Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[Xantippe]

You’re complaining that feminists don’t stop men from going to strip clubs?

You’ll find feminists for those establishments and feminists against them. Personally, I believe in MYOB. If they violate your conscience, don’t go. But don’t complain that another diverse group of people dedicated to the betterment of women isn’t controlling your behavior for you.

Why weren’t feminists protesting strip clubs in the 1970’s? Because back then, raping your wife wasn’t a crime. My mom was told that as a divorced woman, she couldn’t buy car insurance. Overt discrimination in many arenas was totally legal. In short, feminists had bigger fish to fry than a few women (by and large) choosing to be strippers and men choosing to enjoy them.

Back in the early 1960s, Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy bunny and wrote up her experiences as “A Bunny’s Tale.”

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/26/gloria-steinem-bunny-tale-still-relevant-today

"At the core of “A Bunny’s Tale” is Steinem’s belief that the sexual revolution will fail if men are the only ones allowed to define it. In taking on Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Clubs, Steinem showed she could more than hold her own against an opponent with his own media empire.

"By 1960 Playboy was reaching a million readers a month, and in 1963, when “A Bunny’s Tale” was published, the Playboy Clubs were flourishing. Hefner, who had started Playboy in 1953, was at the height of his influence, and not content with making himself rich. He had in 1962 begun penning monthly essays that he insisted would be “the Emancipation Proclamation of the sexual revolution”.

“Steinem was unimpressed. She did not hesitate to treat Hefner’s emancipation claims as bunk. She went after him where he was most vulnerable, showing readers what it actually meant to work at a Playboy Club.”

Check that out–Playboy started in 1953, that most wholesome of postwar years.

That means that by the time the sexual revolution really got rolling in the US, Playboy Magazine had been publishing for nearly two decades.

I wonder–did 1970s feminism start the sexual revolution, or does it make more sense to say that 1970s feminism was a reaction to the ongoing sexual revolution?

 

[edwest2]

---

Were you protesting outside the bookstores and the clubs Ed?

I did my best to avoid them.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Back in the early 1960s, Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy bunny and wrote up her experiences as “A Bunny’s Tale.”

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/26/gloria-steinem-bunny-tale-still-relevant-today

"At the core of “A Bunny’s Tale” is Steinem’s belief that the sexual revolution will fail if men are the only ones allowed to define it. In taking on Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Clubs, Steinem showed she could more than hold her own against an opponent with his own media empire.

"By 1960 Playboy was reaching a million readers a month, and in 1963, when “A Bunny’s Tale” was published, the Playboy Clubs were flourishing. Hefner, who had started Playboy in 1953, was at the height of his influence, and not content with making himself rich. He had in 1962 begun penning monthly essays that he insisted would be “the Emancipation Proclamation of the sexual revolution”.

“Steinem was unimpressed. She did not hesitate to treat Hefner’s emancipation claims as bunk. She went after him where he was most vulnerable, showing readers what it actually meant to work at a Playboy Club.”

Check that out–Playboy started in 1953, that most wholesome of postwar years.

That means that by the time the sexual revolution really got rolling in the US, Playboy Magazine had been publishing for nearly two decades.

I wonder–did 1970s feminism start the sexual revolution, or does it make more sense to say that 1970s feminism was a reaction to the ongoing sexual revolution?

People do things. The “Playboy Philosophy” was preached by Mr. Hefner that men should regard sex as more important than having babies. His magazine was all about materialism. Men were shown the finest clothes, drink and tobacco. His idea of a man and what he should be doing were preached. In the 1960s, a neighbor had thrown out a box of old Playboys. The moms in the neighborhood knew what affect this might have on young minds. That box disappeared and how it was disposed of was unknown. We were taught to stay away from dirty, morally dirty - magazines. The so-called “sexual revolution” was a planned, coordinated effort to convince women that The Pill was OK because those who made it had to make money. Of course, when she forgot to take The Pill, she would have access to the ultimate form of birth control - abortion - by 1973. The campaign for that started in 1969 with a group called NARAL. They lied to the American people. Just like Mr. Hefner did his best to convince men that Church teaching about sex didn’t matter but proposing his alternative. He didn’t have to mention Christianity by name. He had a ‘better,’ more fun way for men, married or not.

Ed

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I did my best to avoid them.

Ed

Ah, so instead of focusing their efforts on being able to have access to employment, education, and public accommodations, feminists should have spent their efforts trying to police men. Even though you, a fellow man, did not feel comfortable doing so. Keep your own side of the street clean and let your neighbor worry about theirs. Women today are better off because of the efforts of my mother’s generation. Protesting legally-protected establishments instead of fighting to make discrimination and marital rape crimes wouldn’t have changed a thing for anyone, especially not in an era of internet porn and Tinder.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I have a very hard time believing women needed a lot of ‘convincing’ to take a pill that greatly reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancy. That’s pretty much been the female dream since the beginning of time.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have a very hard time believing women needed a lot of ‘convincing’ to take a pill that greatly reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancy. That’s pretty much been the female dream since the beginning of time.

Says whom? I’m a female. While at 60 I’m past the worries of an 'unplanned pregnancy" (sheesh), I certainly lived through the whole ‘reproductive freedom’ years. Are you aware of the health risks associated with contraceptive pills? Especially for women like me who are older but were exposed to earlier pills with more long term side effects?

And really, the idea that babies are just things to either embrace or avoid, ‘your choice’ is an offshoot of the sexual revolution. If sex is something just to embrace or avoid based on whether you want the feelings or not, if there is no child to consider, no idea of family, no idea of coupledom (unless you want, and just as long as you want, then buh-bye as if sex were nothing more than a clothing style you tried and discarded), this is the unnatural byproduct. Children aren’t wanted, on the whole, and a family unit of mother, father, and children is just some ideal of a few which is either being pushed on society by joyless prudes or is unreachable and therefore hateful to the willingly chosen ‘groups’ or those who have experienced divorce, death, etc.

Sad. However, in Western Society at least, we are either going to see a return to reality with the triumph of the family through our choice to reject the current craziness, or we’re going to see it happening with other societies while we contracept ourselves to death. . .if the Second Coming doesn’t happen first.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Says whom? I’m a female. While at 60 I’m past the worries of an 'unplanned pregnancy" (sheesh), I certainly lived through the whole ‘reproductive freedom’ years. Are you aware of the health risks associated with contraceptive pills? Especially for women like me who are older but were exposed to earlier pills with more long term side effects?

And really, the idea that babies are just things to either embrace or avoid, ‘your choice’ is an offshoot of the sexual revolution. If sex is something just to embrace or avoid based on whether you want the feelings or not, if there is no child to consider, no idea of family, no idea of coupledom (unless you want, and just as long as you want, then buh-bye as if sex were nothing more than a clothing style you tried and discarded), this is the unnatural byproduct. Children aren’t wanted, on the whole, and a family unit of mother, father, and children is just some ideal of a few which is either being pushed on society by joyless prudes or is unreachable and therefore hateful to the willingly chosen ‘groups’ or those who have experienced divorce, death, etc.

Sad. However, in Western Society at least, we are either going to see a return to reality with the triumph of the family through our choice to reject the current craziness, or we’re going to see it happening with other societies while we contracept ourselves to death. . .if the Second Coming doesn’t happen first.

And that’s all well and good, but that’s not what I said. For better or worse (I say better, you say worse), women did not need to be convinced by some evil outside force to take the pill, nor do they need convincing today. When it became was approved for menstrual cramps but not as contraception, a huge number of women suddenly flooded doctors offices with “severe cramps”. As soon as it was approved as contraception, it was instantly popular.

You may disagree with the choice, but let’s not pretend women didn’t, and don’t continue to make it. Whether it’s “right” or not isn’t the point, the ability to have sex without worrying about babies was a huge relief to men and women, married and single alike.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And that’s all well and good, but that’s not what I said. For better or worse (I say better, you say worse), women did not need to be convinced by some evil outside force to take the pill, nor do they need convincing today. When it became was approved for menstrual cramps but not as contraception, a huge number of women suddenly flooded doctors offices with “severe cramps”. As soon as it was approved as contraception, it was instantly popular.

You may disagree with the choice, but let’s not pretend women didn’t, and don’t continue to make it. Whether it’s “right” or not isn’t the point, the ability to have sex without worrying about babies was a huge relief to men and women, married and single alike.

You say it’s a huge relief to men and women, married and single. That’s your opinion. There are plenty of men and women who don’t find it a ‘huge relief’ to take contraceptive pills in order to ‘prevent a baby’. Anecdotal evidence about ‘cramps for contraception approval’ is just that, anecdotal.

And even if it were true that for a large number of people in the West at some point from the 1960s through now there was some kind of ‘relief’, that doesn’t mean said relief was for all or most, most of the time. Maybe there are people who might have used something once. . but only once. You couldn’t count them as being part of that ‘group of relieved people’. Or how about people who used as teens for acne, and never did use it when they married? They aren’t part of the ‘relieved group’, either. Or those who used it maybe often when younger and then regretted it? Those who maybe used it only when older (to lessen risk of Down syndrome, say) and later regretted it?

Or those who may not regret it now, but will in the future? So they loved it for maybe a decade, two, three, four, then stopped?

I’ll say again, as a woman, the society that has separated the procreative and uniative nature of sex, in order to 'relieve men and women from unplanned pregnancy" (and let me tell you, there are still plenty of unplanned pregnancies out there so contraception doesn’t seem to be working all that well if that is its major role), is a society that is hastening its own death, physically and morally. Maybe many of the men and women who are killing themselves spend much of their lifetimes ‘relieved’ from the ‘curse’ of babies. Doesn’t make them any less dead (physically, morally, etc) that they had what they perceived as less ‘suffering’ here on earth for a few years.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You say it’s a huge relief to men and women, married and single. That’s your opinion. There are plenty of men and women who don’t find it a ‘huge relief’ to take contraceptive pills in order to ‘prevent a baby’. Anecdotal evidence about ‘cramps for contraception approval’ is just that, anecdotal.

And even if it were true that for a large number of people in the West at some point from the 1960s through now there was some kind of ‘relief’, that doesn’t mean said relief was for all or most, most of the time. Maybe there are people who might have used something once. . but only once. You couldn’t count them as being part of that ‘group of relieved people’. Or how about people who used as teens for acne, and never did use it when they married? They aren’t part of the ‘relieved group’, either. Or those who used it maybe often when younger and then regretted it? Those who maybe used it only when older (to lessen risk of Down syndrome, say) and later regretted it?

Or those who may not regret it now, but will in the future? So they loved it for maybe a decade, two, three, four, then stopped?

I’ll say again, as a woman, the society that has separated the procreative and uniative nature of sex, in order to 'relieve men and women from unplanned pregnancy" (and let me tell you, there are still plenty of unplanned pregnancies out there so contraception doesn’t seem to be working all that well if that is its major role), is a society that is hastening its own death, physically and morally. Maybe many of the men and women who are killing themselves spend much of their lifetimes ‘relieved’ from the ‘curse’ of babies. Doesn’t make them any less dead (physically, morally, etc) that they had what they perceived as less ‘suffering’ here on earth for a few years.

You’re conflating your opinion and what you think the world should be with what actually is.

Like it or not, efforts to find reliable birth control date back to early human history. Every time an advancement has been made, people have jumped on it. I would encourage you to read up on the history of birth control, both in the ancient and modern eras. No one forced birth control on women. You may vehemently disagree with the choice, but it has been a choice - especially since the 1950’s or so.

Your position really can’t be that women don’t want birth control and actually want to risk pregnancy every time they have sex but are forced out of taking this risk. And if it is, it’s on you to support that claim. Obviously, not everyone wants birth control, nor did I claim they do, but usage rates, even among Catholics, show that the majority do use it to help control their family size.

We evil contraceptors know what we’re doing. We know that we could stop and risk pregnancy every month. We choose not to. It’s pretty hard to argue that it’s an irrational choice at the individual level or one that isn’t freely made by most sexually active people in the West.

I get it, you believe birth control is immoral and unwise. Nothing I’ve said it’s trying to counter that because I truly don’t care that you don’t want to use it. That’s your choice. But let’s not pretend that evil men, doctors, and governments are coercing women to use birth control on a mass scale. Women aren’t stupid, helpless puppets, and neither are their partners.

 

[Estevao]

People do things. The “Playboy Philosophy” was preached by Mr. Hefner that men should regard sex as more important than having babies. His magazine was all about materialism. Men were shown the finest clothes, drink and tobacco. His idea of a man and what he should be doing were preached. In the 1960s, a neighbor had thrown out a box of old Playboys. The moms in the neighborhood knew what affect this might have on young minds. That box disappeared and how it was disposed of was unknown. We were taught to stay away from dirty, morally dirty - magazines. The so-called “sexual revolution” was a planned, coordinated effort to convince women that The Pill was OK because those who made it had to make money. Of course, when she forgot to take The Pill, she would have access to the ultimate form of birth control - abortion - by 1973. The campaign for that started in 1969 with a group called NARAL. They lied to the American people. Just like Mr. Hefner did his best to convince men that Church teaching about sex didn’t matter but proposing his alternative. He didn’t have to mention Christianity by name. He had a ‘better,’ more fun way for men, married or not.

Ed

Feminism has never been about logic and consistency, nor has it ever had a well-thuoght out ethic. That’s why feminists claim that women are free when they are slaving in a cubicle 8 hours a day to make Rupert Murdoch rich but claim that they are enslaved when they are serving their husband and raising a family. That’s why they’re fine with butchering an unborn female, crushing her skull, chopping her up into bits and vacuuming her into a sink, for the sole reason that she is a female. Gendercide. You can’t get more misogynist than wanting to murder a woman simply for being a woman, but feminists are fine with that.

I forget who said it, but if leftists didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

 

[edwest2]

You say it’s a huge relief to men and women, married and single. That’s your opinion. There are plenty of men and women who don’t find it a ‘huge relief’ to take contraceptive pills in order to ‘prevent a baby’. Anecdotal evidence about ‘cramps for contraception approval’ is just that, anecdotal.

And even if it were true that for a large number of people in the West at some point from the 1960s through now there was some kind of ‘relief’, that doesn’t mean said relief was for all or most, most of the time. Maybe there are people who might have used something once. . but only once. You couldn’t count them as being part of that ‘group of relieved people’. Or how about people who used as teens for acne, and never did use it when they married? They aren’t part of the ‘relieved group’, either. Or those who used it maybe often when younger and then regretted it? Those who maybe used it only when older (to lessen risk of Down syndrome, say) and later regretted it?

Or those who may not regret it now, but will in the future? So they loved it for maybe a decade, two, three, four, then stopped?

I’ll say again, as a woman, the society that has separated the procreative and uniative nature of sex, in order to 'relieve men and women from unplanned pregnancy" (and let me tell you, there are still plenty of unplanned pregnancies out there so contraception doesn’t seem to be working all that well if that is its major role), is a society that is hastening its own death, physically and morally. Maybe many of the men and women who are killing themselves spend much of their lifetimes ‘relieved’ from the ‘curse’ of babies. Doesn’t make them any less dead (physically, morally, etc) that they had what they perceived as less ‘suffering’ here on earth for a few years.

Pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure to the detriment of society as a whole is wrong. Italy will soon die from pleasure and no babies. Raising kids? Who wants to risk that? More entertainment! More contraceptive sex. And even more pleasure. The Return On Investment for kids has been taught to be bad - really bad. A parent who has to worry, even for a second, is missing all the fun. Have fun, not kids.

We were lied to by sexual perverts and people who love any kind of sex but marital. We were taught gradually, over decades, the step by step way to cohabitate and the media turned away from being our advocate and a welcome guest in our home to a negative influence.

But, some are home schooling. Some are sacrificing. Some are teaching their kids right from wrong. And the old guard is dying. They didn’t have ‘replacements’ to carry their torch. They have a lot less to work with today.

Feminism will be rejected when some people realize it is based on conflict, not problem solving.

Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re conflating your opinion and what you think the world should be with what actually is.

Like it or not, efforts to find reliable birth control date back to early human history. Every time an advancement has been made, people have jumped on it. I would encourage you to read up on the history of birth control, both in the ancient and modern eras. No one forced birth control on women. You may vehemently disagree with the choice, but it has been a choice - especially since the 1950’s or so.

Your position really can’t be that women don’t want birth control and actually want to risk pregnancy every time they have sex but are forced out of taking this risk. And if it is, it’s on you to support that claim. Obviously, not everyone wants birth control, nor did I claim they do, but usage rates, even among Catholics, show that the majority do use it to help control their family size.

We evil contraceptors know what we’re doing. We know that we could stop and risk pregnancy every month. We choose not to. It’s pretty hard to argue that it’s an irrational choice at the individual level or one that isn’t freely made by most sexually active people in the West.

I get it, you believe birth control is immoral and unwise. Nothing I’ve said it’s trying to counter that because I truly don’t care that you don’t want to use it. That’s your choice. But let’s not pretend that evil men, doctors, and governments are coercing women to use birth control on a mass scale. Women aren’t stupid, helpless puppets, and neither are their partners.

I think you have taken what I said and built up a bunch of strawmen. I don’t know about you, but I’m in the health field, and I am quite familiar with the history of contraceptives (male and female) not to mention the fields of ancient history through modern, thank you very much.

So a little less condescension if you please and a little less assumption of what you think I ‘know’ would be politic, not to mention not putting words in my mouth that I never said.

You had your say, I had mine. PM me if you wish to have a private discussion, but otherwise, I think for both our sakes that since I don’t care to be condescended to or to spend valuable time picking apart the misapprehensions and wrong assumptions etc. etc. that have been made, we can simply let this drop until or unless a real discussion can be held.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think you have taken what I said and built up a bunch of strawmen. I don’t know about you, but I’m in the health field, and I am quite familiar with the history of contraceptives (male and female) not to mention the fields of ancient history through modern, thank you very much.

So a little less condescension if you please and a little less assumption of what you think I ‘know’ would be politic, not to mention not putting words in my mouth that I never said.

You had your say, I had mine. PM me if you wish to have a private discussion, but otherwise, I think for both our sakes that since I don’t care to be condescended to or to spend valuable time picking apart the misapprehensions and wrong assumptions etc. etc. that have been made, we can simply let this drop until or unless a real discussion can be held.

That’s probably for the best since you seem intent on taking past me to argue the wisdom or morality of birth control, neither of which I’m interested in.

 

[steve93]

Back in the early 1960s, Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy bunny and wrote up her experiences as “A Bunny’s Tale.”

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/26/gloria-steinem-bunny-tale-still-relevant-today

"At the core of “A Bunny’s Tale” is Steinem’s belief that the sexual revolution will fail if men are the only ones allowed to define it. In taking on Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Clubs, Steinem showed she could more than hold her own against an opponent with his own media empire.

"By 1960 Playboy was reaching a million readers a month, and in 1963, when “A Bunny’s Tale” was published, the Playboy Clubs were flourishing. Hefner, who had started Playboy in 1953, was at the height of his influence, and not content with making himself rich. He had in 1962 begun penning monthly essays that he insisted would be “the Emancipation Proclamation of the sexual revolution”.

“Steinem was unimpressed. She did not hesitate to treat Hefner’s emancipation claims as bunk. She went after him where he was most vulnerable, showing readers what it actually meant to work at a Playboy Club.”

Check that out–Playboy started in 1953, that most wholesome of postwar years.

That means that by the time the sexual revolution really got rolling in the US, Playboy Magazine had been publishing for nearly two decades.

I wonder–did 1970s feminism start the sexual revolution, or does it make more sense to say that 1970s feminism was a reaction to the ongoing sexual revolution?

Yes, so women should be not afforded basic protections under the law the same as any other citizens under the law because liberals might be having sex? Under that logic one would have to commit terrorist acts to restore the monarchy to France, otherwise you are aiding communism. What on earth does “whoremonger boy” magazine have to do with antidiscrimination laws. One of my ancestors had to basically “commit polygamy” under this retarded type logic due to that she could not get a divorce despite the fact that it was 100% her husband’s fault. (The idiot left her in order to get a job out West and simply refused to come back. )

 

[Xantippe]

Pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure to the detriment of society as a whole is wrong. **Italy will soon die from pleasure and no babies. Raising kids? Who wants to risk that? More entertainment! **More contraceptive sex. And even more pleasure. The Return On Investment for kids has been taught to be bad - really bad. A parent who has to worry, even for a second, is missing all the fun. Have fun, not kids.

We were lied to by sexual perverts and people who love any kind of sex but marital. We were taught gradually, over decades, the step by step way to cohabitate and the media turned away from being our advocate and a welcome guest in our home to a negative influence.

But, some are home schooling. Some are sacrificing. Some are teaching their kids right from wrong. And the old guard is dying. They didn’t have ‘replacements’ to carry their torch. They have a lot less to work with today.

Feminism will be rejected when some people realize it is based on conflict, not problem solving.

Ed

Legally speaking, signing up to be an Italian parent is no joke–it’s potentially a lifelong commitment.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/italian-court-orders-father-to-pay-for-upkeep-of-his-28-year-old/

“The phenomenon of “bamboccioni” – an augmentative of “bamboccio”, meaning chubby child - has increased since the recession, as youth unemployment reached 40 per cent.”

"Around 65 per cent of Italians aged 18 to 34 still live with their parents, the highest percentage of young stay-at-homes anywhere in Europe, according to Istat, the national statistics agency.

“That compares with 34 per cent in France and Britain and 42 per cent in Germany.”

“The problem of adult children taking their parents to court for money is so acute that the Italian Association of Matrimonial Lawyers has called for an age limit to be set by the Supreme Court in Rome, beyond which children could not sue their parents.”

 

[pensmama87]

I’m not surprised that contraception has a lot of appeal, but to me that doesn’t mean much besides humans always like quick fixes with no effort. See patent medicine, diet pills, etc. Whether or not they work, people will shell out a lot for the promise of getting something for basically nothing. That doesn’t legitimize it, by itself.

The other thing is that contraception in the 20th century is very closely tied to the eugenics movement, including sterilization campaigns. For all the middle and upper class Betty Friedan liberation there’s a seedy underbelly of making sure those poor brown people don’t out number the good productive white people, or, in more “compassionate” terms, “helping” them because of course they can’t help themselves.

I’ll have to dig out a really great blog post by an African woman (I can’t remember the specific country) who’s sick of rich white Americans flooding their free clinics with contraception, that sits on the shelves unused, but yet they can’t get food, water, antibiotics - which is what they want and ask for.

 

[pensmama87]

Here it is:

laici.va/content/laici/en/sezioni/donna/notizie/an-african-woman-s-open-letter-to-melinda-gates.html

 

[steve93]

I’m not surprised that contraception has a lot of appeal, but to me that doesn’t mean much besides humans always like quick fixes with no effort. See patent medicine, diet pills, etc. Whether or not they work, people will shell out a lot for the promise of getting something for basically nothing. That doesn’t legitimize it, by itself.

The other thing is that contraception in the 20th century is very closely tied to the eugenics movement, including sterilization campaigns. For all the middle and upper class Betty Friedan liberation there’s a seedy underbelly of making sure those poor brown people don’t out number the good productive white people, or, in more “compassionate” terms, “helping” them because of course they can’t help themselves.

I’ll have to dig out a really great blog post by an African woman (I can’t remember the specific country) who’s sick of rich white Americans flooding their free clinics with contraception, that sits on the shelves unused, but yet they can’t get food, water, antibiotics - which is what they want and ask for.

And why should we work to give them these things? They can get jobs like the rest of the country. We didn’t even enslave them, the rural southerners did. Why do they think they can take over our city centers and promote socialistic garbage?

 

[steve93]

I’m not surprised that contraception has a lot of appeal, but to me that doesn’t mean much besides humans always like quick fixes with no effort. See patent medicine, diet pills, etc. Whether or not they work, people will shell out a lot for the promise of getting something for basically nothing. That doesn’t legitimize it, by itself.

The other thing is that contraception in the 20th century is very closely tied to the eugenics movement, including sterilization campaigns. For all the middle and upper class Betty Friedan liberation there’s a seedy underbelly of making sure those poor brown people don’t out number the good productive white people, or, in more “compassionate” terms, “helping” them because of course they can’t help themselves.

I’ll have to dig out a really great blog post by an African woman (I can’t remember the specific country) who’s sick of rich white Americans flooding their free clinics with contraception, that sits on the shelves unused, but yet they can’t get food, water, antibiotics - which is what they want and ask for.

And what exactly does contraception have to do with civil, legal, educational, and financial rights? Nothing. A strawman. Or strawwoman in this case.

 

[DarkLight]

And why should we work to give them these things? They can get jobs like the rest of the country. We didn’t even enslave them, the rural southerners did. Why do they think they can take over our city centers and promote socialistic garbage?

I’m not sure what city centers you’re talking about, since the post was about Africans.