Casey wrote:
> Aggy wrote:
>> "Casey"  wrote in message
>> news:cf5_d.38564$ZO2.16766{at}edtnps84...
>>
>>> Aggy wrote:
>>>
>>>> connor_a{at}hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most feminists are actually married with children.
>>>>>
>>>>> Soft "feminists" as mothers with children
are hardly the radical
>>>>> left of the movement for more womenfirster privlege (at mens
>>>>> expense as is always the case).
>>>>
>>>> So I'm a soft feminist am I, dear? Now that's interesting dear.
>>>> You are no longer categorising all feminists as the same. Does
>>>> this mean you are beginning to understand?
>>>
>>> I'm quite sure that connor "understands" completely,
>>
>> Is your name Connor, dear? You see I was addressing my remarks to
>> him.
>
> This is a wide open forum babe,
Is your name Connor, dear? You see I was addressing my remarks to
him.

>
>>> Christina Hoff
>>> Summers is a feminist, Camile Paglia is a feminist (and a lesbian)
>>
>> Why did your feel it nescesarry to point out that she is a lesbien,
>> dear? Are you under the impression that anyones sexuality is your
>> business?
>
> Because many (most ?) lesbians are anti-male and definitely most
> feminist lesbians are mysandrists who are not only anti-male but
> hatefully so.
What makes you so sure, dear?
>I just wanted to point out that while the majority of
> lesbian feminists are anti-male, not all of them are which implies
> that the anti-male"ness" isn't an inherent trait of lesbians...ie:
> being a lesbian doesn't obligate you to be anti-male
Very few if any generalisation work save for the inherent ones, dear.
>
>>> however neither finds it necessary to be anti-male nor to demonize
>>> men
>>
>> Good for them, dear and good for you for realising that feminist
>> does not mean misandrist.
>
> Well you know, the devil is in the details, unfortunately, most
> feminists have worked diligently for a political agenda which isn't
> just about equality for women but actively supports inequality for
> men, to some it even seems that reducing men's rights and making men
> second class citizens IS their primary objective and they prosecute
> this agenda even when in those cases where it is counter productive
> and/or outright damaging to women...and they do this in the name of
> "feminism" and generally with the blessing and support of most other
> feminists...
Typing "IS" in capitals doesn't make it so dear. But some so called
feminists are definitely anti male. Real feminists are not.
>
>>> to gain equality for women, further, both celebrate the unique
>>> strengths of men and women and understand and recognize that
>>> equality is a two way street and that trying to punish the men of
>>> today for the perceived crimes of their grandfathers and great
>>> grandfathers is both unfair, unjust and ultimately counter
>>> productive to the ideal of an equal, egalitarian society...they
>>> also recognize that this is ultimately what women need more that
>>> temporary "rights" since it's only in equality will
women ever be
>>> secure...
>>
>> Well said, dear. I totally agree.
>
>     Good, then can I expect to see you start to be less of a "women
> first-er" and more of an egalitarian ?
If you reread my posts, dear you will see I have always been an egalitarian.

Aggy




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 8:59:06 PM ---