RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/5/2017 6:27:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Some people dont seem to be able to understand that they started off as female.(its why men have nipples) until at least 5-6 weeks gestation when the Y gene is up and around.

I dont need a womans study class or course to know that.
It seems you are blaming womens studies for the further study into the spectrum of sexuality/gender issues.







Oh goodness...that's why youre such a bitter, dried up thing. You think all men evolved beyond you!




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/5/2017 6:36:49 PM)

LMAO not in the slightest in any form, but enjoy your delusions.




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/5/2017 6:39:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LMAO not in the slightest in any form, but enjoy your delusions.

That's too bad. It gave you an excuse you could have used. I do note that you don't dispute the bitter dried up, just the evolved beyond you. There you are, doesn't it feel better having that out now?




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/5/2017 6:55:23 PM)

Coming from you...the irony is remarkable.

Watching your pathetic attempt at biological imperatives is laughable.




tweakabelle -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 2:38:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

At some point, progressivism/feminism/multiculturalism always begins to collapse by the weight of its own internal contradictions and becomes faith-based.

Your conflation of "progressivism/feminism/multiculturalism" into a single -ism that then "collapse(s) by the weight of its own internal contradictions" would be funny except that it is possible that you actually believe such nonsense.

I am guessing that by "progressivism" you mean leftist ideologies generally. The idea that the myriad of leftist ideologies can all be reduced to a single uber-ideology demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance and intellectual arrogance. The spectrum of leftist ideologies ranges from centre-left pragmatic stances such as those of the UK's Labour Party or the left of the US Democrats to doctrinaire revolutionary Marxists and even Maoists.

It is impossible to accurately and honestly represent all these diverse ideologies as branches of a single ideology. To even attempt to do so is to indulge in intellectual fraud and dishonesty. The idea that all leftist ideologies are the same is as ridiculous as the claim that all right wing ideologies from Hitler's fascism to the soft centre right of European centre right parties are one and the same. It is childish nonsense.

Feminism refers to a diverse range of gender based movements that promote womens' status and rights, aiming for gender equality. Multiculturalism refers to a range of approaches that seek to accommodate diverse cultural backgrounds in a given society.

Any one with a functioning brain can see that all of these 3 -isms have different objectives, areas of application, intellectual foundations and ideological perspectives that are not compatible in all cases. IOW there is no basis on which all these approaches can be unified. They both appeal to and apply to different constituencies and need not agree with the others. For example, one can be a right wing multiculturalist - the Australian Liberal (ie conservative) Pary is an excellent example of a right wing party that supports and promotes multiculturalism, while most would consider it anti-progressive and it is definitely not sympathetic to feminism. Other right wing parties around the world reflect this position - the UK's Conservative party for instance.

As your post begins with a dishonest ideologically driven claim that is contradicted by the evidence throughout the world, there doesn't seem much point in dealing with the rest of your nonsense. You're describing the confused and ideologically blinkered state of your own mind and worldview, not with the reality that the rest of us experience. These diverse ideologies might seem the same to you, but that is because anything to the left of Genghiz Khan is 'progressive/feminist/multiculturalist' in your bizarre, fact-free, fear and hate-dominated worldview




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 9:48:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Bettina Arndt has a post up this week which brings together quite a few resources which should be of interest to anyone interested in gender equality.

The first is her article about the misrepresentation of domestic violence as a gendered issue and the growing mountain of contrary evidence which has become so inescapable that even the nutty Swedish feminists aren't buying it any more. This quote is a gem:

quote:

Eva Solberg is a Swedish politician,a proud feminist who holds an important post as chairwoman of the party Moderate Women. Last year she was presented with her government’s latest strategy for combating domestic violence. Like similar reports across the world, this strategy assumes the only way to tackle domestic violence is through teaching misogynist men (and boys) to behave themselves.

The Swedish politician spat the dummy. Writing on the news site Nyheter24, Solberg took issue with her government’s “tired gendered analysis”, which argued that eradicating sexism was the solution to the problem of domestic violence. She explained her reasoning: “We know through extensive practice and experience that attempts to solve the issue through this kind of analysis have failed. And they failed precisely because violence is not and never has been a gender issue.

Solberg challenged the government report’s assumption that there was a guilty sex and an innocent one. “Thanks to extensive research in the field, both at the national and international level, we now know with great certainty that this breakdown by sex is simply not true.”

She made reference to the world’s largest research database on intimate partner violence, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, which summarises more than 1700 scientific papers on the topic. She concluded that her government’s report was based on misinformation about family violence and that, contrary to the report’s one-sided view of men as the only perpetrators, many children were experiencing a very different reality: “We must recognise the fact
that domestic violence, in at least half of its occurrence, is carried out by female perpetrators.”

One of the key patterns that emerged from PASK, Solberg said, was that violence in the family was an inherited problem and children learned from watching the violence of both their parents. “To know this and then continue to ignore the damage done to the children who are today subjected to violence is a huge social betrayal,” she concluded. “The road to a solution for this social problem is hardly to stubbornly continue to feed the patient with more of the same
medicine that has already been tried for decades.”

There’s a certain irony that this happened in Sweden, the utopia for gender equality and the last place you would expect misogyny to be blamed for a major social evil. But despite Scandinavian countries being world leaders in gender equality (as shown by the 2014 World Economic Forum’s global gender gap index), Nordic women experience the worst physical or sexual violence in the EU.


It's become increasingly clear that to insist that domestic violence is a result of masculinity is a misandrist view which is only sustainable if you're effectively suffering a form of mental illness. The fact that even the nutty feminist Swedes are finally acknowledging the evidence should give pause to any of you nutty man-haters with even a modicum of intelligence.

Further to that, Karen Straughan's video on why our societies' crippling sexist approach to men and women's reproductive responsibilities is responsible for the phenomenon of MGTOW is compelling watching for anyone whose brain isn't leaking out through their ears.

There's also Janice Fiamengo's lecture on Women's Studies. I was rather fond of this quote: "Women’s Studies has devolved into an intellectually incoherent and dishonest discipline replacing a callow set of slogans for real thought. It’s man-hating, anti-Western and fundamentally illiberal."

Strong words indeed. Janice and Karen will be in Australia for the International Conference on Men's Issues 2017 which is being held on the Gold Coast, so Australians, head to http://icmi.info/shop/ to get your tickets now!

Ah, all you people devoted to gender equality will just love this stuff.

Of course.... you feminists won't - because feminism is about promulgating a victim-hood myth (tears for the suffering of women) rather than the promotion of gender equality.

You're welcome.

Prediction #1: Die-hard feminists who can't think will simply try and attack Bettina Arndt's character or mine.
Prediction #2: Twinkabelle will go after Arndt, then quote a book full of gender theories as "conclusive proof" of something.
Prediction #3: Thompson will say something stupid, incoherent or factually inaccurate and will frequently combine those categories.
Prediction #4: Whoremods will respond with a meme which shows she doesn't understand the post.
Prediction #5: Lucy will continue to hate men and any post she makes will approach levels of illiteracy not seen since the 18th century.

Actually, tweak went with prediction #1, except it was an attack on me. Real close Awareness, but just like Schrödinger's cat, I think you affected the outcome. I'd say you made a good prediction.




PeonForHer -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 1:46:42 PM)

quote:

Actually, tweak went with prediction #1, except it was an attack on me. Real close Awareness, but just like Schrödinger's cat, I think you affected the outcome. I'd say you made a good prediction.


Unfortunately, what poor Awareness didn't predict was you and the other looney righties here coming along and supporting him - and thereby making his view look sillier than us lefties, even combined, ever could. [;)]




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 1:49:31 PM)

Goodness, I responded to Lucy in kind. Are you including her in your whine?




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 1:54:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Actually, tweak went with prediction #1, except it was an attack on me. Real close Awareness, but just like Schrödinger's cat, I think you affected the outcome. I'd say you made a good prediction.


Unfortunately, what poor Awareness didn't predict was you and the other looney righties here coming along and supporting him - and thereby making his view look sillier than us lefties, even combined, ever could. [;)]

Ah, I see, Awareness had no prediction for you and you're upset. Sorry, maybe you can ask him for a prediction.




bounty44 -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 2:36:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Some people dont seem to be able to understand that they started off as female.(its why men have nipples) until at least 5-6 weeks gestation when the Y gene is up and around.

I dont need a womans study class or course to know that.
It seems you are blaming womens studies for the further study into the spectrum of sexuality/gender issues.


Oh goodness...that's why youre such a bitter, dried up thing. You think all men evolved beyond you!


anatomists do not consider babies before clearly determinable genitalia appear as "female."

the development of a vagina and a clitoris due to the subsequent absence of male hormones does not mean that boys were female prior to that occurring.

they are male by virtue of the y chromosome, or female by virtue of two x's. in terms of reproductive organs, up until a particular point, they are in an "undifferentiated" state.





Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 2:40:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Some people dont seem to be able to understand that they started off as female.(its why men have nipples) until at least 5-6 weeks gestation when the Y gene is up and around.

I dont need a womans study class or course to know that.
It seems you are blaming womens studies for the further study into the spectrum of sexuality/gender issues.


Oh goodness...that's why youre such a bitter, dried up thing. You think all men evolved beyond you!


anatomists do not consider babies before clearly determinable genitalia appear as "female."

the development of a vagina and a clitoris due to the subsequent absence of male hormones does not mean that boys were female prior to that occurring.

they are male by virtue of the y chromosome, or female by virtue of two x's. in terms of reproductive organs, up until a particular point, they are in an "undifferentiated" state.



I'm aware of that. Lucy is just trying to be clever on a couple of fronts. As long as she doesn't call it a baby or a fetus she can defend killing it and she's using a silly feminist argument to stay politically on the proper side. Nobody ever said you have to pay attention to science to be a liberal.

As an aside, I once took a cow elk in a special hunt in Montana during a time of the year when the cow elks were all pregnant with very undeveloped fetuses. A requirement of the hunt was that you had to keep the uterous when you gutted the animal and turn it in to Fish and Game for sexing. Apparently Fish and Game can sex them in animals but liberal humans biologists won't.




bounty44 -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 2:48:42 PM)

sometimes I don't go back seeking the original post like I should, but yes i was actually addressing her, so should have said "lucy."

I wonder what is gained by the sentiment of "all babies are female" up to a certain point in time?





Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 2:54:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sometimes I don't go back seeking the original post like I should, but yes i was actually addressing her, so should have said "lucy."

I wonder what is gained by the sentiment of "all babies are female" up to a certain point in time?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



I'm aware of that. Lucy is just trying to be clever on a couple of fronts. As long as she doesn't call it a baby or a fetus she can defend killing it and she's using a silly feminist argument to stay politically on the proper side. Nobody ever said you have to pay attention to science to be a liberal.

Hm Im a nurse and a mother, who has had seven pregnancies and three live births and no abortion, Oh and delivered babies too.(not my own)
I dont have to defend anything. When you have biology and anatomy and experience in anatomy and fetal development talk to me. We are all females, until the Sex switch of the Y chromosome kicks in at six weeks. ANd that is why you have useless nipples, because your maleness didnt occur until after nipples develop in an embryo.
Thems facts, not calling it a baby has nothing to do with it.


As an aside, I once took a cow elk in a special hunt in Montana during a time of the year when the cow elks were all pregnant with very undeveloped fetuses. A requirement of the hunt was that you had to keep the uterous when you gutted the animal and turn it in to Fish and Game for sexing. Apparently Fish and Game can sex them in animals but liberal humans biologists won't.

Weird, you can get an ultrasound now to sex the fetus, you dont have to kill a pregnant mammal to do it.




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:04:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sometimes I don't go back seeking the original post like I should, but yes i was actually addressing her, so should have said "lucy."

I wonder what is gained by the sentiment of "all babies are female" up to a certain point in time?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy

Ive got all the penis I need thankyou.
Biology hurts you
But not as much harm as nature did to you




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:06:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sometimes I don't go back seeking the original post like I should, but yes i was actually addressing her, so should have said "lucy."

I wonder what is gained by the sentiment of "all babies are female" up to a certain point in time?



you ignore me when you cant respond with facts or even wild eyed proof, please keep doing so, because you do not have the ability to argue facts in this matter.
Or yes you could actually call me by name or insult, I dont answer to "she"




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:08:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



I'm aware of that. Lucy is just trying to be clever on a couple of fronts. As long as she doesn't call it a baby or a fetus she can defend killing it and she's using a silly feminist argument to stay politically on the proper side. Nobody ever said you have to pay attention to science to be a liberal.

Hm Im a nurse and a mother, who has had seven pregnancies and three live births and no abortion, Oh and delivered babies too.(not my own)
I dont have to defend anything. When you have biology and anatomy and experience in anatomy and fetal development talk to me. We are all females, until the Sex switch of the Y chromosome kicks in at six weeks. ANd that is why you have useless nipples, because your maleness didnt occur until after nipples develop in an embryo.
Thems facts, not calling it a baby has nothing to do with it.


As an aside, I once took a cow elk in a special hunt in Montana during a time of the year when the cow elks were all pregnant with very undeveloped fetuses. A requirement of the hunt was that you had to keep the uterous when you gutted the animal and turn it in to Fish and Game for sexing. Apparently Fish and Game can sex them in animals but liberal humans biologists won't.

Weird, you can get an ultrasound now to sex the fetus, you dont have to kill a pregnant mammal to do it.


I know English is hard for you. So let me use small words and explain. It was hunting. Killing the mammal to eat was the purpose. Elk is good meat. The F&G wanted to keep records for herd management purposes. They weren't going to lasso the cow elk and put them under ultrasound. I understand you're confused because it's an unfamiliar topic for you. I hope this simple explain action helps you.




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:09:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Goodness, I responded to Lucy in kind. Are you including her in your whine?

you failed dismally, as usual.




Nnanji -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:10:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Goodness, I responded to Lucy in kind. Are you including her in your whine?

you failed dismally, as usual.

Well princess, consider that youre the source.




Lucylastic -> RE: The malevolent influence of Women’s Studies (5/6/2017 3:18:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



I'm aware of that. Lucy is just trying to be clever on a couple of fronts. As long as she doesn't call it a baby or a fetus she can defend killing it and she's using a silly feminist argument to stay politically on the proper side. Nobody ever said you have to pay attention to science to be a liberal.

Hm Im a nurse and a mother, who has had seven pregnancies and three live births and no abortion, Oh and delivered babies too.(not my own)
I dont have to defend anything. When you have biology and anatomy and experience in anatomy and fetal development talk to me. We are all females, until the Sex switch of the Y chromosome kicks in at six weeks. ANd that is why you have useless nipples, because your maleness didnt occur until after nipples develop in an embryo.
Thems facts, not calling it a baby has nothing to do with it.


As an aside, I once took a cow elk in a special hunt in Montana during a time of the year when the cow elks were all pregnant with very undeveloped fetuses. A requirement of the hunt was that you had to keep the uterous when you gutted the animal and turn it in to Fish and Game for sexing. Apparently Fish and Game can sex them in animals but liberal humans biologists won't.

Weird, you can get an ultrasound now to sex the fetus, you dont have to kill a pregnant mammal to do it.


I know English is hard for you. So let me use small words and explain. It was hunting. Killing the mammal to eat was the purpose. Elk is good meat. The F&G wanted to keep records for herd management purposes. They weren't going to lasso the cow elk and put them under ultrasound. I understand you're confused because it's an unfamiliar topic for you. I hope this simple explain action helps you.

It was your *** but liberal humans biologists won't.*** stupidity that got the response, LOL
The point being that liberal biologists DO SEX human fetus's by using ultrasound.
That you think I dont understand the issues of hunting or lol ultrasounding an elk shows how fuking dumb at assumptions you are. Again
For you to tell me I dont understand english, is the ultimate in projection




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875