The Alchemists,
You seem to be inferring that I “am grovelling in the past”, or inferring that I have had some type of bad experience.

That is simply a part of normal feminist procedure to silence someone, as contained in earlier post:-ie. “Immediately attempt to silence anyone who asks questions about feminism, (eg. call them maligning names, state that they are trying to “send women back to the 1950’s” etc).

I am very concerned for the future under a Feminist / Marxist ideology. Read carefully the post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=21410

I would think that post contains most of the elements of what I have been talking about. That poster wants dismantling of the nuclear family, and the father is not regarded as being a parent. He is a sperm donor and paypacket only to the mother. The mother is assumed to be the best parent because she is female, and the children can also be raised the community (ie another word for the “state”). This is all Marxism, and Marxism has been tried in various countries and always found to be a complete disaster.

But also notice in that post how the father is regarded. He is regarded as a second class parent and second class citizen. That is feminism, and that is why feminists are so secretive about feminist policy, (and most don’t want to talk too much about feminism), because behind the façade of words such as “equality” and “liberty” etc, there is minimal equality or democracy in feminism.

So if you want to post to me in the future, or mention my name in a post, don’t call me names, and don’t make unsubstantiated inferences, but none of that is equality or democracy. That is a feminist’s version of “equality” and “democracy” only.

Timkins, name calling,

“The Alchemist,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated, generalised accusations (eg “fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.”)

But instead of such accusations, you, (or any other feminist), would be better to provide some specific details about feminism, as such details would help ensure that people do not have any illusions about feminism (and no “equality” feminist would ever want that)”
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:37:01 PM .

You either can't read, or adore being hypocritical and brain dead, (are you a senior bureaucrat by chance). Insults by maligning me with feminists, can only degrade your standing. You along with those you despise, appear to come from the same mold, and maybe the same vocation

“The Alchemists,
You seem to be inferring that I “am grovelling in the past”, or inferring that I have had some type of bad experience.”

Only if you think the cap fits. Most would see it as generalisation, and only referring to those recognising being trapped in that mind set.

Still it is amusing watching the loop go round and round. It does appear that it makes you dizzy, is that a mechanical malfunction, or programming.

Eeek. Timkins, you and so many others have so little idea as to what feminism was originally all about. It was not about forcing men to do the dishes, or about power, nor was there an ‘agenda’, or a desire to force ANYONES lifestyle to change. It was never meant to be a battle of the sexes.

It was just about fairness. Fairness for both women AND men. People saw inequality and moved to fix it.

But, over time, arguments were distorted and logic twisted, and people of both sides took their ideals way too far (as is what happens all too often). People on the right will now point to that radical man hating lesbian, and use her as an example of what feminism is, in order to criticise. It couldn’t be further from the truth.

Did you know that feminists used to convincingly argue for men’s liberation as well? Let that sink in for a moment.

One example was that while women were viewed and valued as sex objects, male sexuality was largely repressed. Women = sex, which meant men = opposite of sex. Not only were men to start to value women in ways OTHER than sexual beings, men were given the opportunity to be viewed and valued, among other things, AS sexual beings. A plus for both sexes!

Such was the original ideal. Now it’s just dumbass chauvinist pigs vs moronic man hating dykes. Both sides are completely, utterly, missing the point of feminism. That point is: it matters not if you’re male or female. What matters is if you are a freaking idiot or not.

Alchemist,
I don’t think you know what you are talking about

Spendocrat,
You seem to be carrying out quite a lot of name calling, which would be step2 in the loop (ie try and avoid answering questions about feminism, by carrying out lots of name calling etc)

I would really like to know about feminism, but very specifically:-

Eg
*a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist”
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
*a list of feminists who are satirists (and can make highly discriminatory remarks), and a list of feminists who are not satirists (and cannot make highly discriminatory remarks).

Failure to provide specific details about feminism, most likely means that the "ism" called feminism is simply a fraudulent façade, or a rort.

Firstly, clearly you CAN look at those websites, and ARE permitted to do so, as you have linked to them. Whether you choose to accept their views or not is up to yourself. Personally, the "woymn" one sounds a little crazy, but the "ifeminist" sounds quite sensible.

Extemist feminists- well, I tend to view most university "gender studies/women's studies" lecturers as fairly extreme, but to some extent, they have to be to get attention, and in a way, as is often pointed out around OLO, you sometimes need to look at the extreme view to see how the moderate view fits in.

I would consider most women in Australia, who think nothing of their automatic right to vote, work, and participate in life to be moderate feminists. Equally, I would consider most men in Australia, who think nothing of the fact that women can vote, work and participate would also be feminists. Feminism was/is about equality of opportunity for men and women.

Feminists who are satirists- well, are they funny? To the average reader/listener? Who is not deliberately looking to be offended? Then I would suggest they are using humor to discuss life, and the quirks of men and women.

This said, I dont know why I am bothering. I'm sure the Text Recognition Loop Program will kick in and only recognise "ism" and decide it must refute the use of "ism" as it cannot be entirely pinned down in one sentance.

The very existence of a movement and a term "Feminism" is a tragic commentary on our failure to live fairly as men and women together in society.
So, we have 'status quo' and some disenfranchised strong minded women like Mary Wolstencraft, who reacted to an abusive and tyranical father. They in turn gather support, and write pamphlets, which stir up the passions of similarly minded and backgrounded women, who in turn find a following, and next thing we know we have 'feminism'.

Similar to Marxism, which believed it only needed 10% of the population supporting it to take control of a country, Feminism developed its ideology and practices.

Just as Marxists used agitators to grab onto real or perceived 'issues' of supposed injustice, and capitalize on them for the sake of the movement, so did/do radical feminists. Persuading women that they are 'victims'.

While all this is going on, the broad 'culture' of the country is still in tact, and basically balanced, but signs of erosion begin to appear in time.

Now we are speaking of 'backlashes' which will only occur when a group has used its momentum to push things 'further' than they needed to.

I believe that if we truly followed the Biblical pattern for male/female relationships, and social structure, feminism would never have arisen. But our failure to love, and cherish, and our complacency, and greed, and lust for power, have all brought us undone, and now we are picking up the pieces.

God forbid, that we re-construct those pieces into a social and cultural Frankenstein.