quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Sorry but this is simplistic bullshit

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos
Males have been asked (or more to the point, pressured) to tolerate a tremendous amount of change in the way our sexes relate socially in such a relatively blunt period of time when compared to the overall arm of human history. Much of the change has been for the better when addressing egalitarian ideals. I just think it is very unwise to attempt pushing the pendulum too far the other way, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Cleaver, your rhetoric is getting tiresome.  In the ten days you've been a member, you've presented your point of view several times; few people have agreed with it; and now you're evidently getting frustrated.  We don't call other people's opinions "simplistic bullshit" on here.  Comments like that say more about the speaker than the addressee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Sorry but this is simplistic bullshit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals).

One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact.

for all intents and purposes, hitler started out as a social movement. 1 man.

since when does a social movement require a unified front of millions of people? it only takes one in the right place at the right time.

i did not see any evidence of the basics being ignored and how they operated is exactly why so many people are pissed off at them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i have no idea where you are coming from or where you get your information, but even now in this progressive world that we live in today as i look around me, my family it was that way, my brothers and sisters families it is that way, most of my relatives it is that way, the majority of their relatives it is that way, and most of our neighbors it is that way. i have many friends in different parts of the world, 3rd world countries included and for the most part in their families its that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

I'm one of the men who did not laugh at this line.

I think caitlyn has touched upon something simple but quite crucial; that before our contemporary age a natural order prevailed (no doubt since the dawn of our species) in which the female was indeed subjugated and made servant to the male. Vestiges of these ways are still alive in many parts of the world and are just below the surface—even in daily male / female interactions within our "enlightened" Western society.

The simple reality is feminist ideals have taken the collective (genetic?) memory of thousands of years of human behavior and stood it upon its head. In doing this, they are essentially asking for something that is unnatural, not necessarily wrong in a moral sense. Since primitive days humans have followed a simple code of might makes right, which has in general belonged to the male.

But our past century of modern industrialization and constitutional republic has offered a causeway for women in which they have been allowed to press for equality and make true headway without the aid of a queen or empress. Much of this progress has been good and tolerated by the male half of the species. It is the latter incarnation of the feminist movement, entrenching itself snugly and shielded by liberal politics, education and media, which seems to have conceived aims beyond mere equality to cultural brainwashing. The basic message is: men are idiots and cruel simpletons who are easily lead around by their cocks. The growing number of men who seem to be "pissed off" about feminism may be so due to this prevalence, and they have every right to be so, according to their nature.

Males have been asked (or more to the point, pressured) to tolerate a tremendous amount of change in the way our sexes relate socially in such a relatively blunt period of time when compared to the overall arm of human history. Much of the change has been for the better when addressing egalitarian ideals. I just think it is very unwise to attempt pushing the pendulum too far the other way, however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new.

Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals).

One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact.

for all intents and purposes, hitler started out as a social movement. 1 man.

since when does a social movement require a unified front of millions of people? it only takes one in the right place at the right time.

i did not see any evidence of the basics being ignored and how they operated is exactly why so many people are pissed off at them.

Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new.

Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new.

Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

When someone plays the "Hitler card" in a debate, its akin to turtle-on-its-back desperation. As for me, I would characterize Hitler as a poltical opportunist --- and you're right --- the patriotism-xenophobia-paranoia thing was an old trick. Thank God that rhetoric doesn't fool anyone any more..........

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new.

Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

When someone plays the "Hitler card" in a debate, its akin to turtle-on-its-back desperation. As for me, I would characterize Hitler as a poltical opportunist --- and you're right --- the patriotism-xenophobia-paranoia thing was an old trick. Thank God that rhetoric doesn't fool anyone any more..........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals).

One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact.

for all intents and purposes, hitler started out as a social movement. 1 man.

since when does a social movement require a unified front of millions of people? it only takes one in the right place at the right time.

i did not see any evidence of the basics being ignored and how they operated is exactly why so many people are pissed off at them.

Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new.

Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

exactly what were the followers of his antiseminism if not a social movement, part of what got him elected!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
Rhetoric's goal isn't the truth; it's to presuade people in the hopes of getting followers, money, power, and/or changes (and probably other things).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
Rhetoric's goal isn't the truth; it's to presuade people in the hopes of getting followers, money, power, and/or changes (and probably other things).

sounds a lot like radical feminism to me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

exactly what were the followers of his antiseminism if not a social movement, part of what got him elected!