rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:
> > rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > > Feminism is the ideology that sees great value in increasing the
> > power
> > > and resources (in every sense of those words) of women in
relation
> to
> > > men. It is just as valuable to feminists that men be hobbled and
> > > weakened as that women become stronger.
> >
> > Do you see anything at all that's defensible about feminism? Or do
> you
> > just discount the whole movement as being anti-male?
>
> I will say this: Probably the majority of women who have, at one
> time or the other, been attacted to the feminist enterprise did not
> harbor a conscious desire to harm men.
> But there has often been a lot of harm done nonetheless because
> feminism normally dulls or extinquishes a womans perception that men
in
> general are not all powerful. It normally freezes in their minds
> woman=victim. And a victim needs a victimizer which always turns out
to
> be masculinity.
> I think a lot of otherwise viable relationships have been ruined
> when the woman gets fixated on victimhood. There are several reasons;
> the most fundamental is that if someone is a "victim" she can have no
> obligations towards her "oppressor".. So feminism has encouraged
women
> to lose all grip on the idea that they could sometimes simply owe
> certain things to a guy, that is, if they are to continue in a
> constructive relationship.
>
>
> .
> >
> > If the latter is the case, then you might be able to see why
> sometimes
> > it is hard to see the men's rights movement as anything other than
> > anti-female.
>
>
> Feminism is a mountain. The "mens rights movement" is gopher hill.
> Actually, I have little regard for anything I have seen in the mens
> rights movement. But I do think that the vast bulk of feministic
> ideology is wrong about human history and human nature and should be
> opposed like any false faith and doctrine...
> Thru out history, societies have struggled to stay alive and raise
> healthy, decent children with varying degrees of success. Wisdom and
> insight did not first break out with the writings of desperately
> over-privildged, historically naive, angry at being middle-aged,
> feminists- who were raised on Marxism.
>
>
> >
> > This flows from the core belief
> > > that womens dependence on men has historically been exploited by
> men
> > in
> > > the form of the patriarchy - that men have "ruled"
in the family
> and
> > in
> > > politics outside the family.
> >
> > You don't believe this is true?
>
>
> Men have not ruled very much. It is closer to the truth to say we
> have been "drafted" for certain roles. How often do you hear young
men
> talk about how much they want to have a family over which they rule
as
> patriarch? Hell no. They just want to be a fighter pilot and get
laid.
> You have to trick most of them to do the traditional thing.
> An awful lot of history could be described as what happens when
> powerful men and women cooperate in fucking over powerless men and
> women.
I forgot all about this thread. Glad I came back and read this.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/26/05 2:47:37 PM ---