You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login
etter_Future_Ahead_01

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

Minimize
 
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsDocuments Parent ForumDocuments Parent ForumDocuments on Fe...Documents on Fe...Why I Don’t Take Feminists SeriouslyWhy I Don’t Take Feminists Seriously
Previous Previous
 
Next
 Disabled
New Post
 4/10/2012 3:47 PM
 
New Post
 4/10/2012 3:48 PM
 

Why I Don’t Take Feminists Seriously

Jan 23, 2006
by Mike S. Adams

Dear Daisy:

First of all, let me tell you how thrilled I am to receive hate mail from a feminist named “Daisy.” I can’t think of many names – with the possible exceptions of Coco, Mercedes, and Jasmine – that could make you sound less like a feminist and more like a stripper in a club that offers two-dollar table dances. Nonetheless, I will try to answer most of your questions, sent via e-mail.

In your opening paragraph, you asked me, a) whether my wife hates me as much as every other woman in America hates me, b) whether I am against women voting, c) whether I am against women holding elective office, d) whether I think rape should be legalized, e) whether I think women should be banned from the workplace, f) whether I think all women should be barefoot and pregnant, and, finally, g) whether I support female genital mutilation.

The answers to those seven profoundly rational questions are as follows: No; No; No; No; No; No; and No.

Unfortunately, your final question, which consumed most of paragraph two of your e-mail, will take a bit longer to address. But that’s okay. The question “Why don’t you take feminists seriously” is an important one. It deserves a more complete response. So here are my primary reasons:

1. I do not consider 21st century feminism to be a political ideology or philosophy.

American feminists generally do not become feminists because of some well-defined political goal. For example, in your email you enumerate several important political objectives. You want to vote. You want to be free to hold elective office. You want rape to be illegal. You want to be able to work. You don’t want to be forced to get and stay pregnant at all times. You want genital mutilation (of females) to be illegal.

I have an important newsflash, Daisy: You have already achieved all six of these political objectives. But, nonetheless, you continue to rant. And you continue to live in the past. That makes it difficult to take you seriously.

2. Generally speaking, feminists get together with other feminists because it is less expensive than seeing a therapist.

Feminists are usually drawn together by an inability to deal with men. When they get together, whether in a small group or a large one, criticism of males tends to dominate the discourse.

Let me give you an example. A few days after I made an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor – to talk about race and class, not gender – two feminists gathered outside my office to criticize some pro-life bumper stickers that were posted on my door. One feminist stated that it must be difficult to have to come to work every day on the same floor with such a sexist professor. The other said they should keep their voices low because I might overhear them. Since I was actually in my office at the time (with the door shut) I did overhear them.

Despite the fact that the conversation began with one feminist trying to sooth another, they soon worked themselves into a frenzy. The mere repetition of words such as “patriarchal,” phallocentric,” and “male-dominated” has an effect like the one described in George Orwell’s 1984. If you want to see the “two minutes hate” in practice just attend an annual “Take Back the Night” march or The Vagina Monologues.

Regardless of whether it is a gathering of two, two hundred, or two thousand feminists, the dynamics are always the same. And those dynamics make it hard to take feminism seriously.

3. Most feminists don’t really want equality.

One good example of this phenomenon comes from a recent argument I had with one of the stars of The Vagina Monologues. She wrote me to complain about a column I published criticizing that infamous feminist play. She told me she was “offended” and “hurt” by my critique. I then asked her whether the flashing “vagina” sign in front of the school was offensive to the Greek Orthodox or Baptist churches located nearby. She responded by saying that she “didn’t give a sh*t” what they thought. It mattered very much that she was offended. It didn’t matter at all that she had offended others. (Take a moment to look up the word “sociopath” in the dictionary).

Another example comes from a former secretary in my department. One day she left work crying because I criticized campus feminists (for hanging racist posters on campus showing Condi Rice standing in a cage holding a bunch of bananas). The next week she was back in the office tearlessly (and tirelessly) criticizing her husband for his inability to maintain an erection.

Increasingly, these campus feminists strive to be a) constantly offended, and b) constantly offensive. One unanticipated consequence of the feminists’ unequal application of the “right to be un-offended” is that many people now deem feminists to be emotionally inferior.

That is another reason why people (myself included) don’t take feminists seriously.

4. The feminist love of postmodernism has resulted in widespread academic and personal dishonesty.

A few years ago, I began to realize that one can seldom trust a feminist to tell the truth. For example, I once asked a feminist to debate me on the issue of abortion. She told me she really wasn’t pro-choice. I did an internet search and found that she had repeatedly referred to herself as “pro-choice” on feminist list serves. She made those references to herself both before and after our conversation. In other words, she lied.

When I asked another feminist to debate me on abortion she said that she didn’t discuss such personal topics publicly. But then I read her biography. After talking about losing her virginity (including details about how she cleaned the blood off the couch afterwards) she dedicated countless pages to the issue of abortion and how a “lack of choice” adversely affects young women. After reading on, I realized why she didn’t tell me the truth. She revealed that she was a postmodernist who didn’t like to use the word “truth.”

The next time I got into an argument with a feminist – over whether a female student who lied about a rape to get out of a test should be expelled – I understood the postmodern feminist position better. Feminists just can’t help but lie because there really is no such thing as the truth.

Since so many feminists cannot tell the truth - because it doesn’t even really exist - I simply cannot take them seriously.

Those are just a few reasons, Daisy. I eagerly await your response, so I can treat my readers to part two of the series. After all, these may be the best tips you get all year.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com.

Copyright © 2006 Mike S. Adams

New Post
 4/10/2012 3:48 PM
 

Posted on Thu Jan 26 2006 19:25:29 GMT+0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) by kas2591

Why I don't take feminists seriously, part II Jan 25, 2006 by Mike S. Adams

After I published yesterday’s column (Why I don’t take feminists seriously), a feminist who works in my building really gave me the cold shoulder. In fact, she didn’t say a word to me all day. It was meant to be a form of punishment. But, actually, it was a reward. And it provides a good introduction to my next point about feminists. 5. Most feminists do not have a sense of humor.

You’ve heard the one about the guy who asked a feminist “how many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb.” Her answer? “That’s not funny!”

I thought of that joke after an anti-feminist student (a woman) put a bumper sticker on my door saying “So you’re a feminist … isn’t that cute.” When a feminist was offended she decided that the whole administration – including the Board of Trustees – needed to know about it. She was furious. So she had her dad write the letter for her. I am woman hear me roar, and my Daddy fights my wars!

Speaking of war, there was the time I dressed as an Iraqi woman in order to sneak into an anti-war protest. I had it all. The burqua. The sandals. And, oh yes, I had a sign saying “I want to be raped, gassed, and tortured by Saddam’s thugs! So please don’t help me, America!”

Everyone who saw me in that outfit thought it was hilarious. The only ones who were angry were a handful of feminist faculty members. That story brings me to my next point.

6. Feminists are less concerned with women’s rights than they are with their own right to have an abortion.

George Bush has done more for women’s rights than any president in modern history. But feminists hate him because he is opposed to abortion rights.

Bill Clinton sexually harassed more women than any president in American history. But that’s okay. He supports abortion rights so feminists love him. If he were ever convicted of rape, feminists would still love him because he supports abortion rights.

7. Feminists really don’t care about racism.

Feminists often quote statistics about the under-representation of women in certain occupations as “conclusive proof” of sexism. They don’t need to rely on specific evidence in individual cases. However, when confronted with statistics showing that the vast majority of abortions are performed on blacks and Hispanics, they remain mute. Surely they know that most people in this country are white. And Planned Parenthood will play a much larger role in keeping it that way than the Ku Klux Klan.

Genocide is a terrible thing to most feminists. But the loss of reproductive choice is even worse.

8. Feminists generally lack the courage to act as individuals.

My first college free speech controversy (way back in 1997) involved a business professor who tried to stop the student newspaper from publishing a column called the “sexual horoscopes.” He claimed that the column was “indecent.” Then he tried to set up a panel to filter “indecent” material before the student paper went to press. I took him on in front of the Faculty Senate and won. In fact, I won big.

But before I won there was a vigorous debate on the Faculty Senate mailing list. It went on for days before someone made the observation that all of the participants in the debate were males. A few days later, a feminist group published a joint response signed by two dozen feminists.

I saw the significance of this pattern immediately. The men all had individual opinions. The feminists all had the same opinion. The men embraced individualism. The feminists embraced collectivism.

After I published my first installment of this series a funny thing happened – or didn’t happen, I should say. I didn’t get a single hate mail from a feminist reader. But somewhere in a women’s center over mocha java and pound cake, they are working on a joint statement condemning me for criticizing feminism.

But that’s okay. By the time they’re done, you’ll be reading Part III.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com.

Copyright © 2006 Mike S. Adams

New Post
 4/10/2012 3:50 PM
 

Posted on Thu Feb 02 2006 01:47:11 GMT+0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) by ConservativeStLouisGuy

Hello again. This is the third installment in my series (parts I and II) on the decline of feminism and you’re still hanging in there. You’re still reading every word, I guess. I’m asking because you didn’t speak to me again in the parking lot yesterday morning. When I passed, you took a sudden interest in the cracks in the sidewalk.

It reminded me of our conversation in 2004. You said my columns were too caustic, too inflammatory. But now it’s 2006 and you’re still reading them, even though they make you angry. That brings me to my next point about feminism.

9. Feminists have been angry for so long that they no longer feel comfortable being happy.

You know exactly what I’m talking about. Like the time you got mad at me for opening the door for you. You thought it was a “patriarchal” gesture. So now I just let the door slam shut in your face. I’m trying to make you happy but it – the joy, the happiness, the peace of mind - just won’t take hold.

Of course, there is a simple solution to your problem. You could just stop reading my columns, couldn’t you? Some nasty Texas woman named Molly made me mad with a column one time. So I just stopped reading her columns. Now, I can’t even remember her last name. It was Ivans the Terrible or something like that.

But, of course, you can’t stop reading my columns. You’ll run off copies and take them with you to The Vagina Monologues in early February. You’ll lace up your boots and march across the stage chanting the various names for your genitals. And while you’re there, I’ll be wearing boots, too - hunting boots, that is. I’ll be shooting quail 150 miles from here with some buddies from Charlotte. I’ll have my new Browning 20 gauge in hand.

I earned the money for the new shotgun from speeches and columns criticizing feminism. That’ll give you something to be mad about. And, of course, later I’ll offer you some free meat from the hunt. And that’ll make you mad, too. But, I promise, I won’t hold the door for you again. I know the threshold of your tolerance.

10. Feminists care more about sex than sexual harassment.

At first it was just annoying. The older feminist started asking him over to her apartment to drink wine and listen to classical music. But after he politely declined she kept trying. Just a couple of more requests and a couple of more excuses and she stopped. But that’s not the annoying part.

The year was 1994. He was an untenured professor. The juicy part of the story begins with the revelation that she was on a committee reviewing a proposal he had written. Sounds like a conflict of interest, doesn’t it? Now, let’s make the Office of Campus Diversity happy and give the players sex changes. Here goes:

A young woman is finishing her first year as a professor. She has submitted a proposal to a committee. One of the committee members approaches her with an offer to come over to his apartment. He has some wine and some classical CDs. She declines, but he asks again. If she makes him mad, she fears her proposal will get buried. What does she do?

The feminists would call the hypothetical scenario “sexual harassment.” They would call the real one a “polite invitation.” And the double standard speaks volumes about their own subconscious sexism.

But that isn’t the point of the story. The real fun began a couple of years later – around 1996 - when a professor took one of his student employees to a conference. They slept in the same hotel room and all hell broke loose (as it should have).

So committees were convened on every campus in the university system to decide how to limit improper relationships between professors and students (or student/employees in this case). And that’s where our wine-sipping, Mozart-loving friend re-enters the story.

She led the charge for a ban on relationships between employees where there was a clear conflict of interest. An employee should not be making decisions about another employee if the two are romantically involved – perhaps sipping wine and listening to CDs - she boldly proclaimed. And her very sensible argument won. It became official policy.

But then she got greedy. She pushed for an absolute ban on student/professor relationships – even where no conflict of interest was present. When it was revealed that some professors had spouses enrolled in courses, she lost. After all, it was reasoned (by non-feminists) that a business professor shouldn’t have to resign his job or divorce his wife because she decided to seek a teaching certificate in the School of Education.

If you are trying to synthesize the feminist professor’s stance on those two issues, let me offer some help. She wanted to create a policy to ensure that the male employees were more likely to have sex with her - even though she had violated the parameters of her “ideal” policy in the past.

It wasn’t about ethics. It was about sex. With feminists, it usually is. I’ll pursue that point in more detail in Part IV.

New Post
 4/10/2012 3:51 PM
 

Posted on Thu Feb 02 2006 01:47:35 GMT+0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) by ConservativeStLouisGuy

After Parts I, II, and III of this series, I have finally started to get a few hate males from feminist readers – letters usually known as “hate mails” when sent by non-feminists. One hate male writer said she couldn’t take me seriously because I am a hunter. That brings me to my next point about feminists.

11. When faced with uncertainty, feminists have less self-control than hunters.

Once when I was deer-hunting in Ivanhoe, North Carolina, I saw something moving in the brush about 100 yards away. It was foggy outside and I was looking through a 4 X 32 scope mounted on a Marlin 30-30. I never take a shot over 100 yards with that little brush gun. And I never shoot at anything unless I know exactly what is out there.

That day I got to thinking about the feminist approach to abortion. Feminists often justify abortion by saying that the procedure is no different than picking a scab. That’s when I start asking questions.

I often ask feminists about a film I saw of a fetus in the so-called “first trimester” of development. The baby (sorry, that is my opinion) was yawning, rubbing its eyes, and even rolling around and playing in the womb. I like to ask feminists whether they have ever seen a scab yawn.

When I press them on the issue, they seldom admit that the fetus is a person. But they seldom state unequivocally that it is not. They usually say they “don’t know for sure.” And they say that I “don’t know for sure” either.

That really epitomizes our differences. When I know it is a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire.

The feminist who “doesn’t know” whether it is a person, has the abortion anyway. She just pulls the trigger. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

12. Feminists cannot grasp the importance of gradual self-disclosure.

Long before I earned a Master’s degree in Social Psychology, I learned that one of the keys to successful relationships is choosing the appropriate pace of self-disclosure. If you too rapidly reveal intimate details of your personal life, people tend to devalue your friendship. If you reveal things more slowly, stronger relationships tend to follow.

People are often turned off to feminism because feminists tend to reveal intimate details of their lives very quickly. This is especially true of feminist professors in the classroom. The following complaint I received from a college student is illustrative:

“Dr. Adams: I agree with your observations on feminism. I took an English class taught by a feminist who I liked very much at first. When she started complaining about her first husband I felt sorry for her. By the time she started attacking her fifth husband I wanted to withdraw from the course. I have no idea how many different times she’s been married. I just know that none of the divorces were her fault.”

Sadly, it gets much worse than that in the feminist classroom. Feminist professors also discuss their sexual experiences – consensual and non-consensual – in excruciating detail in public. Venues include the classroom, books, and sometimes in “scholarly” articles. The First Amendment gives them the right to reveal what most people would say is “too much information.” But it does not give them the right to be taken seriously.

13. Feminist-sponsored Masturbation Workshops on college campuses.

No explanation necessary. But see the example from Grinnell College, if necessary.

14. Feminists would rather solve a problem by changing “society” than by changing their own behavior.

One obvious example of this is “love your body day” - not to be confused with masturbation workshop day. At many universities, “love your body day” concludes with feminists holding a beauty pageant featuring overweight models – usually with pretty faces. The purpose of this is to convince us that bigger women are just as attractive as smaller (by this, they mean thinner) women.

Sociology professors often pursue the notion that beauty is not objective but “socially constructed” by showing their students medieval paintings of nude, pudgy women. The argument is that fat used to be considered attractive. Therefore, it can be that way again with enough social engineering. So, feminists seek nothing less than to change societal perceptions of beauty with millions of dollars of tax-payer funded programs.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to exercise?

Along the same lines, have you noticed how chic it has become for feminists to claim that they are Marxists? Feminist professors spend a good bit of time trying to persuade their students that Marxism is the answer to America’s problems.

If a woman’s opportunities are better under communism, wouldn’t it be easier to get a job at the University of Havana than to start a bloody Marxist revolution?

I’ve never seen a bunch of poor, oppressed feminists board a leaky boat in Miami in order to paddle their way to freedom in Castro Cuba. But I do have a few friends in South Florida who escaped from communism. They still have their boats. And we’d be proud to give these Marxist feminists a lift to Havana any time.

So think about my offer, ladies. In the meantime, I’m going to smoke a good Honduran cigar while I’m writing Part V.

New Post
 4/10/2012 3:51 PM
 

Posted on Tue Jan 31 2006 13:47:14 GMT+0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) by beaureguard

This woman named Lavender keeps writing me 1000-word hate males to remind me that she can’t take anything I say seriously. She did it after Parts I, II, III, and IV of this series. I guess Lavender will just keep writing until she’s blue in the face. As for me, I’m just tickled pink. In her last letter, Lavender said that my series on feminism just proves that I hate women. That brings me to my next point about feminism.

15. Feminists can’t understand the difference between anti-feminism and sexism.

If men were the only ones opposed to feminism, Lavender might have a point. But feminists must surely be aware of data indicating that, among adult females, non-feminists outnumber feminists by a ratio of three to one. And that is unlikely to change in the favor of feminists for two reasons: a) feminists are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century, and b) feminists keep killing their babies at a higher rate than non-feminists.

16. The four most common words a feminist uses are “I,” “me,” “my,” and “mine.”

I really get tired of hearing these four words from feminists. “I feel this” or “I feel that.” “Keep your laws off MY body.” “It’s MY body, MY choice.” Feminists are the only people in society who actually use these four words more in adulthood than they did when they were two years old.

It is especially irritating when they say that the man should have no right to be involved in the decision to abort. They remind us that a man’s opinion is irrelevant by simply repeating the phrase “It’s MY body.” But should that logic apply when the aborted baby is a male? What happens after the abortion is performed, and one looks into the bucket and sees a little penis? Whose penis is it? Is it the woman’s penis?

17. Feminists’ positions on abortion and capital punishment cannot be reconciled.

As I’ve mention before, feminists often support the decision to abort a fetus - even though they admit that they “don’t know” whether “it” is a person. They will admit that “it” eventually becomes a person with rights. But now that partial birth abortion is becoming more defensible in the minds of feminists, it is hard to tell when they think personhood begins. I can hardly pin a feminist down on this issue. All I know is that “it” can count on feminist support after “it” commits “its” first murder.

18. Feminists’ husbands are even more irritating than feminists.

In an earlier installment, I mentioned a free speech debate on my campus. A bunch of men debated a point for several days. When they were done, a campus feminist coalition issued a joint statement of their “collective” opinion.

But there is a part of the story I omitted. After the feminists issued their statement, the husband of the head feminist issued his individual opinion on the matter, which happened to reflect complete agreement with his wife. This spineless sissy was afraid to express his opinion until after he knew what his feminist wife thought – or, more accurately, felt.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps he just thought that a little more a** kissing would make him different than all the other men his feminist wife had previously divorced. What a pansy.

But he’s not the biggest pansy I’ve ever seen. That award goes to a guy whose feminist wife was rumored to be sleeping with one of my colleagues. After he got a few drinks under his belt one night, he told me that he didn’t mind if his wife was having an affair – that their friendship was strong enough to endure it. How liberating. He’s going to support her through thick and thin - even if another man is hiding his hoo-hoo dilly in her cha-cha.

I know I said it just a minute ago but it’s worth repeating. What a pansy.

19. Feminists can’t face the reality of “gender-ocide.”

It’s bad enough that feminists are silent on the issue of minority over-representation in abortion clinics. But their heartlessness is compounded by the fact that they seldom discuss the fact that more girls are aborted worldwide than boys. There is no question that this is the case. The only question is exactly how many more million girls are aborted per year.

And so they leave it to the anti-feminists to ask the hard questions, to combat sexism, and to combat what some now call “gender-ocide.”

But, I guess the feminists have more important things to think about. They’re really upset about Part V of my series. And they’re wondering what can be done to stop Part VI.

New Post
 4/10/2012 3:52 PM
 

Posted on Sun Mar 12 2006 21:59:28 GMT+0100 (W. Europe Standard Time) by ConservativeStLouisGuy

I’ve really gotten myself into trouble with some feminists at Grinnell College. In Part IV of this series, I listed “feminist-sponsored masturbation workshops on college campuses” as one of the reasons I cannot take feminists seriously. I then stated that no explanation was necessary to indicate why such workshops make feminists look silly.

But, after reading my column, several Grinnell feminists are demanding an explanation. Of course, I’m happy to oblige. In fact, the explanation leads directly to my next point about feminists.

20. It doesn’t take much intellectual firepower to become a feminist scholar.

I once told a feminist that the term “feminist scholar” was an oxymoron. She asked me what I meant by oxymoron. I should just rest my case but the masturbation workshop controversy really takes things to a different level. I’ll try to spell it out for the Grinnell feminists with one succinct paragraph:

If you need to hold a workshop to learn how to masturbate, you aren’t terribly bright. Remember, you’re trying to make the case that a woman can do anything as well as a man. That’s the main thesis of feminism. Yet, somehow, men are fully capable of masturbating without taking a seminar. For men, it’s a natural talent. For campus feminists, it’s another excuse to seek funding from the university administration. It’s also another sign that feminists are really uptight and angry.

21. The feminist alliance with communism.

I used to get really angry with feminists over their chic alliance with communism. After all, I’ve had relatives who risked their lives to fight in wars rolling back the forces of communism and fascism. Many of you know people who gave their very lives to defeat such forces. When you see these historically ignorant feminists embrace the very ideas that once threatened our precious freedoms, you probably get mad, too.

But, now, I kind of like the idea that these feminists are waving flags that feature a sickle and hammer. It really makes sense to me. After all, the communists killed 100,000,000 innocents in just 72 years. One-third of a century after Roe v. Wade, the feminists are on a pace to kill even more innocents. To be precise, the projected total of abortions in America by 2045 (that’s 72 years after Roe) is 102.545,450.

Maybe after they break the communist murder record feminists can come up with their own flag. Instead of a sickle and hammer it can feature a scalpel and a suction tube.

22. Feminists are literally trying to destroy the American family.

Peter Kreeft wrote a great book a few years ago called How to Win the Culture War. In the book, he argued that attacking marriage was essential for those who wished to radically transform (read: destroy) the foundations of our society. You can’t just tear down a whole society. You have to weaken individual communities. But that involves weakening families. And that, in turn, involves weakening marriages. And, for Kreeft, the best way to weaken marriages is to encourage adultery. This is easy to do when people begin to worship sex.

So when you drop your kids off at some school like Rice University for orientation there is always some feminist there to encourage them to “explore their sexual freedom” (read: have sex with anyone and everyone). And when they take Sociology 101, the feminist professor is there to tell them that marriage is a good deal for men but not for women.

The fact that the feminist sociology professor has usually been married more than once lends further validity to point #20.

23. Feminists are the biggest censors on college campuses today.

Maybe it was the time that a feminist tried to kick one of my former students out of her women’s studies class for laughing at one of her ideas. The professor didn’t even hear him. But another feminist did and reported him to the professor.

Or maybe it was the time I ridiculed a feminist Marxist’s essay on 911 and the author’s mommy spent three weeks tying to have me disciplined by the administration.

Or maybe it was the time I ridiculed a feminist for filing a false sexual harassment report. She responded by saying that the First Amendment did not allow me to make fun of her. In fact, she said that my ridicule was also sexual harassment.

Or maybe it was the time I made fun of an anti-war feminist. I said that if she would shave her armpits, people would be more likely to read her anti-war sign when she held it up. As it stood, people were just staring at her hairy armpits. I was just trying to be helpful. But, unfortunately, her feminist friend sent someone into a Board of Trustees meeting with a plea to have me disciplined for making fun of her friend’s armpits. Of course, the plea was ignored.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know when it was. But I have definitely realized that feminists are the biggest censors on my campus. And they are always driven to censor those who do not take them seriously – just to punish them for the crime of not taking them seriously.

And that is really why I wrote this series. The feminists will never have my respect as long as they continue to “demand” it. That just doesn’t work in a free America. But it might work in communist China, which is where most feminists belong.

Previous Previous
 
Next
 Disabled
ForumForumDiscussionsDiscussionsDocuments Parent ForumDocuments Parent ForumDocuments on Fe...Documents on Fe...Why I Don’t Take Feminists SeriouslyWhy I Don’t Take Feminists Seriously