slug.com slug.com

5 1

LINK Family Ties Are Coming Undone Pew Research Center

At least half of respondents in almost every country said that they consider the weakening of family ties to be a bad thing. Three trends that Axios has previously reported on offer possible explanations:

Technology has revolutionized the way parents and children interact
Many wealthy nations have seen family sizes shrink
Urban young adults are extending adolescence and turning to tribes of friends instead of family for support.

Janeybird 6 Apr 24
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Feminism and subversive action by cultural marxists.

@Janeybird Spousal abuse has been occurring forever and both sides are more or less equally guilty. Drug abuse though, in my view, is likely to be more of a symptom than it is an underlying actual cause-- though without a doubt it is certainly a circular issue and undoubtedly ends up being a de-facto contributor as well. But by the same token, I think you could stick poverty in the same class as drug abuse in terms of ending up with similar results.

I was undoubtedly too hasty and brief in my original comment as there are other factors which likely contribute. But I think-- with a bit more nuance-- that there may be another factor which is rarely identified (or even conceived) that may be the ultimate driver, which is the impending confluence of advancing technology, medicine, logistics, communication, information, etc-- such that we are rapidly approaching a post-scarcity economy, the so-called 'singularity'-- which is having an enormous impact and upheaval on human society in such a profound and fundamental way as to completely throw every facet of human existence into a deep existential crisis of the sort, "Well, here we are-- all the problems solved, no need or want-- what the hell do we do now?"

I think we are seeing the portents of a type of "cultural tectonics", meaning the great rending and upheaval of civilization at all levels, in all facets and all areas-- social, economic, domestic, national and even global. I think we are seeing the human equivalent of animals freaking out ahead of the earthquake sensing something seemingly intangible and yet still a signal somehow bleating out warning-- and in our case, on the cusp of the great human metamorphosis in which we begin our ascendancy into demi-godhood, at least metaphorically-speaking. If we make it without blowing ourselves up or otherwise collapsing in on ourselves, who knows what we will become, what sort of human civilization will emerge from the other side. But I think it is safe to say that whatever it is, we're going to be different-- very different from who and what we are today.

Some people embrace change, some people fear it. But whichever, I think it's fairly safe to say that change is the one thing that's here to stay.

@ObiRonMoldy They are all bad.

@ObiRonMoldy Okay, let's find out...

Feminism is a hate group by every rational measure.

@ObiRonMoldy I did define it. I defined it as a hate group.

@ObiRonMoldy

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center's web site:
[splcenter.org]

(BTW, I love gigging them with their own definition)

What is a hate group?
The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. We do not list individuals as hate groups, only organizations.

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.

The FBI uses similar criteria in its definition of a hate crime:

[A] criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.

We define a “group” as an entity that has a process through which followers identify themselves as being part of the group. This may involve donating, paying membership dues or participating in activities such as meetings and rallies. Individual chapters of a larger organization are each counted separately, because the number indicates reach and organizing activity.

@ObiRonMoldy Of course it's a group. You just indicated so yourself.

@ObiRonMoldy BTW, define Ku Klux Klan.

@ObiRonMoldy It is now. What is your definition of the Ku Klux Klan?

@ObiRonMoldy So what are the different groups of Feminism?

@ObiRonMoldy How can we 'summarize' when there is no information on the table? You have asked me for my opinion and definitions and I have given them to you. I have asked you for yours and you have yet to provide any definitions of your own. So far the only information to 'summarize' is my own, which I am already aware of. If you do not accept my definitions you are welcome to supply your own-- which I have requested.

@ObiRonMoldy Okay, let's try this a different way. What is your definition of Feminism?

@ObiRonMoldy >> "How do you define feminism? There are differing views, and not all forms are unhealthy; not all contribute to the deterioration of the family."

Interestingly, you're taking me to task over my definition of Feminism while conspicuously refusing to provide one yourself. And further, I'll note that it was you who initially claimed that my definition was faulty without even knowing what my definition is. And on top of that, you even went so far as to presuppose the various manners in which my alleged definition might prove faulty-- so clearly you have some notion which you've brought to the table regarding what you believe my definition is. (I hope that was an actual sentence 😉

Please do not judge me too harshly in my circling the topic. I am not attempting to be hostile, though I am being a tiny bit evasive, I admit-- but so are you. And we each know why.

I'll also note that you have yet to define Ku Klux Klan-- and I believe it is for pretty much the same reason.

I would like to have a dialogue with you about these topics and I do realize that it is important to lay some definitions out on the table. But you know and I know that we are both sitting here waiting for something concrete to sink our teeth into.

I have stated my sincere belief that Feminism is a hate group. Or if you prefer-- which I know (strongly suspect) it's where you want to go-- Feminism is a hateful ideology. Will that make it easier for you to get to the next round?

@ObiRonMoldy Fair enough, and for the record, I'm easy to get along with (generally) and I come and go too, so I'm used to discussions lagging on either end. No worries.

Thank you for your definition. I'll note that you immediately jumped to telling me what Feminism isn't-- (an assault on masculinity, etc.)-- meaning that you know full well that is the opinion and perception of a huge lot of people, and quite probably considerably more than the Feminists themselves, seeing as how practically nobody identifies themselves as a 'Feminist' (you can google the various polls to see for yourself).

But let's start here-- why would you be concerned that I would think it was an 'assault on masculinity' if indeed it was simply about 'equality'? Shouldn't such as well-thought out and equanimous idea be met with universal acceptance? Shouldn't it be self-evident on its face? Why must you immediately jump in and let me know that it isn't about-- you know, hating men or anything like that-- if it wasn't already known for-- you know, hating men and things like that?

But okay, let's assume it's unfairly maligned and all of its detractors are stupid misogynistic basement-dwelling neck-beards of the sort that Feminists like to characterize their detractors as being... what reproductive rights do men have that women don't have? What can men do legally that women can't do? Why do we need to subscribe to a hateful ideology in order to believe that women are worthwhile and valuable members of society?

BTW, just for the record, we already HAVE a definition of equality-- it's Egalitarianism. Why do you think an group that claims to be unbiased in its aims uses the prefix 'FEM' in its moniker? Surely 'Patriarchy' is an adequate framework and platform to work within to achieve gender equality. Or if 'Patriarchy' doesn't work for some reason (even though Feminists have no problems at all using it to further their agendas), what would be wrong with adopting 'Meninism'-- the gender equality espoused by Men's Rights Advocates? Surely Feminists recognize and hail fellow gender-equity proponents and reach out in solidarity like they do with their Gay, Lesbian and other ABQXYZ groups...

Right?

@ObiRonMoldy And defining the Ku Klux Klan is definitely necessary if we're going to get anywhere in this conversation. But I would prefer to use your definition and not mine so you can't accuse me of rigging the debate. Go look it up on the web and post one in if you would prefer. I understand. And I also understand why you're reluctant. But I remind you that you're the one who called me out on it-- claimed that I had a faulty definition of Feminism. I am attempting to answer your questions. You could alternately define "Nazis" if you would rather, but that path will be less clear and potentially harder to follow. The Ku Klux Klan is a much better parallel, IMO.

@ObiRonMoldy Are they groups? Or differences of opinion? How do you know them when you see them? Are we allowed to use their own statements and self-categorizations to identify them and "put them in boxes" (for our own conversational convenience)?

How come there's all these different types of 'Feminism' but only one type of 'Patriarchy' and it's all bad..??

@ObiRonMoldy I've already given you my definition of Feminism, that it's a hate group. In the exact same manner and vein that people collectively consider the Ku Klux Klan a hate group... I'm assuming (presumptuous of me, I know) that you DO consider the KKK a hate group? Do YOU stop people when they talk about the KKK and ask which KKK group they're talking about-- 'cause there's all types and they believe different things.

In fact, I challenge you to help me understand the fundamental difference in marching around in white robes holding up signs and chanting "White Power" and putting on little pink pussy hats and holding up signs while chanting "Girl Power" and "The Future is Female". In fact, I'll note that there seems to be a whole lot MORE of the latter type than the former type-- and yet people get their knickers in a twist over the dudes draped in bedsheets.

@ObiRonMoldy Just for my own edification, would you agree that these women represent a reasonable sampling of Feminist leaders, authors, professors, advisors and general thought-leaders throughout the decades?

Hillary Clinton, American diplomat and former senator; First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, El Salvador, 1998

Gloria Steinem, journalist and activist, co-founder of Ms. Magazine, prominent figure of second-wave feminism; McCall’s (October 1970)

Mary Daly, philosopher and former professor at Boston College (women’s studies and others); “No Man’s Land”; What Is Enlightenment? (Fall/Winter 1999)

Sally Miller Gearhart, author and former professor of women’s studies at San Francisco State University; The Future?—?If There Is One?—?Is Female (1981)

Germaine Greer, author, journalist and former lecturer at the University of Warwick; The Female Eunuch(1970)

Mary Koss, researcher and professor of psychology at Kent State University; Sexual Experiences Survey(1982)

Marilyn French, author and lecturer, advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign; The War Against Women(1992)

Valerie Solanas, founder of S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men), attempted to murder Andy Warhol in 1968; S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1967)

Andrea Dworkin, author and anti-pornography activist; Our Blood (1976)

Susan Brownmiller, journalist and author, co-founder of Women Against Pornography; Against Our Will(1975)

Ti-Grace Atkinson, author, president of New York NOW and founder of the October 17th Movement; Amazon Odyssey (1974)

Robin Morgan, author and editor for Ms. Magazine; Going Too Far (1978)

Vivian Gornick, author and educator at The New School; The Daily Illini (25 April 1981)

Judith Levine, author and political activist; My Enemy, My Love (1992)

Susan Griffin, author and recipient of the MacArthur grant and an Emmy for the play Voices; Rape: The All-American Crime; Ramparts Magazine (1971)

Barbara Jordan, United States Representative of Texas; Running as a Woman (1994)

Gerda Lerner, former professor of women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, helped found the field of Women’s History; The Creation of Patriarchy, Volume 1 (1986)

Catherine Comins, assistant dean of students at Vassar College; TIME Magazine (June 3 1992)

Catharine MacKinnon, philosopher and professor at three universities, presently University of Michigan; A Rally Against Rape (1981)

Sandra Bartky, professor of philosophy and gender studies at the University of Illinois; Femininity and Domination (1990)

Cheryl Clarke, author and former educator and dean of students at Rutgers University; Words of Fire (1995)

Joyce Trebilcot, author and former professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Washington University; Who Stole Feminism (1994)

@ObiRonMoldy On the offhand chance that you typoed or misspoke-- I don't understand the difference between the two things you referenced:

No, I don't definethe KKK as a hate group. I categorize it as a hate group.there's a difference.

And as to your other item, I did concede earlier that Feminism is an '-ism'.

@ObiRonMoldy Why don't you go look some of them up. These are Feminists, people who self-identify with the ideology that you indicated is about gender equality. You might also note that I included a quick blurb about them-- Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you recognize? Perhaps Gloria Steiham or Germaine Greer? Mary Koss? These are many of the movers and shakers of the Feminist movement. The authors, the leaders, the pop-culture personas.

You claim you know about Feminism and yet you don't seem to have much grounding in its history, scope or message?? What about the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the Seneca Falls convention in 1848-- the document that kicked off the entire movement? The one that pretty much blamed men for all of the perceived ills of women and read basically like a declaration of war?

How can you tell me that Feminism is about "gender equality" and all the lovey-dovey stuff if you don't know what it is?

@ObiRonMoldy Okay, that's a reasonable request-- and I am attempting to help you get there.

>> "Why is Feminism bad"?

I will put it bluntly, but I suspect you won't accept it, so we'll have to continue with the longer discussion anyway-- but here goes. It is designed at its core to tear down men and boys and destroy masculinity. It's in their own writings, articles, speeches, rallies-- you really need to get out more.

Here is a sampling from Kate Millet, an influential Feminist Author ("Sexual Politics" ) and influential thought leader throughout the 60's and 70's... This is a snippet from a biography about her written by her sister recounting one of her rallies:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

@ObiRonMoldy Those women, look them up at your convenience-- I can't really provide you the evidence you requested if you aren't willing to independently verify it.

Here's a sampling of the things they've written and said-- what Feminism is really about. You should take some time and read through them and really consider what they're saying. And while you're reading, consider what you would think if you replaced the "he's" with "she's" or with "blacks" or "jews" or any other minority or ethnic group-- would you find any of these sentiments acceptable?

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
?—?Valerie Solanas, founder of S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men), attempted to murder Andy Warhol in 1968; S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1967)

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
?—?Andrea Dworkin, author and anti-pornography activist; Our Blood (1976) p. 20

“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”
?—?Susan Brownmiller, journalist and author, co-founder of Women Against Pornography; Against Our Will(1975) p. 5

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.”
?—?Ti-Grace Atkinson, author, president of New York NOW and founder of the October 17th Movement; Amazon Odyssey (1974) p. 86

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
?—?Robin Morgan, author and editor for Ms. Magazine; Going Too Far (1978) p. 178

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”
?—?Vivian Gornick, author and educator at The New School; The Daily Illini (25 April 1981)

“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men … for the men women share their lives with?—?husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers.”
?—?Judith Levine, author and political activist; My Enemy, My Love (1992) p. 3

“There are times when a woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.”
?—?Gloria Steinem, journalist and activist, co-founder of Ms. Magazine, prominent figure of second-wave feminism; McCall’s (October 1970)

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”
?—?Susan Griffin, author and recipient of the MacArthur grant and an Emmy for the play Voices; Rape: The All-American Crime; Ramparts Magazine (1971) p. 30

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
?—?Barbara Jordan, United States Representative of Texas; Running as a Woman (1994) p. 266

“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known.”
?—?Hillary Clinton, American diplomat and former senator; First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, El Salvador, 1998

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
?—?Mary Daly, philosopher and former professor at Boston College (women’s studies and others); “No Man’s Land”; What Is Enlightenment? (Fall/Winter 1999)

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
?—?Sally Miller Gearhart, author and former professor of women’s studies at San Francisco State University; The Future?—?If There Is One?—?Is Female (1981)

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”
?—?Germaine Greer, author, journalist and former lecturer at the University of Warwick; The Female Eunuch(1970) p. 279

“Rape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.”
?—?Mary Koss, researcher and professor of psychology at Kent State University; Sexual Experiences Survey(1982)

“We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.”
?—?Gerda Lerner, former professor of women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, helped found the field of Women’s History; The Creation of Patriarchy, Volume 1 (1986) p. 225

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not … He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … the vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above.
?—?Marilyn French, author and lecturer, advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign; The War Against Women(1992) p. 182

“[The falsely accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I did not violate her, could I have?’ … Those are good questions.”
?—?Catherine Comins, assistant dean of students at Vassar College; TIME Magazine (June 3 1992)

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”
?—?Catharine MacKinnon, philosopher and professor at three universities, presently University of Michigan; A Rally Against Rape (1981)

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization … to be aware of an alien and hostile force outside of oneself … For some feminists, this hostile power is ‘society’, or ‘the system’; for others, it is simply men.”
?—?Sandra Bartky, professor of philosophy and gender studies at the University of Illinois; Femininity and Domination (1990) p. 15

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and spray of semen.”
?—?Cheryl Clarke, author and former educator and dean of students at Rutgers University; Words of Fire (1995) p. 244

“If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal–a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students–I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment … of persuading students that women are oppressed.”
?—?Joyce Trebilcot, author and former professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Washington University; Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 92

@ObiRonMoldy To answer your question-- Gender equality is a good thing. It is a good thing when people of all races, all genders, all nationalities, all creeds have equal access to opportunities and equal representation under the law. On that point you and I are in absolute complete lockstep agreement.

But that isn't "Feminism", it's "Egalitarianism". There is already a word for that in the dictionary, we don't need another one which is specifically gendered to compete with it. Ask yourself why-- if we already have a concept for equality-- Egalitarianism-- why we need some other "-ism" which is specifically skewed toward one gender instead of simply representing all genders-- all people equally-- an Egalitarian society. Further ask yourself, why wouldn't a specifically NON-GENDERED approach to equality suit the people who call themselves Feminists as an equal-opportunity one-size-fits-all approach to equality and equal representation.

Unless THEIR version wasn't really about equality but rather skewing social policy towards themselves thus enhancing their own status at the detriment of those they dislike-- aka Men-- except they can't just come right out and SAY men, that would be too obvious--so they invent a term, "Patriarchy" which is supposedly the creation and construct of MEN and MEN ALONE-- thus absolving themselves (and "Women" ) of any agency or responsibility in the doings of society or the hows and whys it is what it is. Thus "Men", aka "The Patriarchy", became their perfect foils-- their whipping boys to blame anything and everything that they saw fit to throw their way.

As I said before, there's "lots of different types of Feminism"-- but only ONE type of "Patriarchy" and it's ALL BAD-- and conveniently, ALL MALE.

Do your own research and homework. Don't just take my word for it.

@ObiRonMoldy I didn't pick that up from your wording, thanks for the clarification.

@ObiRonMoldy You believe that there is a 'good' / 'healthy' type of Feminism. Tell me what that is, what it's about, and how that differs from the general case of 'Egalitarianism'?

@ObiRonMoldy Additionally, what is wrong with adopting 'Meninism'-- which is Gender Equality advocacy from the Male perspective. If we're all about 'equal rights for both genders', what is the resistance to including the perspectives from both genders into the mix. And moreover, what is the dogged insistence upon calling the STANDARD FOR GENDER EQUALITY by a name that is specifically and very pointedly built on top of the phoneme and taxonomic prefix of ONE gender?

@ObiRonMoldy >> "Meninsm is ridiculous. But who knows, a disease could wipe out society as we know it and men could be at severe disadvantage and then need it.

Such -isms rise out of need. There's no current need, though is venture to say we as a society need to be advocating better for our young boys."

It's these two statements right here that illustrate my points extremely well.

When I say MENinism, you bristle. How could THAT have anything to do with GENDER EQUALITY, you wonder? Because it's about what MEN think and equality from THEIR perspective. And I would simply point out that you're advocating the polar opposite-- FEMinism-- and telling me I should be okay with that because--- vagina? Why, do you suppose, a system BY WOMEN, FOR WOMEN, ABOUT WOMEN, would be fair and equanimeous for MEN?

And regarding need, I think you need to get out more.

This is an old article from the Atlantic to get you started. This is a serious subject and one that is being swept under the rug all around the world. Feel free to Google it for many, many more references.

The Atlantic: "The War Against Boys" [theatlantic.com]

@ObiRonMoldy Women are a protected class and yet ironically they are the majority.

@ObiRonMoldy As I stated previously:

"Gender equality is a good thing. It is a good thing when people of all races, all genders, all nationalities, all creeds have equal access to opportunities and equal representation under the law. On that point you and I are in absolute complete lockstep agreement."

But again I'll note that this isn't 'Feminism' but rather it's 'Egalitarianism'. My point is and has been, why should we adopt an alleged "standard" for "Gender Equality" which has been specifically written by one gender to promote the interests of that gender and which is aimed and applied to that specific one gender?

Or to put it a little more bluntly-- Feminists claim 'Patriarchy' isn't fair to women, that it's been constructed by men, for men and it's about men, and thus it does not include their interests nor fairly represent them.

Do you not see the enormous double-standard which is being applied here?

@ObiRonMoldy Feminism is a hate group because their mission is to tear down men and boys and destroy masculinity. And because they have worked to bring about this objective for nearly 150 years-- certainly for the last 50 or so. They have not been shy either in announcing that has been their goal. Further they have worked over and over to either privilege themselves in a gendered way and/or to disenfranchise men. They occasionally claim to do things which are beneficial to men, but only when it benefits themselves first and foremost. They systematically belittle and denigrate men-- for being men. The list is very long. Feminism is a hateful ideology-- a cancer which is destroying our society. And it isn't doing women much good either. Women's happiness is at an all-time low since Feminism has taken root widely.

@ObiRonMoldy You continue to toss subtle barbs and ad-hominems towards me as if that's going to help you with your argument, it isn't. We are either concerned about equality or we are not. Equality-- Egalitarian equality- is the notion that everyone has equal standing under the law and equal access to opportunities.

Creating a one-sided, faith-based ideology and claiming it's 'equal' does not an equitable gender policy make. If people who are not Feminists did not have a problem with it, then there would not be so much opposition to the ideology. Moreover, I'll note that a large number of the opponents to Feminists and Feminist ideology are other women themselves who strongly object to Feminism's deeply-rooted and fundamental insistence that women are victims and men are oppressors.

Though interestingly, Feminism actually needs men. To serve as their foils and provide it's raison d'être. All that 'toxic masculinity' drives a cash cow that just never runs dry. Whenever they need a little jolt, they just grab a teat and holler out MISOGYNY-- even as they belittle and bash men at every opportunity. It's pervasive.

@ObiRonMoldy There you go with the ad-hominems again. That's what all good Feminists do when they run out of actual arguments.

@ObiRonMoldy It's never been legal to beat your wife. Not in this country. I defy you to show me the statute. Put up or shut up.

@ObiRonMoldy I take it you didn't actually read it.

That's the thing about Feminist web sites, they LIE their asses off.

Here's the link: Fulgam vs. the State of Alabama : [flaglerlive.com]

An excerpt, you can read the rest of it for yourself:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL, contra.--1. The court did not err in charging the jury that a blow given in anger, and not in self-defense, is an assault and battery.--1 Bish. Cr. Law, § 409; 2 ib.
§ 63. But that opprobrious and abusive words given by the person assaulted, might be considered in extenuation or justification of the offense.--Revised Code, § 4198.
*2 2. A married woman is as much under the protection of the law as any other member of the community. And the old doctrine of the common law, that a husband might moderately chastise his wife, was never in force in Alabama, and since the reign of Charles the Second has been exploded in England.--1 Bl. Com. 445; Schouler on Dom. Relations, 59.

@ObiRonMoldy Did I call you a Feminist? I must have missed that part.

@ObiRonMoldy Where have I misstated / misrepresented what you said-- and where have you asked me to stop? I recall early on we had some disagreement about the word 'group', is that what you're referring to?

And I very firmly believe that 'Feminism' is a hate group in the same way that the 'KKK' is a hate group-- you can call it a category if you like. I'm not bothered by the distinction. The bigotry is all the same.

I'm certain there were good Nazis who didn't hate Jews. And you'll probably some Klan members who don't hate black people if you look around long enough. And I'm sure there are some people who call themselves Feminists who don't hate men. But that doesn't change the nature of the ideology.

I accept your apology. What you are perhaps interpreting as whatever it is you're interpreting it as, is really more a matter of my own thoughts coalescing as I work to improve my argument.

When a group of people consistently attack another group of people based on immutable characteristics, that's bigotry. That's Feminism.

@ObiRonMoldy We have been going back and forth about the hate inherent in Feminism. You seem (maybe?) bewildered by my characterization of it as such and apparently my efforts to explain and provide evidence otherwise has either been misinterpreted or not persuasive-- either is fine, and I'm not intending to impugn your intellect in saying that, just mulling over the course of the discussion.

So let me come at it from a different tack and see if that helps. The NAACP is an organization that advocates for the issues of 'colored people'-- which was the preferred term at the time the group was founded. Their group is a fine group. It / They (I prefer 'they' ) advocates on behalf of their constituents and does its best to challenge inequities, laws that are unfair, bigotry and racism in general, and generally works to advance the issues and welfare of their members. They do a very good job of stopping where their issues end. I have no beef or complaint with that group, nor the notion that black people are worthwhile and valuable members of our society and are deserving of 'good things', just like any other member of our society.

But that's not what Feminists do. They go way beyond simply advocating for their members and claim that they are representing me and my issues as a man and they most decidedly do not. Moreover, they work very hard not to simply empower themselves, but to disenfranchise men in the process. They are quite active and vocal in their condemnation of men, vilification of men-- especially regarding basic traits and attributes of men-- and they often do the same with women that they disagree with too.

Feminists have a very particular agenda they are pursuing which is based on bigotry, hate and intolerance. They meet the literal definition of the word 'Hate Group' as defined by pretty much everybody, but especially as defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group who has been cataloging 'Hate Groups' for decades (and extremely ironically, has been called out for years as fostering and promoting bigotry within its own organization-- and has recently outsted its founder and President over accusations of creating a long-time atmosphere of racism and bigotry within the organization)-- the irony there is delicious-- still, I'll take whatever bit of cosmic humor I can get whenever it comes my way...

@ObiRonMoldy Further, as you have pointed out, there is no specific 'leader' of the group-- and yet everybody knows who you mean when you say "Feminists"-- ergo, they are a group whether you like it or agree with it or not. The fact that there are multiple factions is interesting, but irrelevant. I will however partially concede your objection that they are instead a 'category'. I think the distinction is all but moot, but you can have the point 🙂

But, even as there is no specific 'leader' of "Feminism", there certainly are "leaders" in the sense that there are specific, known people who call themselves "Feminists", speak as "Feminists", speak on "Feminist" issues, and congress with other like-minded people they believe to be "Feminists" who likewise believe and consider themselves to be "Feminists". As there is no official hierarchical group known as "The Feminists" (though there was technically one in the past but they have since been disbanded, afaik), there is no official "registration" mechanism or badge of office and therefore anybody who stands up and calls themselves a "Feminist" is therefore a 'Feminist'.

Moreover, they (the Feminists) make the claim that "Feminism is for everybody" and "Everybody is a Feminist" (except of course when that someone is a man and they're busy pointing out how MEN can never REALLY be a part of the club, wink wink)-- excepting of course when they need a "Male Ally" or for Men to move out of the way so they can do whatever.

There are a number of groups out there who are specifically interested in advocating for equal rights for Men. They are collectively known as "MRA's" (Men's Rights Activists) who (quite rightly) point out that there are quite a few areas in which men are legally disenfranchised, legally under-represented, socially disenfranchised, and generally discriminated against in society. All of the same things that Feminists have been claiming for themselves all these years-- even as they claim to represent all sexes and genders and men too-- but don't actually.

Feminists routinely sneer down their noses at these groups and smear and malign them whenever / wherever possible, and do their best to dox them, drag their names through the mud, get them fired from their jobs, cause them problems in their social lives, shut down their perfectly legitimate meetings and presentations, work to de-platform them in social media contexts and much more. All for the terribly horrible crime of wanting to be equally represented in society. The same claim that Feminists make.

Feminists are hypocritical bigots.

Now, here's the interesting thing-- I have a TWINGE of sympathy-- just a twinge-- for some aspects of "Feminism", insofar as it is or ever was an actual advocacy group for women-- which I seriously and strenuously dispute, and I'm far from being alone in that claim or opinion. But at this point with their long, long history of misandry, actions to de-platform and unperson men, malign their innate male characteristics, blame them for all the ills which befall women while somehow absolving themselves of any complicity or responsibility-- while somehow simultaneously claiming "agency" and how they have always been "strong", "powerful" women "leading behind the scenes" and taking credit for inventions and discoveries made by men-- their duplicity, bigotry and outright lies and fabrications are legion-- off the freakin charts.

And the truth is that it isn't even really necessary and never has been. Feminists want you to believe this nonsense about a "long terrible battle for suffrage" when in fact they dressed up in their fancy clothes and marched around for a bit. And they were ASKED (in the UK) if they wanted the vote and they refused preferring the 'privileges of womanhood'-- they were afraid that being allowed to vote would obligate them to military service-- which, you know, is good for HIM but not so much for her...

Similarly in this country, women were given the vote about 20 years after MEN got the vote-- you didn't know that, did you? Not all men were eligible to vote in this country. [[en.wikipedia.org]] And while the WOMEN were out marching around in their sunday best for their "rights" you should bone up on what the MEN had to do to gain THEIR right to vote. Feminists would prefer you didn't remember that part, because it wasn't pretty and men died by the HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to make it happen-- hundreds of thousands in the United States Civil War and close to a Million men from the UK (around 700 thousand) in the First World War-- and here is a detail that Feminists definitely don't want you to know-- MEN finally got the vote in the UK in 1918 right along with the WOMEN. [[telegraph.co.uk]] But they'll shove that little fact under the rug so they can play the bigger victim.

As far as being "oppressed"-- women weren't any more "oppressed" than the majority men were. And as far as the few men who weren't, their women were no more oppressed than they were. Times were hard for everybody. It didn't matter if you were a man or a woman.

As far as not being able to work or have jobs-- MAN, where do you get this shit? Women have been working inside AND OUTSIDE the home for ages. I have a book from the 1700's-- which predates the foundation of the United States which details typical life in the colonies, which includes plenty of descriptions of women working, owning their own shops, engaged in all manner of commerce. The same is true in England, France-- all over.

As far as men being allowed to beat their wives-- this might come from a passage in the old testament, but as far as being legal, I have never found ANY evidence to support this claim, at least not in the United States. While I freely admit there are individual men who are assholes and engage in violence (just as their are individual women who also engage in violence)-- I have looked far and wide and have never been able to find any written, documented evidence of it. In fact, every single court case I have reviewed has unanimously and resoundingly condemned the practice and even the thought / (claim of justification by defendants). Go make your own survey sometime and read the actual cases. While I will not say categorically that such a case will never be found, or law somewhere on the books-- I have yet to see any evidence of one and I have looked. I am willing to be wrong. However-- what IS true and DOES exist are laws that made it legal for a SLAVE OWNER to beat a slave, and there were various doctrines that existed proscribing the amount and limit of such punishment-- and I absolutely condemn any and all such practices as thoroughly fucking repugnant.

There were laws regarding a woman and her husband, particularly with respect to money, property, taxes and issues which involved civil or legal administration. In English law there is the notion of "Coverture", which is probably what most people are referring to when they talk about such things. For a long time men tended to deal with the external affairs of the house and women tended to deal with the internal affairs of the house. That was the typical distribution of duties between the sexes until the mid 1700's, at least in Europe and generally here in the colonies. American law was originally based on English law and after the US Revolution and the forming of the United States the laws continued to be based largely in English law. Thus the notion of 'coverture' was in essence applied and practiced here in the States.

However, coverture-- both in the UK and the similar laws here in the US were NOT designed to suppress a woman's rights, property or privileges-- but totally to the contrary-- to protect them, uphold them, and ensure that SHE was able to keep everything she owned in the event of a divorce-- for the most part, and so far as I understand it. I am not a lawyer. You can go read about it on Wikipedia if you want, but be advised that it has a particularly Feminist slant. What they aren't telling you on that page, is that it was the MAN's (husband's) duty to administer the property (legally) and pay any taxes due on it, and if there were any sort of judgement or penalty, it was the HUSBAND who paid the penalty-- including going to PRISON if need be. Furthermore, UNMARRIED women were totally allowed to own property, keep their wages and the whole bit. The only reason she was required to turn over her wages to the husband was because HE was the one legally designated to administer the legal affairs of the household, which included keeping the accounts and making the various reports to the state, and HE was the one on the hook if there were any problems. They don't bother to mention that part.

Moreover, even into the 1960's and 70's MEN in the United States were required to file notice in the newspaper to declare themselves no longer responsible for their wives debt-- because prior to that THEY WERE. I can remember being a kid reading the newspaper in the classifieds 'Personals' section and seeing column after column of such notices and always wondering why they had to make them.

Getting back to domestic violence and men beating women and vice versa, it might interest you to know that legal disputes of all types were often resolved in "combat" between the participants as rulers were tired of holding court and somebody came up with the idea that they could duke it out and let God sort it out. If they died, they were obviously 'guilty'. Domestic disputes were no different. Many towns had arenas wherein husbands and wives could enter to "fight it out". I remember reading an account of one such arena in Germany where they would enter a ring and in the middle of it was a hole about chest high on a man. He was required to stand in the hole and given a lightweight cloth 'sling' (or some such) that he could wave around. While she was given a 'bat' (large stick) and was allowed to circle around him to try and do her worst. I don't recall the length of the match, but the whole thing was designed to allow them to fight it out without causing too much harm to each other, while simultaneously giving the rest of the town a bit of sport and entertainment. There was some legal pronouncement at the end. Here is one such account, though not the one I was specifically referring to. Each town had their own rules, within reason so was a little different from place to place. You can google for more: [fscclub.com]

As you can see, things were not as Feminists claim in the past. They have selectively cherry-picked, glossed-over and hand-waved away the niggling little details that don't support their narrative. Their goal is to try to convince you that Men are Oppressors by nature, and Women are helpless victims-- regardless of the fact that they simultaneously want to you ALSO believe that women had agency and were responsible for all of the GOOD things.

Feminists LIE.

@ObiRonMoldy No, I didn't claim it was.

@ObiRonMoldy No link.

@ObiRonMoldy No, I said that Feminists resort to ad-hominems when they run out of arguments.

@ObiRonMoldy I have repeatedly said there isn't. I do agree there is something that I call "Feminist-lite", who are people who claim to be Feminists, who don't particularly hate men or families, and like to pick and choose from the Feminist buffet. I have yet to meet many who were truly well-versed in the details, history and writings of feminists.

But okay, let's posit that there IS such as thing as "Good Feminism". By their artifacts ye shall know them...

I invite you to show me the love for men by Feminists. Show me the great Feminist authors and their novels extolling the virtues of men. Show me the great Feminist orators thanking men and praising them for their many contributions to society. Show me the marches and rallies with all the Feminists coming together to express their love and adoration for men. Show me the songs, sonnets and love-poems that Feminists have written for men. Show me the vast cadres of Feminists busy toiling away to improve the lives of men and ease them of their burdens. Because that's what MEN have done for women since the dawn of time. If you don't think Feminism is about hate-- then show me the LOVE.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Show me ANYTHING that Feminists have done for men authentically and altruistically-- simply because they're men and they deserve something good, you know, something that doesn't surreptitiously benefit the Feminists themselves first and foremost.

@ObiRonMoldy Again with the ad-homs and insults...

"Universal Male Suffrage" (getting the right to vote) was, generally granted to men after the Civil War, but not really uniformly applied throughout the US until well into the late 1800's / early 1900's. A number of States continued to disenfranchise male voters up until around 1908-- which if you'll pardon me for playing fast and loose with my numbers-- is TWENTY-TWO YEARS prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment giving Women the right to vote. [[en.wikipedia.org]]. There were of course still challenges to voting here and there until well up into the 1960's and 70's-- and in some cases even up into the present day. But that has mostly been about vote suppression rather than the legality of voting at all.

You might also be surprised to learn that WOMEN had the right to vote in the US long before that-- at least in some States and territories. New Jersey permitted women to vote as early as 1776, provided they were worth '50 pounds', the same standard applied to the men. In 1790 the New Jersey law was changed to read "he or she" to specifically include women [[nps.gov]]. Several other States and territories had similar statutes.

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving. You should go bone up on your history some time. You might find that things were quite a bit different than you've been led to believe.

@ObiRonMoldy You don't think NPS.GOV is accurate?

I think you've misunderstood, it isn't about some disenfranchised men, it's about men who were not allowed to vote because of laws in their state. So if you're being accurate-- which was one of your objectives if I recall-- we're talking about SOME men who couldn't vote and SOME women who couldn't vote.

I did not disagree nor deny that women were not universally allowed to vote. In fact, I think the comment that I originally made is that women got the vote about 20 years after the men did. And in the UK, which is also culturally relevant, both sexes achieved universal suffrage at the same time. The MEN got it only after fighting and dying in considerable numbers in two wars-- one in the United States, and one in Europe. Women marches around in fancy dresses and funny hats. Oddly, Men are required to fight and die for their rights, women get their rights for free. But that's equality for you.

CORRECTION: Men are required to be WILLING to fight and die for their rights-- don't want to slip up and get caught on a technicality! 😉

@ObiRonMoldy

You and your "False equivalencies". It's really bothersome that they don't seem to teach much United States history in school anymore.

Women were able to vote in quite a few States and territories prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment. Including Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, California, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, New York, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Dakota and the territory of Alaska.

Further, women were able to vote for President in a number of other States including: Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Now I grant you that many of these States and territories passed their laws in the run-up to the 19th Amendment, but as you no doubt recall at this point, many Men were ALSO still disenfranchised and could not vote. As I pointed out earlier, most MEN in the United States gained (earned) their right to vote through bloody battle-- the Civil War. Black men were still being denied the right to vote both in statute and in practice in a number of States up through 1908 or so, and certainly through vote suppression on up into the 1960's and 70's.

You have my sincere apologies that actual history does not lend itself neatly to your apparent preconceived notions and narrative.

Furthermore, I never said anywhere that women shouldn't vote, in fact I think I stated quite clearly that I think everybody should have equal status under the law and have the same access to opportunities. I simply disagree that one must need subscribe to a hateful, bigoted ideology in order to accommodate that.

Moreover, I'll point out that you still haven't shown me any evidence or artifacts for the "Good" kind of Feminism. But I suspect I'll be waiting on that detail for some time yet to come.

@ObiRonMoldy BTW, you might be interested in checking out the Honey Badger's on YouTube (HoneyBadgerRadio) and the channels of the various individual badgers: Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Hannah Wallen, and all the others. They tend to take on news and current events on their main channel.

Here is one of Karen's videos that you might find interesting. It's called "Feminism and the Disposable Male":

Another channel you might benefit from, regardless of your position on Feminism, is Paul Elam's channel, "An Ear for Men". Paul often has a somewhat acerbic tone but he generally has interesting points to make that are worth listening to even if you disagree.

You don't learn much in this world if you only talk to people you agree with, wouldn't you say?

@ObiRonMoldy Hi, sorry for my absence, the last few days have been busy for me. I don't know what your name is-- I wanted to use it in greeting, mine's John, btw. Let's see if maybe we can put this onto a different tack...

I have said previously that I believe in equality (of opportunity and legal representation) for everyone as a baseline position. From what you have said, you believe that too. So I think we have agreement there.

I have said before that I have no problems with advocacy groups, as long as they stay in their lanes. When they cross that boundary and either actively work to disenfranchise me and/or act in a bigoted manner towards me, I stop being charitable in my opinion.

I have also stated that there are a lot of women out there who call themselves "Feminists", who from what I can see, would be what I would call, "Feminist-lite"-- my term. Who are people who are generally good, kind, decent people but who have been grown-up being exposed to bigoted "Feminist culture" and have thus integrated various aspects of it into their lives, ranging from making bigoted Feminist remarks towards men, holding mild-to-moderately bigoted viewpoints about men, to acting and/or supporting various Feminist activities or initiatives which are detrimental to the interests of men and/or work to disenfranchise men.

I think one of the biggest places that you and I might differ-- I don't know, this is supposition on my part and not aimed at being disrespectful or putting words in your mouth, feel free to tell me how/if I'm right or wrong... is that I don't agree that people need to subscribe to a bigoted ideology in order to agree that women are worthwhile and valuable members of society and deserving of good things. And here, I think is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT that "working to resolve issues for women" does not mean men have to "lose" in order for women to "win". It is not a zero-sum gain. And that seems to be the largest takeaway that the majority of Feminists that I've met, experienced, read about, seen, heard and observed, have, preach and practice.

I understand that there are individual people who can have bigoted views, individually. And that individually-- even taken collectively-- they do not (necessarily) represent the viewpoint or perspective of the larger group and/or that they can simply be "bad examples" of the ideology which is in question.

I completely get that and understand, and it is one of the fundamental elements that I keep in my mind as I ponder where to draw the line on Feminism as both a practice and an ideology. I too have read many books and spoken with / listened to / experienced / been around many Feminists and I do not share yours (or your wife's) viewpoint that Feminism is simply the advocating of rights for women. But rather is a thinly-veiled deeply-bigoted ideology whose aims are to tear down men and boys, destroy masculinity, tear down the traditional family and indeed the larger fabric of tradition society and to replace it with nothing of value.

Furthermore, and this may be where some of the tipping point is for me-- as you have pointed out and I have agreed, there is no one specific and central "doctrine" of Feminism and there is no central organization or club of "Feminism"-- (I'll come back to these aspects in a bit). So as a result-- and you MUST AGREE (an entreatment to logic) that if there is no specific agreement regarding the shape, color, size or other distinguishing characteristics of a thing-- then it has no real definition and therefore is subject and open to interpretation by the people who experience it and must deal with it. And dealing with it includes attempting to "toss a lasso" around it to try and identify what it is.

On this same point, let me try and make a very pointed point... you may see it as splitting hairs but let's find out...

If Feminism has no central doctrine, and has no specific group-- and thus no one specific definition-- how can it be about "Equality" or any of those other things you mentioned that it supposedly is-- you know, according to the dictionary and all. It either IS a group and an ideology, and that's what it is, or it isn't. You have to decide. It can't be a cohesive thing when it's convenient and a puff of smoke when it isn't. If "Feminism" is a thing, a group, a doctrine-- then it must stand there and take its lumps, represent itself cohesively, be able to state its goals and missions with fundamental statements and then accept criticisms and be open to skeptical interpretation and counter-arguments.

If it is a group-- if it is one thing-- then show me its founding documents / principles., point to its leaders. If it is not, then it is open to general interpretation and I submit it is the "thing" (essence) that people who wear its mantle and carry out actions in its name make it to be-- and what I, the outside observer, DEEMS it to be. And you too, of course, we are both outside observers-- even if we claim to be "members", since there is no central doctrine or roster-- all we can do is observe, even as we believe we are participating. Membership in the group-- the GROUP ITSELF--- is amorphous and self-organizing and arises out of the ethereal plane through the adoption and embodiment of its many members who hoist it into being through their actions. It IS A GROUP which has become self-actualized.

Okay, time to split some more hairs...

Imagine in your mind the quintessential "bad guys", whoever / whatever group that means to you. Even if it's imaginary-- and if it is, really work to flesh them out, give them a back-story and reason they are so feared and hated. For me and many people a couple such groups might be "The Nazis" or the "Ku Klux Klan"-- btw, where I'm going now is largely the reason I was somewhat seemingly evasive in the beginning and wanting you to do some defining before we got too far into it. As I said at one point, I too have been working at practicing my argument and it wasn't really for any nefarious purpose.

So imagine the "bad guys"-- get them into your head. They're the baddest dudes, meanest, evilest sons-of-bitches who ever walked the earth. You know the type-- They jaywalk, don't wash their hands-- and heck, I even saw one spit on the sidewalk once. The horror! Kidding aside, everybody is motivated by something. Some underlying, unifying philosophy, overt or innate, which shapes their character, defines their morality and ultimately directs their being.

People tend to self-organize and socialize and feel "comfortable" with others who are generally more like themselves. And collectively, they tend to adopt a sort of "group identity" which includes customs, mannerisms, modes of speech, shared experience and ultimately a shared social ethos, whether loose or formal-- or even a bit of both-- in fact, I would posit that it is typically a bit of both, which is the central underlying reason why we have both "government" and "religion", the former to express and administer a formal set of secular rules and the latter to express and administer the "general social contract" among the members of the society.

But at this point I'm digressing quite a bit-- and the thing that I'm really attempting to illustrate here is the fundamental basis for a group or society. And it is through this lens of culture and ideology that any given society, along with its attendant rules, mores and modes, can be cataloged, identified and distinguished from another.

So back to the bad guys-- do you suppose there is such a thing as a "Good Nazi"? Or a "good" Ku Klux Klan member? Or do you suppose that people who identify, associate and comport themselves with such societies and ideologies should just automatically be assumed to agree with the group, be of the group, and any one is just as bad as all the others? Do you think the question has merit or would it be simply ridiculous to even try and work out the intricacies of such in the face of the larger, overwhelming manifestation of the group with which they identify / belong?

I want to step to the side for a moment and tell you a story about someone I knew in the past. Someone I was even called my friend, although as you will see in a moment, he came along with some inherent issues that were difficult (for me at least) to work through...

Some decades ago, in a Southern locale, I hired a young man at one of my companies-- a bright individual, cheerful, outgoing with much to recommend him. As we were still a small company I had lots of opportunity to work directly with him and observe him firsthand in a variety of situations which eventually included activities outside of work in friendly social settings. And I will state at this point, for the record, uncategorically, that I never observed him behave in any mean, unkind, disrespectful or otherwise disreputable manner-- except for one thing, which I came to discover, he was extremely and unabashedly racist. At least he seemed so on the surface.

He never said anything at work or comported himself in any way that was anything less than exemplary and professional-- it was only in his social life that I came to know this about him. Further, as I did get to know him, it was very apparent that even in his social and private life, he was every bit as thoughtful, kind and caring as I knew him to be otherwise. And yet, there was a constant refrain of "N---er this", "N---er that"-- "N---er, N---er, N---er"--- always with the "N---er's". He was quite blatant about it, and I assume whenever he thought he was with like-minded people.

At first I was very, very concerned about it and I was very conflicted within myself regarding how to handle it. I had never in my life encountered anybody who was so overtly and openly racist in their words and opinions. I even probed him about it carefully on a number of occasions to see if it was perhaps an act or an affectation. The issue was great enough that I think many people would have simply washed their hands of it and walked away. And perhaps I should have too. But I didn't.

In fact and in truth, the more I got to know him, the less racist I perceived him to be. To the point where I think I would honestly state that there was not really an actual racist bone in his entire body. I earnestly believe that he would have stopped and freely, willingly helped anybody in need-- given them the actual, literal shirt off his back if necessary, and without a first or a second thought about it. That's the kind of person I came to understand him to be. And yet I was continually confronted with the reality of his words and some of the things he said and occasionally espoused which were so very, very ugly. It was a very difficult thing for me to deal with-- still is, which is partly why I'm telling you the story.

But the reason why I think this is relevant is that it points out some of the thorny issues involved in assessing people and ideologies. And particularly with respect to nuance and subtlety of issue. And in this particular case, perhaps the situation may seem to support your general take on the issue more than mine, though in fairness to my friend, he never claimed to be Klansman and I never saw him act like one-- or at least not the way I would stereotypically think one should act. But then again, I don't (knowingly) know any actual Klan members, so how would I know how they really behave? Do they wear their hoods everywhere they go? Do they have a shed full of crosses to burn behind their houses? I'm not really sure how it all works in real life as my knowledge of the Klan is mostly theoretical, apart from occasional research online.

My knowledge of Feminists and Feminism, on the other hand, is far more immediate. They pervade nearly every area and facet of my daily life and in ways that are rude, hateful and bigoted, and moreover specifically target me and people with the same immutable characteristics and attributes that I share with their hateful, bigoted rhetoric. They call themselves Feminists. They claim to speak as Feminists for Feminists. And they routinely attempt to "lift themselves up" by dragging me and people who are like me, down, which-- if we recall from the outset of our conversation, is at least one published and subscribed definition of "Hate Group". I think that most people would characterize a "Hate Group" to be along some such similar lines.

Further, when I go to investigate what Feminism is-- read their books, listen to their speeches, read their articles, and actually try to engage with people who call themselves Feminists--I come away with the exact same feeling and understanding, that their motive, goal and method of operation is decidedly bigoted, hateful and aimed at "tearing down" rather than "building up", and I choose not to participate nor tolerate such people in my community. Finally, as if all the proceeding is not enough, they claim to speak for me and to represent my interests and actively work to thwart my efforts to point out that they do not and shall not. I do not agree with their hateful world view, I do not want their bigoted ideology to prevail. I do not wish my sons to inherit a world full of their wicked and demeaning policies, nor would I wish them on my daughters, were I to have any.

Feminism runs directly counter to the notion of good, strong wholesome values that uplift everyone in society, form the backbone of strong communities and advocate for equal opportunities for everyone. And in fact, no group does more to instill in me this belief than the Feminists themselves.

You say that you agree and understand that there is "Bad" Feminism and that you don't dispute it. I have asked you previously to support your claim that there is "Good" Feminism and show me the artifacts of their beliefs, work and outreach-- for which I am not singling you out alone. I have asked this same question far and wide over at least the last five years or more-- and to this day, this very moment in time. NOBODY has ever satisfactorily demonstrated to me that there is such a thing. I have seen exactly ZERO artifacts or any other detail that so far would cause me to sway my opinion. I DO admit that at this point I'm pretty skeptical, more than a little bit cynical, and quite a bit set in my opinion and thus probably hard to convince-- but I remain open, however marginally, to the notion that I could be wrong-- so demonstrate it for me. Show me the evidence. Show me people doing more than paying lip-service to the idea of equality of opportunity while they instead work to install a specifically-engineered power structure designed to empower and entitle only themselves-- even as they claim the situation is reversed.

Prove to me how the system we all live in, aka "The Patriarchy", isn't actually a pretty good system which has demonstrated itself to be pretty resilient, reasonably fairly-applied (there's always room for improvement in any system)-- and most of all, provides the hooks and levers with which to actively lobby and address the issues of groups who believe that they are being under-represented and/or maligned.

If we actually lived in the society that Feminists claim-- one of which Men have erected to benefit themselves, privilege themselves and empower themselves, then why, pray tell, is being called a "Misogynist" a BAD thing?? Why do Feminists use that word to BLAME and SHAME men into behaving the way the FEMINISTS want them too? If we truly live in a system that oppresses women and keeps them down-- and it's been fundamentally engineered that way-- wouldn't we all be STRIVING TO BE the very best MISOGYNISTS that we CAN BE !?!?!

And not for nothing, how many times have you OPPRESSED YOUR WIFE today? How many times have you really, really wanted to and it's only FEMINISM that's stopped you.

Stop and THINK, Dude. Feminism is the answer to a problem that doesn't exist for 99% of the population-- only the ones working to flip the script and tear down what has worked for literally thousands of years in order to enrich and empower a very small elite few-- who actually, ironically, at the end of the day, aren't even FEMINISTS themselves. But that's a whole different story.

@ObiRonMoldy That first link is not a law, it is simply some words written down and passed off as fact hoping you'll believe them. It doesn't even cite sources. Show me the law / statute.

The second link is nearly a carbon-copy of the first. Take the 'Alabama 1871' item, that is simply referring to the same case that I provided the actual court record for. Did you read it? It said no such thing AT ALL. Did you ACTUALLY READ IT? Feminists LIE all the damned time. If they tell you the sky is blue, IMO-- you should go to the window and look out to verify it for yourself.

I'm not even sure what the third link is supposed to be.

Look-- let's stick with the 'Alabama 1871' thing for a minute-- as that's an actual real, verifiable document that you and I can both go read and compare notes on. If you READ THE CASE, it says that a man DOES NOT have the right to beat his wife, and moreover, NEVER DID, no matter WHAT erroneous notion the defendant had in his mind when he did it. Go READ the fricken thing and see it for yourself.

Here's a link to the case. Not sure if it's the same link I gave you before, but it's the same text: [flaglerlive.com]

And, as I've mentioned before, I have actually gone out looking for anything which in this country (the United States) LEGALLY gives a man the right to beat his wife. To this moment in time I have yet to find anything which applies. I hold open the potential that it could exist, I am not so assured that men are so noble that it couldn't be true somewhere-- but I have yet to see it codified into law / statute anywhere such that it was actually legal. And moreover, at every instance where it even seemed possible-- that the issue came up as part of a court case-- in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE THAT I MYSELF HAVE SEEN-- it was struck down unanimously as bullshit-- abhorrent, abominable and with the admonishment in open court that it was no part of any law or statute.

Show me otherwise. Show me the evidence. I will believe it if it exists. I am not a lawyer, I don't do this as a profession. And I cannot speak for laws in other countries, though I can't say that I know of any references there either-- but possibly some may exist? Possibly in Islamic regions?? I don't know. But I haven't seen any in the United States-- show me the proof.

@ObiRonMoldy "Consider how you would feel, being overpowered, beaten regularly, and not allowed to leave that marriage! Do you think you just might have a little anger? Maybe a lot? Maybe this helps you put into perspective how anger became part of early women's rights."

You're doing an awful lot of projection there.

Tell me again, how many times have you beaten your wife today?

@ObiRonMoldy How many times are you going to flounce out of here?? Seriously, how am I going to MISS YOU if you won't LEAVE already !??!

@ObiRonMoldy >> "Until 1890 in Wyoming, it appears there were no laws allowing women to vote. That means ONLY men had a legal right to vote. "

SHHhhh!!! Don't tell anybody, but Wyoming didn't become a State until 1890, and was only established as a territory in 1869.

But you just keep right on with those "fun links".

@ObiRonMoldy >> "Also, until 1856, only land owning white men could vote, at which time all men got the right to vote."

I am not sure what to do with this item-- where it goes or how it's supposed to fit in with anything. Are you claiming that only land-owning White Men could vote anywhere in the United States prior to 1856? If so, you and/or your source are sadly mistaken and I suggest you research it a little more.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're even dickering over these points anyway. Let us stipulate that you're right-- for the discussion-- so it was 50 or 100 years-- the point is that women do now vote, so what? Moreover, I don't even think the bulk of the women (and men) who were 'Suffragettes' considered themselves Feminists. Although certainly modern Feminists would like you to believe so. Rather they were simply women and men who believed and agreed that these issues needed to be addressed and corrected for women and so they worked to campaign and lobby until they brought it about. No "Feminism" required.

Example to wit: [plymouthherald.co.uk]

@ObiRonMoldy Nobody said anything about a court or a book, nor any evidence of 'Good Feminism' either.

Moreover, even if I were to put myself in those shoes, we are not talking about a "system of oppression" here, but rather one individual asshole and one individual circumstance. Even if you find a hundred such instances, you still cannot make the leap of "systemic oppression".

And even if we did-- for the sake of the argument-- agree that there is "systemic oppression', the solution is not MORE oppression and hateful, bigoted ideology, but clear, rational effort and negotiation to redress the issues and create a more equitable situation, not a worse one.

One can make the extremely good argument that much of the situation which brought about the second world war was the manner and extent of the conditions of surrender imposed upon the German people at the conclusion of the first world war. While that does not excuse the war, it certainly points out the inadvisability of simply 'turning the tables' and imposing insurmountable conditions by way of revenge.

@ObiRonMoldy I already picked out the first one and disproved the first item I spotted on the page. The second link was essentially a repeat of the first link only with a fancy graphic at the top.

Must I REALLY spoon feed the entirety of history to you? Or do you think it's possible for you to use some common sense and do your own research. By research, I mean actually READ what it is you're attempting to use for support..?

I don't even believe you when you say you won't respond. You've flounced so many times at this point that even your keyboard has got to be moaning from the whiplash.

However, to be sporting, I'll crack a few more.... from YOUR link, "[pacwrc.pitt.edu];

It states:

"Early settlers in America based their laws on an Old-English common-law that explicitly permits wife-beating for correctional purposes. The states tried to break away from that law by saying that the husband is only allowed to whip his wife with a switch no bigger than his thumb. (Early 1500s)"

Are you aware that this is a statement of OPINION? Not fact. Where is the reference which demonstrates this to be the case. There are numerous court records which EXPLICITLY DISPROVE THIS-- as evidenced by even the one you dredged up yourself in an attempt to claim it previously. The judge explicitly REJECTED the defendant's claim that 'wife beating was justified'. There are other court cases which state the same thing. GO LOOK THEM UP FOR YOURSELF. You're obviously not going to be satisfied with any of MY links. I can't help it if you REFUSE TO READ OR DO RESEARCH. That does not invalidate the existence nor veracity of the court records. IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG-- PROVE IT-- I've challenged you on this before. SHOW ME A STATUTE MAKING IT LEGAL in the United States.

SHOW ME. PROVE IT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Okay, so here's another one from YOUR SAME LINK:

"Mississippi’s Supreme Court allows a husband to administer “moderate chastisement in case of emergencies”."

In chasing this one down, here is the entire summary, quoted from "The Virginia Law Register" with quotes from various courts, references from "Old English Law" and numerous quotes from "Blacks Law": [archive.org]. If you don't like that link (which is easier to read), you can get the original here directly from the Virginia Law Register: [jstor.org]

I recommend that you READ IT. Not just skim the first couple of sentences or paragraphs, but READ IT and see for yourself what courts and legal experts ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES had to say about the notion of a husband beating his wife.

After that, you can take the rest of the items from your links and do the rest of the work. I'm tired of DEBUNKING your shit dude.

I'm not purposely trying to be a dick. Just simply pointing out to you that FEMINISTS LIE LIKE A RUG. They put up this stuff in lists and make claims that they know most people won't bother to go check out for themselves. And then it gets repeated over and over until people just THINK it's true because of what they THINK it says but actually DOESN'T.

Feminists have this trick where when they repeat stuff often enough, FOOLISH PEOPLE START BELIEVING IT.

Do I think you'll accidentally stumble across something that's true? Perhaps. It does happen on occasion. Can I state categorically that every item in your links is false? No I can't. I would have to go through every item one by one to follow them up and see what they say-- and then go SECOND-SOURCE THE CLAIMS myself. THAT is what YOU are not doing. If they say the sky is blue, go to the window to check it yourself.

Can I make mistakes? Absolutely. That happens too. I often think I know something only to find out later that I misread it, misunderstood it, or misinterpreted some key element. When it happens, I feel foolish, but I accept my lumps and move on.

So, when it comes to the links that YOU provided above, I spot-checked several of the items as I mentioned and so far NONE OF THEM have been correct. That's ZERO. Might there be some items which are correct? Possibly, but I didn't check them all.

Finally, I have asked you-- CHALLENGED YOU-- to demonstrate this alleged "Good Feminism" and I'll note that you STILL have not even provided so much as a WHIFF of evidence to back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You say Feminism isn't about hate-- PROVE IT. Show me the artifacts.

@ObiRonMoldy Here's the next one from the same list:

"Maryland actually was the first state to pass a law that makes wife-beating a crime, which is punishable by 40 lashes or a year in jail. (1882)"

This one turns out to be true. But the question is "so what?"

Because they passed this law I suppose you're going to try and tell me that it was legal to beat your wife in Maryland prior to 1882. But the truth is that States go through and decide to codify things all the time. In the year that this law was passed there were 23,902 arrests in the entire State, of which only 156 were actually for 'Assault upon the Wife'. From a population of 50,189,209 (reported a year later in the 1890 census) we're talking about a crime rate of 0.00031%. That's quite the crime spree. Even if we assume EVERY SINGLE ONE of the men arrested-- irrespective of the charge-- was guilty that still would have only amounted to a crime rate of 0.047%. And those numbers are in FRACTIONS OF A PERCENT they are so very low.

So, we have determined that there were indeed some assholes in the State of Maryland back in 1882. But hardly an epidemic.

But you can read it for yourself here, in the Maryland Law Review: [books.google.com]

You can also read an opinion of it by Feminist Christina Hoff-Sommers where she specifically speaks to this matter of "the rule of thumb" in one of her books (other people have too): [historymyths.wordpress.com]

Though I will freely admit that the CHS link is opinion, so thus can be questioned, even though it is a reasonable assertion based on available research. Another judge, in a court case I read, believed that it might harken back to the Old Testament in the bible. He did not know the reference. Certainly there has been a lot of misconception on this issue and very little actual fact-- and more to the point-- very little actual evidence of any supposed systematic oppression through men beating their wives.

0

I'm pretty sure families are shrinking because a child costs a ton of money to raise. A human requires roughly two decades before they can really contribute to a modern economy. If we were all on farms then you can get a lot of work out of a kid and each child is a great additional labor force, as opposed to an extra mouth to feed.
A child can be reasonably relied on to feed some chickens, but would you want one doing accounting work?

I wonder if part of it that it takes longer for young adults to move out of their family's home, and when they finally do they feel a larger drive to be independent. Besides, what is wrong with having a close knit and supportive group of friends?

@Janeybird Come to think of, didn't see where the article mentioned the close tribe of friends thing. It isn't on page 5 that mentions people think family bonds are weakening, but should be stronger. I was rather amused that men more then women seem to think gender equality is improving. Also happy with the reduced roll of religion.

0

In many cases families have not been able to adjust to modern life. Society itself has been so busy privatizing the public sphere that the actual life of the family has been compromised.

0

Tribes of friends? Facebook friends don't count.

@Janeybird Is everyone so pedantic on this website? About half of.young people today don't have friends. Ill find a link to the study if you want. That is what I was referencing. And this nation has reaped what it has sown, so no I don't feel bothered by this. It will swing back the other way in time

@Janeybird I know... Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the pathetic state of young people's social lives. But the real problem is the Godlessness and immorality running rampant. Rejecting traditional values comes at a price

@Janeybird true. At least the modern flavor of crazy is entertaining, albeit often repulsive.

0
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:33581
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.