The Wondrous Glory of "Feminism"
THE FOLLOWING WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD. PER THE REQUEST OF AN ANONYMOUS READER, I'M GIVING THIS TOPIC ITS OWN THREAD. ENJOY!
Anonymous, Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:31:00 PM, said:
And they might be interested in a male chauvenistic commissioner, bus driver, preacher who preaches women in the kitchen making biscuits. What a real jerk!!!
I don't know Mr. Harwell, and have very little interest in the bus system. So I really have no dog in this fight. However... I'm really amazed at the "five minute hate" that's been whipped up over his alleged "chauvinism."
If there ever has been a mass movement more out of touch with reality than feminism... I've never heard of it. "Feminists" act as though one of the basic facts of life -- that the most important job a woman can ever do, which can't be "outsourced" to any man, ie, the continuation of the human species -- is some sort of cosmic injustice. Rage against the "patriarchy" all you want, ladies, but it won't change a thing. God made men different from women, and gave each of us a specialty-- procreation and child rearing for women, and "bringing home the bacon" for men.
But of course that wasn't good enough for some women, was it? So they demanded, and got, "equality in the workplace" at the point of the gun weilded by Uncle Sam. And what are the results, after forty odd years of this?
Well, marriage has gone down the drain. The promotion of consequence free "casual sex" has led to massive increases in illegitimacy and venereal diseases. Children that are lucky enough NOT to be slaughtered in the womb, are often raised without male role models, and grow up to be delinquents and criminals. And the size of government has doubled, largely to provide services to "single moms" and deal with their hell-spawn children.
Hey, but at least women in the jobforce have done well financially, right? Um, no. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of real world economics, knows that when you increase the supply of something, you necessarily lower it's worth in dollars...
So, when the women of America got fed up with "making biscuits," and trooped out of the home, and into the workforce, what happened? Simple. By nearly doubling the amount of labor available, they permanently depressed the wage rate for everyone, men and women both. And where once, a man working alone was able to support a family, now it takes both a man AND a woman.
Thanks, feminism! Destroying the traditional family, slaughtering millions and millions of babies for the sake of mere "convenience," and creating a labor glut that impoverishes the middle class... was one HELL of an accomplishment. You've come a long way baby, indeed!
(click on picture for an enlarged view)
Brutally Honest "Pro-Choice" Tee Shirts
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 6:29 PM
45 Comments:
What a line of BS! This smells to me like your writings Mr McPeters. This is the sickest bunch of crap I've EVER seen on this blog. SO OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY A MAN 9IF YOU CAN CALL HIM THAT)Really sounds a lot like James Harwell's thinking.
Anonymous, Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:38:00 PM, said:
What a line of BS!
So, what SPECIFICALLY is WRONG?
This smells to me like your writings Mr McPeters.
I signed it, dearie. Why wouldn't it "smell" like my writing?
This is the sickest bunch of crap I've EVER seen on this blog.
Specifics, please. Sick, how? If there is an error in my logic, feel free to identify it. Thanks.
SO OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY A MAN 9IF YOU CAN CALL HIM THAT)
I guess you're referring to the way men generally argue using appeals to reason, logic, and facts, while women -- especially "feminist" women -- are content to "argue" on the basis of their "feelings," alone? Yes, I quess that is something of a dead give-away.
Really sounds a lot like James Harwell's thinking.
Really? Sounds like Mr. Harwell has a lot on the ball. (Although I must disagree with him about Hillary-- I'm staunchly pro-Hillary, as I believe it's time to end the charade, and destroy what little is left of this country. Then, on with the rebuilding.)
Anonymous, while you're trying to come up with an answer, here's a male chauvinist pig you ought to know about: John Lott, economist and statistician. Noticing the curious fact that government had started growing like kudzu, as soon as women were given the vote, he researched the matter to see if there might be some connection.
Here's an exerpt from Wikipedia, explaining his findings:
Women's Suffrage and Government Growth
Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? Similar changes were occurring around the world. Lott's answer is women's suffrage. [12] A good way to analyze the direct effect of women's suffrage on the growth of government is to study how each of the 48 state governments expanded after women obtained the right to vote. Women's suffrage was first granted in western states with relatively few women — Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1896). Women could vote in 29 states before women's suffrage was achieved nationwide in 1920 with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. If women's suffrage increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, women's suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population.
Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
Simply shocking, no? So, it's off to the re-education camps for this ee-vil chauvanistic pig! Right?
Kendricks, you are a complete idiot!! I think that you really need some mental counseling. I am serious. I have never heard anything like the things that you say that are anti-government, anti-public schools and now anti-women. You must have lived a horrible life you have the hatred that you show. I am not a single mother, have been married for over thirty years and work. I am glad I have the ability to provide for myself. I saw so many mothers growing up who put up with abuse both mental and physcial because that was their "duty". That had to live that way what else could they do. They could not divorce, could not get a job so they lived like that and the whole family was miserable except the abusive husband. Now days women have choices, they can raise a family without the help of a man if they choose. I don't believe in children without marriage but it happens and women make the best of it. You apparently don't live a normal life yourself. Do you work? Have you ever held a normal job, been a productive member of society? Do you have a wife and children the way that God intended for you? Are you doing what the Bible said? Have you married, had children, been fruitful and mulitplied? You seem such a bitter sick person. Is there anything happy in your life? I'm sure that you expected lots of comments from your remarks and I had to answer you.
Mr. McPeters, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
This takes the cake. I think all women should boycott this blog. Good way to make it die. I'm outa here.
Kendrick, you need to read what you wrote yourself about the purpose of this blog. Your topic is way off the mark.
Another eee-vill male chauvinist pig is Ann Coulter, who says:
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
Before I address my critics directly, I'd like to synopsize the things I said (or implied) in the intitial post in this thread. All of my points are numbered below, so I would like those who disagree with me to give the number of the specific points which they think are wrong, and then provide the evidence that backs up their position. Sounds simple enough, right?
(1) If women refuse to have babies, the human race will become extinct. Thus, for women, having babies is the most important job in the world.
(2) Men and women are different from each other -- by divine design -- in ways other than their "plumbing."
(3) If women really wanted "equal treatment," they wouldn't be whining for the government to give them special treatment (aka "affirmative action).
(4) As a direct result of the feminist movement....
A. Marriage is now a bad joke.
B. Most "liberated" women differ from prostitutes only in that they don't charge for their services.
C. The illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed.
D. Venereal diseases are at near epidemic level.
E. Millions upon millions of babies are slaughtered every year for the sake of "convenience."
F. Many boys are raised by "single moms" and grow up to be hellions and criminals.
G. Partly to pay for all this social dysfunction, the size of government has grown enormously.
H. Women flooding the workforce has depressed wages for all, and resulted in the need for "two incomes" to make ends meet.
If I'm wrong about any of this, then call me out -- by number -- and show me the facts that prove me wrong. Since I am not a woman, I am unmoved by emotional based arguments, or ad hominem attacks -- so, don't waste your time with any of that. Thanks!
To beleive that feminism directly caused all of those problems is a argument based on post hoc ergo propter hoc logic. It makes no sense. To argue that feminism caused an increase in VD is ludicrous. It would be impossible to argue your points because they are so off anything that would be consider intellegent modern thinking. Perhaps you would be better off in a Middle Eastern nation like Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia where that kind of thinking still flies.
Anonymous, Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:43:00 PM, said:
Kendricks, you are a complete idiot!!
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I think that you really need some mental counseling.
Well, I think YOU need to be "deprogrammed" from the liberal dogma that clouds your brain.
I am serious.
I'm sure you are. Communists -- and liberals like you are just communists who don't have the cojones to hoist the star and sickle banner -- have always dealt with their critics by calling them crazy, and demanding that they be sent to the psychiatric gulag. That happened to many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dissinters in the former Soviet Union. No doubt many liberals in America would like to do the same to those who disagree with them.
I have never heard anything like the things that you say
You have led a sheltered life, my dear. No doubt you were a victim of the guvskools, to boot. Be that as it may, you have Google at your fingertips, and, if you would like to hear more shocking things of a similar nature, try reading the literature of the Anti-Federalists... particularly Jefferson, Paine and Adams.
that are anti-government,
That's a complete crock. You are so far off the mark, it's ridiculous. I am, in my spare time, writing a book -- "A Government for Grown Ups" -- mainly aimed at the "anarchist wing" of the libertarian movement. I am actually a strong proponent of government... but I believe government should dedicate itself to protecting our rights (rather than stealing us blind) and should be based on free and explicit consent (much unlike today's leviathan). No dear... I am not against government. I am against tyranny. Are you not capable of understanding the difference?
anti-public schools
I am anti GOVERNMENT schools, for the same general reason I am anti government grocery stores. Anyone who is pro-education -- and I think education is tremendously important... way, way too crucial to be put in the hands of an incompetent government with a self interest in the masses being both ignorant and obediant -- has to oppose the government being involved in education, other than -- at most -- giving loans or grants to people unable to afford tuition for their kids.
and now anti-women.
I am not anti-women! I am opposed to the skanks and leeches that call themselves "feminists" who blame every imagined problem on "the patriarchy" and who have, in general, run what was once a decent country, into the ground.
My mother was not a "feminist" and I loved her dearly. Ditto with my sister... who sacrificed her career, and God only knows how much money, so she could be a homeschooling mom. (Imagine that, feministas! Loving your children more than your "liberating" paycheck. Wow, what a concept!)
The rest of the blah blah blah nonsense has been deleted. Everything I have said is either a fact, or it is not. The circumstances of my life -- and yours -- do not change the factuality of my numbered claims. Trying to drag personal issues into it is just a lame attempt to avoid dealing with my claims.
That being said, I'll make you this solemn promise: if you go through my numbered list, and cite factual reasons why my various claims are wrong, then I will go straight through all of your questions about me, and answer them directly and honestly. I'll do that, even though none of your questions is the least bit relevant to the points I'm trying to make about feminism.
One last thing before I go... you claim that "now days women have choices, they can raise a family without the help of a man if they choose."
I'd like to know this: how often are these women truly "on their own," and not simply replacing the man they married with a government handout?
Spanky McFadden said:
Mr. McPeters, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
So, point out (by number) what I am wrong about, and then point out FACTS that prove I'm in error. If my positions are "insanely idiotic," then that shouldn't be too much trouble, should it?
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
And the most incoherent and irrational thought was...... (Don't be shy, just call out the numbered point, and show me the FACTS that disprove me.)
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Speaking of the Big Guy Upstairs, do you think He is insane, idiotic, or dumb, for ordering women to be subservient to their husbands, keep their traps shut while in church, and so forth? Perhaps you'd like to come up with a corrective chapter -- The Book of Spanky -- which we could append to the Bible? Just curious.
Anonymous, Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:03:00 PM, said:
This takes the cake.
Nonetheless, you won't cite, by number, what it is that I'm mistaken about, or offer up any factual evidence to counter me. Right?
I think all women should boycott this blog. Good way to make it die. I'm outa here.
This is known, technically, as the "ostrich head in the sand" approach to dealing with an argument. Rather pathetic, IMO.
Spanky said:
To argue that feminism caused an increase in VD is ludicrous.
So, was it something put in the drinking water? Flouride, perhaps?
Seriously, if you knew ANYTHING about modern feminist idealogy, you would be aware that it promotes promiscuous premarital sex, and downgrades the importance of ever getting married. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
By the early 1960's, this message was being drummed into everyone's head. Lo and behold, girls became much more sexually adventurous... and then, somehow, the VD rate went sky-high. But it would be ABSURD to try and work out a cause-effect relationship on any of this, right??? Right.
It would be impossible to argue your points because they are so off anything that would be consider intellegent modern thinking.
"Intelligent modern thinking" is, of course, code word lingo for "party line liberal regurgitation." No thanks, Spanky... I think I'll pass.
Perhaps you would be better off in a Middle Eastern nation like Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia where that kind of thinking still flies.
I doubt it. While I do admire the way they punish people for breaking the most solemn contract imaginable -- marriage vows -- on balance, I'd prefer to live in America. But that's just me.
Isn't anyone gonna comment on the picture of the feminista with the "I'm proud I had an abortion" tee shirt? Abortion is actually promoted by feminists, not only as a "liberating" experience, but as something to be proud of. Hence this line of tee shirts.
Try as I might, I can't think of anything comparable for men. That's possibly because men almost never go around deliberately killing people. I guess there would be a fairly large market for "I got drunk and ran over someone" tee shirts, but, frankly, I don't think even male DUI offenders would be interested in advertising their crimes against society. Unlike the woman in the picture at the top of this page... strange, indeed.
Good post, K. Logical and reasonable, but with no lack of passion. That it stirred up the fruits n' nuts enough to call for your banishment to the psych-gulag is a measure of its quality. No worries, though -- these sorts seem to call for that banishment anytime anyone deviates from the sheeplike conformity mandated by the talking heads on their favorite partisan news channel.
I myself find 'modern women' to be, for the most part, a gaggle of perpetual teenaged girls. In fact, most guys probably have no problem with the feminist dogmatists because it ensures them a steady supply of no-commitment needed sex. All they need to do to get rid of a girlfriend becoming too clingy is to start acting like an old fashioned gentleman. This tends to cause said women to flee into the arms of the nearest self-mutilating emo burnout.
Just remember that Heinlein was called a chauvinist despite creating perhaps the most well rounded, intelligent, capable and 'liberated' female characters in American literature. Why? For the simple reason that those characters -- in addition to being lusty, voluptuous, and paragons of their chosen professions -- also greatly enjoyed having and raising children.
Procreation, and the sort of responsible, dedicated motherhood necessary for the continued advancement of the human race, is considered a horrible aspect of the feminine victim mystique and is to be derided and demonized everywhere it is found.
Isn't anyone gonna comment on the picture of the feminista with the "I'm proud I had an abortion" tee shirt?
I'd find such a t-shirt to be a downright service in my favor. It would allow me to instantly recognize an individual that I wish to have absolutely no interaction with.
As an individualist-anarchist I obviously do not demand the criminalization of abortion. While I consider it a deeply immoral, inexcusable action, I'd prefer to avoid the government empowerment and black market consequences such prohibition would bring. Instead, I do my best to shun abortionists, their clients, and their apologists. This moral act of free association has no unfortunate consequences and generally improves the company I keep a great deal.
Therefore, such bold t-shit slogans are a welcome breath of honesty in my opinion.
First of all the picture is ridiculous. I don't know of anyone who would wear that shirt even the girl holding it!! The shirt is obviously a joke.
1. I am a female not a feminists.
2. I am neither liberal nor communists, far from it.
3. I am a married woman and believe that my husband is the head of the household.
4. Unwed mothes are nothing new, even in Biblical times.
5. 50 years ago women could go back the their families and live with relatives and did. Remember the old days when people had beds in every room, where three or four generations of families lived in the same household. Could you support a family like that? No that is why women work. Don't imply that all single women are on welfare. I guess we could open up the poor houses again.
6. Where was it you said you had worked and been a productive citizen? Who is going to take care of you when you are old? Did you pay in to Social Security so that you would have that to fall back on in your old age. Have you put money aside to take care of you or will you be in government subsidized nursing home? Is that not welfare? Will you be living off the same welfare that you accuse single mothers of sponging off of?
7. You are contradicting yourself. First you say "And the size of government has doubled, largely to provide services to "single moms" and deal with their hell-spawn children.
Then "That women are better off financially". Women may be better off financially but not because of welfare. Could it be that MEN are the reason women are working? How many men out there say "Honey, don't work. We will eat beans and taters just like our parents did. We don't need money for me to play golf, sit at home watching ball games and etc. I'll just git me another job on the weekends and you can stay home with the five kids. I don't think you will hear that too often.
8. Number these comments is absolutely stupid too!!! But I did it so you can comment intelligently to each and every one. I wait patiently for you answer.
Anonymous, Friday, March 21, 2008 4:18:00 AM, said:
First of all the picture is ridiculous. I don't know of anyone who would wear that shirt even the girl holding it!! The shirt is obviously a joke.
My dear, one thing you can take to the bank, is that I never lie. That shirt is absolutely real. It's being sold over the internet by Planned Parenthood... and the woman modelling it is actually its DESIGNER!
Regarding your numbered comments, I'll get to those later today. Thanks for your patience.
doorintosummer said:
As an individualist-anarchist I obviously do not demand the criminalization of abortion. While I consider it a deeply immoral, inexcusable action, I'd prefer to avoid the government empowerment and black market consequences such prohibition would bring. Instead, I do my best to shun abortionists, their clients, and their apologists.
I can appreciate where you are coming from. I used to be an anarchist myself... and as I believe government must be fully consensual (as in, sign here if you want to be governed), a lot of anarchists that I've spoken with insist that my "government" is just a tarted up "private defense agency." I disagree... but let's not divert this thread to discuss that subject!
Regarding abortion, I'll bet you agree that -- without outright government protection -- certain "procedures" would never be performed. I'm thinking that, in an anarchic society, a "doctor" would perform maybe one "partial birth" infanticide, before being drug out into the street by an irate mob, and finding himself drawn and quartered. What do you think?
How many people do you know brave enough to write book length defenses of the world's number one, most eeeeevilll bugaboo, "patriarchy?"
I know of only one... Dr. Daniel Amneus. Below is the preface to his book, "The Case for Father Custody." (Diehard feministas, don't read any of this without first getting your blood pressure checked!)
The female role, says Margaret Mead, is a biological fact, the male role a mere social creation. Until ten or twelve thousand years ago the function of the male was primarily to impregnate the female. He might also function, at Mom’s pleasure, to provide care for her and for her offspring; but if Mom became dissatisfied with Dad, she gave him his walking papers and found a new boyfriend, as she does today in the ghetto. The male role had no stability. Children depended primarily on Mom.
In pre-mammalian reproduction (say that of a green turtle) the offspring begins its existence as an egg and never learns that it has a mother or a father. Its mother’s participation in its existence consists of conceiving and gestating it and burying the resulting egg in the sand. After remaining there and maturing awhile, it emerges from the sand and waddles down to the water to find a meal-- or to become a meal for some other creature. It is self-contained and lives on its own inherited resources or it dies.
In the mammalian female kinship system the offspring are born alive but are still a part of nature -- they just happen. A mother cat just has kittens as a river just flows. However, mammalian mothers cherish their young, feed them from their own body, protect them, educate them.
Your cat and her kittens show how meaningful mammalian motherhood is, and how irrelevant mere fatherhood is once the father has performed his minuscule sexual function. Mammalian motherhood enables the kitten to have an infancy. This is the relationship which judges understand and seek to preserve by awarding custody to mothers in divorce cases.
The kitten has no childhood. After a rather short period of helpless infancy, it becomes almost suddenly a mature adult capable of fending for itself like the infant turtle after it emerges from its egg.
The male kinship system found among humans is an extremely recent engraftment upon the female mammalian kinship system, which originated in the Mesozoic Era when the dinosaurs were young, some two hundred million years ago.
It was John Fiske, the nineteenth century American historian and philosopher, who pointed out what made human beings special -- and more successful than other mammals: not only the prolongation of infancy, but the creation of a whole additional era of life, childhood, something unknown in any other species, so that human children can enjoy an enormously long period during which they are protected, cherished, educable, playful, exploratory, sensitive and aware, a period during which they can reach out and learn about and come to love the world they live in. The male kinship system, or patriarchy, is still a part of nature, but in a new sense: it depends not on biological heredity but on social heredity. It is a human creation, like a hydroelectric dam placed over a river to harness its power and use it to run factories and light streets. It was the great achievement of patriarchy to raise reproduction above recreation and put it to work. Man was taking charge of part of his heredity.
It is largely fatherhood which makes childhood possible. Mothers make infants but when the infants become children they are likely to be less well socialized if they have no fathers. It is largely father absence which creates ghettos and gangs and messed-up kids -- boys trying to find their identity through violence, girls trying to find their identity through sexual promiscuity which generates the male violence of the next generation. They need real fathers, sociological fathers, not mere biological studs interested in a one-night stand or a brief or superficial relationship. Sociological fatherhood is real fatherhood. It is also what Margaret Mead called “a social invention.” In the ghettos biological fathers seldom become sociological fathers, seldom amount to much, because Mom’s sexual promiscuity or disloyalty -- her belief in what feminists call a woman’s right to control her own sexuality—denies them the role of sociological fatherhood. Lawmakers and judges fail to understand that fatherhood is a social invention, that it must be created and maintained by society. This is the main reason patriarchal society -- the father kinship system -- exists. They do not grasp that social heredity has become part of biology and that fathers are the primary means of transmitting social heredity. They suppose that humans can live like cattle, without fathers, with only the meager social heredity found in female kinship systems such as ghettos and Indian reservations. Until lawmakers and judges see that they must support the father’s role because it is the weak biological link in the family we will have more matriarchy -- along with its accompaniments: educational failure, illegitimacy, teen suicide, gangs and the rest.
For those who appreciate R.A. Heinlein's philosophy, this book is an enjoyable read. And best of all, it's FREE -- you can downlaod an Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) version of the book by clicking here:
http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf
Enjoy!
whats the deal with james harwell and why is there a problem whith him.i know mr. harwell and think he is a fine man.with that said i happen to agree whith mcpeters to a degreei think women should be paid equally for a job that both a man and a women can dobut like most blue collar working men i havent seen many women who can do my job.and as for the abortion issue there are certain instances where it may be needed such as rape victoms,however it is still murder and wrong just in a rape case it could be considered justifiable homicide.anything else is cold blooded murder.women also have the god given job of giving birth to and teaching our children.with out you women doing that very important job over the years we would all be hellians and criminals.so im saying,if you want to work thats cool,but you have a more important job than what you get a paycheck for.and for abortion before you do it think about it,you would think about not getting into a car after12 beersand running over someone,wouldnt you?it is still murder!!!!!!!!lastly i want to thank my motherfor being the person she is and not like some of you looney toones.she tought me no matter how hard headed i was and it stuck with me.and i would like to thank my father for teaching me my work ethic,i dont want something for nothing welfare would be an embarassment to me and should be used by those who need itand not those who want to take advantage of it.try to remember a few things,thou shall not kill respect your mother and father and most importantly treat others like you want to be treated.love yall mom and dad!!!!!!!
I happen to know Mr. Harwell very well also and have for over five years. I have had he and his wife to my house for supper and have socialized with them often.I have NEVER seen him comport himself as anything but a gentleman and a man of God! When he made to comment about Mrs Clinton he was making a point, that point being that God Created women to give birth to and raise our children.If this line of thought is anti-feminist , well I guess I am! I am a middle aged woman who was a mother at sixteen,
in a abusive marriage. I was strong enough to leave the father of my children and do what ever necessary to raise my children to be good men, husbands and fathers.
They are now both in their thirties
and have sons of their own.I have worked off and on since they were born and think that sometime it is necessary for women to work to either provide or help provide for the family.BUT I don't think a woman should hold a place of such great power.Women are more emotional than men, we can be more dangerous than a man because of this fact.Emotions can't run a government. I know I wouldn't want a womans finger on the nuclear
weapons button if she was experiencing PMS. Sorry if this offends anyone but it is true! A woman can be "off her rocker" at these times. Every woman will tell you (if she is truthful)that this is true!
As for the girl in the photo I feel sorry for her.She evidently
has never held a new born baby in her arms or comforted a baby when it is sick or hurt. This is the most glorious feeling in the world!
There are too may couples (male-female couples that is) who would love nothing better than to have a child but can't.The ONLY reason I can see for abortions is if the child or the mother are in danger.I have recently lost a grandchild due to a miscarriage and even though it was only the size of a peanut didn't make it any less my grandchild! women who have abortions don't consider how their decision may effect others close to them. If they don't want children then they should take the precautions to keep it from happening.Or better yet not have
sex until they are married and both she and her husband KNOW they want children. I know from experiences that this is easier said than done
because of peer pressure and other circumstances. I have done things in my life which are wrong and have suffered for them but I would NEVER consider aborting my child! In my eyes that that is the same as killing part of myself!
The people who are on this campaign to destroy Mr. Harwell need to stop and look at themselves
before ruining a good mans reputation. Mr. Harwell is a man just a person like all the rest of us and makes mistakes.You need to read your bible, He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:7In the world today we alway try to find fault with others while trying to ignoring our own faults! And if god can forgive us why do we think we are better than him by not forgiving each other?
I've just created an "honest" pro-choice tee shirt! (See front page of blog.)
So, if anyone is interested in purchasing one of these, email me -- mcpeters@usit.net -- and I'll provide you all the info you need to get one. Thanks!
Kendrick..
Neil Bortz recently questionned whether or not stupid people should be allowed to vote. I realize that the concept is against the philosophy of political correctness, but what do you think?
There are any number of "stupid" people out there who have no idea why they vote other than to say they vote the way their parents and grandparents did.
What is your point?
The point? Is it not obvious?
Great tee shirt Kendrick it drives the point home clearly but requires much reading. You wouldn't want people to think their chest is being stared at so you might shorten the message to "I KILL FOR CONVENIENCE"
Allen Barrett
There is no law that says you have to educate one's self to vote. Only that you be a citizen, over 18, and not a convicted felon. So I ask again, what's your point? Is there anything wrong with voting for the most popular?
If pro choice is the voice of the people, then why not get behind it? Its sorta like your mentality on zoning and financial management, isn't it?
Why would you think that "pro choice" is the voice of the people? In every major poll that has been conducted to date the overwhelming majority of people in this country are opposed to abortion on demand and the numbers are even greater in opposition to late term abortions. dr. george tiller the infamous Kansas baby killer is on record via a concealed tape recording stating that he had performed abortions as late as the projected due date regardless of there having been no danger to the woman. This is the self described monster that brags he has "done more abortions than any other person in the country. The DA Stephen Six has recently blocked a grand jury from indicting him on the charge of murder.
Your suggestion to "get behind it" is not only stupid, it is disgustingly offensive. Did you get behind the extermination of undesirables in Germany under the very popular people's fuhrer.
Regardless of whether every person in the world should ever accept that abortion on demand is acceptable I will not. It is murder in the vilest sense. Allen Barrett
Anonymous, Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:16:00 PM, said:
There is no law that says you have to educate one's self to vote.
Indeed. Under current law, mental retardation, no matter how extreme, does not disqualify you from voting. You can literally have an IQ lower than a chimpanzee, and still be allowed (if not encouraged) to participate in federal, state and local elections. Perhaps we should amend the Constitution to allow all primates -- not just humans! -- to vote? Fair is fair, you know...
Only that you be a citizen, over 18, and not a convicted felon.
Actually, we're moving to the "18 years old with a heartbeat" system. Plenty of polling places practice the old "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" when it comes to illegal invaders wanting to vote. There is also a campaign, supported by Jesse Jackson for one example, to throw out "convicted felon" status as a disqualifier. And, really, in certain districts -- big cities dominated by a Democrat "machine" -- even the "heartbeat" is optional... if you're 18 years or older, dead or alive, you're welcome to vote in certain jurisdictions.
So I ask again, what's your point?
This isn't actually the thread I was discussing voting... but I guess my point is, in a "democracy," the results are heavily dependent on the "quality" of the electorate. Allow the brain dead to vote and the results will be.... well, pretty much like the world we can observe around us everyday. A disaster.
Is there anything wrong with voting for the most popular?
Not if you like seeing glib talking charlatans getting elected, and providing the public with "bread and circuses," no. But if you'd prefer decent people to hold office, devoting themselves to protecting our liberty, relying on "popularity contests" is no way to run a railroad. The ancient Athenians did away with the plague of politics, by filling offices via random lot, the same as we do with juries today.
Random selection would mean no more political parties, no more idiotic political ads on the tee vee, and no more candidates buying votes with the taxpayer's money. Considering the abysmally low quality and integrity of those now selected via "popularity contests," how could we possibly do any worse? Frankly, we couldn't. Down with popularity contests! Up with random sortition!
(4) As a direct result of the feminist movement....
A. Marriage is now a bad joke.
Have you ever been married? How can you blame failed marriages on just women?
I have been married for 20 years am raising 3 children. I have know numerous other married couples who have not made it and it was not just the women who caused the failed marriage-MEN have more problem with committing than women and that is the main problem with marriage today-COMMITMENT not the fact that women want to work.
B. Most "liberated" women differ from prostitutes only in that they don't charge for their services.
There are men who are also in this profession. This is the oldest profession in the world; it is even recorded in the bible about both sexes being prostitutes.
C. The illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed.
This has just as much to do with men as it does women, you try and make out like women are the only people who have a choice as to having sex out of marriage. Men go out and sow their oats and than deny that the child is even theirs and than don’t want to pay for their child. It takes two to make a baby.
D. Venereal diseases are at near epidemic level.
Again it takes two! Both sexes sleep around and it is not right to blame women for something men also do- are you saying its okay for men to sleep around but not women?
E. Millions upon millions of babies are slaughtered every year for the sake of "convenience."
You say abortion is one of convenience-maybe so but this is not only a women’s problem-no how many men have been told by a women “I’m pregnant with your child”, and the words out of his mouth is “You need to get an abortion!” up until that point he thought abortion was wrong until an unplanned pregnancy inconvenienced him and than it was perfectly okay. Yes it is ultimately a women’s choice to have the abortion, but men help push some women to that decision. I would like to see you look into the eyes of an 11 year old child who had been raped and tell her she has to have a baby that she had no choice in making! I do not believe in abortion, but do think in some cases it may be neccessary.
F. Many boys are raised by "single moms" and grow up to be hellions and criminals.
Do you think boys being raised by single moms are what theses single moms want? Your crazy all children raised by single moms are not hellions and criminals, a lot of them grow up to be productive members of society and a lot of times it is better for a women to take her children and go-alcoholic father, drug addict father, abusive father, lazy bum who will not support his family, and than there are those men who just refuse to take responsibility for fathering children.
G. Partly to pay for all this social dysfunction, the size of government has grown enormously.
Social dysfunction is caused by both sexes’ not just women. More men run our government than women.
H. Women flooding the workforce has depressed wages for all, and resulted in the need for "two incomes" to make ends meet.
If I remember correctly it took women to keep this country going during the world war. Men often run off and leave families so the mother has no choice but to work-that puts women in the work force, believe it or not most people do not like depending on the government to provide for their families. A lot of women work because they have not found the right man to marry-the men are too busy sowing their oats and are not ready to settle down-what are these women who are ready to settle down suppose to do, live at home with their parents at age 30 and let their parents support them? No they have to work! As I said before I have been married 20 years, have 3 children and never worked during my marriage, we manage to make ends meet, but at times is has been hard-the need for two incomes is not because of a woman but because people want more stuff. The more stuff you have the more money you need ergo two incomes-don’t put that off on just the woman, the man has just as much to do with it-after all He is the head of the House.
Try as I might, I can't think of anything comparable for men.
No men just like to get women pregnant and run off and deny the child is theirs, leaving the women to raise the child on their own to become hellions and criminals.
Society is made up of two sexes responsible for doing what is right and both are just as responsible for doing what is wrong- 50/50!
You sound bitter towards women-Have you ever been married, if not why? Have you ever been in love? Have you ever had a girlfriend? Was your heart broken so bad by someone you have become so bitter toward women?
Talk about being bitter toward women, lady you need to take a cold look at your own bitterness toward men.
Only a fool would suggest women are the cause of everything bad just as the same kind of fool would suggest men are the cause of everything bad.
We have raised generation after generation of progressively more undisciplined, dishonorable, self-centered brats and are seeing the results in ever increasing degrees. The problem isn't a man or a woman thing it is a society thing with contributions from both sexes.
Allen Barrett
Mom of 3 said...
...MEN have more problem with committing than women and that is the main problem with marriage today-
Marriage nowadays offers men virtually no benefit they can't get outside of marriage... other than the questionable "benefit" of standing a 50% chance of being taken to the cleaners. If a lion tamer seems somewhat afraid of "committing" himself to putting his head in a lion's mouth, it's only because his sense of self preservation requires him to make damned sure that he can trust the lion. Want to know more? Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
...you try and make out like women are the only people who have a choice as to having sex out of marriage.
Well... how can I put this delicately? Throughout all known history, women have been the "gatekeepers" of sex. That is, the typical man basically wants sex all the time, with any woman who is willing. It is the WOMAN'S role to be responsible, by saying "No... not until we are married," or "No, not until you quit smoking dope, and get a good paying job" or the like. Women who "accidentally" find themselves carrying the hellspawn of a drug addled ne'er do well, have only themselves to blame. It is the woman's duty -- to herself, if not society at large -- to say "No!" to sex with scumbags. Indeed, women saying "No!" is the primary civilizing force on men, who enter the world as barbarians, and remain so unless women give them a reason to improve themselves.
As the jokes say, "men are dogs" when it comes to chasing after sex. That's been the case for all of history, and it will never, ever change. So when you see the illegitimacy rate spike, over a forty year period, from 3% of births, to over 30% of births, then you can be sure that something other than male behavior was responsible. Obviously, women have changed their sexual behavior in response to changing legal incentives -- get knocked up, and we will give you a check! -- and the decline in social mores. But, blame men for this all you want to; it won't change the facts of reality.
Men go out and sow their oats and than deny that the child is even theirs and than don’t want to pay for their child.
If women can unilaterally choose to kill "a man's" baby, it ain't "his." Case closed.
Again it takes two! Both sexes sleep around and it is not right to blame women for something men also do-
If women won't force men to be responsible -- by saying "NO!" to sex outside of marriage -- then who will? So, yes, I see this as vastly more the woman's responsibility than the man's,
Yes it is ultimately a women’s choice to have the abortion, but men help push some women to that decision.
All women have to do, in order to avoid "abortion for convenience," is to refuse to have sex outside of marriage. Problem solved.
a lot of times it is better for a women to take her children and go-alcoholic father, drug addict father, abusive father, lazy bum who will not support his family, and than there are those men who just refuse to take responsibility for fathering children.
And why, pray tell, did the woman consent to having sex with such a low down, rotten creep? All women have to do to avoid this sad situation, is simply not hop into bed with strange men they haven't fully checked out via the process of courtship. (And given that a woman's sex drive is 1/10 as strong as a man's, you'd think women could manage to "hold out" until they find the right man.)
Social dysfunction is caused by both sexes’ not just women.
Men are not blameless. But if women offer to give the milk away for free, can you really blame the men for not wanting to buy a cow? Maybe, if women would STOP giving the milk away, men would start behaving more responsibly.
More men run our government than women.
Perhaps. But, for whatever reason, the rules that are made blatantly favor women over men. Perhaps there are more women voters than there are men...
Men often run off and leave families so the mother has no choice but to work-
As a matter of statistical fact, women are far more prone to call it quits -- "I'm bored! You aren't meeting my needs!" -- than are men. The institution of "no-fault" divorce has certainly not benefitted the average married man in any way that I can fathom.
A lot of women work because they have not found the right man to marry-the men are too busy sowing their oats and are not ready to settle down-
There are plenty of good reasons for men to avoid marriage, and almost no reasons to get married. And as far as "oat sowing" goes, if unmarried women decided tomorrow to abstain from future sex until they got married, men would no longer have any field in which they could scatter their seed. Once again, problem solved.
I have been married 20 years, have 3 children and never worked during my marriage,
That's good to hear. I hope, while you're staying home, that you are homeschooling your chillun.
the need for two incomes is not because of a woman but because people want more stuff.
I agree with you that an obsession with material possessions contributes to the problem. But if the government wasn't taking half of a man's income in taxes, folks would be able to "keep up with the Joneses" on the hubby's income alone.
No men just like to get women pregnant and run off and deny the child is theirs, leaving the women to raise the child on their own to become hellions and criminals.
Again... a child that the woman is 100% legally free to slaughter is NOT "theirs." And, in my opinion, if a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage she should not be entitled to any "support" from the sperm donor. Likewise, the sperm donor shouldn't be given any custody or visitation rights. This sort of social "tough love" would force both men and women to act responsibly-- or face the consequences of their choices.
Society is made up of two sexes responsible for doing what is right and both are just as responsible for doing what is wrong- 50/50!
Do not mistake fairy tales for reality. In the REAL world, men are totally irresponsible unless forced by women to behave in a proper manner. 50/50? Nope. Not in the world of reality.
You sound bitter towards women-
No. I am bitter toward a system which is lopsidely biased against men. Today's "family law" system has destroyed marriage through "no fault" divorce. It rips mens hearts out by stealing "their" children... often denying them custody... while enslaving them financially. The all too common end result is that the "dumped" man winds up committing suicide.
As for all the nosy questions about me... how are they even remotely relevant? My positions on this issue will stand or fall in this debate, based on the objective facts. I could be a depraved axe murderer, and that still wouldn't make me wrong in the factually based opinions which I have articulated. Would it?
Here's the point; people who don't have sense enough to maske intelligent citizens should not be allowed to vote, particularly in the perilous times in which we live. By being educated, Neil Bortz (not me) said that in order to vote, a person ought to have at least some rudimentary knowledge of what candidates stand for. Again, those were not my words. You should direct your negative remarks to him.
Pardon me. I meant to say people who don't have sense enough to make informed decisions.
Mr. Barrett I am sorry if you took my post as being bitter toward men, I am not, and for the record I have total respect for those men who take responsibility for their actions, the same as for women. This world is made up of two sexes as God intended and BOTH are responsible for the shape the world is in today. I was merely trying to point out that for every action that Kendrick McPeters pointed out that women were at fault-men were also and the world has both sexes to blame not just one.
I will not debate with him further on this issue I will just say this I am the only person responsible for my decisions. I make the decisions to do what I do and I CAN NOT blame them on anyone but myself-same as with anyone else, everyone has a choice to either do something or not.
mom of 3 said...
This world is made up of two sexes as God intended and BOTH are responsible for the shape the world is in today.
Equally responsible? In 1960, abortion was generally illegal, and contraceptives were few and far between. Yet the illegitimacy rate was only around 3% of all births. Compare with today, where, despite free and legal abortions, and more contraceptive options than you can shake a stick at, the rate is over 30%.
What change in male behavior is responsible for this shocking result? Or have women -- following the feminist rhetoric of "empowerment" -- simply abandoned their "gatekeeper" role, and become much more promiscuous?
I was merely trying to point out that for every action that Kendrick McPeters pointed out that women were at fault-
Actually, if you go back and read the thread, I was blaming "feminism," not "women." There are plenty of men who have beat the drum of feminism -- Alan Alda, Phil Donohue, and Hugh Hefner, for example -- and plenty of women -- Phyllis Schlafly and my sister, f'rinstance -- who are "traditional women,"-- not feminists.
So when I am blaming "feminism" for various declines in our culture, that doesn't mean I'm blaming "women." Got it?
I will not debate with him further on this issue
Well, that's mighty brave of ya, toots. Don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out!
conservatives suck. feminism is a viable movement which you republican pricks keep trying to demean. as always, try to control someone you view as lesser than you.
Well, that's mighty brave of ya, toots.
you're a dick.
Eric said:
conservatives suck.
Why tell me this? I'm the guy who argues that drugs should be legalized, and that police generally do more harm than good. I even called the beloved "Pledge of Allegiance" a "loyalty oath to big government" which was "written by a socialist."
So, I'm not exactly what you would call a conservative. (I'm even voting for Hillary this fall!) Yet, I do recognize that the typical conservative -- even if wrong on many issues -- is far more grounded in reality than the typical liberal. Just check out Mrs. Obama's asinine endorsement of the "zero sum theory of society," made recently. The bottom line is that liberals live in a world of make believe.
feminism is a viable movement
"Viable" as in all the innocent babies -- millions of em every year -- that are slaughtered in the womb? It's pretty ironic to call feminism "viable," in that, if every woman on earth were to become "feminists," the human race would become extinct almost immediately. Viable? Hah! That's a good one!
which you republican pricks
Why maintain the stupid pretense that there's some significant difference between the Donkey and the Elephant? It makes utterly no difference which "party" you vote for... because the same ultra rich plutocrats who have run things for the last hundred years or so, will continue to dictate the policies of "our" government.
keep trying to demean. as always,
"Feminists" are self demeaning. All they have to do is open their traps, and rational people immediately realize that they are listening to an inferior intellect.
try to control someone you view as lesser than you.
Speaking for myself, I have no interest in "controlling" anyone. I support patriarchy because it is a social system that demonstrably works. Patriarchy has given us all the wonders of the modern world, while matriarchy is good for -- in the words of Camille Paglia -- mud huts, and not much else.
But you are right about one thing. I do think that "feminists" who advocate the slaughter of babies are "lesser" than me. In fact, I would go so far as to call them "scum."
I'd just like to say that, whenever I meet a liberal, I automatically begin to wonder about how intelligent and/or informed they are. And I have been quite shocked in times past to run into one of them that I just knew was smarter and more informed than that! Irony?
Submitted for your approval... the latest travesty from Yale University; a prime example of the wondrous glory of feminism:
For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
Martine Powers, Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008.
Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.
But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."
"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.
Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.
"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."
Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.
Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.
School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.
Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.
Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.
Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.
"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."
CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.
"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."
Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.
"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."
The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.
Nevermind... the abortion "art" described above was a sick-minded hoax.
Statement by Helaine S. Klasky
Yale University Spokesperson
New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008
Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.
She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.
Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.
I'm sorry to have brought up this rotten hoax in the first place. But it just seemed so damned plausible sounding, ya know?
Post a Comment
<< Home