# Dismantling Feminism - Karen Straughan



## TAM2013 (Jul 15, 2013)

These are very interesting from Karen Straughan, a lady who seems to have her head screwed on. Particularly "Feminism and the Disposable Male" and "Look out there's a Nice Guy - Destroy Him".


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

I don't disagree with her at all. 
She makes excellent points. 


Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Uh-oh! I am sure in short order "Quality" will be along to denigrate Karen Straughan because she is divorced (gasp!). Since her marriage was a failure, everything she has to say is tainted! We must always remember that no one ever should learn from their mistakes or anyone else's!
Please be advised that those are not my views. I actually agree with much of what she has said.


----------



## TAM2013 (Jul 15, 2013)

It's a sad state of affairs that if she was male, she/he'd be a 'misogynistic pig' and the thread would got in to meltdown.

Actually, I think the correct term for these attitudes would be masculinist. Say that again. Masculinist.

How often do you hear that word?


----------



## Ol'Pal (Aug 24, 2015)

I like Karen. She makes a lot of sense about stuff i see but was blind to.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Wow lots of great points. I will have to look at the rest of her videos at some point. Spot on!


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Ynot said:


> Uh-oh! I am sure in short order "Quality" will be along to denigrate Karen Straughan because she is divorced (gasp!). Since her marriage was a failure, everything she has to say is tainted! We must always remember that no one ever should learn from their mistakes or anyone else's!


Now you've done it. Because you just know he's consulting his binders even as we speak to get the goods on you, too.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

She is just another stupid women who is so desperate for men to like her that she becomes one of the bros. Pathetic. She parrots the hate filled rhetoric of insecure, weak haters who are threatened by the lost of control over women. 

America has a problem with women. That's obvious given the vicious push back Clinton is facing. It's a product of the cultural acceptance of hostility towards women. This is especially true among the moralizing, family-value conservatives. 

The wonderful implosion at Fox News is a case in point. Those fine, upstanding conservatives, representatives of family and moral values. They want to return to the past before good American values were eroded by the rise of feminism.

Their hypocrisy is exposed and they inadvertently further the cause of feminism. Feminist don't need to do a thing, these fools do it for them. They are the ones who should be hated for the lost of male power. 

These moral men want a return to a past that allowed them free access to any women who they lusted after, with or without their consent. Their message has nothing to do with a return to the great America of the past, it's all a ploy to satisfy their out of control lust for women.

We don't need their form of immoral values. Control was not taken from men like these, they lost it because they abuse it whenever they have it. They repeatedly prove themselves to be incapable of trust and need to have checks imposed on their power and control.


----------



## EunuchMonk (Jan 3, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> She is just another stupid women who is so desperate for men to like her that she becomes one of the bros. Pathetic. She parrots the hate filled rhetoric of insecure, weak haters who are threatened by the lost of control over women.
> 
> America has a problem with women. That's obvious given the vicious push back Clinton is facing. It's a product of the cultural acceptance of hostility towards women. This is especially true among the moralizing, family-value conservatives.
> 
> ...


Blue part I agree with. Red part? No. Hostility towards women? Women are getting better and better treatment than men everyday. That is why people hate modern day feminism. It isn't about equality anymore like the first wave was, it's about debasing men, like revenge for the past. I believe in complementarianism. Male and female together is how the world will go forward prosperously not one gender trying to one-up the other.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

I don't know much about this woman other than she works (earns an income) and more importantly, she divorced her husband. The fact that she's against the same movement that made it possible for her to do both of those things makes her a hypocrite.


----------



## TAM2013 (Jul 15, 2013)

I wouldn't describe her as a stupid woman, Catherine. I think she'd ruin any of us face to face. And if she wanted to be liked by men, she'd grow her hair long.

With that kind of vitriol in the second half of your first paragraph, you've kind of described yourself, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

You are under the belief that if you repeat a thing again and again then it becomes truth. You got this stuff from reading some hate filled blog or from someone who repeated the unfounded allegation derived from a hate filled blog. 

I know because You use exactly the same phrases and words that the haters use. You memorized the scrip. However, if you think it is true why can't you use your own words and your personal knowledge of you allegations. 

I'll use the term men to generalize in the same fashion you use the term women. 

Tell me something. How are men being treated worst than women when they are free to commit crimes against women and get away with it? Apparently men have judges in their pocket if current evens have any validity. . 

Men make more money than women for the same work. Men are chosen for jobs over women with the same qualifications. If women are given preferential treatment why are the stats still so dismal. I call that being treated very well. What do you want, women doing the grunt work and not competing with men? 

Why do men like the ones at Fox think they can get away with their illegal and disrespectful treatment of women. Because they were fearful of getting caught? Did they fear the women would report them? 

If men think women are treated better then they won't fix the problems. It is up to women to do it. Is that considered revenge on men? Like every single law that has been passed in this country improving the treatment of women. 

How would you want your daughter to be treated? She feels she should not be in danger of rape or discrimination on the basis of her gender. Do you tell her that she has more advantages than men so she not be concerned?


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lila said:


> I don't know much about this woman other than she works (earns an income) and more importantly, she divorced her husband. The fact that she's against the same movement that made it possible for her to do both of those things makes her a hypocrite.


She has a job and has a right to a divorce because of feminism? How so?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

becareful2 said:


> She has a job and has a right to a divorce because of feminism? How so?


Pre feminist movement, women in the work force were few and far between, and those with professional jobs were paid much less than men. 

Pre feminist movement, divorce was very difficult to come by. And when they did divorce, women were usually left destitute (see work force content above). 

Had the feminist movement not occurred, she'd probably still be an unhappily married housewife. Of course, maybe that's exactly the type of life she advocates for but I don't know. I haven't listened to her stuff. 

Sent from mobile using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

TAM2013 said:


> I wouldn't describe her as a stupid woman, Catherine. I think she'd ruin any of us face to face. And if she wanted to be liked by men, she'd grow her hair long.
> 
> With that kind of vitriol in the second half of your first paragraph, you've kind of described yourself, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.


Maybe your are right. But do you think I should not say what I think because the men on TAM will not like me? Don't worry, my self-esteem is intact. I get enough positive feedback IRL. 

I'm here for the mental stimulation with people who know more than I do. Although I am a woman, my agenda has nothing to do male attention or the lack thereof.


----------



## TAM2013 (Jul 15, 2013)

I don't need to use my own words. She's nailed it for me. And I can't get banned if she says it. Clever, that.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

TAM2013 said:


> I don't need to use my own words. She's nailed it for me. And I can't get banned if she says it. Clever, that.


You misinterpreted the meaning of my post. I meant that if you feel this way flesh it out by explaining why. 

I don't want you to get banned, who will I have to discuss and understand. 

Not all posts that express strong feelings means that there are hostile feelings towards you or anyone. Strong options brings out strong responses. 

Who knows what I may read that will alter my thoughts. It has happened many times and I look forwards to future changes.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lila said:


> Pre feminist movement, women in the work force were few and far between, and those with professional jobs were paid much less than men.
> 
> Pre feminist movement, divorce was very difficult to come by. And when they did divorce, women were usually left destitute (see work force content above).
> 
> ...


Any direct causation between feminism and her being able to have a job and to divorce? When the women left the home to fill jobs vacated by men who went off to war in the forties, was that due to feminism or was it due to supply & demand aka capitalism? As I understand it, many judges and lawmakers also fought for divorce reforms, but you only credit feminists for that? Groups like the New England Workingmen's Association published the Voice of Industry which brought labor reform, but feminists get the credit in your view? What about the Knights of Labor, whose members voted to admit women into it's memberships; don't they get credit?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

becareful2 said:


> Any direct causation between feminism and her being able to have a job and to divorce? When the women left the home to fill jobs vacated by men who went off to war in the forties, was that due to feminism or was it due to supply & demand aka capitalism?


WW2 was an anomaly. As soon as the war was over and the men came back, most married women went right back to the home. 



becareful2 said:


> As I understand it, many judges and lawmakers also fought for divorce reforms, but you only credit feminists for that? Groups like the New England Workingmen's Association published the Voice of Industry which brought labor reform, but feminists get the credit in your view? What about the Knights of Labor, whose members voted to admit women into it's memberships; don't they get credit?


I didn't specify feminist. I said feminist _movement_. There were no doubt men who supported the movement back then just as Karen S. supports the MRA now. But let's get real, the groups you mentioned didn't make any changes without prompting from the first feminists. 



Sent from mobile using Tapatalk


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

Abuse will always be there, all people can do is become wiser & smarter to spot the signs in relationships. 

The rise in violence from women towards men is increasing. 
A lot of men are afraid to go to the police or press charges because they will look weak. 

Real equailty has to fair for it to work for both sexes. 
And if you look at the scales of balance, women have a lot more rights these days & today some women abuse those rights. Just as some men would. 

I have been raped in my past, but not all men are rapists, the majority of men are good. 
My husband was also verbally abused by women in his past & was afraid to voice it. 

































Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lila said:


> WW2 was an anomaly. As soon as the war was over and the men came back, most married women went right back to the home.


What about the Civil War that brought about 600K women into the work force due to the number of deaths? Another anomaly? 





> But let's get real, the groups you mentioned didn't make any changes without prompting from the first feminists.


Getting real would require facts. Do you have any facts to back up that claim?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

becareful2 said:


> What about the Civil War that brought about 600K women into the work force due to the number of deaths? Another anomaly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, I don't have the time or actual desire to write a dissertation on the feminist movement, and /or who was responsible for women's current status in the workforce. But if you believe that women would be enjoying the level of equality we've achieved to date without the feminist movement, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell ya cheap 

I'm out but please carry on. 

Sent from mobile using Tapatalk


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

Lila said:


> Lol, I don't have the time or actual desire to write a dissertation on the feminist movement, and /or who was responsible for women's current status in the workforce. But if you believe that women would be enjoying the level of equality we've achieved to date without the feminist movement, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell ya cheap
> 
> I'm out but please carry on.
> 
> Sent from mobile using Tapatalk


The feminist movement was but one piece of a larger puzzle. To credit them ignoring the other major contributors seem prejudicial.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

The feminist movement in many ways mirrors the civil rights movement. What started off as good thing to bring about equality of rights, has now morphed into movement to gain extra rights and special rights.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

TAM2013 said:


> I wouldn't describe her as a stupid woman, Catherine. I think she'd ruin any of us face to face. *And if she wanted to be liked by men, she'd grow her hair long.*


 You have a great point here.. Personally I like this woman. I discovered her years ago on you tube ...I don't agree with everything she says.. sometimes I think she goes a little too far.. 

I've heard this before, women mocking her for her catering to men.... and seriously...laughing here.... she could have a hell of a lot more sex appeal if she grew some hair.. and put on some hotter clothes, maybe some heels... she is like the ultimate TOM BOY or something..... no I don't feel this is her aim... not at all.. 
Many a vocal feminist has trampled on things I hold dear.. many articles I have read, seems the majority in fact....I'm thinking "NO..  I don't feel this way- like at all [email protected]#"..... where I feel men & women should come together, I love the dance of the sexes.. we NEED each other.. to enhance each other's lives...not be so dang "independent" of each other...

I don't know what Karen's ultimate message is...she can be sassy & sarcastic in the most commonsensical way...but ultimately does she want to see Love/ romance flourish.. men & women coming back together ? or just stick it to the radical feminists .....

I've had a lot of laughs listening to her ... while agreeing though.. I gotta admit.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

I gave up on the "Nice Guy" video at 4 minute 15 seconds through sheer boredom.

Oh well at least i tried to watch it.


----------



## tripod (Jun 18, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> Maybe your are right. But do you think I should not say what I think because the men on TAM will not like me? Don't worry, my self-esteem is intact. I get enough positive feedback IRL.
> 
> I'm here for the mental stimulation with people who know more than I do. Although I am a woman, my agenda has nothing to do male attention or the lack thereof.


That would be "you're." Glad you're here for mental stimulation from people who know more than you. Most likely you'll find many and they'll share. Good luck.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

tripod said:


> That would be "you're." Glad you're here for mental stimulation from people who know more than you. Most likely you'll find many and they'll share. Good luck.


That's your argument. Lame.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement have a lot of things in common. One of them is that there is a group of outliers who say outlandish things to get attention. 

When a person says something like “Dismantling Feminism”, what exactly are they saying? What is it that they want to dismantle? Does this mean that they want women to no longer be able to get an education? No longer be able to make a good living? Do they want to go back to the days when women could not own property? “Feminism” is a huge tent. There is no one organization or one person who is the spokesperson for “feminism”. So I have no idea what “dismantling feminism” means. Since every woman today benefits from the changes brought about by feminism, what is it that you want to take away from women? What part of their lives do you want to “dismantle”?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

tripod said:


> That would be "you're." Glad you're here for mental stimulation from people who know more than you. Most likely you'll find many and they'll share. Good luck.


Is that all you can offer, nasty put downs? 

If you are angry about something I wrote, address it directly with a cogent rebuttal. Don't crouch behind sideways snipes, makes you seem cowardly. I am sure you are not but you may give the wrong impression. 

I find people who pick out grammatical errors frequently have very low self-esteem and, sometimes for good reason. If it props up your ego to proof my posts then you have the job. You're skills are impressionable. 

Dont make a habit of it though. It is easy to embarrass some posters who are hurting and chase them away. Not every one has your skills. The forum is for any one who needs help not just good grammarians. 

There, I gave you more errors. How many can you spot? Fel superior know? Good.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I watched a few minute of the Karen Straughan video about “male disposability". I found it very typical of the tripe that’s all over the internet. Pick any topic, any movement, and there are a whole lot of people out there on the internet trying to get fame by talking about their point of view. Most of them use facts pretty loosely. Most are going for the emotional reaction. Karen is not much different from the whole lot of them. I could not watch much of her… her smirky, nasty tone is enough make her hard to watch.


I’m going to address just a few of her points to show how she plays fast and loose with facts and realty. If she’s this bad in the first few minutes, I’m not wasting any of what’s left of my life listening to this nonsense.

She says that when it comes to the wellbeing of others, men come last.

Life boats… “women and children first”.. Apparently this was only the case with the HMS Birkenhead and the Titanic. It’s not maritime law, nor maritime custom. The custom is historically “Every man for himself.” Apparently, actual historic data debunks the idea that there has ever been a ‘women and children first” code on ships. 

?Women and Children First?? On Sinking Ships, It?s Every Man for Himself - History in the Headlines


Who gets to eat: I don’t know where she gets the idea that women and children eat first. There are two cultural ways that I’ve seen this done. The one that is prevalent now in the more westernized countries, everyone sits down and eats together. In many 3rd world cultures, even today, men eat first. The women cook and serve the men. Once the men are done eating, the women and children can eat whatever is left over. I guess maybe the women who cooked did get to eat a bit while they cooked. 

Now let’s look at the point she tried to make that someone is making a big deal out of more women getting hurt now on the job. She, of course misrepresented, the data. She claims that it’s because there are now fewer men on the job so now more women are being injured on the job. Well, that’s not exactly (or at all) what the report says.

What the report does say, instead, is that through all the work that has been done to make people safer on the job, it apparently worked well in DECREASING male injuries on the job. Apparently these are men working at jobs where there are mostly men. But the number of injuries suffered by women at work has not gone down. The study further says that it looks like the reason for this is that there are a high number of women working in the health industry (nurses, etc). And the health industry has a high rate of injury. Since there is a very high number of women in the health care industry, it makes sense that there would be a large number of women being injured in the health industry. Add to that the kind of work they do and it makes sense. This is not some male vs female thing. This is an objective look by safety professionals at what areas/industries need to work on reducing safety concerns. (The woman in that video misrepresented what this was all about.)


Injury rates for women not getting any better, says WorkSafeBC report

.


----------



## Tatsuhiko (Jun 21, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> America has a problem with women. That's obvious given the vicious push back Clinton is facing. It's a product of the cultural acceptance of hostility towards women. This is especially true among the moralizing, family-value conservatives.


What a bunch of high schooler nonsense. Most of these same conservatives you don't even attempt to understand are the ones who loved Sarah Palin and would have gladly elected her President. Rational people dislike Hillary Clinton because they view her as dishonest and incompetent.


----------



## EunuchMonk (Jan 3, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> You are under the belief that if you repeat a thing again and again then it becomes truth. You got this stuff from reading some hate filled blog or from someone who repeated the unfounded allegation derived from a hate filled blog.
> 
> I know because You use exactly the same phrases and words that the haters use. You memorized the scrip. However, if you think it is true why can't you use your own words and your personal knowledge of you allegations.
> 
> ...


----------



## tripod (Jun 18, 2016)

Catherine602 said:


> Is that all you can offer, nasty put downs?
> 
> If you are angry about something I wrote, address it directly with a cogent rebuttal. Don't crouch behind sideways snipes, makes you seem cowardly. I am sure you are not but you may give the wrong impression.
> 
> ...


Has doubling down on stupid made its way from the presidential campaign to TAM? 

The problem with making grammatical and spelling errors is that it's rather like giving a morality lecture in a clown suit. Those for whom the lecture is intended may concentrate on presentation and not the content which just starts to sound like Clarabell's bulb horn.

Some helpful advice: When writing a declarative position, people make judgments on the quality of your thought and intellect by demonstrated knowledge of writing convention. Debased language is much the same as debased currency, worthless. 

For the record, I found Straughan's presentations thought provoking.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

@EunuchMonk

Yes, I watch Fox. Although I don't subscribe to their theology, I find some of their ideas worth considering. I was referring to the sexual harassment allegations that they are dealing with at present. If true, it is very disappointing. 

I thought the Fox News organization was sincere in their belief that higher moral standards in our country would benefit our quality of life. I agree with them in that respect. It is sad that they don't seem to believe it themselves. 

The judges in pockets statement was hyperbole. I was referring to the light sentences imposed upon convinced rapist by judges in two recent cases. 

I don't believe that the criminals had a direct illegal influence on judges. They do have the sympathy of male judges and the rape victims do not. That is not fair and equal treatment. 

That Straughan woman and ones like her really annoy me. Her stated goal is to narrow the gulf between men and women. However, her hidden agenda is to widen it, IMO. 

I found her statements about differential treatment of boy babies by their mothers particularly offensive. What she is describing is systematic abuse of boy babies. What a horrible unfounded accusation and one designed to provoke exactly the type of response I wrote. 

I didn't watch the rest of the video.

My reactive post is evidence of how easy it is to fall into the trap of divisive invective. I am sorry I wrote such a negative post. It certainly does not help.

There is no country in the world that has successfully integrated so diverse a population into one identity. We are forging a path in completely uncharted territory. 

We made a great deal of progress in coming together but there is still work to be done. Balancing fair treatment and opportunity for men and women is a delicate task. Sometimes we go too far in one direction sometimes not enough. 

It is impossible to measure the effect of policy alterations until they are implemented. I don't think there is intentional unfair treatment of men but that does not mean that it should not be corrected.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Tatsuhiko said:


> What a bunch of high schooler nonsense. Most of these same conservatives you don't even attempt to understand are the ones who loved Sarah Palin and would have gladly elected her President. Rational people dislike Hillary Clinton because they view her as dishonest and incompetent.


 What do rational people think of Trump.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> What do rational people think of Trump.


That unfortunately for all of us he is the lesser of two evils. We have no really good choice


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Wolf1974 said:


> That unfortunately for all of us he is the lesser of two evils. We have no really good choice


Amen brother!


----------



## Sbrown (Jul 29, 2012)

Isn't it just one person at Fox news being accused and not the entire staff? So fox news most likely does hold to a higher standard, but maybe not the accused? Why blame an entire channel for the actions of one person?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Sbrown said:


> Isn't it just one person at Fox news being accused and not the entire staff? So fox news most likely does hold to a higher standard, but maybe not the accused? Why blame an entire channel for the actions of one person?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Read the whole story. Several prominent women associated with Fox News came forward with allegations.

It seems that there are so many fat old dogs in heat in the news room that it's more like a stray dog pound than a serious news organization. 

BTW that one person was the head and founder of Fox News. He is morally corrupt and his stain spreads throughout the colossus that he created. Cause and effect. A meal made with dirty hands is tainted.


----------



## Sbrown (Jul 29, 2012)

No sense pointing out the holes and hypocrisy to a H supporter. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> America has a problem with women. That's obvious given the vicious push back Clinton is facing.


Just LMAO.... 

I guess you hate blacks if you didn't vote for Obama and you hate jews if you didn't vote for Sanders.

So many horrible people out there! Wow, who knew?!?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Sbrown said:


> No sense pointing out the holes and hypocrisy to a H supporter.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I assume you are referring to me. Where did I indicate who I was supporting. Should I blindly follow one or the other candidate without thoughtful analysis. 

We face one of the most serious periods in our elective history. Two candidates who, for different reasons, would be dangerous in the office of the President.

You never asked but I will tell you that between the two, I think Trump may be the lesser of two evils. Although he is a clown and bigot, he is so obvious that we may be able to limit the damage he can do. 

He has not had a chance nor shown a talent for forming deep ties with dangerous political operatives. His friends are like him, crude, simple, stupid, corrupt and incompetent. They will not be difficult to control and manipulate. 

The real fight is on the state and local level. When either of these two get into office, there should be a strong congress to keep them in check. 

There is every reason to poke holes when you see hypocrisy. Much of the criticism of Clinton centers around things that have nothing to do with her political activities. Her looks, dress, age, sex appeal or lack thereof are frequent topic. 

Trump looks like Humpty Dumpty with a Bozo the Clown wig. Every pic of his face shows another hideous distortion of the human visage. He is one butt ugly thing and he gesticulates like a fancy pants. 

The comedy of his appearance is rarely brought up. Yes, America has a big problem with women. I am not basing my decisions on intractable gender issues, as you can plainly see.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> Read the whole story. Several prominent women associated with Fox News came forward with allegations.
> 
> It seems that there are so many fat old dogs in heat in the news room that it's more like a stray dog pound than a serious news organization.
> 
> BTW that one person was the head and founder of Fox News. He is morally corrupt and his stain spreads throughout the colossus that he created. Cause and effect. A meal made with dirty hands is tainted.


This sort of thing is prevalent in just about every TV news organization. The difference is that the women at FOX decided to stand up against it. It's like anywhere in the entertainment business, and yes TV new is entertainment more than news these days.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> The comedy of his appearance is rarely brought up.


The comedy of his appearance is brought up constantly (and fairly so): his orange hue, the weasel perched on top of his head, the naked statue of him in NYC, just to name a few off the top of my head. To claim otherwise seems odd to me.

Personally, I think H is less of a threat than T, but it's not like that saying much. My concerns with her don't relate to appearances at all, but more her inner resemblance to Lucretia Borgia.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> minism.
> 
> These moral men want a return to a past that allowed them free access to any women who they lusted after, with or without their consent. Their message has nothing to do with a return to the great America of the past, it's all a ploy to satisfy their out of control lust for women.


So? What is your point?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> This sort of thing is prevalent in just about every TV news organization. The difference is that the women at FOX decided to stand up against it. It's like anywhere in the entertainment business, and yes TV new is entertainment more than news these days.


Actually the difference is that Murdoch intentionally goes out of his way to find young, long legged, big breasted women with long flowing hair and then proceeds to make them up and dress them like porn stars. If nothing else, Murdoch knows that sex sells and he has done a masterful job of using that to sell his point of view.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

bandit.45 said:


> So? What is your point?


just saying'


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

I want America to go back to the Spartan ideals. 

Keep American men and women separate for life. Men will be warriors and sexual drones and serve in the government...that's it. All American males will be taken from their families at six years of age and sent to camps where they will have no contact with women and spend the next twenty five years getting a very basic education (because men aren't as smart as women you know) training daily to fight and make war. 

American girls will have total social freedom. They will receive excellent educations, have complete social freedom, and can own and sell their own property, go where they want to at will.... When they grow up they will have freedom to divorce their husbands for the slightest infractions. Their job will be to run their husband's estates and bear as many male warriors as they can. They will enjoy much more social freedom than their husbands, who's lives will be centered on daily training and duty to the Army. 

The men will live out their lives in the military camps, away from their wives, and only visit their wives and children at night and on certain days of the week when it is allowed. They have to be back at the barracks by curfew each night. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, there will be less bickering between couples, and the men won't wear on their wive's nerves. Because there are no male children in the home, it will be only mothers and daughters, so it will be a completely maternalistic environment where women can enjoy all the goodness of being female without male interference. 

Oh, and sexual polyamory is accepted and even encouraged by the state, so that women can have sex with virile men of their choosing so that they can bear the strongest male children possible. The only caveat is that they must get their husband's permission, which would be easy since their marriage is nothing more than a business arrangement anyway. Romantic love is suppressed. It is all about keeping a steady population for the purpose of going to war. 

Foreigners will be brought in to run the industries, maintain the infrastructure, and grow crops. They will be held in check under fear of immediate attack by the army. 

Sounds good doesn't it?


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> . Although he is a clown and bigot, *he is so obvious that we may be able to limit the damage he can do. *


Very good point.

The damage Hillary could do would be much harder to see coming.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

BetrayedDad said:


> Just LMAO....
> 
> I guess you hate blacks if you didn't vote for Obama and you hate jews if you didn't vote for Sanders.
> 
> So many horrible people out there! Wow, who knew?!?


I voted for Obama the first time.
I voted for Sanders this time, because although I don't agree with any of his economic proposals, at least he isn't a totally corrupt criminal like HRC.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

SamsonAndDelilah said:


> Feminism is man's best friend.


Sure is. It teaches them to be empowered by having many sexual partners just like men are... You go girl! Another win for men.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> a totally corrupt criminal like HRC.


Surely THAT can't be why some people don't want to vote for her... 

Some sexist white Christian male planted that server in her basement!


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

becareful2 said:


> The feminist movement was but one piece of a larger puzzle. To credit them ignoring the other major contributors seem prejudicial.


I agree with the above. If you study history you will learn that women's roles have progressed (and regressed) over time and across cultures. The reasons for this are quite complex.

Personally, I do not consider my success in male-dominated education and career fields, nor my years of participation in male-dominated sports to be the work of the feminist movement. It's just not that simple.

However, I have had feminists attempt to shame me when I say as much.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The schools for my profession did not admit women in any appreciable numbers until the 70's. 

Feminism was directly responsible for the initiation of those changes. However, there is one thing that is not celebrated enough, it could never have happened without the cooperation and active assistance of men. 

Conversely, it would never have happened were it not for the women who were brave enough to buck the social norms in the first place.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> The schools for my profession did not admit women in any appreciable numbers until the 70's.
> 
> Feminism was directly responsible for the initiation of those changes. However, there is one thing that is not celebrated enough, it could never have happened without the cooperation and active assistance of men.
> 
> Conversely, it would never have happened were it not for the women who were brave enough to buck the social norms in the first place.


When I started in college 1968, I was not allowed to take the courses that I wanted to in math and engineering. I was told that women could not do that. When I went back to college in 1980, I was finally allowed to get the degree I wanted.

I now women lawyers who in the 1960's and 1970's could not get jobs as attorneys. They could only get jobs as legal secretaries.

If anyone things that feminism had nothing to do with education and career fields opening up to women, they are clueless.

However, it is also true that some men had to go along with it for this to happen. And many of those men were also feminists, or at least astute enough to realize that what was going on prior was just plain wrong.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Men and women will not be punished for the seismic social evolution of the preceding 50 years. 

One thing that will not change is the evolutionary pressure for humans to have children and nurture them to raise future generations. Their genes will survive along with their flexibility and positive pairing traits. The genes of people who can't adjust will die off. 

Social and cultural changes usually evolve over a few centuries not 50 yrs. It's disorienting for many people but it will all come right.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> Men and women will not be punished for the seismic social evolution of the preceding 50 years.
> 
> One thing that will not change is the evolutionary pressure for humans to have children and nurture them to raise future generations. Their genes will survive along with their flexibility and positive pairing traits. The genes of people who can't adjust will die off.
> 
> Social and cultural changes usually evolve over a few centuries not 50 yrs. It's disorienting for many people but it will all come right.


One thing that people seem to overlook is that women have always been part of the work force. For most of man kind's existence on earth, women have worked just as hard as men. And there were few jobs working for employers. A couple simply worked side by side, be it farming, weaving, or whatever they did. Both worked.

With the industrial revolution, most people moved off the farm. AT first mostly men worked for employers. But it only makes sense for women to do as they have always done... work right along side men. And since the industrial revolution, an education and job skills have become more and more important, for both men and women.

If we want to remain an advanced civilization, we have to have equal rights and women need to be as productive as men... just as they always have been. Only now women can get credit for the work they do.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

@EleGirl I forgot about agrarian societies. Even today, women work beside their husbands on family farms.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> @EleGirl I forgot about agrarian societies. Even today, women work beside their husbands on family farms.


Yes they do.

Even today, in 3rd world countries where women still work the fields, the farm, make their clothing, etc., the gov only counts the effort of the men working on that same farm as GDP or workforce. The work done by women is not counted and not considered of importance. Yet the economies of those countries and the wellbeing of the society would plummet without the work of the women. It takes everyone to keep a society going.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

BetrayedDad said:


> Sure is. It teaches them to be empowered by having many sexual partners just like men are... You go girl! Another win for men.


I don't understand your thinking here. Why would women having sex be a win for men? Who are they having sex with? Women will not continue to have service sex. 

That's the point. Sex like men- they get orgasms, like men. There will be lots of men who will not make the cut, no winning for them. Answer win-win


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> I voted for Obama the first time.
> I voted for Sanders this time, because although I don't agree with any of his economic proposals, at least he isn't a totally corrupt criminal like HRC.


Since we're totally going down this rathole...

The part I'm having such a hard time getting is the highly disproportionate black vote for HRC over Sanders. 

Bill and Hill have a long list of highly questionable race incidents. Friendship with Robert Byrd & Harry Reid, memberships at white only clubs, cracks about how 30 years ago Obama would have been serving them instead of running against HRC, multiple cracks against MLK... The birther movement was started by HRC against Obama, the Islam rumors against Obama were started by HRC. 

Just google Hillary racism and you can have a lengthy list.

OTOH, Sanders has legit bonafides on race issues. He marched with MLK, has a heck of a track record, and NO hints of any racism. I just don't get it.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> The schools for my profession did not admit women in any appreciable numbers until the 70's.
> 
> Feminism was directly responsible for the initiation of those changes. However, there is one thing that is not celebrated enough, it could never have happened without the cooperation and active assistance of men.
> 
> Conversely, it would never have happened were it not for the women who were brave enough to buck the social norms in the first place.


In my profession it wasn’t an admissions problem rather that very few women even applied for the type of education required. I was one of only 2 females in my graduating class of many hundreds.

I see no evidence that this has changed much since I graduated (several decades ago). I live in a very large metropolitan area and there are still only a handful of women who are in my same profession. The industry is huge here. For whatever reason not many women are interested in my field.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw&index=8&list=PLbA7X2U_AzlKZhRkaHH-cJgRq9azNygpV




In the above clip, she says that (married) women only wear make-up outside the house because they want to attract sexual attention from men other than their husbands??

She says that this is why women don't wear make-up at home. Or why they sit around at home in sweat pants and partly washed off smudgy make-up.

----------------------------------------------------------

Before I was married, I would sit around at home, and not wear make-up

Before I was married, I would sit around home with sweatpants and smudgy,partly washed off mascara.

Before and after I was married, I would apply make-up for fun--with no-one around to see me or admire me.

I wear make-up to look my best---for every other human being who will see me. Men, women, children. Married people, single people, divorced people.

I admire women who put their make-up on, wear nice jewelry, have pretty hair and who smell good. I am not sexually attracted to them. To put it simply; they are more pleasant to be around.

I feel sorry that men can't wear make-up to improve themselves. To a large extent, they are "stuck" with what looks they have naturally.

Karen Straughan also brings up the old chestnut about women not valuing men for their looks, that men are only valuable for what they do.

^^^^Not true. Sure, men are valuable for what they do. But men are only sexually attractive if you find them to be good-looking.

----------------------------------------

I babysat for a family (in the 1970's) who instructed me to feed their son eggs and bacon; and their daughters generic-type Cheerios with reconstituted nonfat milk powder. So this, "men always eat last" is pure nonsense.


We ignore male children, and let them cry as infants,unattended; while we rush to reassure female babies???? 

Never heard of this. I always treated kids I looked after (and I looked after a lot) exactly the same. If I had a favorite, it was a little boy; who _almost_ made me think I would like to have kids of my own one day.

--------------------------------

I agree with what Catherine602 said upthread, this Karen Straughan want to score points with the guys by criticizing women.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> I don't understand your thinking here. Why would women having sex be a win for men? Who are they having sex with? Women will not continue to have service sex.
> 
> That's the point. Sex like men- they get orgasms, like men. There will be lots of men who will not make the cut, no winning for them. Answer win-win


Of course you don't....

You seem to fail to realize that men do not have to deal with the biological consequences of getting pregnant. So they can pump and dump to their heart's delight without fear and with more women putting out NSA sex, it's simply more opportunity for them. 

No birth control is 100% and when it fails or is forgotten, it's not the guy getting an abortion or pushing out the baby 9 months later. It is foolish for a woman, given these repercussions, NOT to limit the quantity of sexual partners to select higher quality mates. You have far more risk involved.


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

@NotMyRealName
Some of what she is saying about the Make-up is definitely BS. 
I don't wear it for other men, I wear it for me! 
And feeding men last? 
I grew up in a household where the women always ate last! 
I still do that, look after my husband before myself. 
Even the male cat gets his dinner before me!  


Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

MrsAldi said:


> @NotMyRealName
> Some of what she is saying about the Make-up is definitely BS.
> I don't wear it for other men, I wear it for me!
> And feeding men last?
> ...




And you (and your mom) probably do the thing, where, if one of something turns out bad; you eat that one.

One of the pancakes turned out bad, "I'll eat that one".

Two apples, one is bruised, "He can have the good one, I'll just cut the bruised part out and eat the other one".


I don't think my husband would even be happy that I do that; it's just something that women do, almost automatically.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I always find the Sparta legends amusing. For all their great warrior image, they got whupped by Athens. 

Smart wins - except for Mongols.






bandit.45 said:


> I want America to go back to the Spartan ideals.
> 
> Keep American men and women separate for life. Men will be warriors and sexual drones and serve in the government...that's it. All American males will be taken from their families at six years of age and sent to camps where they will have no contact with women and spend the next twenty five years getting a very basic education (because men aren't as smart as women you know) training daily to fight and make war.
> 
> ...


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> In my profession it wasn’t an admissions problem rather that very few women even applied for the type of education required. I was one of only 2 females in my graduating class of many hundreds.
> 
> I see no evidence that this has changed much since I graduated (several decades ago). I live in a very large metropolitan area and there are still only a handful of women who are in my same profession. The industry is huge here. For whatever reason not many women are interested in my field.


I've seen a change. When I started college there were 90 openings with about 120 applicants. I graduated with 3 women. When I left it dropped to about 70 applicants. In the 25 years since it's fallen to about 60 applicants but they are now graduating about a dozen women.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> In my profession it wasn’t an admissions problem rather that very few women even applied for the type of education required. I was one of only 2 females in my graduating class of many hundreds.
> 
> I see no evidence that this has changed much since I graduated (several decades ago). I live in a very large metropolitan area and there are still only a handful of women who are in my same profession. The industry is huge here. For whatever reason not many women are interested in my field.


What is your career field?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

BetrayedDad said:


> Of course you don't....
> 
> You seem to fail to realize that men do not have to deal with the biological consequences of getting pregnant. So they can pump and dump to their heart's delight without fear and with more women putting out NSA sex, it's simply more opportunity for them.
> 
> No birth control is 100% and when it fails or is forgotten, it's not the guy getting an abortion or pushing out the baby 9 months later. It is foolish for a woman, given these repercussions, NOT to limit the quantity of sexual partners to select higher quality mates. You have far more risk involved.


I get it just fine. 

What you say here is common teenaged boy fantasy. It is a reality in some subcultures currently. Men going from woman to woman and ending life with scores of children that they don't know. The primitive seed spreading boy-man. That segment of humanity will always exist. 

But a grown man who is master of his fate? From what I have seen of men, there is a lot of pride and respect for their ability to succeed and care for their family. Not much evidence of daydreaming about humiliating women and abandoning children. 

I will never understand why the sex act is a war dance for some men. Why do they think their penis is a weapon. I really don't get it. Why is a fantasy is to humiliate women by getting sex and dumping them so appealing. The ultimate fantasy is to dump a humiliated pregnant woman. What kind of issues do these fantasies reveal?


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> What is your career field?


I am an electrical engineer (EE) (digital and analog hardware design). Keep in mind that 1/3 to 1/2 of the people who have EE degrees do not work as EE's, they instead do software engineering (source National Science Foundation, nsf.gov).


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> I am an electrical engineer (EE) (digital and analog hardware design). Keep in mind that 1/3 to 1/2 of the people who have EE degrees do not work as EE's, they instead do software engineering (source National Science Foundation, nsf.gov).


I figured it was something like that. Only about 17% of students in the STEM fields are female. I seems to have to do with stereo typing in the way girls are socialized and taught in 1st-12th. 

My son has his degrees in applied mathamatics and physics. He and his friends have talked about this and how they have seen the girls they grew up with discouraged in school. What I find interesting is that they are not pleased with it. I find that interesting coming from a group of young men.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

uhtred said:


> I always find the Sparta legends amusing. For all their great warrior image, they got whupped by Athens.
> 
> Smart wins - except for Mongols.


Yeah but one of Sparta's generals came back a couple of years later and led the army of Rhoads to wipe out the Athenian army... I forget the name of the battle. 

They took the surviving Athenians, threw them in a quarry and starved them to death. Nice.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I figured it was something like that. Only about 17% of students in the STEM fields are female. I seems to have to do with stereo typing in the way girls are socialized and taught in 1st-12th.
> 
> My son has his degrees in applied mathamatics and physics. He and his friends have talked about this and how they have seen the girls they grew up with discouraged in school. What I find interesting is that they are not pleased with it. I find that interesting coming from a group of young men.


Yes, and if you check the numbers and trends (nsf.gov) of that 17%, 1.4% get BSEE’s. Reduce that by the number that go into software engineering instead of EE and, that is what I was referring to as a “handful”. It’s even smaller numbers if you look at mechanical engineers.

My other degree is applied mathematics. I was never discouraged in school; _perhaps I was just fortunate in that._ In my small-town high school they actually added several math and science courses to the curriculum just for me and 2 other (male) students. They also made arrangements for me to attend college courses starting in my sophomore year. To me, that was all encouragement (or they wanted to pass me off to someone else, ).

I don’t remember any discouragement in K-12 schools. Just a bit of impatience on the part of math and science teachers because I finished the curriculum work so fast. They solved that by passing me up a grade level or two. My EXH had similar experiences in K-12 schools.

For reference and time frame, I am 60 years old and attended K-12 in various US states, the UK and Spain.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> Yes, and if you check the numbers and trends (nsf.gov) of that 17%, 1.4% get BSEE’s. Reduce that by the number that go into software engineering instead of EE and, that is what I was referring to as a “handful”. It’s even smaller numbers if you look at mechanical engineers.


A lot more women go into software engineering because it’s a newer field. So it has a different culture that accepts women more easily. 



Red Sonja said:


> My other degree is applied mathematics. I was never discouraged in school; _perhaps I was just fortunate in that._ In my small-town high school they actually added several math and science courses to the curriculum just for me and 2 other (male) students. They also made arrangements for me to attend college courses starting in my sophomore year. To me, that was all encouragement (or they wanted to pass me off to someone else, ).


You are lucky if you were not discouraged.
When I was in high school I was discouraged from math and science and highly encouraged to get into languages and the arts. My brother on the other hand as highly encouraged to get into math and science. That was typical of the schools I went to in Europe and the USA. I think that different school systems did things differently.


Red Sonja said:


> I don’t remember any discouragement in K-12 schools. Just a bit of impatience on the part of math and science teachers because I finished the curriculum work so fast. They solved that by passing me up a grade level or two. My EXH had similar experiences in K-12 schools.


Then you were lucky for being in the right schools for what you needed.


Red Sonja said:


> For reference and time frame, I am 60 years old and attended K-12 in various US states, the UK and Spain.


I’m 67 and attended K-12 in the USA and international schools in Panama, Lebanon, Ethiopia, & Italy.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't know how things are at the K-12 level now, but the universities I'm (very) familiar with, around a dozen or so, would kill for additional STEM faculty members. A female Mech E PhD could (and does) write her own ticket.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

...


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

Personal said:


> Our 13 year old daughter also has a talent for mathematics and music (clarinet), where she is doing very well with both and is being actively encouraged at home and school to develop those talents.


I think you're an atheist, but please don't be offended when I say, "God Bless you". What a wonderful job of parenting.:smile2:


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

...


----------



## Begin again (Jul 4, 2016)

tripod said:


> The problem with making grammatical and spelling errors is that it's rather like giving a morality lecture in a clown suit.


My son has neurological issues that impact his writing and language skills. He will probably always make spelling and grammar mistakes. I just hope he doesn't encounter too many "clowns" like you in his life. He's not stupid, but your attitude is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Begin again said:


> My son has neurological issues that impact his writing and language skills. He will probably always make spelling and grammar mistakes. I just hope he doesn't encounter too many "clowns" like you in his life. He's not stupid, but your attitude is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Wanted to reassure you about your child. I have always had problems with spelling and composition, yet in all other areas, I excelled. I have had many intensive therapies throughout childhood to try and solve the problem with limited results. I am not a failure in life. 

I need to edit expensively but I still have errors. There are well engineered ways to overcome deficits. Word-processing, spell grammar check, proof-reading and a good editor all work well for formal writing. Informal writing is far more forgiving, most of the time. It is amazing how infrequently people judge. Most people are humble and kind and too aware of their own faults. 

The people who deflect the discussion by taking issue with grammar, lack the mental flexibility to deal with real challenge and/or have delusions of grammar.


----------



## Begin again (Jul 4, 2016)

"Male safe space!??!?

Here's a safe space for you!
_Posted via Mobile Device_https://youtu.be/IAHVCvV6vE4
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

