Feminist "Scholar" Examines Genitals of 10,000 Dogs for Canine ‘r*pe Culture’ Study

[TempestOfTempo]

Who are these "true feminists"? You mention "true feminists thoughout history"... which specific historical figures?

I assume you're not talking about Margaret "we need to kill off the colored races" Sanger. Or Simone "we need to destroy the family" Beauvoir. I've read the Second Sex by Beauvoir. Most feminists haven't even read that. Who are the "true feminist" historical figures you're referring to?

Who specifically do you mean?

I think it's a variation of the "that wasn't real Communism" thing. I think we have to start with reality and then move from reality to formulating our ideologies- not try to bend reality to the interests of preconceived ideology.

I accidentallt posted this quote in another thread...... here was my reply to your question......
"Annie Oakly comes to mind as a real deal, historical example of a "feminist" who was much more capable than her modern day counterparts, yet rejected the notion that her strength had to come at the expense of her natural feminine identity."

 

[Etagloc]

I accidentallt posted this quote in another thread...... here was my reply to your question......
"Annie Oakly comes to mind as a real deal, historical example of a "feminist" who was much more capable than her modern day counterparts, yet rejected the notion that her strength had to come at the expense of her natural feminine identity."

I noticed! I saw that and I was like "huh".... did he mean to post that here?

Glad you cleared it up! I was puzzled when I saw that

As far as Annie Oakly- Wikipedia doesn't list her as a feminist and I don't see any indication that she identified as one. I didn't know who that is. To my knowledge, she was a woman who did sharp-shooting sort of as a spectacle in some sort of traveling show if I understand correctly.

A woman doing sharp-shooting in a travelling show... to my understanding, she was basically sort of a circus act. She could be the most successful at that in the world but ten such women don't contribute as much to society as one mother. What she did sounds frivolous. I want people to build society, to build civilization. If a woman insists on an odd hobby like that- I guess she can but her being a circus act and doesn't really contribute to society. She seems like a historical curiosity.

I don't think Annie Oakly, the woman sharpshooter in an 1800's traveling show, is an important or really even significant story in the history of civilization.

If we think progress is having women engage in frivolities like joining a travelling show- I think we've lost purpose and direction as a civilization. If I was standing with the founders of Rome and we were saying "alright- let's build the Roman empire"- I don't think I'm going to say "okay- we need to make sure we get women who act in travelling shows- that's really important".

When people are building civilizations- making sure we get women to perform in travellling shows so we can be "progressive"- that is not what civilizations are built on. And I'll be "equal-opportunity" with this- I feel the same way towards sports. These things are literal "bread and circus" stuff.

Becoming engrossed in bread and circus non-issues is a symptom of civilization in decline. Placing importance on the history of woman sharpshooters in 1800's traveling shows is like getting sucked into something like stamp collecting or cultivating an intense apprecation for the watching of drying paint.

That sort of stuff is beneath us. We shouldn't use something that frivolous to distract from real issues.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I noticed! I saw that and I was like "huh".... did he mean to post that here?

Glad you cleared it up! I was puzzled when I saw that

As far as Annie Oakly- Wikipedia doesn't list her as a feminist and I don't see any indication that she identified as one. I didn't know who that is. To my knowledge, she was a woman who did sharp-shooting sort of as a spectacle in some sort of traveling show if I understand correctly.

A woman doing sharp-shooting in a travelling show... to my understanding, she was basically sort of a circus act. She could be the most successful at that in the world but ten such women don't contribute as much to society as one mother. What she did sounds frivolous. I want people to build society, to build civilization. If a woman insists on an odd hobby like that- I guess she can but her being a circus act and doesn't really contribute to society. She seems like a historical curiosity.

I don't think Annie Oakly, the woman sharpshooter in an 1800's traveling show, is an important or really even significant story in the history of civilization.

If we think progress is having women engage in frivolities like joining a travelling show- I think we've lost purpose and direction and as a civilization. If I was standing with the founders of Rome and we were saying "alright- let's build the Roman empire"- I don't think I'm going to say "okay- we need to make sure we get women who act in travelling shows- that's really important".

When people are building civilizations- making sure we get women to perform in travellling shows so we can be "progressive"- that is not what civilizations are built on. And I'll be "equal-opportunity" with this- I feel the same way towards sports. These things are literal "bread and circus" stuff.

Becoming engrossed in bread and circus non-issues is a symptom of civilization in decline. Placing importance on the history of woman sharpshooters in 1800's traveling shows is like getting sucked into something like stamp collecting or cultivating an intense apprecation for the watching of drying paint.

That sort of stuff is beneath us. We shouldn't use something that frivolous to distract from real issues.

She was a true American original that should be a feminist icon & hero. But she also fully owned her womanhood and never called herself a feminist, because she didnt need to. That was what I was trying to convey with her example.

 

[Kung Fu]

She was a true American original that should be a feminist icon & hero. But she also fully owned her womanhood and never called herself a feminist, because she didnt need to. That was what I was trying to convey with her example.

If she embraced her womanhood and didn't declare herself as a feminist than I don't think she can really be considered a feminist at least not the type that emerged in the early 60s. How we see feminism today is directly linked to the way they presented themselves in the 60s.

 

[Etagloc]

I think people get way too wrapped up in these leftist ideologies- it's like a religion for people.

We can talk about the actual history, the actual results, the actual facts about feminism- but people who have bought into these leftist ideologies that are a substitute religion- they don't care about the facts. These are man-made, secular religions.

If we're really following Islam- why do we need substitute religions?

We can talk about the actual facts and the actual history of feminism- but people have these ideologies so deeply embedded in their minds that the facts don't matter. Someone can twist and expand the definition of "feminism"- but that's defending feminism on the basis of logical gymnastics. Either we accept the facts and we accept the evidence- and go from there or we start with predetermined ideology and put the facts second to ideology.

So either we put facts and reality first- and we examine the actual history and impact of feminism. Or we start with predetermined ideology that we take like religious dogma- and then the facts are second to our ideology.

It's not only about facts. It's families. It's little kids getting molested at double the rate in single-mother homes. It's the destruction of families. It's them babies being killed in abortions.

Are we going to put actual human beings first- or we going to put ideology first?

And I get it- feminism offers women a deal with the devil. You can murder your baby and say it's empowerment... I guess in some sense it's "empowerment"- for you. You can become a porn star. You can sleep with 100 men. You can do whatever you want. And society won't tell you "no" because you have breasts and a vagina and people want to sleep with you.

People can miss me with the "we should all be feminists" talk. It comes down to women being willing to throw families, children and society under the bus for their own personal gain. That's the naked truth beneath the utopian propaganda. I'm not stupid.

They're not worried about God. They're not worried about family. They're not worried abour the well-being of children. They're not worried about society.

They'll throw all those considerations under the bus- for the pursuit of power.

It's not about justice. They don't care about the kids. They don't care about those kids traumatized. They don't care about those kids growing up without their dads. They don't care about the well-being of the children. I can post all the statistics in the world about how the children- how the future generations- are being affected- but they don't care. The facts don't matter to them. They don't care about the destruction of families and communities. They don't care about tearing apart religion from society. They don't care about getting rid of marriage and monogamy and leading people into hell.

They only care about themselves. It's just selfishness.

If people want to promote selfishness, immorality, the harming of innocent children, the destruction of families- go ahead.

If you put man-made ideology before the well-being of children- go ahead.

If you really believe in God- you're not going to be for feminism. Feminism is satanic.

I get a bunch of guys love it. Getting rid of monogamy makes it easier for them to get some easy sex. So of course they support it- they're being bribed with sex to support it. I'm sure people will support a lot of things when they're bribed with sexual favors.

So if people want to make deals with the devil and sell their religion for a cheap price- let them. Wait until the Day of Judgement. Allah will judge between us.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

If she embraced her womanhood and didn't declare herself as a feminist than I don't think she can really be considered a feminist at least not the type that emerged in the early 60s. How we see feminism today is directly linked to the way they presented themselves in the 60s.

Dude, she lived in the 1800s.......

 

[Hubert]

You're incapable of intelligent argument, aren't you? I could point out that you pulled an ad hominem out of thin air but I doubt you care about things like logic. I think it's beyond your comprehension.

Grow up. You don't know me.

And I'm pretty sure you're one of the anti-religious posters. If I remember right, you're some form of satanist. All that indulgence in filth tears apart one's ability to reason. But there I go talking about things that are probably beyond your comprehension.

I wonder how much porn is in your history.

Anyways, it's funny how satanists and feminism are so buddy-buddy with each other. It's just a sign of what feminism is really serving.

I wasn't making an argument I was asking a question, one that you still haven't answered. Also, if you are referring to the exchange where I told Kung Fu his bigotry was showing, I didn't make an ad hominem attack. I did not say that Kung Fu was a bigot I called out the obvious bigotry in this post of his.

-Feminist
-Scholar

^Pick one.

I attacked the statement, not the poster. Some feminist are scholars, to deny that that is possible is belittling and bigoted. Additionally I am not a satanist, I am an atheist. Satan, along with all other gods, angels, demons, ect..., does not exist.

Finally I asked if you were an incel because of your post history. You have often posted on the "evils" of pornography, feminism, or sexuality in general, and you just stated that you believe that sexual activity destroys one's ability to reason. This type of thinking lines up very well with incel ideology, and then you go on to call me a White Knight, an insult typically used by incels.

But you are right about one thing. I don't know you. That is why I asked if you were an incel, because you talk like one, and you still haven't answered.

 

[Kung Fu]

Dude, she lived in the 1800s.......

I know and that's why I said she can't really be seen as a feminist.

 

[Kung Fu]

I am an atheist. Satan, along with all other gods, angels, demons, ect..., does not exist.

LOL. Explains a lot.

 

[Hubert]

LOL. Explains a lot.

It explains my position on mythological beings. It doesn't address anything else.