Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[Peepers]

Good thing you’re not** my child because I would have told you to behave in a more mature manner.

Your ability to have a rational discussion without falling to pieces and blurting out preposterous assumptions and blanket statements is astounding to* me *. . .

I reject your claim that I make preposterous assumptions. Every time you have mentioned something as being false, then your claim of that has been shown to be false, by me and others. Read Elizabeth502, for example if you still cling to your mistaken beliefs about" reparative therapy". We don’t need to rehash that battle. Anyone perusing the thread may come to their own conclusion, and do whatever research they think they want to. But I will take your accusation of immaturity to heart. My personal rule is that when I find fault with others, that I should look within for where that is coming from, and I will examine my conscience. At the age of 28, I have worked on a mining crew, stood on ground slick with blood and held a dying friend in my arms, attended an ivy league school, and I am dedicated to a life of service currently finishing up in a PhD/MD program… so in my own defense, I don’t think I have done too badly for my age. Do you really think I have “fallen to pieces” here, or is that merely your reaction when I contradict you?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

CPMR

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth

And the point I want to make is that this very so-called “therapist” (who i.m.o., based on my experience, was a charlatan who was using the cover of his practice to abuse young males), was a member of a Sex Institute which bore a lot of resemblance to the former Kinsey group.

And even though the case you cite is anecdotal, based on the Wisconsin study it would be legitimate to speculate that your anecdote is typical of the scandals pervading the counseling profession; yet the only scandals the press **really likes to report **are the ones involving Catholic priests and huge cash settlements.

 

[Peepers]

Elizabeth

There is no scientific reliability to announce that the APA is bias-free.

If the following survey done in Wisconsin is any indication of the state of the psychological professions nationwide, there is plenty of reason to suspect that they are not bias free when it comes to assessing sexual proclivities. The Wisconsin psychiatrists were three times more likely to be sex offenders than the clergy.

qsep.com/modules.php?name=assunnah&d_op=viewarticle&aid=211

“The Wisconsin Psychological Association’s survey found offenders distributed among the following professions: Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.”

Interesting figures. I would have hoped to see the clergy doing better than the average person. Everyone knows that Psychiatrists and Pastry Chefs are whacked out. I asked a french friend about this, “Of course, it is the sugar fumes.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth

And even though the case you cite is anecdotal, based on the Wisconsin study it would be legitimate to speculate that your anecdote is typical of the scandals pervading the counseling profession; yet the only scandals the press **really likes to report **are the ones involving Catholic priests and huge cash settlements.

Well actually, my point was not that the anecdote is projectible, because of course it isn’t (in terms of the prevalence or frequency of sexual abuse among non-clergy, relative to clergy). Rather, that the anecdote is unmistakably an indicator for the lack of so-called “objectivity” within so-called “secular” (cough, cough- “unbiased”) organizations. They are not without their biases. The basis for my statement is not even the clear criminal + unethical behavior of this psychologist, but rather the focus and methodology of the Institute, which I read about in various sources, and which he further discussed (inappropriately) during my sessions with him. (Objectivity and non-bias, My Eye!)

 

[Bev17243]

Excuse me, I don’t need to paint anyone as ‘evil’, they do it themselves. I gave a whole list of quotes from very famous feminists and they all want the same thing. **They drive a Marxist agenda and want the nuclear family destroyed. Denigrating men is one of their tools. **The media holds them up as the ‘face of feminism’ and so it is they who press the agenda. Women, like you, who claim to be feminist, are actively supporting the radicals, even when you say you are not. Not until women who say they are not part of that radical set start marching in the streets calling for total support for the nuclear family and for the complimentarity of men and women to be recognised, will feminism be respected.

By the way, women have been allowed to vote, drive a car and get a job since forever.

Exactly!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth,

I don’t know if this will interest you.

chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p134.htm

It may help to explain why so many Christians (including Catholics) have been influenced in forming their sexual values by a so-called helping profession that is largely atheist/agnostic. How can Christians form a cogent view of bi-sexuality/homosexuality and radical feminism when they are being counseled by the very people who oppose the Christian perspective on most things moral?

 

[Bev17243]

Elizabeth,

I don’t know if this will interest you.

chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p134.htm

It may help to explain why so many Christians (including Catholics) have been influenced in forming their sexual values by a so-called helping profession that is largely atheist/agnostic. How can Christians form a cogent view of bi-sexuality/homosexuality and radical feminism when they are being counseled by the very people who oppose the Christian perspective on most things moral?

in my proffesion i worked with number of psychologists and and out of maybe 40? i met only 2 who were Christian. You can draw your own conscusions

 

[meltzerboy]

They aren’t experts, they’re morons. I did like the “calm down” though, I wonder if you are going to ask her next if she’s on her period? Did someone get a time machine and suddenly turn this thread back to 1957?

1st: Radical feminism is not what is described in the OP. That’s just feminism. * Radical* feminism advocated violent response to abuse of women and their children by men. As in: beat up my sister and we’ll cut your cojones off. Not that bad an idea, as little else seems to work.

2nd: Actual science of the modern variety has identified the genetic mechanism through which same-sex attraction is transmitted. I don’t think they have the locus, yet, but they know how it works and what the evolutionary benefit is. Keep in mind that same-sex preference occurs naturally in every vertebrate species ever studied with a social culture, including fish, chickens and horses. Chimps are just shameless! Since this trait appears at a rather predictable rate in most species, you can just chalk it up to the way nature works in this case, including in humans. It’s God’s creation, folks, and who are we to argue?

3rd: We have a long way to go in this fight and I hope all the old guard XYs die off quickly before they further contaminate the younger generation of men and women.

Fact: 80% of women in the United States have been sexually assaulted in some degree before the age of 21, and 35% of those were assaulted by a close family member.

The further fact is: when you interview the men, over 90% say and seem to believe, they haven’t done anything wrong.

(I might just add that modern reproductive technology has actually made XYs obsolete.)

Wow, you take no prisoners! But somehow what you say (along with a touch of humor) fits this heated or nasty little discussion, depending on how you look at it. Regardless, I agree with most of what you state. However, I wonder about two things: first of all, the statement “80% of women in the United States (as having) been sexually assaulted in some degree before the age of 21” seems to be a very high figure. Where does that statistic come from, and is the operative phrase “in some degree”? Secondly, I realize there has been a shift toward neuroscience in psychology during the past two to three decades, as well as evolutionary psychology, but I’m not quite ready to rule out completely the environmental and cultural influences on same-sex attraction, even if only as a stimulus but probably more than that in certain cases. I’m not a proponent of biological reductionism.

 

[Darryl1958]

Go to the web site of the National Organization for Women.

Betty Friedan (author of The Feminine Mystique, 1963) called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Gloria Steinem, who helped found Ms. Magazine (yes, that’s where that word comes from), said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Look up the Equal Rights Amendment, 1978.

The destruction of the traditional family was the goal.

Peace,
Ed

That is why radical feminism is front and center in supporting gay marriage. the goal is to destroy the ‘slavery’ of family.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That is why radical feminism is front and center in supporting gay marriage. the goal is to destroy the ‘slavery’ of family.

And that is how Father Thomas Dowd analyzed it.

The Radical Feminist Origins of Same-Sex Marriage. Very interesting big-picture article by a priest from the archdiocese of Montreal, Canada, two years after same-sex marriage was legalized in that country.
,

 

[John21652]

Elizabeth,

I don’t know if this will interest you.

chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p134.htm

It may help to explain why so many Christians (including Catholics) have been influenced in forming their sexual values by a so-called helping profession that is largely atheist/agnostic. How can Christians form a cogent view of bi-sexuality/homosexuality and radical feminism when they are being counseled by the very people who oppose the Christian perspective on most things moral?

Charlemagne II, I just read that link you gave. It quotes a G.Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health as saying -

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”** **

Not having heard of this fellow before, I Googled him. First up came this page, which would curl your hair! And more right here.

Don’t anyone, ever again, dare to quote me any psycho babble statistics.

 

[Darryl1958]

In the military there is one pay scale, not a men’s scale and a women’s scale. We all got paid the same for our rank and time in service; yet, on AVERAGE, men make more. I know men make more, on average, but men and women make the same for equal work. Why is that? Heterosexual women make choices and homosexual women don’t like the choices they make.

Many women still want family to be a major focus of their lives. Since God has not given the gift of bi-location to many of us, least of all to those who would use being in two places at once to advance their careers, it is easy to see why some of the good choices that a woman makes does indeed end up to lower wages for her personally.

That is the most obvious answer. Indoctrination and cult of victim propaganda makes it very difficult for many to see what is so obvious though

 

[vera_dicere]

Real feminism, at its core, what it started out as back in the sufferage days, was true equality.

I consider myself a feminist. I used to be an anti-feminist, as I thought that feminism was about domination and killing the unborn. But real feminism is equality.

Why the heck shouldn’t I get teh same pay for the same job a man does?

I dont’ want to laud over men, I want the same rights as a man. I want the unborn to have the same rights as men.

Quoting from the Bible about men dominating over women is assinine, else we better gather up our sacks of rocks and go stone some strumpets.

Of course, end of the day I find it rather sad and hyporcitical that so many women in the west whinge and moan about getting a few dollars less than a man for teh same job but right now in some dodgey country women are being raped and enslaved by their husbands and having acid thrown on them by jealous inlaws, or stoned for carrying their rapists baby - beign accused of adultery no less! Those women are in need of some feminism.

 

[John21652]

Real feminism, at its core, what it started out as back in the sufferage days, was true equality.

I consider myself a feminist. I used to be an anti-feminist, as I thought that feminism was about domination and killing the unborn. But real feminism is equality.

Why the heck shouldn’t I get teh same pay for the same job a man does?

I dont’ want to laud over men, I want the same rights as a man. I want the unborn to have the same rights as men.

Quoting from the Bible about men dominating over women is assinine, else we better gather up our sacks of rocks and go stone some strumpets.

Of course, end of the day I find it rather sad and hyporcitical that so many women in the west whinge and moan about getting a few dollars less than a man for teh same job but right now in some dodgey country women are being raped and enslaved by their husbands and having acid thrown on them by jealous inlaws, or stoned for carrying their rapists baby - beign accused of adultery no less! Those women are in need of some feminism.

No, those women don’t need “some feminism”.

What they need is Christianity and the Natural Law.

If what you say is true, then how come women in your society weren’t being stoned, or having acid thrown in their faces pre, say, 1960!

 

[praxising]

. the OP

INDEED** is about radical feminism Let me be clear: no, it’s not. It may be about what you, personally, or some other person considers radical, but it’s actually pretty standard, every day, ABC feminism. As I previously stated, radical feminism proposes radical and violent answers to gender issues.

Now, who shall we decide knows best about the types of feminism: The 60 year old woman who grew up during the movement and was part of that movement? Or some guy?

The only connection between feminism of any sort and homosexuality in XY offspring, is that evidence shows the trait is not triggered until there are multiple pregnancies of male offspring. That is: your third son and subsequent sons will be gay at a much higher rate than your first or second. (Or, if there have been miscarriages, it could be a first son, but a third pregnancy of a male child. Feminists, of all stripes, tend to have fewer children. Possibly, this could change the incidence of gay males in a population where women are free to choose the number of offspring they bear.

Actual science, as I have stated, has shown decades ago that there is no link between the personality of the mother and whether sons are gay. However, same-sex attraction does increase beyond a population norm in areas where the population exceeds the resources, or perceived resources. This is a post-natal adaptation to environmental crowding, common to both genders.

Someone said gay men did not usually reproduce. On the contrary, the “norm” was for gay men to marry, have children, and develop relationships with other men extra-maritally. So, there are actually quite a few offsping of identified gay males since the 70s, when these men started divorcing and coming out. Twin studies are valuable in all kinds of behavioral research because you could, supposedly, eliminate genetics as a factor. But epigenetics has made that an outdated idea.

IF anyone wanted to research this issue, the information is easily found through your favorite search engine.

That’s all I have. I’m sure y’all can proceed itt without any further (name removed by moderator)ut from me.

cya**

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think Kinsey put the number at about 10%. Estimates have varied on either side of that ever since, from as low as 2%. I am not sure what the current “best” estimate is.

Demographer: US has 4M adults who identify as gay
(AP) – Apr 7, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — How many gay men and lesbians are there in the United States? Gary Gates has an idea but acknowledges p(name removed by moderator)ointing a solid figure remains an elusive task.

Gates is demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles. For the institute’s 10th anniversary this week, he took a scholarly stab at answering the question that has been debated, avoided, parsed and proven both insoluble and political since pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey said in the 1940s that 10 percent of the men he surveyed were “predominantly homosexual.”

Gates’ best estimate, derived from five studies that have asked subjects about their sexual orientation, is that the nation has about 4 million adults who identify as being gay or lesbian, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population.
That’s a much lower figure than the 3 to 5 percent that has been the conventional wisdom in the last two decades, based on other isolated studies and attempts to discredit Kinsey.

One reason, according to Gates, is that until recently, few surveys tried to differentiate respondents who identified as gay or lesbian from those who sometimes engaged in homosexual acts or were attracted to people of the same sex. All were lumped into the gay category

Gates found that another 1.8 percent of the adult population, or a little more than 4 million Americans, identifies as bisexual, according to his research brief published Thursday. He also estimated that 19 million people, or 8.2 percent of the population, have engaged in sex with a partner of the same sex. That includes all groups, such as gays, bisexuals and heterosexuals who have experimented with same-sex behavior.

 

[elvisman]

Let me be clear: no, it’s not. It may be about what you, personally, or some other person considers radical, but it’s actually pretty standard, every day, ABC feminism. As I previously stated, radical feminism proposes radical and violent answers to gender issues.

Now, who shall we decide knows best about the types of feminism: The 60 year old woman who grew up during the movement and was part of that movement? Or some guy?

The only connection between feminism of any sort and homosexuality in XY offspring, is that evidence shows the trait is not triggered until there are multiple pregnancies of male offspring. That is: your third son and subsequent sons will be gay at a much higher rate than your first or second. (Or, if there have been miscarriages, it could be a first son, but a third pregnancy of a male child. Feminists, of all stripes, tend to have fewer children. Possibly, this could change the incidence of gay males in a population where women are free to choose the number of offspring they bear.

Actual science, as I have stated, has shown decades ago that there is no link between the personality of the mother and whether sons are gay. However, same-sex attraction does increase beyond a population norm in areas where the population exceeds the resources, or perceived resources. This is a post-natal adaptation to environmental crowding, common to both genders.

Someone said gay men did not usually reproduce. On the contrary, the “norm” was for gay men to marry, have children, and develop relationships with other men extra-maritally. So, there are actually quite a few offsping of identified gay males since the 70s, when these men started divorcing and coming out. Twin studies are valuable in all kinds of behavioral research because you could, supposedly, eliminate genetics as a factor. But epigenetics has made that an outdated idea.

IF anyone wanted to research this issue, the information is easily found through your favorite search engine.

That’s all I have. I’m sure y’all can proceed itt without any further (name removed by moderator)ut from me.

cya

**If you’re only in your 60’s and you were a feminist in the sixties and 70’s - you don’t have a *****clue *****because that was when the radical element had already hijacked the feminist movement. The movement began MUCH earlier than that. **

The Suffragettes were feminists - but not of the RADICAL sort. They were looking for equality, the right to vote, protection from drunken assailants, livable working conditions and so on. Susan B. Anthony herself was an avid Pro-Lifer. Margaret Sanger was a radical or her day, pushing her contraceptive and abortionist agenda to the limit with her Eugenics philosophy. Sanger was hailed by the Nazis because of her belief in Eugenics, is a racist idea that espoused the sterilization of the “lesser races” and those she deemed unfit to bear children like those with low IQ’s and those with any sort of physical handicap.

**The same cannot be said of today’s radical element that has taken over the feminist forefront. The National Organization for Women pushes radical abortionist and gay/lesbian/transgender agenda that would make any of the Suffragettes recoil in horror.****Today it’s all about Abortion and Gay “rights”. In short – you’ve lost your way

**Finally – I just have to say - I ALWAYS find it amusing it when people come on this board, argue for a while, then leave when the going gets rough, as if claiming some sort of victory. **

---

Let’s face it: You left because you lost . . .

 

[LemonAndLime]

**If you’re only in your 60’s and you were a feminist in the sixties and 70’s - you don’t have a *****clue *****because that was when the radical element had already hijacked the feminist movement. The movement began MUCH earlier than that. **

The Suffragettes were feminists - but not of the RADICAL sort.

Are you being serious?

The Suffragettes were of the radical sort! They are perhaps not radical by our standards now, but they were scandelous, embarassing troublemakers and radicals when judged by the society in which they lived!

Some starved themselves and were force fed. One of the Pankhursts threw herself in front of the King’s horse and killed herself. Another Pankhurst referred to God as “she”.

If that’s not radical, what is?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well, there have been women reporters in men’s locker rooms. Now that I think about it, since women’s sports are on the rise, are men reporters allowed into the women’s locker rooms?

I think you need to re-read my post.

I did not say men’s privacy. I said freedom. There is a difference between watching men get undressed and taking men’s jobs, which is what is usually implied when someone says that women are trying to take away men’s freedoms and liberties.