When conservatives and the GOP (not necessarily the same thing) objected to activism leading up to the Roe v Wade decision, we began to hear the bleating of Democrats as they wailed and whined about a "War On Women". This false framing was meant to inflame the passions of stupid women and spineless men against Republicans, because that's a better tactic than appealing to intelligence that may not exist. (We conservatives really need to adopt this strategy and make it a weapon for good.)
Of course the reality is, as it always has been, that the unborn are human beings...people...persons...endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. This is, as it always has been, the reason conservatives and moral people everywhere oppose abortion except to save the life of the mother in those almost non-existent cases where a pregnancy puts her life at risk...if the mother so chooses not to take that risk.
But today more than ever we see who it is who is waging this war one women. In every way, Democrats and other leftists are the true aggressors against women, their true oppressors. The worst part is, some of those waging this war are women, too. They exploit women in whatever manner best suits their extremist agenda without regard to the harm they force women to suffer. Let us count the ways:
1. "The Right To Choose"
Since I mentioned abortion already, I'll begin the list with it. As the subtitle suggests, the issue has been falsely framed as a woman's right to choose her medical decisions. But no one has ever sought to deny them this authority. However, what is being "chosen" is to kill a child. The many problems for women aborting have been presented many times in many ways at many different websites. These many problems...harm to their physical, mental and emotional health... are rejected and dismissed by the leftist and radical feminists (no friend to real women) as they market abortion as a tool for enhancing "self-determination". In reality, it leaves them more vulnerable to men who will take advantage of this "right" in their quest to use women for sexual purposes. The left defends it.
2. Pornography
This is marketed under the fraud of "free speech". Nonsense. There's no real "speech" that is protected under this ruse. No lesson taught, no cause championed, no political issue to address. It isn't a means to celebrate the beauty of the human (mostly female) body. It's simply a way to indulge sexual urges. And in order to satiate such urges, women are routinely victimized. All manner of perversion and deviancy is allowed and porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. Take women out of that equation, and the industry dies quickly (homosexual porn would not sustain it). What's more, women in porn, who laughingly are regarded by themselves and purveyors as "actresses", are nothing more than women prostituting themselves. Worse, too many are forced into the "business" for the enrichment of others. There is no moral aspect of pornography, and the left defends it.
3. Immigration
The horror of the current administration's moronic immigration policy is a distinct assault on women. By reversing Trump policy, human trafficking is made easier. Women and girls are the main victims of human trafficking and enslavement takes place within our borders as a result. Women and girls are forced into porn and prostitution (same thing, really) in order to enrich traffickers. Also, as Biden's erasing of our borders and invitation that we'll accept absolutely anyone for any reason with any issues that will do nothing but increase American problems and costs, women are subjecting themselves to all manner of threat by the cartels who force payment in order to "protect" their journey to our country, often raping them along the way. This doesn't even get to the many crimes against women perpetrated by illegal immigrants the left invites into our country with little to no vetting. And the left defends these immigration policies.
4. Gun control
While I am not one who believes guns are the ultimate answer to self-protection, they are one answer and have been instrumental in protecting innocent people since firearms were invented. Called "the Great Equalizer", handguns provide for weaker people a ready means to defend against stronger, more aggressive oppressors. This means that women can ward off assholes. But gun control makes that harder. A government against whom the 2nd Amendment was written to defend us believes itself possessed of the authority to disarm us. Women are most victimized by this world class idiocy and the left defends it.
5. Transgender "rights"
With the U.S House of Representatives passing the damnable "Equality Act", women are victimized by the left once again. Should this abomination pass the Senate and get signed by President Asterisk, women will effectively be thrown back to pre-historic times. They will be made subordinate to men, specifically mentally disordered men who think they're women. Catering to these men (as well as to women similarly afflicted) is not the way people of compassion help them. But putting that aside, the effects on women are monstrous. It took a long time for women to attain the level of equality they will now lose with the passage of this Act. Athletics in particular, women's facilities most tragically, employment at well will all be made "women optional". Women will risk greater injury with men competing against them in sports. They will lose jobs with men competing in positions meant for women. Look at what President Mumbles did with his nomination of Richard Levine for assistant HHS secretary. An actual woman could've been nominated, but as he did with all of his appointments, President Puppet nominated by identity politics rather than by qualification and merit. Leftist defend this.
6. Radical feminism
One might think this is counter intuitive. The reality is that radical feminism has done great harm to women. I mean really, how does "manhole" hurt women? Why must the name of this thing be changed? What kind of moron thinks "mankind" does not include women and children as well? The radical feminist moron...that's who.
Radical feminism has served to erase the important differences between men and women in a false attempt to provide women equality. This nonsense has led to things like the disparagement of women who choose to be mothers and homemakers...as if those aren't important cultural endeavors. It has led to the devaluation of rape, by making everything rape. It has led to the stupidity of regarding as sexist the act of a man holding a door open for a woman. It has led to the conflict of women looking for recreational sex, which makes them victims of men looking for recreational sex. Women are then often faced with the problems associated with it, such as pregnancies and disease. It has led to the notion that women are weak and unable to overcome problems that come their way (both my mother, mother-in-law, wife and all three daughters---only two of which are conservative---would strongly disagree) and need some governmental help to get by. It has led to more effeminate men and a smaller pool of worthy men to marry when women guided by feminism decide they want to marry.
Real women rebuke radical feminists and don't believe they're at some great disadvantage they cannot overcome if they really want to achieve. For the women in my life, I don't even think the thought ever crosses their minds. But the left defends this crap.
7. Politics
This is a most egregious area of concern. Women are constantly exploited for political purposes by the left more than by anyone. This is what the left does with every group, pitting one group against the opposing party as if that group is not a concern of the opposing party. And women are among the most exploited. "The first woman" this, and "the first woman" that. Hillary got support in 2016 because of her sex. Biden picked many women for appointments just to cross off the "woman box" on his list of identity politics selections. Some will say the GOP does it as well. I would argue that the GOP are more prone to seeking out qualified people and then, if it seems politically profitable, pick from that list a woman. Look at Vice President Cackles (Hat tip Theodore Roosevelt Malloch). She was not chosen for any reason regarding merit. She wasn't even chosen because Americans actually wanted her. She was chosen because she's a woman (as well as a minority). That checked off the box. Now it's true, finding a woman of true substance and merit among the Democrats is a tough job, but in that case, there were plenty of moronic men among them from which to choose, any number of which are certainly more qualified and intelligent than this tramp. But the left defends these selections. "It's time", they say. That may be true...if one wants to stretch reason to its extreme...but to select a woman simply because she's a woman is an insult to women, just as selecting a black person just because the person is black is insulting to black people. Merit is everything. Superficial characteristics such as sex or race are nothing. That's true of the politics of business as well as the politics of government, but pandering is what the left does and what the left defends.
So as is so easily seen, if there's anyone waging a war on women, it's the left/progressive/Democrat Party...not the GOP or conservatives. I resisted the compulsion to go into great detail on any of these areas, and could likely have come up with more areas where Dems have shown their disregard. Most annoyingly deceitful is the criticism of the use of words like "whore" and "slut" in reference to women who are actually and demonstrably whores and sluts as some kind of insult to all of womanhood. Defending women's choice of provocative dress with the nonsensical "teach boys not to rape" is classic leftist bile. Suggesting women and girls be cognizant of their choices because they be putting themselves at risk by how they dress, where they go and with whom they spend their time is somehow patriarchal to the leftist. It's almost as if the leftist wants to see women suffer. But then, that's what one <i>does</i> want when waging war, and the left has been warring against women for a long time.
UPDATE::
Below is a link to an article describing how the left cares so deeply for females. That's sarcasm. Allowing girls to subject themselves to irreversible surgical/chemical procedures shows a vile lack of disregard for their welfare.
https://www.city-journal.org/canadian-father-jailed-for-speaking-out-about-trans-identifying-child
46 comments:
Great points! Feminism is poison to women, as the premise is that men are better and therefore women need to be like men. The Molech-worshiping ghouls who are pro-abortion conned women into believing that they must be able to kill their children to be "equal" to men. That can't help but diminish the concept of motherhood in the eyes of all Leftists.
"Most annoyingly deceitful is the criticism of the use of words like "whore" and "slut" in reference to women who are actually and demonstrably whores and sluts as some kind of insult to all of womanhood. Defending women's choice of provocative dress with the nonsensical "teach boys not to rape" is classic leftist bile. Suggesting women and girls be cognizant of their choices because they be putting themselves at risk by how they dress, where they go and with whom they spend their time is somehow patriarchal to the leftist."
On the one hand, they insist men of any bent, provided they're Progressive/Liberal/Yada-Yada, ALL behave as whatever subsection of deviancy they identify with would typically act. While on the other, they insist you don't get caught in uncompromising positions which the larger public would decry and make the Progressive/Liberal/Yada-Yada loose face... which, if you think about it, is just another subsection of deviancy the Progressive/Liberal/Yada-Yada haven't found a name for. After all, one cannot identify with what one cannot name.
Neil,
As I suggested, I could do a post for each of the points on the list. There's just so much wrong with the accusation that it is the GOP/conservatism (not the same thing) waging this war on women. Radical feminism is one that might require multiple posts to discuss how they've made things worse for women, despite its origins. Conservatives simply don't care if a woman has proven herself to be capable and will without a problem follow her lead. But no conservative will simply assume such capability exists in anyone, man or woman, without that capability being proven. Conservatives don't necessarily believe that space must be carved out for women to prove themselves, but also don't believe so with regard to men. When a position opens up, the conservative will judge according to how every potential choice has proven themselves to that point and make a decision based on that proof as well as whatever the hell else matters to the conservative making the choice. That's as it should be, for the sake of all, including the woman. Men have lived entire lives having failed to prove themselves to those who have the authority to decide. They deal or move on and some have still failed to measure up. One can pretend they've been victims or simply deal. Women, too. That's as it should be.
I have no problem working with or in subordinate positions to women. As with anyone else, I prefer to be the least of the bunch, in terms of smarts and ability. This means I'm with a really good bunch if I'm the worst. If all else are women, what difference does that make to me? What matters is getting the job done. But make no mistake, sex matters to many jobs. Women are NOT able to do all that men can do, nor are men able to do all women can do. All should accept that reality.
Eric,
What you quoted was in reference to a buffoon who actually had the audacity to suggest that the mere mention of those words was somehow an affront to women everywhere and that women would be likely to take great offense and feel oppressed at the mere sound of them. I'm so glad I don't know any women so shallow and weak. I've sought them out, having polled a couple dozen women to see if the words provoke such feelings in them. Not a one expressed anything more than the desire they not be referred to with either of those terms.
In reality, the buffoon...let's call him "Dan Trabue"...was too invested in promoting the idea that Donald Trump is a rapist, a sexual predator, an abuser of women. He referred to the rather long list of women claiming to have been so victimized by him. I found details on half a dozen of them. The only one who used the word "rape" was his ex, Ivana Trump, who later backed away from that word, saying she was pissed at him when she wrote about him raping her while married. Two others were Stormy Daniels and another woman whose name escapes me. Daniels is a porn star. The other posed naked for some magazine and I believe has some designs on a career in entertainment. Since "whore" is another word for "prostitute", it applies to both women as they both traded their bodies for money, particularly Daniels. They both claim to have had a sexual affair with Trump, knowing he was married at the time. I'd say "slut" is an appropriate word. Dan argues in their defense that they were powerless to resist Trump's charms, apparently, and against their strongest attempts to resist, they were powerless to do so because Trump is such a predator or some crap. So, despite the fact that these were fully grown women, no strangers to selling themselves for money, fully cognizant Trump as married and consented of their own free will to allegedly have sex with the guy, they were yet victimized. I'm not sure how that works. Dan would say it's because Trump is rich and powerful. I believe it's only because it's Donald Trump.
The point is, these women are both whores and sluts. I don't care if actual whores and sluts don't like the words. I don't care if radical feminists and their emasculated defenders like Dan don't like them, either. As a mere epithet...a pejorative...women call other women whores and sluts more than men do. But I used the words because that's what the women are. And no, Dan, it still doesn't matter what their lives have been like. They're grown women allegedly strong enough and mature enough to make their own decisions. The decided to have sex with a married man, accepted money to keep quiet about it and then blabbed nonetheless. Who's the real victim here?
I digressed. The point is that radical feminists, like all lefties, redefine words to push their twisted agenda. They regard rape as anything they say it is. A dude and a chick both getting hammered and have sex. They say the chick was raped. The dude wasn't even if he dropped trow because the chick pressured him. The feminists and leftists are not friends to womanhood.
And yes, many women are believing like whores and sluts. Thanks to feminism many of these sluts have slept with over 100 guys and don't realize why no one wants to marry them. They are that deluded.
Many women won't fight against "trans" dudes competing in their sports, yet they whine when NBA players make more than WNBA players - ignoring that the public doesn't care to watch women's basketball.
Misogynistic crap like this is why the majority of women don't vote for the GOP. You can't attack (and you are attacking) group after group after group - women, gay folk, racial minorities, feminists, etc, etc - and expect to keep winning the vote.
No wonder the GOP is currently fighting for its life by trying to LIMIT voting and make MORE hoops for voters to get through... deflating the vote is their only hope for remaining a viable party. With the majority of the nation increasingly turned off by this sort of sexist, xenophobic nonsense, you just no longer have a majority support.
And rule by a minority is not going to get you very far. We recognize the evil of apartheid.
Neil... "And yes, many women are believing like whores and sluts. Thanks to feminism many of these sluts have slept with over 100 guys and don't realize why no one wants to marry them. They are that deluded."
And people like NEIL thinks that with this sort of gutter mouth attack on women that they're speaking up for women. They are that deluded.
The thing is: Women see your deviant trash talk and recognize you for the pervert that you are. It's just sad that people like Neil have hardened their hearts and closed their eyes to grace and justice and have landed on the side of sexual predators.
May God soften their hard cruel hearts and open their eyes so that they one day repent.
Wow. Dan is so nice to come and illustrate just what I've been saying about leftists and their war on women!
"Misogynistic crap like this is why the majority of women don't vote for the GOP."
Leave it to a lefty to insist that opposing bad behavior is "misogynistic" or an attack on the people who engage in it. They push for tolerance of bad behaviors by forming groups who engage in them to stand as "victims" of GOP "hate". Only other leftists pretend they buy into the blatant deception.
"No wonder the GOP is currently fighting for its life by trying to LIMIT voting and make MORE hoops for voters to get through..."
Another intentional leftist distortion of reality meant to inflame the passions of those who don't pay attention (a very important demographic for the Democrat Party). The GOP indeed is trying to limit voting. It is trying hard to limit voting to only those who are eligible to vote. Some limitations revolve around properly filling out ballots and when...simple rules that no one is unable to follow if they have the slightest devotion to the integrity of elections. It's clear that those who don't pay attention are more often than not Democrat voters, and as such one can see how desperate lefties are to ignore rules in order to win elections. It's how they got Biden in the White House.
"...deflating the vote is their only hope for remaining a viable party."
Removing rules and procedures that strengthen the integrity of elections is the Democrats' only hope for winning elections. It's how they got Biden in the White House.
"With the majority of the nation increasingly turned off by this sort of sexist, xenophobic nonsense, you just no longer have a majority support."
Referring to bad behaviors as "sexist" or "xenophobic" doesn't mitigate the reality of the bad behaviors leftists defend. If I find myself in the minority due to my opposition to those bad behaviors, it's an indictment on the majority, not me. I'm proud to stand with truth, wisdom and the Will of God...all things anathema to leftists like Dan.
"And rule by a minority is not going to get you very far."
Tyranny is evil whether by majority or minority. Tyranny is what comes from voting Democrat.
"We recognize the evil of apartheid."
...says the guy who endorses marginalizing and disenfranchising people defending morality, virtue, truth, wisdom and the Will of God.
"And people like NEIL thinks that with this sort of gutter mouth attack on women that they're speaking up for women."
And people like DAN think that defending moral behavior is an attack on women. The thing is, women of virtue see Dan for the deviant pervert that he is in defending immoral behavior in the way he so passionately does. It's just sad that people like Dan are so corrupt that God seems to have given them over to their corruption, having closed their eyes and hearts to the Will of God as clearly revealed in the Scripture they reject, and as such have become blatant enablers of sexual predators.
May God have mercy on and protect those women who suffer as a result of people like Dan.
Marshall, thanks as always for the community service you perform in addressing Dan. When I see his name as a commenter I just skip ahead.
P.S. This post made me think of Progressive "Christians" like Dan -- https://moonbattery.com/satanist-praises-progressive-christians/ . They are indistinguishable from the world.
False claim 1 (in the VERY FIRST sentence in response to my actual words):
"Leave it to a lefty to insist that opposing bad behavior is "misogynistic" or an attack on the people who engage in it."
I never said that "opposing bad behavior" is an attack. Read that again. Understand it. I NEVER said that opposing bad behavior is an attack on anyone.
That is a stupidly false claim Stupid, because anyone can see that I didn't say it and anyone who reads my words knows I am fine with opposing bad behavior.
Now, can you admit you just made a false claim, that it was wrong, and now you see it and know better?
You know, like an adult?
"You can't attack (and you are attacking) group after group after group - women, gay folk, racial minorities, feminists, etc, etc - and expect to keep winning the vote."
Looks to me like he's referring to behavior, not group. I think the problem might come if/when the group is defined by their behavior, I'm sure that's confusing.
"I never said that "opposing bad behavior" is an attack."
Well, yes you did. Not in so many words, but you did nonetheless, given since bad behavior is the issue at hand. That is, unless you're referring to something else about which you chose or failed to reference before speaking of "misogynistic crap". So there you go, I'm throwing you a bone, giving you an out to make it easier to tap dance your way out.
But I don't think you can. Look at your other comment:
"Neil... "And yes, many women are believing like whores and sluts. Thanks to feminism many of these sluts have slept with over 100 guys and don't realize why no one wants to marry them. They are that deluded."
And people like NEIL thinks that with this sort of gutter mouth attack on women that they're speaking up for women."
Neil is clearly talking about bad behavior...about women who believe like whores and sluts who sleep around. Then right there from your own virtual mouth you refer to it as an attack on women. See that right there? It says, "this sort of gutter mouth attack on women". Just like at your blog, where you blocked me from a thread until I apologized for calling a couple of women who demonstrably whores and sluts "whores" and "sluts", you again falsely insist that doing so is some kind of attack on women in general. That looks like an unsupported claim to me.
What it truly is is an attack on us. You routinely engage in demonizing your ideological opponents, be they Trump or lowly bloggers like us. How insecure you are in your positions to constantly default to such behavior!
Dan:
"I never said that "opposing bad behavior" is an attack."
Marshal:
"Well, yes you did. Not in so many words, but you did nonetheless, given since bad behavior is the issue at hand."
Well, no, I FACTUALLY DID NOT. What about facts and reality are you having trouble understanding? Not in ANY words did I say that opposing bad behavior is attacking people.
What I said was using abusive, denigrating terms like you use about women - words with a history in the oppression, degradation, assault and abuse of women - are abusive and wrong. Understand? It's the terms you use when you assault women with your words, NOT opposing what YOU deem bad behavior.
Understand reality now? Can you admit your stupidly false claim was clearly stupidly false?
Marshal... "about women who believe like whores and sluts who sleep around."
Yes, this is the sort of terminology that rapists and molesters have always used to describe women who don't heed THE OPINIONS OF THOSE MEN about who they should and shouldn't sleep with and what goes on in their bedrooms.
To hell with you rape-defending abusers of women with your words.
Know this: We see you and recognize the source of your words and the hatred and oppression they represent, even if your own hearts are hardened to such vile deviancy.
Marshal... "Neil is clearly talking about bad behavior...about women who believe like whores and sluts who sleep around. Then right there from your own virtual mouth you refer to it as an attack on women."
In case you're still not understanding, let me try to explain a bit further. Historically women have been kept down and oppressed in a wide range of ways by men in power, as well as by those not in power.
One of those ways that women, as a group,, have been oppressed is by using their sexuality against them. It has been a common practice to demonise women with whom you disagree by calling them such words. Such words, thus, demonise all women, because the reasoning is, if These women don't heat to my view of what their sexuality should look like, than they are these words comedies degrading words. But to hell with you all and your patriarchy.
You still probably don't understand, but rest assured, the rest of us do
Neil... "And yes, many women are believing like whores and sluts. Thanks to feminism many of these sluts have slept with over 100 guys and don't realize why no one wants to marry them..."
1. Neil's first assault on truth and women is when he says thanks to feminism. Thanks to feminism. As if feminism encourages women to sleep with 100 men. It's a stupidly false claim of the sort that conservatives have embraced. Can you liars admit that nowhere in any feminist manifesto is there a push for women to sleep with 100 men? That is the reality. The question is, can you admit that this is a stupidly false claim... one that you made up, pulling it out of your ass and not from reasoned thinking? Can you?
2. Can you morons admit that you have no data on which to push your guess, your made up false claim that many women have slept with 100 men? You have no data for that, correct? Just admit it.
3. IF women has slept with more men than you wish they would have, what the hell business is it of yours? Who the hell are you to call them a slut because they do that? Who made you The Guardian of their morality?
4. Terms like the ones you all embrace are terms that have been used to abuse in molest women over the years. It is the term that rapist in sexual predators use. Do you really want to associate yourself with rapists and sexual predators?
Shame on you. So much shame.
Leave the side of rapiss and sexual predators and abusive men. Step into the light of actual reasoned morality, You deviants.
Jesus said, neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. He did not use women shaming, attacking methods that you deviants use. At the very least, emulate the one you call Lord. Begin by apologising for your abusive language.
"Well, no, I FACTUALLY DID NOT."
Factually you did and you're doubling down now. You do it all the time. It's clear that the point is bad behavior and the women who engage in it. Such women are "classified" according to those bad behaviors. It's the same as calling a person murderer because the person engaged in murder. It's the same as calling a person a thief because the person stole what doesn't belong to that person.
But you lie in YOUR behavior by referring to those like Neil and myself as oppressors because you want to conflate with oppressors those who are speaking out against bad behaviors and the women who engage in those behavior in order to disparage conservatives. No honest person could possibly believe that we're attacking all women when we call out whores and sluts for their sexual immorality. That's why you're having this confusion...you're not an honest person.
So the question I've asked in previous such "conversations"...one you've never answered...is what alternate term do you find appropriate for those women who engage in sexually immoral behavior? "Sinners"??? Well...what type of sin are we talking about? We're talking about sexually immoral behavior. Are you really suggesting that it's wrong to call a spade a spade because the spade with be offended by doing so? What kind of asshat position is that to take?
I fully defend the use of harsh terminology over that which appeases the sensibilities of the sensitive and the false...which would be you. If a person is offended by a term that suggests a particular bad behavior, the last thing the person wants is to be known as such a person and will likely refrain from engaging in the behavior identified by that harsh, unforgiving term. That's a good thing. One would hope that women and girls still possess some degree of virtue and would avoid behaviors that would legitimize the application of such a term.
But actual women and girls of virtue are not worried about being called "whore" if they don't behave like a whore. Even those whose personal morality is less than that encouraged by Scripture do not regard themselves by such terms and would be offended. But offense doesn't matter when the term is legitimately applied to those whose behavior justifies its use. Rather than take offense, see to it that no one can rightly refer to you in that way. Then, if they do, they've exposed themselves as liars.
Getting back to the unanswered question, if you'd prefer a different term...a "nicer" term...how does that change anything? How does that mitigate the seriousness of the bad behavior in which she engages? You can't argue this way without furthering your falseness, because the fact is that it doesn't change the fact that the women in question engages in that bad behavior. She still is what she is. A slut by any other name still smells bad.
Running out of time here, so I'm going to jump ahead. I may respond more directly to other goofy things you've said later...
From your comment on March 22, 2021 at 6:28 PM:
1. There's a huge difference between explicit promotion versus the consequences of promoting an ideology. To pretend that radical feminism hasn't led to a belief that "women can enjoy sex for entertainment, too" would be to lie.
https://www.lovepanky.com/my-life/better-life/sex-positive-feminism
To pretend that "enjoy sex, too" won't be...and hasn't been...inferred to mean, "let's get it on" is again a lie.
2. There are no morons here except for you. It's totally moronic to insist that someone prove a hyperbolic statement.
3. Women who sleep around are sluts by definition. It's a gender specific term for bad behavior in which men also engage. So it's not a matter of the behavior of a specific woman being our business. It's a matter of properly labeling the behavior for what it is, and by extension, labeling properly those who engage in it. By your laughable understanding of "reasoning", if a man has murdered more people than you would wish, what business is it of yours? (Here's where you falsely pretend I'm equating murder with sexual promiscuity.)
4. "4. Terms like the ones you all embrace are terms that have been used to abuse in molest women over the years. It is the term that rapist in sexual predators use."
Here's an example of your lack of wisdom...or blatant dishonesty. It doesn't matter which bad actors...or how many...have used any term for their own nefarious ends. All that matters is whether or not there's an appropriate use for the terms. The fact that assholes use the terms doesn't mean a whore isn't a whore, or a slut not a slut. Your attempts to disparage use for daring to be honest is contemptible, but oh so typical of you.
"Do you really want to associate yourself with rapists and sexual predators?"
We don't, nor have we done so now. That's YOU doing that because you're a lying asshat. You have to legitimate counter argument to our position with regard to the left's war on women. So, as is typical of lefties like you, you launch another character attack without reason, evidence or logic. You fool no one but other lying leftists.
"Shame on you. So much shame."
No doubt, but not for this. Here, the shame is all yours for lying so boldly and without end.
"Jesus said, neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
You shouldn't pervert Christ's words in this way, though you love doing it. Your corruption knows no bounds. If the woman brought before Him didn't sin, why would He have told her to stop? Nothing in that story suggests the woman didn't engage in the behavior accused of her. Christ telling her to sin no more indicates she did. It's no more or less than what we're doing in a more general sense, but you're too full of hate for us to admit it...because you're an inveterate liar. Repent yourself, liar.
After seeing a biological male win a women's beauty pageant, isn't the message being sent that men are now better women than women are?
"As if feminism encourages women to sleep with 100 men."
This is a fascinating statement. It's almost like saying that "feminism" must specifically entourage women to "sleep with 100 men" precisely in order for feminism to be problematic. It's almost like 99 men is no problem, but 100 makes someone a "slut".
What feminism has taught women (more third wave than first) is that "sexual freedom" enabled by things like abortion on demand and inexpensive and widely available birth control, is something to be sought after. That women behaving promiscuously will somehow give them value and worth. Unfortunately, we've seen a steady stream of articles and surveys that indicate that women spending their early adult years sleeping with multiple men, and later realizing that when that are "ready" to settle down that men don't find promiscuous women attractive for marriage. Further "feminism" has been a primary driver behind no fault divorce which has not been beneficial to women or society.
Click on the links in the posts for primary source material. It's convenient to post the WK links because he usually does a good job at providing primary sources.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/07/29/radical-feminists-explain-how-feminism-prepared-them-for-dating-and-marriage/
https://winteryknight.com/2019/10/20/dennis-prager-explains-what-feminism-has-achieved-for-women-3/
https://winteryknight.com/2018/05/08/feminisms-new-plan-to-achieve-lasting-happiness-without-giving-up-promiscuity/
https://winteryknight.com/2017/03/10/has-feminism-been-good-for-women/
Marshal... "is what alternate term do you find appropriate for those women who engage in sexually immoral behavior? "
I refer to such "behavior" as NONE OF YOUR OR MY DAMNED BUSINESS. What "word" do you use for slutty men? One thing you're completely bypassing is that these words have historically been used to condemn, demonize and oppress women. Can you at least BEGIN by acknowledging that bit of real world history?
So, EVEN IF you refer to promiscuous men (who WAY outnumber what you'd call promiscuous women) some term like gigolo, it has none of the harmful power that your oppressive attack words have with women.
Do you not understand that?
And where - WHERE SPECIFICALLY - have you EVER called out what you'd call "promiscuous men..."? IF you're only targeting women (as is typical for the rapists and sexual predators and oppressor types), then that is part of the problem.
Marshal... "Getting back to the unanswered question, if you'd prefer a different term...a "nicer" term...how does that change anything? "
1. It puts the sexual predator/rapist/oppressor types back in their place, at least a little bit.
2. It removes the caustic sting of very real historic oppression of women, at least a little bit.
3. It reminds the sexual predator/oppressor types that you owe women respect, and it does not matter a DAMN bit what you think about them. You BETTER remember to respect women because we see your attacks and they put you on the side of the oppressors and predators, no matter how justified YOU THINK you are in being abusive.
4. Treating women with respect helps with the very real psychological harm that your type of oppression has contributed. This is real-world harm... women are triggered by your sexual predatory words. That you don't understand it, that you don't believe it doesn't matter a bit. It's real and women and other experts will tell you that IF you'd humble your predator ass down just a bit and begin with the acknowledgement that YOU are not their boss, their dad, their preacher... YOU are not the expert on women's affairs and concerns.
For starters.
It's still problematic if you're only using nicer words for the same attacks, but it's a start.
Have you spoken with abused women about these sorts of attacks on women, the ones you and Neil have engaged in? Have you volunteered at a rape clinic or otherwise listened to those harmed by your words?
Humble yourself. Repent.
How about referring to those who are promiscuous regardless of their gender or orientation as "immoral", or doesn't wanton, promiscuous sex qualify?
Marshal... "To pretend that radical feminism hasn't led to a belief that "women can enjoy sex for entertainment, too" would be to lie. "
Women CAN enjoy sex for entertainment. It's really not a bit of your damned business, is it?
Do you have a problem with enjoying sex? You might have deeper problems than just being a defender of sexual predatory/oppressive behavior.
Do you know the average number of men straight women have had sex with? It depends on the generation and the survey, but it's under ten, usually under five. Are you calling a woman with five sexual partners in their lifetime with the same vulgar terms that a rapist/predator type uses? Men always have more, by the way. Are you calling them names, as well?
Hypocrite. Sexual predator/oppressor supporter.
Marshal... " By your laughable understanding of "reasoning", if a man has murdered more people than you would wish, what business is it of yours? "
Okay. I'm done. Good God in heaven! Forgive your idiot followers. Marshal, go back and join the pharisees of 2000 years ago. Your time here is done.
I'll explain this once and then I'm done. You all are wholly given over to evil reprobate hardened hearts.
MURDER harms people and we can rightly stand opposed to it.
Someone sleeping with more partners than YOU PERSONALLY wish they would DOES NOT HARM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. Get your hypocritical, rapist-supporting ass the hell OUT of people's bedrooms.
It's NONE of your business. Just stop. Stop right there. How many people have YOU slept with Marshal????
It's NONE of my business. It's NONE of your business what other people do if it's not harming you or others. You are not the sexual law enforcement, you creepy ass pervert. NONE of you are.
Just because YOU ALL happen to think that YOU speak for your rape-defending god doesn't matter. It's none of your business.
Just repeat that to yourself 1 million times and if it doesn't sink in, start over. Use a little whip on yourself, if it helps. Just get your nose out of other people's private affairs.
Good God have mercy.
"I refer to such "behavior" as NONE OF YOUR OR MY DAMNED BUSINESS."
So you believe there's no value to the culture for discussions on the morality of sexual behaviors? This would account for all the societal problems irresponsible behavior has caused our society.
Do you feel the same when it family and friends who indulge in dangerous, unhealthy sexual behavior? What if your son slept around, or your daughter used sex to improve her wealth?
"What "word" do you use for slutty men? "
"Asshole", "philanderer", "womanizer"...and also "slut". What word do YOU. You're clearly concerned and speaking out both sides of your mouth when you're so wrapped up in Trump's sex life. "None of your business" my ass!
"One thing you're completely bypassing is that these words have historically been used to condemn, demonize and oppress women."
One thing you're intentionally and deceitfully ignoring is that for some women these words are absolutely accurate labels given their character and behavior. You know this to be true, but you're so committed to your hatred for Trump to admit it. You need to bring up victims of sexual abuse so that you can continue to regard absolutely every woman who consented to sexual behavior with Trump as victims. That's called "lying".
Use of those words to attack women is more common among women than men. THAT is historically accurate.
"So, EVEN IF you refer to promiscuous men (who WAY outnumber what you'd call promiscuous women) some term like gigolo, it has none of the harmful power that your oppressive attack words have with women."
The so-called "harmful power" of words and labels is irrelevant when discussing people for whom the labels are accurate and thus appropriate. It's also subjective and you're dishonest objections are worthless to honest discussions about those who engage in bad behaviors.
And again, women choose just how much power these words have over them, regardless of their guilty or innocent of the charge. Thanks to the left, the words don't even carry the same weight, with some proudly wearing the terms. YOU'RE just making more out of than is reality because you need to do so in order to fully express your unChristian hatred for Trump.
"And where - WHERE SPECIFICALLY - have you EVER called out what you'd call "promiscuous men..."?"
During the primaries leading up to the 2016 presidential election, as well as since. I've never made any suggestion of approval or ambivalence about the issue.
"Marshal... "Getting back to the unanswered question, if you'd prefer a different term...a "nicer" term...how does that change anything? ""
1. How so and how can this be measured?
2. How so and how can this be measured? What makes you think women will be any less inclined to use those words to attack the character of women they don't like, since they use the terms for the purpose more than do men.
3. How so and how can this be measured? Jailing rapists doesn't have any particularly mitigating effect on their desire to assault women when they are released. So this is an absurd claim.
4. Referring to whores and sluts as "whores" and "sluts" has no bearing on how one treats or respects women in general. None whatsoever, any more than referring to murderers as "murderers" has any relation to how one treats people in general. You're just making shit up to validate your unChristian hatred for Trump.
Plus, I've not found any woman who is "triggered" by other people using those terms in relation to anyone other than themselves. Why should they? Just because they're women doesn't mean they're not aware that other women are whores and sluts. It's absurd and again, you're just making shit up with no evidence to back it up.
"Have you spoken with abused women about these sorts of attacks on women, the ones you and Neil have engaged in?"
You clearly haven't. You've only listened to the very radical feminists who have made life worse for women. In the meantime, my answer is "yes, I have". The response from those with whom I've spoken is the same. Such women aren't harmed by words. They're harmed by being physically assaulted.
Well, it looks like Dan is running off after totally failing to actually make any sense with regard to whatever it was that he was trying to pass as an argument. Nonetheless, I have more in response to that which has been and had yet to be covered.
First, I wish to note Craig's comment from March 23, 2021 at 4:24 PM. I'm not sure to whom it was directed, but regardless, the terms "whore" and "slut" refer to immorality. Thus, to replace them both with "immoral" changes nothing except to dilute the specific form of immoral behavior. In time, one must get specific about what it is that is being discussed or charged, and then one is back at square one speaking of whoring and slutty behavior. As such, except to soften the sin, alternative words do nothing to change anything.
Again, I'm not sure to whom Craig directed his comment, but it at least provided what Dan lacked the brains or balls to do. Just as he's always failed to offer an alternative meaning for verses or passages accurately explained by others, he bailed on providing a better way to describe the behavior and worse, the women who engage in those behaviors. Even if we can consume sufficient quantities of psychotropic drugs until we actually believe the ludicrous notion that there are actually any women who are traumatized by the mere mention of these words, one would think that Dan...champion of oppressed women everywhere that he is...would have suitable alternatives at the ready.
But no. Dan wants us to believe it's about the private sex lives of women which he insists is none of our business (while being obsessed with the private sex life of Donald Trump and other center-right figures...people he doesn't know...and making moral judgements about them). Yet, I've made no comments with regard to anyone's private life and found these terms suitable with regard to women who made public comments about their private lives. Thus, there's a huge difference between inserting myself into someone's private life, versus accurately and appropriately editorializing on that which they made public...like the totally slutty Cardi B.
And here's the only way Dan's moronic response connects to the topic of this post: His diaper filling rhetoric isn't any kind of defense of womanhood. It's a defense of sexual immorality...again...,a favored subject of Dan's.
So let's get back to it...
"Women CAN enjoy sex for entertainment. It's really not a bit of your damned business, is it?"
Where in any of this have I insisted on any law or policy dictating the private lives of anyone? Can you point that in any of my comments? I mean my actual comments, not those you're imagining I typed.
Sex for the fun of it is perfectly acceptable between a woman and the man to whom she is married. I should've been more clear, but I was in a hurry and didn't take into account your penchant for trying find fault rather than truth or common ground.
"You might have deeper problems than just being a defender of sexual predatory/oppressive behavior."
But I'm not a defender of those things. YOU are, by your unwillingness to address the real causes of bad behavior. You're just making lame accusations because you're unable to defend leftist harm so routinely visited upon women and girls through your policies.
"Are you calling a woman with five sexual partners in their lifetime with the same vulgar terms that a rapist/predator type uses?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."
He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."
"I have no husband," she replied.
Jesus said to her, "Your are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
It would be difficult to make the case that Jesus exposed her in this way just to show He didn't care that she slept with so many men. We know Christ regards divorce and remarriage as adultery. Her sexual history was not likely something about which she bragged and discussed openly with just anyone, and would certainly not have done so with a stranger looking for a drink.
So as to your question, are you referring to a woman who was widowed multiple times, or someone who had sex outside of marriage? It makes a big difference. But just because you're so unfamiliar with Christian teaching, having sex outside of marriage even one time is a sin. Go ahead and ask an actual Christian.
And it is really boring to continue hearing you try to suggest that "whore" and "slut" are "vulgar" terms employed only by rapists and oppressors of women. Please try a new lie just for a change of pace.
"Men always have more, by the way. Are you calling them names, as well?"
Once again, go back to any posts or comments I wrote about Trump prior to him winning the primaries before the 2016 election. Nothing's change in that regard. Barring that, you'll just have to wait until I do a post on slutty men...if ever. In a post about how the left has perpetrated so much harm to women, I'm not about to do so here, except for where I already did when I referred to them as "asshole", "philanderer", "womanizer"...and also "slut". Pay attention.
"Okay. I'm done."
Well, you were done when you decided to defend bad behavior under the laughable pretense of defending oppressed women. You'd have been better served to focus on defending against the charge that it is lefties like you who've been waging the real war on women and thus doing the most harm to them.
"MURDER harms people and we can rightly stand opposed to it."
And there you go, pretending I'm equating murder with sexually immoral behavior. Dumbass...I wasn't giving you permission to do so when I said "(Here's where you falsely pretend I'm equating murder with sexual promiscuity.)" It's not about what the bad behavior is, it's you defending one example of it, but then not treating other bad behaviors or their perpetrators the same way.
"Someone sleeping with more partners than YOU PERSONALLY wish they would DOES NOT HARM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. Get your hypocritical, rapist-supporting ass the hell OUT of people's bedrooms."
Ah! Dan reading out of the leftist handbook about attacking defenders of morality and virtue!
First of all, the number of sex partners God has mandated is acceptable is ONE, and that's a member of the opposite sex after the two marry. (Assuming neither dies and the other remarries.) Having sex once means the two have become one flesh and bound until death parts them forsaking all others. Isn't any of this familiar to you at all?
Thus, with how many other people have sex isn't the issue. The issue is the morality of it and what it makes those people...what words accurately describe them from the perspective of quality of character.
And no, it doesn't particularly harm me personally, but it can and often does harm those who engage in sexually immoral behavior...most particularly women, whether they consent to it or not. I get that you don't care about that, especially when you can demonize a conservative or Donald Trump, but that's the actual truth and reality of it. And it certainly harms them spiritually. But not being a Christian, you might not be aware of that.
"It's NONE of my business. It's NONE of your business what other people do if it's not harming you or others."
Well then, it's a great relief that I never tried to make it my business what anyone does in the privacy of their own domicile. Why do you need to pretend that I've been doing that at all...aside from the fact that as a liar who's exposing himself as a buffoon, you're desperate to find some way to grab the moral high ground of which your position totally deprives you.
Finally, unless you say some else as stupid as that which you've already said, this idea that it is I who is defending rape is absurd. As this post indicates, it is leftist dogma and ideology that has led to more women being sexually abused than by anything a conservative like myself has ever supported. Whatever virtuous behavior we promote, you asshats like to pretend we're trying to control people. Do you thing Christ was trying to control people by preaching moral character? If He wasn't, how can I be by preaching what He did? I believe women and girls should dress modestly for their own good. You want to tell me to mind my own business while provocative dress attracts the very people you pretend to oppose. You defend the rapist while I counsel the potential victims. You want to pretend we can teach predators not to prey, yet that's what makes them predators and a threat to women and girls. I encourage women and girls to understand evil exists and so do sexual predators and so they must be wary and live accordingly, just as I would encourage people who might want to walk through a bad neighborhood at night.
If you truly cared about the welfare of women, you'd be on my side of the ideological divide because your side is the source of most of their suffering. You can't argue against this or you would have tried to by now. Instead, you want to pretend words are the worst thing which can befall them. What kind of asshat thinks women are even that sensitive to words?? (Rhetorical question. Of course the answer is YOU.)
If "whore" and "slut" are harsh, then good. Just as no one wants to be known as a racist, I would prefer that women and girls would go out of their way to ever given the impression they're either a whore or a slut. I want them to find the words as oppressive to them as you pretend they are, but in a way that encourages virtuous living. I know such things don't matter to you, but they do to me. It should to everyone, even fake Christians like you.
"DOES NOT HARM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE."
This is an interesting claim, I'd like to see proof that random, no strings attached, emotionless sex with multiple partners harms no one.
"Get your hypocritical, rapist-supporting ass the hell OUT of people's bedrooms."
The problem isn't that people are going into other's bedrooms, it's that others are opening up their bedrooms and their bedroom activities for all the world to see. Or at least for those who'll pony up the cash at Only Fans or Patreon.
Again, that first is quite an emphatic claim of fact, I'd love to see data, but as we've seen at least once in this thread, it's unlikely data will be provided.
He'll never even try to prove his claim, unless he stumbles upon another article which he thinks does because the headline suggests it. He'll post it without reading it, much less vetting it and make a fool of himself again.
"A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers.[3] These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime.[3] The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance abuse and, or permanent illness.[4] These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress."
Wikipedia comes strong on this one.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx
"And yet hookups pose a significant threat to the physical and psychological health of these young individuals."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201303/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/
Just a quick bit of research and I'm thinking that the panacea of sex as a bit of harmless fun peddled by Dan, just might not quite be accurate. I'd say increased risk of bad things is "immoral" (just like Dan did)
Well done, Craig. I would reiterate that sex for personal pleasure within a legitimate marital arrangement (one man married to one woman) is perfectly acceptable and likely to be beneficial, in opposite proportion to what your links describe.
Art,
That's my point, that promiscuous sex entails (at a minimum) the potential for harm. As Dan pointed out at my blog, driving 55 on a "neighborhood" street is immoral because of the potential for harm, by that logic...
Obviously, one can argue that promiscuous sex is fine as long as people are aware of and accept the risks, unfortunately I'm not sure that people know or care about the risks as long as they are able to seek their own pleasure.
Craig... "This is an interesting claim, I'd like to see proof that random, no strings attached, emotionless sex with multiple partners harms no one."
Allow me to clarify what I meant by my short declaration about doing no harm... Ralph and Mikey or anyone else having sex is not any of Marshal's business. It does no harm to Marshal.
There are all kinds of actions that may cause harm to those indulging in them. Drinking sodas, over-eating, certain sexual practices, etc. And those who so indulge should be wary of them. But it's doing no harm to anyone else. I'm not sure that I would say to you, "You're a sinner for having four doughnuts for breakfast today! It's a great evil..."
Is it less-than-healthy? Perhaps. Should healthier eating be encouraged? Sure. Sinful? I don't think I'd find that view of it helpful, especially not when it comes with name-calling and especially not when it's a group that has been historically, factually oppressed with the name-calling and actions that go along with it.
Boys, how many sexual partners makes one a slut? Neil pulled a number out of his ass - certainly a false and made up number - and referenced "feminists" encouraging 100+ sexual partners and called such women (no reference to the men, of course) vulgar, harmful names.
Can you at least recognize the reality of how such vulgar terms have been used to oppress women over the centuries?
If not, open your eyes. Stop living in the privilege of your patronizing patriarchy and recognize the oppression white males like you, Marshal and Neil perpetuate with such deviancy.
In other words, pull the damned log out of your own privileged eyes before daring to try to attack others... THEN humble yourselves and recognize that you ought not attack others.
Craig,
Assuming the risks sounds good before consequences are felt.
It should be noted that so long as there are proponents of socialized health care...and even group insurance plans whose rates can be affected by increases in claims submitted...to say what people do in private isn't my business is rather arrogant and more than a little concerning. But then, as before, it's not about private sex lives being my business. That's just a dodge from the supreme dodger.
"Allow me to clarify what I meant by my short declaration about doing no harm... Ralph and Mikey or anyone else having sex is not any of Marshal's business. It does no harm to Marshal."
Allow me to reiterate: the whine is irrelevant to the discussion. What's more, how many women do you know named either "Ralph" or "Mikey"?
"There are all kinds of actions that may cause harm to those indulging in them. Drinking sodas, over-eating, certain sexual practices, etc. And those who so indulge should be wary of them. But it's doing no harm to anyone else. I'm not sure that I would say to you, "You're a sinner for having four doughnuts for breakfast today! It's a great evil...""
It's especially sad to me that this is what passes for intelligent argument in Dan's world. And no, one wouldn't necessarily say it's sinful or evil. It's enough to say it's harmful...not like a Democrat interfering in someone's life, but like a conservative who isn't afraid to speak truthfully about harmful behaviors. But even so, it's completely off topic as the issue is appropriate and accurate terminology for those who engage in a given behavior. "Whore" is an accurate term for a woman who has sex for money, just as "glutton" is an accurate term for one who overeats and "liar" is an accurate term for those who speak falsely as often as you do.
Speaking truthfully, directly and without regard to the feelings of the "sinner" is important for truly impressing upon the person the seriousness of the bad behavior the person favors. Said another way, harsh terms impress upon the person a sense of shame the person should be experiencing for engaging in the bad behavior. If Dan felt shame every time he lied, he might lie less.
"Boys, how many sexual partners makes one a slut?"
Stupid question, and false in the asking. If a girl succumbs to temptation once, she's made a mistake. If she continues to have sex outside of marriage, the number of partners is irrelevant. There's no rationalizing it, though as a fake Christian, you clearly believe otherwise.
"...and called such women (no reference to the men, of course) vulgar, harmful names."
Totally understandable in a post about the left's war on WOMEN. Jeez.
"Can you at least recognize the reality of how such vulgar terms have been used to oppress women over the centuries?"
Totally irrelevant in a conversation about accurate use of what you want to insist are vulgar terms. Your false concern for all of womanhood in this context is not lost on us. Indeed, if all a woman had to suffer was being called a slut or a whore now and then, rather than all the ills foisted upon womanhood by the left, I'd wager even the most sensitive could easily deal. You want to prove you give a flying rat's ass about women? Vote for conservative candidates.
"In other words, pull the damned log out of your own privileged eyes before daring to try to attack others... THEN humble yourselves and recognize that you ought not attack others."
The only attacking being done here is by you against us. We're doing nothing wrong, and I certainly am not by using a "vulgar" term to describe someone engaged in related "vulgar" behaviors. Doing so has nothing to do with any other women, and certainly not virtuous women.
You need to humble yourself and recognize that you're a moron with no intelligent argument on this issue, and clearly none on any of the other points raised in my post. You're just trying...desperately but in vein...to assume moral high ground you don't have beneath you, so as to belittle and attack.
God only allows for sexual activity between a man and woman who are married to each other. What happens in any other context is sinful. That's a fact. Thus, it doesn't matter what words are used to describe it, none of it is good and no one who indulges can pretend they have some rationalization that absolves them of their sin.
It's probably out of bounds to speculate about the unintended consequences or redefining women to mean literally anything, and how that might negatively affect women.
Since women are a federally protected class, how does one protect what one can't define?
Let's say that a white dude who owns a construction company is bidding for a city contract. Then let's say that he decides that he's really a black woman, and goes to some lengths to present himself as a black woman. If "she" gets that contract doesn't that defeat the purpose of women/minority set asides?
"It's probably out of bounds to speculate about the unintended consequences or redefining women to mean literally anything, and how that might negatively affect women."
Certainly if this was Dan's blog, that would likely be true. Fortunately...
I think it would be fairly easy to determine that there are more cases of male-to-female freaks than female-to-male. And given this post is focused on how women are victims of leftist policy, to focus also on the effect of M-F disordered people on the welfare of actual women is indeed within bounds.
As you more than imply, Craig, the leftist support for this disorder puts women at risk in so many ways. Your example results in further marginalizing women by squeezing out opportunities for women by the introduction of men into the consideration for city contracts. It's bad enough that contracts are awarded on the basis of something other than a companies reputation for excellence and which of those submits the most advantageous bid. But to then crap on women after giving them special status for such considerations by including men anyway is a special degree of oppression. This is what comes from pandering. Eventually you can't decide who gets the valued attention because of so many identity groups in the pool.
I agree the set asides are problematic, especially after I’ve seen guys set up companies owned by wives or sisters just to qualify for contracts. Given that it’s not outrageous to think some unscrupulous dude will put on a dress for a govt contract.
Worse is that based on how the left is treating this issue, the unscrupulous dude won't even have to put on the dress in the first place. He can just say he's a chick and unless they tighten the rules of such things, how can he be denied? The negative impact on women is no different.
Oh, I agree that as things stand now, the dude doesn't even need to shave his beard in order to qualify. It's nuts ultimately, I think we'll see women "revolt" against this because they'll realize that it's eroding everything that's been "gained" since the first wave of feminism.
I'm definitely starting to see some young. vocal, women who are pushing against the tide, but I suspect we'll see more.
I can't believe the outcry isn't already deafening, given how outrageously damaging to those gains it all is. I have to believe they struggle with being seen as bigoted against the disordered, having been duped by activism. Also, they may believe the threat is small given how few of the disordered there really are, leaving only those who are actually harmed to do all the heavy lifting.
Post a Comment