"Anti-Feminist" Goons

[elijahcraig]

"Men's Defense" (http://www.mensdefense.org/)

This is pathetic as well.

[Loknar]

What is so pathetic about it? I am glad there is something countering those butch dikes at NOW.

[FistFullOfSteel]

i think its bad...poor womens they get lower pay :(

[Loknar]

That's bullshit, affirmative action also effects women of every color. And women generally make less at times because they work less hours, that's a little tid bit the feminazis don’t want you to know.

But I dont see how this site is anti-feminst. Feminists are ok , it's these radical lesbos who have spikey hair and wear slacks that are the problem.

[Vinny Rafarino]

'cos we all know "spiking" your hair and wearing trousers makes you less of a valued worker, less of a woman and even less of a human being.


You're pathetic.

[Soul Rebel]

Wow Loknar im really glad that those stereotypes have really helped you figure out exactly what feminism is about. Could you be any more of an ass?

And yeah Mens Defense is anti-feminist. I've checked it out a bunch of times and its nothing but crap. These are men that feel threatened by feminism. They feel like they are losing power, their unearned priviledge to the feminist movement, which is looking for an equal ground for men and womyn.

But not all men feel threatened by it. I have found a couple of sites that are by men who support the feminist movement. They have acknowledged that they too will gain something from it and that its nothing to fear.

By the way Loknar- NOW isnt a radical butch lesbo fem group. They are a liberal feminist group that actually used to deny that lesbian issues are feminist issues. So before you start talking shit why dont you take the time to get the facts straight?

[Scottish_Militant]

The site is pathetic, but I also don't support feminism as it diverts attention from the real issues, mainly the need to overthrow capitalism.

[Hampton]

You must feel that way about other minorities civil rights too, huh? But, as far as I'm concerned when an oppressed peoples fight for the right to be treated as an equal, it's a real issue.

[Rastafari]

Of course he does.
and yes, it IS the Issue, before peace, poverty, or power.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I completely agree with hampton. Communism is absolutely about liberating any group from oppression, whether it's a class issue or a gender one, it is still our jobs as socialists to defend civil rights movements. You must also realize that it is a fact that women receive unequal treatment, and if you accept that by not being a feminist, active or otherwise, then you accept chauvinism.

[Scottish_Militant]

For Marxists, the root cause of all forms of oppression consists in the division of society into classes. For many feminists, on the other hand, the oppression of women is rooted in the nature of men. It is not a social but a biological phenomenon. This is an entirely static, unscientific and undialectical conception of the human race. It is an unhistorical vision of the human condition, from which profoundly pessimistic conclusions must flow. For if we accept that there is something inherent in men which causes them to oppress women, it is difficult to see how the present situation will ever be remedied. The conclusion must be that the oppression of women by men has always existed and therefore, presumably, will always exist.

Marxism explains that this is not the case. It shows that, along with class society, private property and the state, the bourgeois family has not always existed, and that the oppression of women is only as old as the division of society into classes. Its abolition is therefore dependent on the abolition of classes, that is, on the socialist revolution. This does not mean that the oppression of women will automatically vanish when the proletariat takes power. The psychological heritage of class barbarism will finally be overcome when the social conditions are created for the establishment of real human relations between men and women. But unless and until the proletariat overthrows capitalism and lays the conditions for the achievement of a classless society, no genuine emancipation of women is possible.

In order to bring about the socialist revolution, it is necessary to unite the working class and its organisations, cutting across all lines of language, nationality, race, religion and sex. This implies, on the one hand, that the working class must take upon itself the task of fighting against all forms of oppression and exploitation, and place itself at the head of all the oppressed layers of society, and on the other, must decisively reject all attempts to divide it - even when these attempts are made by sections of the oppressed themselves.

Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women (http://www.marxist.com/women/marxism_v_feminism.html)

[Scottish_Militant]

Also Lenin on feminsm....

"The thesis must clearly point out that real freedom for women is possible only through communism. The inseparable connection between the social and human position of the woman, and private property in the means of production, must be strongly brought out. That will draw a clear and ineradicable line of distinction between our policy and feminism. And it will also supply the basis for regarding the woman question as a part of the social question, of the workers' problem, and so bind it firmly to the proletarian class struggle and the revolution. The communist women's movement must itself be a mass movement, a part of the general mass movement. Not only of the proletariat, but of all the exploited and oppressed, all the victims of capitalism or any other mastery. In that lies its significance for the class struggles of the proletariat and for its historical creation communist society. We can rightly be proud of the fact that in the Party, in the Communist International, we have the flower of revolutionary woman kind. But that is not enough. We must win over to our side the millions of working women in the towns and villages. Win them for our struggles and in particular for the communist transformation of society. There can be no real mass movement without women."

"Our ideological conceptions give rise to principles of organisation. No special organisations for women. A woman communist is a member of the Party just as a man communist, with equal rights and duties. There can be no difference of opinion on that score. Nevertheless, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the Party must have bodies, working groups, commissions, committees, bureaus or whatever you like, whose particular duty it is to arouse the masses of women workers, to bring them into contact with the Party, and to keep them under Its influence. That, of course, involves systematic work among them. We must train those whom we arouse and win, and equip them for the proletarian class struggle under the leadership of the Communist Party. I am thinking not only of proletarian women, whether they work in the factory or at home. The poor peasant women, the petty bourgeois--they, too, are the prey of capitalism, and more so than ever since the war. The unpolitical, unsocial, backward psychology of these women, their isolated sphere of activity, the entire manner of their life--these are facts. It would be absurd to overlook them, absolutely absurd. We need appropriate bodies to carry on work amongst them, special methods of agitation and forms of organisation. That is not feminism, that is practical, revolutionary expediency."

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:06 PM
The site is pathetic, but I also don't support feminism as it diverts attention from the real issues, mainly the need to overthrow capitalism.
No feminism does not do that at all. Feminism has worked very hard to challenge capitalism- why do you think womyn are considered second class citizens? Why else would they get treated differently? Feminism recognizes that in order to turn around how womyn, racial minorities, the handicap, the old, the gay, etc. capitalism needs to be done away with. Patriarchy can not survive without capitalism and vice versa, so in order to stomp out all forms of oppression they need to be done away with.

Before you start criticizing feminism and saying that it does no good you should learn what feminism really is, what it stands for, what it does, and the different types of feminism. Feminism has been one of the main challengers of capitalism and if you actually read up on feminism you would see this.

If feminism didnt challenge capitalism there would be no such thing as Socialist Feminists, Marxist Feminists, and Global Feminists.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:34 PM
You must feel that way about other minorities civil rights too, huh? But, as far as I'm concerned when an oppressed peoples fight for the right to be treated as an equal, it's a real issue.
Beautifully said Hampton- i totally agree :)

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 03:36 PM
For Marxists, the root cause of all forms of oppression consists in the division of society into classes. For many feminists, on the other hand, the oppression of women is rooted in the nature of men. It is not a social but a biological phenomenon. This is an entirely static, unscientific and undialectical conception of the human race. It is an unhistorical vision of the human condition, from which profoundly pessimistic conclusions must flow. For if we accept that there is something inherent in men which causes them to oppress women, it is difficult to see how the present situation will ever be remedied. The conclusion must be that the oppression of women by men has always existed and therefore, presumably, will always exist.

Marxism explains that this is not the case. It shows that, along with class society, private property and the state, the bourgeois family has not always existed, and that the oppression of women is only as old as the division of society into classes. Its abolition is therefore dependent on the abolition of classes, that is, on the socialist revolution. This does not mean that the oppression of women will automatically vanish when the proletariat takes power. The psychological heritage of class barbarism will finally be overcome when the social conditions are created for the establishment of real human relations between men and women. But unless and until the proletariat overthrows capitalism and lays the conditions for the achievement of a classless society, no genuine emancipation of women is possible.

In order to bring about the socialist revolution, it is necessary to unite the working class and its organisations, cutting across all lines of language, nationality, race, religion and sex. This implies, on the one hand, that the working class must take upon itself the task of fighting against all forms of oppression and exploitation, and place itself at the head of all the oppressed layers of society, and on the other, must decisively reject all attempts to divide it - even when these attempts are made by sections of the oppressed themselves.

Marxism versus feminism - The class struggle and the emancipation of women (http://www.marxist.com/women/marxism_v_feminism.html)
Sorry, but once again you are wrong. As a feminist and womyns studies major I can tell you that throughout all my studies and meeting other feminists there is pretty much an agreement that the way womyn are treated is not because of the nature of men, but because of social forces!!! It is exactly this biologically based thinking that feminists are trying to fight!!! Biologically based theories when thinking of the sexes is a capitalist tool, not a feminist tool. Capitalist society uses biology as a method to keep the sexes different and therefore unequal.

Once again, i suggest you do some reading on what feminism really is.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

LOL Mens Defense is such a sexist peice of shit! How the fuck could they feel women's equality will be taking over thier rights? What a bunch of losers! I bet they think the woman's place is in the home!

They should wake up, its the 21st century!
Idiots! Sexist Pigs! Fuckfaces!

[elijahcraig]

I could comment...but there's already so many people who have OWNED loknar like a beagle, it's just not necessary. :lol:

[Dark Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:41 AM
Also Lenin on feminsm....

"The thesis must clearly point out that real freedom for women is possible only through communism. The inseparable connection between the social and human position of the woman, and private property in the means of production, must be strongly brought out. That will draw a clear and ineradicable line of distinction between our policy and feminism. And it will also supply the basis for regarding the woman question as a part of the social question, of the workers' problem, and so bind it firmly to the proletarian class struggle and the revolution. The communist women's movement must itself be a mass movement, a part of the general mass movement. Not only of the proletariat, but of all the exploited and oppressed, all the victims of capitalism or any other mastery. In that lies its significance for the class struggles of the proletariat and for its historical creation communist society. We can rightly be proud of the fact that in the Party, in the Communist International, we have the flower of revolutionary woman kind. But that is not enough. We must win over to our side the millions of working women in the towns and villages. Win them for our struggles and in particular for the communist transformation of society. There can be no real mass movement without women."

"Our ideological conceptions give rise to principles of organisation. No special organisations for women. A woman communist is a member of the Party just as a man communist, with equal rights and duties. There can be no difference of opinion on that score. Nevertheless, we must not close our eyes to the fact that the Party must have bodies, working groups, commissions, committees, bureaus or whatever you like, whose particular duty it is to arouse the masses of women workers, to bring them into contact with the Party, and to keep them under Its influence. That, of course, involves systematic work among them. We must train those whom we arouse and win, and equip them for the proletarian class struggle under the leadership of the Communist Party. I am thinking not only of proletarian women, whether they work in the factory or at home. The poor peasant women, the petty bourgeois--they, too, are the prey of capitalism, and more so than ever since the war. The unpolitical, unsocial, backward psychology of these women, their isolated sphere of activity, the entire manner of their life--these are facts. It would be absurd to overlook them, absolutely absurd. We need appropriate bodies to carry on work amongst them, special methods of agitation and forms of organisation. That is not feminism, that is practical, revolutionary expediency."
It'll exists wether you like it or not.

Men are by their nature the dominant sex.

[Umoja]

I tend to view Sexism as something "built into" most mammals, but it's really hard to say because it works in degrees. If you look at different human cultures you will usually find gender, some are less defined. This does not exclude me from being pro-feminist, but I don't think sexism can be purely attributed to capitalism.

[Loknar]

Ok, Hampton, where did I bring up minorities not having civil rights? All you do is bring that crap up. Sheez I am sick of people in America using color as a reason to be lazy asses all their life. Hampton, do you always use race when it is completely irreverent to the conversation? I wasn’t talking about minorities.

[mentalbunny]

Well I don't think that feminism and Marxism or whatever you want work against each other, or at least they don't have to. They can work very well together, as someone has already said women are second class citizens in most parts of the world, women do the lowest paid jobs because they are often seen as "women's work", and these jobs were invented by capitalism which meant that other people were doing other jobs so they couldn't look after their own kids/elderly/homes.

it's a bit more complicated than that, and I don't know that much about it, but if it's done right marxism/communism/socialism can work really well along side and in conjunction with feminism. Feminists are not pro-women, they are pro-equality, and not just for women but for all races, for disabled and for different classes (equality of opportunity obviously, not plain equality because we all know things don't work like that and different people have different abilites and needs, etc etc). So although women aren't a minority, their issues are closely related to minority issues.

Please correct or clarilfy if I've said something silly.

[Hampton]

Ok, Hampton, where did I bring up minorities not having civil rights? All you do is bring that crap up. Sheez I am sick of people in America using color as a reason to be lazy asses all their life. Hampton, do you always use race when it is completely irreverent to the conversation? I wasn’t talking about minorities.

The question wasn't directed at you asshat. It was directed towards communist_revolutionary who said that the issue of feminism diverts us from the real issue and since most women are not on the level of your average white male, I was wondering if he felt the issue of other minorities were also diverting attention from the overthrow of the government. I didn't quote what you said in my post because I wasn't responding to you, next time I'll make sure to have the words THIS POST IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO WHAT LOKNAR SAID IN THIS THREAD, THANK YOU. at the top in ensure no further confusion takes place.

And I obviously wasn't the only one who tought when you said Africans have sex with monkeys that it sounded a bit fucked up. And what does this:
Sheez I am sick of people in America using color as a reason to be lazy asses all their life. have to do with anything?

[Loknar]

Well shit Hampton quote the person who you are addressing next time.

[Eastside Revolt]

"Marxist Feminism / Materialist Feminism"
by Martha E. Gimenez
[Copyright Martha E. Gimenez, 1998]

It was possible, in the heady days of the Women's Liberation Movement, to identify four main currents within feminist thought; Liberal (concerned with attaining economic and political equality within the context of capitalism); Radical (focused on men and patriarchy as the main causes of the oppression of women); Socialist (critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that avoidance of Marxism's alleged reductionisms resulted in dual systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between capitalism and patriarchy); and Marxist Feminism (a theoretical position held by relatively few feminists in the U. S. -- myself included -- which sought to develop the potential of Marxist theory to understand the capitalist sources of the oppression of women).

These are, of course, oversimplified descriptions of a rich and complex body of literature which, however, reflected important theoretical, political and social cleavages among women that continue to this date. Divisions in feminist thought multiplied as the effects of post-structuralist and post-modern theorizing merged with grass roots challenges to a feminism perceived as the expression of the needs and concerns of middle and upper middle class white, "First World" women. In the process, the subject of feminism became increasingly difficult to define, as the post- modern critique of "woman" as an essentialist category together with critiques grounded in racial, ethnic, sexual preference and national origin differences resulted in a seemingly never ending proliferation of "subject positions," "identities," and "voices." Cultural and identity politics replaced the early focus on capitalism and (among Marxist feminists primarily) class divisions among women; today class has been reduced to another "ism;" i.e., to another form oppression which, together with gender and race integrate a sort of mantra, something that everyone ought to include in theorizing and research though, to my knowledge, theorizing about it remains at the level of metaphors (e.g., interweaving, interaction, interconnection etc.).

It was, therefore, very interesting to me to read, a few years ago, a call for papers for an edited book on Materialist Feminism. The description of Materialist Feminism put forth by the editors, Chrys Ingraham and Rosemary Hennessy, was to me indistinguishable from Marxist Feminism. This seemed such a promising development in feminist theory that I proceeded to invite the editors to join me in creating an electronic discussion list on Materialist Feminism, MatFem. Initially, I thought that Materialist Feminism was simply another way of referring to Marxist Feminism, but I was mistaken; the two are, to some extent, distinct forms of feminist theorizing. There is, however, such similarities between Materialist and Marxist Feminist thought in some feminists' work that some degree of confusion between the two is to be expected.

My goal, in this introduction to the page, is to explore the differences and the similarities between these two important currents within feminist theory. This is not an easy task; theorists who self-identify as materialist or as marxist feminists differ in their understanding of what those descriptive labels mean and, consequently, the kind of knowledges they produce. And, depending on their theoretical allegiances and self-understanding within the field, feminists may differ in their classification of other feminists works, so that clear lines of theoretical demarcation between and within these two umbrella terms are somewhat difficult to establish. Take, for example, Lise Vogel's work. I always considered her a Marxist Feminist because, unlike Socialist Feminists (whose avoidance of Marx's alleged reductionisms led them to postulate ahistorical theories of patriarchy), she took Marxism seriously and developed her analysis of reproduction as a basis for the oppression of women firmly within the Marxist tradition. But the subtitle of her recent book (a collection of previously published essays), is "Essays for a Materialist Feminism;" self-identifying as a socialist feminist, she states that socialist feminists "sought to replace the socialist tradition's theorizing about the woman question with a 'materialist' understanding of women's oppression" (Vogel, 1995, p. xi). This is certainly news to me; Socialist Feminism's rejection of Marx's and Marxism's "reductionism" lead to the deliberate effort to ground "patriarchy" outside the mode of production and, consequently and from the standpoint of Marxist theory, outside history. Materialism, Vogel tells us, was used to highlight the key role of production, including domestic production, in understanding the conditions leading to the oppression of women. (But wasn't Engels' analysis materialist? and didn't Marxist Feminists [Margaret Benston and Peggy Morton come to mind) explore the ways production -- public and domestic -- oppressed and exploited women?) Materialism was also used as "a flag," to situate Socialist Feminism within feminist thought and within the left; materialist feminism, consequently cannot be reduced to a trend in cultural studies, as some literary critics would prefer (Vogel, 1995, xii).

These brief comments about Vogel's understanding of Materialist Feminism highlight some of its problematic aspects as a term intended to identify a specific trend within feminist theory. It can blur, as it does in this instance, the qualitative differences that existed and continue to exist between Socialist Feminism, the dominant strand of feminist thought in the U.S. during the late 1960s and 1970s, and the marginalized Marxist Feminism. I am not imputing such motivations to Lise Vogel; I am pointing out the effects of such an interpretation of U.S. Socialist Feminism which, despite the use of Marxist terms and references to capitalism, developed, theoretically, as a sort of feminist abstract negation of Marxism. Other feminists, for different reasons, would also disagree with Vogel's interpretation; for example, for Toril Moi and Janice Radway, the relationship between Socialist Feminism and Materialist Feminism "is far from clear" (Moi and Radway, 1994: 749). Acknowledging the problematic nature of the term, in a special issue of The South Atlantic Quarterly dedicated to this topic they do not offer a theory of Materialist Feminism, nor a clear definition of the term. Presumably, the articles included in this issue will give the reader the elements necessary to define the term for herself because all the authors "share a commitment to concrete historical and cultural analysis, and to feminism understood as an 'emancipatory narrative'"(Moi and Radway, 1994:750). One of these authors, Jennifer Wicke, defines it as follows: "a feminism that insists on examining the material conditions under which social arrangements, including those of gender hierarchy, develop... materialist feminism avoids seeing this (gender hierarchy) as the effect of a singular....patriarchy and instead gauges the web of social and psychic relations that make up a material, historical moment" (Wicke, 1994: 751);"...materialist feminism argues that material conditions of all sorts play a vital role in the social production of gender and assays the different ways in which women collaborate and participate in these productions"... "there are areas of material interest in the fact hat women can bear children... Materialist feminism... is less likely than social constructionism to be embarrassed by the occasional material importance of sex differences.."(Wicke, 1994: 758-759).

Insistence on the importance of material conditions, the material historical moments as a complex of social relations which include and influence gender hierarchy, the materiality of the body and its sexual, reproductive and other biological functions remain, however, abstract pronouncements which unavoidably lead to an empiricist focus on the immediately given. There is no theory of history or of social relations or of the production of gender hierarchies that could give guidance about the meaning of whatever it is observed in a given "material historical moment."

Landry and MacLean, authors of MATERIALIST FEMINISMS (1993), tell us that theirs is a book "about feminism and Marxism" in which they examine the debates between feminism and Marxism in the U.S. and Britain and explore the implications of those debates for literary and cultural theory. The terrain of those early debates, which were aimed at a possible integration or synthesis between Marxism and feminism, shifted due to the emergence of identity politics, concern with postcolonialism, sexuality, race, nationalism, etc., and the impact of postmodernism and post- structuralism. The new terrain has to do with the "construction of a materialist analysis of culture informed by and responsive to the concerns of women, as well as people of color and other marginalized groups" (Landry and MacLean, 1993: ix-x). For Landry and Maclean, Materialist Feminism is a "critical reading practice...the critical investigation, or reading in the strong sense, of the artifacts of culture and social history, including literary and artistic texts, archival documents, and works of theory... (is) a potential site of political contestation through critique, not through the constant reiteration of home-truths" (ibid, pp. x-xi). Theirs is a "deconstructive materialist feminist perspective" (ibid, p. xiii). But what, precisely, does materialist mean in this context? What theory of history and what politics inform this critique? Although they define materialism in a philosophical and moral sense, and bring up the difference between mechanical or "vulgar"materialism and historical materialism, there is no definition of what materialism means when linked to feminism. Cultural materialism, as developed in Raymond William's work, is presented as a remedy or supplement to Marx's historical materialism. There is, according to Williams, an "indissoluble connection between material production, political and cultural institutions and activity, and consciousness ... Language is practical consciousness, a way of thinking and acting in the world that has material consequences (ibid, p. 5). Williams, they point out, "strives to put human subjects as agents of culture back into materialist debate" (ibid, p. 5).

The implications of these statements is that "humans as agents of culture" are not present in historical materialism and that Marx's views on the relationship between material conditions, language, and consciousness are insufficient. But anyone familiar with Marx's work knows that this is not the case. In fact, it is Marx who wrote that "language is practical consciousness" and posited language as the matter that burdens "spirit" from the very start, for consciousness is always and from the very first a social product (Marx, [1845-46] 1994, p.117).

Landry and Maclean present an account of the development of feminist thought from the late 1960s to the present divided in three moments: the encounters and debates between marxism and feminism in Britain and the U.S.; the institutionalization and commodification of feminism; and "deconstructive materialist feminism." These are "three moments of materialist feminism" (ibid, p.15), a very interesting statement that suggest that Materialist Feminism -- a rather problematic and elusive concept which reflects, in my view, postmodern sensibilities about culture and about the subject of feminism -- had always been there, from the very beginning, just waiting to be discovered. Is that really the case? If so, what is this materialism that lurked under the variety of feminist theories produced on both sides of the Atlantic since the late 1960s? Does reference to "material conditions" in general or to "the material conditions of the oppression of women" suffice as a basis for constructing a new theoretical framework, qualitatively different from a Marxist Feminism? If so, how? The authors argue that feminist theories focused exclusively on gender and dual systems theories that bring together gender and class analysis face methodological and political problems that "deconstructive reading practices can help solve;" they propose "the articulation of discontinuous movements, materialism and feminism, an articulation that takes the political claims of deconstruction seriously... deconstruction as tool of political critique (ibid, p. 12-13). But isn't the linking between deconstruction and Marxism what gives it its critical edge? It is in the conclusion that the authors, aiming to demonstrate that materialism is not an alias for Marxism, outline the difference between Marxist Feminism and Materialist Feminism as follows:

"Marxist feminism holds class contradictions and class analysis central, and has tried various ways of working an analysis of gender oppression around this central contradiction. In addition to class contradictions and contradictions within gender ideology... we are arguing that materialist feminism should recognize as material other contradictions as well. These contradictions also have histories, operate in ideologies, and are grounded in material bases and effects.... they should be granted material weight in social and literary analysis calling itself materialist.... these categories would include...ideologies of race, sexuality, imperialism and colonialism and anthropocentrism, with their accompanying radical critiques" (ibid, p. 229).

While this is helpful to understand what self-identified materialist feminists mean when they refer to their framework, it does not shed light on the meaning of material base, material effect, material weight. The main concept, materialism, remains undefined and references to ideologies, exploitation, imperialism, oppression, colonialism, etc. confirm precisely that which the authors intended to dispel: materialism would seem to be an alias for Marxism.

Rosemary Hennessy (1993) traces the origins of Materialist Feminism in the work of British and French feminists who preferred the term materialist feminism to Marxist feminism because, in their view, Marxism had to be transformed to be able to explain the sexual division of labor (Beechey, 1977: 61, cited in Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978: 8). In the 1970s, Hennessy states, Marxism was inadequate to the task because of its class bias and focus on production, while feminism was also problematic due to its essentialist and idealist concept of woman; this is why materialist feminism emerged as a positive alternative both to Marxism and feminism (Hennessy, 1993: xii). The combined effects of the postmodern critique of the empirical self and the criticisms voiced by women who did not see themselves included in the generic woman subject of academic feminist theorizing resulted, in the 1990s, in materialist feminist analyses that "problematize 'woman' as an obvious and homogeneous empirical entity in order to explore how 'woman' as a discursive category is historically constructed and traversed by more than one differential axis" (Hennessy, 1993: xii). Furthermore, Hennessy argues, despite the postmodern rejection of totalities and theoretical analyses of social systems, materialist feminists need to hold on to the critique of the totalities which affect women's lives: patriarchy and capitalism. Women's lives are every where affected by world capitalism and patriarchy and it would be politically self-defeating to replace that critique with localized, fragmented political strategies and a perception of social reality as characterized by a logic of contingency.

Hennessy's views on the characteristics of Materislist Feminism emerge through her critical engagement with the works of Laclau and Mouffe, Foucault, Kristeva and other theorists of the postmodern. Materialist Feminism is a "way of reading" that rejects the dominant pluralist paradigms and logics of contingency and seeks to establish the connections between the discursively constructed differentiated subjectivities that have replaced the generic "woman" in feminist theorizing, and the hierarchies of inequality that exploit and oppress women. Subjectivities, in other words, cannot be understood in isolation from systemically organized totalities. Materialist Feminism, as a reading practice, is also a way of explaining or re-writing and making sense of the world and, as such, influences reality through the knowledges it produces about the subject and her social context. Discourse and knowledge have materiality in their effects; one of the material effects of discourse is the construction of the subject but this subject is traversed by differences grounded in hierarchies of inequality which are not local or contingent but historical and systemic, such as patriarchy and capitalism. Difference, consequently, is not mere plurality but inequality. The problem of the material relationship between language, discourse, and the social or between the discursive (feminist theory) and the non-discursive (women's lives divided by exploitative and oppressive social relations) can be resolved through the conceptualization of discourse as ideology . A theory of ideology presupposes a theory of the social and this theory, which informs Hennessy's critical reading of postmodern theories of the subject, discourse, positionality, language, etc., is what she calls a "global analytic" which, in light of her references to multinational capitalism, the international division of labor, overdetermined economic, political and cultural practices, etc, is at the very least a kind of postmodern Marxism. But references to historical materialism, and Althusser's theory of ideology and the notion of symptomatic reading are so important in the development of her arguments that one wonders about her hesitation to name Marx and historical materialism as the theory of the social underlying her critique of the postmodern logic of contingency; i.e., the theory of capitalism, the totality she so often mentions together with patriarchy as sources of the exploitation and oppression of women and as the basis for the "axis of differences" that traverse the discursive category "woman." To sum up, Hennessy's version of Materialist Feminism is a blend of post-marxism and postmodern theories of the subject and a source of "readings" and "re- writings" which rescue postmodern categories of analysis (subject, discourse, difference) from the conservative limbo of contingency, localism and pluralism to historicize them or contextualizing them by connecting them to their systemic material basis in capitalism and patriarchy. This is made possible by understanding discourse as ideology and linking ideology to its material base in the "global analytic."

In Hennessy's analysis, historical materialism seems like an ever present but muted shadow, latent under terms such as totality, systemic, and global analytic. However, in the introduction to MATERIALIST FEMINISM: A Reader in Class, Difference and Women's Lives (1997), written with her co-editor, Chrys Ingraham, there is a clear, unambiguous return to historical materialism, a recognition of its irreplaceable importance for feminist theory and politics. This introduction, entitled "Reclaiming Anticapitalist Feminism," is a critique of the dominant feminist concern with culture, identity and difference considered in isolation from any systemic understanding of the social forces that affect women's lives, and a critique of an academic feminism that has marginalized and disparaged the knowledges produced by the engagement of feminists with Marxism and their contributions to feminist scholarship and to the political mobilization of women. More importantly, this introduction is a celebration of Marxist Feminism whose premises and insights have been consistently "misread, distorted, or buried under the weight of a flourishing postmodern cultural politics" (ibid, p.5). They point out that, whatever the name of the product of feminists efforts to grapple with historical materialism (marxist feminism, socialist feminism or materialist feminism), these are names that signal theoretical differences and emphases but which together indicate the recognition of historical materialism as the source of emancipatory knowledge required for the success of the feminist project. In this introduction, materialist feminism becomes a term used interchangeably with marxist feminism, with the latter being the most prominently displayed. The authors draw a clear line between the cultural materialism that characterizes the work of post-marxist feminists who, having rejected historical materialism, analyze cultural, ideological and political practices in isolation from their material base in capitalism, and materialist feminism (i.e., marxist or socialist feminism) which is firmly grounded in historical materialism and links the success of feminist struggles to the success of anticapitalist struggles; "unlike cultural feminists, materialist, socialist and marxist feminists do not see culture as the whole of social life but rather as only one arena of social production and therefore as only one area of feminist struggle" (ibid, p. 7). The authors differentiate materialist feminism from marxist feminism by indicating that it is the end result of several discourses (historical materialism, marxist and radical feminism, and postmodern and psychoanalytic theories of meaning and subjectivity) among which the postmodern input, in their view, is the source of its defining characteristics. Nevertheless, in the last paragraphs of the introduction there is a return to the discussion of marxist feminism, its critiques of the idealist features of postmodernism and the differences between the postmodern and the historical materialist or marxist analyses of representations of identity. But, they point out, theoretical conflicts do not occur in isolation from class conflicts and the latter affect the divisions among professional feminists and their class allegiances. Feminists are divided in their attitudes towards capitalism and their understanding of the material conditions of oppression; to be a feminist is not necessarily to be anticapitalist and to be a materialist feminist is not equivalent to being socialist or even critical of the status quo. In fact, "work that claims the signature "materialist feminism" shares much in common with cultural feminism, in that it does not set out to explain or change the material realities that link women's oppression to class" (ibid, p.9). Marxist feminism, on the other hand, does make the connection between the oppression of women and capitalism and this is why the purpose of their book, according to the authors, is "to reinsert into materialist feminism -- especially in those overdeveloped sectors where this collection will be most widely read -- those (untimely) marxist feminist knowledges that the drift to cultural politics in postmodern feminism has suppressed. It is our hope that in so doing this project will contribute to the emergence of feminisms' third wave and its revival as a critical force for transformative social change (ibid, p. 9).

In light of the above, given the inherent ambiguity of the term Materialist Feminism, shouldn't it be more theoretically adequate and politically fruitful to return to Marxist Feminism? Is the effort of struggling to redefine Materialist Feminism by reinserting Marxist Feminist knowledges a worthwhile endeavor? How important is it to broaden the notion of Materialist Feminism to include Marxist Feminist contents? Perhaps the political climate inside and outside the academy is one where Marxism is so discredited that Marxist Feminists are likely to find more acceptance and legitimacy by claiming Materialist Feminism as their theoretical orientation. I do not in anyway impute this motivation to Ingraham and Hennessy whose introduction to their book is openly Marxist. In fact, after I read it and looked over the table of contents I thought a more adequate title for the book would have been Marxist Feminism. And anyone familiar with historical materialism can appreciate the sophisticated Marxist foundation of Hennessy's superbly argued book. In my view, as the ruthlessness of the world market intensifies the exploitation of all working people among which women are the most vulnerable and the most oppressed, the time has come not just to retrieve the Marxist heritage in feminist thought but to expand Marxist Feminist theory in ways that both incorporate and transcend the contributions of postmodern theorizing.

The justification for using Materialist Feminism rather than Marxist Feminism is the alleged insufficiency of Marxist Theory for adequately explaining the oppression of women. Lurking behind the repeated statements about the the shortcomings of Marxism there is an economistic and undialectical understanding of Marx and Marxist theory. That Marx may not have addressed issues that 20th century feminists consider important is not a sufficient condition to invalidate Marx's methodology as well as the potential of his theory of capitalism to help us understand the conditions that oppress women. But regardless of those pronouncements, it is fascinating, in retrospect, to read the theory produced by self- defined Materialist Feminists and realize that they are actually using and developing Marxist theory in ways that belie statements about its inherent shortcomings. And it is important to know how Kuhn and Wolpe, authors of FEMINISM AND MATERIALISM (1978) define the term materialism; they adopted Engels' definition of the term: "According to the materialist conception, the determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of immediate life. This, again, is of a twofold character: on the one side, the production of the means of existence, of food, clothing and shelter and the tools necessary for that production; on the other side, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species" (Engels, [1883] 1972, p.71)(Kuhn and Wolpe, 1978: 7). Kuhn, Wolpe and the contributors to their book in various ways expanded the scope of historical materialism to produce new knowledges about the oppression of women under capitalism. But materialist feminism, a term which may have been useful in the past might have lost its effectivity today. How useful is it to broaden the meaning of Materialist Feminism today to encompass Marxist Feminism if, at the same time, the term is claimed by cultural materialists whose views are profoundly anti-marxist? How will the new generations learn about the theoretical and political importance of historical materialism for women if historical materialist analysis is subsumed under the Materialist Feminist label? Doesn't this situation contribute to the marginalization of scholars who continue to self-identify as Marxist Feminists? I understand Marxist Feminism as the body of theory produced by feminists who, adopting the logic of analysis of historical materialism, expand the scope of the theory while critically incorporating useful insights and knowledges from non-marxist theorizing, just as Marx grappled with the discoveries of the classical economists and their shortcomings. Why should this theoretical enterprise present itself under a different name, especially one likely to elicit some degree of confusion among the younger generations of feminists? Furthermore, the political cost of doing, essentially, Marxist theorizing under the banner of Materialist Feminism is likely to be exceedingly high. Why? Because, by overstressing the "materialist" aspect in historical materialism it can contribute justify the dominant stereotypes about Marxism: its materialism, meaning its alleged anti-agency, anti-human, deterministic, reductionist limitations.

The answers to these questions are political and will come from feminists practices and dialogue and from the effects of the intensification of capitalist rule upon both first and third world peoples. In the meantime, it is important to know that Marxist and some works within Materialist Feminism share fundamental theoretical assumptions and political goals.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 6 2003, 03:27 PM
Men are by their nature the dominant sex.
HAHAH, you're kidding me right?

Just because men are biologically taller and naturally more muscular means they are dominant? Any one of us women could start a body building regiment and buff up and be stronger and tougher than the average man. Biology has nothing to do with what's considered "dominant", society has set those beliefs.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by felicia+Sep 6 2003, 11:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (felicia @ Sep 6 2003, 11:58 PM)
Dark [email protected] 6 2003, 03:27 PM
Men are by their nature the dominant sex.
HAHAH, you&#39;re kidding me right?

Just because men are biologically taller and naturally more muscular means they are dominant? Any one of us women could start a body building regiment and buff up and be stronger and tougher than the average man. Biology has nothing to do with what&#39;s considered "dominant", society has set those beliefs. [/b]
Men naturally are stronger than women. Look at history, men mostly rule.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Sexism is largely an issue of class. Poverty&#39;s first target is women: women who make up the majority of sweatshop labour around the world, women who must feed their children, women who have little or no control over their reproductive lives. So until there is economic justice, there will be no gender justice. Sexism feeds from capitalism, and as long as one exists, so will the other. The only way to affirmatively yeild products of sexism, is to overthrow the existing order of bourgeois society.

However, that isn&#39;t to say I don&#39;t still support the existing femmenist movements of the world. I support them with all my compassion, but subsequently I see what our true enemy is: the breeding grounds of all opression, capitalism. And it is at this source that we must aim all our struggles at. But Femmenism does remain an important battle within the integral war against capitalism, so it merits my support.

[Umoja]

I tend to view it this way. Men are physically stronger, on average. This plays a part in most lower forms of life, but shouldn&#39;t play a larger role for humans being we are the higher forms of life. Sexism is more-or-less evolutionary residue imho, but I could be looking at it in too abstract a manner.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 6 2003, 09:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 6 2003, 09:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:58 PM

Dark [email protected] 6 2003, 03:27 PM
Men are by their nature the dominant sex.
HAHAH, you&#39;re kidding me right?

Just because men are biologically taller and naturally more muscular means they are dominant? Any one of us women could start a body building regiment and buff up and be stronger and tougher than the average man. Biology has nothing to do with what&#39;s considered "dominant", society has set those beliefs.
Men naturally are stronger than women. Look at history, men mostly rule. [/b]
yeah, men have mostly been in charge.... AND LOOK HOW FUCKED UP THE WORLD IS&#33;&#33;&#33;

Men want to club their enemies over the head, women want to actually SOLVE any problems there might be.

Whoo, what a testiment to male superiority......[/sarcasm]

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:14 PM
I tend to view it this way. Men are physically stronger, on average. This plays a part in most lower forms of life, but shouldn&#39;t play a larger role for humans being we are the higher forms of life. Sexism is more-or-less evolutionary residue imho, but I could be looking at it in too abstract a manner.
Hmm, exactly. We are an evolved species, we can rely on our brains over our brawn.

[Rastafari]

Many rulers were historically put into power by their wives or mothers. Especially back in the old days. Women are much more in control of their emotions and I wouldn&#39;t be completely suprised to hear that women are actually smarter on average than men.

Heres a Lazy Man&#39;s List of History-Changing Figures who only ruled because of Women:

Ahmenhotep III (Ahknaten)
Nero
Napolean
Honest Abe
JFK (Voted in b/c of his good looks and Jackie O.)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Rasta,


Akenaten was Amenhotep IV. Amenhotep III was his father.

I&#39;m not really sure what you mean by "ruled because of women" either in his case. He ruled bacause he was the natural successor to Amenhotep III.

[Rastafari]

no he wasn&#39;t. his older brother was. after his older brother died, his half-brother (or maybe his cousin) was actually slotted up to be the next Pharoah, because Akenaten was physically deformed and fucked up in the head (like an Egyptian Micheal Jackson). His Mother, Queen Te, fought hard to get him into a position of power, as mothers often do to keep some state of power.

oh, and while we are in Africa, Shaka Zulu is an important adition to this little list.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 02:30 AM
yeah, men have mostly been in charge.... AND LOOK HOW FUCKED UP THE WORLD IS&#33;&#33;&#33;

Men want to club their enemies over the head, women want to actually SOLVE any problems there might be.

Whoo, what a testiment to male superiority......[/sarcasm]
Whoo, and this isnt a sexist comment?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I&#39;m not sure where you are getting your information from Rasta. Amenhotep IV&#39;s older brother, prince Tuthmosis, died very early in his childhood, and as Amenhotep III only had two sons, Amenhotep IV was his natural successor. Queen Tiy had nothing to do with his being the next king of upper and lower Egypt.

I really would not call him "the michael jackson of Egypt" as his phisical deformities were a result of a genetic disease (possibly Froelich&#39;s syndrome but more than likely it was Marfan’s syndrome or hyper-pituitrism) and had no bearing on his psychological soundness. Amenhotep actually was responsible for the creation of a masterpiece peom written in tribute to the sun god Aton that is more than likely the source of psalm 104 of the bible.


EDIT:

What disease did Amehhotep IV suffer from? (http://egyptmonth.com/mag06012000/magf1.htm)


P.S. The manifestations of his disease did not happen in abundance until after he was crowned.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Men and women MUST have equal rights, the fact that they look different and have different "roles" must not make them different in the society.

[Dark Capitalist]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 7 2003, 12:57 AM
Men and women MUST have equal rights, the fact that they look different and have different "roles" must not make them different in the society.
Why? Why must they be equal?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 7 2003, 05:29 AM
Why? Why must they be equal?
The question should be:

Why must they NOT be equal?

[Dark Capitalist]

I believe I asked you first.

[Scottish_Militant]

"I believe I asked you first."

My Daddy is bigger than you&#39;re Daddy :rolleyes:

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by felicia+Sep 7 2003, 02:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (felicia @ Sep 7 2003, 02:30 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 11:58 PM

Dark [email protected] 6 2003, 03:27 PM
Men are by their nature the dominant sex.
HAHAH, you&#39;re kidding me right?

Just because men are biologically taller and naturally more muscular means they are dominant? Any one of us women could start a body building regiment and buff up and be stronger and tougher than the average man. Biology has nothing to do with what&#39;s considered "dominant", society has set those beliefs.
Men naturally are stronger than women. Look at history, men mostly rule.
yeah, men have mostly been in charge.... AND LOOK HOW FUCKED UP THE WORLD IS&#33;&#33;&#33;

Men want to club their enemies over the head, women want to actually SOLVE any problems there might be.

Whoo, what a testiment to male superiority......[/sarcasm] [/b]
That was pretty sexist, Felicia. Not only are we a radish, we&#39;re a sexist too&#33; Implying that all the world&#39;s problems are the fault of males.

[Felicia]

So what if I made a sexist statement?

This thread is full of them against women&#33;

I&#39;m not a fucking radish, go blow.

You, for one, should not be accusing anyone of being a "radish"&#33;

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 01:35 PM
So what if I made a sexist statement?

This thread is full of them against women&#33;

I&#39;m not a fucking radish, go blow.

You, for one, should not be accusing anyone of being a "radish"&#33;
Hey , Feicia. Why not move in with me for a while? I&#39;ll show you who the boss is.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 10:42 AM
Hey , Feicia. Why not move in with me for a while? I&#39;ll show you who the boss is.
Are you kidding me?

I&#39;d rip your fucking balls off so fast you wouldn&#39;t know what hit you.

You&#39;re not a "boss", you&#39;re an ignorant male.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 7 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 7 2003, 01:42 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 01:35 PM
So what if I made a sexist statement?

This thread is full of them against women&#33;

I&#39;m not a fucking radish, go blow.

You, for one, should not be accusing anyone of being a "radish"&#33;
Hey , Feicia. Why not move in with me for a while? I&#39;ll show you who the boss is. [/b]
Oh wow, i see your trying to be a toughass. I guess thats what it means to be a "man." Well let me tell you something, that is not being a man nor does it have anything to do with being a man. What it does is show just how much of a fool you are.

How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

All i really want to say is- fuck off. With that attitude you will be alone for the rest of your life, nobody wants a fool. And honey, i hope you never meet a woman like me thinking your going to be the boss because you will have it coming.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by felicia+Sep 7 2003, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (felicia @ Sep 7 2003, 03:35 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy. [/b]
I get what youre saying felicia, but the point was that he has a fucked up way of thinking. He thinks that he needs to be the boss and the most likely way of becoming it is through violence- which just shows that hes a fool and a wuss. There is no reason for anybody to be the boss of anybody else or to threaten. But unfortunately, many people think this is what it means to be a man.

[Felicia]

Yes, I know what you mean.

Society (that what I like to blame) has programed men into thinking that they need to be tough or macho, or they aren&#39;t masculine. That&#39;s what&#39;s sad, and it&#39;s worse when these "men" buy into it and believe it.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Don&#39;t forget that women encourage this. Most women I know like to taunt men about their lack of masculinity as a joke (and most guys play along up yo a point) - but that is exactly how society transmits unconscious social roles to people...

Let&#39;s face it - most girls do not go for the sensitive feminine type - and in fact may suspect he is gay (the heterosexual man&#39;s worst nightmare&#33;). So there is a very powerful incentive to acting macho. Despite the trash talking that women do against the whole macho image - the fact is that it gets their attention and makes mating far more likely.

At least in my experience - girls like to rent videos and hang out with the nice guys talking about how bad the bad guys are - but only untill the bad guy calls back with his whisky voice and his spiked leather jacket... Then it&#39;s time to get busy ;)

--- G.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 7 2003, 04:16 PM
Don&#39;t forget that women encourage this. Most women I know like to taunt men about their lack of masculinity as a joke (and most guys play along up yo a point) - but that is exactly how society transmits unconscious social roles to people...

Let&#39;s face it - most girls do not go for the sensitive feminine type - and in fact may suspect he is gay (the heterosexual man&#39;s worst nightmare&#33;). So there is a very powerful incentive to acting macho. Despite the trash talking that women do against the whole macho image - the fact is that it gets their attention and makes mating far more likely.

At least in my experience - girls like to rent videos and hang out with the nice guys talking about how bad the bad guys are - but only untill the bad guy calls back with his whisky voice and his spiked leather jacket... Then it&#39;s time to get busy ;)

--- G.
Once again though- womyn have been taught that tough men is what they should look for. Both men and womyn are taught from the day that they are born what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. You have to act a certain way in order to fit these roles- which also may include who you date, know what i mean? Girls want to date masculine boys cuz they think its hot (icky in my opinion) and it makes them feel even more feminine (like a woman), while boys want to date the helpless feminine girl so they feel even more masculine.

Personally, i like the scruffy looking shy "feminine" boys. They definitely make better partners :)

[Loknar]

Hey Felicia, ever date a muslim Arab?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:20 AM
What is so pathetic about it? I am glad there is something countering those butch dikes at NOW.
Oh you&#39;re right Loknar....everyone at the National Organization for Women is a butch dike huh? I mean it&#39;s not like women don&#39;t make the same salary for the same job as men do right? It&#39;s all a big illusion. Let me guess....Rush Limbaugh gave you all these wonderful facts.

When do you get right to the heart of the matter and declare affirmative action irrelevant too? We all know it&#39;s coming....

Bare foot and pregnant and in the kitchen right Loknar? While we&#39;re at it, let&#39;s take away their right to vote too.

You&#39;re an idiot.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 04:25 PM
Once again though- womyn have been taught that tough men is what they should look for. Both men and womyn are taught from the day that they are born what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. You have to act a certain way in order to fit these roles- which also may include who you date, know what i mean? Girls want to date masculine boys cuz they think its hot (icky in my opinion) and it makes them feel even more feminine (like a woman), while boys want to date the helpless feminine girl so they feel even more masculine.

Personally, i like the scruffy looking shy "feminine" boys. They definitely make better partners :)
i don&#39;t like tough guys either. i&#39;m a faghag. when i find some guy really nice, he&#39;s generally the beautiful and fragile type. and gay. guys who are too manly (as in buff and brutish) are a huge turnoff.


Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy.


i know a girl who did that. in brazil, when she was about 11, her uncle tried to rape her. she seriously messed up his dick in some way (i think she cut it) and her family kicked her out. fucking sexist culture. my parents&#39; friend adopted her. she&#39;s a blackbelt in tae kwon do and national champion. she&#39;s a cool person.

[Soul Rebel]

Faghag- thats my name&#33;&#33;&#33; I just told cani that in a pm a couple of days ago&#33;&#33;&#33; All my friends are gay- so im like the straight girl with all the gay friends, which of course makes me a faghag&#33;&#33;&#33; I never really hear anyone say that except Margaret Cho&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Sep 7 2003, 04:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Disgustapated @ Sep 7 2003, 04:43 PM)
[email protected] 6 2003, 02:20 AM
What is so pathetic about it? I am glad there is something countering those butch dikes at NOW.
Oh you&#39;re right Loknar....everyone at the National Organization for Women is a butch dike huh? I mean it&#39;s not like women don&#39;t make the same salary for the same job as men do right? It&#39;s all a big illusion. Let me guess....Rush Limbaugh gave you all these wonderful facts.

When do you get right to the heart of the matter and declare affirmative action irrelevant too? We all know it&#39;s coming....

Bare foot and pregnant and in the kitchen right Loknar? While we&#39;re at it, let&#39;s take away their right to vote too.

You&#39;re an idiot. [/b]
Humm, lets see, men work longer hours on average than women do, maybe that is why we make more?

affirmative action discriminates against white men, so I hate it. You don’t live in Chicago and have to listen to Jesse Jackson’s bullshit about how more black people should be here and more blacks should do this and so forth.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 7 2003, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 7 2003, 05:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 04:43 PM

[email protected] 6 2003, 02:20 AM
What is so pathetic about it? I am glad there is something countering those butch dikes at NOW.
Oh you&#39;re right Loknar....everyone at the National Organization for Women is a butch dike huh? I mean it&#39;s not like women don&#39;t make the same salary for the same job as men do right? It&#39;s all a big illusion. Let me guess....Rush Limbaugh gave you all these wonderful facts.

When do you get right to the heart of the matter and declare affirmative action irrelevant too? We all know it&#39;s coming....

Bare foot and pregnant and in the kitchen right Loknar? While we&#39;re at it, let&#39;s take away their right to vote too.

You&#39;re an idiot.
Humm, lets see, men work longer hours on average than women do, maybe that is why we make more?

affirmative action discriminates against white men, so I hate it. You don’t live in Chicago and have to listen to Jesse Jackson’s bullshit about how more black people should be here and more blacks should do this and so forth. [/b]
That is such bullshit&#33;&#33;&#33; Womyn work just as much as men do&#33;&#33;&#33; Where the hell do you get your facts? As much as you may want to there is no way you can ever justify womyn getting paid less for the same work.

And even if a woman did work less hours in the public sphere (the work force) she also works at home- cooking, cleaning, taking care of kids, etc. You dont think thats work? It is and its hard work.

And dont give me that "affirmative action discriminates against the white man" crap. AA does not discriminate against the white man, it just helps to offer more opportunities to those who would not be able to have those opportunities due to the discriminating attitude of the white man, ok? If it wasnt for AA blacks, hispanics, womyn, etc. would still be stuck in the same position- being qualified and then turned down because of who they are. The only people who are against AA are those who feel threatened by it- those who realize that they can no longer use their unearned priviledges to get by, those who are afraid to lose those priviledges.

[Loknar]

That is such bullshit&#33;&#33;&#33; Womyn work just as much as men do&#33;&#33;&#33; Where the hell do you get your facts? As much as you may want to there is no way you can ever justify womyn getting paid less for the same work.


I&#39;m sorry, but I don’t see discrimination. Maybe there are more men in a certain industry who have worked longer? There is much to take into account.


And even if a woman did work less hours in the public sphere (the work force) she also works at home- cooking, cleaning, taking care of kids, etc. You dont think thats work? It is and its hard work.

Agreed


And dont give me that "affirmative action discriminates against the white man" crap. AA does not discriminate against the white man, it just helps to offer more opportunities to those who would not be able to have those opportunities due to the discriminating attitude of the white man, ok?

Oh, do you want the white man to hold his hand out and have every &#39;discriminated&#39; worker eat from it? Explain how affirmative action is not a discriminatory policy, yeah it offers minorities better opportunity’s (and hand outs) but at the expanse of white men. What about being hired for a particular job on the merit of your character?


If it wasnt for AA blacks, hispanics, womyn, etc. would still be stuck in the same position- being qualified and then turned down because of who they are.

And where do you get this load of shit from? Are you a victim?


The only people who are against AA are those who feel threatened by it- those who realize that they can no longer use their unearned priviledges to get by, those who are afraid to lose those priviledges.

I am against it because it discriminates based on color. If it doesn’t discriminate please explain how it doesn’t.

[Soul Rebel]

You dont see discrimination? Then explain to me and everyone else why the pay rate goes down in a certain field when womyn start entering that specific field.

How does AA discriminate against the white man? This is meant to give people who are equally qualified an equal chance at a job. AA ensures that this happens.

Im not saying that AA is entirely responsible for helping minority populations get better opportunities, but it has helped. But i guess since you are in the majority you wouldnt really take notice of the good it has done. I dont need to be a victim to support something.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 7 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 7 2003, 01:42 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 01:35 PM
So what if I made a sexist statement?

This thread is full of them against women&#33;

I&#39;m not a fucking radish, go blow.

You, for one, should not be accusing anyone of being a "radish"&#33;
Hey , Feicia. Why not move in with me for a while? I&#39;ll show you who the boss is. [/b]
You&#39;re a fuckin&#39; nerd.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by redcanada+Sep 7 2003, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redcanada @ Sep 7 2003, 06:00 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 01:42 PM

[email protected] 7 2003, 01:35 PM
So what if I made a sexist statement?

This thread is full of them against women&#33;

I&#39;m not a fucking radish, go blow.

You, for one, should not be accusing anyone of being a "radish"&#33;
Hey , Feicia. Why not move in with me for a while? I&#39;ll show you who the boss is.
I&#39;m a fuckin&#39; nerd. [/b]
I know you&#39;re a nerd.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 01:34 PM
Hey Felicia, ever date a muslim Arab?
no, I haven&#39;t.

not all "muslim arabs" are hardline "females are inferior and subordinate".

But otherwise, religion set aside, I would NEVER date any man who feels that his gender is superior to mine. They are equal, end of story.

[Loknar]

Felicia, you sound allot like these women who were mis-treated by men. The kind who make a big statement about how bad they were treated by moving in with another woman for 2 years then dumps them.


Felicia, a question about marriage: Is a head of the house needed?

[elijahcraig]

Loknar you are one pathetic little piece of shit.

That&#39;s called "patriarchy". No, it is not needed. Moron.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 08:37 PM
Loknar you are one pathetic little piece of shit.

That&#39;s called "patriarchy". No, it is not needed. Moron.
Oh, so basically lets have 2 heads of a house going 2 different ways and doing 2 different thing and lets see if it works.

A woman could be the head too you know.

[mentalbunny]

Loknar:

I&#39;m a fuckin&#39; nerd.

I know you&#39;re a nerd

oh my god, this guy belongs in kindergarten.

So men and women are biologically different, so what? I don&#39;t understand, I really don&#39;t, I&#39;m sorry but why can&#39;t we have equal opportunities, equal pay (when there is still pay), etc.

I also dislike society&#39;s images of the sexes and their roles, I refuse to be the leg waxing unpaid cook and carer. But hey.

AA is important, it&#39;s not about handouts, it&#39;s about improving society and its values, it&#39;s about ensuring a better future for minority descendants. Why should people competing for a job be judged on anything but ability? You&#39;ll say with women, she might get pregnant and need maternity leave, well if women had more power over their reproductive systems then it would be better. And don&#39;t go on about the life of a human being and all that crap, it&#39;s sad yes but there are all those kids, all those adults, who are already alive who are dying everyday and suffering, I think the living come first.

[Loknar]

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=stupid_*****

[elijahcraig]

And that&#39;d be matriarchy Loknar. It&#39;s still gender oppression. Two different ways? What the fuck are you talking about now you moron?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 08:50 PM
And that&#39;d be matriarchy Loknar. It&#39;s still gender oppression. Two different ways? What the fuck are you talking about now you moron?
Well look at Americas divorce rate 50 yeard ago and look at it now.

And go fuck your self.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 05:33 PM
Felicia, you sound allot like these women who were mis-treated by men. The kind who make a big statement about how bad they were treated by moving in with another woman for 2 years then dumps them.


Felicia, a question about marriage: Is a head of the house needed?
hmm, I don&#39;t think that I&#39;ve ever been abused my men. As for you, you seem like the type of guy who has a wife beater as a father.

and the "head" of a household are the adults living there, if there are children of course.

If it&#39;s a boyfriend and girlfriend (or bf/bf, gf/gf) living together, than they are both equals and far as who&#39;s incharge of the household

[Loknar]

hmm, I don&#39;t think that I&#39;ve ever been abused my men. As for you, you seem like the type of guy who has a wife beater as a father.

I have no idea if my dad was a woman beater, I havent seen him since I was 6 or 7 (13 years).



and the "head" of a household are the adults living there, if there are children of course.

If it&#39;s a boyfriend and girlfriend (or bf/bf, gf/gf) living together, than they are both equals and far as who&#39;s incharge of the household


In my opinion 1 person needs to be the head, be it the husband or wife.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 7 2003, 07:21 AM
I believe I asked you first.
I think I sorta replied that on my first post on this thread, but if you really want to know, it is because there are almost the same chances of being a male human than being a female human and because men don&#39;t have something that makes them be more important than women (or with better rights)

Now YOU answer my question.

[Felicia]

I have no idea if my dad was a woman beater, I havent seen him since I was 6 or 7 (13 years).

Oh my. That&#39;s were this attitude must have come from :(



In my opinion 1 person needs to be the head, be it the husband or wife.
Roles can be shared. It doesn&#39;t have to be only one person.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 10:03 PM


I have no idea if my dad was a woman beater, I havent seen him since I was 6 or 7 (13 years).




In my opinion 1 person needs to be the head, be it the husband or wife.
Roles can be shared. It doesn&#39;t have to be only one person.

Oh my. That&#39;s were this attitude must have come from :(


What attitude specifically?



Roles can be shared. It doesn&#39;t have to be only one person.

Of course, lets say 1 handles everything in the home and 1 handles things out side. If that us the case their decision should be final (but not before discussed).

[Dark Capitalist]

Oppression is a necessary element in any given society. There must always be those above to command and those below to obey. That&#39;s how real world politics works wether you like it or not.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 7 2003, 04:16 PM
Don&#39;t forget that women encourage this. Most women I know like to taunt men about their lack of masculinity as a joke (and most guys play along up yo a point) - but that is exactly how society transmits unconscious social roles to people...

Let&#39;s face it - most girls do not go for the sensitive feminine type - and in fact may suspect he is gay (the heterosexual man&#39;s worst nightmare&#33;). So there is a very powerful incentive to acting macho. Despite the trash talking that women do against the whole macho image - the fact is that it gets their attention and makes mating far more likely.

At least in my experience - girls like to rent videos and hang out with the nice guys talking about how bad the bad guys are - but only untill the bad guy calls back with his whisky voice and his spiked leather jacket... Then it&#39;s time to get busy ;)

--- G.
One of my pet peeves (I have a few too many) is when women are interested in you because they think you&#39;re a bad ass, and then get scared off when they find out that you have a brain.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by redcanada+Sep 7 2003, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redcanada @ Sep 7 2003, 11:27 PM)
Dhul [email protected] 7 2003, 04:16 PM
Don&#39;t forget that women encourage this. Most women I know like to taunt men about their lack of masculinity as a joke (and most guys play along up yo a point) - but that is exactly how society transmits unconscious social roles to people...

Let&#39;s face it - most girls do not go for the sensitive feminine type - and in fact may suspect he is gay (the heterosexual man&#39;s worst nightmare&#33;). So there is a very powerful incentive to acting macho. Despite the trash talking that women do against the whole macho image - the fact is that it gets their attention and makes mating far more likely.

At least in my experience - girls like to rent videos and hang out with the nice guys talking about how bad the bad guys are - but only untill the bad guy calls back with his whisky voice and his spiked leather jacket... Then it&#39;s time to get busy ;)

--- G.
One of my pet peeves (I have a few too many) is when women are interested in you because they think you&#39;re a bad ass, and then get scared off when they find out that you have a brain. [/b]
you have a brain? i never want to speak to you again. do me a favor and fuck off.........








everyone knows that maddox is some prickless 1337 intARWEB g33k. he&#39;s impotent and he rants for his kicks.

[elijahcraig]

wether you like it or not.

Why does every fascist use this little “Saying”? It’s really pathetic.

There is no permanent role of society in terms of oppression, there is no such thing as a “necessary” oppression. Fascists are so fucking stupid. Damn&#33;

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 7 2003, 11:36 PM
everyone knows that maddox is some prickless 1337 intARWEB g33k. he&#39;s impotent and he rants for his kicks.
I am confused, maybe I don&#39;t have a brain.

[Dark Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 08:11 PM

wether you like it or not.

Why does every fascist use this little “Saying”? It’s really pathetic.

There is no permanent role of society in terms of oppression, there is no such thing as a “necessary” oppression. Fascists are so fucking stupid. Damn&#33;
Isn&#39;t the oppression of religion a necessary element in marxist society?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Dark Capitalist+Sep 8 2003, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dark Capitalist @ Sep 8 2003, 12:15 AM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 08:11 PM

wether you like it or not.

Why does every fascist use this little “Saying”? It’s really pathetic.

There is no permanent role of society in terms of oppression, there is no such thing as a “necessary” oppression. Fascists are so fucking stupid. Damn&#33;
Isn&#39;t the oppression of religion a necessary element in marxist society? [/b]
Yes it is even Stalin made deals with the Orthodox church.

[elijahcraig]

Destruction of oppression in the form of religion is necessary in socialist society; under communism, religion would be dead.

A shifty-eyed fascist, what a little ****.

[Dark Capitalist]

Destruction of oppression in the form of religion is necessary in socialist society; under communism, religion would be dead.


So, oppressing those who, by your standards, are &#39;oppressive&#39; is OK?



A shifty-eyed fascist, what a little ****.


I actually have nystagmus.

[elijahcraig]

So says the fascist&#33;

Destroying the chains of religion is not religion, whether the people consider it or not to be. Destruction will not be done directly all of the time. Of course, churches will be removed or used for other things. No religion in public life. Indirect destruction through propaganda. As well as mass educating of the religious.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:07 AM
So says the fascist&#33;

Destroying the chains of religion is not religion, whether the people consider it or not to be. Destruction will not be done directly all of the time. Of course, churches will be removed or used for other things. No religion in public life. Indirect destruction through propaganda. As well as mass educating of the religious.
At times of great distress people need something to turn to.

What do you mean, "no religion in public life"? No churches?

[elijahcraig]

No churches.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:21 AM
No churches.
What about private things? Such as people worshiping on their own, say in their house or something?

You see, I agree with you on the religious establishment, they are mostly corrupt organizations out for money.

[elijahcraig]

Private worship is fine.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:28 AM
Private worship is fine.
Any specifics on group size?

[elijahcraig]

:lol:

I&#39;m really not the person to plan out the society.

Religion will be discouraged in all forms by the state. Limits should be made, smal small limits. And a limited pushing of nonsense by parents on their kids. We are raising socialist men and women, not capitalist pigs.

[Umoja]

To point out any earlier comment by Loknar. If you see the rising divorce rates as bad, then your looking at the situation wrong. Women demanding more in a relationship, and to be treated as equals with their spouses, only proves that marriage really doesn&#39;t work, and people aren&#39;t really monogamous&#33; Oh no&#33;

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 01:51 AM
To point out any earlier comment by Loknar. If you see the rising divorce rates as bad, then your looking at the situation wrong. Women demanding more in a relationship, and to be treated as equals with their spouses, only proves that marriage really doesn&#39;t work, and people aren&#39;t really monogamous&#33; Oh no&#33;
That&#39;s not true, people truly love each other and marry because of it. Also most people don’t want to grow old and die alone. Marriage is not a democracy, decision should rest with the 1 invested with that authority (this doesn’t mean a women cant have any authority, by decision making I mean something like this, the man is in charge of everything out side the house, the woman with everything inside and the kids, something like that.)

[Umoja]

No. People truly love each other and have sex with each other because of it. Then they get bored of it, because it either gets old, or one person starts to control the other to much. Relationships are never fifty-fifty in the long run, so people move on. The only useful purpose marriage serves is to prevent the spread iof disease and to isolate genetic defects (which is also a cause for over population) but these are only temporary problems in the scheme of things.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:21 AM
No. People truly love each other and have sex with each other because of it. Then they get bored of it, because it either gets old, or one person starts to control the other to much. Relationships are never fifty-fifty in the long run, so people move on. The only useful purpose marriage serves is to prevent the spread iof disease and to isolate genetic defects (which is also a cause for over population) but these are only temporary problems in the scheme of things.
No offense but I think you are relating to a personal experience (I see you&#39;re about 16, I was referring to your parents). There is more to a relationship besides sex.

[Moskitto]

http://www.mensdefense.org/images/Male_Justice.gif

if you notice very carefully, those scales are not actually balanced, but it looks like they&#39;re trying to be, maybe they should fix their graphics.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

SenoraChe, could you please stop saying &#39;womyn&#39;
I find it a pointless maiming of the english language in the name of equality.
Woman and women are words, nothing more. Just because they have the words &#39;man&#39; and &#39;men&#39; in them them does not degrade your status as a human.
By leaving out the men part you are saying that men are something less than human, and troublesome enough to change the word &#39;women&#39;

Patriarchy is bad, but matriarchy is just as bad also.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:41 AM
SenoraChe, could you please stop saying &#39;womyn&#39;
I find it a pointless maiming of the english language in the name of equality.
Woman and women are words, nothing more. Just because they have the words &#39;man&#39; and &#39;men&#39; in them them does not degrade your status as a human.
By leaving out the men part you are saying that men are something less than human, and troublesome enough to change the word &#39;women&#39;

Patriarchy is bad, but matriarchy is just as bad also.
No i will not stop spelling it that way. If you find it pointless than that is too bad. I have explained a thousand times why i do it and i refuse to have to keep explaining myself. And its not because of what you think it is.

Loknar- marriage is an institution that came out of economic need, not love.

[Sabocat]

I think I found Loknar&#39;s inspiration.

This was a blurb in a fund raising letter by Pat Robertson of the "700 Club" infamy years ago.

"The feminist agenda....is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, and become lesbians."

Sounds about right, right Loknar?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 06:59 PM
I think I found Loknar&#39;s inspiration.

This was a blurb in a fund raising letter by Pat Robertson of the "700 Club" infamy years ago.

"The feminist agenda....is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, and become lesbians."

Sounds about right, right Loknar?
I am not against feminism all together, but the type you&#39;re describing I am against yes. I&#39;ve heard of some women denying sex to their husbands if they do not go to meetings and participate. And yes, it&#39;s not the regular feminists who are for women’s rights, it&#39;s the real extreme diesel dyke feminazi (there are straight ones too) that I am against.

And this Womyn shit is just absolutely crazy. If you believe in the Bible Woman was created from Man. But if you don’t just stick with the spelling, it wont kill you.

[Umoja]

Loknar, I&#39;m a virgin, I&#39;ve never had any such experience personally, and generally keep away from any serious commitments, because it&#39;s a waste of time and energy. People should have trusted non-family members who can be incharge of their things if they die, but not much more then that. If you love one person alot, their shouldn&#39;t be a wall put up around you, because most people don&#39;t like living in cages.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by felicia+Sep 7 2003, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (felicia @ Sep 7 2003, 03:35 PM)
[email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy. [/b]
OOOOH&#33; Loknar got owned&#33; AGAIN&#33; what a peice of shit&#33; Loknar do u enjoy getting RAPED by EVERYONE at Che Lives?

[elijahcraig]

Sur3e he does, he especially loves it when we use his favorite broomstick, Ole Roy. :lol:

[Loknar]

Originally posted by CompadreGuerrillera+Sep 8 2003, 10:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CompadreGuerrillera @ Sep 8 2003, 10:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:35 PM

[email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy.
OOOOH&#33; Loknar got owned&#33; AGAIN&#33; what a peice of shit&#33; Loknar do u enjoy getting RAPED by EVERYONE at Che Lives? [/b]
Raped? By who?

[kitty44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 07:15 AM
That&#39;s bullshit, affirmative action also effects women of every color. And women generally make less at times because they work less hours, that&#39;s a little tid bit the feminazis don’t want you to know.

But I dont see how this site is anti-feminst. Feminists are ok , it&#39;s these radical lesbos who have spikey hair and wear slacks that are the problem.
Loknar you&#39;re an idiot......for every dollar a man makes a woman makes 76 cents. I work as many if not more hours than a lot of men I know so don&#39;t tell me that a woman works less hours. You really show your ignorance when you make a statement like that.
It sounds like you feel threatened by feminists......are you afraid of your manhood being trampled on???? :ph34r:

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 8 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 8 2003, 11:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:35 PM

[email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy.
OOOOH&#33; Loknar got owned&#33; AGAIN&#33; what a peice of shit&#33; Loknar do u enjoy getting RAPED by EVERYONE at Che Lives?
Raped? By who? [/b]
you get owned by THE PEOPLE&#33; by EVERYONE&#33; look you just got owned again&#33;&#33;&#33;

HAHA, pathetic fascist, go back to your white pride meetings, pig.

OINK OINK&#33; :lol:

[elijahcraig]

Loknar:

http://lifesinsights.com/images/pig.gif

[Loknar]

Originally posted by CompadreGuerrillera+Sep 8 2003, 11:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CompadreGuerrillera @ Sep 8 2003, 11:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:35 PM

[email protected] 7 2003, 12:31 PM
How you going show her who the boss is- you going to hit her if she doesnt fetch you your beer?

Something I should probably say..... I&#39;m a violent woman, and I don&#39;t let people hurt me unless I can do some damage in return..... he has a dick that I can cut off.....think about it little boy.
OOOOH&#33; Loknar got owned&#33; AGAIN&#33; what a peice of shit&#33; Loknar do u enjoy getting RAPED by EVERYONE at Che Lives?
Raped? By who?
you get owned by THE PEOPLE&#33; by EVERYONE&#33; look you just got owned again&#33;&#33;&#33;

HAHA, pathetic fascist, go back to your white pride meetings, pig.

OINK OINK&#33; :lol: [/b]
Ok, very stupid.
Some people argue with me, I argue back and some how I was raped? Whatever dumbass.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

OOOH&#33; whatever dumbass, lol that is a good comeback&#33;

Youre stupid Loknar, what do u do first in the morning? shoes or pants?
look at Elijah&#39;s portrait of you GOOD picture Elijah, but you need to emphasize the features on the nose :D
Go look in the mirror Loknar, tell me what you see and if you are horrified :lol:

[mEds]

feminists are smelly and have armpit hair. When i see a girl like that I say no to love.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

well that is a STEROTYPE if ever i saw one.

LOL surely you know not ALL feministis, certainly not MOST if ANY are like the picture you described.

[elijahcraig]

hhmmm, looking at your avatar, and your "post"...are you by any chance a five year old motherless fat kid?

[commie kg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 09:00 PM
hhmmm, looking at your avatar, and your "post"...are you by any chance a five year old motherless fat kid?
Elijah, you can be a prick, but that was funny as hell. Kudos.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 11:09 PM
OOOH&#33; whatever dumbass, lol that is a good comeback&#33;

Youre stupid Loknar, what do u do first in the morning? shoes or pants?
look at Elijah&#39;s portrait of you GOOD picture Elijah, but you need to emphasize the features on the nose :D
Go look in the mirror Loknar, tell me what you see and if you are horrified :lol:
Whooo, go ahead man, if name calling of a forum gets you hot then by all means continue. Just grab a sock and make sure you don’t shoot a load all over the place, assuming you can find your twig.

[Vinny Rafarino]

are you afraid of your manhood being trampled on


I got my manhood trampled on by a 6 foot russian woman in 1985.


I have never fully recovered.



Whooo, go ahead man, if name calling of a forum gets you hot then by all means continue. Just grab a sock and make sure you don’t shoot a load all over the place, assuming you can find your twig.


The doctors at Johns Hopkins assured me it&#39;s only temorary, so much for them...Good grief...18 years with a purple and black acorn....The horror....the horror.

thanks for being so caring though buddy-boy.



Where&#39;s my damn sock&#33;

[Loknar]

LMAO RAF :lol:

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 05:58 AM
"Men&#39;s Defense" (http://www.mensdefense.org/)

This is pathetic as well.
I like the site, I am not against feminists only the fact they look like men frightins me. I love more womenlike dikes. No man has any problems with them, you have to be honest on that part, men :lol:

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by Loknar+Sep 10 2003, 12:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Loknar @ Sep 10 2003, 12:17 PM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 11:09 PM
OOOH&#33; whatever dumbass, lol that is a good comeback&#33;

Youre stupid Loknar, what do u do first in the morning? shoes or pants?
look at Elijah&#39;s portrait of you GOOD picture Elijah, but you need to emphasize the features on the nose :D
Go look in the mirror Loknar, tell me what you see and if you are horrified :lol:
Whooo, go ahead man, if name calling of a forum gets you hot then by all means continue. Just grab a sock and make sure you don’t shoot a load all over the place, assuming you can find your twig. [/b]
Getting my sock..... HOLD ON, ima get my Fascist i keep as a slave to lick it all up...

[kitty44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 04:46 AM
feminists are smelly and have armpit hair. When i see a girl like that I say no to love.
Talk about stereotyping......maybe what you saw was a man trying to look like a woman. All the feminists I know don&#39;t look (or smell) like you&#39;ve described. Must be afraid of women that stand up for their rights and don&#39;t take any bullshit from the likes of a wimpy wanna be male like you&#33;&#33;&#33; :rolleyes: