posted on April 15, 2007 02:41:00 PM new
I'm from the generation where feminists were burning their bras....draft dodgers were running of to canada and england ..the hippies were smoking pot and having sex....oh yes, the sexual revolution. lol
I saw feminists then, as I do now...as being very much anti-men. Some anti-men/women relationships, some anti-family...in that wasn't their choice.
There we are 40 years later and I still see the feminists fighting against men.
So when I read this op-ed I found it interesting that because of scientific advances there may come a time when women don't NEED men for anything.
But is that what they really want?
I have a hard time believing it is....yet when I read some of what the radical feminists actually SAY, themselves....I think they do look forward to such a time.
I mostly see the feminists 'movement' as a negative upon family...men/women relationships..etc.
How about you?
==============
Why Feminists Fear Men
By Kevin McCullough
Sunday, April 15, 2007
For years the modern feminists have attempted to completely obliterate the need for men in society.
They have argued in favor of, marched for, and protested on behalf of the ideas that women can provide everything that a woman needs.
Go into any women's studies program on the campus of any major university and you will learn that women don't need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm. Our daughters are being taught that to believe men are necessary for anything is not only pure bunk, but actually a sign of intellectual weakness.
As a result women have shunned personal relationships and sky-rocketed to the top of the business world. Their incomes have increased as they have put off having children, not to mention the thought of getting married till far later in life.
They've gotten themselves into the gym and lifted weights and learned kick-boxing so that at least theoretically they could ward off an attacker. (Of course they haven't been encouraged to pack fire-arms or conceal handguns because for some reason its more "progressive" for a woman to take male hormones and resemble eastern European male wrestlers than it is for the most lady-like among us to blow someone away if their life depended on it.)
Women have been inundated with auto-eroticism methodologies and lesbian love making techniques not only in these women's studies courses but also through popular culture, women's magazines, and cable television. They are also told by that same culture, be it prime time media or TIME magazine, that men at best "are clumsy" in this area, and at worst "just plain don't know what they're doing."
In making all these "advances" there has still been one major stumbling block for the argument of a completely female universe. That has been the production of sperm, male DNA, the missing element to creating a child when paired with a woman's egg.
Without this necessary ingredient the entirety of the female-only existence is impossible, women's studies departments are useless, and feminism is nothing more than mindless brainwashing.
This week in what should have been reported as a miraculous breakthrough for traditional families and barren couples, feminists and the generation of media they have spawned hijacked the news of a new scientific development in the creation of sperm cells from a donor's bone marrow stem cells.
On a side note chalk it up as one more victory for adult stem cells in terms of actual medical breakthroughs - whereas embryonic cells have still resulted in no known cures.
The way the process works is that adult stem cells can be "coached" into become sperm cells that can be implanted into the egg, fertilized, and hypothetically be brought to term as a human child.
The process is in its early stages and even the medical researchers involved in the project are only cautiously optimistic about the practicality of such a discovery.
But that didn't stop the media for immediately lunging for the headlines that embraced first and foremost the idea of a "women's only" future.
In fact the stories were also quick to point out that in taking the necessary cells from women's bone marrow that the Y chromosome would be missing therefore such conceptions would only be able to produce - guess what - daughters only.
But the question that came to mind was - "why?"
What is it that so scares feminists about the existence of men that all they can do is long for the day when they no longer exist or serve any useful purpose?
Surely the feminists know that for every talk-radio host who refers to women as "nappy-headed hos" that there are more than a dozen, who are sincerely, fall down head over heels in love with their wives.
Surely the feminists can see that while there are some public figures like Barack Obama who are forced to nuance why they appear with hip-hop icons like Ludicrous who prefer to think of women as "hos" and "bitches", that there are others like Dr. James Dobson who have advocated for the deep respect women deserve from the culture and society.
It has to be obvious to the angry feminists today that in fact the happiest women in America are those who have a caring, life giving, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with a man they are married to.
Though the feminists will never admit it, real women know the score. When we talked about the possibility of the "all female conception" on my radio show this week - not one phone call came in support of such a perverse outlook.
The feminist jig is up. Women like men - real men that is. Women love a man who will provide economic security for them. They want a man who will be their rock and shield in a time of crisis or attack. And women prefer the joy of being sexually complete in the intimate bodily embrace and the emotional, spiritual, and physical connection to a man as God designed it.
The ideas of artificial sperm and an all female universe actually horrify normal women - and despite what the media may say - that's never going to change.
==========
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking'
~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 15, 2007 03:04:53 PM new
No. 5 in Britt's 14 Points of Fascism:
""5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses."""
posted on April 15, 2007 10:15:00 PM new
What a ridiculous essay. This is what happens when you insist on labeling a large group of people. The vast majority of feminists do not hate men or seek to rid the world of them. They just want the basic rights and benefits enjoyed by men---equal pay, freedom from harrassment, self-sufficiency, sharing of family chores, equal voice in decision making. My theory is that men like this author fear (strong) women! You will find more man-haters among hookers than you will among feminists.
posted on April 15, 2007 11:19:19 PM new
Just shut up, Linda. You won't find me joining in on this thread. Too stupid to be believed. I'll bet you don't have daughters--or you'd care more. Dumb broad.
_____________________
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
posted on April 15, 2007 11:49:28 PM new
roadsmith....breaks loose with her anti-free speech comment. ROFLOL
"Just shut up, Linda. You won't find me joining in on this thread. Too stupid to be believed. I'll bet you don't have daughters--or you'd care more. Dumb broad."
Gee...I wonder if pixiamom is reading this. She MIGHT just have a different opinion of those she posts with on the EO....when they show their TRUE character here in the RT. LOL LOL LOL
But that's an example of a true feminist for you. lol
posted on April 16, 2007 07:14:18 AM new
linduh, """roadsmith....breaks loose with her anti-free speech comment. ROFLOL
"Just shut up, Linda. You won't find me joining in on this thread. Too stupid to be believed. I'll bet you don't have daughters--or you'd care more. Dumb broad."
Gee...I wonder if pixiamom is reading this. She MIGHT just have a different opinion of those she posts with on the EO....when they show their TRUE character here in the RT. LOL LOL LOL
But that's an example of a true feminist for you. lol"""
NEWS FLASH!!!
linduh veers off topic to cover her abject stupidity !!!
linduh you have no idea what a true feminist is...and you never will.
Why are you so obsessed with pixiamom ??
Why are you promoting Fascist ideas if you're not a Fascist ?
posted on April 16, 2007 10:55:16 AM new
CC - To me there is a HUGE difference between women who believe they're 'feminists' because they've agreed with the advances women have obtained over the past 40 years and the radical wackos.
The radical feminists I'm talking about....and that the op-ed refers to are the WACKO feminists....the supporters and members of groups like NOW.
Imo, most of what they do is to the detriment of family and men/women relationships.
They're thrilled to see new advances in this scientific [possible] breakthrough so it can be used by lesbians - who would prefer no man be 'involved'.
posted on April 16, 2007 11:07:18 AM new
No, linduh you did NOT refer to "radical feminists", you posted,
""I mostly see the feminists 'movement' as a negative upon family...men/women relationships..etc.""
"""I mostly see the feminists 'movement' as a negative upon family...men/women relationships..etc.""""
I can hardly see the correlation between a lesbian , or any other woman, who prefers to not associate with men as affecting anyone else.....where is the connection.....?
Answer: There isn't any.
Feminists are not anti-men...they are PRO-equality.
So linduh, have you given up all your rights like I first posted?
No, I didn't think so ...you're too two-faced.....
posted on April 16, 2007 11:18:00 AM new
Kevin McCullough is a conservative who broadcasts on Christian radio and writes for WorldNutDaily and glancing down the list of his writings, he seems to target liberals, women and gays.
He generalizes and labels most working women as 'modern feminists' and blames them for all the problems in society and thinks they are obsessed with sex and that they have destroyed men.
The aim of modern feminists is to destroy the picture of what a strong man looks like and his ability to exercise that strength in society for the greater good. They aim to say that such strength is hideous, repulsive and manipulative. And in their attempts, they have taken men and destroyed them.
I agree with Coincoach and think he's one of those weenie guys that's afraid of strong women. These kind of men usually choose women they can treat like doormats so they rule the roost when it comes to a relationship.
Then again, there are women raised to believe that it's the only way they should be treated by a man.
posted on April 16, 2007 11:22:08 AM new
Linda, Every group has a radical fringe, no matter what side of the fence you are on. If 99 out of a hundred women are not radical "man-haters" why even address it as a problem, except to inflame the issue?
posted on April 16, 2007 11:48:43 AM new
I brought it up to point out another way our society is changing....and not in a good way, imo.
Imo, our society has been sliding down a slippery slope....and this is just one more way we're seeing it happen.
And because I truly wanted to hear the opinions of women who have so wanted to make themselves more like men in every way. And many have adopted the mind-think they don't need men. To the point it comes across to me that they actually hate them. I used to believe it was penis envy....but whatever it is...it's caused the institution of marriage to unravel, more children to be raised in single parent families...etc.
Marriage and family have always been the foundation of our society and it's crumbling.
posted on April 17, 2007 02:42:50 PM new
sorry to disappoint you and the "SHUT UP" roadsmith. LOL
roadsmith - posted on April 15, 2007 11:19:19 PM
"Just shut up, Linda. You won't find me joining in on this thread. Too stupid to be believed. I'll bet you don't have daughters--or you'd care more. Dumb broad.
She doesn't wish to discuss the fear feminists have of strong men.
But she has NO problem BASHING Mormoms all the time and saying how SCARED she is of them being elected. LOL LOL
I don't 'shut up' because some out-of-control-progressive/liberal tells me to. EITHER ONE OF YOU.
posted on April 17, 2007 06:58:48 PM new
The man that wrote this article fears strong women and longs to be a stronger man. The women that promote his crap know they can never attract the strong men that feminists do.
So both are jealous of the dynamic and equal relationships they can only long for. The weenie man and the doormat woman deserve each other.
posted on April 17, 2007 07:12:30 PM new
I see it entirely differently.
surprise surprise.
many radical feminists have done all they can to remove the mans strong roll in our society...in our families.
They are the 'girlie men' so often mentioned. They've allowed their women to make them more like women....
Because one does not buy into the NOW garbage does not mean they don't have AND respect a strong man and his POSITION in the family unit - as head of the family unit. Just like they enjoy THEIR position in the family unit.
Has NOTHING to do with being 'lower' or 'with less power'. How funny.
posted on April 17, 2007 07:47:18 PM new
linduh you are so ignorant it defies belief....you really think equal pay and the right of a woman to not get beaten to a pulp by a man is making men weaker !!!?????
Boy! You must've considered your husband a REAL man for all the beatings you got....tsk tsk tsk...so sad ...ya doormat!
posted on April 17, 2007 07:51:56 PM newHas NOTHING to do with being 'lower' or 'with less power'. How funny.
Who said it did?
Strong men and strong women consider themselves equal to one another and it makes for a relationship where neither one feels the need to control the other or be above the other as head of the house (how quaint).
..... about the only time 'above and below' comes into play is during sex.
The word I was looking for was 'neutered' - they've neutered their men.
Who is 'they'?
Nothing neuters a man faster than constantly giving in to a whining, bossy woman so you may have more experience than I do, Linda_K.
posted on April 17, 2007 08:24:38 PM new
Equality is the key word. This does not mean interchangeable parts. It means a husband and wife are equal partners who make joint decisions. Why do you need a "head of the family?" Why should one partner rule over another? That only leads to resentment and frustration, not only for the one being ruled, but also for the ruler.
posted on April 19, 2007 06:44:38 AM newIt has to be obvious to the angry feminists today that in fact the happiest women in America are those who have a caring, life giving, spiritual, emotional, and physical relationship with a man they are married to.
Now see that is just funny. I think I am about the happiest woman I know... Come to think of it, the most miserable woman I know is in a 12 year relationship with 4 kids and there is not a damn thing about her says happy.
For the record... I've never met a man I fear. In fact, I tend to like them a great deal.
You see Linda, just because you don't NEED a man does not mean that you fear or loath them. It simply means that you are not dependent on them for your financial, emotional, or physical well being. I don't really see that as being a "feminist", I see that as being an emotionally stable, well rounded, and secure human being.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on April 19, 2007 08:21:01 AM new "You see Linda, just because you don't NEED a man does not mean that you fear or loath them. It simply means that you are not dependent on them for your financial, emotional, or physical well being. I don't really see that as being a "feminist", I see that as being an emotionally stable, well rounded, and secure human being."
Exactly! And that's also the kind of woman who is happily married.
..the hippies were smoking pot and having sex....oh yes, the sexual revolution. lol
