Previous 21 - 30 Next
I doubt you can find anybody in America who disagrees with the basic tenets of early feminism. That '1st wave' accomplished all its goals and disbanded; what has followed has been of a completely different nature. The follow-on fascists and other socialists pretending to be feminists make arguments from Marx, not Stanton or Anthony. The 1st wave addressed real injustice, such as those you mention. The following cadres care only for 'rich people problems' or scheme to kill off the poor and minorities through abortion, while ignoring the very real plight of women outside America. Sanger was a rock-star in her day...with the KKK. My heart bleeds for the wealthy women who couldn't be members at Augusta, really it does. If feminism wants its cachet back, it's simple enough: start campaigning against real injustice again. You'll find a vast majority will support that. So long as we're talking about things like Augusta and fake pay statistics and speech codes against 'bossy', it's going to continue to be considered what it has become: male chauvinism in drag. All feminism does today is ensure that rich old men enjoy plenty of fresh young meat.
One other little thing, there are men who are jerks to other men, who are not jerks to women, or least 'their' women. Those jerks who pay no heed to intellectuals or nerds, or pay too much heed, may be kind and gentle to a wife or girlfriend. Even many Nazis were devoted to their wives and children, and no doubt some of them decided to steel their guts and do what they were ordered for no other reason than to protect their families. I disagree with that kind of thinking, but it's easy for me to say, as I don't yet live in a horrible fascistic state like they did. Point is, outward appearances of jerkiness do not necessarily carry over into all areas of life. It's rare that any of us sees more than the tip of the iceberg--in a fog--when evaluating another person.
Fop goes all the way back to the 15th century. It means a man who is excessively concerned with his appearance and with fashion. Synonyms are dandy, coxcomb, popinjay, swell and dude. Fop is SUCH a good term for your garden-variety politician today. Used in a philosophical or political sense it could mean a perfect weathervane, who is continually and constantly swayed by the winds of public opinion and seeks always to be perfect on their focus-group tested opinions.
I have yet to hear any gay 'marriage' advocate actually try to persuade anyone of their view. They just scream 'bigot' at anyone who disagrees. Who they heck are they do tell us all what we're allowed to believe, or more importantly, what we're not allowed to believe. Apparently the Clintons and Obama were terrible bigots not two years ago, but they done seen the light...or the dark. These gay 'marriage' pushers are the ugliest, most vicious expression of bigotry I've ever seen in my lifetime. They've got the Segregationists beat.
I'm with H. Beam Piper on this one. Once convicted, take them into the jail yard that same day and put a bullet in the back of their heads. People who do this kind of thing should be shot not as a punishment, but for being the kind of people who do this kind of thing. It's hilarious how the anti-capital punishment gang always claim that it's not a deterrent, but then, how would we know? If everybody convicted of 1st degree murder died an hour after their conviction, instead of living for years and sometimes being paroled instead of executed, perhaps it might have deter some from crossing the line. But they know they've got the left on their side, so even after they rape and murder they still have hope that somebody from the Democratic Party will save them. We as a society are over-indulgent of crime in general. Simplify the laws, and carry out the punishments swiftly, and then see if crime is deterred or not.
In response to:

Who Created the Rape Culture?

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: May 09, 2014 1:15 PM
Take off your blinders. How exactly are feminists the victims? Do only feminists get raped? In that case the obvious thing to do is abandon feminism. My generation and beyond have all been taught that women want sex far more than men. Feminists and medieval monks agree: women are totally controlled by lust. So what reason does a raging bag of lust have for saying no? She's just being a jerk. She really wants it. That fact that it's all a pile of balderdash is lost on a lot of men, especially young men who haven't yet learned that women are actual individuals rather than a political category. Feminism, pornography, and leftist politics all connive to turn women into consumables for men. I've always said that feminism is male chauvinism in drag, and rape culture is just one more aspect of it. What is feminism but the best way ever created to ensure that rich old men get plenty of fresh young things for the grinder? Whether they're college professors or congressmen or presidents, they have plenty of willing wenches ready to do anything for a few gifts and the prestige of power or fame. Feminism pretends that this behavior is noble, and that all women are, at heart, just prostitutes. Again, just like medieval monks. Amazing how 'progressive' ideas always come from rotten and disproven ancient or medieval beliefs.
In response to:

Say 'No' to Bad Science

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: May 06, 2014 12:25 PM
I used to have faith in scientists too, until I actually started reading the so-called gold standard double-blind studies and discovered that much of the data presented is unsupported opinion--by the subjects. If 80% reported x, then y. I came to the realization that it must always be so when dealing with humans; you can't really take a human being and completely control diet, exercise, air content, etc, even if he or she agreed to it. Researchers simply can't control for far too many factors. The 'gold standard' is brass pretending to be gold. So the problem is that even serious, honest scientists are reporting falsehoods because the method they use is fundamentally flawed. There is no way to fix it unless it becomes possible to truly model a human being in a computer. Not holding my breath on that one. The scientific method is is essence systematic trial and error, and has intrinsic limitations. We should treat every claim with extreme skepticism, and ignore the mockery of those to whom science has become their religion. Technology comes from lucky accidents and flashes of insight far more than systematic trial and error, but scientists who have never created a post-it note are quick to claim all technology derives from 'science,' as if that is something separate from all other forms of human knowledge. Ignore such claims, because 'science' doesn't exist; what we call science today includes huge dollops of philosophy and religion, faith and just-so stories. It should only be used in a more narrow sense, like the science of metallurgy, in the same way that religion should be used narrowly, to specify an individual sect, rather than to lump like with unlike for philosophical or rhetorical advantage. I too have been eating turkey and chicken instead of beef and pork for many years, even though on the relatively rare occasions I have the latter, I can FEEL the difference in my own body. I eat vegetables and fruits galore, and limit bread and eat a lot of whole grains etc. And all the while I've gotten fatter, and feel worse and worse which makes me even fatter. I know exactly what to eat to make me feel good and energetic, yet I rarely eat it, because I'm afraid of gaining even more weight. So I lumber along hoping that someday somebody will learn the actual truth. I don't know what that truth might be; but I am satisfied that almost everything we 'know' about health and nutrition is balderdash.
In response to:

Look Her in the Eye

Renaissance Nerd Wrote: Apr 29, 2014 4:39 PM
You're assuming that suffering is an automatic negative. It is not. All learning comes from suffering. Everything good in the world is produced through suffering. Preferably it is suffering we choose; going to school, working at a job, etc. Sometimes it is not; being laid off, or hit by a drunk driver. Often it is a mixture: breaking your leg skiing or getting herpes because of promiscuity. Suffering in an of itself is an indifferent, and like all indifferents, it may be good or bad depending on how the individual reacts. We can't know at present exactly how much a fetus suffers before being killed. We can roughly quantify how much a woman suffers in pregnancy, though that varies wildly, even across multiple pregnancies of the same woman. We could rough out a minimal level of suffering. However many women have intentionally gotten pregnant a second, third (eleventh, twelfth) time, despite knowing exactly how much suffering it might entail. We can presume without asking them that they considered the suffering worth the resulting baby. Returning to a woman who becomes pregnant against her will (and promiscuity is excluded, since she consented to the chance of it), she will suffer further because of the pregnancy, yes; but it does not follow that the additional suffering will destroy her. It may ennoble, it might strengthen; but killing the child is unjust, and even hardened villains sometimes succumb to guilt at the injustice they've inflicted on others. Treating a baby unjustly because she was herself treated unjustly does not repair the mind or the heart. If she has to suffer to do justice to her unwillingly bestowed child, it provides all by itself a consolation. We'll never manage perfect justice so long as humans are human. That is no reason to embrace injustice simply because it is putatively convenient or because we hope it will very slightly change the amount of suffering in the world. Injustice is always bad, and always harms more than it helps. That's why leftists always end up murdering people in batches, they can't blame themselves when their heap of injustices doesn't produce the paradise they've been striving toward.
Amen brother. Best example is how quickly they traded the KKK for the Press. Who needs the white-hooded ones when they have Ivy-league graduates doing the same job, and far more effectively? Once they had to run around castrating or lynching black men, now they just say 'keep abortion legal' and reduced the population of those descended from African slaves by about half. What an amazing achievement of stealth genocide. Hitler and Stalin and Mao, and of course Marx, would be so proud.
America has been a de facto fascist state since the 1930s. It just moved slower that in Italy, Germany, Russia and China, because there was always one monkey in the wrench: Americans are armed. So they worked it slowly, called themselves liberals or progressives or the new left, or whatever, and at long last they think they've got it in the bag and they'll be able to punish their enemies at last. But there's one small problem. Americans are still armed. They are going to lose, and your 70-year cycle is just beginning.
Exactly what Republicans usually do, when they lose. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. The squishy middle are squishy because they make decisions based on emotions. So all you have to do is find the right emotional lie (Change you can believe in!) and they'll follow along like the lemmings they are. Reasoned argument only works with reasonable people. When the naughty side won't agree to tell the truth about anything unless it helps them politically, and answers every argument with RACIST! BIGOT! HOMOPHOBE! how exactly do you propose to reason with them? They stick at nothing, and gleefully slander anybody they please, protected by the New KKK that go by the deceitful epithet of journalists.
Previous 21 - 30 Next