Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81 – Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court since 1993
“Women will only have true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation.”
What? Here’s another highly influential non-Christian, rabid, feminist (idiot) whose opinions of men, and her irrational demands for equality, are colored by her dysfunctional upbringing. Unlike non-Christians, Christian men, along with their wives, have ALWAYS been responsible for bringing up the next generation. To assume otherwise, negates her ability to contribute anything of import on this issue. She is obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. kqd
Please click on my related post – Equality Idiots Vol. #1 Essay 13
It's the Women, Not the Men! 
Eat a dick kqduane
LikeLike
😂😂😂 You wish.
LikeLike
Um what? I have never been more angry in my life. I’m sorry you believe this but asking for equal rights is not being irrational. Women should have equality (and everyone else for that matter) and I don’t think you realize that men are also feminists. It’s not “non-Christian, lesbian-led, radical, second-wave leaders”, it’s anyone who thinks everyone should be treated the same. I hope you don’t have daughters that you’re telling shouldn’t be able to accomplish as much as the boys they’re friends with. Also if a man is Christian that doesn’t mean anything about their personality just saying✌️
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, second and third-wave feminism were ALL created by misanthropes. Everyone of those women were sociopaths. Read my post, “Vanity of Voting – Vol. #3 Essay 15” to see just how disturbed the originators of first-wave feminism were. Their irrational ideologies were based on their own personal experiences at the hands of demented parents or abusive husbands. Their loveless upbringings DID NOT represent the experiences of the vast majority of happy Christian women and therefore should NEVER have been used to lump all men into one category as “oppressive” individuals who were hell bent on “dominating” their wives and daughters, when MOST were NOT! Just the idea of it makes me laugh!
Just what “rights” have you been denied? The “right” to become a whore; have illegitimate children; to divorce, to do drugs; to publicly drink til you puke; to strut half-naked across the beach; to dye your hair purple; to tattoo and pierce yourself from head to toe; to come home to an empty apartment after 25 years “on the job” with only a cat for company and become poor, sick and lonely??? Is this how you want your life to look when you’ve reached “retirement”. Only a demented feminist would irrationally “aspire” to that kind of life. You may think it’s all “fun” now, but trust me, it won’t end well.
How does creating an ideology, which is AT ODDS with the very fundamental, and protective, elements of happy and joyful women’s lives (faith, marriage, husbands, children and family) make sense? It doesn’t. And, that’s why today, after 50 years of brainwashing by non-Christian, anti-Christian academia, social media and the entertainment industry there are SO many bitchy, unhappy, nasty and obnoxious women walking the earth. Women, who technically, have acquired “equality” in the workplace, which is the only arena in which feminists finally found some success because establishing an entirely new, and separate, female psychology, upon which to define and establish their “new world”, proved impossible and was finally abandoned by female “professors” of Women’s Studies programs nationwide.
It’s very amusing that having acquired “equality” at work, women have sacrificed every traditional safety net in their lives, exposing themselves to broken hearts, spirits, bodies and minds through the feminist promulgation of “explicit sexuality” that was supposed to “empower” women. 😂 These twisted women are not angry because of what radical feminism claims men have denied them, they are, instead, angry because of the happiness that feminism has denied to them by placing them on an irreversible, confrontational path with good men that is fraught with irrational, screaming demands, senseless objections, hate-filled non-issues, self-loathing and baseless misandry. Read my post, “10+ Tenets of Christianity vs. 10+ Ideals of Radical Feminism” to see just how corrosive feminist ideology, and it’s associated lifestyle, is to young women’s lives. It’s almost psychotic.
Demanding “equality” has become the catchphrase most delusional young feminists (both men and women) resort to when trying to justify feminism’s misandrist tyranny. Feminism has NEVER been about pursuing “equality” for women, but instead, has ALWAYS been about seeking irrational “inequality” for innocent young men. Feminism’s twisted founders, and its leaders, simply wanted seething revenge on ALL men for the personal, emotional, physical or spiritual injuries, to which they were subjected by ONE man in their lives who abused them as young children or young adults. Read my post, “Equality Idiots – Vol. #1 Essay 13” to see through the feminist smoke screen in which you are enveloped. The feminist form of “equality” destroys the best parts of women – family oriented love, joy, charity, beauty, concern, kindness and grace. And, we are a MUCH depleted culture for it. Best of luck.
LikeLike
Well you do know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued on both fronts though, right? She changed laws that favored women over men so that everyone could be equal. Also, I am Christian and a confirmed Catholic. I’m not a whore dying my hair and running around naked on beaches. As for the rest of that lengthy response- I don’t even have words. I guess I’ll just do die alone and sick like you say I will. Bye.
LikeLike
Where did you hear that Bader-Ginsburg “changed laws that favored women over men”? 😂😂 Her ENTIRE career has been built around denying men their rightful places of prominence in our Western Civilization culture while “legally” forcing women onto their playing fields. She’s a single-issue, radical, second-wave FEMINIST justice through and through. Bader-Ginsburg has NO legal views that aren’t tinted by misandry and her irrational obsession to advance women, at all costs. And as for you, I find it very hard to believe that you are who you say you are because you are so brainwashed, ill-informed, rude and difficult. I’d guess you were Jewish instead.
LikeLike
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Biographies&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CK1631002530&docType=Biography&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZGIR-MOD1&prodId=GIC&contentSet=GALE%7CK1631002530&searchId=R3&userGroupName=mnkcretin&inPS=true#
8th paragraph
Lol also why is “Jewish” an insult?
LikeLike
One item
LikeLike
You need an access code to open this high school link.
LikeLike
Hahahaha oops sorry. Believe what you want to believe. I respect you for writing your blogs about your beliefs. Have a good rest of your life✌️
LikeLike
You too. Keep your eyes and ears open. You’ll eventually find the truth.
LikeLike
I respect your faith, but “the very fundamental, and protective, elements of happy and joyful women’s lives (faith, marriage, husbands, children and family)” are your individual opinions. Marriage, husbands and children are simply NOT what brings fulfillment to every single woman out there. A lot of women are instead passionate about their jobs and their work, and that’s where discriminatory practices like pay gaps hurt them. You might want to consider that much like the “Twisted leaders of feminism” that are seeking revenge on ALL men because of the ONE man that abused them (according to you), you are also projecting YOUR OWN idea of what constitutes a happy woman’s life on ALL women out there who actually have very different ideas of happiness.
Besides, legal equality is not affected by what is morally correct behavior and not. Because ideas of what might or might not constitute morally correct behavior might be biased by religious and personal sentiments. Having multiple sexual relations, having children out of wedlock, divorcing, drinking alcohol, dying your hair“, getting tattoos, or piercings or deciding to not marry and have a pet for company instead are very, very personal decisions and if one sex is free to do something without moral policing, the other should by all rights be too, unless you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of equality itself. YOU might think its “demented”, YOU might think “it won’t end well”, and YOU might not aspire to such a life. I might feel the same. But that doesn’t mean we can impose and project our thoughts on ALL women out there. We can’t decide that just because we are not comfortable doing certain things, every other person has to do the same. That is simply not being respectful of other people’s opinions and lives.
In response to another remark though, you might want to be aware that Justice Ginsburg, when she was a lawyer and systematically dismantling gender discriminatory laws and practices, actually picked out several male plaintiffs too, just so she could show that gender discrimination was harmful to men as well as women. Her ENTIRE career has NOT been built around denying men. And also, though I am not stupid enough to think I could actually convince you, Feminism is about equality and not about hating men. It is such a common misconception but honestly a cursory search could tell you that feminists are both men and women who believe in equality and recognize that gender definitions as they are right now in society are problematic. (Ref: We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, if you want since you have earlier displayed that knowing the opposition is key to defeating them in the “war”.)
Also as a feedback, derogatory language and unexplained dismissals of popular icons/beliefs/ideologies will not win you supporters or help people understand you. For that you at least need to recognize where the opposition is coming from rather and logically unravel that rather than reducing them to evil, rabid or whatever.
LikeLike
You are promoting the false god of moral relativism. Moral relativism is a universal, and irrational, smoke screen for BAD behavior. Bad behavior which has been proven, time and time again, to make people unhappy, lonely, regretful, poor and diseased when compared to people who follow God’s truth and His laws. It deliberately seeks to entrap, and muddle the minds, of naive young people in its evil snare by “justifying” bad behavior as a “personal choice”. It seeks to warp the free will God gave humanity for evil rather than good. It’s promoted almost exclusively by compromised people who have already made seriously bad choices in their lives and who want others to affirm those choices by convincing them to side with them. Sorry. That’s the most disingenuous, selfish and dangerous argument I’ve every heard. Cowards take the easy way out of every situation. They stand for everything, and therefore stand for NOTHING and your ridiculous effort to justify that route is disgraceful. As Edmund Burke wrote, “When good men do nothing, evil prevails.” And moral relativism is inherently BAD for people because it is a pack of lies.
LikeLike
Also, “A very stupid woman who hates the constitution” somehow was first in her graduating Harvard Law School class? And the very same rabid feminist who is supposed to value career over family cared for her newborn AND her cancer stricken husband AND took notes for his classes while completing the previously mentioned law degree??
LikeLike
I have always had great disdain for Ginsburg. She NEVER represented US Constitution literally. She was a BITCH and an exceedingly political HACK for liberal, loony left. Thankfully, Amy Coney Barrett is her nemesis, which is only fair considering the blatant, decades-long DAMAGE, Ginsburg inflicted on our Constitution. Bad for country!
LikeLike
Although, you do realize that there is no such thing as a “literal interpretation of the constitution”??
First off, a document (especially a political document) written in the 18th century could hardly be all encompassing in today’s scenario. America has faced developments that the authors of the Constitution could not possibly have foreseen, seeing as they were not Gods. Besides, it was largely written by aristocratic plantation farmers (including slave owners) who sharply restricted the franchise to property-holding men. It was before mass democracy and industrial capitalism; electricity, coal, trains and airplanes.
Therefore, even if you were to understand their exact intentions when they wrote the document, you can’t use them in every situation today because it is impossible to predict how they would feel about, say, internet monopoly.
Secondly, it is not possible to remove all possible interpretation from a text in the first place. Whenever you read something- especially something written 230 years ago- you are inputting thoughts from your own brain to make sense of it. Because the brain that wrote the words is already dead. You can make arguments and speak of context but even so, you are still interpreting the words according to your own self.
So mostly when people speak of originalism and what the constitution actually means, they are actually simply referring to the interpretation that appeals most to them.
(Plus, it escapes me why you would call Justice Ginsburg names like that. Its pretty off-putting. It would serve you better to criticize public icons and their ideologies in a way that doesn’t alienate relative moderates. Like Ginsburg herself said, “Fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” Its short sighted on your part, if in addition to recognizing what her shortcomings are according to yourself, you can’t make even the slightest allowances of what a remarkable woman she was in so many other ways.)
LikeLike
What? You don’t have a clue what your talking about? And most importantly, you don’t have a clue as to what’s in the Constitution! You are simply regurgitating the left-wing looney’s PCBS. Stop being their pawn! The Constitution is about as basic and simplistic a document as you can find. Only a nitwit would not understand its text. And, it addresses very basic human needs and nothing more. Duh! Those needs do NO disappear with time and if you knew your history you’d now that there was NO aristocracy in America in 1700s! Instead, our Founding Father’s were hard-working business owners who hated the European aristocracy and fought to disentangle themselves FROM the aristocracy! Washington was encouraged to become “king” of America after the Revolution. He found this SO distasteful that he flat refused to even consider it and went home to his farm instead.
LikeLike
Don’t be ridiculous. Anyone who has 30 minutes to spare can read the Constitution. Also, I am very capable of making my own judgements, thank you very much. I am no one’s pawn. Don’t use that narrative to make sense of me. Besides, I did not even say that I support the idea of a “Living Constitution” in its completeness. I find the Common Law Approach a much more suitable option than Constitutional Pragmatism or Originalism, especially because, that is what courts follow 95% of the time anyway.
Also, only someone very, very ignorant would insist that the Constitution is basic, simplistic and easy to understand. Its written in language that is centuries old and intentionally vague, and divining the originally intended messages behind the words would be nothing short of a scholarly feat. By your own admission, the Constitution only “addresses very basic human needs and nothing more.” My point EXACTLY. Also, if we’re on the topic of the language of the Constitution, it is in fact, written in a way that omits the use of any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair interpretation, like Chief Justice Marshall noted. This is not accidental, obviously, since the people who wrote the constitution were very well aware of legal processes since many of them were trained lawyers themselves and must have been plenty aware of implications.
Thomas Jefferson himself, in an 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval wrote:
“But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Additionally, the founding fathers- with the exception of Benjamin Franklin- WERE from very privileged, elite backgrounds. They were far from ordinary in terms of wealth/social standing/education. James Madison was born into substantial wealth, George Washington was from Virginia gentry, Hamilton was descended from Scottish aristocrats and Thomas Jefferson was a billionaire by modern standards. The main 6 or the larger group of 60- they were all prominent, elite men.
LikeLike
KQ, There may have been a typo: “Unlike non-Christians, Christian WOMEN, along with their wives,…”
Should it not be Christian MEN, instead?
I share your contempt of the feminist ideology at play, here.
LikeLike
Thank you for your assistance. I have corrected the error. For anyone who received the original post, you will notice that this change alters the entire point of my comment. I apologize for the confusion.
LikeLike
No worries. I didn’t think that you’d suddenly become an advocate for lesbian marriage, so your intent was still clear, to me.
LikeLike
Thank you again for your help.
LikeLike
The strangest thing is it’s up to men, whatever that means
LikeLike
To a feminist, everything is ALWAYS the men’s fault. These radical women have rigged the discussion to get them, coming and going. In their twisted minds, no matter what Christian men do, or don’t do, they are to blame. It’s really sick.
LikeLike
Real equality is equality for all, not “equality” only for the privileged. Fathers are and have always been a very important part of parenting. To fight to be more inclusive of Fathers in their children’s lives is hardly rabid feminism destroying the family unit.
LikeLike
Privileged? What is your point? Class warfare? Secondly, fathers have NEVER been acknowledged by radical, second-wave, feminism to be an important part of parenting. In fact, they have spent the last 45 years systematically trashing Christian fathers through their push for female “independence”, “liberation” and “emancipation” from those very same men, both their own and their children’s and to assume otherwise is a sign of a total ignorance of radical feminism’s true goals with regards to men, and fathers in particular. These twisted women have spent decades promoting anti-father undertakings such as divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage, single motherhood, co-habitation, sexual promiscuity and the “ideal” feminist lifestyle based on the single, career women. If brainwashing millions of young, naive college women to believe this crap is NOT a sign of radical feminist’s concerted efforts to destroy the family unit, I don’t know what is?
LikeLike
Umm you seem to have misunderstood me. Feminism is “Equality for WOMEN”, Women are the privileged group I’m referring to. Also, RADICAL feminist have very successfully advocated the destruction and implemented the destruction of the family unit. The fact that Ginsburg is advocating FOR MEN, FOR FATHERS is something to be lauded, not insulted. I am not going to play idenity politics with you and judge a person based on race sex gender sexual orientation or any other meaningless (meaningless in this context) identifier. I’m going to judge Ginsburg on her ACTIONS. I’m going to judge her as an individual. Based on what she had done and advocated for she is one of the best Fathers Advocates today.
LikeLike
I must apologize. I just re-read my post and unfortunately, if you got my original post, I substituted the word “women” where I intended to type “men” and inadvertently changed the entire point of my comment. It should say, “…Christian MEN (not women) have ALWAYS…” I’m very sorry for the confusion. I hope this clears up my position on Christian father’s, 2000 year old, involvement in the upbringing of their children.
LikeLike
I am a feminist and I have man that are feminist so it’s not men I blame it’s people like you who think women shouldn’t have access to birth control and think a women should be an obedient little dog. A feminist thinks women should have rights the same as white straight men
LikeLike
God help you. You’ve drunk the emotion-killing, anti-female, PC feminist crap, by the gallon! You need to realize that the non-Christian, lesbian-led, radical, second-wave leaders have made it unacceptable to be a woman, which leaves most of their gullible, naive, young followers. (like yourself) ultimately angry and disillusioned with a life based on outrageous lies about Christian men and their motives. Read more of my blog to see who the twisted women are that you’ve aligned yourself with (see my posts, “Current EVEntS”). Get out while you can, before you’ve trashed your life pursuing a pointless, selfish lifestyle that will ultimately give you nothing but grief.
LikeLike
I’m Tracy the one at the bottom of the comments and I am a happy non lesbian women that has kids. Yet I still feel every one should be able to have control over their life and body’s and I accept every type of human being evean if I disagree with their views. I pitty you because your a half minded bitch with a inmorel view on how women can’t be more than some prinsses stuck in a tower waiting around for Prince Charming to save the day. I don’t know how you live with yourself.
LikeLike
Obviously, with a lot less hate then you have.
LikeLike