Hardball Matthews gets another tingle up his leg
- Thread starter Lumberjack
- Start date
it's the circumstances.. Mathews was at work -can't have that
I am all for feminists, as much as I despise PC. .hopefully I do not need to explain the difference??
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Gender feminism and political correctness are two sides of the same coin.
no. Feminism is kina like affirmative action -it breeds respect for minorities, and women - both historically disadvantaged in the USA culture.
I'm good with that..of course there are limits..but the concept is sound enough
PC is just ...it's utterly mindless blandishments purposely prohibiting descriptive language, and is militantly hostile to critical thought.
It's dumbing down to mob agenda for no sane reason. Its the antithesis of education
cancel2 2022
Canceled
My jumping off point here comes with four recent books. The first three areChristina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism? [Simon & Schuster, 1994], Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae [Vintage Books, 1991], and Warren Farrel's The Myth of Male Power [Simon & Schuster, 1993]. All three of these people themselves believe in a certain form of feminism, what Sommers has dubbed "equity feminism," which is just the principle that there must be legal and political equality for women. Warren Farrel was actually on the national governing board of the National Organization for Women until he became disillusioned and decided that NOW was not fighting for the proper goals. The fourth book is the powerful recent Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism by F. Carolyn Graglia [Spence Publishing, Dallas, 1998]. Graglia explicitly opposes feminism as such, except perhaps the "social feminism" of the 19th century, on the principle that identical laws for men and women, which were opposed by the "social feminism," are harmful to women who chose a traditional domestic occupation. Graglia's argument is especially noteworthy in that it is not from a fundamentalist religious point of view, which is where defenses of the traditional domestic life of women usually, or are expected to usually, come from ("bible-thumping retards"), but the essentially secular and rational claims of someone, not unfamiliar with professional life (Columbia Law School, Wall Street law firm), who does not appreciate a legal regime that has become hostile to her and her family.
On the other hand, most contemporary feminism, and almost the entirety of academic and political feminism, as Farrel discovered at NOW, is what Sommers has called "gender feminism," which is essentially based on a form of Marxist theory that substitutes "gender" for Marx's category of "class," or simply adds the two together, usually with "race" thrown in. This sort of "race, class, and gender" theory is typically a dangerous form of political moralism, with the same totalitarian characteristics as other versions of Marxism have proven to display. One consequence of this is that the substantive content of criticism is rarely addressed but that it is considered sufficient to vilify critics as, in effect, "class enemies," i.e. directing ad hominem arguments against them that their status, in terms of race, class, or gender, or simply in terms of their critical attitude, is sufficient to refute their arguments. Hence the convenient device of dismissing most of Western civilization as the product of "dead white males" -- though for feminism the inconvenient fact remains that Eastern and Middle Eastern civilization (and every other) must also be dismissed as the products of "dead non-white males."
To gender feminism, Sommers, Paglia, and Farrel are no less "enemies of feminism" (and, for that matter, "enemies of women") than Graglia. The three of them, however, have, to Graglia, bought into the essential feminist revolution, which was that laws cannot be different for the sexes. Since gender feminism is really a totalitarian project, it would be nice if there was a basis of reconciliation between the genuine liberalism of Sommers et. al. and Graglia's Burkean conservativism -- as in fact there is.
http://www.friesian.com/feminism.htm
^ well I'm a big fan of Camille Paglia, and she does excoriate modern feminism..like I said there are limits.
.i am more old school and don't live and breathe this stuff.
equal rights/equal opportunities, and most of all no sexual objectification in the work place..basic ideas without getting all twisted in
.i am more old school and don't live and breathe this stuff.
equal rights/equal opportunities, and most of all no sexual objectification in the work place..basic ideas without getting all twisted in
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I object to the word objectification, Americans are never happier than when they invent new bullshit words. It is plain as a pikestaff that Trump wheels his wife and daughter out like they are prize Jerseys at the country fair.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Well I have said many times that I have nothing against equity feminism but everything against gender feminism.
well said..that is an importance distinction I had forgotten.. I completely agree
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Now you've done it, Darla will be calling you a potential rapist and a MRA.
I can't get into divisive power structures for it's own sake. as we say in the USA - E Pluribus Unum
Just one thing to say to the hypocrites on the left...concerning sexist language @ the work place.
B I L L
C L I N T O N:
And now the queen of the double standard is attempting to sit in the same seat as her whore mongering husband.
Not only did she tolerate "sexist" language in public....but had no problem with a BJ taking place in the oval office.
Funny....Mr. Reagan had so much respect for the symbolism of the office that he refused to sit behind the desk in the oval office without first being in full social dress...to include a jacket and tie. Then a CLINTON moved in....who did not appear to have any concern about sitting in the oval office with his "pants" removed. Then Hillary grabbed hold of the whore mongering coat tail so hard that she has ridden the left wing hypocrisy all they back to 1600 pa. av.
Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD......or no standard at all.
Are THE PEOPLE supposed to believe that she was so "clueless" that she did not know what was going on behind her proverbial back....or that she knew and did not give a shit as long the coat tails that she was riding to benefit her own political career remained in tact? In either circumstance....does this type of self serving moral character belong in the oval office again? Clearly THE LEFT has no standard when it comes to sexist behavior.
B I L L
C L I N T O N:
And now the queen of the double standard is attempting to sit in the same seat as her whore mongering husband.
Not only did she tolerate "sexist" language in public....but had no problem with a BJ taking place in the oval office.
Funny....Mr. Reagan had so much respect for the symbolism of the office that he refused to sit behind the desk in the oval office without first being in full social dress...to include a jacket and tie. Then a CLINTON moved in....who did not appear to have any concern about sitting in the oval office with his "pants" removed. Then Hillary grabbed hold of the whore mongering coat tail so hard that she has ridden the left wing hypocrisy all they back to 1600 pa. av.
Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD......or no standard at all.
Are THE PEOPLE supposed to believe that she was so "clueless" that she did not know what was going on behind her proverbial back....or that she knew and did not give a shit as long the coat tails that she was riding to benefit her own political career remained in tact? In either circumstance....does this type of self serving moral character belong in the oval office again? Clearly THE LEFT has no standard when it comes to sexist behavior.
Last edited:
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Not unless he starts twirling it at the podium.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I'm trying to find the line here.
If I'm at work, and a woman walks by, and I lean over to my friend in the next cubicle and say "man, she is really beautiful."
Is that sexist?
no.. and asking me isn't going to clarify -use your own common sense of decency.
Compare your sentiment with Mathews..
Matthews is focusing on her strut/butt - your's is more of a compliment..hey I'm just your Average Boomer White Guy -so what do I know?
but Matthews grates on my ears, and yours is recognition of the person's charm
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I hear you, and I'm not comparing my comment to Matthews. I was specifically going w/ something a little more innocuous to see where we'd draw the line.
I didn't find his comment to be overly coarse, personally. It wasn't "what an arse," and you're reading a lot into it, imo. I still don't see it as sexist, personally.
damn close to "what an ass" it's a judgment call I suppose...Matthews appears to be drooling ...make of it what you will
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Like I said, I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree that he's toeing a line there. I just didn't think it was worthy of any kind of story.
It just reminds me of how guys in my Dad's generation talk. Like a "hubba hubba" kind of thing. Which I tend to see as appreciating someone's looks more than something that represents sexism or mysoginy or anything like that.
You think she knew BJ was getting a bj in the Oval Office?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Only if a man says it, women are exempt.