Pretty Lady has a good start with the felines:
My dear cat Barnacle finds this whole dialogue simply enchanting. He is obviously more intelligent than I, because I cannot follow it at all. It looks to me as though the male personae simply do not like the women; can this be true? Why ever not?
The evidence does suggest the possibility that dear Barnacle might have a paw up in the grammatical department. It’s quite true, however, that there are a few male regulars here who don’t have much use for women; in addition to the embittered and clamorous few who inevitably sound off on these subjects there are the Queer Party Friends who find women to be entirely extraneous.
I’m not opposed to women as such, merely those who provide the fuel for the equalitarian and socialist fires. Unfortunately, this happens to be a majority in latter-day America, which is why women’s suffrage is the most damaging aspect of the disaster that is universal suffrage. I don’t fear a matriarchy, for that will never happen, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that an Amazonian Guard of national figureheads is being assembled in order to provide a biddable cadre of globalist lieutenants. Women are more suitable than men in this role, since the only men capable of being controlled as easily are not sufficiently intelligent to be particularly useful. This is why I expect Hillary Clinton to be the next president, although Condoleeza Rice would probably be just as suitable.
Kim, meanwhile, needs to brush up both her definitions and history:
So somehow all femininsts want the same thing, think the same way and are the root of the downfall of western civilization (even though men let them…but that just means men are NICE and not weak or anything) and even when it’s the mens fault, it really isn’t. And she totally misses where having the ability to speak out, write books and raise her children how she wants not only makes her a feminist, she got where she is because of feminists
If one ignores the useless definitions of feminism – “a feminist is someone who believes women are human beings” is about as broad and as relevant as defining a feminist as “oxygen-breathing” – then yes, feminists do want the same thing, (security, socialism and no personal responsibility for women), they all think the same way (sans logic, a basic understanding of history and an awareness of probable consequences), and while they are not the root, they are the fertilizer of the downfall of western civilization.
Seriously, if you accept the concept that the West is in decline – and you can certainly argue against that, but that’s another discussion – then what candidates besides feminism would you suggest? That’s not a rhetorical question, I invite Kim, Kathleen, Pretty Lady or anyone else to suggest their candidates.
As it is apparent to all that women were demonstrably speaking, writing books and raising children long before the first feminists realized that they were unappealing to men, I shall spare Kim the embarrassment of exploring the depths of silliness inadvertantly revealed by her last statement.
Mike harbors prurient interest:
1) Was that one hot?
2) Did you help dispell the false notion folks were getting of her?
1) Not even a little bit.
2) Not even a little bit.