"Sean_MacCloud" 
wrote in message
news:CfsPd.975$Sd7.413{at}fe11.lga...
>
>
> MCP wrote:
>
> > http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.09.05/feminism-0506.html
> >
> > How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships
> >
> > By Amy Alkon
> >
> > "IN SEDUCTION, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine,"
proclaimed
> > radical feminist Andrea Dworkin in 1976. If you're a woman born 20 years
> > ago, you probably don't even recognize Dworkin's name. Yet, there's a
good
> > chance you've had some seriously frustrating dates with her unwitting
> > progeny: the guy who waits until date three or four-not to grab you,
throw
> > you up against the wall and suck face-but to politely inquire, "May I
kiss
> > you?"

Wimp! You shag her within 15 minutes of the first "date". That should be
sufficient time. Females have got to be trained to understand that a "date"
is  actually a mini marriage and sex is a requirement. Why else would a man
waste his time and money on a female? LOL



> >
> > Equal pay for equal work? It's a beautiful thing. Equal opportunity?
> > Thrilled to have it. We women owe an enormous debt to Susan B. Anthony,
> > Elizabeth Cady Stanton and all who followed in their footsteps, fighting
the
> > righteous fight against sex-based discrimination.
> >
> > Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by
a
> > small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin
was
> > anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon (most of whose
> > outrageous, but now commonly accepted, claims about the damage done to
women
> > by pornography were neatly debunked in a 2004 analysis by psych
professor
> > Catherine Salmon).

I'm against porn because of the damage it does to MEN. It's just another
example of females exploiting MEN. And while I'm never in favour of
outlawing porn, drugs or the like, I think it would be better if porn wasn't
so common.



> >
> > Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order
to
> > the "victimized"-women, largely privileged and white,
on campuses across
> > America-to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In
reality,
> > what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any
> > kind-based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means
sameness.
> >
> > In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG.
Penetration
> > is a form of rape, don'tcha know?

Then why do real women crave it? And why do dykes and feminists think clit
rubbing is sex?



Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to
> > re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into
> > something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian."
(Personally, I have no
> > idea what more "egalitarian" sex is-and I hope I never find out.)
> >
> > According to their Stalinist-feminist party line, every man is a
criminal-a
> > rapist until proven otherwise.

Rape really doesn't exist under natural law. A female makes a display that
she is ready for sex and the male accomodates her:o)



 In 1992, a small mob of "wymyn" bullied
> > Antioch College into passing the "Antioch Rules," a written code
mandating
> > that one obtain "clear verbal consent" from one's
partner in any sexual
act.

Does a grunt count? haha



> > At Antioch, from then on, raging desire was expected to play out as if
> > accompanied by the small print on an airline ticket: "Pardon me, but
would
> > you mind giving me your unqualified verbal permission to tongue your
left
> > nipple?"
> >
> > Men, as a group, were expected to feel ashamed-although the individual
man
> > was generally unclear as to what, he, personally, had done wrong, just
by
> > virtue of being born with a penis. Relations between men and women got
very
> > confusing. Opening the door for a girl didn't mean you were polite; it
meant
> > you found her inferior.
> >
> > Whatever you do, don't compliment that female co-worker on her hair-a
> > compliment is no longer just a compliment but a full-on patriarchal
assault,
> > surely intended to send a woman running, screaming, out of a "hostile
> > workplace." It got to the point, in many quarters, where just about
anything
> > a guy could say or do, short of silently rolling over like a stuffed
pink
> > bunny, was seen as a capital offense upon the Sisterhood.
> >
> > Perhaps some of this sounds like old news. It is-and it isn't. While the
> > radical feminists have receded into the background, their agenda is
still
> > trickling down into sex, dating and relationships. Just look around at
young
> > women and what they wear. Sure, there is that subset of preteen
streetwalker
> > chic. But, there are also a lot of lonely women in their 30s and 40s who
> > dress like men trying to attract work picking lettuce.

Who cares? They're too old anyway.


 Refusing to pander to
> > "the male gaze" is what it used to be called.
> >
> > These women can't, for the life of them, figure out why they're unable
to
> > get a date. After all, men "shouldn't" care about
what's on the outside,
> > right? They "should" only lust after that beautiful
person within ...
right?

Wrong! Men and females have nothing in common aside from sex. Females have
got to show they're receptive And meet some requirement of physical looks.


> > Yes, perhaps they "should." But they don't, and they
won't, and the
sooner
> > women admit that, the sooner they'll have a date with more than their
cat on
> > Saturday nights. Of course, this does assume that women will be asked
out.
> > That's another big problem, judging by all the requests for advice I get
> > from guys who wonder why no women will ever agree to go out with them,
then
> > note somewhere in their message that they're too terrified to even ask.
> >
> > You really can't blame the guys. They're looking for a sign, any sign,
that
> > it's safe; that they won't be rejected. They aren't getting many (or
any),
> > because women who go out of their way to look like migrant laborers
> > generally aren't in the habit of flirting-the method women have
successfully
> > used for centuries to send a message to men that the coast was clear for
the
> > asking.
> >
> > Some misguided women today do try to take over and sweep a man off his
feet.
> > While there are those stories of deliriously happy couples in which the
man
> > was hunted down like prey, a whole lot of young women have learned the
> > lesson the hard way that the dynamic created by this act of
"equality"
> > doesn't work.
> >
> > Men and women are actually very different; biologically different. No,
they
> > didn't magically become the same just because a bunch of man-loathers in
the
> > women's studies ghetto decided to grow out their mustaches.
> >
> > The burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology is proving that there's
> > nothing new in psychology. In fact, an ever-increasing mountain of data
> > shows that what men want and what women want has always been, and will
> > likely continue to be, the same as it was back in cave days.

It all comes down to reproduction. One sex gets pregnant and the other
doesn't. All of our behaviour stems from that.



> >
> > Acknowledging how we're hard-wired, and using it in our best interest
> > doesn't "put a woman down." In fact, it takes a strong,
self-assured,
> > post-victim-feminist woman to ease up a little. Acting the girl (or
putting
> > on the alpha male) is a role-one that's worked for 10 million years. As
a
> > role, it involves play and fun-a big part of what's been lost on the
dating
> > scene.
> >
> > It's time all women junked the big ugly boots, shelved the perpetually
dour
> > faces and worked up a seductive smile or two. Maybe, once they do,
they'll
> > inspire a guy to glue a little hair on his chest and ask them for a
date. In
> > time, the guy might even work up the guts to kiss them afterward-and
without
> > asking them to sign a permission slip first.
> >
> > --
> > Men are everywhere that matters!
>
> Boopsie can't get her bell rung...
>
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/13/05 6:44:25 AM ---