Denise, we have all noticed the recalcitrance in you. I don’t see it as deliberate. I see your lapses in regard to some issues, particularly feminism and its damage, as a genuine blind spot. I have tried to speak with you about this before.

But it goes deeper. When someone points out a clear and obvious issue in the words and phrases you use – which have meaning – it is often the case that you skate right over it without even noticing it – as above. You seem not to see the meanings that are likely to be inferred by the ordinary reader, let alone the brighter ones. You are a strange case. I really like you, Denise, as do many others here who take the time to read what you generously give us. You have a strange mentation which I put down to the ‘troubles’ you sometimes speak of. It produces, as a side effect perhaps, a very likable woman but with some inexplicable gaps in insight. An mild autism. I’d still have a cuppa with you though.

I was pleased to read your “kinder, gentler” approach to attempting to educate Denise, if for no other reason than the likelihood that her apparent naiveté would have led to my increasing impatience with her….. with the eventual intercession by Mike LaSalle on behalf of his blogger or at least his “filter” effectively ending this thread.

It’s inconceivable to me at least, that Denise can be as well-read as she is on other subjects, yet consistently lack an ability to research anything as basic as the actual nature of feminism, given the preponderance of experts on that particular topic among the other bloggers frequenting MND.

Personally, I believe that it would be difficult to NOT absorb at least the fundamentals of that particular topic for anyone taking the time to browse through a selection of Glenn Sacks’ glimpses into the nine kinds of hell that they wreak on Western societies.

Perhaps I am wrong, and Denise is simply one of the more naive bloggers on MND. Or as I have written before, with such a glaring lack of courtesy, “as thick as a brick”…….

But I believe that her apparent ignorance is willful ignorance about the actual nature of feminism, and other men’s rights activist-related issues.

Perhaps feminism, as is the case for so many other women….. is her “golden calf”, with the misery inflicted on men and children a minor price in comparison to the wealth of entitlements and privileges that women reap.

And if that is indeed the case, then Denise has still not learned the value of intellectual honesty, at least when presenting her opinions to a forum including a number of reasonably intelligent and relatively well-informed men.

I have already conceded, m’dear that many – if not most – jobs are a drudge, rather than a career. – “What you say about the drugery of most jobs may be true but to say that Feminism is predominantly -or ‘focused’ – about career is nonsense. ”

I can also concede that many folk shirk and compalin and consistently fail at even the smallest demand placed on their time, skills and effort, and others with a sound attitude often find themselves on a treadmill of finding adequate work that provides.

But, Denise, you started your article by saying “One reason I believe feminism is inherently limited in its influence and appeal is that it tends to focus on female careers. ” The ‘inherent’ limitation is just not so. Feminism doesn’t focus just on careers. Feminism has made so much destructive inroad into our society in so many areas that to talk of limitation is naive.

There are consequences to your initial statement. People infer. May I suggest that as a writer it behoves you to anticipate what people might so easily infer from what you say, even when you don’t intend to imply it. There is a specific audience on MND.

Denise, Denise, what ARE we to do with you. What you say about the drugery of most jobs may be true but to say that Feminism is predominantly -or ‘focused’ – about career is nonsense. **”One reason I believe feminism is inherently limited in its influence and appeal is that it tends to focus on female careers.” **

Fourthwire puts it MUCH more truthfully. Remember Truth, Denise? To even say that feminism is limited in its influence has the perception of a blind person. Or a dissembler.

My criticism comes from someone who likes your wordcraft ability and unusual perception regarding intimate human affairs; one who is prepared to sit with you with a cuppa and enjoy the company of a seemingly interesting woman. But Writers owe a tribute to Truth, Denise. You are stealing from it here rather than paying it. Distorting by claiming a falsity, a ‘focus’ that isn’t. It smacks of feminist mendacity. I splutter in my cuppa.

(Denise) amfortas, when the second wave of the feminist movement first broke back in the 1970s, there were a couple of feminist talk-show hosts on the radio. One of them said, “We think every woman should have a career just like every man should have a career.” This seemed like nonsense to me then and even more so now. Many men do not have careers.
Leaving that aside, amfortas, what do you think of the greater points in my blog concerning how for many people — both men and women — the labor market is not glamorous but a dispiriting place? Not only can paid work itself be onerous but it is particularly depressing to often be in that limbo called “looking for work” and that is where people like Scott and Estelle so often are.

Fourthwire puts it MUCH more truthfully. Remember Truth, Denise? To even say that feminism is limited in its influence has the perception of a blind person. Or a dissembler.

My criticism comes from someone who likes your wordcraft ability and unusual perception regarding intimate human affairs; one who is prepared to sit with you with a cuppa and enjoy the company of a seemingly interesting woman. But Writers owe a tribute to Truth, Denise. You are stealing from it here rather than paying it. Distorting by claiming a falsity, a ‘focus’ that isn’t. It smacks of feminist mendacity. I splutter in my cuppa.

“I’ve been accused of having “femi-nazi” tendencies and of underestimating the influence of feminism”

Guess why?

Not hard, is it?

Denise, you can do a lot better than this.

fourthwire: In fact, you DO have feminazi tendencies, Denise…. and if you believe otherwise, you’re living in a large African river. Frankly, your own sense of logic is amusingly blind, and when presented with logic that doesn’t fit neatly into your little world-view, you take the path that so many others take: you refuse to understand.

And you’re almost certainly an apologist for the feminazis, but you would have to show quite a bit more honesty to accept that point than you have demonstrated to date.

And so I usually don’t take your views and perspectives about men, women, men’s rights, and the ACTUAL nature of feminism any more seriously than I take Teri Stoddard’s.

In fact, to start to pick apart your latest episode of denial, you are only fooling yourself if you believe that “feminism is inherently limited in its influence and appeal” because it “tends to focus on female careers”.

In fact, feminism has a multifaceted agenda, which includes FAR MORE than simply giving women a preponderance of entitlements and privileges concerning careers.

To be sure, feminazis do not wage their war against men and boys in isolation. They work through courts, legislatures, corporations, academia, public schools, the mainstream media, entertainment, and other institutions.

Feminazis are typically hard at work ensuring that men receive no reproductive choice, in case you haven’t noticed. Instead of men having reproductive choice, they are criminalized as “deadbeat dads”. Do you actually believe that the feminazis don’t have their hands in men’s lack of reproductive choice and the increasing criminalization of men? Ever hear of someone called Janet Reno?

Feminazis have been doing their dead-level best to destroy heterosexual marriages in case you have been asleep over the past several decades, by attacking men’s rights to be with their own families, by making divorce as painful and cruel to men as possible, and by making the act of marriage as risky as possible for men… through their lobbying, their legislative efforts, and through their infiltration of the court systems.

Feminazis have turned the subject of domestic violence into a cruel farce where men are always the brutal aggressors and women are always the victim, in case you haven’t noticed.

Feminazis have fought against any legislation that provides men with protection against paternity fraud, while you were out.

Feminazis have made divorce laws so fraught with misandry that increasing numbers of men are turning their backs on marriage…. with severe consequences for the future of Western nations.

Feminazis have fought to keep women like Mary Winkler out of prison after she murdered her husband, but fought to keep men like William Hetherington in prison, after his wife falsely claimed spousal rape against him.

And I could go on providing other aspects where feminazis have fought a war against men, boys, and families, but you ought to be getting the message by now that your statement that the feminazis tended to focus primarily on careers is most amusingly………. pure nonsense.

For someone whose blogs show on a forum such as MND, you apparently do not spend much time actually reading the works of other bloggers, men like Marc Rudov, Dave Usher, Stephen Baskerville, Carey Roberts, and others, on those subjects where the insidious, toxic effects of feminism has corrupted and destroyed far more of our society than simply men’s rights and opportunities in the job market.

Wake up. You’re fooling yourself. And only yourself.

As the feminazis provided the legislative clout to enable women to divorce profitably, have their husbands kicked out onto the street, keep the children, and rape the ex-husbands financially, they helped to create a society where women, particularly unattractive women, could expect to earn their own living.

Are men being displaced from the labor market by women? Undoubtedly this is the case to some extent.

Women are protected as a “minority” in the workplace, provided with preferential hiring, special privileges and entitlements, and can pretty much have male competitors fired or reprimanded at will, unless those male competitors behave very, very cautiously (such as simply not speaking with women on the job unless required to do so).

As for your homosexual friend, Scott – you were the one who brought up his sexual preference; therefore it became an issue of discussion. All that you had to do was to withhold those details…. but you did not. So apparently his sexual preference was important to you as well.

You will undoubtedly continue enjoying your chronic state of denial about the actual nature of feminism, most likely because you prefer not having to consider how feminists helped change the life of William Hetherington forever, and ensure that Mary Winkler is free to enjoy time with her children while Matthew Winkler’s body is stinking up a coffin.

Your feminazi tendencies are easy to spot, Denise. Those manifest themselves whenever I press you about your opinion on equal reproductive, criminal, civil, and social rights for men, after providing you with some fairly basic examples of our society’s present state of gender apartheid.

You usually waffle and need “more time” or a “lengthier blog” to consider those cases where the actual nature of the feminazis is glaringly apparent to anyone of modest intelligence or better and a willingness to understand and accept reality for what it is.