Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

A long awaited…not a rebuttal to Girl Writes What

Caught in a peculiar place in the debate of Is Feminism Hate I’d been shelving my arguments of the torrent of half-truths spilled at me in response to my “Feminism is Not Hate” video (because as the argument stands it seems we do little else but check the accuracy of one another’s claims) I turned to my sister, who incidentally does not identify as feminist, with some help on the fact-checking ’cause there is a lot to work with in a 40 minute video.

[EDIT: I don't know that I should bother to explain here but I didn't go running to big sis for help cause ppls on teh internets were mean. She's been a participant in the discussion for awhile and I just tend to give her my blog as a platform] originally we intended to collaborate on a video but between the comments sections, and video responses I’ve ended up stating most of the points that I would have used for clarification. Big shout out to Russ who elevated the conversation back into the realm of proper debate, by defining terms and sticking with the topic. Allowing scope creep makes for a watered-down argument.

Penny decided not to bother with a rebuttal, and over the course of the discussions I have been following I’m tending toward the belief that she is right. While GWW generously declared that I had the integrity to respond to the challenge the only thing I have learned is why others do not bother to engage. I don’t mind the conversation, but I do hate the never-ending time-consuming vacuum that this debate has become. We’ll return to more meaningful discussion after this–there’s a full day’s work in feminism without bothering to argue with people who respond only with condescension at best and ridiculous insults at worst. Don’t call me anti-science and then apply anthropomorphic moralization to female Bonobos.

Combined with this, and a lengthy rebuttal from Russ Lindquest’s video I really don’t feel like there’s much more bashing my head into brick walls left to accomplish. That is to say the debate has sparked the conversation both sides have been looking for…hopefully some good can come of intersectionality.

Below is my sister’s comments. I editorialize no further.

Dear GWW (Karen):

This is, rather than a rebuttal to your ridiculous gush galloping techniques, simply pointing out the fallacy of your argument and why it isn’t worthy of debate.

The statement that the architects of feminist theory use selective facts is redundant. When anyone is trying to demonstrate a point, as you, yourself have done, they will select facts that will illustrate the point they are trying to make. 

To the problem you find in assuming that a person in charge would, or would not care about the other gender, that could certainly be quantified by the rights and privileges assigned to one, but not the other gender, and also by the fact that, indeed both sexes have been oppressed under most governments.

You may not have 100 years of activism, but you do have thousands of years of doctrine at your disposal, which does place what argument you could have made at an advantage. Let me substantiate that, and also address “That verse in the Bible about women being obedient to their husbands if they wanted to stay on the right side of the man upstairs”, with some quotes from The Bible, and to refute what you seem to suggest was the totality of women’s obligation;

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.” (Leviticus 12:2)

“But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:5)

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

“Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:22-23)

“Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” (Judges 19:24-25)

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saeth the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Perhaps further study of evolution would be necessary if you are going to argue sexual dimorphism. Real science explains that sexual dimorphism is actually related to male competition rather than “who had things harder”. Darwin’s own theory of this is sexual selection, meaning the females prerogative to choose a mate.

Evolutionary adaptations have decidedly little to do with size, “survival of the fittest” illustrates the process of naturally selecting adaptive traits that would render the animal more suitable for its environment such as, with homo sapiens (lacking effective defensive or predatory physiological attributes, such as claws, speed, jaws and teeth) an adaptive and creative mind capable of inventing and utilizing tools for those purposes, furthermore, we are not comparing two different animals, we are comparing sexes of the same species. 

Bonobos social structure is actually very little like you describe. Sex is very prevalent in their social order, males with males, females with females, males with females. It’s almost like we would use a handshake. I thought that was common knowledge, but apparently not. In fact, it has been noted that females dominate the social environment.

What might occur to someone feminist or not, is the evidence that points to the contrary of your assertion that the most extreme patriarchies occur in the harshest living conditions. For example: The women from Changthang Plateau have a relatively high social status. The Tuareg from the Sahara Desert have high status compared to their Arab counterparts and are largely matrilineal. Quite interesting are the Nenets from Siberia, who actually have a matriarchal social structure.

Your implication that women are incapable of hunting or surviving extreme conditions is a fascinating and bald assertion. For various reasons women did hunt in the Inuit culture. Men also helped with what you claim to be “lesser women’s’ duties”. To be honest, I don’t understand why you would classify the Inuit as an “extreme patriarchy” at all. It would be very helpful to your argument, if you would elaborate on your points, or even quantify them, considering your assertions tend to go against any empirical evidence

Addressing the thought that Inuit men would have chosen not to risk and sacrifice like they did, if all they got was the same rewards and status as Inuit women. A person that does anything for the implicit reward of controlling, or placing themselves above another person may well be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, so if those men were narcissists, then probably not. This argument, however, largely ignores the fact that throughout any determinable hominid history we are social animals, and although it may have been the prerogative of individual men to leave the social structure, they likely wouldn’t have. 

It is laughable that you look to mythology to attempt to illustrate that point. Even still, the reason for Siddhartha Gautama “walking away” was his attempt to ease the burdens that he saw, which he had a deep empathy for, rather than renouncing his supposed responsibility to provide for anyone.

I am not myself a feminist, and I find it difficult to defend positions I don’t agree with. Feminism, in my understanding is about equality on all fronts. I would adamantly include risks and dangers that men need to take. In the instance of certain labour practices and especially conscription, I really don’t see why anyone would fight to attain those. It would seem, to be fighting for their own oppression. I don’t know why men haven’t stood up and abolished that practice, but to say that feminists are hateful or even “not really for equality” because they aren’t championing men’s causes is ridiculous.

By definition children are subjugated. They are under the control of the parents and the government. I’m guessing as a mother of three kids, you don’t let them run around and break things, put random objects in their mouth or get themselves into dangerous situations by their own will. There is a big difference between an adult and a child being subjugated. An adult can reason, and children do attain this (at what age is another debate) but until they do it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that they are safe, even from themselves.

Did you ever think that just maybe your “epiphany” that marriage was a way for either a man or a woman to enslave the other, speaks to nothing but your own motives? I am entirely grateful that I don’t have to stoop to manipulative tactics for my own survival, or a better quality of life. I have the agency to take care of myself and be free to choose a partner because of his personal qualities, rather than what he can provide me with. This was probably the single greatest gift of feminism; men no longer have to worry, with a resourceful woman, if she is giving herself over to him purely out of desire for his resources.

I know my sister’s love of debate. I also know her empathetic nature, and that she uses debate largely as a means to mutual actualization. Both of us have concern for men’s issues, and have attempted to gain a deeper understanding of them. That said, I am sorry that I encouraged her to engage in this debate, I wasn’t aware of your propensity for distorting fact.

 I would now encourage her to wash her hands of this “debate”, nothing useful can come from conversation with someone who has no appreciation for fact or reason. The only thing she’s accomplished is opening herself up to abuse from your peers, and a misappropriated condescension from you.

I would also encourage her not to bother with comments, as I doubt anything remotely useful can come from someone who actually takes you seriously either.

Penny Paradis 

Sources

American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 103 Issue 1 – Intrasexual Competition and Body Weight Dimorphism in Anthropoid Primates – J Michael Plavacan, Carel P Van Schiak

Origin of Species – Charles Darwin

Status of Women in Transhumant Societies – Veena Bhasin

Primate Info Net – National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin

Firstworldwar.com – Encyclopaedia – White Feathers

7 things Bonobos can teach us about love and sex http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201202/7-things-bonobos-can-teach-us-about-love-and-sex

Sharing is Caring Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on TumblrShare on Reddit11Pin on Pinterest0Share on Facebook5
26 Comments
  • “A person that does anything for the implicit reward of controlling, or placing themselves above another person may well be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, so if those men were narcissists, then probably not.” … It seems as if you are looking at something and taking it to the extreme.

    • Reductio ad absurdum. She is demonstrating that a statement is very likely false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. The crux of the argument there is that perhaps if all people suffer from something like a personality disorder then GWWs view of the social structure may be correct–but that’s not very likely.

  • anton says:

    “It wasn’t suffragettes who were manipulating men to die for their country. Mary Ward, an anti-suffragette was one of the notable proponents of handing out the white feather.”

    - Her argument wasn’t that ALL suffragettes were doing so, nor was it that ONLY the suffragettes were doing so. But it is true that some prominent members of the suffragette movement like Christabel Pankhurst did participate actively in the white feather movement.

    Bringing up the example that an anti-suffragette handed out white feathers too, does nothing to rebut the point.

  • miSter inFamies says:

    Dismissing and trivializing mens rights are tactics used by feminism. Here we have two sides that are not opposites. Anti-Feminism and Anti-Mens Rights are clear opposition to each side. Failing to see a need for men to be treated equally, and/or claiming all men are privileged and don’t deserve rights is blatant bigotry. While many feminists don’t adhere to bigoted misandry there are people out there that do so in the name of feminism. Hence the need to address feminisms failings.

    • thenewpornculture says:

      As you should, either side has failings and either side has points. The thing is that no one here is trivializing mens rights, or their right to equality.

    • Cassie says:

      It IS possible to believe that men are inherently privileged, and ALSO believe they deserve rights. You can recognise the inherent advantages of being male, without being subjugated in chains. No one is asking for that.

      • SouthEuropeRulez says:

        Your “argument” resemples the myth about “Original sin”

        “if you are already born, you are sinner and need to be saved!”

        “If you are male, you are priviledged, your opinion and experiences don’t matter. Be saved – join us, humiliate your own gender!”

        Hallelujah,

        oh old wise womyn

        PS:
        for a quicker destruction of Feminism and degradation, European/Western MRAs and Colored women right activists (“womanists”) need to work together. This is a notice to MRAs who read this

        • How about you keep “notices to MRAs” for your own platform please. I’d rather not censor you but I really think you can start your own blog for messages like that.

  • Nastra says:

    Hello, I’m Nastra the guy who posted a response to Penny’ rebuttal to GWW. I am not sure what I did to incur the deletion of that post so I went ahead and hosted it in its original entirety on my own blog. I suppose I should mention that I always save posts like that on my hard drive so I can go back and critique them later. Have a nice day!

    The Response: http://nastraurl.blogspot.com/

  • I <3 this sentence: "Don’t call me anti-science and then apply anthropomorphic moralization to female Bonobos."

  • SouthEuropeRulez says:

    I really enjoyed your pretentios copy-paste bullshit from fairy tales like the Bible. I know that many feminists really want to pretend that we live in spain under the rule of Inquisition… but the facts remain. White women are the most priviledged people on this planet

    Real victimization of women in the third world is ignored by white womynz.

    As MRA i am pro-women rights… in places where they are needed. Many non-white women right activists actualy stand up to the feminist old white womyn bullshiters

    Feminists are not suffering in the west. w. womyn are really having it “good”. Feminism combined with lack of real issues, lead to the current perversion of feminazis (“castrate all baby boys”, “all men are pedophiles”; “only men can be mentally ill”)

    Feminism is slowly dying,
    MRA and WRA (women right organizations) really need to stand to w. womyn bullshit

    • Real victimization is not ignored by all white women, and you don’t have to be feminist to care about women’s rights. But there is no contest that women in the developing world have bigger challenges. Glad to hear you are supporting some women’s rights though sorry to hear they only occur in places you deem ‘need it’. I’m a not totally white feminist myself as I mention earlier in the blog. I’m Metis and in Canada those women who are native have many challenges that middle class white women do not. Feminism is not a monolith.

      As to the bible quotes I think you understand what point my sister was trying to make.

      • SouthEuropeRulez says:

        And your point was? Right now in the only christian theocracy (The Vatican), women can show their flesh, gay catholics are to some extent tolerated. While in Moderate islamic countries like Egypt and Turkey, rape and sexual assaults against women are weekly events.

        I am really hateful to the lack of Objectivism of feminists. Feminists openly say “we are Anti-objectivists. Objectivism is for Ayn Rand fascists”. Your moral relativism lead to attack against moderate males (western/jewish) and tolerance of male supremacists from the third world (fact noticed by arab liberal women)

        And when the feminists will adress men issues? The answer is – never
        Feminism is endless fight for more privilege for certain women with certain skin color, you never will get tired… unless someone slap you at the face (this is figure of speech btw)

        • I don’t think slapping a feminist in the face “figuratively” is likely to make her stop either. But I’m not going to get outraged by you threatening me if that is what you are worried about.

          Otherwise, you’re just kinda raging against straw feminists or a composition of every feminist you hate and that’s not really my problem. I recognize that there are feminists that you don’t like.

          At the same time, you mention that feminists are lacking objectivism but then state that they only care for themselves which certainly aligns with the moral purpose of life being the pursuit of one’s rational self-interest (in this case “they” are white women feminists). So pick one bro.

        • @SouthEuropeRulez I’m “subscribed” to this post, so I’m getting updates and following this conversation, and I’ve got to tell you, @SouthEuropeRulez: know your enemy. you have got to stop this nonsense of thinking that if you toss out enough of what you think are strong arguments–over and over and over–that then you will “win.” You are not “winning” @SouthEuropeRulez. you are losing, not “against Danielle”–you are losing against yourself: falling on your own sword of self-righteousness.

          Here are some examples:

          Penny Paradis posts examples of the biblical misogyny, from a bible that has informed–and yet informs–the perspective of billions of people; and then simply dismiss it as “copy-paste bullshit from fairy tales,” alluding that such arguments are antiquated because, “[Catholic] women can show their flesh [and] gay catholics are to some extent tolerated.” Let me give you a comparison: whenever famous atheist Christopher Hitchens would debate someone who asserted “murderous Stalinist Russia was an atheistic state,” Hitchens would clarify that, in the centuries preceding the “atheist state,” Russian culture was absolutely saturated with religion, priming people to be obedient to any dogma however vicious, paving the way for the credulity which underpinned the viciousness of Stalinist Russia. So, again, @SouthEuropeRulez know your enemy, and realize that “Catholic women can be immodest” and “catholics somewhat tolerate gays” is not–whatsoever–a convincing refutation against those who would cite passages (and enduring effects) of a bible–bathed in so much insanity, including misogyny–for which, to this day, countless people in the world are willing to kill and die.

          “White women are the most priviledged people on this planet”

          this is absolutely indefensible. you could make a good case that “the most privileged people on this planet are white women”–but NOT that “white women are the most privileged people.” if you believe that “white” + “woman” ensures someone priviledge then come down here to Mexico, down to Coahuila street in downtown Tijuana; there, you will encounter plenty white white: helpless drug-addicts, set up for failure by a society (USA) that markets young, attractive women as hosts to the highest bidder among countless spiritually-emotionally-and-sexually retarded parasites. youth and attractiveness never endure, and there is no retirement plan for the fleeting, soul-stripping attention given to these “white women” in this rotting culture. If you think “white women” are NECESSARILY priviledged then I would disagree: I would say that plenty end up as nothing but cheated and betrayed–by cultural design–while some of the least priviledged end up across the border–listless, worn-down drug addicts, standing outside of “hotels” all day, on the auction-block, winking and waving at spiritual-zombies, hoping to fuck at least one maybe two guys in a day, for $20 a time. I’ve talked to many of these “white women”; they are usually insane. and they will likely remain insane–and trapped in their living-hell until they drop dead.
          (and btw: 2 blocks over from these whores is one of the biggest, gaudiest Catholic churches I’ve ever seen.)

          “Real victimization of women in the third world is ignored by white womynz.”

          this is a red-herring at best. meanwhile, Dr. Sherri Strothers is a white woman and a communications professor at Grossmont Community College (GCC) here in California. I know this because, years back, I took her Public Speaking class. one day, months into class, I was on faculty page of the GCC website. after scrolling down through headshot after headshot of faculty, I came upon Dr. Strothers faculty picture: she was smiling, holding a shovel, waist-deep in a trench, surrounded by about a dozen little black kids. next class, I asked her (approximately), “what’s THAT about!?” to which she responded, “well, every Summer, I go to Africa and help dig wells, install solar panels” and some other stuff. now guess how many TV shows she’s been on for her efforts. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with “zero.” @SouthEuropeRulez you do not know every “white woman” just because you’ve bought into a handful of hateful talking-points against “white womynz.”

          “As MRA i am pro-women rights”

          you are welcome to lie to yourself, but if I overhear it then I’m calling you on it: there is nothing inherently “pro-women’s rights” about being an MRA. if you are pro-women’s rights then good for you–it’s the only sane way to be. regardless, leave out the implication of “AS an MRA I am for women’s rights” (I realize this point, and some of the above, might be owed to your english being imperfect. regardless, you are saying very specific–very inaccurate–things, as well as misinterpretating others, for example Penny and Danielle)

          “Feminism combined with lack of real issues, lead to the current perversion of feminazis (‘castrate all baby boys’, ‘all men are pedophiles’; ‘only men can be mentally ill’)”

          As Danielle responded to you: “you’re just kinda raging against straw feminists or a composition of every feminist you hate.” it was very kind of Danielle to give you that advice. you should heed it.

          “Feminism is endless fight for more privilege for certain women with certain skin color”

          one day, you just might understand how ridiculous it sounds for a MEN’s Rights Activist to (baselessly) decry feminists as “not caring about non-white women.” in other words: show me the MRA who speaks at all of non-white women for anything other than to (baselessly) call feminists “hypocrite.”

          “Feminism is slowly dying”

          you watch too much TV.

          “when the feminists will adress men issues? The answer is – never”

          here’s an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHE7ZO30L20

          ~Russ

          PS: I <3 Danielle's last paragraph (RE: objectivism)

  • @Russ He knew damn well why someone would use bible scripture to prove the points that Penny was making and if he didn’t–then that type of idiocy can’t be fixed. Anyone not living under a rock would be aware of the influence that religion has on most societies.

    • rflindquist says:

      certainly he/she/he-she knew. but the idiocy can, indeed, be fixed–with a potent enough conversational-methadone. after all, religion is a hell of a drug. as is hypocrisy. as is self-deception. so every now and then, it can be effective to simply restate–from the top–some of the things that plenty leave as “goes without saying.”

      furether, when we find ourselves repeating certain concepts, well, that’s why god, in his infinite (and ostensibly penis-possessing) wisdom, invented the written word
      …and blogs
      …and the Copy+Paste function.
      crafty ole god.

      • SouthEuropeRulez says:

        ” But I’m not going to get outraged by you threatening me if that is what you are worried about.”
        How is the statement “feminists need to be slapped across the face (it’s a figure of speech btw)” a threat against you? Please, don’t be a stereotypical feminist and perceive harsh criticism toward feminism as “e-gang rape”

        to russ
        “She just quoted the Bible to show historical misogyny’
        Here is an objectivist/ayn randian question
        “Is (modern) Christianity as misogynist as… i don’t know, maybe… Islam?!”
        Feminists want to pretend that we live in 1902, and completely neglect real misogyny.

        again to russ’
        “when the feminists will adress men issues? The answer is – never”
        Thank you for your honest answer. Feminists never will cover the growing misandry in the west, that’s not their agenda.

        “you are not winning this war”
        To win what bro? Western men how long will neglect the misandry in the law/educational/financial institutions… for how long, feminists will remain the status quo? This is indeed a war of ideas, and in the long-therm you will lose. The stats, data, logic are on our side… your only (intelectual) “weapons” are shaming, personal attacks and emotional statements. That’s it

        • Ha that’s just what I was commenting on because you felt the need to mention it was a figure of speech.

          I was telling you I don’t feel threatened. That I wasn’t going to be upset about the comment.

          No comment re: objectivism huh?

        • “[Penny] quoted the Bible to show historical misogyny [but] Here is an objectivist/ayn randian question: Is (modern) Christianity as misogynist as… i don’t know, maybe… Islam?!” — SouthEuropeRulez

          The short answer: Tu Quoque. The longer answer: the saying goes “I once complained I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.” the idea is that, “you should only complain if you cannot find anyone else who is worse off.” But there are no less than two problems with your analysis @SouthEuropeRulez: 1) to ignore andor downplay misogyny in the west in no way improves the likeliness–adeptness and willingness–to solve misogyny elsewhere, for example in the Middle East (in fact, to thus ignore andor downplay is more likely to IMPEDE the likeliness), 2) (yet again) I would confidently bet my life that you are completely uninterested in the plight of Muslim women, except to the extent that pretending to care allows you to feel morally superior to “hypocrite feminists.”

  • SouthEuropeRulez says:

    Let’s say “Christianity was evil religion sent by Satan”, so… how long the femmies will attack dying religions like Christianity and ignore one particular growing abrahamic religion? This behaviour of blaming someone/something just because of past events is indeed a revival of the concept of “Original sin” (you are born male – you are priviledged; you are christian – you are part from the Inquisition).
    I am not a westerner, but i know that you have a proverb “Stop beating the dead horse”. Misogyny and Christian theocracies are “dead horses”. In the west – misandry is real issue, misogyny exist only to colored women.

    If Feminism was about focusing on the RIGHTS of abused non-white women, that would make sense. But feminists managed to actualy to tolerate even rape and “honor killings” (if the abusers are non-white men)
    My souces as “white devil” don’t matter. Listen women right activists like Namazie and Ali and their harsh criticism and even attacks to Feminism

    “the extent that pretending to care allows you to feel morally superior to “hypocrite feminists.”
    So, if a euro male expose arab victimization of women he is trying to look as “morally superior”? That’s actualy pretty damn moderate statement, compared to what most feminists think about expossing misogyny in the third-world “that’s so racist. The CraKKKa is just afraid to lose his privilege. Blue eyed devil, stop changing the topic of how bad white women have it”

  • http://nastraurl.blogspot.ca/2013/01/a-reply-to-penny-paradis-reupload.html#comment-form

    ^ I deleted a comment because it long (though Russ’ comments are getting long too *stink eye*) but there it is. I just find generally long-posts inhibit dialogue. So if anyone wants further reading…yay further reading…here’s some.

  • John D says:

    Danielle,
    Below I will enumerate your sisters various points & rebut them below her comments:

    A)
    The statement that the architects of feminist theory use selective facts is redundant. When anyone is trying to demonstrate a point, as you, yourself have done, they will select facts that will illustrate the point they are trying to make.

    B)
    To the problem you find in assuming that a person in charge would, or would not care about the other gender, that could certainly be quantified by the rights and privileges assigned to one, but not the other gender, and also by the fact that, indeed both sexes have been oppressed under most governments.

    C)
    with some quotes from The Bible, and to refute what you seem to suggest was the totality of women’s obligation;

    “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

    D)
    “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

    E)
    “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.” (Leviticus 12:2)
    “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:5)

    F)
    “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

    A) So, it’s okay to cherry pick facts in proving women are oppressed and ignore that men too are oppressed, and then make a bunch of bs studies & laws to “disempower” men be discriminating against male victims of DV, homelessness, education?
    When feminism is laying down it’s fundamental logic to prove wholesale female (& only or mostly) female NO, it does not get to FUDGE THE NUMBERS and still claim to be an egalitarian movement.

    B) So, it doesn’t matter if men being in charge actually DO advocate for male privileges, it just matters that (by being men & being in charge) they have the right to? This is the most absurd double speak I have ever seen. This is a total dodge of HUGE CREDIBLE refutations of patriarchy theory that says men in charge privileges men not in charge.

    In fact, men being in charge seems to work out VERY POORLY for men. Fed programs for women is a binder 8″ thick while programs 4 men r virtually nonexistant.

    C) I take this to mean she will be burned in hell, not like attacked with fire. This ignores the churches control of male sexuality, starting with the unkindest cut. Men who waste their seed are to be disowned, and men who lay w/men are to be stoned to death.

    D) in other words when men do battle & a wife’s husand is about to die in such battle, the wife is punished for “deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him” by removal of her hand as anti-woman, but you don’t see how it’s not anti-man because it is saying the man SHOULD die?

    E) of course if the child is male his gential must be mutilated, but the mother is marked as “unclean”. Yeah, there’s no anti-male component in there, just anti-female.

    F) Other parts of corinthian 11:
    For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
    For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
    Peter 3 says:
    Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife

    *this* is the problem half truths, dishonest tactics & mental gymnastics that show that even if men were in rule over much of history they actually treated MEN much more harshly than women. Through most of ancient & recent history men’s lives were cheap, DIRT CHEAP.

    It’s not the point of female oppression that is the problem w/feminists, it’s the obsession over it & the denial of male oppression.

  • Anonymous says:

    Good god… all of this, while EVERYONE is being looted by the bankers. Sad.

Read previous post:
Storify: The #MALAT feed from the January 16th collaborate session

Storify: The #MALAT feed from the January 16th collaborate sessionA # feed with some pics and resources from the Tony...

Close