lumigan tramadol tadalafil

The Michael Richards’ episode and hate speech against men

2006-12-15
By

When the anti-black racist rantings of Michael Richards became public knowledge, there was a loud public outcry as there should have been.

However, I wonder if there would have been anything similar if a public figure made similar hate speech against men. In fact, I’m pretty sure there would not have been such outrage. In all likelihood, a comedian engaging in hate speech against women would have at least received some harsh criticism.

There have always been both man-haters and woman-haters. However, the feminist movement has led to a strong social disapproval of anti-female sentiments. No similar outrage is attached to the expression of negative feelings toward men. French actress Bridget Bardot was once asked what she liked most in a man and she replied, “his absence.” In another statement, she said, “beasts wouldn’t do the things [men] do.” An actor who expressed this type of negativity toward women could expect to be deluged with criticism.

The reason misogynist statements occasion great outrage while misandrist hate speech rate barely a shrug is that there is a general perception that men are the dominant or privileged sex, i.e., “it’s a man’s world,” and are therefore fair game. The more complicated truth is that societies are bisexist, consisting of both privilege and special burdens for both sexes in different areas. In many respects, men are an oppressed group. As an oppressed group, they are entitled to be offended when they are denigrated. Furthermore, sensitive and thinking women should also be offended at misandrist sentiments and stereotypes.

While feminism has led to a greater sensitivity to misogyny, feminism should not be blamed for the existence of misandry. Slogans like “men are such BEASTS” and “they’re only after one thing” were not invented in the 1970s when the second wave of the feminist movement broke and I’d wager that they were around before the suffragettes began agitating.

However, misandry IS a form of prejudice. As such, it deserves to be rejected by good people of both sexes and criticized when it is expressed.

143 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


← Older Comments
  • http://alfin2100.blogspot.com Al Fin

    I believe that Denise is bit confused about something. It is not the everyday man-hating remarks that are harmful. Those are part of living with two genders in the real world.

    The harm comes from the feminist inspired public mores and feminism unbalanced government enforcement of hate speech. So you see, it is definitely the feminist inspired public aspects of misandry that are offensive and harmful to men, not the private everyday asides that fall on mostly deaf ears.

    Please understand the qualitative difference between the two things, and understand and admit the role of feminism in promoting the harmful type of misandry.

  • http://alfin2100.blogspot.com Al Fin

    I believe that Denise is bit confused about something. It is not the everyday man-hating remarks that are harmful. Those are part of living with two genders in the real world.

    The harm comes from the feminist inspired public mores and feminism unbalanced government enforcement of hate speech. So you see, it is definitely the feminist inspired public aspects of misandry that are offensive and harmful to men, not the private everyday asides that fall on mostly deaf ears.

    Please understand the qualitative difference between the two things, and understand and admit the role of feminism in promoting the harmful type of misandry.

  • http://alfin2100.blogspot.com Al Fin

    I believe that Denise is bit confused about something. It is not the everyday man-hating remarks that are harmful. Those are part of living with two genders in the real world.

    The harm comes from the feminist inspired public mores and feminism unbalanced government enforcement of hate speech. So you see, it is definitely the feminist inspired public aspects of misandry that are offensive and harmful to men, not the private everyday asides that fall on mostly deaf ears.

    Please understand the qualitative difference between the two things, and understand and admit the role of feminism in promoting the harmful type of misandry.

  • http://alfin2100.blogspot.com Al Fin

    I believe that Denise is bit confused about something. It is not the everyday man-hating remarks that are harmful. Those are part of living with two genders in the real world.

    The harm comes from the feminist inspired public mores and feminism unbalanced government enforcement of hate speech. So you see, it is definitely the feminist inspired public aspects of misandry that are offensive and harmful to men, not the private everyday asides that fall on mostly deaf ears.

    Please understand the qualitative difference between the two things, and understand and admit the role of feminism in promoting the harmful type of misandry.

  • DadWithGirls

    Some enraged MRA suggested — “The key to a Marxist Revolution is an un-educated, un-informed populace.”

    Gosh, I thought that was also the key to a successful American presidential election!

    Gents, whether you’re a commie, a socialist, a libertarian, a Republicrat, a Demopublican, or even a zenpriest or a fred or a gonzo or a mike …

    In the end (in the absence of true American leadership and a real democratic process) — all we have is the quality of our conversations.

    If the quality is sufficiently sustained, eventually you get revolution.

    Or, evolution.

    I always get those terms confused….. ;-)

    One is good, right?

  • DadWithGirls

    Some enraged MRA suggested — “The key to a Marxist Revolution is an un-educated, un-informed populace.”

    Gosh, I thought that was also the key to a successful American presidential election!

    Gents, whether you’re a commie, a socialist, a libertarian, a Republicrat, a Demopublican, or even a zenpriest or a fred or a gonzo or a mike …

    In the end (in the absence of true American leadership and a real democratic process) — all we have is the quality of our conversations.

    If the quality is sufficiently sustained, eventually you get revolution.

    Or, evolution.

    I always get those terms confused….. ;-)

    One is good, right?

  • DadWithGirls

    Some enraged MRA suggested — “The key to a Marxist Revolution is an un-educated, un-informed populace.”

    Gosh, I thought that was also the key to a successful American presidential election!

    Gents, whether you’re a commie, a socialist, a libertarian, a Republicrat, a Demopublican, or even a zenpriest or a fred or a gonzo or a mike …

    In the end (in the absence of true American leadership and a real democratic process) — all we have is the quality of our conversations.

    If the quality is sufficiently sustained, eventually you get revolution.

    Or, evolution.

    I always get those terms confused….. ;-)

    One is good, right?

  • DadWithGirls

    Some enraged MRA suggested — “The key to a Marxist Revolution is an un-educated, un-informed populace.”

    Gosh, I thought that was also the key to a successful American presidential election!

    Gents, whether you’re a commie, a socialist, a libertarian, a Republicrat, a Demopublican, or even a zenpriest or a fred or a gonzo or a mike …

    In the end (in the absence of true American leadership and a real democratic process) — all we have is the quality of our conversations.

    If the quality is sufficiently sustained, eventually you get revolution.

    Or, evolution.

    I always get those terms confused….. ;-)

    One is good, right?

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/denise-noe/ Denise Noe

    From Amfortas
    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

    (Denise) Amfortas, I don’t usually add my own comments to my posts. I made an except awhile back because people expressed skepticism about my alimony arrangements. I’ll make a second exception this time.
    I have to admit I’m disappointed that posters have latched on to my observation that feminism can’t be blamed for the existence of misandry. My main point was that misandrous comments should be cause for the same offense that misogynous comments are.
    I don’t equate feminism and misandry largely because I grew up hearing a lot of man-hating remarks which were not from feminists. They were usually from women who were either oblivious to feminism, opposed to it, or for whom feminism was a dirty word. The comments were not “mild” but were “bleepety bleep men!” and “they’re all alike,” and “can you name a one of ‘em who’s any good?” The same women who made these remarks often despised feminism. I have a brother who has worked as a cook all of his life and heard misandrous comments from waitresses, most of whom either disliked feminism or were indifferent to it. Brigette Bardot, whom I quoted in my essay, has written against women holding political office.
    In my own life, I’ve met one woman who proclaimed herself both a feminist and a man-hater and one lesbian who apparently was anti-male. I recognize that statements from Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller are strongly misandrist. Indeed, they kind of remind me of what my conservative, anti-feminist mother and grandmother and many other women might say if their IQ scores were kicked up to 115.
    I think that when you talk about misandry only in relationship to “feminists,” you let off the hook many people who make man-hating remarks who don’t identify with the feminist movement. You should condemn man-hating and anti-male sterotyping regardles of whether the person making them identifies as a feminist or not.
    I also feel that the feminist movement has many intrinsic limitations in its appeal to women but am saving the reasons for that for a future column!
    I hope you’re doing well, amfortas. You seem to be a bit friendly to me and I appreciate that regardless of what disagreements we may have.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/denise-noe/ Denise Noe

    From Amfortas
    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

    (Denise) Amfortas, I don’t usually add my own comments to my posts. I made an except awhile back because people expressed skepticism about my alimony arrangements. I’ll make a second exception this time.
    I have to admit I’m disappointed that posters have latched on to my observation that feminism can’t be blamed for the existence of misandry. My main point was that misandrous comments should be cause for the same offense that misogynous comments are.
    I don’t equate feminism and misandry largely because I grew up hearing a lot of man-hating remarks which were not from feminists. They were usually from women who were either oblivious to feminism, opposed to it, or for whom feminism was a dirty word. The comments were not “mild” but were “bleepety bleep men!” and “they’re all alike,” and “can you name a one of ‘em who’s any good?” The same women who made these remarks often despised feminism. I have a brother who has worked as a cook all of his life and heard misandrous comments from waitresses, most of whom either disliked feminism or were indifferent to it. Brigette Bardot, whom I quoted in my essay, has written against women holding political office.
    In my own life, I’ve met one woman who proclaimed herself both a feminist and a man-hater and one lesbian who apparently was anti-male. I recognize that statements from Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller are strongly misandrist. Indeed, they kind of remind me of what my conservative, anti-feminist mother and grandmother and many other women might say if their IQ scores were kicked up to 115.
    I think that when you talk about misandry only in relationship to “feminists,” you let off the hook many people who make man-hating remarks who don’t identify with the feminist movement. You should condemn man-hating and anti-male sterotyping regardles of whether the person making them identifies as a feminist or not.
    I also feel that the feminist movement has many intrinsic limitations in its appeal to women but am saving the reasons for that for a future column!
    I hope you’re doing well, amfortas. You seem to be a bit friendly to me and I appreciate that regardless of what disagreements we may have.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/denise-noe/ Denise Noe

    From Amfortas
    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

    (Denise) Amfortas, I don’t usually add my own comments to my posts. I made an except awhile back because people expressed skepticism about my alimony arrangements. I’ll make a second exception this time.
    I have to admit I’m disappointed that posters have latched on to my observation that feminism can’t be blamed for the existence of misandry. My main point was that misandrous comments should be cause for the same offense that misogynous comments are.
    I don’t equate feminism and misandry largely because I grew up hearing a lot of man-hating remarks which were not from feminists. They were usually from women who were either oblivious to feminism, opposed to it, or for whom feminism was a dirty word. The comments were not “mild” but were “bleepety bleep men!” and “they’re all alike,” and “can you name a one of ‘em who’s any good?” The same women who made these remarks often despised feminism. I have a brother who has worked as a cook all of his life and heard misandrous comments from waitresses, most of whom either disliked feminism or were indifferent to it. Brigette Bardot, whom I quoted in my essay, has written against women holding political office.
    In my own life, I’ve met one woman who proclaimed herself both a feminist and a man-hater and one lesbian who apparently was anti-male. I recognize that statements from Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller are strongly misandrist. Indeed, they kind of remind me of what my conservative, anti-feminist mother and grandmother and many other women might say if their IQ scores were kicked up to 115.
    I think that when you talk about misandry only in relationship to “feminists,” you let off the hook many people who make man-hating remarks who don’t identify with the feminist movement. You should condemn man-hating and anti-male sterotyping regardles of whether the person making them identifies as a feminist or not.
    I also feel that the feminist movement has many intrinsic limitations in its appeal to women but am saving the reasons for that for a future column!
    I hope you’re doing well, amfortas. You seem to be a bit friendly to me and I appreciate that regardless of what disagreements we may have.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/denise-noe/ Denise Noe

    From Amfortas
    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

    (Denise) Amfortas, I don’t usually add my own comments to my posts. I made an except awhile back because people expressed skepticism about my alimony arrangements. I’ll make a second exception this time.
    I have to admit I’m disappointed that posters have latched on to my observation that feminism can’t be blamed for the existence of misandry. My main point was that misandrous comments should be cause for the same offense that misogynous comments are.
    I don’t equate feminism and misandry largely because I grew up hearing a lot of man-hating remarks which were not from feminists. They were usually from women who were either oblivious to feminism, opposed to it, or for whom feminism was a dirty word. The comments were not “mild” but were “bleepety bleep men!” and “they’re all alike,” and “can you name a one of ‘em who’s any good?” The same women who made these remarks often despised feminism. I have a brother who has worked as a cook all of his life and heard misandrous comments from waitresses, most of whom either disliked feminism or were indifferent to it. Brigette Bardot, whom I quoted in my essay, has written against women holding political office.
    In my own life, I’ve met one woman who proclaimed herself both a feminist and a man-hater and one lesbian who apparently was anti-male. I recognize that statements from Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller are strongly misandrist. Indeed, they kind of remind me of what my conservative, anti-feminist mother and grandmother and many other women might say if their IQ scores were kicked up to 115.
    I think that when you talk about misandry only in relationship to “feminists,” you let off the hook many people who make man-hating remarks who don’t identify with the feminist movement. You should condemn man-hating and anti-male sterotyping regardles of whether the person making them identifies as a feminist or not.
    I also feel that the feminist movement has many intrinsic limitations in its appeal to women but am saving the reasons for that for a future column!
    I hope you’re doing well, amfortas. You seem to be a bit friendly to me and I appreciate that regardless of what disagreements we may have.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    PS. Yes, bolt actioned are OK; mags too, as long as there is no auto function. Gun clubs can hold all sorts. Possession w/out a licence gets your balls cut off which is very handy for the ladies. We had a woman in Victoria lay in wait for her husband and shot him 7 times then reloaded and shot him again. She got off scot-free of course. The gun wasn’t an automatic.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    PS. Yes, bolt actioned are OK; mags too, as long as there is no auto function. Gun clubs can hold all sorts. Possession w/out a licence gets your balls cut off which is very handy for the ladies. We had a woman in Victoria lay in wait for her husband and shot him 7 times then reloaded and shot him again. She got off scot-free of course. The gun wasn’t an automatic.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    PS. Yes, bolt actioned are OK; mags too, as long as there is no auto function. Gun clubs can hold all sorts. Possession w/out a licence gets your balls cut off which is very handy for the ladies. We had a woman in Victoria lay in wait for her husband and shot him 7 times then reloaded and shot him again. She got off scot-free of course. The gun wasn’t an automatic.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    PS. Yes, bolt actioned are OK; mags too, as long as there is no auto function. Gun clubs can hold all sorts. Possession w/out a licence gets your balls cut off which is very handy for the ladies. We had a woman in Victoria lay in wait for her husband and shot him 7 times then reloaded and shot him again. She got off scot-free of course. The gun wasn’t an automatic.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    This is how it is Willy. We never had the same traditional gun-toting freedoms enjoyed in the USA. People could own guns with a licence, relatively easily obtained, and many do have guns especially out in the bush. People didn’t give it a lot of concern. Then a few years ago a young fella in my home town (adopted home that is) name of Martin Bryant got himself an arsenal. He was a looney and, incidentally, one of the clan that owns Tattslotto here. Anyway, off he trots to Port Arthur, a premier tourist spot and site of the worst convict prison in this Van Dieman’s Land, and shot 35 people. (we do things on the Grand scale in OZ. It ain’t all Texas, you know). As he had several automatic weapons with him it didn’t take him long to dispatch men, women, children, cats and dogs, whatever took his fancy, – he didn’t appear to have any reason to kill anyone that day – and as the local copper was all on his own and about 30 miles away at the time, he was unimpeded. The cops are armed here, with Glocks but there’s never one around when you want one. Anyway, they only have them to scare motorists.

    Well the powers that be reckoned that having automatic weapons was a no no, and banned them. They also tightened up the licencing system so it was harder to get a gun of any sort. Except for crims of course. They get’em easy it seems.

    Now, personally, I reckon that if one or two of the people visiting Port Arthur that day had been carrying guns – for personal protection, shooting rabbits, signposts, that sort of thing – then someone just might have reduced the number of the dead and included young Martin amongst them. But there we go. Who gives a f*ck what I say. Certainly John Howard doesn’t.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    This is how it is Willy. We never had the same traditional gun-toting freedoms enjoyed in the USA. People could own guns with a licence, relatively easily obtained, and many do have guns especially out in the bush. People didn’t give it a lot of concern. Then a few years ago a young fella in my home town (adopted home that is) name of Martin Bryant got himself an arsenal. He was a looney and, incidentally, one of the clan that owns Tattslotto here. Anyway, off he trots to Port Arthur, a premier tourist spot and site of the worst convict prison in this Van Dieman’s Land, and shot 35 people. (we do things on the Grand scale in OZ. It ain’t all Texas, you know). As he had several automatic weapons with him it didn’t take him long to dispatch men, women, children, cats and dogs, whatever took his fancy, – he didn’t appear to have any reason to kill anyone that day – and as the local copper was all on his own and about 30 miles away at the time, he was unimpeded. The cops are armed here, with Glocks but there’s never one around when you want one. Anyway, they only have them to scare motorists.

    Well the powers that be reckoned that having automatic weapons was a no no, and banned them. They also tightened up the licencing system so it was harder to get a gun of any sort. Except for crims of course. They get’em easy it seems.

    Now, personally, I reckon that if one or two of the people visiting Port Arthur that day had been carrying guns – for personal protection, shooting rabbits, signposts, that sort of thing – then someone just might have reduced the number of the dead and included young Martin amongst them. But there we go. Who gives a f*ck what I say. Certainly John Howard doesn’t.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    amfortas,

    as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    amfortas,

    as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    amfortas,

    as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    amfortas,

    as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Willy says: “There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people”

    Again, I find myself in agreement. Same goes for femonazis. There are many blind people who have a part that seems quite compassionate and helpful but who do not see the consequences of their actions. They take the money, do their job, believe they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the damage they do. Drones.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Willy says: “There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people”

    Again, I find myself in agreement. Same goes for femonazis. There are many blind people who have a part that seems quite compassionate and helpful but who do not see the consequences of their actions. They take the money, do their job, believe they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the damage they do. Drones.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Willy says: “There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people”

    Again, I find myself in agreement. Same goes for femonazis. There are many blind people who have a part that seems quite compassionate and helpful but who do not see the consequences of their actions. They take the money, do their job, believe they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the damage they do. Drones.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Willy says: “There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people”

    Again, I find myself in agreement. Same goes for femonazis. There are many blind people who have a part that seems quite compassionate and helpful but who do not see the consequences of their actions. They take the money, do their job, believe they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the damage they do. Drones.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    ONce again Denis,

    simply a correction “EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    EVery government handout is a nail in the coffin of the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    God, you are so paranoid!

    As for the Marxist in the soc. sec. office, there probably are some, but what I am saying is that the programs themselves are socialist programs.

    There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people, but the programs they support are Marxist through and through.

    Some of them are not so well camouflaged:
    Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, Nadler, Clinton, and on, and on, and on.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    ONce again Denis,

    simply a correction “EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    EVery government handout is a nail in the coffin of the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    God, you are so paranoid!

    As for the Marxist in the soc. sec. office, there probably are some, but what I am saying is that the programs themselves are socialist programs.

    There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people, but the programs they support are Marxist through and through.

    Some of them are not so well camouflaged:
    Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, Nadler, Clinton, and on, and on, and on.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    ONce again Denis,

    simply a correction “EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    EVery government handout is a nail in the coffin of the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    God, you are so paranoid!

    As for the Marxist in the soc. sec. office, there probably are some, but what I am saying is that the programs themselves are socialist programs.

    There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people, but the programs they support are Marxist through and through.

    Some of them are not so well camouflaged:
    Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, Nadler, Clinton, and on, and on, and on.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    ONce again Denis,

    simply a correction “EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    EVery government handout is a nail in the coffin of the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.

    God, you are so paranoid!

    As for the Marxist in the soc. sec. office, there probably are some, but what I am saying is that the programs themselves are socialist programs.

    There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people, but the programs they support are Marxist through and through.

    Some of them are not so well camouflaged:
    Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, Nadler, Clinton, and on, and on, and on.

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

  • http://lovability.org amfortas

    Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have to say now?

    Denise?

  • Denis

    I do concede that DWG made the claim. I am big enough to admit my error. Since I was going up and down frequently, and it was getting late, I mistakenly attributed it to you.

    Wil said:

    “Marxists in the Soc Sec office? Where pray tell did I make that statement?”

    In #19 you say:

    “Every move by the Left from the turn of the century onward has advanced that goal, whether it was the instituion of feminism, abortion “rights,” the welfare state, social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, “universal medical care,” all of those are tools to strip the family of unity and strength.”

    Above you claim it is the “Left” who is responsible for “social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition”

    and then in #25 you say:

    Feminism was pushed by the Left as a tool in their bid to destroy the family structure in America, but it was not the dominant force. The communists and socialists were the driving force.

    And then above you define the “Left” at the end as “communists and socialists”. And correctly so.

    So by extension you claim the communists and socialists are responsible for social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, and more.

    Above in #19 and #25 is where you ultimately made the statement. Above. I guess you have trouble remembering not only what I say but what you say yourself.

    “err “nail” in the coffin of…”

    Do explain, as I don’t understand the statement above.

    It sounds like you are claiming a victory here and I’m not gonna concede that.

← Older Comments







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise