# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  "Is capitalism destroying feminism?"

## ThePaleoLibertarian

Isn't it such an amazing coincidence that feminism has always been associated with leftism, socialism, post-Marxism and anti capitalism? My, what a cosmic coincidence!




Apparantly Sheryl Sandberg is too much of a radical libertarian for these broads.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I SWAG that feminism is destroying feminism.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, let's see.  Capitalism has been squelched by corporatism and is dying, while feminism is running so rampant it's jumping the shark.

No, I'd say nothing of the sort is happening.

----------


## Suzanimal

Capitalism has done more for woman than feminism has.

----------


## acptulsa

> Capitalism has done more for woman than feminism has.


This.

For example, Mabel Pressley, African American female hair care product magnate of Tulsa, OK who managed to build up a small business empire despite being burned out in a riot.

Pity you can't find anything about her on line.  Except a mention or two on this very site.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door, regardless of your gender, race, or creed.  Governments just use that stuff to divide and conquer us.  Capitalism ignores it completely.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Capitalism has done more for woman than feminism has.


Except that, before feminism, especially before the 1960 & 70s, women couldn't fully participate in capitalism unless she was married, or as her father's daughter. We couldn't get credit in our name to purchase an automobile without a male figure co-signing on our behalf, we couldn't own/manage property. We couldn't vote before suffragettes took a stand, for what it's worth. We didn't get paid equal to our male counterparts, if we could get the job at all. I know it's trendy in the alt-right movement to throw feminism overboard, and I've stopped trying to make the guys understand it, but a lot of things you take for granted wouldn't be possible in your life without feminists taking a stand, Suz.

----------


## donnay

> Except that, before feminism, especially before the 1960 & 70s, women couldn't participate in capitalism. We couldn't get credit in our name to purchase an automobile without a male figure co-signing on our behalf, we couldn't own/manage property. We couldn't vote, for what it's worth. We didn't get paid equal to our male counterparts, if we could get the job at all. I know it's trendy in the alt-right movement to throw feminism overboard, and I've stopped trying to make the guys understand it, but a lot of things you take for granted wouldn't be possible in your life without feminists taking a stand, Suz.


True Feminism doesn't exist today.  True feminism like Abigail Adams, that is.  The rise of fake feminism is what most of us have witnessed since the 60's, it was created to destabilize our society and has done a bang-up job in the process.  Take a look at this country now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> True Feminism doesn't exist today.  True feminism like Abigail Adams, that is.  The rise of fake feminism is what most of us have witnessed since the 60's, it was created to destabilize our society and has done a bang-up job in the process.  Take a look at this country now.


Yeah, I'm not talking about today's so-called feminism, donnay.  I get that. But to say that capitalism did more for feminism when we couldn't fully participate in capitalism before 1970-ish doesn't make sense to me.

----------


## donnay

> Yeah, I'm not talking about today's so-called feminism, donnay.  I get that. But to say that capitalism did more for feminism when we couldn't fully participate in capitalism before 1970-ish doesn't make sense to me.


Yeah there is a fine line there, no doubt.  We have not seen pure unbridled capitalism either.  It's been crony capitalism since 1913.  A Free market would be better to liberate all of us.

----------


## acptulsa

> Except that, before feminism, especially before the 1960 & 70s, women couldn't fully participate in capitalism...


Yes, and no.  Besides the Mabel Pressley example I mentioned above, there are several examples I can think of, both local (there's a local store called Miss Jackson's, and she was quite a notorious character during the oil boom) and national (Lucille Ball was quite a businesswoman).

Capitalism--true free market capitalism--has allowed many people to rise "above their station" as "their station" was defined in their respective eras.  Admittedly those people whose "station" was rather narrowly defined in their time had one hell of an uphill battle.  But some of them achieved quite a lot anyway.

I'm in no way denying that feminism had a job to do and did it, and that job needed to be done.  What I'm saying is that free markets do not discriminate.  Oh, people who do discriminate try to subvert capitalism to their ends all the time.  And glass ceilings installed by corporations do pretend to be capitalism, though arguably corporations will always try to install corporatism, because the fatter they get the worse they become at true capitalism.  But free markets present opportunities to all.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, and no.  Besides the Mabel Pressley example I mentioned above, there are several examples I can think of, both local (there's a local store called Miss Jackson's, and she was quite a notorious character during the oil boom) and national (Lucille Ball was quite a businesswoman).
> 
> Capitalism--true free market capitalism--has allowed many people to rise "above their station" as "their station" was defined in their respective eras.  Admittedly those people whose "station" was rather narrowly defined in their time had one hell of an uphill battle.  But some of them achieved quite a lot anyway.
> 
> I'm in no way denying that feminism had a job to do and did it, and that job needed to be done.  What I'm saying is that free markets do not discriminate.  Oh, people who do discriminate try to subvert capitalism to their ends all the time.  And glass ceilings installed by corporations do pretend to be capitalism, though arguably corporations will always try to install corporatism, because the fatter they get the worse they become at true capitalism.  But free markets present opportunities to all.


https://www.nfcc.org/consumer-tools/...en-and-credit/
http://www.britannica.com/topic/coverture

----------


## acptulsa

> https://www.nfcc.org/consumer-tools/...en-and-credit/
> http://www.britannica.com/topic/coverture


That's banks and government, not capitalism and free markets.

I absolutely did not say banksters and goonerments were no problem.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's banks and government, not capitalism and free markets.
> 
> I absolutely did not say banksters and goonerments were no problem.


Given our environment, capitalism can't work around that. Government is a very large obstacle, and the attitudes of some men (look around this board, see: alt-right, red-pill something blah, blah) are turning the clock back at least 50 years.

(Feminism got those laws changed, not the free market, unfortunately.  In order to get the market on our side, we'd have to win men over. Not sure if that ever happened. See:alt-right.)

----------


## Ender

There is no capitalism in the US today.

What everyone calls "capitalism" is mercantilism and was the main reason for the Revolutionary War.

----------


## acptulsa

> Given our environment, capitalism can't work around that. Government is a very large obstacle, and the attitudes of some men (look around this board, see: alt-right, red-pill something blah, blah) are turning the clock back at least 50 years.


Absolutely.  I made that point about people of color in another thread a while back.  Corporatism sets blacks, women and everyone else back when the system is designed to squelch small business.  We all become equal--in our LACK of opportunity.  It achieves equality not by freeing up the oppressed, but by oppressing the free.

A truly free market is the most level playing field of all.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Except that, before feminism, especially before the 1960 & 70s, women couldn't fully participate in capitalism unless she was married, or as her father's daughter. We couldn't get credit in our name to purchase an automobile without a male figure co-signing on our behalf, we couldn't own/manage property. We couldn't vote before suffragettes took a stand, for what it's worth. We didn't get paid equal to our male counterparts, if we could get the job at all. I know it's trendy in the alt-right movement to throw feminism overboard, and I've stopped trying to make the guys understand it, but a lot of things you take for granted wouldn't be possible in your life without feminists taking a stand, Suz.


Well, looking at it from my grandmother's perspective, she did pretty damn good pre feminism. As a matter of fact, she made more money than my grandfather and when he kept coming home drunk and beating her, she kicked his ass to the curb (but not before she busted a baby bottle over it).  Thankfully, he sobered up and ended up getting his $#@! together but capitalism is what saved them.

My grandmother started out selling bourbon soaked fruit cakes, doing laundry and sewing for rich ladies. She was so good at it, she had more business than she could handle and put her daughters to work - she even hired another woman to help with the ironing. Paid in cash. Tax fee. She single handily supported 10 kids for a few years  with her little enterprises. 

I'm not bashing first wave feminism but I believe that capitalism has done more for women.

----------


## specsaregood

> Except that, before feminism, especially before the 1960 & 70s, women *couldn't fully participate in capitalism unless she was married, or as her father's daughter. We couldn't get credit in our name to purchase an automobile without a male figure co-signing on our behalf, we couldn't own/manage property.* We couldn't vote before suffragettes took a stand, for what it's worth. *We didn't get paid equal to our male counterparts, if we could get the job at all.* I know it's trendy in the alt-right movement to throw feminism overboard, and I've stopped trying to make the guys understand it, but a lot of things you take for granted wouldn't be possible in your life without feminists taking a stand, Suz.


You couldn't do those things, why?  Because govt wouldn't let you or because the companies wouldn't let you?  If it was the companies/private enterprise refusing those things then you WERE already fully participating in capitalism.  Capitalism doesn't guarantee you those things, in fact it guarantees the right to be denied those things.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You couldn't do those things, why?  Because govt wouldn't let you or because the companies wouldn't let you?  If it was the companies/private enterprise refusing those things then you WERE already fully participating in capitalism.  Capitalism doesn't guarantee you those things, in fact it guarantees the right to be denied those things.


Already addressed and answered.  Post #13

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well, looking at it from my grandmother's perspective, she did pretty damn good pre feminism. As a matter of fact, she made more money than my grandfather and when he kept coming home drunk and beating her, she kicked his ass to the curb (but not before she busted a baby bottle over it).  Thankfully, he sobered up and ended up getting his $#@! together but capitalism is what saved them.
> 
> My grandmother started out selling bourbon soaked fruit cakes, doing laundry and sewing for rich ladies. She was so good at it, she had more business than she could handle and put her daughters to work - she even hired another woman to help with the ironing. Paid in cash. Tax fee. She single handily supported 10 kids for a few years  with her little enterprises. 
> 
> I'm not bashing first wave feminism but I believe that capitalism has done more for women.


Our grandmothers had a lot in common. Mine did pretty well too, but she had to leave my grandfather behind in Kentucky. He was abusive and didn't straighten up. Anyway, it wasn't just about making money...it was also about what a woman could do with her money once she had it. You do realize that it's not just a myth that we have more rights today than we had in our grandmothers' day, don't you? Capitalism didn't do that on its own because men were mostly against us.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm out. As I said in another thread last week, I'm not going to spend the day defending feminism against right-wing attacks. Y'all go ahead and have your say, I've already had mine...for 40+ years now, with obviously little progress.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm out. As I said in another thread last week, I'm not going to spend the day defending feminism against right-wing attacks. Y'all go ahead and have your say, I've already had mine...for 40+ years now, with obviously little progress.


I don't really see anyone arguing with you about feminism.  I mostly see people pointing out that banking isn't necessarily, corporatism isn't necessarily, and government certainly isn't capitalism.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Isn't it such an amazing coincidence that feminism has always been associated with leftism, socialism, post-Marxism and anti capitalism? My, what a cosmic coincidence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparantly Sheryl Sandberg is too much of a radical libertarian for these broads.


Warfare state for the guys, welfare state for the gals.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> There is no capitalism in the US today.
> 
> *What everyone calls "capitalism" is mercantilism* and was the main reason for the Revolutionary War.


This.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't really see anyone arguing with you about feminism.  I mostly see people pointing out that banking isn't necessarily, corporatism isn't necessarily, and government certainly isn't capitalism.


Fair enough...._in this thread_.  But it's something that's been going on a lot since the overwhelming presence of alt-right people here at RPF; there has definitely been a (perceived) need (on my part) to defend (first-wave) feminism and I'm just tired of doing it.

----------


## erowe1

> Capitalism has done more for woman than feminism has.


But capitalism has also done more for attractive women than it has for ugly ones. And that's the playing field feminism aims to level.

----------


## donnay

> But capitalism has also done more for attractive women than it has for ugly ones. And that's the playing field feminism aims to level.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You do realize that it's not just a myth that we have more rights today than we had in our grandmothers' day, don't you?


 So... more rights and freedoms now than 100 years ago?  Wow.  What a perspective.

You know, women are human, too.  Newflash.  It's not as if they're a different species.  The oppressive and tyrannical federal government oppresses _humans_, both men and women.  It oppresses us humans far, far, far, far, far, far, far, FAR more today than 100 years ago.




> Capitalism didn't do that on its own


 Men did it.  Men decided to "empower" women.  Men giveth, men can haveth second thoughts and taketh away.....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't really see anyone arguing with you about feminism.


  Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!  Pick me!




> I'm in no way denying that feminism had a job to do and did it, and that job needed to be done.


 I will deny that!  I will contest that!

Explain what you think feminism is, what job you think existed that "needed to be done," and how it is that feminism got 'er done.  Then I can refute!  (Or admit you're right, whichever the truth dictates).  Then you can come back and refute anything I've said (if possible).  Let's have a go!  Shall we?

----------


## acptulsa

> Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!  Pick me!
> 
>  I will deny that!  I will contest that!
> 
> Explain what you think feminism is, what job you think existed that "needed to be done," and how it is that feminism got 'er done.  Then I can refute!  (Or admit you're right, whichever the truth dictates).  Then you can come back and refute anything I've said (if possible).  Let's have a go!  Shall we?


Nope.  Don't want none.  I was just a kid when it happened, just know I approve of some of the righting of wrongs that happened, and don't care to study up on the rest.  I prefer to study how much more individuals from repressed demographics have achieved in free markets.

You want some of this, cajun?

----------


## Ender

> So... more rights and freedoms now than 100 years ago?  Wow.  What a perspective.
> 
> *You know, women are human, too.  Newflash.  It's not as if they're a different species.*  The oppressive and tyrannical federal government oppresses _humans_, both men and women.  It oppresses us humans far, far, far, far, far, far, far, FAR more today than 100 years ago.
> 
>  Men did it.  Men decided to "empower" women.  Men giveth, men can haveth second thoughts and taketh away.....


Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

‎" when men and women are able to respect and accept their differences then love has a chance to blossom 
― John Gray, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus 

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes...are-from-venus

----------


## Carlybee

> Men did it.  Men decided to "empower" women.  Men giveth, men can haveth second thoughts and taketh away.....


Men can try

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.


Taking that literally, are we, Ender?  It was a New York Times Bestseller, so it must be true!





(Pretty sure that men and women _both_ live on _Earth_.  Sorry to break that to you.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You want some of this, cajun?


Not really.  It's like talking to a wall.  It's funny how some people think they know everything about the female experience, never having been a woman.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Men can try


And the day they do is the day it will happen.  Well, maybe the day before it will happen.  First he'll have to get ready: clean up, get a haircut, shave, get a job, and celebrate with some steak on the barbecue.  Then first thing in the morning: Pow.  Done.

----------


## Carlybee

> And the day they do is the day it will happen.  Well, maybe the day before it will happen.  First he'll have to get ready: clean up, get a haircut, shave, get a job, and celebrate with some steak on the barbecue.  Then first thing in the morning: Pow.  Done.


Wtf? That made no sense.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Men can try


I think it's funny he thinks men "decided" to do it all by themselves in the first place.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I prefer to study how much more individuals from repressed demographics have achieved in free markets.


That does sound more productive.

Even more productive would be if some of these "oppressed" "victim" classes could get over themselves, brush the chip off their shoulders, and *just go actually achieve!*

But that is hard.  Grousing about the past is easy.  Which do you think they will choose?  Wild guess will do.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Aaaaaaw sht. Here we go.

----------


## acptulsa

> Not really.  It's like talking to a wall.  It's funny how some people think they know everything about the female experience, never having been a woman.


If the wall cleans up, shaves, gets a job and throws a steak on the barbie will you argue with it?

----------


## Carlybee

> That does sound more productive.
> 
> Even more productive would be if some of these "oppressed" "victim" classes could get over themselves, brush the chip off their shoulders, and *just go actually achieve!*
> 
> But that is hard.  Grousing about the past is easy.  Which do you think they will choose?  Wild guess will do.


I just ignore them

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Huh? That made no sense.


I know, words are hard.  Ask your husband to explain it to you!

----------


## Carlybee

> I know, words are hard.  Ask your husband to explain it to you!


Wow...now that's an impressive response.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think it's funny he thinks men "decided" to do it all by themselves in the first place.


Certainly not all by themselves!  We are, again -- and this seems to keep slipping by you ladies, so pay attention -- all the same species!  We are all living together, occupying the same societies.  White males 40-50 do not now nor did they ever live in a vacuum, any more than black females 70-80.  We all affect and influence each other.

Nevertheless it is a fact that 1800s and early 1900s America was a patriarchal society.  Present day America _still_ is a patriarchal society, for that matter!  Just a lot less patriarchal, but still patriarchal.  Anyway, the men were overwhelmingly the decision-makers back then.  Riddle me this: *who was it* that voted in women's suffrage?  Who was it that decided to permit women to vote?  Was it the suffragettes?  Were _they_ the ones that voted in that change?  Hmm.  Logic is hard.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If the wall cleans up, shaves, gets a job and throws a steak on the barbie will you argue with it?


I'm happy not needing to argue.  I like men who "get" it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Riddle me this: *who was it* that voted in women's suffrage?  Who was it that decided to permit women to vote?  Was it the suffragettes?  Were _they_ the ones that voted in that change?  Hmm.  Logic is hard.


Riddle *ME* this:  Do you think it would have just happened without protests in the streets?  Of course not. Just as civil rights would not have happened if Rosa Parks had not refused to give up her seat -- yes, white men had to vote that bill in place in 1964 (for better or worse) but Miss Rosa made it happen.  Thanks for playing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I know, words are hard.  Ask your husband to explain it to you!


I'm going to say this as nicely as I can so you can understand:  $#@! YOU.

----------


## Natural Citizen

This is kind of off topic but I'm reminded of it so I'll share it while I'm thinking of it. Some place around here I was popping my mouth off about something or other and had mentioned something about the "hens."

Anyway, Carlybee had mentioned that maybe if you didn't refer to women as poultry, then..blah, blah, something or other. I forget exactly. Since then I haven't referenced women as hens not once. In fact, I go out of my way to not refer to them as poultry anymore.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Riddle *ME* this


Changing topic!  Getting confused!  Try to focus!  The "point" you make in this post already acknowledged, addressed, and agreed with!

Contested point: Did men make the decision to give women the vote?

Me: Yes.

You: No!  You don't "get it"!  Swear words!!!!!

Facts: Yes.  Yes, they were the ones who made that decision.

Sorry, when the facts weigh in on your side, you win.  Facts trump victimhood, outrage, emotional distress, and yes, even swear words.  That's life -- it's brutal!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

And no hard feelings, cajun!  I feel slightly bad I have made you angry and riled up.  But I do have to stick with the facts.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Changing topic!  Getting confused!  Try to focus!  The "point" you make in this post already acknowledged, addressed, and agreed with!
> 
> Contested point: Did men make the decision to give women the vote?
> 
> Me: Yes.
> 
> You: No!  You don't "get it"!  Swear words!!!!!
> 
> Facts: Yes.  Yes, they were the ones who made that decision.
> ...


Yes, HH. It was already explained to you, but maybe  your little pea-brain didn't comprehend it.  I know men voted for it.  That's obvious, since women *couldn't* vote.  What made them come to that conclusion?  It wasn't a decision they made without women thumping them on the head (figuratively.) Now, you can pretend that you're the big man who "gets" it and I'm just the little girl who needs big ol' you to explain it to lil ol' me if you want to play that game (been there in the 70s, not going back.)  i'm not going to sit here and explain this to you all evening.  Busy women have busy stuff to do.

----------


## Suzanimal

The thread topic is...




> "Is capitalism destroying feminism?"


No, it is not and the women in the video are idiots.

----------


## Ender

> Taking that literally, are we, Ender?  It was a New York Times Bestseller, so it must be true!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Pretty sure that men and women _both_ live on _Earth_.  Sorry to break that to you.)


Actually it's pretty spot on. men and women are different and, guess what? it's OK!

Vive le difference!

----------


## erowe1

> This is kind of off topic but I'm reminded of it so I'll share it while I'm thinking of it. Some place around here I was popping my mouth off about something or other and had mentioned something about the "hens."
> 
> Anyway, Carlybee had mentioned that maybe if you didn't refer to women as poultry, then..blah, blah, something or other. I forget exactly. Since then I haven't referenced women as hens not once. In fact, I go out of my way to not refer to them as poultry anymore.


Good move. Broads hate that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Busy women have busy stuff to do.


Right. So, why don't you go finish making us that sammich and the men will discuss it. 

Oh, hey, grab us a cold one, too, would ya. 

_...smacks her on the ass on her way out...._

----------


## Suzanimal

I don't mind being called a hen if I can call men cocks.

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't mind being called a hen if I can call men cocks.

----------


## tod evans

> 



^^^^ That's got to be an average or something....^^^^

 I know most of my generation, men and women fried large portions of our gray matter..

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't mind...


Oh. Hm. Dear thing, you thought you had say so of some kind in the matter?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Oh. Hm. Dear thing, you thought you had say so of some kind in the matter?


I know how to get my say.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah, I'm not talking about today's so-called feminism, donnay.  I get that. But to say that capitalism did more for feminism when we couldn't fully participate in capitalism before 1970-ish doesn't make sense to me.


I don't quite understand this, firstly because 46 years is plenty of time for capitalism to do a lot of things for women.  Also, I'm wondering in what way you think women "couldn't fully participate in capitalism"?  Weren't the majority of feminist issues political rather than economic?  In what way were women prevented from earning money, advancing up the economic ladder, etc?  Or are you going to tell me that was the result of societal "micro-aggressions" and the political barriers, the ones that ended in the 1970s, were somehow secondary to the socioeconomic factors that were supposedly, somehow, preventing women from participating in capitalism?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I know how to get my say.


Came back with a sammich and a cold one ahead of time, did ya? I always knew you were ahead of the curve.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Came back with a sammich and a cold one ahead of time, did ya? I always knew you were ahead of the curve.


Nope. I use the power of the pussy and Mr Animal brings me a sammich and a cold one.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Nope. I use the power of the pussy and Mr Animal brings me a sammich and a cold one.


Aw man. Made me choke on spit. Gosh. I never was good at trolling.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Given our environment, capitalism can't work around that. Government is a very large obstacle, and the attitudes of some men (look around this board, see: alt-right, red-pill something blah, blah) are turning the clock back at least 50 years.
> 
> (Feminism got those laws changed, not the free market, unfortunately.  In order to get the market on our side, we'd have to win men over. Not sure if that ever happened. See:alt-right.)


If you have to "get the market on your side", then maybe free market capitalism isn't for you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'm still dying over here. Damn.

Okay. So, I'm out. I was just trolling anyway. I was waiting for cajun to chime in to respond but I guess she's not on.

You crazy, Suzanimal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't really see anyone arguing with you about feminism.  I mostly see people pointing out that banking isn't necessarily, corporatism isn't necessarily, and government certainly isn't capitalism.


I'm not surprised.  Cajun is notoriously thin-skinned and really doesn't like defending her viewpoints.  I wouldn't worry about her.  If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm still dying over here. Damn.
> 
> Okay. So, I'm out. I was just trolling anyway. I was waiting for cajun to chime in to respond but I guess she's not on.
> 
> You crazy, Suzanimal.


I'm here...just done with this thread.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm here...just done with this thread.


Oh. Okay. Well, I was only messing around anyway. I didn't really mean anything by it. I was just trolling. Sorry for trolling at your expense.

Hey, we got a report about some kind of cowboy jumping on his horse and lassoing a bike bandit at Walmart. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6236136

TheTexan seems to think he may have lassoed him without a permit. Vigilantism...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh. Okay. Well, I was only messing around anyway. I didn't really mean anything by it. I was just trolling. Sorry for trolling at your expense.


I took no offense at your comment -- I recognized it as a little joke.  We're good!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If the wall cleans up, shaves, gets a job and throws a steak on the barbie will you argue with it?


There we go: Barby for everyone! I'll share!

(In truth, I already have a job and am already shaved, but I do not actually own a barby at all!  The shame!  So I guess I am not actually as manly as we all would doubtless hope )

And I'm realizing maybe I misread you cajun.  I was just ribbing carlybee and maybe you were just, as anyone in real life would, good-naturedly ribbing me right back!  You weren't angry at all.

...

Anyway, whatever is destroying feminism, let's just hope it does a thorough job.

----------


## Carlybee

> There we go: Barby for everyone! I'll share!
> 
> (In truth, I already have a job and am already shaved, but I do not actually own a barby at all!  The shame!  So I guess I am not actually as manly as we all would doubtless hope )
> 
> And I'm realizing maybe I misread you cajun.  I was just ribbing carlybee and maybe you were just, as anyone in real life would, good-naturedly ribbing me right back!  You weren't angry at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway, whatever is destroying feminism, let's just hope it does a thorough job.


My version of feminism just means women with guns...capiche?

----------


## euphemia

> I SWAG that feminism is destroying feminism.


This, right here ^^^ is the truth.  Feminism became a special interest group.  Once equality was codified into law, feminists had to look for new territory.  They found sexuality and wrecked that, they found other special interests and fought for them.  Now they really don't have new trails to blaze, and now that they have forced equality on everyone and have embraced gender fluidity, they have nothing else to fight for.  But they are still angry, and they don't know why.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My version of feminism just means women with guns...capiche?


Now *THAT* I am all for!  I think we all are.

----------


## Semper Vigilans

In my view, feminism is doing just fine.

However, men are getting smarter and simply checking out. 

I.E. Men are not getting married and not fathering children, and therefore are not getting caught up in the judicial system and are giving feminists fits... It's awful hard to be "independent and free" without any sort of male support...

This is coming from a happily ( for the most part ) married male for almost 9 years, simply observing his fellow men...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not surprised.  Cajun is notoriously thin-skinned and really doesn't like defending her viewpoints.  I wouldn't worry about her.  If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.


Not true. Just don't see the point in repeating the same things (defending my views) over and over for more than a year now that this debate has gone on since @Carlybee posted that "Libertarian women" thread.  There are times when coming here feels like step back to 1956. Ugh.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I SWAG that feminism is destroying feminism.


Probably.




> This, right here ^^^ is the truth.  Feminism became a special interest group.  Once equality was codified into law, feminists had to look for new territory.  They found sexuality and wrecked that, they found other special interests and fought for them.  Now they really don't have new trails to blaze, and now that they have forced equality on everyone and have embraced gender fluidity, they have nothing else to fight for.  But they are still angry, and they don't know why.


I don't think the "special snowflakes" hijacking feminism today are truly feminists. They'd be stronger and wouldn't need "safe places" if they were really feminists. They couldn't handle the injustices their mothers and grandmothers had to face...silly girls. It's one of those things like the people who hijack "libertarianism"...and people misunderstand libertarianism because Glenn Beck labels  himself as such.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not true. Just don't see the point in repeating the same things (defending my views) over and over for more than a year now that this debate has gone on since @Carlybee posted that "Libertarian women" thread.  There are times when coming here feels like step back to 1956. Ugh.


Yeah, well, that's kinda the human condition.  Many of us defend our views over and over again for the sake of intellectual stimulation, refining and clarifying our views, and possible insemination of our viewpoints into the minds of others, but to each their own.  Like I said, if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, well, that's kinda the human condition.  Many of us defend our views over and over again for the sake of intellectual stimulation and possible insemination of our viewpoints into the minds of others, but to each their own.  Like I said, if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.


Getting out of the kitchen is the whole point. 

Thing is, people here don't understand what they speak of. They misuse statistics to prove a point. Such as thinking a lower divorce rate prior to 1970 proves women were happier then. It does no such thing. Divorced women were stigmatized, they were financially burdened (compared to now), their children would suffer. They had little choice (in many cases) to stick it out in an unhappy condition.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Getting out of the kitchen is the whole point.


Ok, great.  It's just that sometimes you kinda come into the kitchen to mess around with the pots and pans and then you leave right away.  It's more annoying than productive.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ok, great.  It's just that sometimes you kinda come into the kitchen to mess around with the pots and pans and then you leave right away.  It's more annoying than productive.


I'm annoying you? Good. I'm doing my job then.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm annoying you? Good. I'm doing my job then.


I give your trolling efforts a 7/10.  Solid, but could use some work.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I give your trolling efforts a 7/10.  Solid, but could use some work.


I think she deserves a 10/10. Is it because cajun's a woman? Is there a gender troll gap?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think she deserves a 10/10. Is it because cajun's a woman? Is there a gender troll gap?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again.  (LOL!)

----------


## Christian Liberty

The alt right is terrible as are all of the waves of feminism.  

The documentary"The monstrous regiment of women" by Colin Gunn gets it right.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The alt right is terrible


Very surprising alignment!  On what is it you disagree with the alt-right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Very surprising alignment!  On what is it you disagree with the alt-right?


I think some of them may actually be sexist from what I've seen, and they mostly support Donald Trump.  Supporting Trump is utter idiocy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think they're more along the lines of fascism than Biblical theocracy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think some of them may actually be sexist from what I've seen


Seriously?  You are against being sexist?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The alt right is terrible as are all of the waves of feminism.  
> 
> The documentary"The monstrous regiment of women" by Colin Gunn gets it right.


Just wondering, what was so bad about first wave feminism?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Seriously?  You are against being sexist?


In the objective sense of that word (ie. Donald Trump) yes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Just wondering, what was so bad about first wave feminism?


Mostly I just think it was wrong.  I believe voting should be male (Christians) only and I think a mother's first duty is to be a homemaker and to raise her children in godliness.  That does NOT mean (contra the leftists) that women are inferior to men but wives are supposed to be under the authority of their husbands and thus should not directly be given political power.


Is that sexist?  Well, according to most on this forum I suspect so.  But I believe it is Biblical.  Isaiah 3:12.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Well I think you are right that it's Biblical, CL.  I have the thought, though, that the constituency in America clamoring for a Christian theocracy is..... let us say "rather small."  For comparison and scale, there's probably ten times the market for an American Islamic theocracy, for instance.  So, if everyone who is not for a Christian theocracy is horrible,... that's a lot of horrible people.

----------

