Posted on 12/27/2004 3:53:19 AM PST by Clive
One of the biggest lies perpetuated by modern-day feminists is the contention that feminism is about equality. Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge.
Apparently, breaking down barriers and smashing glass ceilings is laudable only when women are the beneficiaries. Equality is not a two-way street for these feminists. It's more of a one-way street with a dead end. That's why the movement is going nowhere in the eyes of many young women, including myself.
Recently, a group of women decided to file a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. They weren't too happy about the fact that an exclusive Vancouver golf club boasts a male-only lounge. They said it was sexist. And they're right. But that doesn't mean that this lounge should be forced to accept female members.
Equality is not about getting ovaries into any and every boys' club. Women in this country have the right to form their own clubs (whether it be co-ed or just for ladies) and that's what equality is about. The law should only provide opportunity. It's up to the individual to do the rest.
So if women in Vancouver want a posh place to eat meals and chat about golf, then they have every right to create their own establishment. They also have the option to bar men or admit them. And while feminists want the right to barge into all-male establishments, it seems that what's good for the goose is not so good for the gander.
When Ralph Gordon Stopps tried to take advantage of a free 10-day membership at a local gym club, he was denied entry. The basis for this rejection? Genitalia. It appears that Mr. Stopps has the wrong "parts" to become a member of "Just Ladies Fitness."
Where are the feminists now? Why aren't they standing up for Mr. Stopps and the outrageous discrimination he has faced based purely on sex? Why is it OK to have fitness clubs for women only, but a group of male golf buddies can't sit around and talk about how Tiger Woods' game has gone downhill ever since he tied the knot?
The truth is, feminists will never defend someone like Mr. Stopps. Feminists want to eat their cake while the men in the world dine on Timbits.
Don't believe me? Brigitte LeBlanc, a 14-year-old Moncton girl, wasn't satisfied playing hockey with the boys. She wanted more. So she petitioned the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission to grant her the right to use the boys' locker room. Astonishingly, she won.
Surely, there are a few 14-year-old boys out there who wouldn't mind gaining entry to the girls' locker room. But you can bet that day will never come. We have a greater chance of hearing Carolyn Parrish praise the Bush administration.
But I digress. Time and time again, we have women demanding access to boys' teams and boys' clubs.
Remember Robyn Waite? She's the Ontario high school girl who plays quarterback on the boys' football team. Before her, there was Justine Blainey and Hayley Wickenheiser, who fought for and won the right to skate with the boys. And the LPGA wasn't good enough for Annika Sorenstam, so she decided to tee off with the men during a 2003 PGA tournament.
It seems that every time a female voice challenges a male team, the guys are eventually forced to swing open their door and welcome the newest member. But the door doesn't swing both ways.
Female athletes continue to have the luxury of maintaining girls' teams and girls' clubs. Guys no longer have that right. And that's discrimination.
When Brian Kontak realized that he couldn't earn a living playing in the PGA, he wanted to try his luck with the LPGA. The women were not amused.
Now, there's a boy in Wisconsin who wants to compete on his high school's gymnastic team. Only problem is that his school doesn't have a team for boys. So, hoping to earn a scholarship in order to attend college, Keith Michael Bukowski wants the chance to spring vault and somersault with the ladies. Kudos to the young lad for making a point, but hopefully he's not holding his breath.
The truth is, equality isn't so important for feminists when the person seeking parity is a guy. Equal treatment only applies when it benefits women. And that's why feminism just doesn't add up.
-
Yep. Feminists will not let boys be boys. Which is exactly the point.
Sauce-for-the-Goose bump
It's just that some animals are more equal than others. Two legs good, three legs bad.
feminists rally around the pole of hate not equality....
I had this kind of discussion with a girl I work with last week. I said this:
"Ya know, I think it's completely unfair that women are treated differently than men. So, tomorrow you should go register for the draft, then buy me some jewelry and take me to dinner."
You should have seen the look on her face. :)
The feminists are their own worst enemy because they don't practice what they preach. Also when someone such as President Clinton is implicated in sexual harassment they keep their mouths shut. They practice what I call a "selective application of the rules". You only enforce the rules if the object of the enforcement does not enjoy most favored person or organization status. If you want to be considered seriously instead of a bunch of crackpots you should be consistent. Even if you'd rather not because being fair does not care about race, creed, color or political belief. It is only fair if it applied evenly across the spectrum.
I believe Freud called it: "Penis envy".
Seems the feminazis have it REAL BAD.
I always made it a point to make my female Marines do the SAME TRAINING as the men did. No excuses. No slack. The only time I did not was when I slammed a female during hand-to-hand training. She just flew up in the air so easily and came down so hard, I about had a heart attack. To her credit, she was back in action in a few minutes.
"Two legs good, three legs bad"
Baaaaaaad! Femosheepbot bump!
In the 80's, I worked for one.
She told me, "All men need to pay for years of discrimination and exploitation of women".
At the time, the Boston Globe was running a story, (and editorially touching itself over it,) about a female vice president at Digital who, one day, summarily fired all the men who worked for her.
This was the very closest I had ever come to murder in the workplace. It was nearly twenty years ago, and I am still enraged to think of it. It made me absolutely determined never to be forced into any "sensitivity" sessions or other PC- I simply explained to whomever I reported to at the time that I would violently disrupt such a thing with a near fatal dose of Ex-Lax.
In those years, my wife had a high-pressure career in Advertising; We are well aware that there were injustices, and we fought them consructively in our own way, up to and including legal action. So I am making a distinction about equality and Justice versus revenge-tantrums.
The Marine Corps made us watch a 15 minute film on women's contributions in the service and tried to liken a 15 minute firefight in Panama with extended combat for women! Of course, it was pure crap and we all knew it. But it was mandated by DACOWITS and the brass did not have the cojones to tell them so. Even the females thought that it was pure BS. BTW, DACOWITS is (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service). I'm still waiting for DACOMITS.
a rat is a dog is a pig is a feminist (with profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs)...
Since many of them don't reproduce, their numbers will keep getting smaller and smaller. Just like gay men. Good riddance to both.
LOL! That's hysterical!
And it's also one of the reasons I'm not a feminist. I happen to like getting diamond earrings for Christmas. ;-)
Feminists see boys as "dhimmi".
BINGO!
I have seen a few of these bull dykes up close and they're about as sexy as a used baseball mitt! They're so damn ugly they'd make a freight train take a dirt road.
Just more rantings from another one of our fine left-wing, radical fringe groups...aren't liberals beautiful???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.