Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul

Too many women jumping on the Feminazi bandwagon

Too many men falsely accusing women of being feminazi's for not being meek and quiet.

If being a feminazi now means "female that won't take crap" or "female that wants to see a good change for the future and will not take abuse while doing so" then that is what you may call these "too many women".
 
Too many men falsely accusing women of being feminazi's for not being meek and quiet.

If being a feminazi now means "female that won't take crap" or "female that wants to see a good change for the future and will not take abuse while doing so" then that is what you may call these "too many women".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

Women who are blatantly anti-conserveative and usually liberal, pro-choice etc. thats what feminazi means. way 2 do your research. You'll usually find them at Hillary rallies
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

Women who are blatantly anti-conserveative and usually liberal, pro-choice etc. thats what feminazi means. way 2 do your research. You'll usually find them at Hillary rallies

I don't need to do a wiki research. I have life experience. Did you know that wiki can be written by anyone?

If you do want to know the difference between a feminist and feminazi, let me know.
 
Re: Feminazi

I prefer the term "Femmunist", as closer to the real nature of the ideology.

"Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its theoretical advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against all criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order - to what is called "sexism" - is what unifies the things called "feminism." Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.

The aim of feminism, therefore, is to create a new kind of human being in a new form of society in which age-old ties among men, women and children are to be dissolved and new ones constituted in accordance with abstract ideological demands.

The objections to anarchist and communist theory apply with yet more force to feminism, because what the latter seeks to eliminate touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two theories, feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice.

Nonetheless, the practical implementation of feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to distinctions and patterns of authority people find natural, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic control of everything. Both tendencies are thoroughly destructive, and their mutual opposition does not render them harmless.

The result of the victory of feminism has been a combination of disorder and state tyranny cascading from America throughout the world, from the most immediate personal relationships to high culture and international politics. Feminism has meant suspicion and hostility where mutual reliance is an absolute necessity. It has meant growing deceit, heartlessness and brutality in daily life, resulting in particular suffering for the weak. It has meant confusion and misery for the young, who have been deprived of stable family life and concrete ideals of adulthood. It has meant the destruction of local and popular institutions by ever more powerful and irresponsible state bureaucracies. It has set women free mainly to be low level employees and unattached sexual commodities.

It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and minute system of ideological regimentation they assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They thus recreate their opponents in their own image.

The power of feminism despite its evident irrationality shows the strength and pervasiveness of the institutions, interests and ways of thinking that support it. Its triumph has been part of the triumph of state and market over all other social powers, the culmination of a trend that has been sweeping all before it for centuries and become horrendously destructive. Government and business are now uniformly feminist, ultimately because family life hems them in by establishing a principle of social order not reducible to money and state regulation. The media, the educational system, and even organized scholarship take their lead from government and business and are therefore feminist as well. No significant social authority takes an opposing view. Without exception the articulate and powerful benefit from absorption of the functions of the family by formal public institutions.

In the end feminism cannot win because it radically undermines any stable and productive ordering of private life. By disordering reproduction and childrearing and the most basic human connections it puts long-term social survival in question. It has done a great deal of damage, however, and will do much more before it destroys itself.

-- Jim Kalb (condensed; full essay at http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2)
 
Um, I see this thread is turning into more of a discussion on feminism...

Anyway, I do not get this at all. I've noticed a lack of female support for Ron Paul and I just don't understand why. I'm a freedom-loving Libertarian lady and I'm 100% behind Dr. Paul.
 
well most women aren't thinkers.

all they want is someone with a GOOD BONER and a big wallet.
 
Strongly disagree with this. We are culturally programmed to nest and nurture. No genetic predisposition for this has been scientifically validated, but cultural pressures have been shown to play a strong force - just as men have been conditioned to be the aggressor, unemotional, etc. These are just stereotypes.

It is not a genetic predsposition but a neurochemically enhanced set of perceptions. My stereotypical overamp of testosterone will be louder and rife with more externally vectorized actioning than your sedentary, inturning rush of estrogen. Though we both may be just as bitchy in the wash of our neurochemicals hormones.

Women get PMS. Is that stereotypical or a medical condition? In honor of mens equal rights I have monikered two distressing hormonal syndromes to compete with PMS in court cases. One is PTRS (peters) or Post Testosterone Release Syndrome and the other is PUDS, or Post Uterine Departure Syndrome.

Randy
 
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN HERE?

Quit bitching, you're never going to settle the gender divide.

Mods : why do you let these pointless debates go on?
 
In honor of mens equal rights I have monikered two distressing hormonal syndromes to compete with PMS in court cases. One is PTRS (peters) or Post Testosterone Release Syndrome and the other is PUDS, or Post Uterine Departure Syndrome.

Randy

You cracked me up.
 
I can see it now... the year 2108.... men and women living in perfect harmony...

Sitting naked on a park bench, sipping lemonade, a woman turns to a man and says

"I sure am glad the Ron Paul Forums solved all gender issues back in 2008 with their spirited, intelligent debate"
 
Um, I see this thread is turning into more of a discussion on feminism...

Anyway, I do not get this at all. I've noticed a lack of female support for Ron Paul and I just don't understand why. I'm a freedom-loving Libertarian lady and I'm 100% behind Dr. Paul.

Well, the fact that you are unusual is just what this thread was begun to discuss. Thus the discussion of feminism, which is the prevailing ideology, and is hostile (to say the least) to what Dr. Paul represents.
 
Women's vote not going to Dr. Paul.:(

I find this a real problem. Why is this happening?

Are they afraid of his message? Not aware? Do not understand it?

Do not know him?

Anyone have any thoughts and how to fix it?
Mrs. Triton is voting for Ron Paul, but even she is scared by the drumbeat of "9-11". She is worried that if we don't take the war to them, they will bring it to us.
 
further reading

I am keenly interested in all perspectives on the issue of modern feminism and it's relationship to government tyranny. As a victim of forced ( so-called "no-fault" ) divorce and it's partner pogram so-called "child support" I have dedicated myself to exposing radical feminism for what it is: a fast-track to totalitarianism. At the same time I respect women's right to equality and I practice respect for women in all areas of life. I don't want the Ron Paul rloveution
to discourage women because of real or perceived bias or just plain rude behavior on the part of it's testosterone-charged men. Freedom is good for men and women, simple as that, but in my experience women are much much easier to "frighten" with elusive "threats" such as "terrorism" or "crime waves" or "domestic abuse" ... etc. etc. etc.

votinghitleryw9.jpg
ipromisetoneveriy9.jpg


Yet so many women I meet today do NOT fall into these stereotypes. I know of many women who understand the futility of denying their god-given nature as modern feminism would have them do. Many women who see through the fear-mongering war-mongering propaganda. Many women who understand that much of the hysteria used to make them think as "victims" is really being used to enslave society and hasten totalitarianism for us all.

The most important lesson we should all learn is the hijacking of the People's movements for the purposes of the elite. The globalist machine is not capable of generating real enthusiasm for their one-sided goals. But they ARE experts at hijacking any movement of the people using their endless supply of paper money.

So please consider me a friend of women's equality... a friend of women's rights... and know that I love women!!! and I'm a great father to my two fantastic daughters!

Yet I am dedicated to exposing modern ( 'hijacked" ) feminism for what it really has become: a "cruel hoax".


Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to neuter both sexes, making women masculine and men feminine. Thus, women are less fit for marriage and motherhood, and men are unable to lead and sacrifice for family.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to weaken the family and poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government. Why? These bankers create money out of nothing and think they are God.

"Cruel Hoax" shows the connection between feminism, Communism and 9-11. It examines male-female relations and shows how we can take back our heterosexuality.

I highly recommend Dr. Henry Makow's extensive writings on this subject:

Save The Males

... perhaps the single best source for information on the cruel hoax known as "feminism" and it's relationship to efforts towards one world government.

Question for the gals here:

Do you think that one world government could be a good thing?
 
'I support Hillary Clinton because she has the same menstrual cycle as me!'- Female supporters...

That's your answer right there ;)
 
Direct quotes from other women who oppose Ron Paul from three very different high volume all women message boards:

Ron Paul is to me a lot like Ross Perot, he may have some intresting ideas but to radical for me and all he may end up doing is pulling votes away from candidates who have the chance to make changes.

I like a few of his points, but overall his ideas of reduction in centralized government and balance of the States and Federal government seem a bit extreme.


He will not get elected, don't bother wasting your vote.



Wow - I thought it was just me. I totally agree about his supporters. The kid that came to our door the other night was dressed sloppily and kept talking and making no sense whatsoever. Finally he said "I think you should just check out his website. I'm not doing a good job talking about him." You think?

At any rate, I think he has some good ideas; but he is a longshot candidate so I haven't spent much time learning about him.


There is a reason why RP isn't a front runner: his views are not in line with the majority of the GOP, or any signifant group of Americans in general.


In re-reading comments and starting at the top, I will explain why I think some of the Ron Paul platforms and ideals scare me (and his followers/supporters)

1. The Gold Standard, it is a scary concept to have a candidate standing on the idea of putting the country back on the Gold Standard(yes I understand the economy and money standard now as does Ron Paul)I know it is not exactly the same as wheat both the US and Russia moved away from, but same idea.

2. His supporters are very unorthodox (not in a good way) in getting information out about Ron Paul around us. In fact many in a confrontational way and when you try to walk away or tell them you are not intrested 7 different people in 7 different venues have continued to follow me around and try to talk about it more.

3. He is "the new thing" and makes it seem like he is going to make the US this great country again and make it better for everyone. I personally don't think it is all that bad living in the US, but his ideas seem like they will impact more lower and Middle class citizens then anyone else.
- Abolish the Dept. of Education and Ditch NCLB. Ok, but in cutting federal Subsidies to schools and increasing the liability to the states, explain how education will improve? Ron Paul is a strong proponent for homeschooling and that control should be put back into the hands of the parents. (SCARY WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PARENTS IN THE US)
- Abolish the IRS. Ok, so there is major waste and it needs to be overhauled as well as the tax code, but talking abolish?
- Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care. (I am not sure about this one either. I see collective bargin and think Unions and worry that we could in the future see Dr.'s on strike or refusing to take more and more medical insurances)
- His take on repealing parts of the Brady Laws and then voting to allow Assulat rifles, and from keeping the mentally ill (Veterans and some other)legally elligible to buy guns. Sure some wacko's can get them, but I can imagine this has helped keeping weapons (assualt rifles and pistols) from people who would have them. What is next felons with records of violence with firearms should be allowed to have them?

I know there are more to some of his issues and that some of this may pointed back on me as not understanding, but I have been all through his site and others and I can say the majority of candidates have not said or done much to say what they will want to do. Ron Paul has and unfortunatley in my case it is a negative for him.

Oh and if you see me out and come up and ask if I have heard of Ron paul and I say yes, but I am not intrested....IT MEANS I AM NOT INTRESTED...Please either drop it or walk away. Do not come over and continue to point out how Ron Paul will save me.


Some of the statement on that website don't sound like the statements of a rational person.

"Get rid of taxes, get rid of spending" sounds lovely in theory, especially if you are a libertarian, but if you sit down and look at it, how does the govt do what it is constitutionally required to do without any taxes? Has he spelled that out?

"If economy were good there would be no immigration problem"; well, the economy has been quite good at various times in the last 30 years and we have had an increasing immigration problem. I don't agree that the economy is the issue, and the above statement smacks of "if the economy is good, we don't care if there are illegal immigrants because there are plenty of jobs to go around". That attitude scares me.

"We don't need any troops abroad" -- does anyone remember a guy named Pat Buchanan? This is his philosophy as well. Isolationism wasn't helpful prior to WWII, and it would not be helpful now.

"Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography" "repeal drug laws" --

I'm not libertarian, though some of the ideas mesh with conservative views, and that's where he's picking up support, imo. But looked at in totality, I don't think he is going to be the president so many of his supporters believe he will be.



He has too many ties to extreme groups. Click here to see - http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/77711671-de32-47da-a721-8f606d586ad0


I was looking at him for a little while until he recently and openly accepted money from a white supremecy group. I appreciate the fact that he didn't try to hide it, but it tells me I don't want to go there even if I agree with some of his views on politics.
 
I don't need to do a wiki research. I have life experience. Did you know that wiki can be written by anyone?

If you do want to know the difference between a feminist and feminazi, let me know.

It's not debateable at all. Thats what a feminazi is. They're socialists. Are you a socialist? Are you a feminazi? Why dont you go back to your pro-choice rally.
 
Women don't like the good Dr. b/c of many issues, here's how to convince them:

1. Ron Paul is pro-life, but he won't mess with each individual state's decision to have choice or not.
2. Ron Paul is for withdrawal of troops and PEACE, which is an additional bonus to freedom and liberty.
3. Ron Paul is for no income tax.
4. While Ron Paul is not for welfare, the very idea of free market system is a welfare system since it provides the greatest good to the most people. Government regulation simply makes many people poorer, and what about all the people on the streets? Also, remember that the money you get from health care, social security, etc, came out of your own pocket.
5. You should take care of others through your churches, your communities, your own decisions, not through the government who will mess it up.

I also think that making Ron Paul's message more Christian-friendly will also attract women followers. Christians and Women have a lot of similar interests (for example family values) so arguing how Ron Paul will get the government out of their family's lives, their education, and their money, will allow their family to prosper.
 
and more...

Makes me wonder if perhaps RP is more intrested in money for a campaign then he is the true moral fiber of the groups donating.

He strikes me as wanting to get in no matter what to get HIS agenda in. He is like Hilary. They know what is wrong, get the Federal Government and Constitution and all the laws out of there way and they will fix it.


I agree somewhat with local control, but to do away with the Dept. of Education entirely? I would think that would create a whirlwind of issues considering some states have massive tax bases and others not.

My opinion about Ron Paul is he is saying quite a bit of what some people are thinking so it is striking a chord. However, other candidates don't say this sort of thing (like do away with the IRS) because they know that actually doing it can create a whole lot more mess than what it would solve.

Esther what about him allowing hate groups to post his columns?


He owns copyrights on his columns and so has a say in where they appear. Here is what real clear politics says about his ties to hate groups - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/memo_to_ron_paul_supporters.html

I don't agree with his views towards womans rights and gay rights and education.


Be careful of Ron Paul - he is only pro - CHRISTIAN home schooling...


http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

If you scroll down to education ...he is not great in education....

Close Dept. of Education, but don't dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)


Ron Paul and Darfur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An act designed to reduce the genocide in Darfur recently passed through Congress.

The intent of the act was to dictate that the US government would no longer purchase goods or services from companies who are, in essence, *helping* with the genocide in Darfur. Companies who are directly helping fund the Sudanese government's murder of their own citizens would no longer be recipients of Government contracts or funds.

Fair enough, right?

The bill passed, 418-1.

Guess who the "1" was?

You can read his rationalization here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...&person=400128


I also liked his response to this unrelated-to-Sudan clause in the bill:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age.

Huh? What about State's Rights? I thought the Feds shouldn't provide Social Security anyway?


That's one of my biggest problems with RP and his philosophy, this notion that no matter how bad something gets, the US shouldn't provide any help.

Nope, we just need to sit back and wait for "market forces" to stop a genocide.


He has no faith at all in government's ability to help anyone, and yet he seems to have every faith in the world that the free market will take care of everything. Why is government so evil and business (when left to its own devices) so benevolent? I don't get that.


Aw c'mon, he just wanted them to have freedom and liberty. You know, the antidotes to all that ails us. (insert up and down laughing emoticon here)


Ron Paul is even more of a scary candidate than Huckabee or Romney. Of course, I just realized he is from my hometown!


no. seriously. ron paul supporters are given script sheets to refer to. none of them seem to be interested in engaging in open dialogue about some of the more serious issues. which is disheartening, but not surprising.


Awright!!!!! Lots of money!!!!! Great!!!!!

Hopeful that with some of that money he'll make his views on the genocide in Darfur, and what the US should do about it, clear.

And hopeful that it was donated by nonfascists, since we know that the fascist organizations in the US, and the white supremacist organizations, and the neoNazi organizations, are all backing Ron Paul.

Hopeful that David Duke and Don Black (recent Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan) will disclose how much they donated to this fundraising effort, since they did donate to Ron Paul in his previous fundraising efforts.

You know?


I don't believe that he ever supported the KKK. However, the KKK themselves do support him. David Duke and Don Black, both recent former Grand Wizards of the KKK, openly support him and donate to his campaign. As do their various affiliated websites.


Ron Paul has also had connections with the John Birch Society and other anti-immigrant and racist organizations through speeches made at their meetings/conventions, and some of his more prominent supporters being involved in/officers of those organizations.


Which doesn't make it a prima facie case for him being a bigot, but it certainly does leave room for reasonable doubt. And it does certainly make one think twice, to wonder what about his policies would be good for fascists, racists and neoNazis, since they all support him so strongly.


isn't he a "states rights" candidate? Which in itself is code for racist bigotry.


Well, for one, I'm guessing Ron Paul would never have sent the National Guard to escort those students into the University of Alabama. He has stated that he thinks the Civil Rights Act was a mistake because it "reduced individual liberties". At the very least, his radical notions of states rights would allow for states to segregate (seriously!) because apparently it would be wrong for the federal government to impinge on "state's rights", no matter how UAV they are.


Right, and it happened here in VA. An entire county decided that rather than integrate they would just CLOSE the school system. And white students went to private schools and the poorer black students were just SOL.

And had it not been for the FEDERAL GOV'T stepping in and forcing them to integrate and reopen, it would probably still be happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_..._Edward_County


Quote:
As a result of the Brown decision, and changes in Virginia laws, in 1959 the Board of Supervisors for Prince Edward County refused to appropriate any funds for the County School Board at all, effectively closing all public schools rather than integrate them. Prince Edward County Public Schools remained closed for five years. Prince Edward County was the only school district in the country to resort to such extreme measures. In 1963, schools were ordered to open, and when the Supreme Court agreed in 1964, the supervisors gave in rather than risk prison, and public schools were reopened. [2]

And, whaddya know? The folks who supported this act talked about how all they really wanted was STATE RIGHTS. Why, it wasn't about race at all.


I have a coworker who's really starting to feel RP. Me-notsomuch. I think he's a racist (that's not against the UA, is it...since it's not techincally an insult so much as a classification based on direct quotes he's made) and I don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican views he holds.


He also has introduced a bill called the We the People act which would restrict the Supreme Court from judging the constitutionality of state and local laws. I think this is a very bad idea, partly because then we would have 50 different interpretations of what the Constitution means and partly because historically states have proven that they can justify all sorts of distasteful things as being constitutional. Look at the South's Separate But Equal policies which were ruled constitutional in the state courts but thrown out by the Supreme Court. I think we need that extra check and balance. But again, this bill would be great for the racists.
 
Many young women just want to party and have fun, they are not into anything deep that requires serious thinking, thats well just boring. Especially true of American women.

Some women are deep thinkers and follow the news, these are the types that we have a chance with.

Ron Paul makes logical sense with his arguements, most men know this doesn't always fly with women, they run off of feelings and emotions.

And if their feelings and emotions don't jive with Ron Paul message then forget it.

A man may strongly disagree with some of Ron Pauls platforms but his logic pulls him back on the most important issues to him. I don't think that works as well on a woman, once they get a bad emotion on something it's game over, then again they could change their mind again anyway, lol.
 
Not all women.

My sister (very pro-choice) is voting for Ron.

My mother (pro-life, but respects choice) is voting for Ron.

My wife (pro-choice) is probably going to vote for Ron.
 
Back
Top