Muslim stripped of award after he indicated he would not shake hands with a woman

[mtspace]

A PROPOSED prize-winner at last night’s Refugee Awards in Dublin was demoted from the honours list after he indicated he would not shake hands with the female presenter.
The Co. Kerry based asylum seeker, who is of the Muslim faith, had been selected for the accolade by the judging panel of the Africa Centre’s annual World Refugee Day awards, due to his work with the Kerry Volunteer Centre and as a fundraiser for Amnesty International.

However, he informed organisers prior to the ceremony that arrangements needed to be put in place so that he would not have to shake hands with any female.

The person scheduled to present the award was Benedicta Attoh, a Nigerian woman who will be a candidate in next summer’s local elections.

It appears the organisers were initially willing to accede to his request, but an eleventh hour intervention reversed that decision. The person who won instead was accorded a certificate with the original winner’s name crossed out, and hers written above. She was not present to receive her award.

Sheikh Shaheed Satardien, a Dublin 15-based imam, said that handshaking with a person of the opposite sex is not permitted during the ‘state of ablution’, as Muslims get ready to say prayer. He added, however, that this timeframe should logically not clash with a period of socialising. He said most Muslims in Ireland would shake hands with persons of the opposite sex, but that there is a “terrible and complicated diversity” in terms of the Muslim population in Ireland, who follow teachings in different ways, he said. “You must break your ablution when you socialise…The Koran wants rationality in our dealings.”

Sauce: (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=37523&p=1230746&hilit=Politics.ie)

I don't normally make threads on this subject, but i heard this on the radio yesterday and figured you guys might be interested.

Personaly, i feel the situation was handled correctly, but i'm more interested in what others think of the decision not to give him the award (of which there is little doubt he deserved) once they realised he was about to insult every female in the room and indeed the whole nation.

[droogsteve]

The "Refugee Awards"?!


God help us.

[Face Plant]

he'd get cooties, its perfectly reasonable

[Dayve]

People who are so fucking drowned in their religious diarreah that they won't partake in something as trivial and meaningless as shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex deserve no award other than biggest douche in the universe.

[chrisvet]

11th hour posturing by Feminists showing their hypocritical intollerance for freedom of Religion, that said:

Good for them, I'm sick to death of forced tollerance. When in Rome do as the Romans do or GTFO. :boink:

BTW: What does a handshake have to do with winning the bestest most almighty refuge award? :lol: {sarcasm, or is it?}

[Dayve]

11th hour posturing by Feminists showing their hypocritical intollerance for freedom of Religion, that said:

Good for them, I'm sick to death of forced tollerance. When in Rome do as the Romans do or GTFO. :boink:

BTW: What does a handshake have to do with winning the bestest most almighty refuge award? :lol: {sarcasm, or is it?}

I would like to know what the refugee award even is...

[Crazy Gnome]

Refugee awards? I think there might be a better use of all that probably donated money they blew on that event.

[droogsteve]

11th hour posturing by Feminists showing their hypocritical intollerance for freedom of Religion, that said:

Good for them, I'm sick to death of forced tollerance. When in Rome do as the Romans do or GTFO. :boink:

So you're sick to death of forced tolerance...except for feminists who aren't allowed to be intolerant? :confuzed:

Some might see those statements as contradictory, and therefore hypocritical.



I would like to know what the refugee award even is...

I wouldn't, I'm sure it would just piss me off.


Although it's probably awarded for "Demanding Your Medieval Third World Values Be Adopted By the Nation Which Saved Your Ass From Life In Your Own Shithole Country."

[wra]

I'm both happy they did it but surprised as well.

[mtspace]

The "Refugee Awards"?!


God help us.

I would like to know what the refugee award even is...

It's a sign that people are forgetting that your meant to do charity work for charity sake, not so as you can slap each other on the back, but that's besides the point, (it would seem that these events are there to get donations from businesses)

The issue i'm concerned with is should his personal belief exclude him winning an award? should we deny a scientist that finds a cure for cancer a noble peace prize because his belief is that he shouldn't turn up on a Thursday to collect it?

i know it sounds like a trite argument, but i can't help but feel it does have serious connotations, which is more important, his work to collect money for charity, or the manner in which he views a simple hand shake?

[shade]

Why would someone move to a country that has values they disagree with?

If you leave a shithole and move to a modern, polite civilization, don't you think it might be in your interest to think "Hmmm... why is this place so nice and my home a shithole?" Instead of "Ah fuck it, I want to ruin my new home and make it a shithole too"

This is not terribly different from many Mexicans who move to the US and do not assimilate.

Look, your country sucks. Our country rocks. That is why you came here. How about you do your part to make sure it continues to be a shining example of civilized society? Perhaps respect our culture...

[FLYINGDOG]

A PROPOSED prize-winner at last night’s Refugee Awards in Dublin was demoted from the honours list after he indicated he would not eat the honorary bacon-wrapped porkchop.

The Co. Kerry based asylum seeker, who is of the Jewish faith, had been selected for the accolade by the judging panel of the Africa Centre’s annual World Refugee Day awards, due to his work with the Kerry Volunteer Centre and as a fundraiser for Amnesty International.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

A PROPOSED prize-winner at last night’s Refugee Awards in Dublin was demoted from the honours list after he indicated he would not eat the honorary bacon-wrapped porkchop.

The Co. Kerry based asylum seeker, who is of the Jewish faith, had been selected for the accolade by the judging panel of the Africa Centre’s annual World Refugee Day awards, due to his work with the Kerry Volunteer Centre and as a fundraiser for Amnesty International.

But not eating pork doesn't offend anyone. Refusing to shake hands with a woman is demeaning to a gender.

[TheAwesome]

Why would someone move to a country that has values they disagree with?

If you leave a shithole and move to a modern, polite civilization, don't you think it might be in your interest to think "Hmmm... why is this place so nice and my home a shithole?" Instead of "Ah fuck it, I want to ruin my new home and make it a shithole too"

This is not terribly different from many Mexicans who move to the US and do not assimilate.

Look, your country sucks. Our country rocks. That is why you came here. How about you do your part to make sure it continues to be a shining example of civilized society? Perhaps respect our culture...

Excellent point. I have always wondered that about the Mexicans and other South and Central American citizens that illegally move into the country. Everyone likes to state how they are such hard workers...Then why not apply that work ethic towards your own country? Or at the very least, apply that ideal towards this country.

[_jax]

he should be given 2 awards

1 for his work with the kerry volunteer center, and 1 for keeping his pimp hand strong

[kazuri]

Then why not apply that work ethic towards your own country?

Because there isnt a big enough demand obviously..

You dont need to mow dirt.

[halloo]

"refugee awards" :lol:

he refused to shake hands with a women, someone needs to tell him to wake the fuck up and remind him that he's a refugee. in other words, he's the lowest of the low.

[Danimal87]

I'm not sure if he meant this as an insult. It could either be a case of "You're a woman, so I'm higher than you and we shouldn't shake hands as I don't respect you", or "I'm a man and you're a woman who is not my wife, so we shouldn't be touching each other."

[bergshadow]

As the award was given to someone not present, an obvious solution was available: give him the award, but deny him the presentation ceremony, which he could not participate in without giving insult somehow or another.

[wra]

As the award was given to someone not present, an obvious solution was available: give him the award, but deny him the presentation ceremony, which he could not participate in without giving insult somehow or another.

That would still be rewarding his ignorance

[MelL]

That would still be rewarding his ignorance

Ignorance of what?

[wra]

Ignorance of what?

The culture of the nation he has chosen to live in.

[rand0m]

Why couldn't he keep his trap shut and just arrive wearing gloves? Why couldn't the people in charge give him a pair of gloves when he arrived and told him to quit been a bitch?

Story of stupid.

[Burningnun]

Why couldn't he keep his trap shut and just arrive wearing gloves? Why couldn't the people in charge give him a pair of gloves when he arrived and told him to quit been a bitch?

Why does it matter that none of this stuff happened? It's the refugee awards, who cares?

[chrisvet]

So you're sick to death of forced tolerance...except for feminists who aren't allowed to be intolerant? :confuzed:

Irony @ its finest. (feminists can be whatever they want and change their minds whenever it suits their needs forcing us to conform to their bullshit based on out of context studies, lies, and junk science.)
Forced tolerance of the minority that inconveniences the majority creates conflict / hatred and feeds the very minority victim mindset that erodes our society.
Feminists are completely intolerant to anything that does not agree with their POV. A highly organized gov't funded army of picket signs will show up at your doorstep tomorrow morning demanding your resignation because you were intolerant to their "demands of the moment." They are undoubtedly the most powerful of all special interest groups.


Some might see those statements as contradictory, and therefore hypocritical.

The entire basis of feminism is hypocritical and contradictory.
In fact, every special interest group subscribes to the same double standards. On a fundamental level, giving special rights / privileges to one group over another is discrimination masked with terms (and often exaggerated half truths) such as "past oppressions." (another long discussion.)

The irony of this situation is the 2 special interest groups clashing. 1 Demanding he shakes hands, the other demanding he not because its against his religious beliefs. The former winning due to sheer power / numbers / representing the largest group (women) of people who will ultimately get pissed off. (Now for argument sake we can say men would get pissed off over this too.)

Point A: I believe in a society where everyone is equal under the law, and the natural majority rules without breaking Point A. More than anything, I'm pleased they told this guy to fuck off because of the fact he was interfering with the proper etiquette of a ceremony based on his religious beliefs.

Through all this the only group that ultimately bears the grunt of complete tolerance is the white male. That is not a complaint, that is a fact.

[Henkie]

I'm not sure if he meant this as an insult. It could either be a case of "You're a woman, so I'm higher than you and we shouldn't shake hands as I don't respect you", or "I'm a man and you're a woman who is not my wife, so we shouldn't be touching each other."

In it's most basic sense it's a sexual thing. It goes both ways, though. But you'll see that when a man doesn't shake a womans hand, it'll be explained as him being better than her and when a woman doesn't shake a mans hand, it'll be seen as her being dominated by a religion that's afraid of women. The sexism is in the observer, not in the act itself.

If it helps, amongst traditional Jews the same rule applies.

[MelL]

The culture of the nation he has chosen to live in.

How does not wanting to shake a woman's hand imply not knowing about the nation he lives in?

[YouEnjoyMyself]

feminists can be whatever they want and change their minds whenever it suits their needs forcing us to conform to their bullshit based on out of context studies, lies, and junk science.

There are many types of feminism. You're making blanket statements about an ideology, not groups of people. You can't make such general statements about an ideology unless you can point to specific examples. Show us some evidence. Post a link, something, before you start proclaiming what is or is not fact.

Your post is laden with generalizations toward an ideology. There are so many, for lack of a better word, sub-ideologies to feminism, it isn't fair to lump them all together.

[Henkie]

Yeah, but we're talking in a thread about Muslims, so the ruling protocol is that if you can put one name on them, they're all the same kind of fundamentalists...

[chrisvet]

There are many types of feminism. You're making blanket statements about an ideology, not groups of people. You can't make such general statements about an ideology unless you can point to specific examples. Show us some evidence. Post a link, something, before you start proclaiming what is or is not fact.

Your post is laden with generalizations toward an ideology. There are so many, for lack of a better word, sub-ideologies to feminism, it isn't fair to lump them all together.

The sub ideologies of feminism are crocks, rooted by a communist movement at the core. These people (with good ignorant intentions who talk of equality) are no different than Nazi's who supported hitler but were against Jewish extermination. You either support it or you dont.

I'll give you a heads up. State something to support feminism and I'll shoot it down, not because I'm being smartass, but because I've studied it for years and view it as 1 gigantic picture that breaksdown society.

The entire basis of feminism is based on lies & rooted @ destroying the 1 thing that gives us strength: The family unit (in exchange for a nanny state.)

(p.s., don't take offense to this discussion, the vast majority of society isn't up to speed on the truths about feminism.)

[YouEnjoyMyself]

The sub ideologies of feminism are crocks, rooted by a communist movement at the core. These people (with good ignorant intentions who talk of equality) are no different than Nazi's who supported hitler but were against Jewish extermination. You either support it or you dont.

"Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. It is an individualistic form of feminism, which focuses on women’s ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices."

How is that communist?

"Individualist feminists attempt to change legal systems in order to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property. Individualist feminism encourages women to take full responsibility for their own lives. It also opposes any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies, because it contends such interference creates a coercive hierarchy (such as patriarchy)"

Ok, I guess you could try and argue that eliminating class privileges is some sort of communist approach. Read the bolded part, what could possibly be wrong with that?

There are too many varieties of feminism and too many takes on it to make statements like you are.

Hey, I got one for you!

"Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and labor. Socialist feminists see women as being held down as a result of their unequal standing in both the workplace and the domestic sphere.[89] Prostitution, domestic work, childcare, and marriage are all seen as ways in which women are exploited by a patriarchal system which devalues women and the substantial work that they do. Socialist feminists focus their energies on broad change that affects society as a whole, and not just on an individual basis. They see the need to work alongside not just men, but all other groups, as they see the oppression of women as a part of a larger pattern that affects everyone involved in the capitalist system.[90]

Marx felt that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards separating gender phenomena from class phenomena.[91] Some contributors to socialist feminism have criticized these traditional Marxist ideas for being largely silent on gender oppression except to subsume it underneath broader class oppression.[92] Other socialist feminists, notably two long-lived American organizations Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party, point to the classic Marxist writings of Frederick Engels[93] and August Bebel[94] as a powerful explanation of the link between gender oppression and class exploitation.

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible.[95]"

I'll give you a heads up. State something to support feminism and I'll shoot it down, not because I'm being smartass, but because I've studied it for years and view it as 1 gigantic picture that breaksdown society.


Umm..ok...

Some forms of feminism are positive for society because they reinforce equality for all.

The entire basis of feminism is based on lies & rooted @ destroying the 1 thing that gives us strength: The family unit (in exchange for a nanny state.)

That's an opinion you could form after observing or studying certain forms of feminism.

(p.s., don't take offense to this discussion, the vast majority of society isn't up to speed on the truths about feminism.)

Oh, so I take it you're going to educate us with the "truths." :uhoh:

[Henkie]

I think the problem here is that Chrisvet is thinking in terms of one united form of feminism and certain forms that have tried to adapt that into other forms.

YEM, however, is more accurately thinking of feminims as a group of ideologies that share the basic oppinion that there is inequality between men and women and that this should be ended. What constitutes that inequality, and how it should be ended, however differs hugely. The word 'subideologies' is confusing, however.

[chrisvet]

"Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. It is an individualistic form of feminism, which focuses on women’s ability to show and maintain their equality through their own actions and choices."
How is that communist?
Feminism forces equal outcome, communism in its true form. Its seeks to destroy the family unit, a communist ideol. It is a special interest group like all others competing for yearly funding filled with well intentioned mislead women (and often hateful emotionally dysfunctional lesbians) who sell misleading stories & out of context stats for more funding.) Tougher laws are lobbied for, stretched legal definitions landing us with more conflict (the very food required for a special interest to exist.)

Eg: Rape was once forced, now considered innaproprioate fully clothed touching. Sex abuse industry has skyrocketed because of these new laws, and fembo lobbiests scream "Sex Abuse Epedemic!" when selling their platform for annual budgetting. They also often include those "charged" with an offense, never removing the high percentage of dropped cases (some jurisdictions have higher than 25% false allegation charges <due to monetary, custodial gains, and reasons of revenge.>)

Eg: DV now considered stomping ones foot on the ground and shouting. Primary agressor lands innocent men in jail for the night with good intentions of removing the physically larger percieved threat. (how fucking backwards is that?) In the end, new DV laws add to the bogus stats presented annually. Other bogus crap is DV stats often include Mother vs Child, daughter vs Mother, Lesbian vs Lesbian. But we all assume its men who beat women (truth is its about equal around the 2% range, hardly means to justify a 3.5 Billion dollar DV budget that caters to women only.)

There was never a need for feminism, period. At the core its nothing more than a religious man hating cult that seeks to destroy society and aim for communism. This is the only way they can "fit in" and truely be equal. Most of the feminist founders including Rockafeller (who funded it to get women into the workplace as another means of income taxation & to break the family unit down to create more households to profit companies) are fans of the communist system.

"Individualist feminists attempt to change legal systems in order to eliminate class privileges and gender privileges and to ensure that individuals have equal rights, including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property. Individualist feminism encourages women to take full responsibility for their own lives. It also opposes any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies, because it contends such interference creates a coercive hierarchy (such as patriarchy)"
Patriarchy is the sole reason we evolved from the stone age. Equal rights under the law is where is should have ended 4 decades ago. Forcing employers to select workers because of race / gender is reverse discrimination that contributes to the shit situation American companies are in today (rendered less efficient because of excessive regulations / corporate taxation.) The legal system is full of men who are criminals becasue of idiotic feminist laws.
The real joke is feminism doesn't let women take full responsiblity, it puts the responsiblity on tax payers and men to give in to their demands. The concept is completely full of doublestandards. Read a media article, if a woman kills her kids, she's somehow a victim of a horrible husband (not!) If a man does it, he's rightly condemned as an evil bastard. The laws are also often several times more lenient on women then men. Great examples include female teacher sex offenders (I have a great link) and female murderers.

It also opposes any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies,Because it is convenient for them. In the same breath they get gov't to hold shotguns to those who do not conform to their discriminatory demands. Thats why feminism is a hypocracy custom tailoring social policy to its own needs @ the expense of fucking everyone else over.

There are too many varieties of feminism and too many takes on it to make statements like you are. They tell you there are many versions of feminism, but again, they are no different because @ the end of the day feminism is rooted in communism and the destruction of the family unit. You either support it or you don't. No inbetween.

"Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation, oppression and labor. Oppression of women was part of the rewritten history we see today masking the truth: Living standards were lower, men and women assumed natural roles to maintain the most efficient family unit possible in the name of survival.

Voting rights are another crock of shit. AT the time, gov't was so small a female vote wouldn't mean anything. It was only until income tax came into play did politicians see this as opportunity to toss bones at the loudest whining groups in exchange for votes (very very corrupt at the core.)

Little do most know that most common men couldn't vote not to long before women. The whole thing is a sharade / bullshit.

Here's an example of historical female oppression:
A. Women & children first
B. No Women in the Military

Women were cherished / honored because we as men are born with the protector / provider role. Thats why we survived as a species.
If you tell me you wouldn't run out onto the street to push 4 women out of the way of a bus at the expense of your own life I'd call bullshit.

Feminism has sought to replace the alpha male of society and our power as protector / provider with a nanny / police state.


Socialist feminists see women as being held down as a result of their unequal standing in both the workplace and the domestic sphere.[89] Prostitution, domestic work, childcare, and marriage are all seen as ways in which women are exploited by a patriarchal system which devalues women and the substantial work that they do.
Pretty insane eh? More bullshit that destroys society. Here's a link (it requires a couple of hours but gives a small insight to how feminism destroys society: www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html )

Socialist feminists focus their energies on broad change that affects society as a whole, and not just on an individual basis. They see the need to work alongside not just men, but all other groups, as they see the oppression of women as a part of a larger pattern that affects everyone involved in the capitalist system.[90]Nobody has a problem with women who do their jobs as good as the rest. Oppression again was makebelieve, and if you think the wage gap exists becasue of oppression, you're very mistaken. It exists because women choose easier lower paying jobs with flexable hours over higher paying more dangerous time consuming jobs for higher pay.

Marx felt that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards separating gender phenomena from class phenomena.[91] Some contributors to socialist feminism have criticized these traditional Marxist ideas for being largely silent on gender oppression except to subsume it underneath broader class oppression.[92] Other socialist feminists, notably two long-lived American organizations Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party, point to the classic Marxist writings of Frederick Engels[93] and August Bebel[94] as a powerful explanation of the link between gender oppression and class exploitation.Marx & his supporters are idiots. What more can I say. Hail USSR?

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible.[95]"forcing men/women to do things unnatural to their biology is part of the lie communists / feminists adhere to.
They'll tell you men/women are only different because of nuturing (bullshit) when the fail to mention they polled pre puberty kids with less obvious changes.

REality is men/women are totally different and when all is said and done, we'll go back to our natural roles after the next major catastrophy.


Some forms of feminism are positive for society because they reinforce equality for all.
That's an opinion you could form after observing or studying certain forms of feminism.
Oh, so I take it you're going to educate us with the "truths." :uhoh:

No forms of feminism are positive for society. They create wedges between men/women, and fill their heads with unrealistic expectations. Its a divide conquer tactic that goes far into the school systems to feminize boys and masculate girls. (so the girls will grow up as better competators against boys) Its wrong on all levels.

Lowering standards;

It lowers standards by giving handicaps to women (eg fire department, Army, UK lowering Med school graduate scores to compensate for the unusually high #'s of women) IOW, most women suck at pulling off the same marks as male med school students in the UK, and to keep up with the demand, marks had to be lowered to produce the same levels of Drs. as previous years.

Hurts society:
Promoting females only hurts society by discouraging boys from taking part in Collage etc. (collage rates down by huge numbers.) We are slowly crippling from the lack of men taking prominant positions. The workplace has turned into a glass walking disaster in fears of 'pissing off' some dumb angry bitch.

Hurts our well being:
Happiness has plummeted, depression has skyrocketed over the past 30 years.

Suicide Rates:
Male / Female suicide rates went from 1:1 50 years ago to nearly 5:1 today for men.

School shootings:
A great deal of our school killers hate feminists, and the crap schools dished out. This is suppressed by our media.

In closing:
I support the concept that everyone is equal under the law and it ends there. If companies choose to hire people based on their merits while ignoring race, I with them 100%. It serves to increase productivity and strengthen our backbone as an efficient competitor in a global market.
Its all a lie, all of it. Ask anyone who goes to non western countries that lack big gov't to support feminism: They're all happy regardless of what the media sells. Men/Women in natural roles equals keys to success. Nothing beats a patriarchy, Nothing. We friend, are regressing as a society and most don't even know it.

[Lord Gold]

I don't agree with Muslim religious laws like these, but still, you can't just strip someone of an award they obviously deserve just because of that small of a thing.

[chrisvet]

I think the problem here is that Chrisvet is thinking in terms of one united form of feminism and certain forms that have tried to adapt that into other forms.

YEM, however, is more accurately thinking of feminims as a group of ideologies that share the basic oppinion that there is inequality between men and women and that this should be ended. What constitutes that inequality, and how it should be ended, however differs hugely. The word 'subideologies' is confusing, however.

Indeed, sub ideologies mean shit, and any notion that inequalities were forced by tyrannical men are bullshit. Inequalities will always exist because we as human beings are Not equal. Thats why you're a better guitar player and I'm better at throwing a frisbee.

Feminism serves to force equal outcome, masked by words of equal opportunity. When the gaps continue to exist, they up the handicaps which serve to adversly affect our productivity. (on a work level.)

Even in mixed marathons you hear "woman wins for first time in history." Its not that her permformance was better than women from past years, its becasue they happened to increase handicaps for women prior to the race.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

I'm not going through this again Chris. And once again, a fucking Catholic website is not a source and definitely not an expert place for information on this, or most topics.

You continue to ignore the differences between different schools of thought of feminism.

I don't care if you think you won this "debate" or not. your post is so full of bullshit, I don't even know where to start. In fact, I wont start.

[chrisvet]

I'm not going through this again Chris. And once again, a fucking Catholic website is not a source and definitely not an expert place for information on this, or most topics.
You never went through anything? You copied / pasted some googled text discussing the different groups of feminism, and as you'll see were going to set that aside and assume you're correct just for the sake of focusing on the important points of this discussion.
You continue to ignore the differences between different schools of thought of feminism.
I don't care if you think you won this "debate" or not. your post is so full of bullshit, I don't even know where to start. In fact, I wont start.

Wow pretty disrespectful, I'm not fighting you and it has not about winning or losing. Call it a dicussion if it makes you feel better. Its about the fundamental principals of feminism and their affect on society. You haven't given me 1 argument to oppose the content of my posts other than a list of different types of feminism. Lets assume you're right and they exist, you're still avoiding 99% of the solid arguments put forth. As an atheiest, lets put aside the Xtian website for a moment and get a larger picture here:


The sole reason we evolved out of the stone age was because of a Patriarchy. Why?

A. Patriarchy: 2 parent home is proven to be the most effective forum for raising the most successful offspring.

Why? Because it elongates childhood due to more protection within the family unit, directly affects the age in which children hit puberty (at later dates), which direclty affects IQ (later puberty correlates with higher IQ because more time is alloted to learning from parental examples.) (SEE BOTTOM for elaboration)

B. Matriarchy: (single mother home) is the breeding ground of up to 90% of our murderers, rapists, criminals, theives, teen pregancies, drug abusers, alcohal abusers, children who achieve lower marks, lower paying jobs, poorer lifelong relationships and so forth.

Why? Because they have don't have a firm disciplinary father figure to keep them in line like a small dog who respects a strict father more than his mother who is too soft. (soft is bad.) Girls enter puberty younger in single mother homes, believed to be attributed to less strict guidlines, body therefore reacts to exposure to boys/men by earlier development. Girls are unable to create a non sexual relationship with a man (such as a father) therefore have difficulties later in life keeping relationships (when the thrill of sex runs out) & they also tend to whore around more for validation. They never learned how to relate to men properly.
Boys on the other hand have no real fear of a father and his strict discipline. This is no different than an out of control dog who thinks its ruler of the roost. Boys need guidance and "fear" to keep in line. They need a male role model more importantly than society claims. Feminism ultimately reduces fathers to biological sperm donars too afraid to discipline thier children for fear of losing visitation priveledges. (I have first hand experience with this from many friends who are victims of the system. Their kids pay the ultimate price by often becoming narcissistic little bastards with no respect for authority. The entire world revolves around them and they grow up sucking because of it. <See very bottom "Child worshipping" for elaboration>)

Patriarchy and its role in the world:

Asian: 5000 year old patriarchy; highest income earners in USA, highest IQ's in USA
Physical Traits: Elongated hips, flat curves due to later development, latest group to hit puberty.

Caucausion: 2000 year old patriarchy; middle income earners in USA, middle of the line IQ.s

Physical Traits: More shapely hips, more breast ass dev't in women, more muscular men than Asians.

African: Arguably NO patriarchy; lowest income earners in the USA, lowest IQ's and lowest income earners.

Physical traits: Most prominant hip features, curves, and breats, attributed to the earliest to hit puberty. Stronger more muscular men.

Africa was living in the stone age when our ancestors arrived there 300 years ago. Only becuase of our intervention have most of them come out of it.

Child Worshipping:

Our society has rendered men as sperm donars too afraid to discipline their children for fear of losing visitation priveleges. Pshchiatrists all conclude the highest quality offspring within 2 parent homes come when mom and dad put each other first, while ignoring the manipulative tactics children often do to 'test' how much they can get away with. Instead, we worship children as special little treasures, riddle our society with guilt when dad can't get out of the meeting to watch the kids hockey game (total bullshit!)
Its all a ploy to instill more guilt on men, more hatred towards men in the name of splitting families up. A mere bullshit attempt to feminize men & exaggerate child worship as a con to justify wealth redistribution (in the name of the child) when its nothing more than a Hitler philosophy.

"A society that believes it's working for the best interests of its children will suffer tremendous hardships." Adoph Hitler

Feminism has destroyed the family unit by giving boatloads of incentives for women to divorce or remain single by mothering 5 children from 4 different fathers.
Reasons include Welfare, Alimony, ridiculous division of assets, child support, baby bonues, mothers allowance and so forth. Women are rewarded with more money if a Man stays out of the picture. You can attribute this Totally to feminism, which explains the nearly total destruction of the black family unit (white America a work in progress soon to follow.)

Media:

Men are portrayed as bumbling idiots lucky enough to find a smart intellgent executive type woman to wipe his ass.

Women in the media regularly instill a doublestandard of violence towards men, and studies show female highschool violence up over 100% in recent years. Young women today are butchier, nastier, louder, and display the same chips on thier shoulders blacks do from years of 'victim' indoctrination processes. When you grow up believing whitey or "man" oppressed you, it fucks with your normal perception of the world. Women are victims of a government that instills anger & bullshit into their heads, based on lies and misleading statistics from a massive special interest industry that profits from the very wedges it instills between men & women.

[Henkie]

Whoa, are you saying that being raised by single mothers equals feminism? I mean: "People should not divorce, so we shouldn't allow women to vote" does that statement make sense?

[appleb]

If he cannot tolerate shaking hands with a woman, then we should not tolerate his extremist views.

[chrisvet]

Whoa, are you saying that being raised by single mothers equals feminism? I mean: "People should not divorce, so we shouldn't allow women to vote" does that statement make sense?
Reread the posts, all 3 of them. None of what you're saying makes a shred of sense, nor did I make the statements you incinuate.

[Henkie]

In that 3rd post, you define matriarchy as a single mother home and you use the suggested downsides of that as an argument against feminism. That's what I find wrong.

[bergshadow]

Asian: 5000 year old patriarchy; highest income earners in USA, highest IQ's in USA
Physical Traits: Elongated hips, flat curves due to later development, latest group to hit puberty.

Caucausion: 2000 year old patriarchy; middle income earners in USA, middle of the line IQ.s

Physical Traits: More shapely hips, more breast ass dev't in women, more muscular men than Asians.

African: Arguably NO patriarchy; lowest income earners in the USA, lowest IQ's and lowest income earners.

Physical traits: Most prominant hip features, curves, and breats, attributed to the earliest to hit puberty. Stronger more muscular men.

Africa was living in the stone age when our ancestors arrived there 300 years ago. Only becuase of our intervention have most of them come out of it. It's very difficult to choose the most ludicrous of those claims, in order to avoid a much longer essay than is deserved. We have claims that patriarchy was foreign to the African continent; that the Mongols of the Golden Horde were less muscular men than, say, the San or Kenyans; that (by implication) the Reds of North America were not muscular, and their women small breasted; likewise the Polynesians; likewise the red dot Indians (who were of course strongly patriarchal, all of them, we are told); and so forth. One wonders how the carvings on the walls of certain Asian temples fit into the "flatter curves" observation http://angkorblog.com/_wsn/page9.html but perhaps there were occasional lapses of patriarchy even among the superior, though unmuscled, Asian cultures.

Perhaps this will do: Iron was being smelted in West Africa a thousand years before Christ was born. Most peculiar activity for a "stone age" people.

[Redddragon895]

I think the dude is just being racist. A Nigerian woman? Come on, we know what they been having. :raiseeyeb

[bonenator]

People who are so fucking drowned in their religious diarreah that they won't partake in something as trivial and meaningless as shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex deserve no award other than biggest douche in the universe.

well uhh, looks like im gonna have to agree with dayve

[chrisvet]

In that 3rd post, you define matriarchy as a single mother home and you use the suggested downsides of that as an argument against feminism. That's what I find wrong.

Feminism creates SMH's and they breed all the bad things that were discussed. If its still unclear be more specific in your questions & revisit the material again. The answers are there.

It's very difficult to choose the most ludicrous of those claims, in order to avoid a much longer essay than is deserved

Overwhelming proof supports 2 parent homes = landslide success levels. Thats all that really matters, the theory in general is sound regarding ethnic background. Matriarcy's don't do fuck all for human advancement. They keep things in tune with nature, endless stats back it up, there's really no argument other than special exceptions.

[droogsteve]

Feminism creates SMH's and they breed all the bad things that were discussed. If its still unclear be more specific in your questions & revisit the material again. The answers are there.


You seem to saying that single mother households are some sort of plot by organized feminism to destroy the family unit. I say "seem to be" because I'm assuming that I must have misunderstood. Such a claim would show a level of paranoia that should probably be medically treated.


My brother and I were raised in a loving single mother household and my Mom was all for traditional values. She lived for things like spending all night decorating and hiding Easter eggs for us and her favorite day of the year was when we'd set up and decorate the Christmas tree. She was all about America and family, and would sooner walk out of the house naked than not fly the American flag out the window on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July.

I can assure you that my mother is FAR from a feminist, nor is she a commie or a supporter of the NWO. She was, however, unlucky enough to marry and have children with a nice young man who, only after marriage, showed his true colors as a violent drunk who would fuck anything with a set of tits.

Now in the more "traditional" past that you pine for, the social stigma of being a single mother combined with the lack of opportunity for women would have kept our "traditional family unit" together. My brother and I could have spent our childhoods in fear, tiptoeing around the minefield, desperately trying to avoid sending Dad into one of his drunken rages. Perhaps even learning from our "alpha male" role model to beat our own wives and children.

My mother decided that she wasn't going to allow that. I won't bore you with all of the unbelievable sacrifices she made to provide us with a safe, loving home (mine was a "deadbeat dad" before the term existed), but they were significant. If what she did was "feminism", then call me a feminist. I support any woman who would be brave enough to remove her children from such a situation.

The fact that you don't acknowledge that men can be and are just as responsible for single mother households as women shows that you're actually pushing an agenda, rather than having a discussion.

And BTW, some of your earlier claims, such as clothed touching being rape and foot stomping and yelling being domestic violence, are simply nonsense. There's not a legal jurisdiction in the country that would consider them such.

[Henkie]

Now in the more "traditional" past that you pine for, the social stigma of being a single mother combined with the lack of opportunity for women would have kept our "traditional family unit" together.

And this, to my mind, is the basic value of moderate feminism. Some marriages are really not meant to be. In general, I think that right now some people are too easy in both marrying and divorcing, but in cases like Droog describes it's best if the people concerned can part ways. And for this to be possible women have to be able to live a decent life without men involved.

[ChristopherM]

They need to assimilate or leave. Just look across Europe. They continually force or try and force their way of life on non-Muslims. If they need to live under Islam, they should move to an Islamic country. The two worlds are not the same.

[chrisvet]

You seem to saying that single mother households are some sort of plot by organized feminism to destroy the family unit. I say "seem to be" because I'm assuming that I must have misunderstood. Such a claim would show a level of paranoia that should probably be medically treated.

It is no secret original founding mothers of feminism understood the only means to true equality was through communism. These are not fairly tales of conspiracy, they are documented facts by many feminist pioneers including a well known feminist financer David Rockafeller. His take on it was to get more women into the work force to increase taxation, and to subsequently create more households to benifit big business. A wise financial move as an American financial leader. Nevertheless, these people do not speak for almost all participants within the feminist movement with good honest intentions.

The vast majority employed in womens special interest groups unknowingly contribute to the breakdown of the family unit by pushing for excessive safety nets and monetary incentives & negative anti male propaganda. This also includes stretched legal definitions and tougher laws. This leads to more statistical 'conflict' which is a fundamental principal of ensuring next years funding. The result is no different than what we see in black America with indoctrinated victim mindsets, contempt for 'whitey' or in this case men. In 2002 the numbers of divorce initiated by women were 66% (http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html), but have grown to upwards of 80%. This comes as no surprise. Most of what you know as fact is witchhunt propaganda. DV rates are almost equal amongst men/women hovering around 2.5%.

My brother and I were raised in a loving single mother household and my Mom was all for traditional values. She lived for things like spending all night decorating and hiding Easter eggs for us and her favorite day of the year was when we'd set up and decorate the Christmas tree. She was all about America and family, and would sooner walk out of the house naked than not fly the American flag out the window on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July.

I as well was raised in a single parent family, and quite confidently agree there are many good women who raise successful families. From reading your posts and gathering small bits of your personal information, it appears she did a very good job.

I can assure you that my mother is FAR from a feminist, nor is she a commie or a supporter of the NWO. She was, however, unlucky enough to marry and have children with a nice young man who, only after marriage, showed his true colors as a violent drunk who would fuck anything with a set of tits. Now in the more "traditional" past that you pine for, the social stigma of being a single mother combined with the lack of opportunity for women would have kept our "traditional family unit" together. My brother and I could have spent our childhoods in fear, tiptoeing around the minefield, desperately trying to avoid sending Dad into one of his drunken rages. Perhaps even learning from our "alpha male" role model to beat our own wives and children. You're situation turned out for the good, as many do including my own. My own father to this day is a abusive drunk. The argument (and quite factual I may add) that is presented is upwards of 90% of what we consider bad is bred in single mother homes. This isn't an insult to you or I, but a reflection of factual evidence.

My mother decided that she wasn't going to allow that. I won't bore you with all of the unbelievable sacrifices she made to provide us with a safe, loving home (mine was a "deadbeat dad" before the term existed), but they were significant. If what she did was "feminism", then call me a feminist. I support any woman who would be brave enough to remove her children from such a situation. My own mother subscribed to many of the same sacrifices, and considers herself non feminist. (born in Holland in 1928, and is very old school.)

The fact that you don't acknowledge that men can be and are just as responsible for single mother households as women shows that you're actually pushing an agenda, rather than having a discussion. There is no agenda, men / women are capable of the same 'evil's, both only reactionary to societal constructs built around them. I stand for equality under the law, and thats where it ends. The pendulum has pushed to far, with endless enitlements / support / incentive for women to leave men out of the picture by rewarding them for having 5 children from 4 different men. This garbage generation (http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html)and the crime it breeds is one of the issues I take quite seriously and focus on.

And BTW, some of your earlier claims, such as clothed touching being rape and foot stomping and yelling being domestic violence, are simply nonsense. There's not a legal jurisdiction in the country that would consider them such.Foot stomping / and other displays of anger that don't involve physical harm to the other party are imtimidation that are indeed classed as Domestic violence that will promptly land you arrested and jailed for the evening as the 'primary aggressor." Fully clothed inappropriate touching is also indeed a class of rape / sexual assault.

Steve, there is no agenda here other than several years of study to understand something that had been troubling me from my early 30's. I seen too many of my friends lose substantial assets / quality of life from short failed marriages. At 30 I had accumulated more than most do in a lifetime, and prior to my marriage a figure near the 5 million mark. Starting @ 17 as a super agressive kid, I eventually became my business running my life in the same manner. I simply avoid bad financial decisions @ all costs and deem modern day Marriage as one of the worst 'contracts' in the history of mankind. The answers I have are without a lie what I compare to a PHD on the subject.

BTW, another thing to think about is the growing number of deadbeat losers who abandon their families. Many of these guys are products of: Guess: Single mother homes where they lacked the example of stability & a strong male role model.

And this, to my mind, is the basic value of moderate feminism. Some marriages are really not meant to be. In general, I think that right now some people are too easy in both marrying and divorcing, but in cases like Droog describes it's best if the people concerned can part ways. And for this to be possible women have to be able to live a decent life without men involved.Henkie, you are a socialist, and its no secret my numerous relatives in the nederlands are as well. Its all they know. However, I will again tell you SMH's breed everything we deem bad. Endless safety nets actually regress society whether you think it good or not. They take the incentive for many women to take marriage seriously. The idea that tax dollars give incentives for women to raise children in fatherless environments is societal suicide.

[delldell]

How about when we can send people to Mars we let the muslims or if needed deport the worlds' muslims there? They won't be able to offend anyone then.

[powerlifter007]

I would have taken his award away just because he is muslim.

[Yuseke]

I would have taken his award away just because he is muslim.

I herd u liek football MMOs

[MurdocUSA]

People who are so fucking drowned in their religious diarreah that they won't partake in something as trivial and meaningless as shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex deserve no award other than biggest douche in the universe.

But you already hold that title Dayve…

I personally think the organization should be shunned for refusing the man his award. His refusal to shake a woman’s hand was not an intentional insult. I see it as a man with conviction who would rather be faithful to his religion and beliefs than accept the award.

They could have found some middle ground and still allowed the man his award.

[MadameX]

I hate to bump this thread, but... my Lord, another one becomes a personal soapbox for Chrisvet and his anti-woman paranoia.

Sometimes, kid, I can actually dig you. But when you get like this, it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[chrisvet]

Geezus god damnit woman :wah: its not anti woman, its a list of observations within our system.

Stop taking it personally.

[MadameX]

I'm not taking it personally. What you say doesn't affect me after I initially read the thread. Your misinformation really thrills me though.

[chrisvet]

I'm not taking it personally. What you say doesn't affect me after I initially read the thread. Your misinformation really thrills me though.

Fixed to include the female POV:

"Everything chrisvet posted in this thread is 100% wrong."









and yes, gl w/your move to Italy.