Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > MCP wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2005/mcelroy030305.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > March 3, 2005
> > > > > > by Wendy McElroy
> > > > >
> > > > > [Isn't McElroy that mail-order bride who spouts what her>
> patriarchy> > hubby wants?]
> > > >
> > > > Haven't you accused her of being Dave Sim yet?
> > >
> > > No, she isn't a Dave Sim cockpuppet; she's her husband's cock
> puppet and she likes making money writing what sexist men want to
read.
> >
> > What's interesting is that you've consistently denigrated and
> dismissed women who have held opinions contrary to your own.
>
> So, what do you do with men who hold opinions contrary to your own,
> embrace them as having genius?  :-)

Same thing I do with you, Hy--I address the context of their
assertions.  I may spend too much time trying to zing you (that's just
fun, in my book, and I usually smile when *you* get off a good one),
but you've got to admit that I don't wholeheartedly trash you and
utterly dismiss your thoughts.

>
>  Apparently you do> indeed buy into the Borg-think aspect of
feminism.
>
> I'm not sure what that means.  McElroy doesn't describe herself as a
> feminist, does she?

She does.

>  If she does, she's deluding herself.  A feminist
> would certainly want the UN to support women's rights, universally;
> that's the essential definition OF feminism.

No, it's the essential definition of Borg-speak that one believes
everyone *must* believe the same about every aspect of a philosophy.
You and I are gun owners.  Do you automatically rally around every NRA
position?  Because I don't.  I also don't agree with every Republican
position.

>
> If you can't handle> the substance of her comments, just admit it and
> move on.
>
> But Ben, I DID "handle" them.  You just don't like how I handled
them.
> :-)

I guess your definition of "handle" differs from mine.

> >
> >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > (edit)
> > > > >
> >How can a self-respecting woman, let alone a feminist,
>  legitimize> > the> U.N. through her presence? The CSW should be in
the
> forefront of> those crying out for justice and U.N. accountability.
> Instead, the CSW will almost certainly
>  call for expanding the U.N.'s power and funding.
>
> McElroy must think that if someone she doesn't like supports
feminism,
> that the support isn't valid.  Support for women's rights is ALWAYS
> valid no matter who sponsors it.  So even if she has a beef with the
> UN, if she was a feminist she would still support universal sexual
> rights for women.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Self respecting women all over the world seem to find
> legitimate> > interests in UN proposals on the rights of women around
> the world.]
> > > >
> > > > Self-aggrandizing Western feminists are keenly interested in>
> supporting any UN proposal that prioritizes their interests.
> > > >
> > > Sure.  Why not?
> >
> > Because there are more important considerations than satisfying
> radical feminists.
> >
> Regarding this proposal?

There are proposals more important than this one.

>  Like what?  What could possibly get in the
> way of a UN program sponsoring universal sexual rights for women?

Did you know that in 2003, the US refused to sign because the UN would
not declare that prostitution is harmful to women?  Did you also read
about the issue in Germany where a woman was being compelled to take a
job in a bordello because she couldn't get unemployment if there was a
job available, and prostitution in Germany is legal?

>
> > >  Even the UN is headed in the direction of democracy.
> >
> > The UN isn't a government, so why would it be headed in the
> direction> of a democracy?
> >
> I didn't say "a" democracy;  I said democracy.

I see; I would use a different word, but I see what you're saying.

>  Democratic principles
> are part and parcel of what the UN stands for, i.e. the notion that
> human beings should have a say in how govt. is run.

Come on, even the most slavish UN devotee doesn't believe that.  Trying
to bring about One World Rule into the hands of a self-appointed
governing elite kinda goes against the notion of people deciding their
government through their elected representatives.

>
> > > That works toward the advancement of feminism.  Can you name a UN
> proposal that does NOT head in that direction?
> >
> > That does NOT head in the direction of a democracy?
>
> No.  That does not head in the direction of democracy.  You're the
one
> that has his "a" up his ass.

I was asking a question trying to clarify what you were asking.

>
>   That's not a concept that applies to UN proposals.
>
> Sure it is.  The UN supports democratic principles.

The UN supports socialist principles.  Or dictatorial ones.  An
organization supporting democratic principles wouldn't coddle
dictators, and wouldn't be trying to regulate the internet.

>
> >> >
> > > Rage will be directed instead at President Bush who has already >
> created pre-meeting controversy. On Thursday, the Bush
administration>
> signaled its refusal to renew an unconditional commitment to the >
> Beijing Platform, a declaration of women's rights promoted by the
> Clintons, which many consider to be a radical feminism's global
> > agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > [The idea that women are human and should have
equal rights,>
>
> including SEXUAL RIGHTS is indeed radical to some, Wendy and MCP.]
> > > >
> > > The idea that the US should subporn its national interests in any
> arena>
>
> It's "suborn",

Ooohh, a spelling flame (which I had coming  lol).

> but the US, in signing an agreement to make sure women
> aren't sexual slaves isn't a very big step in civil rights for women
> UNLESS you're a right wing fundy who wants such control.  That is
what
> will be obvious.

Sorry, but silly name-calling and lame attempts at shaming don't
substitute for logic.  Women aren't sexual slaves in this country, the
UN has ZERO history and credibility at enforcing its own resolutions
and treaties, and I'd be more worried about making sure women in
backwater countries get basic health and education before demanidng
that they worship at the abortion altar.

>
>  to a vapid group such as the UN would be enough to cause a refusal
to>
> > sign.  Besides, why don't you go ahead and prove that the majority
> of> signatories intend to honor the document.  Yep, I can see China
> > > prioritizing women's interests.  lol
> > >
> > > China is not a democracy, nor is it western civilization.
> >
> > China would become a signatory, would it not?
> >
> I have no idea.

Then you need to be clear.  There are lots of countries that would
become signatories that would have no intent of following the treaties
they sign.

>  My thesis is that all other western democracies will
> sign and China is neither western or a democracy.

Which means nothing regarding their becoming a signatory.

>
> > >  If the US is> > the ONLY western democracy NOT supporting the
> sexual rights of women, it becomes increasingly easier to see why the
> USA is losing prestige > and losing ground.
> >
> > You're making the common socialist mistake of assuming that there's
> only one means of accomplishing a goal, and it involves giving
control
> to large government or bureaucracy.
>
> Well, what it DOES is force the US to give women the same rights as
all
> other western democracies.  Yes, I realize that puts bitter boy
biggots
> in a bad position.

The "bad position" is the one that citizens of a sovereign nation will
be put in by signing a treaty that takes away their ability to
self-govern.  We might be talking about this treaty in this post, but
I'm against doing this just about across the board.  And one person's
"bitter boy bigot" is another person's independent citizen.  You like
kow-towing to big socialism--I don't.

>
> And you're making the common leftist/marxist mistake of assuming that
> the United States is always wrong.
> >
> The US, run by a right wing fundie is wrong if they are the ONLY
> western democracy that does not sign an agreement on women's rights.
> We won't have the moral high ground.

We do indeed have the moral high ground by ensuring that our citizens
govern themselves.  For someone as enamored of individual rights as you
claim you are, you're certainly in a hurry to shake them off.

>
> With regards to the US losing prestige and ground, that's a matter of
> opinion.  It seems to me that more and more Americans worry less and
> less about what Europeans think of them, and rightly so.
>
> Any time a nation attepts to lead the world in matters of human
rights,
> it must either hold the moral high ground or be moving quickly in
that
> direction.  Equal sexual rights for women IS the moral high ground.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that the US doesn't have this?

>  It
> is a shortsighted country indeed that does not care what Europe
thinks
> of them.

Not really.  It's seems to be a uniquely leftist thought pattern that
we have to compare ourselves to Europe, or that any such comparisons
always leave us inadequate.  We're not Europe--get over it.

>  Keep in mind that the USA is a youngster compared to
> countries in Europe and we may weild power now, but it doesn't have
to
> stay that way.

It probably won't anyway.  And it's not like Europe has this vast
history of democratic rule--they don't.  It makes no difference how
much older than us they are.

>  If most other western civilzations see us as spoiled
> brats, with big guns, that does not bode well for our future.

If I were European, I'd be much more worried about collapsing from
within.  In another 50 years, I suspect the US will be wiping its
collective brow and saying, "Whew!  Glad we didn't follow those
Europeans."

>
>  European> countries are largely becoming housecats anyway, and
secure
> Americans don't lose any sleep if they curl their lips.
>
> Well, George Bush seems to be a bit more worried than you about what
> Europe thinks.

How so?  He went there and said the same things he's been saying right
along.

>  However, your attitude is exactly the reason the USA is
> failing to progress.

My "attitude" is that we can play together nicely, but don't try to
tell me what to do.  And the US is progressing nicely, or haven't you
noticed?  :)

>
> >
> > >  Other western nations will start looking at us as a
> > > third world country with guns.
> >
> > You would be wrong.  Do you read any editorials in European
> newspapers?
>
> Sure.  Which ones do you read, the ones where they hate Bush for
being
> a warmonger, or the ones that bash him for thinking he can rule the
> world alone?

I read those.  I also read the ones that admit he was right.  I also
read the ones that fear for Europe's destiny as a weakening Western
civilization that will be subsumed by Islamism.

>
> >   Hmmmmm But don't worry your pretty
> > > little heads about it.  :-)I> understand that it doesn't look
good>
> when the leader of the free world > appears to want women to have
> fewer> rights than men.
> > > >
> > > > It looks just fine that the leader of the free world will not
> sell> out> our national interests in some vain effort to appear>
> "multilateral" or> bend to inferior standards.
> > > >
> Just what "national interests" do we have in NOT giving women sexual
> rights?  :-)
>
> > > > > This puts Bush in a very tricky position, eh?]
> > > >
> > > > Not at all.  He has a pretty clear mandate to protect our
> national> > interests.
> > >
> He has no mandate.

53% of the vote?  Which is more than Clinton got each time?  And libs
claimed Clinton had a mandate?  Yep, Bush has a mandate, whether you
like it or not.

>
> > > Well, perhaps he will clear the path for Hillary, eh?
> >
> > Isn't that Screaming Dean's job?
>
> Well, Hillary has the power to work directly or indirectly and
whoever
> runs she will have a say, and a big say.  If the USA is tired of
losing
> its world status, a Democrat might be just what is called for.

US status seems to be just fine.  :)

>
> > >  After all,> > Hillary seems to want a country that's respected
by
> the rest of the
> > > world,
> >
> > Groveling and deferring to the UN is not a path to respect.
> >
> You don't have to "grovel or deffer" in order to want women to have
> sexual equality.  All you have to do is sign.  :-)

Again, show me how women in this country don't already have equal
sexual rights.

>
> > > AND she supports a stricter immigration policy.  Hmmmmm
> >
> > She's making a lot of centrist remarks that she'll disown about 20
> seconds after she's elected, if she gets that far.
> >
> So you say.  Personally, immigration is a big issue for me.  I'd tend
> to support a person who wanted our policy to be like Australias.  :-)

I'll agree with you on the immigration.  I think it's a huge issue
that's not being addressed properly.

> > > >
> > > > >  And just what is it about the term "sexual
rights" that> >
> bothers you and Bush?  :-)]
> > > >
> > > > What is it about maintaining our national interests that
bothers>
> you?
>
> Nothing.  HOw is it in our national interest to NOT sign a document
> giving women equal sexual rights?

Show me where we're lacking.

>
> > > Are you so unsure of your own country that you think every
> > alternative>> > way of doing things is superior?
> > >
> > > I am quite sure that if the USA is the ONLY western nation that
> fails> > to want sexual rights for women, we will be humiliated on

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100