Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[AngryAtheist8]

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!

Natural Law pre or post Vatican II?

There are some key differences.

Moreover the idea that those societies will **stop **mistreating their women without women in those societies fighting for better treatment is naive at best.

 

[Bev17243]

Natural Law pre or post Vatican II?

There are some key differences.

Moreover the idea that those societies will **stop **mistreating their women without women in those societies fighting for better treatment is naive at best.

i don’t think we are discussing what’s happening in other backwards countries reg women’s treatment. I thought we were talking about the West/US?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**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. **

The Suffragettes were radical by the standards of their time. Here is an article about suffragettes getting sent to prison and going on hunger strikes: pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_atkinson_02_suffragettes.html

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**The Suffragettes were extremely **tame by today’s standards and although their ideas seemed radical - even for the time - they were not.

They wanted equal treatment, the right to vote, the right to be treated as humans and not property. They wanted Prohibition because of the actions of some abusive men.

Those were radical ideas for the time.
Just like ending slavery (in the U.S.) prior to the Civil War.

Radical doesn’t mean perverted or deviant. It means something more along the lines of extreme. And (despite what Traditional Catholics say) extremism isn’t always bad.

 

[Bev17243]

The Suffragettes were radical by the standards of their time. Here is an article about suffragettes getting sent to prison and going on hunger strikes: pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_atkinson_02_suffragettes.html

by standards of their time they were rather “radical” but lot of feminists in these days just wanted basic rights. Feminism in the West now is not about right to vote or own property. ITs about destroying traditional woman’s role as we know it-they are going agaist marriage, for sexual promiscuity(the “rights” to have multiple sexual partners because they want this to be perfectly acceptable), for gay/transgender/polyamorous marriages, single motherhood, and complete displaycement of men out of their traditional roles as heads of the household. I still yet have to meet a feminist who doesn’t have comtempt for men and their role in family. I want women to have same rights as men which is not the same as women BEING equal to men. Because of feminist movement, jobs that were traditionally male dominated, now have record number of women-such as military, police, firefighters, for example. I don’t have a problem with this in general-if a woman can perform same tasks as men, she is certainly qualified. Here is the rub though-Can a woman firefighter pick up and carry 200 p victim? Yeah, right. If my house is on fire, i don’t want to be dragged out by my ankles because some idiot feminists declared that women are capable performing same physical tasks as men. If women want the same jobs as men, they should be held to the same physical standards as men, and no whining, please:yup:

 

[Bev17243]

Those were radical ideas for the time.
Just like ending slavery (in the U.S.) prior to the Civil War.

Radical doesn’t mean perverted or deviant. It means something more along the lines of extreme. And (despite what Traditional Catholics say) extremism isn’t always bad.

Ending Slavery was hardly a “radical” idea

 

[Elizabeth502]

I fixed that paragraph for you

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502
You misplaced the reference of my remarks, L&L. They weren’t addressed to you. They were addressed to the reality that homosexuals who “come out” are revered & praised, whereas previously homosexuals were despised and discredited. That is what I was referring to as politics.

Obviously you’re amused, but I am not. I do not find dishonesty amusing. You replaced my words with a reality that you prefer, distorting its meaning, encasing it within a “quote” that claimed that your words were “originally posted” by me. Again, here is the reality, and here is the accurate quote from my post, not a disingenuously altered version of it:

You misplaced the reference of my remarks, L&L. They weren’t addressed to you. They were addressed to the reality that homosexuals who “come out” are revered & praised, whereas previous [not “previously”] homosexuals are [not “were”] despised and discredited. That is what I was referring to as politics.

Both are present tense. Should a person dare to become public with a repudiation of the homosexual lifestyle, such person - “you” (whoever that “you” is) will be yourself repudiated by the media and by the entire Gay Lobby, who will assassinate your character for doing so, discredit your authenticity, and mock you for your honesty.

Rule #24 under Forbidden Posting Techniques, in this forum’s Rules:

Intentionally deceptive material, including plagiarism (presenting another’s work as one’s own) or text attributable to or quoting others that has been altered

It is difficult to expect respect from others if one does not operate respectfully oneself.

 

[elvisman]

But they were perceived to be as radical and as scandalous as the so-called “feminists” of today, that’s a fact any novice historian knows well.

Linking the feminist movement with lesbianism is perhaps a little misguided. Can’t someone be a feminist without being a lesbian man-hater? I suppose they must if they expect to be treated the same as a man!

The Suffragettes were not the only feminist movement. There was a group of women who believed that their methods were extreme, dangerous, and detrimental - they believed quiet and dignified campaigning was the answer. Fact is though, the Suffragettes got results.

The current feminist movement is perhaps a little misguided. But they are just as scandalous today as they were then, whether you agree with them or not.

The current feminist movemen has morphed into a gay/lesbian front that promotes free, open and unlimited abortion on demand. I never said that ALL feminists were lesbian man-haters.

Abortion and gay rights - these are the 2 pillars of the current movement and for somebody not to be able to see this is truly frightening.

 

[elvisman]

When doctors with an obvious agenda, whose credentials and competence have been called into question by the largest and most prestigious organizations in their field, say something controversial that seems to serve their agenda, people have a right (perhaps even a duty) to be suspicious.

And up until 25 years ago, homosexual behavior was considered aberrant and disorderd by the very same psychologocal and psychiatric organizations you are referring to. Were researchers incompetent then? Did they simply change their minds or was it changing social moires bolstered by a radical feminist/homosexual agenda that changed their minds for them?

I think that if you take an honest look back, you’ll see that the latter is more accurate. Unfortunately, I don’t know if you’re old enough to take that honest look back. I saw it happening then.

 

[elvisman]

According to the very article you cite, most of the girls are acting/claiming to be bisexual (not lesbian) because its seen as popular and as a way of getting male attention.

While the idea that masses of womankind are converting to lesbianism may bring hope to lonely lesbians and energize offended conservatives, that does not appear to be happening.

And my ENTIRE point in this discussion was to show that not all people who engage in homosexuality are homosexual. Many are conditioned by the radical feminist/homosexual agenda that has sought to blur ALL of the sexual and societal norms.

This particular artical was about females and really didn’t address males. I was using it as an example to prove my point and that of Joe Dallas and Dr. Nicolosi.

 

[elvisman]

Those were radical ideas for the time.
Just like ending slavery (in the U.S.) prior to the Civil War.

Radical doesn’t mean perverted or deviant. It means something more along the lines of extreme. And (despite what Traditional Catholics say) extremism isn’t always bad.

Ending slavery was radical? It was RIGHT.
I never tried to redefine “radical”. I agree with you that it means extreme. The problem is that as times move on, the meaning of "extreme" has changed.

**The Radical feminist movement has been extreme and has lost their way. They took a movement that tried to gain equality for women and perverted it into a movement that, as I said before, sought only to protect a woman’s right to murder her child and to blur the lines of human sexuality.

 

[Bev17243]

**And up until 25 **years ago, homosexual behavior was considered aberrant and disorderd by the very same psychologocal and psychiatric organizations you are referring to. Were researchers incompetent then? Did they simply change their minds or was it changing social moires bolstered by a radical feminist/homosexual agenda that changed their minds for them?

I think that if you take an honest look back, you’ll see that the latter is more accurate. Unfortunately, I don’t know if you’re old enough to take that honest look back. I saw it happening then.

for anyone who takes what phychologysts say as Gospel, i would really takes it with a VERY large grain of salt. This is NOT an exact science and it never was. Guesses and theories premominate as opposed to solid scientific research. This is not to put down psycologysts but just to let people know if you will go to 4 different ones with a problem, you probably will get 4 different answers on what the problem is and how to treat it. I totally agree with your post here

 

[Bev17243]

Ending slavery was radical? It was RIGHT.
**I never tried to redefine “radical”. I agree **with you that it means extreme. The problem is that as times move on, the meaning of "extreme" has changed.

The Radical feminist movement has been extreme and has lost their way. They took a movement that tried to gain equality for women and perverted it into a movement that, as I said before, sought only to protect a woman’s right to murder her child and to *blur *the lines of human sexuality.

:clapping:

right on, bro!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ending Slavery was hardly a “radical” idea

It was radical enough that the Southern U.S. attempted to secede over the **mere possibility **that the North would end slavery now that they appeared to have the political power to do so.

 

[John21652]

An yes.

Because one bad psychiatrist, especially if he was a leader among psychiatrists, proves that psychiatry itself is bad

Would it be fair to judge Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular by that standard?

Actually, if you’d read the links properly, plus followed a few more leads that were pretty obvious, you’d know it was more than one. Like they say, there are none so blind…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Obviously you’re amused, but I am not. I do not find dishonesty amusing. You replaced my words with a reality that you prefer, distorting its meaning, encasing it within a “quote” that claimed that your words were “originally posted” by me. Again, here is the reality, and here is the accurate quote from my post, not a disingenuously altered version of it:

Both are present tense. Should a person dare to become public with a repudiation of the homosexual lifestyle, such person - “you” (whoever that “you” is) will be yourself repudiated by the media and by the entire Gay Lobby, who will assassinate your character for doing so, discredit your authenticity, and mock you for your honesty.

Rule #24 under Forbidden Posting Techniques, in this forum’s Rules:

It is difficult to expect respect from others if one does not operate respectfully oneself.

I was not lying about your words.

I was questioning their truthfulness in a humorous (to me at least) way. That’s why I highlighted the relevant words.

I will however, admit I may have done so in a clumsy and unclear way.

 

[John21652]

It was radical enough that the Southern U.S. attempted to secede over the **mere possibility **that the North would end slavery now that they appeared to have the political power to do so.

Slavery in the US was radical. Ending it was not. Google Somersett’s case. British High Court, 1772. And please go deeper than Wiki for your true edumacation.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**And up until 25 **years ago, homosexual behavior was considered aberrant and disorderd by the very same psychologocal and psychiatric organizations you are referring to. Were researchers incompetent then? Did they simply change their minds or was it changing social moires bolstered by a radical feminist/homosexual agenda that changed their minds for them?

I think that if you take an honest look back, you’ll see that the latter is more accurate. Unfortunately, I don’t know if you’re old enough to take that honest look back. I saw it happening then.

So you’re relatively old.

So what?

As for your evidence…

It was taken for granted until the 20th century in the West that interracial marriage was bad and that educating females was significantly less important than educating males (or even that educating women was bad for social and physiological reasons). Should we respect these ideas just because they have so much history behind them and were once endorsed by the power that be?

 

[meltzerboy]

Slavery in the US was radical. Ending it was not. Google Somersett’s case. British High Court, 1772. And please go deeper than Wiki for your true edumacation.

Ending slavery was surely a radical idea for White Southerners. I hope you’re not disputing that, in your implicit attempt to paint the word “radical” as ALWAYS equivalent to “wrong.” As Angry also points out, interracial marriage was a radical idea up until the latter half of the 20th century. Even having a discussion about homosexuality was not too long ago regarded as radical. Women going to college was once another radical notion. There are several more examples, if you like. The word “radical” is not inherently something bad. (In fact, the etymology of the word is “root,” and it originally meant just the opposite of “extreme,” that is, “something fundamental” or “back to basics.”)

 

[Bev17243]

So you’re relatively old.

So what?

As for your evidence…

It was taken for granted until the 20th century in the West that interracial marriage was bad and that educating females was significantly less important than educating males (or even that educating women was bad for social and physiological reasons). Should we respect these ideas just because they have so much history behind them and were once endorsed by the power that be?

saying “so you are old, so what” is not really a good answer to an argument, as well as your bringing up interacial marriage and women going to college which doesn’t have anything to do with a topic at hand