Confused - can I be against a women's group?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lucky

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
2,919
Location
Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
What are the rules here? I don't want to be anti-feminist (even if they might be anti-male, and anti-gun), but I don't want to support what they're doing either. I realize that not all feminists are anti's, I do, but they sure are quiet by comparison.

Can't I just support equal rights for everyone, and call everyone against that a Nazi or something? This is the internet, afterall.


42) Automatic and Semi-Automatic Weapons
WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons are illegal for hunting purposes; and
WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons do not support the hunting culture
found in all parts of Canada;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada
to support legislation to eliminate the personal use of automatic and semi-automatic
weapons.

National Women’s Liberal Commission
Liberal Party of Nova Scotia

Also see #47, another gem.

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/PolicyWorkbook-EN-web.pdf
 
what is wrong with being anti-femminist? I am not so sure to what you are reffering when you say you are for "equal rights". I could be wrong but I believe most laws in Canada and the USA are the same for men and women.

this is old news, all the places with stringent gun control laws are the places with the worst gun crime. I never understood the idea that a would be murderer might check himself because he is scared to break a gun control law.
 
Yup, Liberals are officially going to go the route of Australia and England if they get back into power. And you can bet they'll do it in a sneaky way, like voting on Christmas Eve or something. If they get power it will happen.

For the record Canada has equality, LOL, just like all the animals in Orwell's Animal Farm were equal.

When you apply for a job,
"The Public Service of Canada is committed to building a skilled, diverse workforce reflective of Canadian society. As a result, it promotes employment equity and encourages candidates to indicate voluntarily on their application if they are a woman, an Aboriginal person, a person with a disability or a member of a visible minority group."

Our freaking constitution specifies that everyone is equal, it's just that some people deserve more than others. You can't take anything away from a group, but you can give stuff to everyone except that group. Cute eh? Another reason why governments should be limited in what they can take, because it will limit their ability to give.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
 
http://www.now.org/

I am against them. If this is a problem, speak now.

Logically, they are against us, and should expect the same in return. Do you think they stop and ask themselves if they can be against a gun group? Any woman I would associate with is not going to belong to one of those organizations in the first place.
 
You can disagree with a groups position without being "against" every member of that group.

Just because the AARP and I don't see evey to eye on SSecurity, doesn't mean that I am disavowing my grandma.

Just as I am sure that, despite their misguided notions, there are several members of NWLC that I would like to support. One or two at a time. :evil:
 
ranger

well AARP is a leftist group. they are using your grandma along with millions of others. There are conservative groups now that offer the same benefits without the left wing agenda.
 
Because a women's group is against guns, that doesn't mean that if they fight for gender equality, that you will oppose that fight. If you think it means that, then you are using their opposition to guns as a coverup for your own real opposition to gender equality.

I think the GOP is full of crap on social issues, however, that doesn't mean I don't support gun rights (which some of them supposedly are for).
 
I'm anti-feminist and I AM A WOMAN. Do not judge all women by a few liberal post modern feminist theory odd balls. I can not stand to be around a feminist. I'd rather chew tacks. :D
 
Endorsing or being a member of a women's rights group doesn't mean you've got to support them on every single thing.

Case in point, Gary Kleck is a member of the ACLU and Amnesty International.

One thing I don't understand even a little is why liberals and conservatives seem to switch sides when it comes to the second amendment. Liberals want every right interpreted as broadly as humanly possible, and anything less is a travesty. Yet they endorse restrictions on the second amendment to a draconian degree. Conservatives tend towards the opposite. I don't understand it in the least.

BE IT RESOLVED that I haven't got a F-ing clue why a women's group is so eager to declare that they won't defend themselves against any foe.
 
I know why. The left wants some rights interpreted very broadly as they can be used aganist this country and capitalism. They want guns banned so they can force their agenda. Like Saul Cornell said gun ownernship does not go along with their vision of a well regulated society. Just as soon as they take over those broadly defined rights will be clamped down on. Take freedom of speech. Think about it. They know what they are doing. Do you? Take for instance the free exercise clause. When have they ever put up legal theories expanding that right. They have not. They would like to starve it and drown it in a bathtub. Take the fight aganist military tribunals. These have been held before. Why not now. Why should POWs or Enemy combants be tried in our Courts and not a military court where they belong. Why do we not see them sending pro bono lawyers to help our cause.I know why. Do you? Why do they not want our immigration laws enforced. I know why. Do You? It is really not that hard to understand with just a little reading of left wing academic writing or reading magizines such as The Nation or Americian Prospect. It is no secret. Why do they fight school Vouchers? I could go on and on.
 
I gotta right to be me - folks got a right to be them.

COTUS and BoR says so. Human Rights and all too. Adage says: Folks gotta right to be wrong.
My thinking says "That means I gotta right to be right."

I am right and they are wrong, I do not care what sex, race, gender or anything. I am right - they are wrong and breathing my air in doing so.

I am not PC. Basically I reserve the right to tick off anyone I want, anytime I want. Folks gotta right to be ticked off at me anytime they want.

I like this Simple approach to life.
 
I once tried to be against a women's group. They all screamed and ran away, and the wife yelled, "Quit rubbing up against them, dammit!"
:evil:
 
You're not being anti-feminist.

Are you for equal work for equal pay? Are you for respecting women as human beings and not chattel? Are you for a womans right to vote? Own her own property? Be her own ondividual in the eyes of the law and her fellow citizen? Then you're not anti-feminist. You're being anti-ignoramus. And that's a good thing. Quite being overly sensitive. It turns off the kind of woman who you'd like to respect you. Namely, the non-whining kind.
 
Traditional femenist ideas don't bother me a great deal.

I am against many feminist groups because I don't think they are independent. They have attached themselves to the liberal Democrats or other left wing agendas that have nothing to do with feminism. Honestly, why would a feminist group have a position on gun control? Guns are not gender specific. There is actually a colorful history of women using firearms in this country even though there have almost always been fewer women shooters than men. Not to mention the other argument about guns actually being a liberating force for women who would largely be at a disadvantage in a world without guns. But I guess once someone starts crusading for one thing, it is too easy to crusade for everything else at the same time.
 
I am a woman. I believe in equal rights under the law for women. I do not believe in "special rights", quotas, or improved opportunities for women over men. So, I am not a feminist.

I also firmly believe that most women's groups are anti-gun, especially for self-defense, because if women were every truly educated on the benefits of gun ownership then the political power of these groups would wane.
 
LowSci said:
One thing I don't understand even a little is why liberals and conservatives seem to switch sides when it comes to the second amendment. Liberals want every right interpreted as broadly as humanly possible, and anything less is a travesty. Yet they endorse restrictions on the second amendment to a draconian degree. Conservatives tend towards the opposite. I don't understand it in the least.
It is interesting, isn't it? The left wants no restrictions on free speech, but is willing to do a cost-benefit analysis on the Second Amendment. The right wants a strict states-right interpretation of the Constitution, but is willing to do a cost-benefit analysis on searches and siezures.

If only there was a political ideology that supported all rights... ;)
 
Lucky, Sir you worry too much about nothing. Political correctness has gone so far nowadays it has become mass stupidity. I always try to be polite and civil to all others as much as possible but I can dislike or disagree with someone for any reason I want to. Politics, ideas, or even the way they dress or wear their hair. I have little use for self styled activists, feminists, religeous zealots, do gooders, Eco-freaks, all polititians, most lawyers and busybodies. I'm law abiding and at 68 yrs of age I do not need other people trying to dictate anything to me about correctness, what I think, or my lifestyle. I carry a concealed weapon every day because I choose to and damn what others may think. I still hunt occasionally and also catch and eat fish. Although I try to avoid arguements and confrontations, when pushed I will repond with my opinions regardless of what others may think be they men, women or otherwise.
 
LightningJoe said:
I think nowadays "feminist" just means "ugly chick



Yes. I see women have come a long way. All we have to do is look at the post quoted above. We are now the equivalent of a farm animal. Moving on up the ladder we are. And you guys wonder why women get mad at you. That quote is a PRIME EXAMPLE.
 
I prefer that women have equal job opportunities and can vote. I prefer that they have reasonable control over their own bodies. I prefer that women scientists can work in Chemistry departments in colleges and not relegated to the Home Economics department as in the past. I prefer that the state stay of the bedrooms of consenting adults. I remember when birth control and oral sex were illegal. Presently and in the past, social conservatives (some of them deluded women of the same ilk that defend the Burkha) have been against all of these advances.

If you want to read reasonable works by feminists who are strongly progun, read McCaughey, Oyster and others (see the other thread about gender in General Gun for my reference post).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top