Raising the volume on what men think about feminism

The Age ^ | Sushi Das

[John O]

Thank You.

but as a father of a mere four year old

She's five now. And if she were here she would let you know in a most indignant manner. (Kids are just so cute!)

[Alkhin]

God wrote in dust, not snow. The perfect were seldom used. It was the broken, damaged, twisted and discarded that he called upon the most.

That was a BEAUTIFUL post!!! Thank you!! I needed that!!

[Alkhin]

Are you Muslim? Because you talk as if you have never lived through the centuries of change that occured in Western civilization, the changes in attitudes towards marriage that occured as more and more people realized that a husband and wife are more than just machines for procreation. You talk as if you have never actually had a relationship beyond what satisfies your sense of security...or lack thereof. This is a pathology that is showing up in Islamic societies everywhere.

Youre hiding from something in yourself. Thats becoming patently clear with each and every post you make. It isnt about the women who don't act the way you want them to. Its about your inability to face your own humanity. You are denying something in yourself that you have apparently spent LOTS of time rationalizing and creating a pseudo-philosophy for. I swear, sometimes the things you post sound like they come straight out of a college textbook.

You need therapy, hun.

[luckystarmom]

When you first started posting, you lumped all American women into the feminist group.

Go back and reread some of your posts:

471, 475, 480, 488, 511, 527, 530

You come off as hating all American women. Later on, you change it to feminist, but I think you lump all American women into this group.

I think feminism went to far, but there were good things to come out of it. There were also very bad things that came out of it.

The good things is that women started going to college and had a choice to work or not work, have kids/not have kids, and it was all okay. Also, women started getting more equivalent pay when they did work.

The bad things that have come out of feminism are the men bashing and all men are evil. The thought that it is okay for a single mom to raise a child without the dad involved. Even to the extent that hey if you're not married just go to a sperm bank and get pregnant.

The other bad thing about modern feminism is that it bashes stay at home moms.

Most of the negative remarks about men were only about men who mail order their brides from third world countries. Most of the women in this discussion think that is an awful practice and degrades women. It reduces women to a piece of meat to be bought and sold.

[JasonC]

Asked and answered, no and none. Once again, a commie losing an argument reaches for the ad hominem.

[JasonC]

Of course. But take a step back and look at yourself, what you are doing, given the current state of the culture on the subject of marriage. Marriage is under systematic assault by well funded activists. Legislation is pending in several states to redefine it out of existence. The focus is on stripping out its core, removing any vestige of duty from it, and replacing it with an affair of convenience for the sake of empheral interests of adults. And you are here lambasting someone for maintaining that children as the core reason for marriage, and calling that a cheapening of it. Um, if regarding children as a core of marriage cheapens it, what about regarding the core of marriage as sodomy?

[JasonC]

Prove it. Now you are merely lying. I said children are the core purpose of marriage. The rest is your preference for debating straw men, rather than the person you are actually talking to.

[JasonC]

Oh I have no first hand experience of marriage? Do you think a stork brought me here?

[Melas]

Pssst, that would be 2nd hand. You didn't experience your parents marriage first hand.

[JasonC]

My excessively high standards are "need not exist". I am simply not interested. Pretend you are God all you like, laugh at whatever you please. I'll still call Stalinist jerks the jerks they are, until doomsday.

When somebody dies, we bury their empty body with due ceremony. Everybody is mortal. If being told you are mortal gives you the willies, why not take up knitting?

The comment about "shelf life" had nothing to do with the comatose. Nor had it anything to do with those already married and parents. It was about people and especially women who reach 40 without having married. They are quite unlikely to do so. The reason is nature, which cannot be expelled with PC pickforks but always comes back.

[John O]

But take a step back and look at yourself, what you are doing, given the current state of the culture on the subject of marriage

And what am I doing? Pointing out biblical truth. As I said earlier, you don't have to agree, but the truth is the truth.

And you are here lambasting someone for maintaining that children as the core reason for marriage, and calling that a cheapening of it.

First of all I did not lambaste anyone. I expressed my points, you disagreed. I noted that you have that right.

Secondly. While children are an important reason for marriage they are not the first one that God brings up. I'll go with His word over yours (or anyone else's anyday)

Um, if regarding children as a core of marriage cheapens it, what about regarding the core of marriage as sodomy?

You are the only one talking about sodomy. Obviosuly marriage is between a man and a woman. as it has been for all time and for the length of this discussion.

[John O]

Another unmarried marriage counselor.

[JasonC]

No, I am not a Muslim. Once again a communist losing an argument reaches for an ad homimen. Once again you try to argue against straw men because you can't face the person in front of you. The primary purpose of marriage is having and raising children. That is what the institution is for. Trying to change it into something else peripheral to that, is trying to destroy it.

Feminists want to destroy marriage because at its heart are duties to something larger than self, and they aren't interested in any of those. By first pretending that secondary aspects of marriage are its essence, they deliberately make it fluid and optional.

If romantic love, not children, is the purpose of marriage, then as soon as it fades if only for a moment, divorce is perfectly rational. If children are not central to marriage but self realization is, then murdering one's children for the sake of one's career is perfectly normal. If marriage exists to civilize bestial men, then the instant a marriage is dissolved the father becomes a beast and may be treated as one. If pleasure is the purpose of marriage, then anybody can marry anything, and divorce again over a hangnail.

What is used to justify this ruinous assault, which as a fact kills a quarter of our children, renders a third of those left fatherless, and half of those left in broken homes later on? Pure impudence, that's what. Allegations of horridness directed at entirely decent people with the least color of evidence or fact. They simply say anyone who disagrees with them is a slavedriver, a criminal, a monster, flat making it up out of nothing. As a fact, no one here has been wronged in the slightest by the imaginary crimes they impute to their foes. But plenty of people here have been very materially harmed by their ideology.

It is the Stalinist playbook, all over. Free producers of wealth who haven't harmed a soul are simply smeared as ogres in order to despoil them. Is anyone participating in this thread able to cite a single injury I have ever done them? That I have ever done anyone else, whom they pretend to speak for? No. But they are still entirely free with their allegations of monsterhood. Over what? Having the gall to call them what they are.

[JasonC]

You bet I did. Children know a darn sight more about marriage than feminists do. Try explaining the oppressive patriarchy to a young woman who has never met her father.

[JasonC]

Inaccurate as a reconstruction of the events, but understandable. One of my first posts to a prior poster did indeed speak of modern American women. But did so in reply to the statement that if modern American women looked abroad for husbands, there would be an outcry. I denied there would be such an outcry, and there wouldn't. The person I was responding to spoke as though American women were so important we'd all be heartbroken if they sent their affections elsewhere. That sentiment is all I was denying. It was a defense of American men looking for non-feminist women wherever they please.

[Alkhin]

OOOOH I get it - you're one of those "enlightened" individuals who doesnt belive in a power higher than himself...."it's all in me head."

Well that must be quite comforting at night.

As I said before, the words "shelf life" are offensive in ANY context. It says more about the person saying them than it does about the object it is directed at.

I think you are the one in fear of mortality. Life is about giving up oneself in teh service of another. A man gives up his life for his beloved, and vice versa. Its in the Bible. If that isnt proof that a marriage is more than the product of its parts, then I dont know what is. And your assertion that marriage is nothing but a materialist expression of purpose is as much a lie as any Stalinist.

Ive concluded, you're a raving lunatic. I wont call you a misogynist, because I dont even think you can step outside your little bubble of pseudo-philosophy to allow that kind of emotion in. You're an echo chamber whose words have no meaning to the rest of humanity. Call us Stalinist? Call us communist? I call you a waste of time.

[Candor7]

What is the difference between Sincere and Unsincere love?

Not much, both happen to all of us at one time or the other. My dog wouldn't love me sincerely if I didn't feed him!

Very few traditional international women are bothered by false romanticism and its puling needs.

They got the real thing!

[Melas]

Please Jason, you damned well what I mean, and Clintonesque evasions aren't becoming on you. Children do not experience marriage first hand. I know this damned well having been a child, a parent and a spouse. Only married people get to experience marriage first hand. All other are looking in from the outside. Your rants about feminism aside, any feminist who's been married has a more thorough understanding of the institution than you do.

[JasonC]

My assertion? Words you pretend to stuff in my mouth are not my assertions.

And of course service to something larger than oneself is the point of all striving. That is why children - who are more important than their parents - and duties toward them - which is service to something larger than oneself - is the point of marriage. Instead of the selfish desires of the parents.

And one does not need to be married to serve others. Nor does the family cease to exist horizontally. Nor is it restricted to one line in time.

As for the statement that the words "shelf life" are offensive in any context, how about on a milk carton? It is pure bilge, making up offense to take in order to paint perfectly reasonable people expressing perfectly obvious facts as immoral monsters. Uncharitably.

Trying to find monsters where there are none in order to spread unreasoning hatred of perfectly decent human beings, is stalinist style agitprop, whatever the motive or movement involved. And you are doing it, and you should be ashamed of yourself, and apologize for it. But you won't. You are too busy congratulating yourself on your transcendent service to others, to notice you are wronging innocents to no purpose.

[JasonC]

Rants aside, no feminist has the slighest idea what marriage is, even if she has been married forty times.