sort of silly bunny kind of way.

Take some time to educate yourself on what “feminist” means as there are “gender feminists” the one’s you’re actually calling out here and “equity feminists” which want equality of opportunity – which Conservatives insist they’re in favor of.

In addition, it’s actually much worse than you seem to know. Gender feminism is supported by taxpayer funded think tanks on every big campus or “Women’s Studies Departments”. It ties in nicely with Marxist multiculti and has influenced government so much – even under Republican administrations – that men are now second class citizens in their own country. Quotas favoring women are in operation as we speak for any industry that depends on government funding. And . . . well you get the idea.

But thanks for the shallow analysis anyway.
Robert Stacy McCain
May 3rd, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

It’s a man thing, baby. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

Somebody could make a fortune selling that as a T-shirt.
Robert Stacy McCain
May 3rd, 2010 @ 11:16 am

It’s a man thing, baby. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

Somebody could make a fortune selling that as a T-shirt.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 3rd, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

Feminism, however, involves an egalitarian thesis requiring that society be re-ordered to thrust women into traditionally male occupations because otherwise women would be victims of unfair “discrimination.”

Hey, Phyllis Schlafly tested guns during WWII to pay her way through college (and then got a JD); Ann Coulter was on UMich’s Law Review and then clerked on the Fifth Circuit; Sarah Palin runs marathons, can field-dress a moose, and was a damn good governor, and yours truly (who does not belong in the illustrious company mentioned above) took advanced quantum mechanics at the age of 20 and then decided to become a lawyer.

Some of us like those male-dominated professions, Mr. McCain! Active transport is not needed; osmosis will take us there anyway.

That’s not to say that modern feminism is not a train wreck of Obama-Presidency-esque proportions, but that the original feminist movement was valid. It’s analogous to the late 18th century desire for a central government that was strong enough to unite a nation, which was later perverted to permit Congress to control our schools, retirement, health care, and car emissions.

*It is worth noting that the “feminist” Left hates all of us. It’s also worth noting that very few on the “feminist” Left actually engage in many of those activities.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 3rd, 2010 @ 5:00 pm

Feminism, however, involves an egalitarian thesis requiring that society be re-ordered to thrust women into traditionally male occupations because otherwise women would be victims of unfair “discrimination.”

Hey, Phyllis Schlafly tested guns during WWII to pay her way through college (and then got a JD); Ann Coulter was on UMich’s Law Review and then clerked on the Fifth Circuit; Sarah Palin runs marathons, can field-dress a moose, and was a damn good governor, and yours truly (who does not belong in the illustrious company mentioned above) took advanced quantum mechanics at the age of 20 and then decided to become a lawyer.

Some of us like those male-dominated professions, Mr. McCain! Active transport is not needed; osmosis will take us there anyway.

That’s not to say that modern feminism is not a train wreck of Obama-Presidency-esque proportions, but that the original feminist movement was valid. It’s analogous to the late 18th century desire for a central government that was strong enough to unite a nation, which was later perverted to permit Congress to control our schools, retirement, health care, and car emissions.

*It is worth noting that the “feminist” Left hates all of us. It’s also worth noting that very few on the “feminist” Left actually engage in many of those activities.
Sissy Willis
May 3rd, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

My Dear Mr. McCain:

Thank you very much for your kind words — much appreciated — and your choice of artwork: Exquis! I must gently chide you, however, for getting things slightly arse backwards.

You are quite correct that “on American university campuses, higher education has become hostile to truth.” Rather than being the cause, however, post-modern feminism is but one of many disagreeable effects of the Gramscian march through the institutions, as I wrote in an earlier post, “The Tocquevillians Strike Back”:

“While America slept — or rather, while it was going about its business — Gramscian thinking, like sewage leaking out of a cracked drainpipe into the surrounding soil, has seeped into major sectors of our civil society — the law, foundations, universities and corporations among others.”

More here if you’re interested: http://bit.ly/buG19G
Sissy Willis
May 3rd, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

My Dear Mr. McCain:

Thank you very much for your kind words — much appreciated — and your choice of artwork: Exquis! I must gently chide you, however, for getting things slightly arse backwards.

You are quite correct that “on American university campuses, higher education has become hostile to truth.” Rather than being the cause, however, post-modern feminism is but one of many disagreeable effects of the Gramscian march through the institutions, as I wrote in an earlier post, “The Tocquevillians Strike Back”:

“While America slept — or rather, while it was going about its business — Gramscian thinking, like sewage leaking out of a cracked drainpipe into the surrounding soil, has seeped into major sectors of our civil society — the law, foundations, universities and corporations among others.”

More here if you’re interested: http://bit.ly/buG19G
The Javelineer
May 3rd, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

Feminist base their philosophy in the most preposterous, the most incredible, the most fantastic hoax ever perpetrated: the belief in the historical oppression of women.

Women have always had it better than men. Women have always been protected, and men have always been sacrificed.

This arrangement worked because men had a place of honor in society. Honor was needed. Men will sacrifice themselves to protect their women, only if they are honored and obeyed.

Men today are dishonored, and women are disobedient. Feminists teach women that “well-behaved women have rarely made history.” Yes, well ill-behaved women have rarely kept a man. Or deserved his protection.

If women want chivalry of men, then men can demand chivalry of women. Men can demand that women be chaste and obedient.

Where will you find a chaste and obedient woman? ‘Sassy’ is a compliment these days. ‘Slutty’ sells.

When we lie, when we claim that women have been oppressed compared to men of the same time – we make life much more difficult for the average man. Average Joe already had it more difficult than Average Jane. Now comes feminism to make Joe’s lot impossible.

It’s no wonder that men are refusing to marry, in greater and greater numbers. Feminism transformed the pleasurably strategic game of mating into a continuous war.

Man the guns ladies! Yeah, that’ll be the day.
The Javelineer
May 3rd, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Feminist base their philosophy in the most preposterous, the most incredible, the most fantastic hoax ever perpetrated: the belief in the historical oppression of women.

Women have always had it better than men. Women have always been protected, and men have always been sacrificed.

This arrangement worked because men had a place of honor in society. Honor was needed. Men will sacrifice themselves to protect their women, only if they are honored and obeyed.

Men today are dishonored, and women are disobedient. Feminists teach women that “well-behaved women have rarely made history.” Yes, well ill-behaved women have rarely kept a man. Or deserved his protection.

If women want chivalry of men, then men can demand chivalry of women. Men can demand that women be chaste and obedient.

Where will you find a chaste and obedient woman? ‘Sassy’ is a compliment these days. ‘Slutty’ sells.

When we lie, when we claim that women have been oppressed compared to men of the same time – we make life much more difficult for the average man. Average Joe already had it more difficult than Average Jane. Now comes feminism to make Joe’s lot impossible.

It’s no wonder that men are refusing to marry, in greater and greater numbers. Feminism transformed the pleasurably strategic game of mating into a continuous war.

Man the guns ladies! Yeah, that’ll be the day.
richard mcenroe
May 3rd, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Linked and first daily entry up…
richard mcenroe
May 3rd, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

Linked and first daily entry up…
JeffS
May 3rd, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

If you want to offend feminists (at least the post-modern variety), just tell the truth.

*It is worth noting that the “feminist” Left hates all of us. It’s also worth noting that very few on the “feminist” Left actually engage in many of those activities.

I think it’s better to say that the original intent of feminism has been hijacked by wannabes using feminism as a shield in order to get privileges without accepting responsibilities. I saw a fair amount of this in the military. This, I believe, is Stacey’s point.

I also worked with a good number of female soldiers who performed to standard, and didn’t use their gender to get things done for them. Just so ya know where I stand on this.
JeffS
May 3rd, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

If you want to offend feminists (at least the post-modern variety), just tell the truth.

*It is worth noting that the “feminist” Left hates all of us. It’s also worth noting that very few on the “feminist” Left actually engage in many of those activities.

I think it’s better to say that the original intent of feminism has been hijacked by wannabes using feminism as a shield in order to get privileges without accepting responsibilities. I saw a fair amount of this in the military. This, I believe, is Stacey’s point.

I also worked with a good number of female soldiers who performed to standard, and didn’t use their gender to get things done for them. Just so ya know where I stand on this.
McGehee
May 3rd, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

Offend feminists? You mean, pretend women’s opinions matter?
McGehee
May 3rd, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

Offend feminists? You mean, pretend women’s opinions matter?
jefferson101
May 3rd, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

Women who earn their way to where they are in business, industry, or whatever other occupation, by their honest efforts and competence? I have no problem whatsoever with them.

The other half, who have slept, connived, and “equal-opportunitied” their way to where they are? They are giving the other half a bad name, because I’ve acquired a knee-jerk suspicion of all of ‘ya from that half.

And I’ve got to take issue with Smitty in one respect. What’s up with this “Now run along, sweetheart, and get me a cup of coffee.” thing?

If the Sun’s over the Yardarm, she ought to be bringing me a Beer, right? Why are some of them so hard to train?
jefferson101
May 3rd, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

Women who earn their way to where they are in business, industry, or whatever other occupation, by their honest efforts and competence? I have no problem whatsoever with them.

The other half, who have slept, connived, and “equal-opportunitied” their way to where they are? They are giving the other half a bad name, because I’ve acquired a knee-jerk suspicion of all of ‘ya from that half.

And I’ve got to take issue with Smitty in one respect. What’s up with this “Now run along, sweetheart, and get me a cup of coffee.” thing?

If the Sun’s over the Yardarm, she ought to be bringing me a Beer, right? Why are some of them so hard to train?
Is it that time of year already? « The Daley Gator
May 3rd, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

[…] that we were marking Stacy McCain’s National Offend a Feminist Week. And now here we are honoring it once again Our announcement of the 2nd annual National Offend a Feminist Week provokes the eloquent Sissy […]
Mary Rose
May 4th, 2010 @ 1:57 am

Oh, my dear Stacy, you’re singin’ my tune.

When I was 20, I experimented with feminism for, thankfully, a very short period in my life; during which God miraculously poured some wisdom down the tube and showed me what a complete scam the whole thing was.

I hung out in a feminist bookstore. I started to read a few books. I noticed one of the very first things the feminists did was mock Christianity. Then, because nature abhors a vacuum, etc., etc., they tried to fill that void with “goddess theology.” (Because all you men surely realize that we women are deities who deserve to be worshipped and obeyed at all costs, no?) The feminist authors spent quite a bit of time bashing Christianity and the Bible, calling men “oppressors” and the whole religious system “patriarchal.” Ooo, scary. But never once do I remember any of them questioning Islam and its treatment of women. I suppose “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Again, I may delve into this subject later on my own blog because I seem to have a knack for writing “comment books” here. But I have to say, I will most heartily engage in your “National Offend a Feminist Week” because I blame feminism for most of what ails our country. Women have been lied to and led like sheeps to a slaughter. Unfortunately, they brought all their little lambs with them.

Today, as a result of radical feminism, men are emasculated, boys are feminized to the point where they emote more than a girl, and younger women had the joy of womanhood denied to them.

It went beyond “equal pay for equal work” to the point where feminists treated men as badly as they claimed to hate. Even Betty Friedan saw it. Now it’s morphed into castrating (figuratively, of course, but ya gotta wonder…) men for their sexuality but yet women on the prowl are “liberating.” There is absolutely no logic with feminism. Basically, it can be boiled down to this:

If a man does it, its wrong, selfish, arrogant, dense, stupid, etc., etc. If a woman does it, it’s right.

And, Javelineer, this:

“Feminists teach women that “well-behaved women have rarely made history.” Yes, well ill-behaved women have rarely kept a man. Or deserved his protection.”

is brilliant beyond words. Interesting how many feminists run around ranting about their poor lot in life here in the States (are you kidding?) but often have difficulty finding a date. The fact that few men want to snuggle up to a sheet of sandpaper is lost on them.
Mary Rose
May 3rd, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

Oh, my dear Stacy, you’re singin’ my tune.

When I was 20, I experimented with feminism for, thankfully, a very short period in my life; during which God miraculously poured some wisdom down the tube and showed me what a complete scam the whole thing was.

I hung out in a feminist bookstore. I started to read a few books. I noticed one of the very first things the feminists did was mock Christianity. Then, because nature abhors a vacuum, etc., etc., they tried to fill that void with “goddess theology.” (Because all you men surely realize that we women are deities who deserve to be worshipped and obeyed at all costs, no?) The feminist authors spent quite a bit of time bashing Christianity and the Bible, calling men “oppressors” and the whole religious system “patriarchal.” Ooo, scary. But never once do I remember any of them questioning Islam and its treatment of women. I suppose “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Again, I may delve into this subject later on my own blog because I seem to have a knack for writing “comment books” here. But I have to say, I will most heartily engage in your “National Offend a Feminist Week” because I blame feminism for most of what ails our country. Women have been lied to and led like sheeps to a slaughter. Unfortunately, they brought all their little lambs with them.

Today, as a result of radical feminism, men are emasculated, boys are feminized to the point where they emote more than a girl, and younger women had the joy of womanhood denied to them.

It went beyond “equal pay for equal work” to the point where feminists treated men as badly as they claimed to hate. Even Betty Friedan saw it. Now it’s morphed into castrating (figuratively, of course, but ya gotta wonder…) men for their sexuality but yet women on the prowl are “liberating.” There is absolutely no logic with feminism. Basically, it can be boiled down to this:

If a man does it, its wrong, selfish, arrogant, dense, stupid, etc., etc. If a woman does it, it’s right.

And, Javelineer, this:

“Feminists teach women that “well-behaved women have rarely made history.” Yes, well ill-behaved women have rarely kept a man. Or deserved his protection.”

is brilliant beyond words. Interesting how many feminists run around ranting about their poor lot in life here in the States (are you kidding?) but often have difficulty finding a date. The fact that few men want to snuggle up to a sheet of sandpaper is lost on them.
Offend A Feminist: Those Were The Days « The Camp Of The Saints
May 3rd, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

[…] It’s National Offend A Feminist Week as declared by Dr. Robert Stacy McCain. […]
Roxeanne de Luca
May 4th, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

Where will you find a chaste and obedient woman? ‘Sassy’ is a compliment these days. ‘Slutty’ sells.

First, “sassy” is a compliment; second, there are chaste women all over the place. They are usually the ones who spend their Saturday nights at home, because they can’t find chaste men.

If men wanted chaste, women would be chaste – especially younger women, who are often so insecure and eager to please young men. That women are “slutty” is indicative of a supply-and-demand issue… and that many women remain chaste, in the face of the relentless male pressure to act like whores, is nothing short of a miracle.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 4th, 2010 @ 8:18 am

Where will you find a chaste and obedient woman? ‘Sassy’ is a compliment these days. ‘Slutty’ sells.

First, “sassy” is a compliment; second, there are chaste women all over the place. They are usually the ones who spend their Saturday nights at home, because they can’t find chaste men.

If men wanted chaste, women would be chaste – especially younger women, who are often so insecure and eager to please young men. That women are “slutty” is indicative of a supply-and-demand issue… and that many women remain chaste, in the face of the relentless male pressure to act like whores, is nothing short of a miracle.
Offend A Feminist: Potpourri « The Camp Of The Saints
May 4th, 2010 @ 8:54 pm

[…] It’s National Offend A Feminist Week as declared by Dr. Robert Stacy McCain. […]
Why you should never eat lunch and read The Other McCain at the same time. « The TrogloPundit
May 4th, 2010 @ 11:32 pm

[…] Week, Stacy McCain feels the need to…explain things. Specifically: men, women, equality, and the fungibility of equal things: Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing […]
Nikki
May 10th, 2010 @ 3:25 am

It’s interesting how many women seemed to have commented in approval with this article, because it’s obvious from the context of it that Mr. McCain (and his sidekick Smitty) probably do not care, as they’ve stated that us women are not equal to their penis-wielding superiority.

Second, Mary Rose, I’m sorry dear, but I just got to bring this point up. When you were “dabbling” with Feminism in your younger days probably during the Stone Age from what I can tell of your hair color, Islam wasn’t something well-known in the U.S. But if you are interested, I could point you to quite a few very well thought out and interesting articles about the oppression of women in Islam and the Middle East and how our troops are helping the Muslim men out with that, written by people who call themselves feminists. (Rape is a very affective war tactic apparantly.) But I figure you would have nothing against that since it’s okay with you to follow a religion that doesn’t punish its priests for molesting and violating children. Not all Muslims treat their women as bad as you seem to think.
And to speak of my favorite lines from this article: “Men and women are not the same; therefore, not equal. . .This is not to assert any general theory of masculine superiority. . .” Well, apparently it is since what makes me different from you Stacy, generally speaking, is that I a.) don’t have a penis, b.) am not pumped up with testoterone, and c.) have no right (officially) to claim to be masculine. Therefore, you are in reality “asserting” that men are in fact superior to women for this reason, since you keep stressing that we’re different and our lack of “fungibility” (you talks like we’re products) is what makes us inferior.
I have so many other criticisms for many of the other bloggers who’ve posted here and of this article. (Stacy, you contradict yourself a lot in this. In your words, “Only a fool” would not notice this abundance of contradictions you call a blog post.) You can repeat over and over that you’re not a sexist pig, but it doesn’t make it any less true. In fact, it just makes you look more like a jackass to us smart people who well above the average 80-100 IQ of the general American population.
And to all the people asserting that Feminists can’t find a date, who ever said that we’re looking for one? Especially with anyone who thinks like this.
Nikki
May 9th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

It’s interesting how many women seemed to have commented in approval with this article, because it’s obvious from the context of it that Mr. McCain (and his sidekick Smitty) probably do not care, as they’ve stated that us women are not equal to their penis-wielding superiority.

Second, Mary Rose, I’m sorry dear, but I just got to bring this point up. When you were “dabbling” with Feminism in your younger days probably during the Stone Age from what I can tell of your hair color, Islam wasn’t something well-known in the U.S. But if you are interested, I could point you to quite a few very well thought out and interesting articles about the oppression of women in Islam and the Middle East and how our troops are helping the Muslim men out with that, written by people who call themselves feminists. (Rape is a very affective war tactic apparantly.) But I figure you would have nothing against that since it’s okay with you to follow a religion that doesn’t punish its priests for molesting and violating children. Not all Muslims treat their women as bad as you seem to think.
And to speak of my favorite lines from this article: “Men and women are not the same; therefore, not equal. . .This is not to assert any general theory of masculine superiority. . .” Well, apparently it is since what makes me different from you Stacy, generally speaking, is that I a.) don’t have a penis, b.) am not pumped up with testoterone, and c.) have no right (officially) to claim to be masculine. Therefore, you are in reality “asserting” that men are in fact superior to women for this reason, since you keep stressing that we’re different and our lack of “fungibility” (you talks like we’re products) is what makes us inferior.
I have so many other criticisms for many of the other bloggers who’ve posted here and of this article. (Stacy, you contradict yourself a lot in this. In your words, “Only a fool” would not notice this abundance of contradictions you call a blog post.) You can repeat over and over that you’re not a sexist pig, but it doesn’t make it any less true. In fact, it just makes you look more like a jackass to us smart people who well above the average 80-100 IQ of the general American population.
And to all the people asserting that Feminists can’t find a date, who ever said that we’re looking for one? Especially with anyone who thinks like this.
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

“The feminist authors spent quite a bit of time bashing Christianity and the Bible, calling men “oppressors” and the whole religious system “patriarchal.” Ooo, scary. But never once do I remember any of them questioning Islam and its treatment of women.”

Feminism has written plenty on Islam. By default it hates it because Islam is a patriarchal religion and feminism hates all belief systems that are entirely gynocentric and pro-female.

In case you didn’t notice, most Western countries are not Islamic, so obvious Western feminists are going to have less to say about Islam. They will focus their ire on the patriarchal religions that are (were) predominant in the West – i.e. Christianity.

Nonetheless, where feminism does remark on Islam, it is almost always in a negative light; the exact same approach as it took with Christianity.

“I suppose “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.””

Islam, as a patriarchal religion, is “the enemy”. Patriarchy (i.e. male power in any and all forms) is feminism’s prime enemy, which it seeks to completely eliminate (so-called “radical feminism” [even though all feminism has the same gameplan]).

Please engage logic.

“It went beyond “equal pay for equal work” to the point where feminists treated men as badly as they claimed to hate.”

Feminism was never about equal pay for equal work. Feminism was always about bashing and disempowering men. It didn’t “go beyond” “x perfectly reasonable demand” – matriarchy and oppression of men was always the gameplan.

“Even Betty Friedan saw it.”

Wow she’s redeemed now isn’t she.

“Now it’s morphed”

Feminism hasn’t “morphed” into anything. The essential core of feminism that’s exposed today is the way it ALWAYS was (sometimes it has to tone down for the sake of political expediency/efficiency – that’s politics).
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

“The feminist authors spent quite a bit of time bashing Christianity and the Bible, calling men “oppressors” and the whole religious system “patriarchal.” Ooo, scary. But never once do I remember any of them questioning Islam and its treatment of women.”

Feminism has written plenty on Islam. By default it hates it because Islam is a patriarchal religion and feminism hates all belief systems that are entirely gynocentric and pro-female.

In case you didn’t notice, most Western countries are not Islamic, so obvious Western feminists are going to have less to say about Islam. They will focus their ire on the patriarchal religions that are (were) predominant in the West – i.e. Christianity.

Nonetheless, where feminism does remark on Islam, it is almost always in a negative light; the exact same approach as it took with Christianity.

“I suppose “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.””

Islam, as a patriarchal religion, is “the enemy”. Patriarchy (i.e. male power in any and all forms) is feminism’s prime enemy, which it seeks to completely eliminate (so-called “radical feminism” [even though all feminism has the same gameplan]).

Please engage logic.

“It went beyond “equal pay for equal work” to the point where feminists treated men as badly as they claimed to hate.”

Feminism was never about equal pay for equal work. Feminism was always about bashing and disempowering men. It didn’t “go beyond” “x perfectly reasonable demand” – matriarchy and oppression of men was always the gameplan.

“Even Betty Friedan saw it.”

Wow she’s redeemed now isn’t she.

“Now it’s morphed”

Feminism hasn’t “morphed” into anything. The essential core of feminism that’s exposed today is the way it ALWAYS was (sometimes it has to tone down for the sake of political expediency/efficiency – that’s politics).
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Correction:

Feminism has written plenty on Islam. By default it hates it because Islam is a patriarchal religion and feminism hates all belief systems THAT ARE NOT entirely gynocentric and pro-female.
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

Correction:

Feminism has written plenty on Islam. By default it hates it because Islam is a patriarchal religion and feminism hates all belief systems THAT ARE NOT entirely gynocentric and pro-female.
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

“I think it’s better to say that the original intent of feminism has been hijacked by wannabes using feminism as a shield in order to get privileges without accepting responsibilities. ”

More of this absolute bullshit narrative that back in Feminism’s Garden of Eden all was rosy and all intentions were pure. Pull the other one.

“And to all the people asserting that Feminists can’t find a date, who ever said that we’re looking for one? Especially with anyone who thinks like this.”

Yeah you are right it’s a bogus argument which should not be used against the feminist cretins. I advocate much simpler and more direct attacks on the feminist (i.e. matriarchy = hatred of men) movement.
right
May 20th, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

“I think it’s better to say that the original intent of feminism has been hijacked by wannabes using feminism as a shield in order to get privileges without accepting responsibilities. ”

More of this absolute bullshit narrative that back in Feminism’s Garden of Eden all was rosy and all intentions were pure. Pull the other one.

“And to all the people asserting that Feminists can’t find a date, who ever said that we’re looking for one? Especially with anyone who thinks like this.”

Yeah you are right it’s a bogus argument which should not be used against the feminist cretins. I advocate much simpler and more direct attacks on the feminist (i.e. matriarchy = hatred of men) movement.
When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’ : The Other McCain
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

[…] capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology). A brief explanation:Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal. Equality implies fungibility — that […]
The Righteous Rant Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints
August 2nd, 2010 @ 8:08 am

[…] Feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. It is a radical egalitarian ideology based upon a fallacy, and should never be endorsed or appeased in the erroneous belief that, by kowtowing to ideologues, Republicans can win “The Women’s Vote” (capital-T, capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology). A brief explanation: […]