Like most of us who were born during or after the 1960's, I was subjected to an endless bombardment of propoganda when I was growing up. It came from a variety of sources (most disturbing of which was the public school system) all in an effort to make me a more sensitive (less masculine), racially equitable (white males are bad) productive member of a socialist utopia (personal gain is bad).

And I accepted a LOT of it without question (good citizen) and it wasn't until I was educated enough to look at things objectively that I started to see through some of the blatantly, ridiculous crap being passed off as the truth.

And nowhere was I more of a victim than when it came to the Feminist Agenda. Let's look at some of the core truths I actually believed well into early adulthood.

1. The way a women dresses has NOTHING to do with rape.

We accept this because we genuinely don't want to place blame on a rape victim in any way, shape or form. And we should never do that. Also it is absolutely true that some women will be raped no matter what they are wearing.

HOWEVER, if rapist A has his choice of two ptential victims and victim A is dressed in a more appealing manner than victim B, he will most likely rape victim A.

This is simply the truth. To ignore it is to ignore a real risk factor. IF your daughter/wife goes out into the sometimes unforgiving world in a miniskirt and tank top it very well could invite unwanted attention from less than desirable people.

This is not to say she deserved it or was looking for it. Just that it is another risk factor, kind of like walking through Central Park at 2am with 20s hanging out of your pocket.

2. Rape is not a sexual crime but one of violence.

We accept this one because rape is very often brutal and we don't want to give the rapist and angle to get out of it (ie. I coudn't help myself, look how she's dressed.)

But to suggest rape is not a sexual crime is ridiculous. Not all, be probably the majority of rapists are seeking to satisfy a sexual urge. If they were getting it on a regular basis most rapists wouldn't be rapists.

This is especially important in cases of date rape, which are primarily sexually motivated. Not that they should be excused, but they are certainly differnet from predatory and violent rapists.

And finally the big one.

3. Women are equal.

Can you believe there was a time in my life that I actually believed that one.

I'm not saying they aren't deserving of the same rights, etc. But they certainly aren't equal to males. They have inherent strengths and weaknesses when compared to males.

But this is most important in traditionally male roles. There is a reason males have traditonally been hunters, security providers and emergency responders. We are better at it and better equipped to deal with the majority of the situtations related to those areas.

I'm wrong? Great have your wife carry a full grown male down three flights of stairs because the building is on fire. Have your girlfriend (you know the one who cries because her soaps are sad today) stay emotionally detached in a emergency situation where her loved ones are in danger of losing their lives.

So anyway, those were some doozies I had been carrying around. There's lots more but those were the most absurd. What have you got?

This should be good.

I agree and I think you have explained it very well. The fault does not lie with the victim but everyone should be aware of risk factors. Unfortunatly we don't live in Mr. Rodgers neighborhood any more.

Well, your finally catching up with me. [:D]

I've always thought that way.

I was yelled at by my white middle aged ultra liberal college sociology Proffessor for calling Marion Barry a crackhead. He went off on a tangent about how it's OK for white CEO's to do cocaine, but when MB does it..blah blah blah...the whole time he's jumping up and down like a damn organ grinder monkey.
Needless to say, we didn't connect too well on anything.

Edited to add...IBTL

The entire notion of equality among peoples is total bullshit.  Our present multicultural society is a grand experiment, which I believe is failing miserably.

I will leave it at that 'cause I'm too tired to debate, and internet debating doesn't get me very far.

Steyr, I like the way you think.

I have to agree.

I have always heard males are visual animals.

OK, you asked for it.

It would "seem" based upon affirmative action, hate crime laws, gender normed standards, etc. that "white males" are so dramatically superior that they need to be legally handicapped in all aspects of life in order for everyone else to even attempt to compete with them.

And in addition need to be demonized for nothing more than being "white males" (example Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men" written apparantely by the ONLY non threatening white male on the planet) in order to attempt to regulate/control them.

Why is it in a world where we are suppossedly "equal" is there a required bias against "white males"?

Yeah and we're STILL kickin' their ass!!!

What does that tell ya' about how faaaaaar inferior they are to us in will, discipline, ingenuity, competativeness and reason. [:D]
[size=1](LEGAL DISCLAIMER: All generalizations are false including the generalization stating that all generalizations are false.)[/size=1]

Don't tell this guy that...

[img]http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96apr/96aprgifs/powell.gif[/img]

Well Steyer, the "88" crowd has some answers, it's just not politically correct to air them. You raise a good point. It IS happening. WHY is it happening? There is obviously an agenda at work that is inimical to white males. Who's agenda??



I'll go ahead and IBTL now, just in case...[:D]

Actually it's the "white male [u]culture[/u]" (which incidentally has nothing to do with being white or male) that is superior to most other cultures - maybe ALL other cultures. This white male culture is essentially a mix of Calvinistic/Capitalistic/Colonial American values with some core JudeoChristian ethics keeping it grounded.

Colin Powell lives, thinks and operates in the white male culture - which is why many other blacks who resent white male culture (like Harry Belafonte) call him an Uncle Tom.

That's also why so many white males who live according to lesser cultural standards like the ebonified inner city culture or underachieving plantation-mentality culture are dirt poor, wreckless and headed nowhere.

Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas... they all joined the "white male" culture where their great talents and intellect had much less restraints than in the lesser cultures.

What?  Don't tell him that he got into college based on modified test scores and lowered standards?  Don't tell him that several of his promotions were racially based because of a low number of "Qualified" minorities in the higher ranks?  Don't tell him that if it were not for the above, then he would never have been in a position to undermine the President that has given him the highest authority he has ever had?  Don't tell him that he is a friggen back stabber and UN Ass kisser?

OK, I won't.  But only if you can prove that Hitlery has attended a single black church since she was elected as the Junior Suckator of New Dork!!

Yeah, but according to the libs he's just a sell out Uncle Tom token that we put in power to "look" diversified. [:D]

My parents had the good sense to rescue me from the public hell hole school system, and ante up for private school.

God bless them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

...to all but the Michael Moore, brain dead leftist crowd.

Macallan, your right on that;
Me thinks thats because that 'white male culture' just teaches people not to be lazy bums, and to work hard. Minorities(everyone else) don't like working, and want sagnificant advantages 'just because'.

Just an observation.

me too...I just wish I had used my time there to study instead of party...

I agree with all of the original statements made.  Now, here is something else for you to consider...

1.  [b]The confederate battle flag is a sign of racism[/b]  To me, flying the confederate battle flag is a sign of respect for those that gave their lives to defend their country.  Further explanation on this in following statements...

2.  [b]The civil war was fought over slavery[/b] The constitution of the United states is no more than a contract between the signatory states.  It gives the federal government certain powers to regulate and support interstate and international commerce, and to join those independent states for mutual defense.  Several northern states, using their increased representation in the house (due to higher population density) were establishing laws in violation of the constitution.  Upon enacting these laws, the contract was breached and therefor, the United States legally no longer existed.  The "southern" states formed a confederation (another word for union but they did not want to call themselves "United States" also) and established the Confederate States of America.  At this time, they became an independent country.  Those states that remained in the original union, then started a war of aggression and invasion against the confederacy.  It was not a "civil" war, but actually a war of conquest of an independent nation.

3. [b]The Emancipation Proclamation was a law with legal standing.[/b]  Wrong again.  It was no more than a presidential proclamation, and in that, had no standing as law having not been voted on and passed into law by the legislature.  Also, this proclamation referred only to those states that were part of the Confederacy.  Since these states were part of an independent country and no longer legally bound to the United States, any law or proclamation passed in the US had no legal authority in the confederacy.  Also, Lincoln, of Illinois, at the time had and continued to maintain slaves of his own up until the time of his assasination.  

And finally, anyone that claims that they have a right to reparations for slavery can just go right back to Africa where they can live in places like Somalia, Nigeria and Liberia.  Oh yeah, after they reimburse the southern states for the cost of education, language training, food, clothing and shelter provided.  And if they still want money after that, they can get it from the other blacks that enslaved them in the first place.

This is not to bash blacks in general, just those instigators like JJ Jackson, Weird Al Sharpton, Malcolm X-rated and the rest of the Black Panther party (Also known as the Bro klux klan)  Organisations that in my opinion are no better, or worse than the Ku Klux Klan or the White patriot party.  When we learn the truth about history and learn from it to look forward, then we can all learn to get along.  We need to build from what we have.  We need to earn what we get and stop asking for handouts.  We need to stop the Liberal welfare state that the democraps are pushing to keep the blacks impoverished and buying their lies that the only way they can get anywhere is with handouts.  I would employ a black man as quick as a white man with qualifications being equal.  If the black were more qualified, he would be my primary choice.  

These are my opinions.  You may not agree.  That is your right.  But, that is what I have learned from getting away from the revisionist liberal history and getting at the truth.

As a '60's creation I can agree that these lies and deceptions were in fact taught as gospel. But its partially our fault too.

Men, in an attempt to make women happy, became genuinely interested in what women wanted. Men listened to what women wanted. Only thing is, once a woman [b]has[/b] what she wants, she doesn't want it any more. Plus, I've noticed a serious lack of the broader understanding that if you ask for the head of the quarter you get the tail too. They want a "sensitive" man, but don't understand that you generally get a wuss along with it.

The classic, 'be careful what you ask for, you just might get it' scenario.

Its yesterdays news however. Times, they are a changing.

Men, and I mean MEN, today are in high demand. Partly I bet because so many men are gay that there is a serious shortage. (remember I live in DC and we are inundated with gays)

Several men I know in their late 40s have recently divorced. All accounts indicate that women are beating down their door and I mean almost literally.

Women today, at all ages, are DESPERATE for men. Just look at the way they dress. Its not just a fad, they are trying to attract men.

I know some here may not agree with me, (cough)lordtrader(cough) but we ARE in control for the time being. Enjoy it while it lasts, I'm sure we'll see then end of it in a decade or so.

--LS

For the most part, I have to agree w/ your views on being spoonfed the bullshit of feminist socialist propaganda, b/c I was fed most of that bullshit while getting my bachelors degree.  

As far as what outfit a girl wears and how much of a factor that plays in rape, I think you are over estimating the role that plays in selection.  The dominating factor in selection for rape is opportunity, with the majority of rapists knowing their victims.  The outfit a girl wears might play a factor in some rapes, but that is a small percentage.  But I would agree dressing like a slut won't help the girls cause.  

Second, as far as rape being called a crime of violence, for the most part, it's correct.  When that view was popular, date rape wasn't really an issue.  Your standard rape that occurs in the back ally by some strange freak is your standard crime of violence that they refer too.  It is a violent crime of a sexual nature, but there are multiple reasons for the crime, not just sexual frustration.  

I do agree that the over arching view of rape should be reformed.  The motivation behind some anti-rape proponents seems to be to merely vent their frustration towards men simply because daddy didn't give them enough attention.  I discovered that major issued get grossly misrepresented because of personal agendas, so I definitely agree w/ most of your post, especially the "women being equal" section.  That view is the biggest crock of shit to be fed to the American public, since many African Americans thought they were owed financial restitution for their ancestors being slaves.  

*Puts flamesuit on*
I notice you explain only the weaknesses of women, and only the strengths of men. And hell, most of my [i]male[/i] friends couldn't carry a full-grown male down three flights of stairs.

Almost forgot the biggest load of horseshit.

Womens Lib, liberated women in the 70s.

Imagine my shock to learn of US Senators who were FEMALE in 1941 and a host of female lawyers, business owners, etc. all during the 1940's and 50's.

I assumed the stengths of women compared to men, especially as they relate to traditional female roles, were well known since they are constantly offered in arguments suggesting their equality to men.

It is a shame your male freinds have been so feminized they cannot carry their own body weight in times of crisis.

I'm not sure what your point is or which statement(s) of mine you are taking issue with. But seeing as how you went to one of those ridiculous schools of self importance I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. [:D]

I probably phrased something wrong, so let me try to clear up my protest a bit. When you start a persuasive paragraph with the sentence "They have inherent strengths and weaknesses when compared to males." It is usually customary to contrast the strengths that males hold over females, and vice versa. The paragraph only explained the male strengths, creating an incomplete support for your thesis.
I admit that I did not read your argument close enough, and I missed a critical section: "We are better at it and better equipped to deal with the majority of the situtations related to those areas.". I apologize for the unnecessary post.
One more thing. My friends are not "feminized" as you quickly conclude. They have average male strength; no weightlifters in my circle. The only way one could prepare for the event in which the lifting and carrying of at least 160 pounds - of dead, shifting weight, I might add - would be either physical training or manual labor. Since no-one I know does either, it creates a perfectly logical reason for being unable to accomplish the aforementioned task. I am sorry that you imagine any male unable to do this as "feminized".    

Sorry to interrupt, but I just overhead the Lesbian Across The Street [TLATS] tell another neighbor (with a grin, a big grin, a big sh*t-eating grin) that she had her cat's penis surgically removed. Evidently simply because she could.

Carry on.

cynic

Some used to say "birds of a feather" others "if it looks/acts/walks/cwacks like a duck, it must be a duck". This inference is now not PC or acceptable as reality [rolleyes]

Point one is incorrect.  There is little correlation between how a woman dresses and whether she will be raped.  Whatever correlation does exists runs in the opposite direction.  Rapists are predators and look for weak and docile victims; they tend to shy away from women who are dressed confidently or provacatively.

While a sexily dressed woman may excite a normal man's sexual urges, the rapist has additional concerns that play in the opposite direction.  His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated.  Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.

The simple truth is that much of what we see today is in response to something that was wrong in the past. Does anyone seriously believe that all things were fair before the 60's?
Today there is much in life that is likewise unfair, just not the same things.
Keep your eyes and ears open, and unlike many of us living from the 60's forward, do not accept those things that just do not make sense.
I believe that many of us during  that time period couldn't make sense of the "logic" with many of the agenda's being pushed, but bought into the thinking that "we" were the problem, and because of it, that we were not capable of coming up with the solution.
That right belonged to those oppressed.
Today I am much less PC in my thoughts, I am much more comfortable with my own logic process, and best of all I no longer feel compelled to blind myself with feel good outlooks.
In short I am totally reality based, and feel no pain to state "much of todays society and rules are BULLSH*T!"

Carry on.

Back on topic:  

IMO, SA, this post isn't up to your usual quality.  

No one could (or should) agree with such absolutes.  Provocative, but simplistic.  No one with half a brain would even *try* to argue these points.  Not that there aren't a few half-brains out here in The Real World (tm).  [:P]
Perhaps meant more to inspire a passionionate response than to actually represent *anyone's* thinking position on these issues?   [;)]

If they are out to dominate, wouldn't they be looking for a little fight? They are looking for the fight, the resistance, a docile girl that just lied there and took it would not be top choice.

IMO at least, although I must admit I don't understand the mindset that well.


edited to add: saying that the way a women dresses has no effect on her chances of being raped is like saying that someone wearing a KKK outfit through Compton at 2am is no more likely to get their ass kicked than someone wearing a tshirt.

Nearly everyone here will agree with that. But equality [b]is[/b] equality, ie everyone gets an equal chance. This is NOT what most feminists or minorities want, they want the appearance of an equal society with some getting an extra push to be in the position that they "deserve". If a women can pull a firefighters duty then she should be able to be a firefighter. But don't change the duties of a firefighter just to allow women to enter.

Again, the feminist POV (the strength of women vs. men) is well known and been sufficiently represented and did not necessitate it's inclusion.

Second, a adult male should be able to lift and carry his own body weight. Tell them to put down the game boy and get a real job. [:D]

I was disputing the notion that rape is never a sexual crime. It often is and can be a crime of violence, sexual release or both.



In the phrase "All men are created equal" it should be a given that those rights are inclusive to females. I never advocated less rights for females.

And my point was not "We are stronger so be impressed." My post specifically referred to females in "traditional male roles" which women are "usually" physically and/or emotionally a bad candidate. The converse is usually also true.