Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - Amber
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
61
Tell me what you think and if there is anything I could add to make it better.
:mrgreen:
Re-Sexualizing Men and WomenI am about to tell you something shocking: heterosexual men are attracted to women and heterosexual women are attracted to men. Even more shocking: heterosexual men are attracted to women who
look like women and heterosexual women are attracted to men who
look like men.
It seems rather common sensical that when a woman draws attention to the fact that she is a woman, a man would desire her more. And, vice versa, when a man acts in a way that emphasizes the fact that he is a man, a woman will become more attracted to him.
It is common sensical, hence such knowledge is not so common. In fact, the current intellectual establishment is dead set on destroying this.
Feminists, and others who are like-minded, are doing everything they can to destroy the attraction between men and women - by making women not look like women and men not look like men.
One major feminist event that happens on campuses nationwide that seems to go either unnoticed or unchallenged, I don't know which, is "Love Your Body Day." Love Your Body Day is a day in which feminists tell women to love their body regardless not fitting up to the so-called oppressive images of beautiful women everywhere in our media.
Most come to the conclusion that feminists are sloth-like and that this day is an attack on healthy qua health. They would argue feminists are lazy, undisciplined, can't handle living up to any kind of standard. I don't think it is. I think it's a malignant plot to destroy the essence of the female figure - destroying it such that men will not be attracted to women.
As proof that feminists are not opposed to health qua health, but rather the female figure itself, in 1998, NOW gave an award to a female body builder for "challenging stereotypes of what it means to be a female." There is little doubt that this woman was in incredible shape. Feminists don't retract in horror to someone who is healthy, but the woman who exudes femininity, which means a woman who actually looks like she is a woman.
This is not to say that a larger woman cannot be feminine and still look like a woman. Plenty of larger women are feminine and, in their own way, attractive. But this is not the kind of woman feminists speak for. There is a certain amorphous shape that feminists idealize - a layer of fat around a woman solely to hide her feminine body.
If you have ever noticed, many normal woman - typical, non-feminist woman - who don't want male attention do one thing: makes themselves look male-like. Or rather, they do something to decrease their sex appeal. I have noticed that when a girl breaks up with a guy and temporarily wants a break from men, she often times cuts her hair short. Or I have known women who have been in situations where they received continuous unwanted attention from a man, say at work, and they purposely gain weight - to thwart the unwanted attention.
Feminists are projecting this phenomenon, which only happens to some girls for short periods of time, unto the population at large.
The other piece of the puzzle of course is: turning men into women. On CBS, a special was done that stated that men bulking up at the gym could be dangerous. Their line was that desiring physical fitness and/or physical attractiveness must necessarily lead to drastic, unhealthy measures such as steroids.
Of course that is the usual line. Any person who has any kind of ideal is smeared by the left as a neurotic perfectionist: women who watch their weight must be anorexics, people who care about their health must be hypochondriacs, etc. But the assault here is on masculinity as such. They don't want men to go to the gym to bulk up (read: become attractive to women), but to remain as androgynous effeminate boys. (That, and the image of the strong masculine male is one of the most hated images by leftists.)
There was only goal of feminists, ever: to divide men and women. The fundamental goal is to make men and women unattractive to each other - turning women into amorphous blobs and men into effeminate wimps.
Feminists' goal was not female independence. Especially in a capitalist world, what need is there for a woman to be like a man? In our technologically based society, success is mostly intellectual. But feminists think in order for a woman to become successful she must reject her femininity: as if femininity and success are opposites. But becoming man-like only serves one purpose for a woman: it desexualizes her.
A woman who embraces and loves the fact that she is a woman - which is the essence of femininity - exudes sexuality. I wrote an article on embracing femininity and womanhood recently, and submitted it to womensnews.org. In it, I talked about the essence of femininity and how a woman who embraces herself as a woman exudes a certain, very attractive youthful glow - even as she approaches old age. Within a half hour, I got an email back saying they would pass on the article. Apparently the women at womennews.org did not like the message of embracing and loving who you are as a woman. The day I sent it in, womensnews.org had an editorial up about a male to female transgender. Apparently, this is womanhood to the womensnews.org website. Let's call feminists for what they are: a bunch of women who hate the fact that they are women.
I say it's time to put these sexless old hags to their grave. They've assaulted sexuality, pleasure and fun long enough. Do something politically incorrect today: be as sexually alluring as humanly possible. Men, get to the gym (especially after that big turkey dinner) and simply
exude masculinity. Women, do something that should come naturally to you but unfortunately does not anymore: love the fact that you are a woman. Don't buy into Love Your Body Day (which makes it hard to love your body), keep yourself trim and most of all
feminine. It's time for a culture of romance, love, and sexuality to come back: a time in which men are men and women are women.
62
Have at it.
Ah, I wish I knew how prevelant prison rape was, and in what kind of facilities specifically. Is it only going to happen to murderers and child molesters ... or will men in jail for not paying child support payments, disorderly conduct, potential traffic fines and the like also get subject to it?
You can assume the second option means "clean up prison rape for non-violent offendors."
63
One of the things I said on another message board that really resonated with a woman was when I said in a capitalist world, success is mostly based on *intellectual ability*, therefore a woman can do it, and does not need to be male-like to succeed.
The woman really liked this. She said she was a computer programmer and focused solely on producing competent work. She said other women in her more male-dominated field acted like men to compensate for being women, and the only thing it really did was make them hard to work with.
Women really like this message of being both competent and feminine at the same time.
Of course, one article I have on femininity is solely dedicated to healing this false dichtomy of femininity equating to weakness. The masculine sexless competent girl on one side and the girly weak stupid woman on the other.
This is one thing I definitely have to offer women - healing this dichotomy.
This is a dichotomy not just advocated by feminists (and of course, it is by them), but by conservatives too.
64
I just got done listening to the radio. The male DJ was complaining about women. He said he tries to give them what they say they want. But then they just dismiss him as being a wimp.
I was also talking to this guy last night. He was trying to insist that he would give me those things I wanted - kind of, trying to get with me. IT TOTALLY TURNED ME OFF. Him telling me he was going to succumb to my wishes ... blech. Honestly. It turned me off.
What women like is *objective*. Don't listen to them. Don't listen to whatever subjective preference they are spouting off out of their mouth. Women want a strong man. They want confidence. Ignore them if they are telling you they just want a nice guy or whatever. Cut to the chase. They want a strong guy. It's an objective thing.
You are also more likely to get somewhere if you insult her than if you praise her constantly. Ah, some women seem to have extremely low self confidence and completely degrading her will get you far. However, this is NOT all women. But excessive compliments won't get you very far with the confident woman either. You'll fail to win her respect, ultimately. She might stay around for awhile, but even this woman needs a strong man.
I'm not saying don't pay attention to her needs ever. Look at her as an individual, of course - there are different variations of types of men she may like. But the standard of a strong, confident man remains. For every single heterosexual woman.
If she is rational and honest, she might be able to give you insight into her needs by what she says. Especially if she is young or just plain dumb, probably not though. Body language and non verbal clues are going to give much better insight.
Just advice I am dishing out to you guys ... if you want to learn how to allure women.
65
WOO HOO!!! POSTING WHILE DRUNK IS FUN!!!!!
Ok, so I'm like on my 5th.
Anyway, I was wasted tonight so I went and called my 1st boyfriend ever.
He is a liberal catholic. Can you believe it?
? I, atheist conservative me, went out with a LIBERAL CATHOLIC - THE WORST KIND TO BE.
Anyway, I sent him my most recent article on "Defining Femininity and Masculinity.
HE AGREED WITH THE ARTICLE!!!!
I've noticed that all men everywhere, liberal or not, like that article I put out. They like feminine women. Period.
I think I may have a larger audience than just conservative people after all.
Yay!!!!
Anyway, I think I speak to humans, not ideologues. I don't speak to conservatives, or feminists, or men's right activists, or whatever. I speak to men, women, *people*.
I just wanted to share that my strong message of masculine men and feminine women appeals not just to conservatives or liberals, but to people in general. In fact, on some liberal websites, even the WOMEN have responded positively to my article - particularly when I say things like women can be BOTH smart and achieved and feminine.
I think I would like to go by the slogan "Amber: Conservatives Hate her. Liberals hate her. AMERICANS love her."
It's time for a revolution!!!!!!
DOWN WITH FEMINISM!!!!!!!
:mrgreen:
:mrgreen:
66
I submitted my "It's fun to be a woman" piece to womensnews.org. I asked permission to send it first and they said go ahead. I sent it, and immediately I got an email back saying they would pass.
Currently, one of their editorials up on their website is about some man who had a sex change, and describes in detail his experiences.
Apparently, "woman" to the womensnews.org website are transgendered freaks, not women who fully and consciously embrace their womanhood.
Can you name anything more anti woman than feminists - who hate absolutely everything that it means to be a woman?
67
Bernard Chapin had a really good article up on MND about Michael Jackson. His basic argument was that jackson had pedophile prints all over him. He sets up this Neverland ranch in order to lure young children in. He also sets up fuzzy animals and toys everywhere so the children are weak, empathetic and vulnerable. Jackson's bizarre behavior, including sleeping in the same bed as the children, make him look guilty.
I was relaying this argument to some leftist minded people I know. They were insistent that "Jackson just loves children and wants to be around them!!"
:vomit:
I'm not really sure if he is guilty or not, but I lean towards believing he is. I just wanted to point out the absolutely naive mindest of a leftist who believes "everyone is good deep down."
68
The Roots of Gender: Defining Femininity and Masculinity
Just as Rand grounded the conclusions in epistemology, ethics, politics, and art in the statement "man is man," so the conclusions in sexuality - specifically determining masculinity and femininity - should be based on the statements "man is man and woman is woman." Rather, just as the conclusions in philosophy were based on man's nature, so the conclusions for sexuality must be based on the nature of man and the nature of woman.
Our current cultural mantra is that gender and sex are irrelevant to each other. Gender, most psychology books preach is the sexual psychology of a person, i.e. masculine or feminine, and is completely irrelevant to biological sex, i.e. male or female. Hence, a woman can be masculine, feminine or both and a man can be masculine, feminine or both.
By definition, this is illogical. If any so-called feminine trait can rationally exist in a man (meaning as objectively appropriate to), it is, by definition, not a "feminine" trait. The same is true in reverse: if any so-called masculine trait can rationally exist in a woman, it is not, by definition, a "masculine" trait. [This is not to say that if a woman so chooses to adopt a trait, it is by definition feminine or vice versa, but if that trait can appropriately and rationally exist in her - it is not a "masculine" trait.]
It is popular to believe that there are various "masculine" and "feminine" traits that exist - any of which can exist in a man or woman. Usually, any trait that is "strong" is taken to be "masculine," and any trait that is "weak" is taken to be "feminine." Hence a plethora of traits that can and do exist in both women and men - from logic to competition to emotion to nurturing - are assigned as masculine or feminine traits.
This view that masculinity and femininity are floating abstracts, unrelated to women or women, is a very much in vein with Platonic philosophy. Plato believed there was the world we live in now, and then there was another, more perfect world - where truth, morality, perfection, etc. exists. Therefore ideas are divorced from reality; behaviors divorced from man -femininity is divorced from women and masculinity is divorced from men. It is in the Aristotelian vein to keep behaviors related to human beings - femininity related to women and masculinity related to men.
Femininity is in fact not only exclusive to women, it is designed based upon the nature of a woman. Femininity - the "ought" of what a woman should do - is based on the nature of a woman, i.e. what a woman "is." The same is true for masculinity. Let us now do something very unpopular: define the "is" of men and women.
The nature of the woman, the reason for her existence as a woman differentiated from a man, is she is the sex capable of child-bearing. The nature of the man, his differentiation from a woman, is he is the sex capable of fertilizing the woman.
This is not to suggest that all sexual interaction must be done with the intent to procreate. This is not to refer to the process of child-making in any manner whatsoever. This is to suggest defining what makes a person a man as opposed to a woman. That difference, at its most essential level, is the woman is the child-bearer and the man is not.
The difference between men and women is not "mere genitalia." Of course, women have a vagina and men have a penis. But this is not where the differences stop as far as bodily composition is concerned. A woman's child-bearing capability does not just affect her genitalia but her whole body. This is not true for other animals. For instance, a female pit bull's body is not centrally designed any different from a male's. A female pit bull is still trained to fight like a male pit bull; the rest of her body is not affected by her child-bearing capability. But a human woman is completely differentiated from a man in her entire bodily composition -from her neck down. The difference between men and women is not just gonads, but the entire physicality of their two different bodies.
Men, who do not carry the responsibility of child-bearing, are designed for one purpose: mastering reality. Men's bodies are taller, bigger and more muscular than a woman's. They have less body fat, a high center of gravity, and broad shoulders. Their entire design has one central purpose: efficacy.
Women's bodies, on the other hand, are not designed solely for efficacy. A woman's body is smaller, shorter, and less muscular than a man's. It has a layer of body fat to protect her and a low center of gravity. She has supple breasts, wide hips, and even monthly periods. The central design of a woman's body is not efficacy: it is child-bearing.
Femininity and masculinity are the conscious, chosen behaviors of men or women to act in accordance to their nature as men or women respectively.
Being a man or a woman is one thing - it is completely automatic. Being feminine or masculine is another. Being a male or female is a physical concrete; being feminine or masculine is a chosen behavior. Gender is in fact an adjective - a chosen behavior by a person - but a rational person would act in accordance to reality therefore a woman will choose to be feminine and a man masculine. It is possible to act irrationally; therefore, gender is not intrinsic.
It is in, particular, femininity as chosen by women that has been not only assaulted, but almost completely rejected by women themselves - so this is now what we will discuss in detail.
Femininity is not such bogus things or traits such as "chaos, dependence, emotion" or even "nurturing, relationships, cooperation." Femininity is the woman who embraces, love, and relishes in the fact that she is a woman.
Femininity is more than the woman who is pretty, wears high heels, or dresses in skirts. One can easily name a host of attractive women who dress in heels and skirts who are not feminine. Yes, make up and dressing nice are a part of it, but only to accentuate, highlight, and idealize those features which make her a woman.
Femininity, by definition, can only rationally exist in women. Men cannot (rationally) revel in the fact or act in accordance to a nature as a women for obvious reasons.
Masculinity, of course, is defined as a man who embraces the fact that he is a man and acts in accordance. I am refraining from discussing it here for I discuss it in excessive length in my article on masculinity, and also - most men are not in denial of who and what they are as men.
Don't let anyone fool you by saying that any given other culture did not have, say, women who wore make up, therefore make up is not a feminine trait, or more importantly - that there is no objectively definable "feminine" traits. Makeup is merely a concrete - only one possible application of a woman who is acting in accordance to her nature and embracing herself as a woman. What matters are not the concretes of femininity that are materialized, but the standard: femininity is objectively defined as a woman who embraces her nature as a woman and acts in accordance.
A feminine woman embraces and does not deny the fact that certain limitations exist to her because of the fact that she is a woman. Which brings me to the single most primary trait in defining a feminine woman: hero-worship.
Hero-worship is fundamentally derived from what a woman is and what a man is. The child-bearing, less efficacious woman looks up to and admires the stronger, leaner, more efficiently designed male.
Let me make a note regarding the notion that intellect, not physical capabilities matter. Man's intellect is, indeed, the source of all wealth valuable to man. However, there is no mind-body dichotomy. Man's mind initiates and the body acts. The body must be used to materialize what man's mind created. A sound body, physical coordination, and technical competence are necessary in living life on earth. Imagine governing a farm, mining for gold, sailing across sea, winning a war, or even performing heart surgery, without a functioning, coordinated, highly efficient, and sometimes even strong body. It is not because of a lack of heroism or intellectual ability that women are less capable of negotiating reality, but of a lack of instruments to implement what her mind creates. As such, men should be, properly, regarded, as Ayn Rand says, the "dominant," i.e. more efficacious, sex.
Hero-worship is fundamentally grounded in the metaphysical natures of men and women. The man, uninhibited by the "burdens" of child-bearing becomes the dominant sex. His sexuality becomes wrapped up in his heroism, and a woman's sexuality becomes wrapped up in admiring him, because this is, after all, what has allowed civilization to exist and to prosper. Sex is a celebration of life. Life is the standard of erotica.
This does not imply that a woman should become a victim - a Rapunzel in distress - in relationship to a man. What is implied is that a woman's sexual nature is derived from hero-worship. A man who is stronger, taller, more efficacious than she is will excite her. Being in his presence will make her feel feminine.
This is not to say that a man will thus want a dumb, dependent, victim of a woman to be by his side. A man still, first and foremost, loves a woman for her virtues. But the relationship he has in contrast to her is different. Whereas the woman looks up to and exalts the man, the man looks at her, in all her greatness, with a cooing, affectionate warm eye. It is not an upwards or downwards glance that he gives her, but a level-headed admiring one. His sexual pleasure should not come from looking at her efficacy (although he should have the knowledge that she is competent), but in his own efficacy and his ultimate reward for his efficacy as the ability to be with a rational, honest, virtuous woman.
I often hear the argument that since men are, by nature's gift, more efficacious than women - why should one worship this? If it comes easier to them than to women, shouldn't one admire the person with the bigger struggle more?
When one begins to analyze this logically, however, you can see how absurd this is. If you owned a business and there were two machines being presented to you to buy, one of which ran extremely efficiently, almost effortlessly, and another one that required a tremendous amount of energy and strain to run at the same rate, which would you buy? In Atlas Shrugged, Rand makes a philosophical point: pain does not matter. What matters is not the struggle you have to endure to gain something, but the pleasure you receive upon gaining it. What matters are results not effort. Pleasure, ease, and ability should be regarded higher than pain, difficulty, and weakness.
Hero-worship is the primary quality that makes a woman feminine. A woman who revels in, appreciates, and loves men - embracing both who she is as a woman and the nature of men - is the hallmark of a feminine woman. Nothing else, in comparison, matters in determining if a woman is feminine or not, including a woman who may play sports, become an engineer, and a host of other things thought of as traditionally masculine.
It is the woman who rejects hero-worship in particular, which is, at its most fundamental level: a woman who is in denial of her nature as a woman, and tries to outcompete men that becomes an unfeminine, sexless brute.
How is possible for a woman to not do something that seems so simple, logical, and common sensical as embracing and acting in accordance to her nature as a woman? Simple: deny, evade, and hate the fact that she is a woman.
Many if not most American women today reject femininity. The reason for this, in short, is: they hate being women. I wish I believed in God for I would ask them: why would God create a creature that he thought was inferior? But then I remember that the Judeo-Christian religion believes that all men are created in sin, in particular Eve: the first sinner, and am reminded why I do not like religion.
The main culprit in causing women to reject femininity has been feminism.
Feminists' professed goal is to attain equality for women. By equality, they mean equality of result not opportunity, e.g. women with the same high level jobs as men, where the average woman's salary is 1:1 with men, where women are in military roles, etc.
Presented with the fact that women are not metaphysically designed to be equal to men, feminists did what they logically had to in order to (attempt to) achieve this: deny and evade the "is" of what a woman is.
From Martine Rothblatt's The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender summarizing the conclusion of her book:
"This book shows that there is no socially meaningful characteristic that defines humanity into two absolute groups, men and women. [...] Genitals are as irrelevant to one's role in society as skin tone. Hence, the legal division of people into males and females is as wrong as the legal divisions of people into black and white races."
To a feminist, just believing there is a certain category called "male" and another female called "female" is an evil to be fought tooth and nail. Indeed, one can see why. If one were to embrace the "is" of women, certain natural conclusions arise from it. Who can deny that women are physically less strong than men? Recognizing the physicality of what men and women are, hence, had to not only be scoffed as unimportant, but denied altogether.
Feminists are like a virus, infecting the minds of millions of women - training them to hate being women, deny their bodily nature, and wish they were a man. The assault on femininity is obvious. I mentioned in the article before this that feminists have encouraged women to urinate in urinals and men to urinate in toilets. This is a clear-cut example of how an unfeminine woman behaves: by pretending that she can act as if she were a man.
A woman can still do a number of things considered masculine and retain her femininity. Many women, for instance, who play sports are still feminine. Whether or not they are feminine is a frame of mind. Generally the feminine woman who plays sports recognizes that men are stronger than she, and it doesn't upset her. The unfeminine woman is quite intent on being equal to men for she is denial of her nature as a woman.
The assault on womanhood is particularly virulent when one mentions that men are metaphysically stronger than woman, and that a rational woman would not only not deny this, but find it as a fundamental source for her desire for men.
A woman has two possible responses to the fact that men are stronger than she: reverence or jealousy. The current establishment is doing their best to sway the female response to the latter.
Ayn Rand said we live in an "Age of Envy." That is, an age where the good is hated for being the good. It is only in this culture where we can have women hating men for being good. It is one thing for a person to hate another for being virtuous, but for a woman to hate a man for being efficacious? A woman's femininity is hero-worship attacking a man's efficacy would be comparable to a man hating a beautiful woman for being beautiful.
A rational woman is not jealous of men's efficacy, and instead looks up to, admires, and loves it. She does not try to toy with her gender, to compete with men, but rather enjoys men. It is not the worst, but the best in a woman that reveres men for being efficacious and able. It reveals a state of tremendous psychological health for a woman to see greatness and give it reverence; it reveals a horrific state of psychological health for a woman to see greatness and become enraged with envy over it.
A woman who spends her life trying to outcompete men will necessarily become a sexless, joyless creature. It's quite logical to see how that would happen. A woman who tries to be "equal" to men will find she can only do it by denying, evading, and damning herself for being a woman. Nothing could be more destructive in destroying her sensuality.
The completion of an adult, morally achieved woman is not an eternal struggle to be like a man. This includes in particular trying to outcompete men athletically, which will never happen. A rational woman would focus on where she can become achieved - which is intellectual - and would embrace her nature as a woman, love men for their nature, and live a rational, joyful, sexual life.
There is one place in where I possibly disagree with Ayn Rand. Rand said a woman should not become the President of the United States, as if she did she would become a sexless, rationally revolting creatures. The reason is much as I outlined above - for if a woman was the top leader in the freest nation on earth, she would have no man to "look up" to. I disagree; a woman may perhaps be able to become a leader of a great nation without losing her sexuality. For an example of this, see Margaret Thatcher. A woman does not necessarily look up to the President as her hero. She very easily could look up to a different man as a hero: her husband.
The sexlessness of a female does not come from a woman who choses a certain profession, but the woman who is in denial of her nature, and many women in all different professions fit this bill, and indeed, this includes some female leaders such as Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. But so as long as a woman still cherishes who she is as a woman and adores and appreciates men, she can remain sexual - especially if she regards her duties as a leader as a service to her fellow people and nothing else. However, Rand said she was opposed to a female President of the United States not Prime Minister of England. And, indeed, there was one person more powerful than Thatcher during her reign: Ronald Reagan.
I do not believe feminists main interest is to create successful, independent women, but to create sexless women, which in the end causes gender warfare, breaks down the family, etc. and a host of other things as part of the feminist/communist agenda. If they really cared about female independence, they would be preaching those things that lead to success: reason, independence, diligence. Especially in a capitalist world, those things a woman lacks in comparison to a man simply do not matter. But they do not preach these things, instead they preach women try to behave like men and pretend as if they are not women. What can his accomplish except to de-sexualize women? Their agenda is obvious.
Indeed, as far as sexuality goes, nothing is more alluring to men than a women who embraces her femininity, i.e. loves and embraces the fact that she is a woman. A sexual woman is not just one who is not in denial of her nature as a woman, but fully embraces, plays it up, accentuates it - she has a heightened sense of her femininity. Even having ideal characteristics is not as powerful in alluring men as embracing femininity. The attitude is more important than the physical. Whether it be flipping hair, retaining a soft, feminine figure, or allowing a man to dominate you in bed, these things will allure men. And, vice versa, a man who embraces his masculinity - embracing, highlighting and accentuating those things that make him a man will allure women.
Also, nothing is more powerful for a woman's sexual enjoyment than to embrace the fact that she is a woman. Nothing - no great position, no great mechanical move, no great CD, lotion, or anything of the sort - is as powerful in allowing a woman to climax as embracing her femininity, i.e. acting in accordance to the fact that she is a woman.
Femininity is something that naturally rises from the nature of women, and masculinity in men. A woman's body - curvy, supple and beautiful - complements and gives rise to femininity. A man's body - strong, lean, and muscular - complements and gives rise to masculinity. Those trying to gender bend these roles - turning women into masculine brutes and men into passive wimps - are assaulting reality, sexuality, pleasure, and fun.
The recipe for erotic heterosexual sex is quite simple and universal: masculine man and feminine woman. Those trying to destroy it are those trying to destroy sexuality altogether. Some try to destroy it as they hate sexuality, others because they hate heterosexuality. Indeed, homosexuals tend to be some of the loudest advocates of subjective gender roles. The reason I propose is as follows.
In all relationships, a couple polarizes themselves into a masculine role and a feminine role. For heterosexuals, how that polarizes is obvious. But for homosexuals, which involve either two men or two women together, it is not. At some point, a man will have to behave feminine and a woman will have to behave masculine. Gender bending is a natural part of their lives. A woman must act outside of her nature as a woman at some point and a man must act outside of his nature as a man.
As a conclusion, let me offer an example of a group of people who denied gender roles, i.e. denied the metaphysical design of men and women.
I offer an example of when a large group of men and women tried to deny gendered roles, during the Sexual Revolution. I take this from Andrea Dworkin's account in Right Wing Women. In it, she describes the men and women, who came together in opposition to the Vietnam War. They boasted they would develop a new kind of sexual credo - with men and women being "partners," in "brother-sister relationships" instead of in gendered roles. Here is what actually happened. I apologize for the language, but the snip was revealing enough to be included.
Precisely in trying to erode the boundaries of gender through an apparent single standard of sexual-liberation practice, they participated more and more in the most gender-reifying act: fucking. The men grew more manly; the world of the counterculture became more aggressively male-dominated. The girls became women--found themselves possessed by a man or a man and his buddies (in the parlance of the counterculture, his brothers and hers too)--traded, gang-fucked, collected, collectivized, objectified, turned into the hot stuff of pornography, and socially resegregated into traditionally female roles. Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose--it turned out--was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful. One consequence for the women was an intensification of the experience of being sexually female--the precise opposite of what those idealistic girls had envisioned for themselves. (bold mine)
This is a group of people who wanted "equal," relationships, in which they were completely blind to whether the sex was a man or a woman. After trying to live up to "brother-sister relationships," (i.e. genderless), these men and women dwindled into far more extreme, more abusive, more wicked gendered roles. The women became absolutely submissive; the men absolutely dominant. The male-female interaction of the man and woman did got get squashed, instead it grew wildly and untamed.
Once again, it is proven: reality to be commanded - must be obeyed.
69
I don't know much about Iraq War I. When we went to war because Saddam was invading other countries - our oil supply. I believe that was the gist of it; it doesn't matter right now.
Anyway, I don't know much about the culture, reactions, or leftist reaction to this war. I was only 10 when it happened.
However, it is obvious the anti war protestors for this war are alive and well. They even exist as senators and governors.
So, my question to people who were more cognizant during the early 90s is: were the anti war protestors as alive and well then? I'm adding a poll question mostly because I am poll happy lately.
The reason why I ask is because, besides one variable, it seems the two wars have all the same variables. All the same variables, anyway, that should enrage typical anti war protestors. We are going to the war for oil (true or not, it doesnt' matter), we are acting as our own force, innocents will die ... bla bla bla.
The only variable that makes Iraq II REALLY different than Iraq I is that it is unequivocally tied to the *war on terror*. So, it is interesting that in Iraq II, when the US security is likely at further risk, that the anti war protestors are so much more angry.
If my hypothesis is correct, it would be proof that they are not so much anti war as they are in favor of allowing those groups that wish to destroy the United States exist.
71
It's Fun to be a Woman
Ever since my work dealing with femininity, in particular a piece I wrote called, "Feminine or Feminist," people have come to me and asked me what I mean by "feminine." Let me now define that by comparing two different things: the feminine woman versus the "hot" woman.
Femininity is not just looking pretty, wearing high heels, or dressing in skirts. These things can and do play a part of it, but it is not the essence of femininity. Indeed, one can easily name a host of attractive women who are not feminine.
Femininity is not so much anything as it is a state of mind. Most importantly, femininity is a woman who embraces, relishes, and enjoys the fact that she is a woman.
Femininity is an essence, a behavior, a choice, a spirituality. Being hot and sexy is not spiritual; it is primarily bodily. Femininity is a certain state of mind; being hot is having certain ideal characteristics. The feminine woman may or may not have ideal physical characteristics. The hot woman always does; it is the essence of her lusty sexual appeal.
This is not to say that the feminine woman necessarily is unattractive. Indeed a host of attractive woman are feminine, and this creates a dynamic combination. It also doesn't mean that a feminine woman doesn't take care of her body - she should maintain her body, all as part of loving her bodily nature as a woman - but perfectly ideal female characteristics is not a requirement to be a feminine woman.
This is drawn out by the fact that I've seen and known women in their 70s who are more feminine than many younger women, especially younger women today. I've seen women who are in their 70s who still draw into themselves to laugh in a distinctly girly way; who still wear their favorite red lipstick; who still thank and affirm men profusely when they give up their bus seat for her. Feminnity is an action, a way of being - that is largely irrelevant of how good of a feature God may have given to any woman.
Another major difference between the feminine woman and the hot woman is the feminine woman ages gracefully. She understands her path as a woman involves growing from young into old; from a Miss to a Mrs.; daughter to a mother. These are all part of her natural course as a woman. The hot woman is insistent on keeping a youthful ideal with botox, plastic surgery, and my personal pet peeve: women who are 60+ and keep long hair. These women aren't just in denial of who they are as women, but as older women. In an ironic twist, it is the feminine woman who actually retains a youthful glow to her.
A feminine woman is likely to keep a thin layer of body fat on her body. This doesn't make her look fat; it makes her look soft. The hot woman is likely to drive to 0% body fat; rock hard abs; chiseled arms.
A feminine woman tends to be modest. The hot woman is likely to dress in mid drifts and daisy dukes. The feminine woman loves her body: why would she reveal it to just anybody? The feminine versus the hot woman is the difference between sensual and slutty.
For a feminine woman, there is no breach, at all, between her actions and who she is, metaphysically, as a woman. She embraces reality - who she is as a woman, her delicate skin, her soft face, her shape, her breasts. Yes, make up and dressing nice are a part of it, but only to accentuate, highlight, and idealize those features which make her a woman.
Femininity is something that is exclusive to women. Men cannot revel in the fact that they are women for obvious reasons. Many will have you believe that masculinity and femininity is something that either gender can be. But, in fact, if any given trait can rationally exist in either gender, it was not a "masculine" trait or a "feminine" trait to begin with. Only women can be feminine. Only men can be masculine.
This is what I mean by femininity: a woman who says, "I love being a woman!!"
72
This was sent to me from someone, as I still get mail regarding my club at Penn State. I'm only posting but to point out one thing highlighted below.
---
From State College to Los Angeles, from Havana to Johannesburg, and from Calcutta to Tokyo people struggle to resolve social problems plaguing their communities. In our global village college students understanding social issues is a vital component to fulfilling our hopes and dreams. Social Change Week will integrate classroom learning, civic responsibility, campus life, and international awareness in a way that is both entertaining and enriching.
The Undergraduate Student Government, Groove Phi Groove social fellowship Inc, and Beta Phi Pi fraternity Inc. have come together to provide Penn State students with an unforgettable experience. Social Change Week is this year's installment of the Social Change Block Party that took place last year on the HUB lawn. This year's event will be a bigger and more substantial event, though it will remain consistent with the original message of "education through exposure, and change through action." The weeklong event will consist of programs culminating in the Social Change Block Party on Saturday January 24th 2004 at Heritage Hall. Each day of the week will be dedicated to one major social issue with topics ranging from children's rights to public education.
The Social Change Block Party will be the BANG that rocks Penn State students into a new state of mind. The Block Party is designed to engage, stimulate, and empower the thoughts shaping tomorrow. Through discussion, entertainment, and education we will plant the seeds of hope and transformation into the minds and hearts of our peers. With a special emphasis on first year students, this is an opportunity for Penn State students to jumpstart their college careers by accepting the challenge of civic responsibility.
This program further provides a fresh and exciting opportunity for all participants to be active in their local and world communities. The Social Change Block Party is an information fair where food, and music are offered FREE of charge. With a focus on community involvement and a large array of Penn State student organizations, cultural dance groups, poets, and performers, Social Change Week promises to be a mental roller coaster of enlightenment, entertainment and critical thought.
Social Change Week
"Education through exposure, change through action"
Social Change Week is an extension of the Social Change Block Party that took place on the HUB lawn last October.
The Block Party was a huge success, bringing together over 20 student and community organizations as well as 250 to 300 students and community members to share and discuss various ideas relevant to our social environment. The event provided knowledge of the issues that are represented by Penn State students, as well as practical ways for students to get involved. Last year's Social Change Block Party exceeded all expectations, we had a larger attendance than expected and a broader representation of organizations from around the campus. World-renowned poet, activist, and author Saul Williams delivered a spectacular periodic performance marked by crowd interaction and discussion, appropriately closing the eight-hour event, which effectively ran from 11a.m. to 7p.m.
This year the event will be bigger and more substantial, but it will remain consistent with the original message of "education through exposure, change through action." The week of civic centered programs will culminate in the Social Change Block Party on Saturday. Each day of the week will be dedicated to one major social issue with topics ranging from children's rights to public education.
We are submitting this letter to you because we understand that in order for this event to truly be a success we will need the support, cooperation and participation from large and diverse portions of the Penn State Community.
There are many ways to contribute to this event and each contribution will serve to make the week more valuable and more positive for Penn State students. One way to become apart of this opportunity would be to sponsor a portion of the program: a meal, a speaker, or one of the entertainment sections. Another way to contribute is to participate in the actual Social Change Block Party by requesting a table for your social change organization (dept/group). This table will display your organization's mission, purpose and goals. It will also inform students of the issue that you are engaged in as well as some practical ways that they themselves may get involved if they were interested. We hope that you will be able to contribute in some way, because we know that your participation will assist in projecting the message of unity, education, and civic involvement that we are trying to convey.
Thank you for your time,
Takkeem Morgan
Committee Chair, Social Change Week
---
College careers??? What the hell is that? You have a career when you are in college?
I just wanted to show how activist indoctrinating minded these people are. To them, and the students know it and say it mindlessly, the students are just diligent activists while in colleges. They are used and abused. It's more important they are out fighting the patriarchy than it is preparing for a career.
And, of course they hit first year students. Make sure to hit the ones who are REALLY lost, confused, and depressed from leaving small towns and coming to a large, competitive school, too. That's the target market for creating good victim minded activists.
73
.. and vice versa, men cannot logically be feminine.
"The current mantra (in our culture) is that gender and sex are irrelevant to each other. The usual cry is that a person has the "freedom" to choose to be either masculine or feminine regardless their biological sex. Or, if they are an advocate of androgyny, they will say that a man should be both feminine and masculine while a woman should be also be both feminine and masculine. Regardless, both of these camps believe that a woman can posess masculine traits and that a man can possess feminine traits.
This is, by definition, illogical. If any so-called feminine trait can rationally exist in a man, it is by definition not a "feminine" trait. The same is true in reverse: if any so-called masculine trait can rationally exist in a woman, it was not a valid "masculine" trait to begin with. Logically, femininity is something only a woman can possess and masculinity is something only a man can possess.
"
74
"Islam is currently holding back people all over the world from achieving freedom, prosperity -- even a life in which they can be guaranteed they won't be plucked off tomorrow by mullahs and killed. It is the fundamental oppressor of people around the world. Yet leftists are so insistent on apologizing for it. The best they can do is say "but Christianity is bad too!" Ya ... NOT an excuse. Especially considering Christianity is NOT currently serving as the oppressor of people around the world. Digging up what happened hundreds of years ago is the best leftists can do.
Can't you see how brainwashed you are?
There are various leaders who WANT you to apologize for Islam because there are various leaders who WANT the world to be oppressed.
If you favored human rights - if you favored the liberation of people around the world - if you favored allowing these people, MANY of whom are people of enlightenment and reason, particulary in Iran, to go friggin' to a mall just to shop, or to not have to fear their life every day, or to be able to just go outside in shorts and a shirt as women to enjoy the sunshine -
you will be opposed to Islam.
*Comparing it to the evils of Christianity is NOT an excuse
*Comparing it to what Christians did 100 years ago is NOT an excuse
*Saying it is only people who have a bad interpretation of the Koran is NOT an excuse
Get off your duff. Wake up. This religion is evil. It is responsible for oppression, murder, tyranny. Develop a goddam moral backbone. Stand up to this evil, which you - for whatever mind-numbing reason - feel the need to defend. "
75
I asked him his permission to re print it, without his name.
----
Hello Amber.. my name is XXX.. and I've been reading your thoughts on feminism and what it stands for , what its been doing ., etc etc.. and I must say that I couldnt agree with you more. As someone who loves women, and loves family, and the greater potential of society as a working unit, I see feminism and all that it purports as a direct threat to that. I've actually dated feminist women in the past and of course it never worked out, they say I'm too bullheaded and didnt go for any of their mess. I think what put me on to understanding what they really stand for is the first time I've gone out with these women, they either try hurting me; or starting denigrating men in a very nasty way. They try to rid themselves of the softness that women have, giving them a hardedge feel. But I think above all they couldnt be civil, they wanted me to hurt, or they tried something to make me notice their dislike of masculinity. (I'm actually getting to a point.) One particular woman, however was caught between two ideals. You see, she had a great relationship with her father. Her father was nurturing to her, and complemented her on her FEMININITY. Her love for her father didnt allow her to fall completely into the abyss of feminism. Though she was abused at an early age by another man, she loved her father dearly. Her father was her hero. In the end she told me I was more man than anyone she's met.
I found that very interesting. I've done research on many classic feminist thinkers, betty friedan, simone de beavoir, gloria steinem, etc etc etc.. and they all have two very important things in common. One, their childhood was reprehensible, they all had either tyrannical mothers or fathers, a childhood they was described as stifling, hellish, and consistently degrading. And so they felt a horrible vulnerability to pain that they didnt like. And two, they all reacted to their negative childhood's .. negatively. They took a negative childhood and reacted to it negatively. A childhood , mind you, where the fathers were not heroes. So, what do they do? They either hate daddy, and subsequenty hate men, or they try to become masuline themselves. All which lead to a negative predicament, because neither will bring a them to happiness and fulfillment as a woman. And now finally my point. You brought up an excellent point in your essay about 'bees and the swarm,' in saying that 'christianity' or a true spiritual base will bring about healing, because it promotes love. I think we both agree that love will certainly help these women, only they are not interested in love, they are interested in holding on to pain, and nurturing it, and how will that ever allow growth? So, I think, for these women, a positive response to their negative situation would be love, or christianity, or islam, or whatever your professs, because it points to the potential, the higher potential of every human being, thereby forcing growth. You are very interesting, and I admire your strength in combatting what is almost wholly detrimental to society. And I ,
on my end will do what I must to turn the tide. Bold, italics mine
76
I need to know for my piece that will likely be up tomorrow. I might have spelled her name wrong here, it doesn't matter right now.
Thanks for voting!!!
77
A Manifesto on Rational Gender Roles
In the debate of whether or not men and women are different, i.e. the debate of what gender will affect and what it doesn't, very little sound intellectual leadership has been provided. In our culture in particular, people go around as if their eyes are gauged out, insisting that biological sex will not affect anything about a person.
The leadership that has caused this are the so-called liberals, in particular feminists, who have waged a war on reality. Feminists have trained us to believe that making reference to the fact that a person is a woman or a man is utter sexism. They don't just want us to believe that the biological sex of a person is irrelevant in determining behavior: they want us to believe even identifying that biological sex is evil. From Martine Rothblatt's The Apartheid of Sex:
"This book shows that there is no socially meaningful characteristic that defines humanity into two absolute groups, men and women. [...] Genitals are as irrelevant to one's role in society as skin tone. Hence, the legal division of people into males and females is as wrong as the legal divisions of people into black and white races."
To a feminist, even if we identify a person as "man" or a "woman," we will necessarily cause for the oppression of women. Reality and knowledge, i.e. the recognition of what men and women are, to them, must be fought tooth and nail.
So-called conservatives, on the other hand, are insistent that gender affects everything, including the type of work a person should have (i.e. women should only be housewives and mothers) and their intellectual abilities, to name a few. Feminists believe gender affects nothing; conservatives believe it affects everything.
Let us now discuss, in scientific, exact terms, what gonads will affect and what they won't.
The first obvious area in which gender matters is sex.
To be blind to what who/what men and women are would cause for an absolutely sexless nightmare. For men, imagine being forced not to embrace a woman's soft hair, delicate face, or supple body: all things of which she is because she is a woman and not a man. For women, imagine being forced not to embrace a man's strong chest, stern jaw, and sleek body: all things he is because he is a man. Intimacy, sensuality, and romance are completely dependent on embracing reality, bodily natures, and gender differences.
Sexuality is the primary place in which gender differences matter. The case for this is obvious and simple; it does not need much explanation.
However, gender differences may cause for influence in other areas that are outside the realm of sexuality. Let us now discuss those.
First, the difference between men and women is not "mere genitalia." Of course, the reproductive systems of the two sexes are different, and women have a vagina and men have a penis. But this is not where the differences stop as far as bodily composition is concerned. Keep in mind that the reason why a woman is a woman is her body is capable of child bearing. It does not just affect her genitalia, but her whole body. She is, as a result, not as physically strong as a man - who is not designed for child-bearing - among other various differences. This is not true for other animals. For instance, a female pit bull's body is not centrally designed any different from a male's. A female pit bull is still trained to fight like a male pit bull; the rest of her body is not affected by her child bearing capability. Nothing about her makes her "feminine" as compared to the male. But a human woman is completely differentiated from a man in her entire bodily composition, not just her genitalia - from her neck down.
This metaphysical fact of reality, i.e. that women are the childbearers - and all that it implies, must be unequivocally embraced when determining the "role" of a female. Indeed, it was relatively smart of feminists to complete deny who/what a female is, because when one embraces it, certain natural conclusions are drawn.
One conclusion that is drawn, for instance, is that women do not belong in combat roles in the military. The first and obvious argument is that women are not as physically strong as men. The reason why women are not equipped to deal with combat situation - from their lesser physical strength, to their higher sanitary needs, to a body design which is not designed for running and killing - all fundamentally ties back to her nature as the sex capable of carrying life. Other problems presented by women in the military tie back also to this fact. Men want to protect women (which makes for an ineffective unit) because of who women are. She is likely to get raped in enemy territory because of who she is as a woman. And so on.
Have you ever wondered why women typically do not play rough sports - such as football? If you think about it, even if a man becomes injured, he still can produce young so as long as that particular area of his body was not damaged (which is also why men are so protective of this area). But if a woman has any kind of bodily injury, it will affect her ability to carry a young child to term and care for it when it is born. This is why women are intuitively protective of their entire body and why men intuitively want to protect women, the child bearers.
Regardless that area being investigated, reality should always be embraced. The physical design of a person matters, and it should be decided if this physical design will affect the behavior or role at hand.
With that said, there are many places where gender does not matter. The first and foremost is regarding intellectual matters.
There is one area in which feminists may have a point in their complaints about gender divisions - although not completely. They complain that "patriarchal" cultures such as the Greeks or Christian ideology cast women as illogical and men as logical. Feminists' main argument over gender differences is that gender differences are not innate but culturally produced. Therefore, if the culture expects women to be X, they will be X, based on culture not nature. In the case of saying women cannot be creatures of reason, they have a point. Reason is an act of choice. Therefore, if a person never decides to choose to think, they will in fact be illogical. If it is expected that women are illogical, and women never think, they will indeed self fulfill this prophecy.
Reason is one area that gonads do not matter. Reason has to do with the brain and the brain is not a gendered organ.
This is why our culture has the potential to be much better than Greek culture, which, despite all its flaws, was the greatest culture ever. There is no reason why a woman cannot be a creature of reason. Being a creature of reason will not threaten her femininity. A woman who embraces her bodily nature as a woman is feminine. She can still embrace thinking. There is no reason to keep women dumb or not to push women to become enlightened. I've yet to meet a man who liked an illogical woman. This is my fundamental vision for women as modern liberal women.
But the reason why feminists fail to have a point regarding this is because feminists do not embrace reason, especially not for women. They moan that reason is male-like while emotion is female-like, and our culture, which worships reason, they say, therefore is anti-woman. Therefore, feminists do not have the right to complain about the self fulfilling prophecy of the Greeks and Christians, for they themselves are just as irrational in advocating this erroneous gender division.
Many things remain gendered that aren't gendered. It is commonly accepted that any trait that is considered "strong" is masculine while "weak" is feminine. This includes people who believe logic is masculine while chaos is feminine; that war is masculine and that peace is feminine; that achievement is masculine and that cooperation is feminine, and so on. But when you browse the population, there clearly are a large number of women who are logical, favor war, and achieve things. There are also men who are emotional, who are pacifists, and so on. These things have nothing to do with gender.
Because of this, i.e. the sloppy genderizing of things that aren't gendered, people tend not to support any gender differences at all. What usually happens is people see things that are traditionally assigned as masculine or feminine - such as it is "male" to become an engineer or it is "female" to be nurturing - and they don't want to have any part of it. So they throw the baby out with the bath water, and decide there are no hard, concrete gender differences. And it is particularly destructive in the one area where gender most definitely matters: sex. So we have what we have now: effeminated men and masculine women - neither of whom are sexually attracted to each other.
Indeed, the primary, and almost the only main gender difference is sexual. Femininity for a woman mostly has to do with how she sees herself as a sexual being and how she will relate to men. It has little to do with her career choices, although to a degree it does as described above. A man, even a heroic man, is just a heroic man, until he wins the admiration of a woman, which is when he becomes a masculine man. His masculinity comes not just from his pride in achieving something, but in achieving it and being allowed the sexual interaction from a woman because of it.
A feminine woman and a masculine man are traits of people who fundamentally embrace their bodily nature. Feminists insist that gender, i.e. feminine or masculine is one thing, but sex, i.e. male or female, is another, and that a woman can be a masculine and a man can be feminine. Conservatives, on the other hand, insist that gender is not an adjective but a noun. Feminine and masculine are just another way to say man or woman. Objectivists reject both arguments. We do in fact believe that gender is an adjective, and that a person must choose to be either. But the Objectivist argues that a rational person will act in accordance to their nature, and a woman will be feminine and a man masculine.
Whether a woman is feminine or not simply ties back to a woman who embraces the fact that she is a woman - and all that it implies - versus a woman who does not. Most American women today reject femininity. The reason for this, in short is that they hate being women. They are in denial of the fact that they are women, and wish they were men. But they shouldn't. Reality is friendly. Yay! It's fun being a woman!! I wish I believed in God for I would ask them: why would God create a creature that he thought was inferior? But then I remember that the Judeo-Christian religion believes that all men are created in sin, in particular Eve: the first sinner, and am reminded why I do not like religion.
The completion of an adult, morally achieved woman is not an eternal struggle to be like a man. This includes in particular trying to outcompete men athletically, which will never happen. A rational woman would focus on where she can become achieved - which is intellectual - and would embrace her nature as a woman, love men for their nature, and live a rational, joyful, sexual life.
Whatever the area, knowledge should be embraced. We should not put our blinders on, like scared children, running from who/what we are. Human nature - especially human sexual nature - is good.
Amber Pawlik™
78
NOOOO!!!!! Say it isn't so!!!! :bawling: :cry: :bawling:
Betty Friedan was a member of the Communist Party of the United States - did they know that
??
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/bregister_ayn-rand-feminist.asp"In 1963, The Objectivist Newsletter printed a positive review by Edith Efron of what many regard as the founding document of contemporary feminism, Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. "
"The Role of Betty Friedan
In her 1963 review of The Feminine Mystique, Edith Efron hints at an answer that runs deeper than these trends. Efron notes that Friedan's book is predominantly individualist in tone and advocates the training and independent employment of women's rational faculties in productive work. The mystique of which Friedan writes was the notion, sustained by neo-Freudian psychologists, that women are naturally maternal, that the development of their minds through sustained education stunts their sexual impulses and child-rearing capacities. Having a career, Friedan reports, was viewed by the mystique as something for men; a woman was to find her satisfaction through her children, her husband, and homemaking. Friedan relies on humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Erik Erikson to support her claim that persons find satisfaction primarily in a career or career-like endeavor.
79
I think it was Jen who mentioned that she was a sexist because she distinctly prefered men as sexual partners than women. Hahaha, I thought it was hilarious.
There is a difference between sexism and misogyny/misandry. Sexism is thinking about someone someway based on their gender. It is not necessarily good or bad. But misogny/misandry means you have a
hatred of that gender. Sexism is often rational; misogyny/misandry never is.
There is good and bad sexism. Or rather, valid and invalid sexism. Good sexism, like Jen said, may perhaps be being attracted to one sex as that sex - thus judging said person based on their gender. Bad sexism, I would say, involves making non-verifiable conclusions, such as - women are bad at math, or what have you.
Amber [Proud Sexist, Anti-Misogynist/Misandrist]
80
I was driving in my car today and on the radio the DJ said Liz Phair said she would not want to be in a "Women Who Rock" special (like on VH1) because there is not a "Men Who Rock."
I was stunned!! I like it!! I don't completely agree, since I am not into "gender equality," and if someone who wants to throw a Women Who Rock special, then great. But, I still liked that Liz Phair said it. It alerted me to the fact that she is not a feminist and thinks about things.
Also, I like her new song. At first I didn't like it, because I felt like she was kind of being victim like. "Why Can't I breathe whenever I think about you?" I felt like since she perhaps may be liberal and was talking about liking men, and talking about how her whole world becomes chaotic and confused when it happens, then she is allowed to say it. But if I, a right wing girl, were to start singing about it, and I likely would not start saying that my life turned chaotic when it happened, then everyone would hate me for singing it.
But now I like the song, especially after hearing her comment and knowing she is not a feminist. It's a very honest song! She's pretty gut honest about her emotions with men. She gets all starry eyed over a guy, before ever really knowing him. I do that basically all the time. She's also decked out in capris and high heels in the video, with long feminine straight hair - so I'm all about it!
If there is one thing about leftists - even if they are not honest with the facts of reality (see their hyseterics about the wage gap, etc.), they ARE honest with their emotions. I think THAT is finally what is going to topple feminism. Women who are honest with their emotions, and most importantly - honest about their natural desire for men.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
