Stand Your Ground

Have you been driven mad by feminism?

Yes but fortunately only temporarily.

No. But the blood still boils on occasion.

Don't kid yourselves.

Feminism and its associated friends have poisoned our minds very deeply.

It could not be otherwise.

'Mad' might not be quite the right word; but it's not far off.

Witness, for example, the zillions of psychological pills being dispensed.

The amount of alcohol being consumed.

The illegality of MEDICAL marijuana; something which could have benefitted millions of seriously ill people.

Obesity.

The size of the jail population.

Etc etc.

And very few people seem to care!

My username sums up my madness. :twisted:

And very few people seem to care!

You're own quote answered why they don't care.  The trick is to open their eyes.

It's like Rowdy Roddy Piper is 'They Live', it's a big fight to get them to put on the glasses.  But once it's done...

Sure, feminism has poisoned me mentally, if an obsession can be called madness. It's like waking into the sanity of an insane world.

Nah, how 'bout plain stupidity!

Years ago would get bummed out about whatever, and try to solve the problem by reading feminist books.  And EVERY single time, after finishing one of these books, i'd end up feeling worse.  

So what did brilliant me do about it?

Yep, went to the book-seller and bought another feminist book.


After some years, it finally dawned on me that feminist authors are NOT qualified historians, anthropologists, nor any other social-scientist.


But the scariest thing about feminist books is they are known to get their hooks into college students - smart kids, who are going to school to learn hard stuff, like math and physics.

But the scariest thing about feminist books is they are known to get their hooks into college students - smart kids, who are going to school to learn hard stuff, like math and physics.

They may be smart but they're not there to learn the hard stuff. Wimmin's studies is the equivalent of taking gym in high school. It's an easy pass.

I've yet to see an engineering student or chemistry major get derailed by wimmin's studies courses. They treat them as something they have to get through to get that lucrative pieve of paper.

The real wimmin's studies majors are just riding mum and dad's dime like the fine arts and sociology types.

Sue,

Feminists - from what I know - often become feminists BECAUSE they are so lousy at relationships with men. They are often the worst qualified people imaginable to dispense advice on relationships. Yet, ironically, they are also the most likely people to be doing that, via media appearances and their books.

But the scariest thing about feminist books is they are known to get their hooks into college students - smart kids, who are going to school to learn hard stuff, like math and physics.

It is standard reading  in many courses even at college level.  Try social services learning women's studies.  Good grief.

Karl Marx is also standard reading.

"I've yet to see an engineering student or chemistry major get derailed by wimmin's studies courses. "


While a few atheist sites are pro-capitalist, most are quite socialist.  

Though frankly, cannot help but to suspect rad-feminists have more or less copied their (atheists') notes and attempt to pass them off as their own.

Just back from lunch and read yet another letter to the editor in today's paper calling for the mandatory vasectomy when the man does not financially support the woman or marry the woman.

Her advice was for men to protect, abstain, sterilize, or practice homosexuality. NOTHING about female responsibility for her actions.

I rage but I am far from insane.

Well, D'UH!

Sue,

It is not surprising me how many "smart" kids fall for feminism's lies in college.  I didn't have my "awakening" until I dated a very smart girl while I was in college.

While dating her she said somethings to me that "woke me up".  She had a few newspapers to look up the same story and when I asked her why (Aren't ALL newspapers the "same", reporting unbiased news!?) she told me that she wanted to get several "slants" on the same story.  After she gave me a more detailed explanation and helped me to understand that MSM news WAS biased I was stunned.

She then, realizing how naive I was, showed me how Newsweek, Time, and several other publications had become more interested in reaffirming what their readers WANTED to hear versus reporting the "unslanted truth".

It was that and how a buddy of mine studied advertising and told me: "if you want to know who the show is 'playing to' all you have to do is turn off the sound, and watch who the commercials during the show are targeted at."

I was, like many of college age, completely naive.  And I think that unless you come from a home where some things are EXPLAINED like this you don't know until years later.

I also had the naive opinion that professors and their texts were "unbiased" and presenting "truth".  I got set straight on that too, but only by my third year in college. I was a very smart person, but also incredibly naive.

So, the reality didn't dawn on me until much later.  And it pissed me off that I had swallowed so much of this one sided crap and PAID for the indoctrination.

So, when addressing college kids, who are by definition: young, cocky, full of themselves (who isn't at that age!?), and SURE they are gaining "truths" .... GENTLY ... GENTLY point out some of the things I just said.  It'll take time to settle in, and they may not thank you at the time ... but maybe years later they'll remember you as the person who "woke them up".  That's how it happened to me.

===========================================

To address what "Alpha Male" said:

Just back from lunch and read yet another letter to the editor in today's paper calling for the mandatory vasectomy when the man does not financially support the woman or marry the woman.

Her advice was for men to protect, abstain, sterilize, or practice homosexuality. NOTHING about female responsibility for her actions.

Once again buddy, remember that newspapers and MSM have largely HAD to give up their objectivity.  Nooooooooooo I do NOT excuse them, because if they don't want the job, no one is forcing them to do it so shoddily.

The newspapers and MSM are competing to sell their product and that means that offending the women who read it with "well, yep, he should be responsible, but so should the girl who opens her legs and thinks that opening between her legs is a welfare "slot machine" that just hit triple 7's" is going to piss off women readers.

But, that DOES come from feminist indoctrination wherein a woman's choice is sacred and inviolate.

I thought of something and this is critical the next time you hear about "dead beat dads" and "men abandoning the home":

Point out the usual that women are the ones who initiate the divorces ... and you'll get the usual answers:
What did he do to "drive her" from the home, "maybe it was abuse" etc etc

But here's the critical point:

Ask the person how many women give up their children to adoption, safe haven abandonment, and to their parents "temporarily" ....

We should get those #'s and point out that with so MANY women doing this, that the person you are talking to probably has NEVER read an article (I haven't found one) decrying the abandonment of children by women.

And the #'s are HUGE (notice the BACK LOG of people waiting to get kids, but how MANY are adopted and how many are in the state system due to voluntary "giving up" (read: if they were men it would be abandonment) of their children.

I've tried this argument and I get what Gonzo calls: "the fish face" (wide eyes at the MENTION of this, open and closing of mouth with no sound).

I have gotten: "But, but, but .. she wasn't ready", "there may have been a 'host ' of factors in that decisions" and other excuses and mitigation.

To which you reply: "but, gee, about 30 seconds ago you had a completetly different attitude.  It was one of uncompromising "children's interest" and responsibility.  How is that different?"

And THAT always gets me the "fish face".

Give it some thought.

Steven

Thanks LSBeene,
I wish I would have had that argument about 15 hours ago. I stopped for gas on the way home and the two women working the register were actually arguing the LaGusa move away trial (although they could not name it as such). I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get involved. The older woman was actually raking the younger divorced girl over the coals and naming the problems like she was an MRA. (There is yet hope.)
The young girl was trying to defend her position about taking her military husband for a ride, shreiking about responsibility. The same old tired arguments. He chooses not to be involved, he is abusive, he is an alcoholic, I could take him for more if I wanted to be a bitch, etc etc. (Don't know how much of any of it was true.)
I think she was getting miffed at her co-worker being backed up. A little scary was that she was complaining about her current husband's drinking. Another poor sap with a loaded gun to his head.
We actually got her to admit the courts are definitely stacked against the men. She admitted without any prompting that Washington was a woman's state as far as divoce courts go. Finally she ended up back tracking and tap dancing. "Well, I would never (enter nasty divorce tactic here)." I left her with three websites and challenged her to take a look at what men are really up against.