R.E.A.L. women of Canada

Started by outdoors, Jun 01, 2007, 05:44 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

typhonblue

I'm betting that the real women of canada still think that it's women who shoud bear the moral standard for society. Just like feminists.

The only difference is a superficial disagreement over what constitutes morality, or, more accurately stated, what constitutes the best way to control men's behavior.

The Biscuit Queen

They are a start. You have to start somewhere.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

typhonblue

REAL women still have strong opinions on what men should and should not do, just like feminists.

It's still women defining men via "morality" instead of "oppression."

Like I said, both groups think women(or women's notions of morality) should control men. They just disagree on the means to that end. And a lot less then one might imagine.

One person says the slave should be controlled with whips and chains, the other says the slave should be controlled with operant conditioning. Niether is an advocate of allowing the beleagured individual to make his own decisions, or, god forbid, run free.

It's the same shit, just a different pile.

A real start would be a movement of women who seek to support men in whatever decision they make about their own lives.  Without judgement or shaming language.



The Biscuit Queen

Go ahead and start one then.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

MAUS

REAL WOMEN Canada have been around since feminism first took hold in academia....they have consistently opposed feminism and they have done more in real terms to curb feminist political power than any men's group.

typhonblue

So what if Real women fight against feminists?

Again, all the argument between the two groups is _HOW DO WE BEST RULE OVER MEN_. Both Real women, and feminists, want to rule over men, they just disagree as to how.

So why support either?

The reason why Real women wasn't successful in truly curbing feminist power is because Real women don't attack the basis of feminist power: women's control over men provided for by "traditional" values. 

If Real women really wanted to end feminism, they would end chivalry. In a non chivalrous society the only thing feminists get is the occasional eye roll and, if they manage to be at all threatening, the noose.

MAUS

So what kind of world do you envision? An Amish farm writ large?

typhonblue


So what kind of world do you envision? An Amish farm writ large?


Hmm... that might do.

Or maybe women working to support the leisure time of men which has been historically proven to produce actual things of value, as opposed to the leisure time of women.

rantmeister


I'm betting that the real women of canada still think that it's women who shoud bear the moral standard for society. Just like feminists.

The only difference is a superficial disagreement over what constitutes morality, or, more accurately stated, what constitutes the best way to control men's behavior.


Hi typhonblue. From what I've read, the R.E.A.L. women look good to me. What have they done or said that gives you this negative impression?

rantmeister

typhonblue

Like most conservative women's groups they are anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-sex industry, anti-gay... pretty much anti-anything that increases men's sexual choices outside of their version of a traditional marriage.

This suggests to me that they are just as interested in controlling men as feminists are, the only difference is that they hide their control behind "moral imperitives" rather then social ones. Most conservative women also seem to think that manhood should be defined by sacrifice to women.

Like I said, I think a step forward would be a group of women who do not judge men on their life choices, regardless if those life choices lead men away from women.

Further, conservative women don't seem to acknowledge the fact that it is their own philosophies that grant feminism the power it has. Conservative women teach men to sacrifice for women, teach chivalry. Chivalry is what gives feminism its social cache. After all when you teach men to sacrifice for women, and also subtly and not so subtly suggest that he is woman's moral inferior (by turning all the things that he enjoys into "sins"), you make men vulnerable to _any_ women's whims, not just conservative women's.

In order to truly eradicate feminism, conservative women would have to give up their own power base, their own influence over men. Embrace a philosophy where men do not define themselves by sacrifice by women or by women's morality.

Which is exactly the last thing they would ever do.

Thus the whole debate strikes me as a hydra arguing with itself.

dr e

Quote
Thus the whole debate strikes me as a hydra arguing with itself.


:greener:

I have missed you TBlue and glad that you are back with us.  Your argument reminds me of a similar problem of choosing between republicans or democrats.   :icon_cyclops_ani:  They both are misandrous, just different aspects of the beast. I guess we are so tired of being chained that if someone suggests that we should not have to wear them we rejoice.  You look a step or two deeper and see that the suggestion to unchain men is based on the groups own desire rather than a call for males to be free.  Very interesting stuff and I do wish that someone with your perspective had a public voice.  I would love to hear both sides respond to your observations.  I doubt either has really considered it.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

The Biscuit Queen

I have considered it.

Conservative men are against the same things.

Conservative women demand the same chains on themselves. Anti porn/ prostitution/ gay is a morality issue, and women are bound by the same laws. The first two are actually a way for poor women to make it on their own, thus taking away our choices as well, although in a smaller parameter.   The second, it is considered wrong for conservative women to be lesbians as well. Goes both ways. While I am sure you can find some evidence that technically the Bible does not prohibit lesbianism, because the word man is used instead of human, the word 'man' was for both men and women. And most churches which ban homosexuality include in that ban lesbianism. In practice they are equal opportunity.

You also typically undervalue women's contribution in the family. I will say this but not go into detail as I know it is not something I am going to  argue with you, no sense beating that poor horse anymore. A Christian woman is taught to make many sacrifices for her husband, and to put his needs first, just as he is to sacrifice for her and put her needs first. They are to put their marriage first after God and they both are to work to raise their kids. I think that conservative women are working towards the Biblical view of family. Men also want and value children, so this is not a woman only issue. I think that loosening the strict gender roles would help men become more intimately connected with their children, which does not necessarily go against the Biblical view. Both working 25 hours so both can spend time with kids is not against the Bible.

That view is not anti-man anymore than it is anti-woman. New laws which are feminist have skewed the balance, but that does not mean the original was wrong.

In early christianity, laws were made prohibiting women from doing things which would allow them to be self sufficient without men. For centuries laws existed making it very difficult if not impossible for women to live alone her whole life. So it was not just women chaining and enslaving men, it was a complicated social web to ensure children were born and raised well to ensure the continuation of our species. Men as well as women benefitted from that. Today, children are not a priority. Half of the world (women) are getting to do what they want, and our birthrate is plummetting. Men will soon get the same freedom from social pressure.

I hope we all learn to speak Arabic soon. Conservative societies are sucessful societies, which in part means replacing themselves. The more liberal we become, the more it is all about our personal freedom and to hell with social standards, the less in numbers we become.

It is so amazing to me that people do not see this. God is a lot smarter than people.


he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

gwallan


REAL WOMEN Canada have been around since feminism first took hold in academia....they have consistently opposed feminism and they have done more in real terms to curb feminist political power than any men's group.


Didn't they play a role in the government's slashing of the feminist's pork...er...funding?
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

dr e

Quote

Conservative men are against the same things.


Indeed that is true.  I think Typhon's point was that both groups had different reasons to be against the "freedom of men".  Prostitution and porn are generally thought of in terms of meeting the needs of men and both feminists and probably REAL Women would likely be against them. 

My question which I think I will start in another thread is if prostitution and porn are forbidden fruits focused on the needs of men what are the comparable needs of women?  Are there any that are forbidden or have women's needs been legislated and codified as being expected?   
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Go Up