- - - - - - -
By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.
Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:
* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
Notice that there is no articulation of what such a "meaningful difference" might consist of. Apart from anatomy, to be honest, what might it be? I'd be fascinated to hear it expounded upon. Revolted, probably, as well...but fascinated.* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
Define "chivalry," in terms of something other then medieval martial practices. Define "harmless displays." I've had my backside swatted in passing by a dude at my first place of employ, and I told him where he could keep his paws in future. Was that "feigned insult" at a "harmless display"? Would it be OK for a woman to grope a guy's crotch in the hallway, and would he be accused of whining when he complained? When guys are on the receiving end of such, they can opine about what is and isn't harmless, and can "feign" their own insults as long as the day is long.* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
Define "traditional marriage." If by that you mean, Father Knows Best and everybody kowtows, rather than it's a partnership, well, yes, that IS unacceptably patriarchal. Perhaps the writer of this article thinks of the world in Balkan picture-bride terms.* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives, and especially dislike those who defend such roles
Might it be, do you think, that most of those who "defend" these housewife roles do so in the starkest theo/ideological terms, specifically defining the woman as subservient to the man? And let's be clear - it's not objection to the individuals, it's objection to the core ideology that places one gender below another.* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking
Oh, here we go. The lovely stereotypes. Women bake. Men tinker with cars. Women knit or sew. Men build sheds and watch sports. Put everybody into nice, tidy boxes that you're not allowed to stray outside of. Why in the hell should everybody have to fit into some kind of arbitrary checklist, just so some guy posting on Conservapedia can feel good about his world-view? You're hooked up with a lady who doesn't like to bake? Go to a bakery and pick up some muffins! Jeebus - get a life!* support affirmative action for women
Oh, I see. This is code for "women shouldn't aspire to anything beyond the secretarial pool." Because women aren't cut out of managerial cloth. Hang it up, buddy. That horse long since left the corral.* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do
Really? You're going to go the "pants" route? That's, like, so 1960s, like my grade school years...or maybe you're jealous that women have the option for either. In public, that is. Your private life, well, that's your own issue...* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
Let's leave aside for now the false flag about women in the military, which has worked for A Long Time Now. The leap to "coed submarines"? That smacks of DE crazy nominee Christine O'Donnell and her claim that coed dormitories on college campuses will naturally devolve to "orgy rooms." Have a little more respect for military discipline and for the troops, dude, than to jump right to this kind of nonsense!* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying
Why should she? What would a man's reaction be, were he expected to take on his wife's surname upon marriage? What the hell is the difference? Why does it remotely matter...unless you're the kind of person who views marriage as more about subjugation than about partnership? I don't have my husband's surname. I'm still married. What's your hangup? Would you rather we cohabited without the formalities?* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
Ah - I see. If you emphasize women - Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, etc. - you're distorting history by not, for instance, giving equal time to all their male hangers-on and adherents. Never mind that the example proffered, Henry VIII, is most known for his string of unfortunate wives. How do you tell the tale of the Underground Railroad without Harriet Tubman? The story of the right to vote without Susan B. Anthony? History unfolds as it will. It doesn't have a gender bias. The likes of Conservapedia inject that bias. That is their shame.* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey"; object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"
I would ask the writer of this post how he would feel were he to be addressed as "mister," or, more objectionably, as "buddy" or "pal" out of the blue. I assume he would not welcome it. So why does he think a woman should welcome either the formality - which, honestly, just makes anyone, man or woman, feel OLD - or the false, informal familiarity which is offensive out of the gate?- - - - - - -
And I won't even get to the the offensiveness of "temptress" as a form of address, except to ask whether any guy would be happy to be addressed as a "stud."
This came from the land o' lunacy that is Conservapedia. But, in closing, as an instructive element, I want to share with you the tags which accompanied the article...
Atheism • Evolutionism • Eugenics • Globalism • Global warming alarmism • Hollywood values • Moral relativism • Professor values • Socialism • Values • Wicca
Policy
Abortion • Affirmative action • Gun control • Homosexual agenda • Income redistribution • Obamacare • Prayer censorship • Statism • Nationalization
Tools
Cloward and Piven Strategy • Biased grading • Censorship • Hate speech • Judicial activism • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Slander • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism • Video game industry
Traits
Arrogance • Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Race baiting • Stupidity • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining
Other
Liberals and friendship • Media elite • Liberal quotient
- - - - - - -
Tells you many a thing, does it not?
1 comment:
Amazing. Really I am at a loss for words.
Post a Comment