The Intellectual Insurgent vs Denmark Vesey
Intellectual Insurgent
We are always going to cross swords on gender politics. I've been fighting patriarchy since I was born and so it is real to me. I see it in my family every time I go to Egypt, so it is real to me.
In addition, your notion that it is a man's job to save a woman from herself assumes that men have a clue about anything. And they don't. They have been the stewards of civilization since its inception and have fucked it up time immemorial. Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Well, men have been running the show since day one and it's still fucked up. Perhaps, contrary to your sentiment, it is time for women to save men from themselves. If you think about the story of the Garden of Eden, it seems to me that is precisely the point of the story. It was Eve who led Adam out of ignorance and brought him to knowledge. The problem is that, ever since, man has been so mad about not being an ignorant animal, that he has punished womankind for it. He's still as ignorant as he was in the garden when they were frolicking naked. Now he just has a 3-piece suit to make the ignorance appear "civilized".
Denmark Vesey
I see I've got some work to do.
There is no more powerful yet delicate relationship than male and female. On it depends the family, the cornerstone of society and ultimately humanity itself. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the second wave feminist propaganda that "men have exploited women" throughout history has become the official orthodoxy.
To characterize 50,000 years of human evolution as an exploitation of women by men is as absurd as characterizing 50,000 years of human evolution as an exploitation of short people by tall people or attractive people by unattractive people.
The fact is neither men nor women hold a monopoly on exploitation. Men and women tend to behave in concert. Remember millions, perhaps billions, of women have been fed and thrived on the spoils of war "waged by men". For whom do you think men were fighting? Do you think men have spent the past 20,000 years waging wars and beating their wives while women fought for suffrage and organized peace movements? No.
Your characterization of what happened in the Garden of Eden reads like a police report after a domestic dispute. Her side of the story. I think your interpretation of the metaphor leaves much to be desired. Satan was succesful in tempting Eve because he was able to make her jealous of the relationship between Adam and God. It is not very difficult to convince a woman she is being treated unfairly while men have nothing but fun.
As the world tinkers on nuclear holocuast and environmental catastrophe, I would be hesitant to describe the Fall From Grace as man being led to knowledge by Eve. I fault Adam for not protecting Eve from the cancerous propaganda whispered in her ear by Satan. Dividing Adam from Eve was his goal in the garden of eden at the dawn of time as it is the goal of the social engineers to divide men and women today by preaching the rhetoric of perpetual gender war.
The forces that divide men from women have been on the scene long before feminism, as a political movement, was even in the womb. Christian orthodoxy long debated whether women have souls (and it's not clear that they have reached agreement on the answer yet), women cannot be ordained as Catholic priests, Islamic orthodoxy continues to veil women, stone them for minor offenses and deny them equal rights and Orthodox Judaism denies women the opportunity to be rabbis. There are many more examples of male-dominated institutions affirmatively dividing men and women, but I trust these examples suffice in light of the thousand of years in which they have perfected their oppression. You are right that no one who has the best interests of humanity at heart would try to divide man and woman. After all, male-dominated religious institutions have never had the best interests of society at heart.
What is quite remarkable to me is that, in one of your recent posts, you defend Ann Coulter by saying that she is a necessary byproduct of liberal policy/propaganda. Applying this logic --which is quite similar to the law of physics that postulates that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction -- you must acknowledge and admit that feminism is the necessary effect of centuries of male arrogance and domination over women. Feminism did not evolve in a vacuum from nowhere. It was born of centuries of struggle against legally enforced, state-sanctioned servitude.
You are correct that women have been fed on the spoils of war, but so were slaves. By your logic, the fact that a woman eats the food or lives on the land of a conqueror, she is of an elevated status. If that is, indeed, true, then the slaves throughout history were equally culpable for living on the plantation.
For whom were the men fighting? I do not accept the implication from your question that "men" were fighting for women. Bush is not raping and pillaging Iraq for Laura. He is doing it for the ages old reason of greed and power lust. Man's domination of women is born of the same immorality.
Your reading of the Garden of Eden allegory is quite convenient, but if it was Satan's intent to divide man from woman, he failed miserably given that it did not take long for Adam to join eve in the world of knowledge. A cursory reading of any religious text illustrates that it is God, not necessarily Satan, that has mandated the division of man from woman.
Man's exploitation of women is not propaganda. It is thousands of years in the making. It is enshrined in the holiest principles of the alleged God of billions of sheeple. To deny this is to attempt to rewrite religion to make it more supportive of your argument. But it doesn't.
You cannot deny the law of cause and effect. Thousands of years of monotheism across the globe have left humanity with no morals, lost and without a sense of decency. Feminism is a natural response to this as women have been and are consistently the victims of man's frustration with his impotence.
Is that true Robyn? Do you really see advantages for Curtis Jackson to surround himself with black lawyers and accountants?
What are they? Can a brother really compete?
Let's face it, the legal profession is as Jewish as the NBA is black. Fiddy may be a fool, or he may just be playing Machiavelli. Or maybe he just finished "The 48 Laws of Power".