Why do feminists believe that anybody takes studies seriously that just happen to prove exactly what you?

Question

wanted them to proove ? It isnt like the fems become active as the result of some study, they start from an assumption, or a statment and then basically reverse the scientific approach (or pay somone doing it) making a mockery out of it and raping it, to have "evidence" for their statements. Like choosing a murderer and planting matching evidence on him.

Why are they all surprised about not being taken seriously or even being called things like liars feminazis and the like ? It seems reasonable and accurate to me and everybody who isnt a feminist.

Answer 1

You're making a very large amount of generalizations, for someone who takes facts so seriously.

Feminists didn't invent the pill, but feminism is partly responsible for its marketing toward the general public.

I would really like to meet you in real life, Cassius, because it seems like you've only had bad experiences with feminists. I've got plenty of friends that aren't actively involved in women's rights or LGBT rights or any sort of civil rights activism, and I've never been called a feminazi. I don't really fall into other feminist stereotypes, either. I shave my legs, I'm dating a guy, I'm moderately attractive, I wear bras, and I have long hair.

A lot of these stereotypes don't really reflect reality. :)

EDIT: I'm not sure what your response to me was trying to say, but the reason I brought up that I have friends not involved in civil rights is to say that by the standards of "everybody who isn't a feminist" [from your question], I'm not considered a "feminazi" although I am a feminist.

Answer 2

Feminism is a political movement, and as most political movements today is based on lies and half lies.

Every organization that a human have made last at most one generation without corrupting. Feminism is not the exception to this rule.

Answer 3

They don't.

But I'm starting to worry about you ~ still can't get a date?

Cheers :-)

Answer 4

feminists don't necessarily start from assumptions. That is an unsupported false claim that you cannot air out without citing any objective source.

As a feminist, I came to my beliefs from birth and my expeeience growing up. In other words, I always knew i was equal to the opposite gender and experience in sexist cultures and traditions woke me up to the fact that my belief in gender equality was a reality i had to fight for.

Before you air your ignorance out on a public site, do some reading, will you

Answer 5

The bottom line is, most are men haters or lesbians. No one wants to admit this as it isn't Politically Correct.

However, it is real fashionable in college, as though they are taking some sort of a stand against an imagined oppression, created by the men haters and lesbians. They are wrapped up in it for a while until they are more mature.

It's like a 20 year old black person focusing on slavery and creating a false anger as though it happened to them. Most people living today haven't owned a slave or have been a slave. Ditto, women that are only allowed to be nurses and teachers.

The pill was ALWAYS prescribed for unmarried women, long before feminism's claim they made it possible!

The L*****n feminist wanting to show how men oppressed women has tried to rewrite history (history revisionists) in an effort to draw the young feminist to their side.

They cite the Comstock Law (1873) that was and obscenity law of p**n being distributed through the mail system. It also included sharing abortion information through the mails since it was illegal during the time. This law included any contraceptive device including condoms. They make it as though feminist overturned the law but it was being overturned many years before the birth control pill was invented... Many of the laws are still in use today and are generally known as the Comstock "Laws." This is where the feminist use their hook of deceit.

These sending of contraceptive devices by mail was almost single-handedly overturned by Margaret Sanger long before the birth control pill was invented. In fact her goal wasn't one of helping people with unwanted pregnancies but one of sterilization for a superior race. She was an eugenists. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by eugenists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia.

Here is what she wanted to happen as outlined in her pamphlets:

"A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge."

The feminist leave these details out and promote a model of confusion and deceit.

So they promote Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) as though doctors were not allowed to prescribe birth control to single people before 1972. A time when almost every single hippy girl was on birth control at Woodstock (1969), besides almost all sexually active girls in the late 60's.

This is the typical type of deceit that is propagated by feminists to fulfill their agenda and many of the young college girls play right into this as the research is well over their head, and the L*****n agenda is so strong.

The more you study this agenda, the more you find naive girls stating what they "heard" instead of what they learned on their own. By the time they are out of college they are old enough to get the true feel for the feminist agenda and hardly have an allegiance to them other than pay in the workplace.

The truth?

If you lived in Massachusetts before 1972 and was single you could not legally have possession of birth control pill. Everywhere else it was fine.

The TRUTH was that out of all the millions of single people in possession of birth control pills in Massachusetts before 1972, not a single one was ever charged. NOT ONE. In fact the Eisenstadt v. Baird case didn't have a thing to do with birth control pills. It was about man, William Baird, that was not a doctor, distributing vaginal foams to students at Boston University. The reason he charged with the law was because he was not a doctor.

However the feminist will want you to believe that single girls were desperately trying to get birth control pills nationwide but were unable to do so until feminism fought for their right.

And why was Baird distributing foams? Because he was promoting population control with the concept the world population would eventually cause starvation.

But YES a feminist DID make the pill possible. Margaret Sanger was responsible for its development, and coined the term, "birth control." In 1951, Margaret Sanger met Gregory Pincus and used her position VP of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to get him a grant to develop the birth control pill. Since her origination would not support enough research she got a friend to fund the grant with a 50 fold increase. Pincus & M.C. Chang developed the first birth control pill.

The feminist avoid Sanger and try to twist her goals, as one of a feminist whose motivation was her mother's 18 pregnancies, that they claim Sanger felt, was the reason her mother died of tuberculosis and cervical cancer. To a lesser extent they point out her experience of seeing botched abortions, as a nurse working in a hospital at the East Side slums of Manhattan.

However they substitute instead Eisenstadt v. Baird for the gains Sanger was actually responsible for. Why? Because her motivation was racists and eugenicists.

She was a staunch Socialists who wrote articles for the Socialist Party. She felt that with total government control of all aspects of people's lives, only then could the gene pool be made proper. She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

For instance she said:

"It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets."

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, but dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as "impractical."

And we find her sexuality was twisted and not the freedom, as the feminist describe the birth control pill opening up women's sexuality. She says:

"In my experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I have never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would be difficult not to fill page upon page of heartrending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently, for even after they have ceased the habit, they find themselves incapable of any relief in the natural act. Perhaps the greatest physical danger to the chronic masturbator is the inability to perform the sexual act naturally."

This is how far the feminist have to reach to make girls follow their call. It is all about revisionist history. What thinking people call, lies. A drop of truth, makes the Politically Correct adopt a position of "absolute truth."

Why the negatives? Don't we all want to learn the truth?

Answer 6

I understand your point, but if there was never feminism, women will still be unable to sit in a public bar, the pill would not be given to unmarried women and pants would be zipped to the side. What you are talking about is the same as any theory, it is simply a way of making sense of the world. Welcome to academia, honey, There is no right and wrong answer!

EDIT before feminism,the pill was not prescribed for unmarried women.

Answer 7

to be fair, the practice of setting up studies and experiments in such a wat that they give you the outcome you are looking for is not something that is only feminists do. Even better, they probably learned this trick from men, the people who traditionally dwelt in science from days of yore.

What exactly is your problem with feminists? I find it very fascinating,t eh way you talk about them. I don't consider myself a feminist, but feel free to call me one and thumb me down for not agreeing with you anyway :-)