Posts by rowdytiger13

I honestly think we should just merge this thread with the feminism one or rename it entirely. Otherwise, the high-energy crowd is just going to migrate over to the "marriage referendum" discussion, leaving the rest of us stuck in an off-topic mess.😁

redbear12 said:Kind of like some leftist version of Judith Reismann🤔

It’s just sad watching people like her try to fix the fallout while totally ignoring—and basically fueling—the actual causes they claim to be fighting against.🤷

Care to elaborate on that?
How exactly are these feminist activists reinforcing the very issues they're trying to dismantle?

Neva Tolle works for an autonomous women's shelter—it’s a non-profit NGO dedicated to providing safe havens for women and children fleeing domestic violence.
Anyway, I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.

Casey Mitchell72 said:We’re all pretty familiar with what these ladies do, especially the loud ones like Sarnavka or Rudanica. They've been in the media for years, always jumping into whatever big news story is trending, and they lead these intense battles against the church. It feels like they just use the LGBT community as a convenient shield to throw stones at everything else. Even Ankica Cakardic openly pushes to scrap the institution of marriage, and what's easier than using the LGBT crowd to do it? They act all radical and anarchist, commenting on every little thing while totally ignoring actual women's rights. Long story short—it's all fake. 😍

That’s more of a fundamental worldview issue. You think it has nothing to do with women's rights because you're sitting on the right side of the spectrum—the side that views traditional values as sacred and wants to protect them at all costs.
They’re on the left, believing those traditions aren't sacred and absolutely need to change. It's a gap that isn't getting bridged anytime soon.
By the way, I think it's a bit uncalled for to claim Saravanka does nothing for women just to chase headlines. As for the others, I don't know their work well enough to comment, but regardless of how much you disagree with her ideology, saying that about Saravanka feels cheap.

Jack Cook7 said:Wait, did I get that right? You're saying the American feminist scene is totally behind because the key players aren't even lesbians yet?

Well, let's fix that RIGHT NOW! Seriously, the US government needs to step up and fund a total makeover of the American feminist movement immediately. Because look, folks, these "old school" types we have now? Come on... most of these women are 50 plus! I mean, seriously, has anyone ever actually seen a lesbian older than 18? Huh? Anyone?

Honestly, I think we should just jack the sales tax from like 7% up to at least 88% just to encourage girls to finally embrace their true impulses without feeling judged by society. 👍

You didn't.😁

Casey Mitchell72 said:Maybe a few guys still feel a little threatened, but honestly, they still love their wives just fine.😁

Yeah, I saw this coming from a mile away.
You mentioned how women fought hard enough for their rights, but clearly there’s still plenty of room left for the feminist struggle.
It’d be way better if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasons behind the movement, because honestly, I feel like a bull in a china shop when it comes to this stuff. It leads to a lot of misunderstandings, which is clearly happening here.
The feminist movement isn't actually about redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That whole mess was stirred up by groups on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBT organizations felt directly attacked by that initiative, the feminist groups stepped in to back them up.
The feminist movement is fighting to redefine the roles within a traditional marriage—not the definition itself. From what I know, the literal definition isn't even their main concern.

Look, we aren't really talking about feminism here, so we're drifting off-topic, but let me add that feminism isn't just one single ideology. It’s more like a collection of different ideologies, which means there are different types of feminism. Some focus on a woman's status in society. The first wave was all about voting rights, the second was about emancipation, and the third wave—which is what we see today—tries to negate gender entirely. A huge part of modern feminism focuses on LGBT rights, specifically for lesbians.
You asked me to list some lesbian feminist activists, so here’s a link to wiki. Most third-wave feminists are either openly gay or have LGBT rights and gender ideology at the center of everything they do. The activist feminists who aren't lesbians express their feminism differently, have different goals, and fight for them in a totally different way than the ones who are.

There's also a massive rift between lesbian and hetero feminists; check out this example.
You're spot on when you say the feminist movement has nothing to do with redefining marriage as a man-woman union. I'd just add that while the hetero feminist movement doesn't care about that, the lesbian movement definitely does.

Sorry again for going off-topic! 😉

I was thinking about America, and the names that come to mind are mostly hetero women: Sanja Saravanka, Nadezda Cacinovic, Vedrana Rudan, Vesna Kesic, Snjezana Pranjic Samardzija, Ankica Cakardic... pretty much everyone except Sanja Juras.
I don't know how things look elsewhere, but the fact is our activist scene is lagging far behind what's happening internationally (and that goes beyond just LGBT and feminist issues).
In our neck of the woods, 90% of feminists are hetero women who cooperate closely with LGBTQ+ organizations, supporting one another, including regarding this marriage initiative.

Women fought for a better, different standing in society, which naturally modernized marriage by shifting how spouses interact, but that isn't a redefinition of marriage itself. At its core, marriage remains what it has always been: a man, a woman, children, and family. Suggesting that women gaining more agency means the end of marriage is nonsense; I see those claims as nothing more than a sneaky spin from people who want to redefine marriage just to devalue and destroy it.

I'm not so sure about that.
I constantly hear traditionalists making claims like, "Everything went wrong once women got the right to vote."

There is a massive difference between fighting for labor rights, against workplace harassment, or sexual exploitation, and using those struggles as a cover to interfere with and dismantle the fundamental intuition of marriage, which has nothing to do with any of those issues.

Yeah, I figured we’d end up here.
You mentioned that women have already secured enough rights, yet clearly they haven't, as there's still plenty of room for the feminist movement to push forward.
It would be much more helpful if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasoning behind the movement; personally, I feel like a bull in a china shop in this arena, so things tend to get misinterpreted—as they obviously have here.
The feminist movement isn't actually interested in redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All this noise was stirred up by organizations on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBTQ+ advocacy groups felt directly threatened by certain initiatives, they stepped in to support feminist organizations.
What the feminist movement is actually pushing for is a redefinition of the roles within a traditional marriage, rather than the definition of the institution itself. From what I gather, the actual definition isn't their concern.

Just ignore all that noise from frustrated feminists.

Actually, those claims hold water. Even if they're fading in some places, they're still pretty prevalent here in the States.
If a woman reaches a certain age without being married or having kids, society still treats her like a failure—or if she’s focused on her career, she’s labeled an outlier.
Of course, it's socially conditioned from day one, starting right in our elementary school textbooks.

People were saying stuff like that even during Hitler's era... not exactly a winning argument.

Fair enough. But honestly, kids raised under those values aren't any better or worse than those raised with traditional ones.

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?

They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.

Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.

I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.

Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.

Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.

Jessica Kelly4 said:You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

The feminist movement actually accomplished quite a bit for women's rights, considering they weren't allowed to become those "diligent and humble engineers" in the first place; back then, people assumed women lacked the intellectual capacity for it.
Women were barred from attending universities because the prevailing logic was that you don't need an education just to raise kids. Women changed all of that themselves by proving they were just as smart and capable as men—making them the true original feminists.
And that’s not even mentioning the right to vote.

Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.

redbear12 said:So you're basically admitting there's a whole crowd in there dedicated to tearing marriage apart?

It isn't about destruction, it's more about redefining it, which is exactly how I laid it out in one of my previous posts.
And sure, if you want to call it that, I have nothing to confess; it's hardly a secret that reshaping social structures is a core objective for most feminist movements in America.
Edit: When people throw around the word "destruction," they usually mean dismantling traditional marriage and specifically the roles it expects women to play.

The article claims they were arguing that marriage equality is just a pre-political stepping stone toward some much larger agenda.

Where? I wasn't exactly hanging on every word since some of them were honestly pretty tedious. I don't recall hearing anything like that. Who actually said it?

If everyone is supposedly free to voice their opinions, why didn't anyone else speak up and say he was overstepping?

Because you’ve got a group of people there who all share the same views, just showing up to clap for one another. That's basically the first half of the twenty or so people there. The rest just showed up hoping to find a date; they couldn't care less about what these guys are rambling on about.

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

redbear12 said:Bold move. We all get it—equality comes first. But apparently, that means we have to tear down marriage entirely and label anyone who disagrees as a fascist. Throw in some cancel culture on top for good measure.

Is one statement about destroying marriage really worth more than the fight for equal rights?

If this was actually about progress, why wouldn't a queer activist talk about "reforming" marriage to fit your logic? Instead, they go straight for the word "destroy." That’s a choice.

That wasn't an official media statement made on behalf of an organization; it was just someone speaking at a panel where everyone is invited to share their own views.
It’s a classic example of that performative, high-society liberalism, but that’s beside the point.😁
As for why he phrased it that way, I couldn't tell you—you'd have to ask him.
The reality is that this is about redefining marriage, not destroying it. You're just hyper-focusing on a single word used during a discussion because it fits your narrative.

bluecyclist64 said:On topic: You often hear feminists rambling about subordination within a marriage, but let’s be realistic—it all comes down to the private agreements made between partners. In this country, there isn't some legal mandate forcing a woman to handle the laundry, nor is there a law compelling a man to split the firewood.
From a purely logical standpoint, though, I find my wife is more than happy to take care of the laundry when she sees me out there handling the heavy lifting around the house.
Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear: I am fundamentally opposed to this modern nonsense regarding "Parent A" and "Parent B." If it isn't Mom and Dad, then it's Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad; anything else is just unnecessary social engineering.

True, but that misses the point; it's more about how kids are raised from day one with values that reinforce those traditional roles, effectively keeping women in a secondary position.
The stereotypical depiction of women in our school textbooks—like in biology class—is a perfect example of that kind of conditioning.

redbear12 said:This might be the most blatant attempt to dodge the actual point

I gotta hand it to you, 👍

So basically, we just have to shut up and swallow it because our feminist friends say so, right? 🤔

Bolden. Seriously, why is anyone even asking for the right to join an outdated institution? 🤔

Looking at the video, it’s obvious: everyone is on board with tearing marriage down. Everyone agrees, even if they’re just staying quiet about it. PERIOD.

Now you're claiming it's an obsolete institution (or are you just parroting what they say?). If it's so "outdated," why the hell were they whining so much about the right to marry in the first place? VERY INTERESTING.

Well, I already gave you my answer.
Because at the end of the day, the fight for equality for the LGBTQ+ community is the top priority.

Jessica Kelly4 said:You're right. Those feminist roots are obvious, along with the aggressive rhetoric. The drive to dismantle marriage is much stronger than the actual pursuit of equality, as you noted. It’s even more apparent because they clearly have zero interest in marriage as a practice. For them, marriage is just a tool used to tear down tradition.

Marriage is inherently discriminatory by definition. If it weren't, the concept would lose all meaning—if marriage is everything, then it's nothing. In its current form, it has symbolism, legal structure, practical utility, and the reasonable assumption that it provides the best environment for raising children while following biological complementarity.

Questioning things isn't bad, but if you want to redefine something this fundamental, you need much better arguments than what we're seeing.

I don't follow the feminist scene too closely, but I think the goal is for marriage to be a contract between two individuals without those stereotypical roles being imposed... especially on women.
Traditional marriage places women in a subordinate position to men, and that’s exactly what they want to eliminate.
Recently, feminist groups have been protesting the stereotypical portrayal of women in elementary school textbooks, where women are shown exclusively as mothers or wives stuck in the kitchen while the father works and brings home the paycheck. That’s the degradation they're talking about.
They’ve also pushed back against the idea that only women should have maternity leave (which was the standard practice until recently), viewing that as another form of degradation. Why shouldn't a man stay home to raise the kids, cook, and clean while the woman builds a career and provides the income?
And why does a woman have to be a mother to achieve fulfillment as a person? That’s another stereotype forced by traditional marriage—that a woman's primary role is motherhood and the sole purpose of marriage is offspring.
That’s what they are trying to redefine.
Many lesbian activists are also feminists—not all, but it's common for the two movements to share views. One of the most prominent activists here in the States is also a feminist.
By the way, I found that girl's commentary on the distancing from the labor movement and union struggles quite interesting, and that movement sits on the same side of things. However, that solidarity often gets overshadowed by snobbery and salon leftists.

Alright, I'll actually try to be serious for a second.
The idea of redefining marriage—or just watching the whole institution vanish—isn't some new invention by the LGBTQ+ movement; it actually stems from feminism.
A certain wing of the feminist movement views traditional marriage as nothing more than a cage for women, a system designed to reduce them to mere biological functions like motherhood or childcare.
Since the LGBTQ+ community and feminist activists occupy the same side of the political spectrum, they’ve become natural allies, constantly backing one another up.
Back when the "marriage equality" movement first kicked off, there was a massive debate over whether pursuing it was worth it. Some argued it was just giving more legitimacy to an outdated institution, while others felt like we were essentially "betraying our sisters."
Ultimately, the consensus landed on equality being the priority. Everyone should have the right to enter into a marriage if they choose, even if they aren't doing it out of any specific ideological motivation.