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.  Apparently you do
indeed buy into the Borg-think aspect of feminism.  If you can't handle
the substance of her comments, just admit it and move on.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > (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.
> > >
> > > [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.

>  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?

> 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?  That's not a
concept that applies to UN proposals.

>
> 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
> 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?

>  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.  And you're making the common
leftist/marxist mistake of assuming that the United States is always
wrong.

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.  European
countries are largely becoming housecats anyway, and secure Americans
don't lose any sleep if they curl their lips.

>  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?

  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.
> >
> > > This puts Bush in a very tricky position, eh?]
> >
> > Not at all.  He has a pretty clear mandate to protect our national
> interests.
>
> Well, perhaps he will clear the path for Hillary, eh?

Isn't that Screaming Dean's job?

>  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.

> 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.

>
> >
> > >  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?
> 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 the world
> stage.

I doubt that.  No one has established that the US is failing in this
area.  And, a radical feminist definition of sexual rights is not
necessarily one that most people would want.

> > > >
> > >> >> >
> > > (edit of anti-UN diatribe)

I understand you can't defend the UN.  :)  But I kinda liked my
"diatribe", so I'm putting it back in:


> > But if abortion is center stage, a more fundamental question still
> remains: By what moral standard is the U.N. a proper stage on which
to
> negotiate women's rights?

> [The UN is the perfect "stage" since it effects countries all over
the
> world.  It's a non-political entity that can support human rights.

HOLY SHIT!!!  In just two short sentences you have demonstrated almost
blinding ignorance of what the UN has become.  Try educating yourself
on the oil for food and rape scandals, and the unending coddling of
dictators (yep, sure do love honoring them human rights).  And how well
did the UN do with the tsunami relief efforts?

> AND, in the end it will highlight America as the ONLY western nation
> that does not support equal rights for women.

American women are among the most privileged and pampered creatures on
the planet.

>  I'm not sure Bush really
> wants that claim to fame.]

I'm sure Bush isn't worried about what a group of gaggling socialists
think, nor should he be.  His job is to protect the national interest,
not turn it over to a vastly inferior governing body.

>  How much blood and corruption has to splatter before the
> > U.N.'s moral authority is washed away?

> [Is McElroy suggesting that men will spill blood rather than see free
> and equal women.  Yes, that may be so.

The blood would be the genocides and human rights abuses ignored by the
UN, and the corruption would be the oil for food and rape scandals, not
to mention France and Germany helping Hussein through the back doors.

>  But, in the end, having a
> standard that supports free and equal women is the best way to
go...the
> moral high road, eh?

Radical feminists should never talk about morals--they practice them
about as much as Michael Moore exercises and uses good nutrition.

>  It just doesn't look good if the UN only supports
> men's rights.  :-)]

I'm not worried about the UN looking like they support anyone's rights,
except those of their cherished dictators.  The US and other Western
civilizations can function just fine without a UN, and don't appear to
be in any danger of oppressing their people.

> [Wendy, like Jesus, feminists would walk thru the doors of the temple
> to both throw out the money changers and implement equal rights for
> women.  Whatever you have against the UN, they are indeed an
> institution that can foster world changes.

The UN needs to stick to minor charitable efforts.  It's been shown
wholly inadequate/incompetent/corrupt for anything else.

> Let's face it dear; it's the only world organization we have to do
so

.

The UN needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, and only allow membership to
Western civilizations or to those nations that give their citizens
freedoms comparable to Western civilizations.  Why legitimize
dictatorships by having the least little thing to do with them?

> You just are pissed that Bushies and America are looking pretty
stupid
> right now, as the most anti-woman western nation.]

This sort of falls along the lines of just *who* thinks we look pretty
stupid.    It's kind of like worrying about whether or not the Mafia
don likes the prosecutor.  Besides, having the right people dislike you
is a badge of honor.  :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/3/05 4:57:36 PM ---