Is the United States a post-feminist society?

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is the United States a post-feminist society?

I raise this issue at a time when women dominate the workforce and greater representation in politics. Mount Feminism has a myriad of ideological peaks (as does Mount Atheism) and as refreshing as this may seem, that after centuries of activism and suffrage we get the following:

 

 

 

and there are many more.

A standard response from mainstream feminists is that these conservative rightwing women are the result of the negative conditioning of patriarchy. Oh yes it is the evil patriarchy that sapped the minds of these innocent women and transformed their cultural narratives into fascist bitches. If only the guiding hand of real feminism had captured their minds at the outset, then they would all be like Hillary. And even Hillary Clinton's feminist persona was washed away by the evil patriarchical ether that infested her mind and forced her against her will to support the war in Iraq. It is the evil men, DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!! MEN ARE EVIL!!!!

But in all seriousness, that after decades of feminism women now have the choice to be ultra-rightwing. These women are IMHO the products of feminism even though they espouse anti-feminist dogma. And this leads me to conclude that I don't think that liberal feminism will have the sociocultural transformative power it once had. American women are so ideologically diverse and overall the balance is tilted right of center that I am doubtful that liberal feminism will change the status quo. Thus, I conclude we are in a post-feminist era. The US won't become Sweden any time soon.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:  And this

ragdish wrote:

  And this leads me to conclude that I don't think that liberal feminism will have the sociocultural transformative power it once had. American women are so ideologically diverse and overall the balance is tilted right of center that I am doubtful that liberal feminism will change the status quo. Thus, I conclude we are in a post-feminist era. The US won't become Sweden any time soon.

I know we're way to bankrupt for any more welfare. But the ultimate goal of liberal feminism remains alive:

To be able to fuck any man they choose and have the state pay 100% of the cost of their offspring. To only work when they feel like it, but not have this affect their career or salary.

Something for nothing, it never looses it's charm.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
don't know

But then I was never a "liberal" feminist or an activist feminist.  The women's studies university programs always seemed to me to be over the top.  I always and still think that not utilizing 51% of the population in a even-handed manner in the workplace was and is just plain dumb. 

Wages should be gender and color blind.

Benefits should be gender and color blind.  (This includes family leave and related benefits.)

Politics should be gender and color blind.

Life decisions should be gender and color blind.

As for working and having it all - I just want to work.  I have been main support of my little family for over 10 years now.  When the boys were at home, and my husband was working full time, I made more than he did.  (Which is more and more common.)  I went back to work when my oldest son was two weeks old.  I took a break for four years when he was three, another break to complete college when the said oldest was in high school, and have worked pretty much straight until just this last year. 

I don't agree with a lot of women on both sides of the coin.  I'm hanging out on the edge of the coin with the rest of us middle-roaders.  I think it is great that they are active and involved in their communities regardless of their views.  And I hope they are all making the same amount of money as their male peers.  Which is what I thought feminism was all about from the start.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:But then I was

cj wrote:

But then I was never a "liberal" feminist or an activist feminist.  The women's studies university programs always seemed to me to be over the top.  I always and still think that not utilizing 51% of the population in a even-handed manner in the workplace was and is just plain dumb. 

Wages should be gender and color blind.

So then femists should support free market econmics as much as possible. Because if a company descriminates against well qualified women, they will be at a competitive disadvantage.

But instead, they want to have quotas, welfare, etc...

A lot of the so called wage gap is driven by the choices women make. I see nothing but advantages to being a woman in the marketplace.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So then femists

EXC wrote:

So then femists should support free market econmics as much as possible. Because if a company descriminates against well qualified women, they will be at a competitive disadvantage.

But instead, they want to have quotas, welfare, etc...

A lot of the so called wage gap is driven by the choices women make. I see nothing but advantages to being a woman in the marketplace.

 

Quotas were put in place because dead white men refused to hire minorities or women.  I was there.  I heard the arguments - "they won't fit in", "they don't have technical/mathematical abilities", "they will only get upset about all the swearing", "they will only get pregnant and want to leave", ad nauseum.  They had to be forced to hire, thus the quotas.  I'm thinking lately that it is time for the quotas to go away.  Seems to me they have served their purpose.

The wage gap is calculated by comparing people of both genders in the same job with the exact same description and the exact same seniority.  If Joe has 20 years experience  and an exemplary record and makes $500,000 a year and Mary has 20 years experience and an exemplary record and makes $350,000 a year in the exact same career, industry and job --- how is this reasonable or fair?  How would Joe feel if their positions were reversed? 

Fair is important in the work place and elsewhere.  I saw reference to a study with monkeys not too long ago where the monkeys would give food to another monkey who had no food.  They shared voluntarily.  If you feel you are not getting a fair shake, your productivity will decline.  And this is bad for everyone - you, your team mates, your bosses.

So, EXC, my advice to you is to examine your career choices and your aptitudes and abilities.  You sure sound like you are not happy where you are.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:my advice to you is to examine your career choces.....

 helped by Genevieve   It sounds like you're ready to spill some tea. But as far as I can remember the original feminist slogan was " NO GODS ,NO MASTERS " started by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and was further by Genevieve Clark by talking with her father (speaker of the House) to pass the 19th Amendment "No citizen o   ,f the United States shall be denied the right to vote based on their sex"    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/suffrage ,  I was trying to get to the page " Women's suffrage in the United States,but if you click on the second link on this page it will take you to the history of the movement.All of this shit against women is because of the Bible's hatred towards women .    

Signature ? How ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote: helped by

Ken G. wrote:

 helped by Genevieve   It sounds like you're ready to spill some tea. But as far as I can remember the original feminist slogan was " NO GODS ,NO MASTERS " started by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and was further by Genevieve Clark by talking with her father (speaker of the House) to pass the 19th Amendment "No citizen of the United States shall be denied the right to vote based on their sex"    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/suffrage

 

I never considered myself that radical.  But then, they had a lot further to go than I did.  I was sometimes the first female IT person and/or the first female engineer my companies had hired.  Maybe as a token, but I never paid attention and it wasn't long before no one else was noticing, either.  Now, there is progress.  No one notices -- that is a good thing.

I was fortunate in the women in my life.  My great-grandfather started a trucking (dray) business.  When my grandfather died, my uncle didn't want to take on the business just then.  So my grandmother owned and operated a trucking company from when I was 5 1/2 until I was 14.  My mother and father worked at the company as well.  I have no idea how to be a stay at home wife or mother.  What did they do all day?  I'm bored to tears being unemployed.

When I was in high school, the advanced math teacher had a PhD in mathematics.  High school trig was the only position she could get when she graduated.  The physics/chemistry teacher was hysterical.  A wizened up old lady, she had a PhD in both subjects.  She liked to tell the story that she got 99% on her doctoral finals because she correctly translated the French word for filament as in that context it was not thread as the examiners claimed.  Funny old bird.  She had taught high school all her career and had moved to Yuma because that was the only high school that would hire her.  But at least I had concrete examples that women could do very well in the math and sciences.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:But then I was

cj wrote:

But then I was never a "liberal" feminist or an activist feminist.  The women's studies university programs always seemed to me to be over the top.  I always and still think that not utilizing 51% of the population in a even-handed manner in the workplace was and is just plain dumb. 

Wages should be gender and color blind.

Benefits should be gender and color blind.  (This includes family leave and related benefits.)

Politics should be gender and color blind.

Life decisions should be gender and color blind.

As for working and having it all - I just want to work.  I have been main support of my little family for over 10 years now.  When the boys were at home, and my husband was working full time, I made more than he did.  (Which is more and more common.)  I went back to work when my oldest son was two weeks old.  I took a break for four years when he was three, another break to complete college when the said oldest was in high school, and have worked pretty much straight until just this last year. 

I don't agree with a lot of women on both sides of the coin.  I'm hanging out on the edge of the coin with the rest of us middle-roaders.  I think it is great that they are active and involved in their communities regardless of their views.  And I hope they are all making the same amount of money as their male peers.  Which is what I thought feminism was all about from the start.

With all due respect, the feminism you support was of a time when women were collectively united fighting for the issues you described. Yet today, it is not men per say who are antagonistic towards those ideals. I would argue that it is devoutly religious conservative women (and men) who have co-opted the term "feminism" and have in turn created a new glass ceiling with heaven above it and rational secular folks below it. And women seem to be attracted to these "feminists" who would stop at nothing to destroy an atheist woman like cj. How can you possibly celebrate women who clamp down on reproductive freedom, sexual freedom and promote religious fundamentalism. Is equality therefore achieved when women are just has horrid as fascist men ie. have feminists achieved utopia when we have a female Adolf Hitler? I dread the day when some monstrous hybrid of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin create a Gilead-like totalitarian society. Equality indeed!!! Hmmph!!! 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:With all due

ragdish wrote:

With all due respect, the feminism you support was of a time when women were collectively united fighting for the issues you described. Yet today, it is not men per say who are antagonistic towards those ideals. I would argue that it is devoutly religious conservative women (and men) who have co-opted the term "feminism" and have in turn created a new glass ceiling with heaven above it and rational secular folks below it. And women seem to be attracted to these "feminists" who would stop at nothing to destroy an atheist woman like cj. How can you possibly celebrate women who clamp down on reproductive freedom, sexual freedom and promote religious fundamentalism. Is equality therefore achieved when women are just has horrid as fascist men ie. have feminists achieved utopia when we have a female Adolf Hitler? I dread the day when some monstrous hybrid of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin create a Gilead-like totalitarian society. Equality indeed!!! Hmmph!!! 

 

I didn't say I liked them or that I "celebrated" them.  I said it is good that they can speak their minds and they don't have to stay home and wash dishes all day. 

Equality is achieved when we no longer ask the question about men and women, white-black-brown-purple-with-pink-polka-dots.  When "they" are just "us".  We have a long way to go.  But I still feel we have made big strides in my lifetime.

I have met women who want to stay home, who think it is their "highest calling" to keep house, raise children, and go to church.  They are vastly in the minority.  And I will defend their right to do so.  If their husband can afford all those children and a stay at home wife, who am I to get in the middle of their lives? 

When I talk to a woman about these far right speakers, I point out that they are not at home cleaning house.  They are on talk shows, book tours, radio and podcasts.  They are not greeting hubby with a drink dressed only in Saran (tm) wrap.  Someone else is cleaning house and dealing with children.  Hubby gets to tell the cook what he wants for dinner.  Most are sensible - they laugh and agree it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

There is a danger in the fundamentalist movement.  I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Allowing those kinds of religions - not just Islam - to take over our governments would be a huge problem.  It has happened in some countries, I realize that.  I don't believe it will happen in the US because such a large part of the work force is female, married, with children.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The wage gap is

cj wrote:

The wage gap is calculated by comparing people of both genders in the same job with the exact same description and the exact same seniority.  If Joe has 20 years experience  and an exemplary record and makes $500,000 a year and Mary has 20 years experience and an exemplary record and makes $350,000 a year in the exact same career, industry and job --- how is this reasonable or fair?  How would Joe feel if their positions were reversed? 

Have you ever considered that their may be biological reasons for this? Besides just that women may take time off to have a baby.

What does it take for men to get laid? Money. What does it take for women to get what they want from men? Looks, being available for sex, taking care of him and the home.

Since a man can't impress women without money, doesn't it make more sense that on average men would be more aggressive in their careers? Obviously we've had a long standing advantage in work requiring physical strength like construction. As work has become automated, the wage gap has lessened. So I don't believe this wage gap is 100% because male bosses are sexist. It's mainly just our biology, so blame Mother Nature.

But I would agree that there is too much testosterone and not enough rationality in the workplace pecking order.

cj wrote:

Fair is important in the work place and elsewhere.  I saw reference to a study with monkeys not too long ago where the monkeys would give food to another monkey who had no food.  They shared voluntarily.  If you feel you are not getting a fair shake, your productivity will decline.  And this is bad for everyone - you, your team mates, your bosses.

The male monkeys trade food for sex. So it only makes sense they would have to work harder at gathering food.

Do Monkeys Pay for Sex?

I think the monkey 'sharing' is part of social contract. It's not like our income tax system where you just pay and pay and get little in return. It's more like when the monkeys butt rape others.

cj wrote:

So, EXC, my advice to you is to examine your career choices and your aptitudes and abilities.  You sure sound like you are not happy where you are.

Actually, I'm think about setting a company that is 'female-owned' in name only. I just get a woman to put her name on papers in exchange for a small percentage. This would help with getting government money.

The only things I don't like are the high taxes and regulations where I live(California). Other than that I'm fine.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Actually, I'm

EXC wrote:

Actually, I'm think about setting a company that is 'female-owned' in name only. I just get a woman to put her name on papers in exchange for a small percentage. This would help with getting government money.

The only things I don't like are the high taxes and regulations where I live(California). Other than that I'm fine.

 

I'm in.  Where do I sign?  As long as we don't have to speak to each other more than once a year or so, it should work okay.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The hangups from yesteryear

The hangups from yesteryear are not going to magically go *poof* and suddenly women are carrying around 100lb bags of cement mix and charging on the front lines in the military. It takes time but it is changing rapidly, all things considered.

The middle east is pretty much a look back in time.

I wouldn't lie and say that one day men and women will be exactly the same though, because it is simply not true. We are still naturally specialized in different ways, what would be the point otherwise?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Why the US won't become a Swedish feminist utopia

I have long wondered why Swedish men and women willingly accept the welfare state with benefits like state subsidized year long maternity and paternity leave. All of the issues that mainstream feminism have clamored for are realities in Scandinavia. The Swedes gladly accept high income tax to subsidize government programs geared towards equality. Americans do not. Why? Are Swedish men less sexist than American men? Or does it really have anything to do with sexism at all?

An easy scapegoat among mainstream liberal feminists for a lot of womens' woes is the evil "patriarchy" that seems to have vanished in ABBA land. Rather than blame men, American feminists have yet to look inwards to realize why a lot of their goals are not achieved ie. LGBT rights, reproductive freedom, sexual freedom, etc.. American feminists have the basic flaw that all Americans share. They're AMERICANS!!!!! The 3 greatest roadblocks for liberal feminists in US today have nothing to do with male domination. They are the 3 key  coveted components of American culture which are religion, distrust and fear.

Americans distrust government, corporate CEOs, doctors, lawyers, car dealerships and practically any facet of American culture you can think of. And this distrust is not unfounded. So many Americans put faith in Obama as a leader for change and he like Bush, he bailed out the banks. And Americans will not collectively put faith in a small clique of women who say they fight for womens' rights but once in office, they'll pull a Hillary and support the Iraq war.

And with distrust comes fear. There's constant fear of terrorism, the government, corporations, etc.. And with fear and distrust, who do people turn to. Yes, Americans turn to Jesus. Oh yes, cum on my face with your holy semen Jesus! That is why mainstream feminism will not transform American society. Instead they will end up being just another group that pursue self interests and once in power couldn't really give a tinkers tit about women's rights or anyone's rights for that matter.

Contrast this with the Swedes who generally trust each other and thus not suprisingly trust women in power to do the right thing. A Swede will help his/her fellow Swede for year long maternity and paternity leave. And they trust each other to not massively procreate like Jon and Kate Gosselin and exploit the welfare system. Even the most die hard Andrea Dworkin lovin' radical American feminist would never, NEVER be willing to shell out more than half her salary towards taxes to provide Swedish-styled state sponsored child support for all the Jon and Kates in the US.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:I have long

ragdish wrote:

I have long wondered why Swedish men and women willingly accept the welfare state with benefits like state subsidized year long maternity and paternity leave. All of the issues that mainstream feminism have clamored for are realities in Scandinavia. The Swedes gladly accept high income tax to subsidize government programs geared towards equality. Americans do not. Why? Are Swedish men less sexist than American men? Or does it really have anything to do with sexism at all?

I believe the cultural differences are in large part driven by the climate. Survival has depended upon surviving the long cold winters. I think the Sweedes adopted a social cooperation culture to help everyone prepare for and get through the winter. The land and natural resources relative to the population has been high so there is never the competition for resources that you would find in mild and tropical climates. The competition is against winter not your fellow citizen.

But this Sweedish model is doomed to collapse with globalization. There will be Islamic immigrants that will take advantage of the welfare system with large families. Their most productive and profitable businesses and people will leave for countries with lower taxes.

I don't think American men are all that sexist compared to Latin America, Africa, the Mid East or Asia. The failure of femism here is that it's not focused on what really makes people happy. It also feeds women the lie that they can have it all and get something for nothing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Newprince
Newprince's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Meh, I don't see the point

Meh, I don't see the point of this OP.

Any movement of such huge proportions, like the anti-slavery movement (which the women's suffrage movements fought alongside, even though they got burned in the end by not acquiring the right to vote), takes... for lack of a better word, balls. People have to be iconoclasts, and have to go a bit further to achieve a moderate outcome. Preaching moderation is wonderful, but I don't think our brains can handle the persuasive power of... compromise, lol. Usually, a fierce battle is fought either figuratively or literally, and eventually after the dust has settled there is a change in mindset on a macro level. That was achieved with feminism, and that means it won some battles. Saying it's a post-feminist society is as dumb as labeling some great band "post-punk." It really does a disservice to everyone involved. Feminism is no longer really an issue at the national level, and it would take the work of a lot of people to get exposure on whatever issues they have. In that sense, we have definitely moved on.

As for far right-wing women of high social status, that is nothing new. It is not the product of feminism. Their political ability (that is, the ceiling they can hit) has of course been facilitated by feminism, but the women you pointed out are not products of feminism at all. It has been in the US for centuries, and pre-dates the modern feminist movement, and possibly even the reaaaaal old temperance movements that women were the forefront of. Just look at Philis Schlafly. Her mindset is no different than the matrons in the South for hundreds of years.

In the end, you are decrying one ideology while tacitly endorsing another. This is how silly little false dichotomies arise. The solution is to not adhere to an ideology, but seek out logic and evidence to form a rational position.

The one-off about Sweden was another non sequitur and a nice last display of ignorance.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Newprince wrote:Meh, I don't

Newprince wrote:

Meh, I don't see the point of this OP.

Any movement of such huge proportions, like the anti-slavery movement (which the women's suffrage movements fought alongside, even though they got burned in the end by not acquiring the right to vote), takes... for lack of a better word, balls. People have to be iconoclasts, and have to go a bit further to achieve a moderate outcome. Preaching moderation is wonderful, but I don't think our brains can handle the persuasive power of... compromise, lol. Usually, a fierce battle is fought either figuratively or literally, and eventually after the dust has settled there is a change in mindset on a macro level. That was achieved with feminism, and that means it won some battles. Saying it's a post-feminist society is as dumb as labeling some great band "post-punk." It really does a disservice to everyone involved. Feminism is no longer really an issue at the national level, and it would take the work of a lot of people to get exposure on whatever issues they have. In that sense, we have definitely moved on.

As for far right-wing women of high social status, that is nothing new. It is not the product of feminism. Their political ability (that is, the ceiling they can hit) has of course been facilitated by feminism, but the women you pointed out are not products of feminism at all. It has been in the US for centuries, and pre-dates the modern feminist movement, and possibly even the reaaaaal old temperance movements that women were the forefront of. Just look at Philis Schlafly. Her mindset is no different than the matrons in the South for hundreds of years.

In the end, you are decrying one ideology while tacitly endorsing another. This is how silly little false dichotomies arise. The solution is to not adhere to an ideology, but seek out logic and evidence to form a rational position.

The one-off about Sweden was another non sequitur and a nice last display of ignorance.

Setting aside your snide remarks and your own lack of logic and evidence, I think the Scandinavian experiment is indeed evidence of how a democracy can result in a rational, atheist, feminist society wherein the citizenry are among the happiest in the world. What pray tell is the ideology I am tacitly endorsing? I consider myself somewhere in between a liberal and libertarian, frankly. I'm personally sympathetic to the many feminist issues (except for anti-porn laws) and the mixed economies of the nordic states seemed to have accomplished the goals. American feminists such as Katha Pollit have even recognized the failure of American feminism to fully endorse the social democracy model. And even though countries like Sweden are opening up the free market in certain sectors, their social stance on equality has not changed. The Swedes have evolved a culture of mutual trust that fosters this and will never disappear. Whereas in the United States in particular, I don't see mainstream feminism winning over hearts and minds on such a broad scale. Less than a third of American women consider themselves feminist. Yes, historically there were the Phyllis Schlaflys and Jeane Kirkpatricks. But don't you think that after decades of feminism in America that their likes would whither away? Why do reactionary far right women flourish in the US and not in Sweden, Norway or Denmark? What is your logical and rational position on this one? Or do you plea ignorance on this?


Newprince
Newprince's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-12-19
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: But don't you

ragdish wrote:
But don't you think that after decades of feminism in America that their likes would whither away? Why do reactionary far right women flourish in the US and not in Sweden, Norway or Denmark? What is your logical and rational position on this one? Or do you plea ignorance on this?

I already pointed to it in my last post. They [the pictures in your OP, or Schlafly, etc.] are not products of feminism. Only the ceiling they can attain was created by feminism, nothing else. Do you dispute this? Because then you would be contradicting yourself in your first post. So... you either admit you were wrong and just wanted to create a silly forum thread, or you continue to engage in this game at grasping at straws.

As for Sweden, different cultures evolve differently. This shouldn't be surprising considering the vast space and decidedly different modern history our two countries have endured. If you can go through the hundreds, even thousands of years of history and articulate what exact historical event prompted which specific change in the zeitgeist, you can make that attempt. But something tells me in this regard we are both wholly incapable of explaining why X is so in one country, and Y is so in the U.S. It probably involves vague references to "Western Culture" and Nazis. No thanks.

Also not sure why you lump in Norway and especially Denmark in with Sweden. Sigh.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Is that Angie Harmon at the

Is that Angie Harmon at the top of those 3 photos?

Either way; anyone who knows Palin before she stepped down as Alaska knows she is *NOT* "ultra-rightwing".

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Is that Angie

Kapkao wrote:

Is that Angie Harmon at the top of those 3 photos?

Either way; anyone who knows Palin before she stepped down as Alaska knows she is *NOT* "ultra-rightwing".

 

Nope, just a common idiot.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Is that Angie

Kapkao wrote:

Is that Angie Harmon at the top of those 3 photos?

Either way; anyone who knows Palin before she stepped down as Alaska knows she is *NOT* "ultra-rightwing".

 

as I was going to edit before Robo-atheist replied:

Quote:

Either way; anyone who knows Palin's political history before she stepped down as Alaska knows she is *NOT* "ultra-rightwing".

 (she merely pretends to be at the behest of the RNC; they want a sellable, shiny presidential candidate for 2012. Nothing more, nothing less.)

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Newprince wrote:ragdish

Newprince wrote:

ragdish wrote:
But don't you think that after decades of feminism in America that their likes would whither away? Why do reactionary far right women flourish in the US and not in Sweden, Norway or Denmark? What is your logical and rational position on this one? Or do you plea ignorance on this?

I already pointed to it in my last post. They [the pictures in your OP, or Schlafly, etc.] are not products of feminism. Only the ceiling they can attain was created by feminism, nothing else........

I completely concur, my OP is totally consistent with your statement. It is logical to state that Stalin was a product of socialism, Napoleon was a product of Animalism even though they completely twisted and flushed those ideals down the toilet. Indeed Sarah Palin would not have reached the ceiling heights were it not for the tireless work of feminists ie. a product. You say tomaato, I say tomauto.....

And I am not blaming feminists. I am blaming a highly distrustful and hyperreligious culture that is the ceiling and not the actions of evil men. We're at a time when the majority of Americans do not accept evolution, atheists are the most despised group and 33% believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. The only American feminists with the balls to challenge theocracy and irrationalism are Wendy Kaminer and Susan Jacoby. And if the majority of feminists are like them, then I would argue that the good life can be achieved.


Newprince
Newprince's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-12-19
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:I completely

ragdish wrote:
I completely concur, my OP is totally consistent with your statement. It is logical to state that Stalin was a product of socialism, Napoleon was a product of Animalism even though they completely twisted and flushed those ideals down the toilet. Indeed Sarah Palin would not have reached the ceiling heights were it not for the tireless work of feminists ie. a

product.

You say tomaato, I say tomauto.....

Well, as long as it's clear that they are not products of the ideology of feminism, or anything anti-feminist, either. Which to me doesn't make the products of feminism... it's just that there's no longer a filter there to stop them from getting national attention, being a viable candidate, etc. But, yea, ta-may-toh Smiling

ragdish wrote:
And I am not blaming feminists. I am blaming a highly distrustful and hyperreligious culture that is the ceiling and not the actions of evil men. We're at a time when the majority of Americans do not accept evolution, atheists are the most despised group and 33% believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. The only American feminists with the balls to challenge theocracy and irrationalism are Wendy Kaminer and Susan Jacoby. And if the majority of feminists are like them, then I would argue that the good life can be achieved.

This was sort of why I posted in the first place. Saying that "feminists would say the rise of right-wing women can be blamed on evil men" is putting words in their mouth, don't you think?

I'm not aware of the authors you mentioned, but they sound interesting, I might check them out.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
An Islamisist's best friend.

Newprince wrote:

The one-off about Sweden was another non sequitur and a nice last display of ignorance.

The proof is in the pudding:

The Islamization of Earth — starting with Sweden

You're Islamisists best friend, telling us how wonderful the European welfare state is while it becomes Islamisized in a few decades.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A more likely long term scenerio

 

EXC wrote:

 

 

Newprince wrote:

The one-off about Sweden was another non sequitur and a nice last display of ignorance.

 

 

The proof is in the pudding:

The Islamization of Earth — starting with Sweden

You're Islamisists best friend, telling us how wonderful the European welfare state is while it becomes Islamisized in a few decades.

 

 

 

 

Either the Swedes will react with Christian nationalism or more likely staunchly defend secularism. It is very unlikely that a Borg-like Islamofascist totalitarian society will emerge in Sweden.

 

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Newprince

EXC wrote:

Newprince wrote:

The one-off about Sweden was another non sequitur and a nice last display of ignorance.

The proof is in the pudding:

The Islamization of Earth — starting with Sweden

You're Islamisists best friend, telling us how wonderful the European welfare state is while it becomes Islamisized in a few decades.

 *cackle*

What's hysterically funny to me is the (ostensible) reality that in Whacky, Far Left Europe there is little-to-no practical meaning to the words/phrases "foreign", "invasion", "nativism", "unwelcome vistors", "sovereign state", "closed borders", "human vermin", and (my favorite part of it) "personal responsibility".

So, because Europe's politicians have no concept of preserving the dignity of their own homeland and keeping the riff-raff of other nations out, their women get to look forward to wearing burkas in a few decades while everyone will be living under Shari-Ya Law.

Ain't socialism great?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wrong again...

ragdish wrote:
Either the Swedes will react with Christian nationalism or more likely staunchly defend secularism. It is very unlikely that a Borg-like Islamofascist totalitarian society will emerge in Sweden.

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:So, because

Kapkao wrote:

So, because Europe's politicians have no concept of preserving the dignity of their own homeland and keeping the riff-raff of other nations out, their women get to look forward to wearing burkas in a few decades while everyone will be living under Shari-Ya Law.

Ain't socialism great?

 

The Islamo-fascists know that keeping your women in line and keeping them as breeding machines works as a means to take over a country. Especially when you have a leftist-dominated host that supports unrestricted welfare benefits, immigration and family size.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ragdish

Kapkao wrote:

ragdish wrote:
Either the Swedes will react with Christian nationalism or more likely staunchly defend secularism. It is very unlikely that a Borg-like Islamofascist totalitarian society will emerge in Sweden.

 

 

 

Do you honestly think they will succeed if these guys haven't thus far?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2njPRdxsM&feature=fvw

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Do you

ragdish wrote:


Do you honestly think they will succeed if these guys haven't thus far?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2njPRdxsM&feature=fvw

 

They're already succeeding.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)