Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are there two kinds of feminism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are there two kinds of feminism?

    and one is this controlling movement sponsored by the corporate world stifling of dissent and international, but then you do have this tendency women have to network with one another on the local level, like in grass roots organizations, and many women call this feminism, but it is completely different from this whole "feminist movement" funded by the business world and tied to the legal system and which spawns all sorts of industries like the rape industry, domestic violence industry, the social services sector that engages in the drugging of children with ritalin, etc.

    And there is a way in which the two kinds of feminism I am referring to are opposites to one another -- and the mere fact that the same word "feminism" is sometimes used by different people to describe either one of these phenomenons or the other makes for a huge amount of confusion, so that anyone criticizing feminism can often run into confusing situations where people don't know what he (or she) is criticizing and get confused about the whole thing.

    I need to note one thing. Inasmuch as feminism is international and centrally controlled and funded by the super rich, or by large corporations and the "establishment," it's totally the opposite of what I've seen when I observe women from more rural areas who often are very involved in their communities, run businesses, and sort of run the show more than men do.

    And that's the thing. If you go to a large city where everyone is anonymous and don't know each other, it sort of is men "running things" as it were -- or at least men are the ones in prominent positions of power. However, go to a small rural area, or a small town where everyone knows everyone else because they all grew up together, and this whole business about the world being run by men is just a total myth because you can see, women are the ones running things way more than men are.

    I just bought a few artistic items from this rural countryside area during my Christmas shopping that is an area which is full of artists -- and the whole entire artistic community there is very obviously run by women. Yet, you know this is the total opposite of feminism, because nobody "empowered" these women to "take charge" where otherwise, without the aid of the feminist movement, they would be disempowered, chained to their kids and the kitchens, and men would be the ones running the artistic community instead.

    Nope, in local areas and in grass roots organizations, where women are much more the ones in control of things, you can just tell by observing them, they are in control because women NATURALLY will be in control in such environments. And you also know, feminism didn't make it like this -- it happened naturally. And you know, this isn't a recent phenomenon either.

    Indeed, I think the fact that women had a lot of control over small towns and local regions maybe reflected in the fact that, when the Catholic Church started asserting control over things, it was witches which they burned. And I think some of the witch burnings were all about regional powers attempting to assert a more centralized control over local communities. In addition, one of the manners in which elites developed our civilization was to take control over HEALTHCARE and MEDICINE. Which used to be something that was controlled on a local level in a decentralized manner by MOSTLY women, though also by some men too. And, indeed, many of the witches burned were healers. And one wonders if some of the "confessions" the Catholic Church extracted from them were merely attempts to find out their medicinal secrets, so the church could monopolize them and use them to extend and cement its power.

    What you do have here is centralized regional control by centralized authorities where such control is over a large area -- and, it does seem to me that the more centralized a society, the more men run things, whereas the more decentralized a society is, the more powerful and autonomous a local community is, the more it is obviously women who are the ones running the show.

    And, of course, usually the way it works, men dominate in some spheres, while women dominate in other spheres. And, women tend to dominate all business that is limited to local levels, while men dominate business that is more regional or international in scope.

    What that would mean is, to have a "feminist movement" which is defined as international automatically contradicts with what some women refer to as feminism -- but many don't -- and which is all about female empowerment defined as women networking with and cooperating with other women, usually as parts of grass roots organizations which are all locally based or limited to one locality. And which, almost by definition, can never be focused on international issues because they usually focus on local issues only.

    Which are so varied that, as a matter of practicality, history books tend to leave much of this rich local history out, because it varies too much from one locality to the other. Whereas the "male dominated" history that we usually read about IS what could easily be written about simply because it involves the goings on of regional, state, or national governments, and there is a continuity and simplicity there which allows for such history to be coherently written about.

    One thing I note is, while one issue with feminism seems to be how the tendency of feminists to talk about "toxic masculinity" seems very much tied to the health care system (and other things) which wants to figure out how to drug as many boys with ritalin as possible, there you have centralized control over women (who are the ones in the caring professions mostly) by this health care system and by centralized corporations (which happen to be run, at the very top, by men) all in the name of feminism, and yes this is the feminism we are talking about and very much dislike, yet it is the opposite of what some women who call themselves feminists think feminism is. Where they associate it with alternative medicine which automatically does not have that element of centralized control, and with females participating in voluntary grass roots organizations, which are about as far away as you can get from corporate sponsored propaganda campaigns.

    Somehow, defining these two phenomena -- which are opposites to one another, but at one time or another both call themselves feminism -- should be done. And I'd say the term "feminism" should be used only to describe the more totalitarian corporate sponsored propaganda campaigns which usually are in service of hidden agendas and which have all the trappings of the slick corporate world. As for women participating in grass roots organizations, which can include conservative religious organizations, but can also include new agey "Goddess worshipping" types, though some might call that "feminism," I wouldn't because anything that is an "ism" smacks of some sort of high falutin academic formal "area of study" which is always highly formalized and hierarchical, and not at all reminiscent of the kind of flat non-heirarchical networking women often do which is often powerful in a silent way in grass roots organizations and/or on local levels. And which is where women tend to feel naturally "in their element" on their own without having to be subjected to a lot of cajoling and hand holding to get them to participate in it.

    In any case, both things cannot be called feminism -- and if you do, you have just defined a word that includes two mutually exclusive things. And that is one reason why feminism often gets away with doing bad things, yet it cannot be attacked. Because so many women confuse it with something completely different from what it is -- just because some have confused the definition of feminism to have it include many mutually exclusive things all at the same time.

  • #2
    RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

    Nope. Il say what I said before:

    The definitions of feminism are vague, there is no feminism diploma, and no feminism police.

    You cannot be sued for being an "Unauthorized Feminist", so a feminist is anybody who identifies as one and barely follows its tenants.

    Comment


    • #3
      RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

      Yes exactly. I know that's what you meant before when you wrote that post "where is the feminist police." Which wasn't very understandable, but that's one of the most confusing things about feminism. That whole side of it where it is undefined and confusing is a side to it that makes it not very understandable. And leads to all sorts of confusion. And then you end up with blind conformity because people don't even want to deal with trying to think it through. It's just easier for some to say "I agree with it" and then at least they can avoid trying to discuss it. And I can see why some would want to avoid discussing it. Trying to define it and think about it that way is irritating to one's brain.

      Comment


      • #4
        RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

        Originally posted by dmschlom
        and one is this controlling movement sponsored by the corporate world stifling of dissent and international, but then you do have this tendency women have to network with one another on the local level, like in grass roots organizations, and many women call this feminism, but it is completely different from this whole "feminist movement" funded by the business world and tied to the legal system and which spawns all sorts of industries like the rape industry, domestic violence industry, the social services sector that engages in the drugging of children with ritalin, etc.

        And there is a way in which the two kinds of feminism I am referring to are opposites to one another -- and the mere fact that the same word "feminism" is sometimes used by different people to describe either one of these phenomenons or the other makes for a huge amount of confusion, so that anyone criticizing feminism can often run into confusing situations where people don't know what he (or she) is criticizing and get confused about the whole thing.

        I need to note one thing. Inasmuch as feminism is international and centrally controlled and funded by the super rich, or by large corporations and the "establishment," it's totally the opposite of what I've seen when I observe women from more rural areas who often are very involved in their communities, run businesses, and sort of run the show more than men do.

        And that's the thing. If you go to a large city where everyone is anonymous and don't know each other, it sort of is men "running things" as it were -- or at least men are the ones in prominent positions of power. However, go to a small rural area, or a small town where everyone knows everyone else because they all grew up together, and this whole business about the world being run by men is just a total myth because you can see, women are the ones running things way more than men are.

        I just bought a few artistic items from this rural countryside area during my Christmas shopping that is an area which is full of artists -- and the whole entire artistic community there is very obviously run by women. Yet, you know this is the total opposite of feminism, because nobody "empowered" these women to "take charge" where otherwise, without the aid of the feminist movement, they would be disempowered, chained to their kids and the kitchens, and men would be the ones running the artistic community instead.

        Nope, in local areas and in grass roots organizations, where women are much more the ones in control of things, you can just tell by observing them, they are in control because women NATURALLY will be in control in such environments. And you also know, feminism didn't make it like this -- it happened naturally. And you know, this isn't a recent phenomenon either.

        Indeed, I think the fact that women had a lot of control over small towns and local regions maybe reflected in the fact that, when the Catholic Church started asserting control over things, it was witches which they burned. And I think some of the witch burnings were all about regional powers attempting to assert a more centralized control over local communities. In addition, one of the manners in which elites developed our civilization was to take control over HEALTHCARE and MEDICINE. Which used to be something that was controlled on a local level in a decentralized manner by MOSTLY women, though also by some men too. And, indeed, many of the witches burned were healers. And one wonders if some of the "confessions" the Catholic Church extracted from them were merely attempts to find out their medicinal secrets, so the church could monopolize them and use them to extend and cement its power.

        What you do have here is centralized regional control by centralized authorities where such control is over a large area -- and, it does seem to me that the more centralized a society, the more men run things, whereas the more decentralized a society is, the more powerful and autonomous a local community is, the more it is obviously women who are the ones running the show.

        And, of course, usually the way it works, men dominate in some spheres, while women dominate in other spheres. And, women tend to dominate all business that is limited to local levels, while men dominate business that is more regional or international in scope.

        What that would mean is, to have a "feminist movement" which is defined as international automatically contradicts with what some women refer to as feminism -- but many don't -- and which is all about female empowerment defined as women networking with and cooperating with other women, usually as parts of grass roots organizations which are all locally based or limited to one locality. And which, almost by definition, can never be focused on international issues because they usually focus on local issues only.

        Which are so varied that, as a matter of practicality, history books tend to leave much of this rich local history out, because it varies too much from one locality to the other. Whereas the "male dominated" history that we usually read about IS what could easily be written about simply because it involves the goings on of regional, state, or national governments, and there is a continuity and simplicity there which allows for such history to be coherently written about.

        One thing I note is, while one issue with feminism seems to be how the tendency of feminists to talk about "toxic masculinity" seems very much tied to the health care system (and other things) which wants to figure out how to drug as many boys with ritalin as possible, there you have centralized control over women (who are the ones in the caring professions mostly) by this health care system and by centralized corporations (which happen to be run, at the very top, by men) all in the name of feminism, and yes this is the feminism we are talking about and very much dislike, yet it is the opposite of what some women who call themselves feminists think feminism is. Where they associate it with alternative medicine which automatically does not have that element of centralized control, and with females participating in voluntary grass roots organizations, which are about as far away as you can get from corporate sponsored propaganda campaigns.

        Somehow, defining these two phenomena -- which are opposites to one another, but at one time or another both call themselves feminism -- should be done. And I'd say the term "feminism" should be used only to describe the more totalitarian corporate sponsored propaganda campaigns which usually are in service of hidden agendas and which have all the trappings of the slick corporate world. As for women participating in grass roots organizations, which can include conservative religious organizations, but can also include new agey "Goddess worshipping" types, though some might call that "feminism," I wouldn't because anything that is an "ism" smacks of some sort of high falutin academic formal "area of study" which is always highly formalized and hierarchical, and not at all reminiscent of the kind of flat non-heirarchical networking women often do which is often powerful in a silent way in grass roots organizations and/or on local levels. And which is where women tend to feel naturally "in their element" on their own without having to be subjected to a lot of cajoling and hand holding to get them to participate in it.

        In any case, both things cannot be called feminism -- and if you do, you have just defined a word that includes two mutually exclusive things. And that is one reason why feminism often gets away with doing bad things, yet it cannot be attacked. Because so many women confuse it with something completely different from what it is -- just because some have confused the definition of feminism to have it include many mutually exclusive things all at the same time.
        Nope, anyone who calls himself/herself a Feminist... is a feminist, unfortunately that also works the same way for M.R.A.'s, so if misogynists who don't want to solve a single Men's issue want to say that they're M.R.A.'s and then post anti-woman B.S. they're (most unfortunately) free to-do so.

        From my youth I always thought that women have ''special networks'' somehow every woman is connected with, or that they had ''magical powers'' or could read men's minds (thank you media for implanting that into my head :dodgy: ), but if you'll grow more to see the world around you, you'll notice that women in-fact do have organizations that help them do (practivallcy, what I wrote above), usually hel;ped by misandric men, who like to call themselves ..A''klpha's'' (pardon), like me, only I'm only misandric when I'm competitive, and these men at the top are sexist to both men and women, they place women in lower groups becuase A) they think that those women can't/won't take their jobs and B) they hate the thought of other men advancing because they fear them, and if you can convince everyone that they're weak, they won't be able to make ground (the same reason the men at the top hate M.R.A.'s).

        Anyone can be a feminist if they call themselves so, which is sad, because you have feminists out there that could easily be M.R.A.'s and some out there that are right out gyno-chauvinists.

        Comment


        • #5
          RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

          Feminism either mean everything, or nothing. As of this moment M.R.A means something very specific, both good and bad. However a women could be leader in industry with a guy in every port and an abused secretary or be a stay at home wife with three kids and no job. Both are considered themselves a feminists and both are right. You're giving feminism too much credit, credit is deserved on an individual level. You can't give feminism credit for a broad unnoticed social change that has nothing to do with what feminism has concerned itself since its inception (assuming you make a distinction between suffragettes and feminists.)
          Listen lady when I said I\'d kiss your ass I was talking literally.

          Comment


          • #6
            RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

            yes there are 2 kinds of feminism
            tip A that actually dose something
            and tip B that tells us feminism about equality when we point out what tip A actually did
            Interested in men rights activism in the Sydney area ?
            Go to mensrightssydney.com

            Comment


            • #7
              RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

              The term feminist is meaningless in the modern world. Feminism may have once meant equality, just as 'fag' once meant a bundle of sticks, but no one thinks of a bundle of sticks when someone says 'fag' today. Saying you're a feminist today is like someone saying they're a flapper today, both terms are meaningless and anachronistic in the modern world.

              When someone calls themself a feminist today what they usually mean is they're a female supremacist and less often what they mean is they're egalitareans.
              Calling someone a misogynist because they criticize feminism is like calling someone a racist because they criticize slavery.

              Comment


              • #8
                RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

                Well, you still do have one phenomenon. That is that, the way our society is, it isn't de centralized the way it used to be, there are fewer grass roots organizations out there than there used to be, and that is because the ability for citizens on a local level to be influential in their own communities is limited by an increasingly centralized dictatorial "command and control" government, and a business community where small non-professional businesses and organizations have increasingly been squeezed, and society itself (the business community and institutions) are increasingly centrally controlled and dictate to people, who don't have many options but to find their increasingly non-unique niches somewhere in the whole system.

                For some I believe feminism fulfills a need for some women to "belong" to an organization bigger than themselves, which is very similar to the motives of several women to be involved in their own churches, and that motive causes them to become involved, so that they have something to do, and not really because they are either female supremacists or wish to do any harm to society.

                It is almost like feminism is a controlling influence, where women who would otherwise be involved in a variety of different movements each focused on different local issues depending upon the particular women or community are being forced or pressured to do it exclusively under this feminist umbrella, which provides a limiting framework that stifles the directions they would naturally go in if they were allowed to follow their hearts.

                At the same time, many of them with to believe they are part of something that is good, and will convince themselves of that and they will also make common cause with their friends WITHIN the movement and use it almost as if it were a social club, in which case personal loyalty to those individuals involved gets mixed in or confused with personal adherence to particular ideology.

                That, I think, was especially true in feminism's early days, when it was more of a grass roots movement. These days, I am not sure it really is anything much other than a propaganda campaign or pseudo-religion. But I have read articles regarding women who have gotten "involved in feminism" where it's about activism and collaborating with other women.

                I also have observed and participated in many grass roots political organizations, and even organizations centered around the arts, and in churches some, where women very much enjoy getting involved in that sort of thing, they tend to get more involved than men do in some ways, or at least they are the busy bodies who are active getting all sorts of things done while their husbands are passive, ready to help when needed, and "along for the ride" -- but these all tended to be non-feminist. Or at least there was nothing to say that feminism had anything to do with the way they were. But, somehow this networking of women could at times be quite powerful and influential though more generally in quiet ways that the feminist movement NEVER gives women credit for and NEVER tells women is something they are capable of....

                And I wonder why they don't? Again, they are a controlling movement which has something to do with stifling grass roots organization by women, even while claiming to women that women MUST depend on feminism and follow feminism's lead in all matters, and march in lock step with feminism -- but, again, that attitude is exactly the attitude of the Catholic Church and other religions, just what feminists initially derided as "patriarchal."

                However, women who get involved in feminist organizations may not fully understand, this isn't feminism that's giving them a sense of belonging or of being part of something that gets influential things done. This is just plain old grass roots volunteering and activism which women have been involved with since the beginning of time -- and the more important thing is to have a goal that is bigger than yourself as an individual. And a goal which is a non-individualistic project, not merely you individualistically pursuing your narrow self interests isolated from others.

                That, indeed, is a hidden contradiction with feminism -- women (and others) are the MOST empowered when they are actively involved in projects including political projects where they want to get something done and that brings them together in pursuit of a common goal. But, for feminists to say that "common goal" must be "the advancement of women" as narrowly defined by feminists puts too much limitations on women. Because, the empowerment of women is always women pursuing something that ISN'T about their empowerment but is what about they, as individuals, or in common with others, want to get done. Empowerment of women, as an end goal, is meaningless and vague -- the moment you ever ARE empowered, you instantly start thinking of what you want to DO with that empowerment. Or, another way of saying it -- you have to have passion about some goal you want to pursue, and in the process you become empowered, but always as only a means to an end. Whereas feminism defines "empowerment" as an end in and of itself -- which it can't be.

                Similarly, the goal of empowering women -- is meaningless. Particularly if you try to confuse it with the concept of empowering OTHER women. Maybe feminists have empowered themselves and done a very good job of empowering themselves by being involved in feminism. It's unclear that they have empowered any other women besides themselves -- how could all other women in the world be passive recipients of the feminist movement's "empowerment" of them? Answer is -- they can't be. If the feminist movement wanted to empower women, first thing it would have to do is not "empower" women -- but ask them what they want done. Empowering other women means other women DECIDE what they want, and go for it, which is completely contrary to their somehow being led around on a leash by a bunch of other "female empowerment specialists."

                So, women would be more empowered if they didn't limit themselves by this idea they have to confine their goals to the narrow empowerment of women, which is so meaningless it is tantamount to them really not doing much at all. I've been looking at a few papers on feminism today -- and it would appear it's just a business or set of businesses that have "women" as propaganda pieces. Business is something women can be very good at AND is something which they NATURALLY enjoy.

                In which case, the empowerment of women really ought to be all about creating a climate more nurturing of and less hostile to small businesses, since that's what women like doing and that's what make them feel the most empowered -- but, oh no, wait one moment, feminism was bankrolled by the richest families in the world, all of whom owned gigantic behemoth sized corporations who wanted small businesses all driven out in order to eliminate the competition.

                In which case, feminism was always about disempowering women, since the grass roots organized activity of women generally is inherently more powerful than that of men -- and it was THAT which feminism attempted to control, limit, and interfere with.

                Comment


                • #9
                  RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

                  Feminism is not about equality, it never really has been, it's about imposing (white) women's sensibilities on the world. Therefore it's nothing but a hodge podge of ideas that change over time. Notice how lately feminism is going after male sexuality like middle aged prudes? That's because middle aged white women control most of the feminist institutions that influence (or attempt to) opinion and policy.

                  Feminism has allowed women to think of themselves in two ways simultaneously, herself as an individual, and herself as a member of a (falsely constructed) class, switching back and forth to whichever opinion of herself suits her needs at the time. The only woman that I can reasonably be compared to is my own sister, she's the only one who has had a similar upbringing and had similar opportunities. To compare me to other women (as a class) is meaningless.

                  Take the example of household chores. Feminists complain that women get the short end of the stick because they do on average 5 hours a week more of house work. In household A, Anne does 16 hours of housework and Andrew does 11, and in household B, Barb does 11 hours of housework and Bill does 6. Despite the fact that both Andrew and Barb do the same amount of housework per week, Barb gets to wear the mantle of the long suffering woman and Andrew will be the lazy male. As an individual woman, the notion that Barb is any worse off than Andrew in terms of housework is ridiculous, but feminism will encourage her to think of herself as a member of a long suffering class, it flatters her sensibilities. It creates a lot of cognitive dissonance.

                  Feminists rarely have the courage to present hard numbers, it's always statistics and studies that compare women vs men, and they only highlight the issues that flatter women's sensibilities. It's always shifting goals and targets. It's why many women today are outraged by the fact that women only earn 75 cents per dollar as compared to men, but are clueless that the very same report also says that men work more hours and work more dangerous and demanding jobs to earn that dollar. To point out to a feminist that women could very well earn more if they worked more hours and took more risks with their bodies is considered misogynistic. That's what happens when you offend women's sensibilities, you become a misogynist.

                  We now have pro-sex feminists and anti-sex feminists who say very different things (often directly contradictory to one another) on the matters of sex, one of the biggest issues between men and women since the dawn of time. Since I can be speaking to a feminist who will say one thing about sex and claim it's the feminist opinion, and talk to another feminist who tells me that the opposite thing is the feminist position on the same matter, I have come to the conclusion that feminism can't have any relevant or coherent policies on the matter of sex. It has lost all moral authority to promote "feminist" policies on matters of sex, and can't really have a position.

                  I could start a blog where I bed a young woman every week and bounce a bright shiny quarter off of her ass. It would be a different woman every week and there would be a photograph of a quarter resting on her ass. White women, black women, Asian women, you name it, I'll find one and get her consent to be photographed with a quarter on her ass. As long as the photograph complied to "feminist porn" standards it should be OK, and I could defend every step of my blog, every action I took, and everything in the blog by using very sound feminist principles that have been used to justify women's sexual behavior in the last couple of decades. The outcome of such a blog would be so horrifying to the majority of women on this planet, it would offend every feminist sensibility when looked upon as a whole, but it would have been achieved step by step using sound feminist principles. Besides, according to slutwalk principles, I shouldn't be shamed for my sexuality, I have a thing for quarters.

                  And, that's basically how one knows that feminism is just a collection of policies that please women's sensibilities over time, and when the sensibilities change, so will the policies. Feminism really isn't anything cohesive, it never really has been. There's not 2 types of feminism, there's many. The cracks are starting to show, and while the MHRM is making progress from the outside, feminism will quite likely burst apart on its own because it's trying to become too broad, to contain too much, and its spread itself too thin to be meaningful anymore. Non white women are starting to be vocal, as feminism really doesn't speak for them. The notion of these overpriveleged white women organizing functions at the YWCA (on their husband's and taxpayer's dime) thinking of themselves as a member of an oppressed class is laughable to me, I wonder how a recently immigrated Jamaican woman would see it?

                  The Munk Debates in Toronto were also a hoot. Four white women, sitting in a gleaming glass building, surrounded by all the infrastructure in one of the world's most impressive cities, built by the uncountable back breaking labour of men, built on land that their forefathers scraped, borrowed, stole, finagled, killed and died for, to obtain from other women's forefathers. Now, sitting atop this pile of loot, they declare us brutish men obsolete. I suppose being white, I can take comfort in the fact that the socioeconomic factors that they used to determine me obsolete would make men of other ethnicities even less useful to society, so I guess the reprogramming should start with them. Right feminists?

                  Dealing with a woman who believes in the patriarchy theory is a lot like dealing with a child who believes in Santa Claus. Children usually grow out of silly beliefs though.
                  “No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself. No man is free who cannot command himself.”
                  ― Pythagoras

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RE: Are there two kinds of feminism?

                    The difference is though that a kid that truly believes in santa claus will likely be better behaved. And if they embrace the spirit of the idea, a better person overall.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Institutional feminism is created, funded and run by men for the benefit of the ruling elite and at the expense of lower class men.

                      Women gathering together is just what women tend to do, form social groups.

                      They gather as "feminists" because it has "fem" in the name and blames all female problems on outside sources.

                      In this manner the ruling elites use the natural tendencies of women as "useful idiots" to advance their own agenda.

                      Ruling elites want XYZ = Feminism wants XYZ = Women want XYZ

                      In a Democracy, when elites control %51 of the votes, it means they rule the country.

                      Before Democracy, peasants could lynch the leaders.
                      After Democracy, there's no one to lynch

                      Those who were once kings and dukes and so forth
                      Now enforce their will thru things like the TV and the democratic process.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by markos1
                        feminism comes in 57 flavors like ice cream.. GWW and JTO explained it far better than i can.

                        bottom line..feminism care nothing for the lives of men..even tho Big Red said different..

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs

                        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...ice-feminists/
                        Feminists come in 57 flavors.

                        Feminism (institutional) comes in 1 flavor, the flavor chosen by our corporate overlords.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you are able to wade through all the dense text and argumentation in this, you'll find the analyses here do not contradict what you say.

                          http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...292/halley.pdf

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X