Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Kieran McConville]

Maybe they knew someone who got murdered.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

Again with the difference. Every person deserves respect.

Everyone deserves respect. We're talking about impersonal jokes

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

Again with the difference. Every person deserves respect.

You still haven't responded to my question about the murdered child

[Pearl]

The thing is, there are plenty of guys out there who do hate women. They think it is OK to hit a woman and they think women are asking to be raped. To joke about those things is no different than a racist poking fun at black people.

I agree this all wanders into a big gray area on what is proper comedy or not. But let's face it. If a comedian or someone were to make memes making fun of lynchings, action would be taken against that person right away. Why shouldn't the same be done for a misogynist who pokes fun of rape and domestic violence? He's also not doing so for comedic purposes; he seems to be exploiting comedy to get his misogynist message across.

[Irvine511]

on a different topic, i think these are guys who do hate women:

Fox's Erick Erickson: It's 'Anti-Science' To Not Believe Men Should 'Dominate' Women - YouTube



and here's Eric Erickson explaining further. so listen up, ladies, and don't get your panties in such a wad.

The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | May 30th, 2013 at 02:57 PM | 73

RESIZE: AAA
I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases. I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners. That is what the left says, but it is not so. Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.

Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.

At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be. When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived. I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.

All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them. I am not. In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so.

Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine. If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.

We should also, as a society, recognize that many single moms are in that position because the men in their lives abandoned their obligations. We should work on all those fronts to put the pieces of the nuclear family back together.

Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.

In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.

This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.

Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all. I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.

Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.

As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine in the liberal fantasy world.

Except in the real world it does not work out that way.

Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.

But to say the two parent, heterosexual household isn’t the best for children or, more troubling, that our society should not be encouraging it, may make people feel tolerant and open, but it is killing our society. As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”

None of us can have it all. Women as primary breadwinners does make raising children harder, increasing the likelihood of harm in the development of children. While it is a reality in this world and sometimes even necessary, that does not mean we should not ignore the consequences of the increase in moms, instead of dads, as primary breadwinners (often because the man walked out).

People who seem to think it does not matter should answer one question: who is less valuable — mom or dad? The American people instinctively understand complementary relationships between men and women. The left should too.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/30/t...t-is-not-mean/

he has spoken truth to power. you are just a vagina. God made you that way.

[Vlad n U 2]

What Erickson really meant was, 'I will be liquidated after the revolution.'

[Pearl]

I think you do have a point, Irvine, that the guys making those misogynist jokes are usually the right-wing types. I don't think many left leaning guys would say the same jokes, but hey anything can happen. But its no secret conservative men have a more negative view of women.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Pearl

I think you do have a point, Irvine, that the guys making those misogynist jokes are usually the right-wing types. I don't think many left leaning guys would say the same jokes, but hey anything can happen. But its no secret conservative men have a more negative view of women.

Lots of right wing comedians in the clubs these days

[Pearl]

They gotta vent somewhere.

[jeevey]

I did see that one, Irvine. Fucking hilarious. It's like you almost can't believe that he's for real- like, it's Archie Bunker stuff, only not fiction. That's kind of what I was saying about culture at large- what I'd like to see is for this fellow to be universally recognized as a buffoon. We're partway there.

Jive, I think we have a reversal here. What I keep hearing you say is, "Don't all people deserve the same disrespect? If we can disrespect that one, why not this one?" And I'm saying that no, in a humane society every person deserves positive respect and kindness. Some people get it a lot less often and that's why they get extra attention. It would be like trying to have a civil rights movement in the US without specifically addressing race.

A lot of effective humor is based on irreverence, which is not the same as disrespect. Irreverence is directed towards ideologies and institutions. George Carlin's bits on religion are a great example. He's pointing out the ridiculousness he perceives in the ideas, not saying that religious people are stupid or need to be shot or raped.

When we start to create humor based on what someone is as a person, that's not okay. It's true that in the cancer joke instance, I put my foot in my mouth. Cancer patients are not a fixed population of people born with cancer who will always have cancer. What I said was hurtful, trivializing and unfortunate, but it wasn't an attack on all cancer patients or her husband as a human being. If I walked into a place and said, "Jeez, it smells like Mexicans in here" that would clearly not be okay, because I'm making statements about what Mexicans are, fundamentally, as human beings.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

Jive, I think we have a reversal here. What I keep hearing you say is, "Don't all people deserve the same disrespect? If we can disprespect that one, why not this one?" And I'm saying that no, in a humane society every person deserves positive respect and kindness.

Answer my question about people affected by murder

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

.

When we start to create humor based on what someone fundamentally is as a person, that's not okay. It's true that in the cancer joke instance, I put my foot in my mouth. Cancer patients are not a fixed population of people born with cancer who will always have cancer. What I said was hurtful, trivializing and unfortunate, but it wasn't an attack on her husband as a human being. If I walked into a place and said, "Jeez, it smells like Mexicans in here" that would clearly not be okay, because I'm making statements about what Mexicans are, fundamentally, as human beings.

this is entirely inconsistent with your point about rape jokes

[jeevey]

When you can demonstrate that rape jokes are not universally either about women, or about humiliating men by dominating and feminizing them, then I'll wonder if I was inconsistent.

And about the murder, here it is one more time: If you know something will hurt somebody, don't say it. If you discover you've made an error and accidentally been a jerk, apologize. Base your actions and speech on the notion of kindness.

That's just my own personal, foolish, ridiculous notion about how the world can be a more enjoyable place, applicable at any time, in any situation. It's called an ethical principle.

[The Sad Punk]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So a mother who's child has been murdered deserves less respect than a rape victim?

I never said such a thing.

I am saying that rape and sexual abuse occurs more frequently than murder, and that it is something that strongly affects the victim for the rest of their life.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

When you can demonstrate that rape jokes are not universally either about women, or about humiliating men by dominating and feminizing them, then I'll wonder if I was inconsistent.

And about the murder, here it is one more time: If you know something will hurt somebody, don't say it. If you discover you've made an error and accidentally been a jerk, apologize. Base your actions and speech on the notion of kindness.

That's just my own personal, foolish, ridiculous notion about how the world can be a more enjoyable place, applicable at any time, in any situation. It's called an ethical principle.

So when we can't universally demonstrate that rape jokes aren't about both men and women? This whole premise is laughable. Jokes must be about everyone to be acceptable??
Bottom line, your concerns aren't any more important than anyone else's. You're not special and don't deserve special recognition.

And let's not pretend jokes.. jokes...are preventing the world from being a more enjoyable place. You aren't being persecuted.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by The Sad Punk

I never said such a thing.

I am saying that rape and sexual abuse occurs more frequently than murder, and that it is something that strongly affects the victim for the rest of their life.

So who's in charge of this sliding scale of acceptable offense? jeevey?

The last part of this post is rather dismissive of murder victims' friends and families

[BVS]

Well the question was about feminism, but all I know is that this thread is no longer relevant.

[AliEnvy]

Perhaps it would be more constructive to move from a perspective of 'feminism' to one of 'anti-sexism'.

Violence & Silence: Jackson Katz, Ph.D at TEDxFiDiWomen - YouTube

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

Well the question was about feminism, but all I know is that this thread is no longer relevant.

Conversations are fluid. Why limit where we go because of a thread title?

[BVS]

Conversations are fluid, but threads tend to be a little more rigid than everyday conversations and usually dictate staying on topic. Not that it always does, or necessarily always has to, but this one feels way off topic and it's kind of lost it's meaning.