The Lavender Filter

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

* Comment rescued from thread drift oblivion and put on the side of the website reserved for political opinion.  

A Feminist Dissection of Kirk's Political Rhetoric.

I've toned back the anger against patriarchal tyranny over the years, but quotes from the late and impactful Charlie Kirk make me 25 again. And make me want to speak out before you build him the statue on the sacred cow pedestal. 

Part of his legacy and use of free choice was crossing cultural lines. Instigating people on the left.  

As he did  with this:

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.

Reject feminism. 

Thats really a nothing statement, but it catches your attention and baits you in..

Submit to your husband. 

Or move to the Isle of Sapphos? Or at least look for an apartment in Amazonia?

Still holding on to the code of Ur Nammu or something? Maybe Hammurabi? How many shekels am I worth?  Do I have say in my trade clause?

What is that shit?  That's like THE TRIGGER.  And I mean that.  To some that is like saying, "You pitiful secondclass woman are nothing more than our property - because something something antiquated." 

It's the most insulting line to cross. And he monetized it.

Sidebar remembering Charlie:

His favorite thing to do was, knowing feminist often have sympathy for transgender issues, hijack them into his game and dominate them by making them have to answer his nonsequitur questions about gender.

Like the Cambridge girl that wanted to talk about XX women's role in culture, e.g. his sexism, and he sidetracked her into having to respond to anti-trans nonsense, which completely distracted and derailed her intention in the debate.

I watched that and cringed as he pulled her right into his rhetorical trap.

And finally:

You’re not in charge.

Says you. Oh, Legacy of Charlie, what dictates that exactly? 

A question I'd love if they brought him back to life so I could answer would be:

What says a women cant be in charge of major decisions? 

Who says the man can't play a supportive role to the ultimate authority of the woman?

What validates his statement?

He must have realized Taylor's worth is like 25-30 times what Travis is. She's a billionaire with Cult of Personality following that has a positive impact on the world. What is he by comparison? 

I will never respect Kirk's views, but I also never wanted him dead for it. That helped no one. Made things worse. I truly just want him brought back to life so I can debate him. 

I also find it a little irresponsible that we build any monuments for this guy before we hash out the political baiting (and different types of intolerance) that was his opinion and legacy.

[UltraBudgie]

There's a bit of a Catch-22 to this thread.

Any responses you get will either agree with you, or be from those who think it's worthwhile to argue gender politics with a woman.

So I don't think you're going to get the honest answers you're looking for.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

My hope is the name makes no one want to read it.

And because there is no "rant" in Deny Politics.  

​​​​​​Related Catch 22: 

Statement 1: it is a total silencing of his liberty that someone did this his him, and hurt his family, supporters, and society simply for his opinions being too provocative, if such is the case. 

Statement 2: His opinions were reprehensible and often times crafted to bait and troll multiple segments of liberal society and provoke them to reaction. Especially women and LGBT people. 

We cant make his "samsara" free of the controversy that defined him.

The hard part is trying to disagree with him completely without looking like you're also happy this happened... 




* Reworded

[Roma]

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.


Maybe he was paraphrasing the Bible?

Edit:  I'm not condoning it.  I just did a quick lookup...

[quintessentone]

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.


Maybe he was paraphrasing the Bible?

Edit:  I'm not condoning it.  I just did a quick lookup...

Genesis 2:18-24

"The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.” / And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. / The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. ..."

--------

A suitable helper can't be submissive as all his livestock were.

[UltraBudgie]

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.


Maybe he was paraphrasing the Bible?

Edit:  I'm not condoning it.  I just did a quick lookup...

I asked chatwithgod.ai about that verse, and it got all mealy-mouthed, talking about context and looking at scripture as a hole. It's obviously been instructed to censor itself. So you might be on to something.

[Roma]

Thank you @UltraBudgie.  I was initially afraid to post that passage and risk the wrath of every woman on the site.  Apparently it's AI to the rescue.

On a side note, I could care less about Travis and Taylor.  I'm an Eagles fan!

Cheers.

[UltraBudgie]

Thank you @UltraBudgie.  I was initially afraid to post that passage and risk the wrath of every woman on the site.  Apparently it's AI to the rescue.

It certainly is fun to watch it dance around scripture. Another good one is Ecc 7:26:

And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.

So, you see, it's not the woman who is in any way intrinsically evil, that's not what's being said, in fact it is the fault of the man, the "harmful desires" that are the problem. Woman is just a manifestation of those. Wait, no, that's not it—um, it's just that one dude's personal experience. That's it. Prolly an incel.

[Roma]

@UltraBudgie, there are three books in the Bible that mention UFOs: Genesis, Revelations and Enoch.  

I'm just putting that out there in case you want to take it X-Files, lol.

Thanks.

[UltraBudgie]

@UltraBudgie, there are three books in the Bible that mention UFOs: Genesis, Revelations and Enoch.  

I'm just putting that out there in case you want to take it X-Files, lol.

Thanks.

LOL, sure, can't get in to the treatment of women in the bible too much—it's too divisive. So let's leaven things with a little UFO talk. Don't forget the wonderful story in Ezekiel 1!

The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.

And while we're at it I'll throw in a little something from the Bodhicaryavatara:



So you see the struggle against the perception of women as impure is not something that just sprouted up from modern feminism...