Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An interesting paradox. I have gotten much criticism for this post...many thinking (incorrectly) that I am an awful person. Yet many clicked on the rate post positively button, perhaps the most reputation points I ever received on a single post.
So what is your point? That there are individuals other than yourself who love to see people they dislike suffer? That's not news and it doesn't make you any better just because you have company.
So what is your point? That there are individuals other than yourself who love to see people they dislike suffer? That's not news and it doesn't make you any better just because you have company.
And now we have it: the key issue for Jay is not that he's interested in international policy, but that he just wants to see more scantily clad women.
Posting history is relevant to this, for those who care to investigate.
I actually agree with him on that point. It's not about wanting to see scantily clad women, it's about the fact that sexual repression is a terrible thing which yields only terrible results. This quote from Orwell's 1984 expresses this idea quite well:
Quote:
Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was: "When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?"
There is no doubt that part of the reason for the existence of all these militant movements in the middle east is sexual repression. Why do you think so many young Saudi men leave their cushy lives of wealth and luxury to join groups like ISIS?
I think the U.S. is headed down a very dangerous path with this new wave of radical feminism.
I actually agree with him on that point. It's not about wanting to see scantily clad women, it's about the fact that sexual repression is a terrible thing which yields only terrible results. This quote from Orwell's 1984 expresses this idea quite well:
There is no doubt that part of the reason for the existence of all these militant movements in the middle east is sexual repression. Why do you think so many young Saudi men leave their cushy lives of wealth and luxury to join groups like ISIS?
I think the U.S. is headed down a very dangerous path with this new wave of radical feminism.
Thank you. If scantily clad women in itself was that meaningful to me I would just watch porn and be done with it. I never look at porn, it is very boring to me, contrived and male dominant.
You also bring up an excellent point about radical feminism leading us down that path. It is very ironic in a tragic way...the feminists themselves don't even see the irony which is amazing to me.
Also thank you for discussing the issue and not me personally. I am not the subject here...Any of you who flamed me or criticized me in any way without discussing Turkey, the Turkish currency situation, secularism vs fundamentalism, or the freedom of women in Muslim countries had nothing of value to add here. You judge me but not truly bad people such as men who rape women for not dressing modestly. By attacking me you are defending brutal male domination in the Muslim world...take away secularism and that is what you get as we have seen time and time again.
Thank you. If scantily clad women in itself was that meaningful to me I would just watch porn and be done with it. I never look at porn, it is very boring to me, contrived and male dominant.
You also bring up an excellent point about radical feminism leading us down that path. It is very ironic in a tragic way...the feminists themselves don't even see the irony which is amazing to me.
.
Good one. You talk "male dominated" as one bad trait, and then complain that some Females are rebelling against...wait for it.....a few more seconds...male domination!
Which part of feminism do you abhor more?
Women in the workplace following their dreams of education and being helpful to society?
Women controlling their breeding rate?
Women wanting to enter the political sphere?
Women wanting to dress and act as they wish (instead of your or society's wishes)?
Women wanting property?
I mean - there must be some of these things that really trouble you....list them off rather than the broad brush so others here can address them.
Good one. You talk "male dominated" as one bad trait, and then complain that some Females are rebelling against...wait for it.....a few more seconds...male domination!
Which part of feminism do you abhor more?
Women in the workplace following their dreams of education and being helpful to society?
Women controlling their breeding rate?
Women wanting to enter the political sphere?
Women wanting to dress and act as they wish (instead of your or society's wishes)?
Women wanting property?
I mean - there must be some of these things that really trouble you....list them off rather than the broad brush so others here can address them.
I am talking about radical feminism. None of the stuff you listed is radical. People who criticize radical feminism are clearly not talking about these things.
The issue with radical feminists is not that they advocate for women's freedoms, it's that they advocate against those freedoms for men.
One example of this is the newly popularized notion that men should not be allowed to show interest in women unless the woman has shown interest first. Not only is this blatantly hypocritical, it is also sexually repressive. The fact is, women will only make the first move if the guy is exceptional (very good looking, very charismatic, famous in some way, etc.). Normal guys tend to get nowhere with women unless they make the first move. Now we have radical feminists saying we can't do that.
And although feminists are known for advocating women's freedom to put off marriage and remain single, you actually find that most feminists have a strong disdain for men who continue living the bachelor life into their 30s. I have even seen feminists express anger towards younger women who sleep with these men, accusing them of "betraying the sisterhood" by allowing these men to continue having their casual sexual fun rather than settling down with a same-age woman (so much for women's sexual freedom).
Not to mention how radical feminists want to implement a system of guilty until proven innocent for rape cases. It is easy for them to justify this to themselves only because of their underlying belief (as expressed by various prominent feminists) that all sex is rape in the "patriarchy." Also, if the case involves a man and a woman who are not in a committed relationship, it is particularly easy, since they believe that men who engage in casual sex are already guilty of exploiting women. The prostitution laws in place in the Scandinavian countries, where it's legal for a woman to sell but illegal for a man to buy, are a perfect example of the feminist view of sex influencing the law. Even in Turkey under the AKP, the government knows to stay out of people's bedrooms.
And despite radical feminists' talk of "intersectionality" they don't actually care about any other group other than cis-gendered women. There is a wing of the radical feminist movement which openly hates trans people. Most feminists will disagree with them, but will not outright condemn them as bigots, the way they do with anyone who criticizes feminism. What does that tell you? It tells me that they clearly value cis-women over trans-women. Also they're only bothered by racism insofar that women of the disparaged race are being disparaged. When it's specific to the men, they don't mind it. White feminists will fully support black women trashing black men, for example.
I am talking about radical feminism. None of the stuff you listed is radical. People who criticize radical feminism are clearly not talking about these things.
The issue with radical feminists is not that they advocate for women's freedoms, it's that they advocate against those freedoms for men.
One example of this is the newly popularized notion that men should not be allowed to show interest in women unless the woman has shown interest first. Not only is this blatantly hypocritical, it is also sexually repressive. The fact is, women will only make the first move if the guy is exceptional (very good looking, very charismatic, famous in some way, etc.). Normal guys tend to get nowhere with women unless they make the first move. Now we have radical feminists saying we can't do that.
And although feminists are known for advocating women's freedom to put off marriage and remain single, you actually find that most feminists have a strong disdain for men who continue living the bachelor life into their 30s. I have even seen feminists express anger towards younger women who sleep with these men, accusing them of "betraying the sisterhood" by allowing these men to continue having their casual sexual fun rather than settling down with a same-age woman (so much for women's sexual freedom).
Not to mention how radical feminists want to implement a system of guilty until proven innocent for rape cases. It is easy for them to justify this to themselves only because of their underlying belief (as expressed by various prominent feminists) that all sex is rape in the "patriarchy." Also, if the case involves a man and a woman who are not in a committed relationship, it is particularly easy, since they believe that men who engage in casual sex are already guilty of exploiting women. The prostitution laws in place in the Scandinavian countries, where it's legal for a woman to sell but illegal for a man to buy, are a perfect example of the feminist view of sex influencing the law. Even in Turkey under the AKP, the government knows to stay out of people's bedrooms.
And despite radical feminists' talk of "intersectionality" they don't actually care about any other group other than cis-gendered women. There is a wing of the radical feminist movement which openly hates trans people. Most feminists will disagree with them, but will not outright condemn them as bigots, the way they do with anyone who criticizes feminism. What does that tell you? It tells me that they clearly value cis-women over trans-women. Also they're only bothered by racism insofar that women of the disparaged race are being disparaged. When it's specific to the men, they don't mind it. White feminists will fully support black women trashing black men, for example.
Long post....
I asked for a simple listing of what is triggering you about Females.....you come up with rants and stories.
OK, we know you believe in the Islamic and Jewish and old-fashioned way of the Man always having more valuable testimony than the woman. So there is one thing.
See if you can just list them - each in one short phrase or sentence. Not some far-out individual who is weird, but actual and real Feminism as defined in the English language.
One would think a real American would care about such things more than making other people suffer.
"today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers"
Yep, Trump can tweet harm to Turkey...but he can't put more dollars in the pockets of the forgotten man and woman. All he can do is take their health care away. Does that please y'all too?
You might have heard that the Turkish currency, the lira, is hitting record lows and that this will cause much financial pain for Turkey. I am enjoying this and cheering for the things to get even worse.
Why do I want Turkish financial meltdown? Because the Turkish people rejected secularism for an Islamist government. Turkey used to be the most secular Muslim country in the world. As a secularist I loved that version of Turkey. When I see pictures of Turkish women wearing hijabs it makes me furious because for many decades it was unheard of for Turkish women to cover themselves. Knowing how much Turkey has changed, all for the worse, makes me strongly dislike Turkey. Now I am cheering this currency crisis...it is very exciting to me and I feel the Turks definitely deserve it for rejecting secularism.
Historically, the reason the USA has helped out countries with turmoil is because evil breeds especially well when a country is collapsing.
Ruining Turkey's economy will ruin Turkey's economy for all and most likely will create a new hatred and animosity towards the USA.
WOO HOO!! WTG -- isn't this fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
