Feminist Bigotry

What's Wrong With Feminism?
Posted in contraeverything's blog 2008-12-14

A very foolish attorney recently remarked to me, "Feminism died in the 80's."

If only....

In fact, feminism is very much alive today. So alive that it is pervasive. So pervasive that we do not even notice it any more, much like our own living room furniture.

And feminism can be truthfully said to either be responsible for, or to have aggravated, every single social problem in the modern Western world.

It exists as both formal and informal feminism. Formal feminism is the feminism of the pro-abortion movement, NOW, and academe. It is the feminism of fascistic legislation and of political lesbianism.

But there is also an informal feminism - a watered-down version that is simply accepted unthinkingly by the consumerist mobs. It is a feminism of Oprah Winfrey, the feminism that believes domestic violence to be a serious problem (against all evidence to the contrary) and that votes for women "because they are women" and that participates in the cult of the child.

Both types of feminism are wrong. Both are wrong, and both are wrong propositionally and morally. And because it has now become an accepted part of our cultural furniture, we do not even realize that it represents a mild toxin that is slowly poisoning every institution upon which civilization has been constructed.

1) Feminism is wrong because it lacks virtue. Feminism is simply a movement built around the cowardice and avarice of women. Men, of course, are motivated primarily by principle. A man gets up and goes to work in the morning, not because he enjoys it, but because he recognizes his responsibility to provide for a family, his responsibility to his employer and fellow employees, and because it has been drilled into him since childhood that men are to make a positive contribution - even at the cost of their own lives - to society. Men go to war because they recognize that there is something that has more value than their individual wants, even more valuable than the life of an individual - matters such as freedom, security, and country. Men are capable of going and doing battle in both wartime and the workaday world because they are possessed of courage - the willingness to take risks.

Feminism, however, is based upon the neurotic fears of women. It is certainly not all women, but as feminism is woven more deeply into the warp and woof of society, there are certainly more and more women possessed of these neurotic fears. The fear of domestic violence, for instance, is a neurotic fear of women, conjured up in illogical and irrational skulls for political gain by the leaders of the feminist movement who are equally neurotic - though driven so more by hate than by fear. I have personally sat in on more than 100 domestic violence proceedings in my state - not one of them even alleged violence in any sense that the layman would understand it. The "violence" complained of was that a woman was being "controlled" by a man (and one of my friends has noted, accurately, that a man is guilty of being "controlling" only when he refuses to yield control to a woman), of "namecalling," or of "holding to strict gender roles," as many religious people do. I saw one man separated from home, children, and bank accounts for lifting his hands to absorb the blows thrown from the fists of his wife. I have seen a dozen men arrested on evidence that would get a mere contract case thrown out of court.

And I have noticed a strange correlation between the lodging of claims of "domestic violence" and the occurrence of divorce proceedings, alimony or equitable distribution actions, and child support or custody trials. Very convenient....

Of course, women are encouraged to lie about such things. They are teased by women's groups, the media, lawyers, and the state to skip their own responsibilities by leaving their husbands - yet maintaining their home, kids, and an adequate income without working in the form of child support and alimony. Feminism appeals to that vindictiveness that is so pervasive in the human spirit that the Ninth Commandment forbids it, and to that sloth so extreme in the modern world that more than 50% of all tax revenues are spent on social welfare programs in America.

Unthinking, illogical, and hormonal women are encouraged to break their marriage vows at eternal cost to their own character, to their own children, and at the cost of justice itself, in order to repay a man for what are usually only perceived slights and to get a second chance at life and love (a second chance that the vast majority of my female clients find is only illusory - guys really are not interested in neurotic women who don't keep marriage vows and who come with the baggage of a passel of kids and a pile of false allegations in their wake).

2) Feminism is wrong because it is illogical and anti-intellectual. Travel over to Yahoo! Answers any old time and surf over to the "Gender and Women's Studies" section. About once every two days or so (sometimes far more often") some FemiFascist will post something like this:

"Why do half the people who post in G&WS always have such hateful things to say about feminism? Don't they realize that this is our safe space? After all, we feminists do not invade their WWE Wrestling Forum, do we?"

Which is again a manifestation of cowardice, and the very cowardice which begat political correctness. People who know they are wrong, after all, are not likely to willingly engage in discussion with those who can prove them wrong publicly. So there is an anti-intellectual bent toward feminism. Any disagreement with the political movement of feminism is conveniently labeled "misogyny" and dismissed. Anyone too effective in combatting feminism on the public college campus is threatened with "sexual harassment" charges and "sensitivity training."

But the desire to squelch dissent is, of course, the first sign that someone realizes that their own jig is up. After all, how is it possible to square the following two propositions, both central tenets of feminism?

a) Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do.
b) Therefore, standards for law school, medical school, the military, police departments, and fire departments must be lowered so that women can be adequately represented.

Illogic, thy name is feminist. And this is why Women's Studies programs across the country are regarded by academics as having about the same intellectual rigor as fingerpainting class in Vacation Bible School.

At its root, all virtue is true. All genuine virtue is based upon truth. And the illogic, anti-intellectualism, and indulgence in the lie that is feminism divests the movement of even a basic perception of virtue - intellectual or otherwise.

3) Feminism is wrong because it is unjust. Feminism depends upon the craven moral cowardice of men in order to thrive. And if one does not demonstrate sufficient submission to the goals of "womyn," then filing false allegations of abuse, harassment, domestic violence, or rape are a justifiable punishment for any man foolish enough to believe that truth trumps the whining, "I'm-a-victim" outrage of the hormonal woman.

An Air Force study, mentioned previously in this blog, found that 60% of all rape allegations studied were proveably false. Duke Lacrosse, anyone? Upwards of 90% of all allegations of domestic violence do not even allege anything that a layman would consider "violence" - such allegations are again based on the political resentment that FemiFascists have at the audacity of some men to behave like men, and not give in to the whims and neuroses of the women in their lives.

And let us note that the filing of false allegations is hardly an incidental development. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act made during the Clinton administration had the effect of lowering the standard of evidence for the granting of Domestic Violence Protective Orders from the "preponderance of the evidence" (a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true) to the "subjective fear of the woman" - which could mean anything, including that somebody unfortunately mixed an Effexor and a Prozac today. Such an unheard-of lowing of the standards of evidence could only have the effect of encouraging false allegations - and consequently resulting in unjust prosecutions and convictions.

When you are right, you do not have to lie in order to make your point. The Ninth Commandment, as a basic precept of both moral righteousness and of a civilized society, still forbids the lodging of false complaints - whether the issue is money, children, politics, or merely getting one's own way. I could go on about the reverse discrimination implicit in affirmative action programs pushed by women's groups, but what I've said is more than enough to demonstrate that the agenda of feminism is wholly unjust.

4) Feminism is wrong because it is untrue. Every single statement made by feminists over the years has eventually been revealed to have been hyped up, at the least, and blatantly false, at the worst. From the so-called "Wage Gap" (which does not exist - women who have worked at the same job the same number of hours and the same number of years as their male counterparts make 98 cents on the dollar - a difference that is statistically negligible) to the early-90s myth that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women in America," everything that fits the feminist agenda is either blatantly untrue, illogical, or unproven.

Duke Lacrosse, anyone?

5) Feminism is wrong because it is neurotic. Carey Roberts has written an article on (see ) titled "Is Feminism a Mental Disorder? Of course, it is, and he especially identifies a neurotic condition which he labels "Domestic Violence Hysteria," which he considers to be "highly contagious."

Mrs. Dale O'Leary has written an article titled "Radical Feminism as a psychological disorder" ( ) in which she proposes that feminism is a "psychological disorder caused by two generations of unforgiveness in the maternal line."

She notes that psychological health, for women, depends on a healthy relationship with the male authority figures in their lives - particularly with one's father. Dominating grandmothers, with imitation by a girl's mother, produces such broken relationships with men that only hatred ensues and adherence to feminism is born. The hatred which is so evident in feminism is, of course, the hatred of the scorned lover, as the feminist wishes for the love of a father or father-figure (such as a powerful husband capable of supplying her with both wisdom and leadership), but because she has an irrational fear of all but the wimpiest of men (since both her grandfather and father were such), she is continually frustrated and angry.

The cure for feminism, the psychological disorder? According to O'Leary it is the forgiveness of both parents (the wimpy father and the passive-aggressive or merely aggressive mother) and the enjoyment of the leadership of a strong man.

Finally, Charles Corry, Ph.D., labels feminism as simple "misandry," and calls it an unstable philosophical framework through which to understand the world (see ). This, of course, would indicate why so many women today are - unstable.

6) Feminism is sociopathic. The basic characteristic of the sociopath is the inability to recognize any authority above his own wants and perceived needs. The sociopath is willing, for instance to deal drugs (against society's mores) and murder customers who have not paid for such or perhaps murder competing drug dealers simply because that is his job. He is a drug dealer, and he murders in the same way that the factory worker punches a time clock - without remorse or consideration of consequences.

It is undeniable that 4,400 times a day in America since Roe v. Wade, women have willingly destroyed innocent children in the womb for the mere opportunity to escape from responsibility. It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode. The social, moral, and psychological carnage is revealed in the millions of children left fatherless by feminism's attack on the family, the millions of men falsely accused of crimes by neurotic women or merely treated as ATM machines by society, by the dissolution of millions of families and the consequent personal and economic carnage that has followed in its wake.

But perhaps most sadly are the thousands of women who realize, too late, that feminism has sold them a bill of goods. Women who realize that they were a sucker play in someone else's chess game - women who no man will now have, who deal with the guilt of their attack on perhaps the one man who ever loved them and their children, and who face the future alone - cast off by those shelter workers who years ago promised them that if they left their husbands, everything would be all right.

Feminism destroys everything that it touches, because it is fully evil. Men, children, families, the very fabric of society. But there is a force out there - call it God or Karma or whatever - in the end, those men and those children can rise above the evil of feminism. The women who choose the "easy" path offered by feminism end up alone, overmedicated, infertile, rejected, and with a weight of guilt almost impossible to shed.

There may well be justice in this world....

Source article found at:
Additional info at:
VincentValentine VincentValentine 31-35, M 22 Responses Sep 1, 2011

Your Response


Blatant examples of feminist hypocrisy
1. The feminists have never challenged the idea of alimony while claiming women can work just as well as men.
2. They call abortion female reproductive rights but didn't the girl need a man to get pregnant. What about his rights and the grandparents rights and societies rights?
3. Suggesting that women don't need men is okay but it's not okay to suggest men don't need women.
4. The have no problem with the claim motherhood is the hardest job but would never accept someone saying fatherhood is the hardest job.
5. If someone says wives should respect there husbands with no qualifiers they take issue but if someone says husbands should respect their wives with no qualifier they accept it
6. An idealized female form is harassment to women who can't reach the ideal. But an idealized male is not.
7. Pop culture images of women demeaning humiliating or making men submissive doesn't raise a peep but the same toward women is criticized.
8. Silence on lowering the standard in male institution to allow female participation.
Military police fire dept. Putting the women and everyone else at risk.
That's the equivalent of letting babies sit in poo longer and allowing more sex offenders in to increase males chances at day care.

It's madness!!!

Good rant. Feminist hate has always been bad since feminism was organized in the 19th century. It has never changed.

People do often follow things that they do not fully understand, I find it sad actually.

I apologize for butting into this, but overall I enjoyed the "meat" of the post as well (and for the comments as well). I had certain qualms about the hard or licentious flavor the post paints things, but that's been stated before me.

It does, though, remind me of a holiday party in college, where I made a dvd of internet funny vids and music videos and such, just as background noise in a busy party environment of about 20 of my closest associates (done this a few times before, and was well received). They allowed me to put the disc in, hit play, and we had background vids and audio to help fulfill the idea of a 'party'.

Until the disc played on of my self-made and edited videos (I have about 10 or so I've ever made). This particular one played, in 6 minutes, over 13000 visual images of women in ***********, hardcore or otherwise revealing situations, to the song "harder, better, faster, stronger", to me it was an interesting delving into the idea that socially, women will always long for the unattainable images they are provided of femininity in media standards.

One girl, one very attractive girl, in the party quickly asked me to skip that track...wondering if it was offensive or had I pushed the line, I acquiesced and asked her why soon thereafter (after all, this was created by me, it was my baby, lol). Her reasoning to me, was literally just a blank stare and stammering "....because I'm a feminist."

I asked her then "So why do you care about ****, or rather have an aversion to it?" (I wish I would've stated it better, asking her something more like "So why are you against women being treated like an object in a career path that guarantees much more financial success than her male equivalents of ANY skill level or experience base that dwarfs what she made, probably by a good 1 to 10 ratio?"

She could go no deeper in the conversation, only using crude casual skin-deep liners of feminism and **** putting down women (which is a strong opinion, but can usually get bogged once you delve into the critical thoughts of the subject, in my opinion.)

Yes, I see that we are of the same opinion. I didn't know there was a specific term for it.

If you check out William G. Grey's definition of righthand paths you will find we are of the same opinion here.

Here is someone's list of examples of left-hand paths (ones that essentially reject universal morality) i.e. religions I am NOT tolerant of.

Under these definitions, various esoteric groups, often with widely differing beliefs, could be considered to be followers of the LHP. These include various forms of Satanism, such as LaVeyan Satanism as well as Theistic Satanism. Other Western LHP philosophies include Setianism, the Typhonian Order, Luciferianism, many beliefs of the New Age movement, Chaos Magic, Feri, magicians involved with demonology, as well as groups like the Dragon Rouge and the Order of Nine Angles. The Petwo cult of Haitian Vodou reflects the LHP ethos. Several eastern philosophies could also be viewed as adhering to the LHP including forms of Taoism, forms of Hinduism such as Aghoris and Vamachara, forms of Buddhism like the Drukpa Lineage and Bön.

(I would add to this Several other faiths, including Yazidiism, and conventional Coptic Paganism (but not Atonism))

I consider the evil and base "religions" to be cults and I do not tolerate them any more than I do atheism, possibly less so in some cases. Unfortunately, there is a strict character limit for group titles, so I took what I could get.

This is basically why I didn't join the tolerant of all religions except athiesm group, although I appreciate it. While Athiesm frequently annoys me, and I am indeed tolerant of all "right hand paths", even pro- all "right hand paths", I am NOT in any way tolerant of left-hand paths, nor will I pretend to be or try to be.

And our best IMO

I would tend to agree with that. While not the only tool, religion, and right-hand-path religious morality, is our most obvious tool for avoiding contributing to the spread of unnecessary suffering.

Lol, thank you.... maybe next time I will just take the time to write something out myself.

I do agree with some of the points you made, mainly against some of the specifics of the article.

It makes me wonder though... how people in general can escape the spiral of negative and selfish thinking. I would say that the answer lies in faith.... or more specifically in religion.

And by the way, I have read a great deal of what you have written, your words are way more intelligent, convincing, reasoned and reasonable than this reactionary asshat's.

I worked at a Wendy's, and in my experience there was sexism taking place against both genders of all sorts of subtle kinds. Only women up front, who were actually allowed to talk to customers, only male cooks, who got paid more. Men took out the trash, women did the dishes. All sorts of subtle things. I find many people are tuned toward the prejudice which victimizes them, but I am sure some of those women were kept around not because of feminism, but for sexist and degrading, licentious reasons. IMO, they were not expected to work not because they wer considered superior, but because they were considered inferior, secretaries and eye-candy. Mistakes were acceptable because mistakes were expected. But it is all the lense through which you view things. Just be aware you have one as well, we all do.

I agree with that.

I do not know if "job x" exists, though.

I have worked at ten different places in my life (that I can remember off the top of my head) and they were mostly major companies (10k+ employees). None of them were gender - skewed as in your example. Several (about half) of them had more women than men working at them. At two or three of these places they preferred to hire females for no particular reason, and many of them were under-qualified. None of the men they hired were under-qualified. Those same under-qualified women would make mistakes for which men would be fired, and would keep their jobs. I have never witnessed anti-female sexism in any workplace, whether I was an employee or a customer. Now to be fair I have never worked at nor do I shop at wal-mart, and I have never been to disney, two businesses that are reputed to be sexist against women. So, like I said, in my experience sexism in the workplace is against, rather than for men, and feminism is to blame. If equality were the goal, they could have it; no one really has a problem with that anymore. But feminism, in my experience, does not want equality.

I did attempt to address this

Allow me to rephrase. Say you have 10,000 employees working at job X. Job X is not physically demanding, and can to all appearances be done by a man or a woman. Now say the owner, a man, hires 2,500 women and 7,500 men. There can only be a few possible explanations for this.

1. The man is a sexist. Most obvious, and the one you are trying to refute. If he is a sexist, I do not believe he should be allowed to hire based on that belief. Our economy makes the assumption that major players will behave essentially logically.

2. Women are actually worse at jobs than men. Then we are living in a "sexist universe" where sexism and sexist hiring practices are justified. I do not believe this to be the case, and I don't believe you do either, nor would most educated readers, so I will leave of trying to "disprove" this one

3. Sexism exists in the educational system and less women are qualified. In cases where this is true, it can be debated WHERE the bigotry should be addressed, and one could make a strong argument that lack of educational opportunity was the problem, and that the hiring discrepancy was justified. However, for many mid to high level jobs, there are actually MORE women with qualifying degrees, not less.

4. Random chance accounts for the discrepancy. Which is why family and small businesses below a certain number of employees (small enough to account for random chance) are not required to follow affirmative action laws. In fact, neither are businesses or universities who take no government contracts in nearly all circumstances.

Like I said earlier:

The language I agree is hardball... I did not write the article, however, and I did cite the original author and website. Affirmative action in some cases requires x number of female employees whether they are qualified or not... this is my belief and my experience at many places I have worked. I agree enough with the meat of the article to post it, but some of the details, and yes to me they are details, are a bit wanting. The main points hold true IMHO.

I don't think making it harder for women, who after all we will both agree are physically smaller than men and frequently the victims of domestic violence, to remove themselves from a situation where they feel threatened on the basis that she really could have walked into a door, like she said when he was leering drunkenly in the background is a good idea. If the man has no ill intentions, then what problem will he have with staying a safe distance away from a woman who doesn't want him around? And if you truly feel the need to "take down" a bunch of restraining orders, it seems like what you should work on is getting defendants in civil cases who cannot afford representation good public defenders.

Ahhh. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Are we talking about the same job? Because women overall make 75% what men make even though they have better education. Women in the SAME POSITION as a given man NOW makes 98% as much. But that doesn't mean that women are equally represented to men pay-wise and only make less by choice. Admittedly, women DO tend to be more likely statistically, for cultural reasons, to sacrifice income for family, however, an example I would point out from the other direction is that only 3% of women are in the fortune 500 CEO list, and unless you believe that men are 32 times more likely than women to want to run a company, the only explanations for these phenomena are A. Our society is still deeply sexist economically, or B. Women are not as good as men at running companies. B.) Is a blatantly sexist conception I am sure you would disagree with, and that I most certainly do. This is an injustice, and I see no reason not to attempt to correct it.

Frankly, the justification you give for your claim that feminism is NEUROTIC (sorry about all the CAPS, it won't let me use italics) betrays your view of the world the way you seem to see it and want it: with the male on top as ruler, authority figure, and the woman on the bottom, submitting to the man. If you believe that this is the nature of the universe, or the natural state of relationships, that is your right, just recognize we have a word for that, and that word is sexism.

You make the claim that

"It is undeniable that the more feminism advances, the more social problems such as crime, psychological disorders, and welfarism explode."

You offer no evidence to back this up. Correlation vs. Causation: From the time George Bush invaded Iraq to the time Obama was elected, America's popularity with our allies decreased. During the same period of time, my age increased, and so did the average temperature of the world's oceans. Does that show that the three phenomena are related, either directly or indirectly? Or that one caused the other? Of course not, merely that there is a correlation.

In addition, crime has actually not exploded, but gone down, especially violent crime, in recent years, per capita.

Someone who read this story just told me this:

"Luckily for you you have never been raped or have had someone try to rape you."

Then they blocked me.

I hope you still look at this story... so you can read this. I have been raped. I have been abused in every way. Your ignorance makes me sad, but I will not waste any more time thinking about you. Goodbye.

I am sorry to hear that.

I think that resorting to that type of personal argument (them not you) is ignorant and disgraceful.

One should stick to things that can be supported logically, rather than assuming one does not agree with you because their personal experience is less legitimate than yours. It is a more offensive version of the same "you'll agree with me when you're older" fallacy.

yes, thank you.

Moving on....

Naturally the Air Force would find such a thing to be the case, they have a history of sweeping such problems under the rug. I have seen other studies that show approximately 33% of women will be raped in their lifetimes, and indeed the majority of actual rapes do not go to trial, some because of lack of evidence, and some because we live in a culture that makes it easy to sweep rape under the rug, especially for members of the upper class. I think that rather than harboring a hostility toward people who claim to have been victimized. I am about to post a long block of statistics, because, unfortunately, you are misinformed as to the percentage of false rape reports. A lot of so-called "think tanks" of the religious right seem to have no interest in whether or not their numbers are statistically supportable, or in line with anyone else's.

I did first find these statistics on Wikipedia, but have only included those for which the original source is strong:

[edit] False reportingFBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[8] However, “unfounded” is not synonymous with false allegation[9] and as Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner explains,

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[10]

The largest and most rigorous study was commissioned by the British Home Office and based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that "one cannot take all police designations at face value" and that "[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors." Moreover, they added:

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.[11][12]

Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with the 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.[13]

I stand corrected on the false rape accusation rate. However to assume this is a problem suffered primarily by women as the feminist movement does is both inaccurate and sexist.

This applies to abusive spouses - in every possible legal form of abuse. There are no shelters for battered men. There is no where for us to go to get help. There is no charity. The courts, in my experience and where I live, automatically favor women in both abuse and divorce cases, with respect to alimony, child support, custody, and criminal charges. This is largely a result, imo, of the feminist movement.

I DO agree that sexual violence shelters should not be gendered, excusing the sexism of victims based on their experiences, but I would also point out that men are physically more powerful than women, and that most rape and physical abuse, the most dangerous, and, frankly, I am sure you will agree the most likely to actually justify a claim, is statistically committed by men against women (85% vs 15% not counting homosexual couples of both genders)

I believe that the statistics lie in this case. The amount of unreported abuse on men is very high in the US. And most men, with a few exceptions, are afraid to fight back because of the legal sexism.

You must recognize that on a practical level it is far easier for a man to cause severe damage to a woman than a women to a man.

Not really. I once had to struggle with my ex-wife for control of a gun.... Strength matters not with technology.

2 More Responses

Please do not take offense as I turn my argumentative ire toward you. I do not have any problem with wild disagreement.

First off, I wildly disagree with the language you use to refer to men and women, talking about womens' neurotic fears, and men's bravery and valour. If your experience with women has led you to believe that this is generally the case, I feel sorry for you.

My problem with your second argument, is that it is an attack on affirmative action in specific, rather than feminism in general, a policy not only supported by feminists, and that not all feminists agree with. But looking at the meat of the argument, you assume a fair starting point, where a woman with the same level of education and background is just as likely to be successful as a man. Affirmative action, properly understood and applied, rather than the "quota system" the right likes to rant about but which is A.) Not practiced and B.) Actually illegal, does not "lower the standards" for one group or another, but seeks to ensure that active discrimination is not taking place by not allowing people with, especially in the case of gender where women are more likely to have attended college but less likely to have higher level jobs) INFERIOR qualifications to be overly represented. It is not providing "two separate tests, or providing women with extra points because they are less likely to be represented.

To say that it is LEGITIMATE for a company to underrepresent women relies on the assumption that men are naturally superior for a given job, which may be legitimate if the job is steel-I-beam lugging, but which is becoming more and more outdated. The argument against affirmative action based on gender (i.e. that it is acceptable to underrepresent women) relies on the assumption that women are inferior, because the only other explanations for their underrepresentation would be A.) Prejudice, conscious or unconscious, or B.) Random chance, ruled out by the size of the companies these policies are applied to.

Not to mention the fact that, while "reverse dscrimination" is always sited as a vague threat, there have been less than 200 accusations of it that ever went to court, and 6 that were considered legitimate (including the famous case of the white fireman with higher test scores, who incidentally sued his city's fire department for several million dollars and won. A true patriot, eh?)

I will ignore your attempt to ascribe the blog posts of random women to the entire feminist movement as they are not befitting of the intellectual level I know you are capable of.

---Posted because sometimes my posts randomly delete, but will continue---

The language I agree is hardball... I did not write the article, however, and I did cite the original author and website.

Affirmative action in some cases requires x number of female employees whether they are qualified or not... this is my belief and my experience at many places I have worked.

I agree enough with the meat of the article to post it, but some of the details, and yes to me they are details, are a bit wanting. The main points hold true IMHO.

I hope the fact that we disagree wildly on many if not most political issues does not interfere with our spiritual goals.


You probably expected this from our different politics, but I dramatically disagree. I will post why when I have more time, but given how much we usually agree and are assumed to agree on spiritual issues even with our vastly different backgrounds, I felt the need to make this clear to all readers.

In short (and I will, as said, go into more detail later) I think it is ridiculous to attack a movement created for the empowerment of people who have a demonstrably smaller portion of control of their society than their population would dictate (women). I think that most of the antifeminist arguments I have heard are either based in A. unrecognized male prvilage or B. An attack on the American Abortion system with no suggestion of how our overwhelmed adoption process, already so undersourced it is routinely turning out trauma and sexual abuse victims, would handle the shift, and an attempt to redefine Margaret Sanger's Eugenics programs as "leftist" and essentially identical to feminism, even though the political terminology of left and right was used at the time, and eugenics was viewed by all including Sanger (who was a friend of Mussolini, himself a strong supporter of the Catholic Church, the Crusades, The Inquisition, Machiavelli and doctrinal, even forced social conservatism) as a right-wing policy (in fact, as a potential bulwark against the "Communism" of the "Rabble"), and Sanger is on record as admitting she deliberately lied to minorities about her motivations (which were rightist).

wow... just wow....