Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

There is indeed. You, however, just hate women, as is shown by your refusal to see them as being proper humans. To you they are nothing more chattels, which is why you think that they can be owned by men.

He just cannot get those masturbation classes out of his mind. LOL

We are all aware that being against feminism ≠ hating women.
Calling someone a racist should come with the burden of proof (of racist behavior) to back your accusations so if you're going to accuse someone of misogyny then back up your accusations with some evidence of misogynist behavior.

It rather telling that these accusations go unchecked compared to when I used words and terms that the mods (Lenka) wasn't "comfortable with." Where are the vigilant mods now? Lying and hyperbole is a-okay if you're on one side of the gallery here on PF -kind of a microcosm of the greater debate.

I don't think Zimmy hates women, I used to but now I don't. I think he's just really frustrated and angry at the double standards pushed in Western society by women's groups and people stupid enough to support everything they do. It's hypocritical madness and he's right to be angered by it. It's like you guys are afraid to have a nuanced opinion and restrict yourselves to thinking about this issue. If, in Western society, women are encouraged to look at their sexuality in 50 shades of gray then you people should give this issue just a bit more analysis than that.

We've yet to hear of ONE feminist supporter who has admitted to any negative effects/consequences or policies of feminism. Why is that?

Shame tactics are generally associated with feminine traits. This type of ad hominem is less prevalent among males who would rather rely on logic to demolish the arguments presented against him. There's no honor to be gained in discrediting your opponent through personal attacks, which is complete fail.

Not to the pliable name-calling feminist apologists. To them simply pointing out the immense mountains of feminist hypocrisy is "hateful".


They prefer to charge someone with misogyny because its so much easier than attempting to debate logically.


True, and somehow they don't see it. I'm still waiting for some people to have honest discourse through point-by-point reasoning and evidence. Take apart those links I've provided, especially the ones narrated by reformed feminists who have seen the light. Instead, feminists hide when sunlight appears.

I noted a couple of giants, ndeed the biggest feminists of the 60's, 70's and 80's who have admitted their Marxist inclinations and how those roots helped fuel their feminism. Yes indeed, feminist icons Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan became official feminist spokeswomen

Given Poland's slavery during communism, I would find it surprising if the Polish womens organization meetings would advocate such militant feminism but as evidenced by history, one never knows.

.

I'm assuming the shame tactics you must be referring to are the repeated mentions of the "masturbation classes" by Polonius. It seems that in his mind, it's an ace card when trying to discredit feminism.

Feminine trait? Why do you use it, then?

This sums up half of it but it doesn't really explain the liberals rank and file. What is also important to add is that lieralism is a victimhood cult. They attract and retain members who are pretty much outcasts and losers (or who at least believe they are) in some way. Low/no income individuals who think they are being robbed by the rich, homosexuals who think mainstream society hates them (with some justification), blacks/muslims/jews who are reminded of past/present grievances every day (the muslim one is pretty ridiculous but hey, nobody's still alive to remember they terrorized three continents for over a thousand years), academics who were shunned for their intelligence in high school, women who fear the oppressive patriarchy, etc. Most people are simple minded fools. Feed their pride (and nothing feeds pride more than thinking you were wronged), indulge them with various meaningless pleasures and you can work them like puppets.


To point out that this is the ONLY tactic certain forumers use.

To be fair and objective, this is your opinion and should be stated as such for objectivity. While I agree there is some truth to what you've written here, it isn't entirely true. I've got some very liberal beliefs in some matters myself and they're born out of empathy not sympathy.


Well, even you should be able to admit that it's not exactly a legitimate selling point. It does discredit some aspects of feminism and liberalism in general. That being said, if it's an inadequate criticism then let me remind you lady that you have had plenty of opportunity to read other criticisms of feminism's dark side and you've been silent in your response in this thread while downright disgusting in living up to those charges in another.

For all the little outdated references I used, you actually seemed to relish in a person being killed seemingly because he was a man, I doubt you'd have celebrated the death of a woman under those same circumstances.

@ Foreigner4, the reason why I, and I suspect others such as f stop, have not responded to the specific examples raised in criticism of feminism is simply because that's all they are: a few specific examples. Yes, there are some people who claim to be feminists that hate all men, there have been some instances of feminists campaigning for things that many might seem unreasonable, and there are some feminists for whom the ideology is part of a bigger battle against capitalism or society. These instances do not represent the entirety of feminist thought, nor its mainstream. Most feminists just want to imrprove women's lot, not at men's expense, by making sensible changes to society that most people, male or female, would be comfortable with.

quite, Englishman, also there is no point in arguing with some people, it is like banging your head on a brick wall (nice when you stop).

If it were not for 'feminists' like Emmeline Pankhurst or Elizabeth Garrett Anderson or Maria Sklodowska where would Western women be today....?
There are extremists in US/UK as Z has pointed out so many times, and he makes many valid points....but belittling statements about degrees in masturbation are a good illustration

of what true feminists object to.

Men and women in modern western society are equal in the eyes of the law. Whatever else is being added to the pot of women rights by feminists is just a redundant baggage in terms of equality between genders.

Feminism is a political movement as well as an ideology.

Bollocks!!!!! I have repeatedly said there should beTOTAL equality between men and women. It is the feminists who pick the ripe, sweet fruit for themselves ('cushy jobs, same pay for poorer performance, etc.) and leave the leftovers for the menfolk.

There should be equal pay for equal performance and 50-50 parity at all job posts including:
-- The military; as many women as men on the front lines in Afghanistan and at army desk jobs;
-- One Wimbledon, Olympics, etc. for both sexes; no men's or women's high jump or hammer throw!
-- Full parity in parliament and cabinet postsas well as in the management of private and public companies:
-- Full parity in nursery school teaching, IT repair and maintenance, janitorial field, fire brigades, supermarket cashiers, airline pilots, etc.
-- Fullparity in mining, road-building, trash removal, etc.
-- Same amount of funding for breast and prostate cancer... etc., etc.
Do you as a true pro-feminist, liberal and democrat oppose true equality?

.all

You have referred to women using terms such as this charmer:


https://polishforums.com/love/poland-fresh-wholesome-country-lass-66408/2/#msg1374526
Second-hand = already been owned.

anyway Polonius your 'total equality' trope is a silly argument that you are using to hide your true colours..as illustrated in your .previous posts which I CBA to dig up.

(most) women do not crave public power in the same way as men...often they are not as ambitious...
women are not as physically strong as men...
men and women are (gasp!) different?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeminism

There is a difference between a dicussion of loose morals and the question of feminist job equality.

You mean you only view women as chattels when it comes to morality but when it comes to 'job equality' you are all in favour of them being equal? Somehow that stance is very predictable for you.

This is a Wikipedia quote not of my authorship. Quoting things does not necessarily mean identification with what someone else formulated.

it is my wiki quote ....

Women are strong enough to dig the ditches or work a pneumatic hammer.

This is really a waste of time becuase I can see you are in one of your argumentative moods...
But can you find a quote where I said only the woman should maintain high moral standards. Every man who wishes a chaste wife should be prepared to offer her the same or keep his mouth shut. The ability to achieve that ideal is an entriely different matter. That is one argument in favour of early marriage. It is more likely for committed individuals in their 20s to save themselves for marriage than among the 30+ year olds.

No, you mean that this is a waste of time for you because your own words show us exactly what you think of women.

i know some are, and i would not mind doing it,I even have some steel toecapped boots, sadly openings are limited ....(eg eff off luv)

And some men certainly aren't.

It depends what you mean by 'equal in the eyes of the law'. If that were exactly true then any woman wanting to have a baby would either have to take a week's or fortnight's holiday, give birth, then go straight back to work, or she would have to resign and hope to re-start her career later on. The concept of maternity leave was introduced because we're all hopefully adult enough to realise that there are biological differences between men and women that sometimes mean that while there may be equality before the law, there is in practice inequality in society. But the literalists who think strict legal equality is all that matters would look at this as an example of discrimination: after all, what man can take six or 12 months off work and have the guaranteed right to return?

Once you accept the principle that feminism is about creating social equality rather than equality in legal rights, I think you will look differently at most of what feminism has achieved, and still wants to achieve.

As for the question of whether feminism is a political movement, I refer you to the long-standing feminist slogan, 'the personal is political'. I take this to mean that most feminists have objectives that are personal, improving women's lives, but that they believe that achieving their goals requires interface with politics. Which is why, to refer back to the very start of this thread, a group of Polish feminists thought it a good idea to hold a congress to decide on policies and campaigns...

But your lack of na answer as to whether you believe in full parity and equality exemplifies one of your typical ruses
-- sidetrack the discussion, latch onto some peripheral aspect so as to avoid giving a direct answer. So I will reiterate very slowly: Do you believe in full male-female partiy and equality?

lol! wink wink

Polonius, I can't speak for Harry, but I believe in full equality of rights, opportunity, status and respect between men and women. That does not mean we have to be the same, or do the same jobs. But it does mean that if a woman is able to perform roles in which men are currently the majority of workers, she should be able to do so. Not just by being permitted by law to do so, but also by being protected from discrimination, and also brought up in a culture that says that doing that kind of work is not unfeminine or that women are incapable of doing it.

That's your reason? Your reason for not responding to the serious detrimental effects of SOME aspects of feminism is that those criticisms are a few specific examples? I think fstop can do better than that, seeing as you've set the bar rather low she could trip over it and still have you beat.


You wrote some posts about how you would protest some wider parking bays if you lived in Germany and are pretending as though you've put in some kind of effort to make the greater issue understood? You and Englishman are simply avoiding the debate and it's becoming more and more evident you both know where you're wrong and just won't admit it.

.....So can someone else confirm that these two think there's no point in discussing anything which they deem as being too specific?
If there are other interpretations then I'd like to at least read them.


I have noticed your inclusion of the phrase "people who claim" in this criticism of feminists. And I think many of us can agree some people claim that all feminists hate all men but keep in mind some people claim that some feminists hate all men and still there are some who claim some feminists hate some men. But, of course, in constructing your straw-man argument, you had to make it out of something flimsy and outlandish before tearing it down. Weak sauce kid.


Anyone else notice his exclusion of the phrase "people who claim" in this statement? He can't even make it through one paragraph before shedding objectivity like a snake sheds its skin.


That isn't the only thing happening and you're not paying attention if you haven't taken stock of that.
I am for equal opportunity and equal pay, equal treatment and fair responsibility, no one is debating you on these not being worthy causes, are they?

If the effect of feminism was only towards those things then I'd be on that train but those aren't the only effects and it's turning into a runaway train.

What is your take on boy scouts being forced to admit girls, but girl guides not admitting boys because girls deserve to have a protected environment without boys around?

This was raised by someone way down the line and I don't have any link at hand, but the issue itself seems interesting.

How remarkable...you don't have a link at hand...Again one of your blatant lies?