Very weak and again avoiding the issue

Why is it so difficult for you to stand against the appalling barbarity of the Muslim culture which still insists in carrying the practice of FMG wherever it goes?
Have you no conscience in respect of these little girls?

I always saw feminism as this huge trap.

All these women get up and say "We don't want to stay home and look after kids and socialise with the other wives and mothers in the town and the street! We want to be liberated and work all day every day and be told what to do and have no free time!"

So women's rights seemed like it benefited the government and the economy. It didn't seem to benefit women and their quality of life.

I think the original feminists were agent provocateurs and look where they ended up..... As left wing political activists. They seem like surveillance agents and agents of change from the government, instigating social change to suit the state and monitoring those who cry about inequality and join the movements without being placed there by the government.

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 7^th, 2019 at 1:32pm:





and most of them share/shared a religion

Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century

is a counterblast to the braindead feminism I encountered at university. Pseudoscientific feminism never took me in, but Perry, a townie, was persuaded. Her book, as much as anything, is about the process of disenchantment, of discovering everything she once believed was nonsense.

Nonetheless, Perry remains a feminist. The Case Against the Sexual Revolution represents a sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality. For my part—while I welcome a numerate and scientifically accurate work of feminist scholarship—I’ll stay clear for now. Feminism is the mother of awful public policy going back to Prohibition and needs to learn humility if it expects to have policy influence.

After graduating in anthropology and women’s studies (from SOAS, one of the UK’s wokest universities), Perry worked for some years in a rape crisis centre. Already uneasy with bits of left theory, the experience of practical compassion and a desire to stop rape rather than blethering on about stopping rape led her to do what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously.

At its core, this means she treats man as an animal like other animals, subject to the same pressures over millions of years as every other species and sharing many traits with his fellow Hominidae, the Great Apes. This means that men and women are not only physically different but psychologically different: evolution operated from the neck up as well as the neck down.

Perry accepts that Homo sapiens are much more cognitively dimorphic than many people realise. 70 per cent of men have a pattern of personality traits that no woman has; 70 per cent of women have a pattern of personality traits that no man has. She explains with clarity and élan how, for obvious evolutionary reasons (the elevated risks of pregnancy and childcare and the need to invest in emotionally intense relationships to sustain child-rearing) women are systematically more neurotic, more agreeable and more concerned with propriety (moralised status) than men are.

Perry wants to persuade leftie readers (along with fellow feminists), so she piles up a mountain of scientific evidence to buttress her case. She is also a clear, orderly writer. This has the effect of demolishing not only Brownmiller’s reputation but that of Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/

Frank wrote on Nov 4^th, 2022 at 12:01pm:




Same energy

bogarde73 wrote on May 6^th, 2017 at 7:42am:


Bogard you were one of my fave posters.

Your posts were always effective in hitting the target 🎯