Feminism is Horse-shit

Do you have an explanation for that?
…and realize that I am an expert at “nothing is at it seems”.

For what?

White male?

Do you take umbrage at the word ‘white’, if so, you see more into this than I do.

What I am questioning is why you would think that specifically white males, or even any males, are the foundational instigators of feminism. What is your reasoning, evidence, or suspicions?

jJSS wrote:

Ha ‘suspicions’.

Now you are talking War and Peace, not a simple answer. Give me some time to think about this and I will endeavour to substantiate my claim.

The modern historian, Aileen S. Kraditor, wrote:

“A few women in the abolitionist movement in the 1830s … found their religiously inspired work for the slave impeded by prejudices against public activity by women. They and many others began to ponder the parallels between women’s status and the Negro’s status, and to notice that white men usually applied the principles of natural rights and the ideology of individualism only to themselves.”

Throughout the twentieth century, black feminism evolved quite differently from mainstream feminism. Alice Walker created a whole new subsect of black feminism, called Womanism, which emphasized the degree of the oppression black women faced when compared to white women.

youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

Are you aware that most major women organizations in America were funded by Rockefeller Foundation who claims in their website, “By funding a strategic mix of organizations, institutions, and projects; the Foundation is fostering smart globalization.” Most feminist “Women Studies” funding comes from big foundations like Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation etc and of course USAID, UNIFEM and UN.

youtube.com/watch?v=6t0O-iV8KBI

So a historian noted that white women were being allowed to speak against white men, probably in the US and England. And from that we are to conclude that feminism is a “white man"s invention”? I agree that historically white men have allowed a great many freedoms that other races did not consider allowing, but allowing something and inventing it seem quite different.

Yes and the distinction now is very considerable. Why aren’t black women storming Congress because of the very, very obvious difference in treatment compared to white women (because mistreatment or unfairness doesn’t really have anything to do with any of it).

What I am aware of is that Socialism is what Rockefeller and most such foundations, including the U.N. are very purposefully promoting. The UN is almost entirely socialist nations, thus of course, their global mandate is going to demand socialism world over.

And a very significant part of socialism is feminisation or “de-masculinisation”, causing weaknesses and dependency within the entire population. And a part of that endeavor is to not merely allow women to rule, but to demand it, ensuring that weakness and dependency is maintained.

With that in mind, one could assert that feminism is a male invention, because you can certainly bet that there are only a few males atop that socialist pyramid of power ensuring that they are always the relatively more masculine than any others, by keeping the others mentally, medically, and militarily weakened (Nietzscheanism Relativism at its best).

So all in all, I could agree that white males allow, encourage, and substantially support feminism to their own demise and oppression far more than normal people, but I can’t say that they invented it. And of course, they inherently spread it to other peoples.

Feminism fits very snuggly into this. Slowly but surely, women are realising they have not benefited from Feminism. This movement was propelled and kept running by rich and powerful men, who had the hindsight to see the enormous monetary exploitation of women and where the true blame lies for any alleged emasculation of men.

From the news around the globe, black Americans are being gunned down on the streets and crime scenes staged to show self defence by the ‘law’. Black women 'storm’? Ha.

Not ever having the pleasure of visiting the U S of A, some of my well-travelled friends say racism is still rife there, or am I being naive in thinking this is not so?

Are we led to believe that the African Americans are treated equally?

The only way any movement can survive is up to the discretion of the white, powerful and rich men of this world.

Hilary Clinton’s role as the next President is all part of this.

I am a Blue supremacist. Humans are inferior.

Arbiter of Change, how much of this is about the language of the argument? Some types of feminism endorse what you seem to be calling “egalitarianism” (and many men count themselves as that kind of feminist), which goes back to something I said earlier: descriptively, it isn’t wrong to call an egalitarian a feminist, though it seems it may be more and more confusing to do so as the term ‘feminism’ picks out more, and more conflicting, points of view.

I don’t think most of this is true. Most people in the world are certainly not taught to see from a ‘gynocentric’ view, and even in the US, the gynocentric view is still a marginal view. Certainly that’s changing, because the media and pop culture tend to be progressive and women’s rights is making a comeback (and women are outpacing men in almost all fields of education). But that’s a recent change, and the generation for whom that’s the norm has not yet reached adulthood.

I don’t think this tracks the absolute/relative distinction properly. This gets a little muddled when it’s combined with the identity/description distinction, and then smeared all to hell by the shifting nature of language. But let me try to clarify my point and see if we actually disagree here.

By ‘absolute leftism’, I don’t mean ‘the relative leftism of the past’, I mean a set of beliefs that is not defined by reference to what is the current status quo. True, in the past people who would have identified as ‘leftist’ endorsed some beliefs that were at odds with what I would call absolute leftism, but I don’t think that’s a problem: we can distinguish leftism[2015] from leftism[1915], and say that someone in 1915 saying “I’m a leftist” meant something like “I read Stormfront” in 2015 language, and not very much like what someone in 2015 saying “I’m a leftist” means.

Following on this, it’s true to say that racial equality is a leftist[2015] idea, and someone who endorses that (which is most people in the west) is descriptively an absolute leftist[2015], whether or not they identify as such.

I don’t mean to be pedantic here, I really think a lot is lost in linguistic imprecision. It might be better to say that my initial point in this thread is that virtually all participants in it are descriptively absolute feminists[1985], while the OP and most participants are saying “identity relative feminism[2015] is horse shit”.

I think I ame rare among indenty relative liberals[2015] in thinking that this shouldn’t be the case. Even though it’s wrong to exclude people based on their race or sex or sexual orientation, it should not be something the government enforces.

Won’t have to wait long: yes, I think we should let Rachel Dolezal tell us what race she is. I think the argument in the case of race is in fact much stronger than in the case of sex. Race is entirely a social construction, the categories of race have shifted significantly over time, and our modern categories don’t meaningfully map to an underlying genetic categorization. If Rachel Dolezal had one black ancestor 15 generations ago, she would be considered black, even if not a single gene from that ancestor had actually been passed on to her. She lived as black, she identified as black, I don’t see why anyone should check her pedigree before accepting that she’s black.

That seems stronger than the argument in the case of sex, where there are gross morphological differences and relatively straightforward genetic categories of human males and human females. I still accept the argument in the case of sex, because I have every reason to think it matters to people that others accept their expressed sexual identity, and I have very little reason to think it costs anyone to accept it. But I do think the racial argument is stronger.

I don’t find the argument from consequence compelling. Even accepting your statistics, they cannot capture the other side of the question: what happens to people who would choose to change their sex but for the extreme social taboo on doing so? Gay men kill themselves with regularity too, especially in places where they aren’t able to openly gay. Is it more likely that the decision to change genders is driving the negative consequences, or that it’s driven by the social rejection of the decision? And even if the consequences are net negative, an informed individual should still have every right to do what they want to their body, and again, the cost to anyone else for accepting their self-identification is significantly less than the value to the individual of being accepted.

I think we should engage honestly with the question, but I think the most honest position is that a person can modify their body and dress and pass as a whatever gender they please; some people want to pass as a gender different from their sex; and much, if not all, of the resistence to this idea is derived from social norms that are no longer appropriate to our society (e.g. small-tribe/high-mortality norms prioritizing procreation).

We can call surgical procedures to further this end ‘mutilation’, but we don’t tend to call other more socially normalized procedures mutilation, such as plastic surgery, piercing, or tattoos (though in the case of piercing, it’s noteworthy that the more unusual the piercing, the more likely it is to be called “mutilation”). They’re all body modification, and why we should begrudge anyone for building the body they’d like to inhabit?

I don’t really consider myself to be a feminist BUT consider this —

[b]Pay for professional women’s soccer players is at best paltry and at worst outright shameful compared to those of their male counterparts. (The U.S. men’s team is currently ranked 27, compared with the world-champion women.) This year’s tournament featured a generation of American women who have not lived in a world without Title IX and did their jobs elegantly and professionally: They won the game, defeating a longtime rival in Japan; and as they did during the 2012 London Olympics, they won with high-caliber athleticism, class and sportswomanship along the way.

Yet the total payout for the Women’s World Cup this year will be $15 million, compared with the total for the men’s World Cup last year of $576 million, nearly 40 times as much. That also means that the Women’s World Cup payout is less than the reported $24 million to $35 million FIFA spent on its self-aggrandizing fiction film, United Passions.

The National Women’s Soccer League (yes, there is one and you should consider following it) has salary ranges reportedly from $6,000 to $30,000, which in some cases may put players below the poverty line in the cities in which the compete. Each National Women’s Soccer League team operates with a salary cap of around $200,000, which is about how much David Beckham makes frying an egg (let alone bending one). The MLS salary cap, by contrast, was $3.1 million in 2014. “In aggregate, first division women’s soccer players are making 98.6 percent less than professional soccer’s male cohort,” according to Fusion, making it one of the starkest gender pay divides in any workplace.[/b]

politico.eu/article/world-cu … -equality/

Why is that?

Because people do not like being dictated to as to what they are to enjoy. You know what that is like (to a small degree). People pay for what they enjoy. The feminist notion, your notion, that people should be manipulated into paying for things that they did not want so that a woman can have more money than she actually earned is what feminism really is.

The entire goal and purpose of feminism is Global Imperialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with establishing any kind of altruistic equality or fair play, quite the opposite. It is totally about subjugating the masses throughout the world. And it serves no other purpose (other than staving off Islam a little longer).

I watched the American vs German women’s soccer game. I found it humorous and curious. The German team looked more American than the American team. Where were the black women? Black women can’t run??!?

For the same reason AA and AAA baseball players don’t make superstar MLB money, and the same reason some scrub playing for Larkhall Athletic doesn’t make the kind of cash dudes playing for Manchester United do.

Women’s athletics rank somewhere between high school and college when compared to men. The best female basketball player in the world likely couldn’t make a D-1 collegiate men’s team, let alone the NBA.

I was going to make the same point. If players are paid based on skill, it may be that the pay difference is in fact meritocratic.

Unfortunately, I don’t know of any men’s-vs.-women’s competitions that would allow us to actually compare skill level directly. I doubt very much that most men’s college teams could beat the women’s US world cup team.

I do not believe it is from a tribe-mentality. Native Americans worshipped transgenders as witches and gods.

I believe it is from the White-mentality. Whites are like an infectious disease, they infect everywhere they go with their traditions and hate. It all spawned from Judaism, an ethnocentric religion bent on wiping out the Gentiles. From there, the disease, anti-nature Religion Christianity formed.
It is the reason the simple-minded morons in Africa hate homosexuals, because of the Christian religion. I myself find male on male homosexual behavoir disgusting but even more disgusting is killing homosexuals just for fulfilling their true nature. However, like all women, I enjoy lesbian porn, once a year on holiday, and yaoi if it’s in good taste.

I have heard from feminism supporters that Feminism helps Males. Curious, how can this be? I would like to hear this from a feminist. I won’t bite.

So far I agree, yeah.

Well, no. It’s true to say that racial equality is a leftist[2015] idea, but it’s not true that somebody who endorses it is an absolute leftist2015, because racial equality is ALSO a rightist[2015] idea. You may be tempted to raise hard right groups like Stormfront or the Dark Enlightment to counter that, but of course you have La Raza and the Black Panthers on the left.

Of course, part of this depends on what you mean by equality, too. If you mean ‘the races are actually equal in competencies and capabilities’, than that’s probably more left than right, but if you mean ‘the races should be treated equally before the law’, then I will grudgingly accept that there are probably some leftists that believe that out there somewhere, though I see little evidence of it as of late; it seems like a far more conservative idea.

That sounds about right, though you might have to go back further than 1985 to really catch unanimity.

I can’t tell. Practically every leftist I talk to says “Well, I’m not in favor of that obviously”, so it seems you aren’t alone. But then, people say all sorts of things. Pragmatically, the gay rights agenda was pushed on the false equivalence between race and orientation, racism and anti-perversity. So like it or not, this sort of thing is an obvious consequence of what liberals[2015] support, and will continue to be so.

I agree.

Then I want a free college education for being a Native American. Or at the very least, the United Negro College fund to chip in a few dollars to pay my loans.

Then how was it that Rachel was outed as not black by revealing that her parents were white?  That sounds like genetic categorization to me- but I suppose your point would be that everybody was just horribly confused, and she ceased to be white the day she decided she wasn't. 
Well, because there's an entire industry and political party based around the idea that if you are black, you are entitled to special consideration due to your herediary ties to slavery and oppression.  I mean, that's pretty clearly why she 'decided' she was black, is so she could rake in those sweet victim bucks and be a hero for her identity instead of working for a living. 
If you want to decide that race isn't real, then I suppose you are free to do so, but then we need a NEW word besides 'race' to apply to the non-constructed categorization  of people with the flat noses, nappy hair, and dark skin that get preferential hiring by law, and are prone to glaucoma and the sickle-cell.  We need a word for those tall people with the pale skin who's ancestors are from Northern Europe who, mysteriously, are like the only group on earth that don't become lactose intolerant in adulthood. Because those groupings are very much real, very much biologically grounded, and have a huge impact on everything from health to politics.  
  On the bright side, maybe blackface will become a thing again.  Al Jolson was an incredible dancer and it's too bad that can't be fairly appreciated these days. 

That’s interesting, because I’ve talked to a lot of lefties who say the opposite- that for all we know it’s possible for a female brain to be in a male body and that is somehow grounded in biology (it’s not, but they think so) whereas a transracial identifyng as Japanese or Black is merely mistaken.

You made the argument from consequence when you said there was no good reason not to call trannies by whatever gender they imagine themselves to be because it doesn't hurt anything.  Your position becomes a lot weaker if you want to shift from "Encouraging/allowing transsexualism isn't harmful" to "We have no idea of encouraging/allowing transexualism is harmful or not".  [i]To the contrary[/i] telling mentally ill people that they aren't mentally ill or encouraging them to indulge their disordered state does indeed have negative consequences- suicide is one, pushing them into behaviors that are stigmatized by society is another. 

That's the core problem with the left and identity politics as of late.  Should we accept deviant behavior X?  Why of course we should, because there's no harm in it!  Is there, in fact, a ton of empirical evidence that the behavior is harmful after all and encouraging people to engage in it destroys their lives? Why, it must be society's fault because they have insufficiently adopted the change the hard left is pushing for!  Has it been 30 years, and deviance X'ers are still riddled with disease, killing themselves regularly, and showing no signs of any interest in stable relationships?  Why, that's just a sign that we have 'so much more work to do'. 
  I'm sure pyromaniacs and compulsive shit-eaters are more likely to kill themselves than the general population too- and no doubt social stigma is a part of the reason why in that case as well.  Social stigma sucks, that's why we apply it to people who do things we don't like, such as gun-owners and catholics.   

This is the kind of thing that you should know the answer to before you declare that embracing transsexualism doesn’t cause any harm. If you don’t know, then what’s the actual reason for the massive upheaval of the status quo? It begins to look as though “it doesn’t harm anything” is just a clausse that is tossed out there irrespective of reality to deflect criticism.

The problem is, those aren't the only two people in the equation.   You're making a libertarian argument, which is nice because I don't get to criticize libertarianism very often. 
The real question is, what is the cost to the acceptor, the acceptee, and [i]everybody else in society[/i] for teaching [i]the rule[/i] that people ought to be accepted as whatever gender they present themselves to be?

The problem I find with libertariansm -even though I do vastly prefer it to progressivism-  is that it presume a world of perpetually mature adults, or else they picture every social interaction as being a closed system.
If I want to become a woman, and I'm aware of the consequences and so on, then nobody should stop me and the consequences are mine to bare.  Seems reasonable at first, but I'm not a microcosm, and I wasn't plopped into this world fully formed like Neitzsche pulling himself out of the swamp by his hair.  I arrived on the scene after 13 years of mandatory education while my brain was still solidifying, and that education was largely at the hands of a single ideological group who were teaching me what I ought to think about race and gender and so on as I go.  One of the things they were teaching me is (or would be, if I was younger)  "Gender is a social construct, and people ought to be accepted and treated as whatever gender they choose to identify as"- which makes your suggestion not just a linear equation about what happens in an instance or a series of similar instance, but a recursive equation in which your rule defines how often and under what circumstances the situation occurs in the first place.  
So, if you spend all my  most formative years teaching me that biological sex is a lie and engaging in any sort of stereotypical male behavior amounts to being a dirty, dirty, conformist, to congratulate the person who comes out the other end of that process for his 'mature decisions' is merely self-congratualtion and patronizing. 


The hard reality is, every time you see a tranny confused about who they are and what they should be doing, contemplating suicide because the world doesn't make sense to them, a social leftist ought to be thinking "I did that. I contributed to that- I created that".  Asking whether or not that person - already meddled with and devestated by a life time of progressive brainwashing- should after the fact be 'left to his own devices' first misses the point, and second presumes that he was ever left to his own devices in the first place.

I don’t know enough about soccer to give an informed opinion on that, but if we look at a somewhat “even playing field” sport like Tennis, we find this:

During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world’s top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). Before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards “I didn’t know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women’s tour and he got to them easily.”

Serena Williams in particular is arguably the best female tennis player in history. I doubt soccer is some special case. Maybe the US women’s team could beat some collegiate mens teams, but they’d get smoked by some too. Pretty confident in that.

Also, can someone explain this?

abcnews.go.com/Business/female-m … d=20534067

And, funfact I just read: single women (never married) with no children make 117% more than single men (never married) with no children. Go figure, eh? B-b-but ma gender pay gap!

Well no shit women who have children end up being less. They have their careers interrupted for years to look over the kids (if they are good moms). What do they want, exceptions made for them just so they can go out and make babies for themselves? How fucking selfish. I though the point was to treat them the same, right? So stop making babies, women.
Why sacrifice your carrer for the common goal of a family? Then end up being looking at as an underachieving unworldy housewife, even though you have to bust your balls just like everybody else? That is certainly not the path to a more productive future. That is why they should just not have children at all. Just stop making babies, everyone. Let the birth rates stall and drop. Let populations drop, let economies shrink, let the building vacate. Let’s go the way of the pandas.

A even playing field would have been to have given the girls each a shot of testosterone.

That's right. People who take years off from the workforce to do other stuff will tend to get paid less than people who don't. It simply doesn't matter if the years you took off were to do something great like raise kids, missionary work, Peace Corps, or something not so great like drift from couch to couch getting high.  It kinda seems like you're complaining about this obvious, unavoidable truth, but I can't see for the life of me what you expect anybody to do about it.