(07-22-2016, 01:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(07-22-2016, 11:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: > When you say "using sexuality," do you mean sex appeal, sexual
> harassment, etc, or just their gender? If you use the word
> "sexuality," you imply the former.
> And political advantage? Feminism seeks equality. An "advantage"
> in this case means to achieve equality, instead of the strong
> advantage that men now have in politics.
> Hillary for example is "playing the woman card," meaning she touts
> her would-be status as the first-ever would-be US president. She
> says "deal me in," which means she supports family leave and equal
> pay. I don't see anything unfair there. What IS unfair is that
> there has never been a woman president, women get less pay, and
> women (and men) don't have paid family leave.
> I probably have nothing against more rights for fathers in family
> disputes. Traditionally mothers may have more rights in dealing
> with family and children issues, custody battles, etc. By the same
> token, then, women should have more rights in spheres
> traditionally dominated by men.
An example of using sexuality to gain a political advantage is for an
incompetent woman who doesn't get a job to say, "I lost the job to a
man because I'm a woman." Pretending to be a female victim is
extremely common.
The usual employer seeking a new hire for a non-throwaway job wants several competent candidates. The losers of the competition will often have no idea of why they came up short.
Quote:Here's another common example. I heard variations of this many
times from men that I interviewed for my book, and from women as well.
By the way, there's one group of women who, generally speaking,
vitriolically hate feminists: Second wives. That's because
when the ex-wife screws her ex-husband, she screws his second
wife as well.
Feminists also vitriolically hate second wives, because they destroy
the whole feminist mystique that all men are batterers. If an ex-wife
claims that her ex-husband is a batterer, then why did some other
woman marry him? If an ex-wife uses the children as leverage to screw
the father (and the children), then the second wife suffers as well.
That could be the basis of Cinderella. The story has a moral: the worst thing that could ever happen to a girl is that her mother dies and her father remarries. Then comes the wicked stepmother and the girl's hostile step-sisters who get all the advantages. (Sorry -- I forget the source).
For all their alleged hyper-modernity, feminists still cleave to the idea that men must show some loyalty to their first wives. Men with economic advantages often end up dumping their first wives for younger, sexier women. Part of it is a primitive desire to have progeny that a forty-something wife might not be able to or might not want to do again. The forty-year-old wife has graying hair, she is losing her figure, and she may be losing her sex drive. Besides, a younger woman might be a fountain of youth (or so goes the myth). So ditch her for a younger model. Maybe a literal model fifteen to twenty years younger than he!
I doubt that any feminist has a problem with a 40-something widower re-marrying, ideally a 40-something widow with children. Maybe this is the sort of family that blends well.
Quote:So here's the kind of story that I heard many, many times, from
both men and women (second wives):
An ex-wife beats the shit out of the kids, or her new boyfriend
beats the shit out of the kids, or her new boyfriend sexually
abuses the kids.
She gets stuck with the kids and a white elephant of a house. She has no career, so she probably ends up working at a store or a restaurant for near-minimum-wage work. She finds a sex-hungry man and can't be choosy enough to run a criminal background check upon him. After all, she is likely to lose the white elephant of a house to taxes. She may end up with a boyfriend (perhaps eventually a husband) with some problems, and we know who gets victimized. He gets drunk or on drugs, and he gets impatient with children to whom he cannot bond, and he beats them. Or while she is hustling for tips at some low-end restaurant he rapes and impregnates her twelve-year-old daughter whom he has coached to 'dress sexy'.
Quote:Feminists LOVE this situation because they stand to make so much
money from it. The father, of course, is extremely distraught
by this, and is devastated by how his kids are being beaten and
molested. So he turns to the courts.
Well. finally -- but perhaps too late to quash the emotional damage -- the sire of his recently-cast-off children takes some responsibility. But wouldn't it be better had he not exchanged the 1973 model (who has become a hag to him) for a 1991 (literal!) model as if he were trading in a five-year-old sedan on a new one? Maybe his 1991 model can finally soften to a sob story.
So here is what can happen: ex-wife and child-abusing boyfriend go to prison and lose custody, he for direct abuse and she for enabling it. The original husband gets the children back, but the 1991 model will have a difficult time relating to a stepchild eight years younger than she.
There's no feminist defense for child abuse, something that no women can accept as either traditional or feminist.
Quote:The situation is turned over to the feminist social workers, who are
some of the most vile people on earth. They couldn't care less if the
mother is feeding the children to a meat grinder, as long as they get
their money. So when the father complains that his ex-wife is beating
the children or that her boyfriend is sexually molesting them, then
the father is sent from one social worker to another and to another
and to another. Each time a social worker sees the father, she gets
another fat fee, either from the father or from some grant. Either
way, nothing happens, and the children continue to be beaten and
sexually molested.
American society, traditional or feminist, is becoming increasingly intolerant of sexual or physical abuse of children. There are ways to test whether a putrid expression of masculinity has molested a child. Most social workers are either government employees (so they get paid whatever they discover about a sordid relationship) or some non-profit entity (likewise). Free-lance social workers? In such a case that is practically a private detective, a character commonplace on television and not in real life.
Social work is not a lucrative vocation.
Quote:This is what feminism is really about. If you go into a divorce
court, there is only one person there who cares about the welfare of
the children, and that's the father. In addition, the only person
there who actually works for a living in a productive job is the
father. Everyone else in the courtroom is there to extract as much
money from the father, or to get as much money as possible in grants,
etc.
Which may reflect that he has done everything possible to ensure that his wife become a stay-at-home mom.
Quote:One more example:
In 2001, a man in Texas came home one day and found that his wife,
Andrea Yates, killed all five of her children. The mother had
planned the crime for weeks. She beat each of the children into
submission and drowned them. Bruises on some of children indicated
that they had struggled as their mother was drowning them.
This became a nationwide story. In my book (which you really ought to
read) in chapter one, I quote several feminists who said that she was
a victim, and that it was society's fault (or her husband's fault)
that she killed her five children. Katie Couric led a nationwide
feminist drive to raise funds for her. In actuality, this gruesome
murder was used by feminists to raise funds for their own
organizations.
Once again, that's what feminism is all about.
Andrea Yates was a member of the cult Quiverfull which holds that one of the highest achievements of a true Christian family is to have as many babies as God blesses them with. (On the other hand, sterility of one of the spouses indicates that God in His Infinite and Inscrutable Wisdom has other plans with the couple -- go figure).
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.