@Tavener
Spot on: God dead=Humanity dead
Without God to guide us we are merely left to our narcissistic ruminations and identity politics. Thus is the slough of despond in the “humanities”.

I´ve posted an answer before to you Blake, but it got erased I don´t know why. Men reproductive rights don´t have anything to to do with abortion.

Women want the good parts about equality, but not the responsibilities.

It’s their body, so they shouldn’t have anything they don’t want in it. Is that how the reasoning goes?

Well, it’s their body, so they should take some responsibility for not putting babies into it.

Are women grown-ups who are ready for freedom, or are they irresponsible little children who need a guardian?

I´ve posted an answer before to you Blake, but it got erased I don´t know why. Men reproductive rights don´t have anything to to do with abortion. Specially considering that the zgyote/fetus happens to be inside WOMEN bodies, not men ones. That is some real biological difference that you seem to have forgotten concerning that debate.

In the real world, women have babies.

In the world of “Gender Studies”, it’s somehow normal and natural to pretend women don’t have babies – even if that means killing live babies and lying to cover up the evidence that women do in fact have bodies that have significant biological, physical, emotional, chemical, neurological, social, and spiritual differences from men.

“what you cannot say in the WMS class is that those differences are natural and help to determine what kinds of cultures human beings create, and what kinds they don’t. In other words, you cannot speak common sense.”

Again, the problem is WHICH differences you claim are natural and which differences you claim are created by culture (apparently you don´t believe any differences are cultural). And yes, in WMS many of the pretended “natural” differences are not accepted as such. Of your list I will say 1, 2, 4, 7 are utter nonsense, and of course hardly “natural” (I wonder if 7 leads you to some orwellian nightmare where men and women are equal, but men are more equal than women). 3 is true to a certain point (especially considering that in modern services society physical labor is hardly the only form of labor), 5 I don´t know what is supposed to mean, 6 is debatable (specially the reasons that denied women a participation in scientific enterprises), 9 is ridiculous in the light of stuff like rape statistics (you knew women are more likely to be raped by their sentimental partners, husband, bf etc, than strangers?) and 10 is just a mischaracterization of feminist position and criticism of gender roles.

So, “common sense”, my….
.

Men don’t have a right to control their own reproductive rights – if by control you mean “kill any babies they don’t want”.

And women can be preachers, in any system where preacher is not a gendered role. Or are you saying that there should be no such thing as gendered roles? Are you saying women have the right to be patriarchs? Do men also have the right to be mothers? Ha – thought not. Here we are again: back at the androgynous ideal – the dream of having “no gender roles” (which turns out in truth to mean that individuals within the system can appropriate the freedom to simply ignore or subvert anything they don’t like, if it happens to be gendered – which in turn tends to work out to “people should have the right to destroy any traditions they see that they don’t like, because traditions are just bad”…..)

Too bad gender roles are not a “choice”. All the pretending in the world will not change the fact that the evil patriarchal structure is inherently more stable and secure than matriarchies – for structural reasons.

3. The marked differences between men and women in bodily strength make some division of labor a necessity. Heck, I have a LAWN that no woman in my acquaintance could mow — certainly not my wife or my daughter.

If we wanted to, we could raise women who could mow the lawn and keep pace with the boys….I’ve met such women, with strong upper arms from many workouts….but such women would never give birth.

It is the act of giving birth that seals a woman’s fate: if she will reproduce, she must allow herself to become vulnerable. Feminists want to get rid of all vulnerability by simply legislating it away – they will be breadwinners, and hire people to raise their children, and they will pass laws forcing the state to give them what they need, instead of having to trust a man to provide for them. Hence socialism is necessary, because what they want is incompatible with a stable, trustworthy family unit.

9. The feminist movement is in part responsible for violence against women, and the unnecessary deaths of women, because feminists have consistently demeaned the one institution most likely to protect a woman from felony crime — marriage

There’s another institution, besides marriage, that protects women from violence – and that has been trashed by the ‘sexual revolution’. I am speaking of a thing called “the community”. A safe woman is a woman who lives in a community that can and will intervene to protect her – not by breaking up her marriage, but by helping to preserve it!

In a healthy community, the men teach the groom and the women teach the bride how to work things out. But in today’s culture we have severed those connections, and all the women will teach the other women is how to flee – even though that’s statistically more dangerous for a woman than staying and trying to work things out. Anger management classes work, and yet feminists still push the failed “shelter” approach – an approach that creates a revolving-door situation for the women involved. and we do not value them. Meanwhile, people pay lots of money for therapy and self-help books.

10. Feminists have slandered the housewife for over a hundred years.

Ever wonder why they call themselves “feminists”, when they view femininity as something that a woman needs to “outgrow”?

” . . . the fact/value distinction is pure humebug.”

You reply: “You kant be serious.”

You have a locke on humor.