user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It's male slavery anyway you at it.
You are committing THE REST OF YOUR LIFE to someone who needs a MEALTICKET to have what they want it life.
If men didn't fall in love with women, women would all starve to death and be herded like cattle because the can't provide for themselves.
That's the purpose of love.
To make you love them and WANT to PROVIDE for them. That way men WANT to GIVE them everything they need to survive.
I have been with my girlfriend for 19 years, we are not planning to marry anytime soon, but legally if we were to split up she would be intitled to 1/2, which is fair as we started out with nothing. We both have equal responsibility, we both make $$, we both have our roles for our children. I am happy in my life and so is she, marriage would make no differance.
by ABC on Tue Jun 15, 04 11:30am
[+]
My wife tells me it's not.
Grapost, for once i agree with you.
Looks like Grapost and NHB havent been laid in a loooonnnng time lol
Great question. Wish I had a ballot-type answer.
I'd opine that it *can* be worthwhile. However, all too often, it seems to be used as a means of subjugation.
As someone happily married for years now, I'm going to say it's more a form of commitment than anything else. It solves many legal issues related to property, children, and the like, and gives a relationship a higher level of commitment & seriousness that living with someone else doesn't necessarily. As far as women being chattel within marriage, well, under common law hundreds of years back, that may have been the case. However, modern divorce law generally gives them equal rights to property, their male spouses more equal rights to child custody, and, with "no fault" divorces, even matters such as infidelity usually don't affect property distribution. So, the idea that a woman's "trapped" in a marriage becomes less and less likely with every passing year that such laws are in effect or new ones enacted.
Plus, there's something to be said for the social stability that marriage offers. It prevents or at least restrains a lot of the potential arguments or worse that would come from every single member of society of breeding years being potentially "in play" at all times. It also prevents a completely chaotic situation as regards child care, where, if every mother were single and had been with multiple partners, it would become very expensive and timeconsuming in the courts trying to sort out who should be responsible for child rearing expenses & responsibilities for which child. Generally, while their have been contrary study results, the majority of modern sociological studies I've seen seem to suggest that children thrive best with a more stable home environment and with the economic and social benefits of having two parents available. I make no comment as to whether or not these parents should be the same or opposite sex.
"their" = "there"
(-:
any relationship can be fair to both parties or unfair to one of them, depends on who is involved and what they choose to do. I wouldn't get married though, because there's a lot of subconscious assumptions on both sides that would make it difficult to be worthwhile - like, for example, that assumption that the male has to provide, or her assumption that he should, which she will usually not be aware of, she will think she's a liberated type when in fact we've all been programmed more deeply than we know, from birth.
by waxy on Mon Jul 05, 04 12:47am
[+]
hey grapost u need to gt yr head out of time warp land, women today r more than capable of earinin fr themselves an do so too, its' the men who wld starve coz the little boys still havnt learnt to gt along without theie mommies
My wife told me to say it's not.
A big part of the reason for marriages failing these days is because nobody teaches kids in school how to make a good marriage, be good parents, and how to deal with life with real commonsense.
A chance to get wanked off by a woman
It is if you do it right.
when will women realise that marriage is nothing but a form of total subjugation? it perpetuates the old system of women going from the control of their fathers to that of their husbands?
Who needs marriage? Men do! Women do not - unless they have an unnatural urge to domesticity, that is! Housework, or the sole ownership of housework and cooking, by women is another form of men displaying their dominance over women. Christianity? Dont geet me started. This is the realm of fantasy - for our male "friends". It's all a load of tosh.
Marraige is Slavery only if Love ain't there.
Who needs marriage?
by quirk99 on Oct 13, 2004
Kids do! Society does! Families do! Women and Men who want stability in their lives! Thats why its ALWAYS been the far more popular option. People arent all stupid like you. Most actually have good reasons for their choices.
Housework, or the sole ownership of housework and cooking, by women is another form of men displaying their dominance over women.
by quirk99 on Oct 13, 2004
What planet are from? I know plenty of guys who have work a long way from home to support their families, for long hours, simply to earn enough for the wife and kids because they CARE. The wife has to take care of little children, you cant expect a baby to breastfeed from thin-air, or a 2-year-old to cook their own dinner! They might be ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for money, but what choice do they have? You think the man can BREASTFEED? What the hell do you think nature intended, huh? Grow a brain.
Marriage and cohabitation are both tired traditions. Living together, married or not, is pointless unless you really need money or someone to do chores for you, but even then, you'll probably still have to do some chores, and you'll have to put up with someone else's personal habits. I don't see cohabitation or marriage as necessities for a long-term relationship because you can still be faithful to each other while living apart. If you can't, then I don't think you should be together.
Also, without children, you don't need a marriage to provide a stable family environment. Pregnancy and childbirth are obviously physically unpleasant, and child-rearing is expensive and time-consuming anyway.
Marriage and cohabitation are both tired traditions. Living together, married or not, is pointless unless you really need money or someone to do chores for you, but even then, you'll probably still have to do some chores, and you'll have to put up with someone else's personal habits. by zorra on Nov 03, 2004
You sound like one of those people who had the 1960s idea of throw out anything thats old, without any understanding that you were throwing out the good with the bad. Theres nothing tired about marriage at all, and so what if its old? There are lots of traditions that survived for thousands, tens of thousands of years for very good reasons. Marriage has been one of them. The rest of your reasoning shows you have no real understanding of why people get married and belittle the people that choose marriage. The whole point is sharing, and from that both (or all partners) benefit for they gain a great more from it.
I don't see cohabitation or marriage as necessities for a long-term relationship because you can still be faithful to each other while living apart. If you can't, then I don't think you should be together. by zorra on Nov 03, 2004
Another example of how you show absolutely no understanding of why people marry, youve mentioned reasons that most married people dont even think about when they choose to marry. Its not about control and ownership as you seem to think, its about love and joy in being together, in friendship, and sharing experiences daily. Besides, you really cant share a life TOGETHER unless you really are LIVING TOGETHER.
Also, without children, you don't need a marriage to provide a stable family environment. Pregnancy and childbirth are obviously physically unpleasant, and child-rearing is expensive and time-consuming anyway.
by zorra on Nov 03, 2004
Physically unpleasant maybe but so are lots of thing you everyone has to deal with, child-rearing is expensive dependent on where you live, but you are really missing out on how rewarding having children can be. Kids are a lot more fun to watch growing up than a pet cat. More trouble sure, but the benefits in my experience outweigh the problems by a long, long, long way! You worry about time-consuming, well, living as a human is time-consuming, next time get born as a mayfly if dont like wasting much time on things.
I think of all the lonely depressed men who are denied a social life or happiness just because women dont like there faces.I wish all men would quit the idea of marriage to punish these women.Just learn to live alone or start living like a player (a new girl everyday).,,dont honor women by getting married to them all the time,just sc** them and throw them away thats all they are worth,By the way I think Cathexis is a woman posing as a guy.
Daughter_of_Khitai: The problem I have with marriage has nothing to do with whether marriage is old or new. I understand that people get married or live together for love and to share a life together, but I have no understanding of why they want to share a life together and why they aren't happier living apart while still maintaining a relationship. At least in my case I doubt that the advantages of getting married or living with someone would outweigh the disadvantages because I have no intention of sharing my entire life with anyone else, and I want to spend most of my time alone. Marriage would preclude that, unless one or both of us works or travels all the time. But in that case I think marriage would be pointless anyway.
I understand that people get married or live together for love and to share a life together, but I have no understanding of why they want to share a life together and why they aren't happier living apart while still maintaining a relationship. - by zorra on Nov 06, 2004
Oh well, LOTS of other people can see the advantages of marriage. If you don't understand, that's the way it is. I'm very happily married, because when my wife and I decided to marry, we looked at how totally fukked-up our baby-boomer parents marriages were, with their "new ideas" and ideology from the 1960s and 1970s, and decided stuff that! We did everything opposite, went back to basics, she's a housewife and very happy raising kids and having a social life with other housewives, playing volleyball one night a week, getting involved in the comunity, while being my sex-on-demand anything goes sexy girl. She's happy and in love, so am I. We have the wonderful luxury that I can support our whole family on my wage alone, although I have to work sometimes long hours, six days per week, but there is no way that I could do that without her love and support at home. Our marriage has outlasted both the 1st and 2nd marriages of both my parents, and unlike her parents, we are still deeply in love and everyone else is envious. Nice and traditional, but it works, and basically it's a traditional pattern that (as DOK says) has survived very well a bloody long time for some very good reasons.
At least in my case I doubt that the advantages of getting married or living with someone would outweigh the disadvantages because I have no intention of sharing my entire life with anyone else, and I want to spend most of my time alone. Marriage would preclude that, unless one or both of us works or travels all the time. But in that case I think marriage would be pointless anyway.
by zorra on Nov 06, 2004
I think it should always be a personal choice. You don't have intention of raising children, well, that at least shows a lot more responsibility than people who have kids simply because they get welfare payments for them, and there are lot of people who really have not the skills or personality to raise a decent family.
Does anyone have the feelimg Numanx is desperately trying to convince himself of something?
Lets just hope his wife, whom he believes is living in domestic bliss, is happy playing volleyball and raising the children, while her husband is working.
My parents didn't go for the 1960's and 70's ideology, either. My mother is a housewife, She and I don't get along, so my father ended up taking care of me. She has expressed regret for not keeping a career. She had a good career before she got married, and she tried to go back to work a few times, but it never worked out. I don't think she really wanted to work any more than she wanted to do housework.
zorra: who on earth said a married woman can't keep her career? Again, you seem fixated on some kind of 19th century model, which may or may not be a couple's choice. My wife and I have been married for 6 years now, and she's still very active as an M.D. As a matter of fact, she's had more publications in medical journals for her research since we were married, than beforehand.
If you "have no intention of spending the rest of your life with someone ," that's entirely your own business, but you'd do well not to generalize about the arrangements set up by others, especially as you've never actually been married. It's a bit like a Catholic priest trying to explain the best sexual positions to a porn star, in my estimation.
Does anyone have the feelimg Numanx is desperately trying to convince himself of something?
Lets just hope his wife, whom he believes is living in domestic bliss, is happy playing volleyball and raising the children, while her husband is working.
by Steelhamster on Nov 06, 2004
1) Sounds like you're just jealous.
2) Yes, she's VERY HAPPY playing volleyball and raising kids while I'm working. Why shouldn't she be?
3) I get sex on tap, and she's never said "No" to me since I first fucked her. What do you get?
My parents didn't go for the 1960's and 70's ideology, either. My mother is a housewife, She and I don't get along, so my father ended up taking care of me. She has expressed regret for not keeping a career. She had a good career before she got married, and she tried to go back to work a few times, but it never worked out. I don't think she really wanted to work any more than she wanted to do housework.
by zorra on Nov 06, 2004
My wife had a very successful career too, but hated the stress, and whenever I mention about her going back to it, her answer is extremely negative.
(Felix in reply to Zorra) If you "have no intention of spending the rest of your life with someone ," that's entirely your own business, but you'd do well not to generalize about the arrangements set up by others, especially as you've never actually been married. It's a bit like a Catholic priest trying to explain the best sexual positions to a porn star, in my estimation.
by Felix on Nov 06, 2004
LMAO. That's a good way to describe it.
Anyway, every marriage is it's secret society. Like any partnership, the rules are set between only those individuals involved - and outsiders who try to guess them without any experience of a similiar partnership won't have a clue as how things really work, and will get it wrong most of the time.
Felix: No one said that a married woman couldn't keep her career. I was responding to Numanx's comment about he and his wife having a more traditional arrangement. My mother couldn't keep her career because she and my father had to move around frequently during the first ten years of their marriage due to his career at the time. She had also just moved to a new country where she didn't really know the language. I don't think she would enjoy re-starting a career at this point, but she doesn't seem to like being a housewife, either.
Personally, I find it extremely weird and somewhat disconcerting that people want to marry or even live with each other. Many of them do spend an awful lot of time complaining about their partners or worrying about their relationship.
BTW, some Catholic priests might know quite a bit about sexual positions. ;-)
zorra:
I can't speak to your parents' marriage, and I'm sure you have a very good grasp of its own dynamics. My issue was simply the business of generalizing all marriages everywhere as a form of "subjugation." This sort of smacks of the drivel I've heard from hardcore university feminists, who sort of seem at sea once I point out all of the innovations in divorce and property law over the past 50 years.
"No fault"? "Most custody statistically granted to the mother"? "Community property?" Uh...patriarchy?
They never seem to have a convincing comeback.
Basically, I agree with Numanx--every marriage *does* constitute a "secret society" of two and how they structure it is their own business. Some very traditional societies may make it difficult for as much parity to exist between the husband and wife, but that's not the case in most of Europe and North America certainly.
As for your finding it odd to want to spend the rest of your life with someone, well, I'd say until you'd felt the impulse, you would logically find it odd. I once found the notion rather farfetched for myself--until I'd met the proper party. You may never have this happen nor wish for it to happen, but, trust me, it does make perfect, voluntary sense to tens of millions in our country alone. I could drag out the biology texts or some Elizabeth Barrett Browning poems and get all sentimental, but I don't think either would really elucidate it for you.
"BTW, some Catholic priests might know quite a bit about sexual positions. ;-)"
*LOL* Good retort! Regrettably for the porn star, most of what our errant priest would describe would be illegal for the porn star to try out in Europe & North America. Guess it could just be a note taking session.
on going sex 24/7
Grapost, women can't provide for themselves? We all know that is not true.
If anything marriage is subjugation of women! Look at weddings! The father 'giving the bride away'?!? So the woman is no longer property of the father, he is passing ownership onto the husband. Clearly chauvinistic. Women can provide for themselves- it is men, historically, who didn't want them to.
The actual purpose of romantic love is procreation of healthy offspring.
The actual purpose of romantic love is procreation of healthy offspring.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 08, 2004
Biologically, yes, of course it is! What's wrong with you? Do you have something against everything that is natural?
Women can provide for themselves- it is men, historically, who didn't want them to.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 08, 2004
There you go with the vast conspiracy theories again.
Historically, women were unable to properly protect themselves, at a time when MIGHT WAS RIGHT, and rules were made at the point of a sword or a spear, it was muscles that ruled and men were stronger. It was a crude deal; he protects her and their children from attack by big nasty predators and other men that she wanted nothing to do with, and she gives him plenty of sex-on-tap to keep him around. So, nature and evolution got rid of the limited seasonal rutting business and humans can have sex all year round.
It wasn't just about "providing for themselves", it was providing for family too - something bloody near impossible for a pregnant woman or a mother with a new baby to do. How was she going to run or fight when she can barely walk? Just going to pick berries or do some farming was going to be a risky business until the men had decimated the local predators and could guarantee protection (at cost, did you think people were just going to do things for free?) from other men.
Historically, the majority of humanity was in this deperate situation until the last 100-200 years. That's a blink of an eye compared to the history of humanity; do you seriously expect our biological imperatives are going to change overnight?
The majority of people are still in the situation where if they want to raise a family, the traditional marriage setup is the only the way to do it. This isn't just forced by old churches or social traditions, it's simply the only practical way for most people. It's got nothing to do with male chauvinism; it's just economics and the desire to raise their children with loving parental care.
Hey, if some women want 'domestic bliss' great.
I would point out that 2 out of 3 marriages fail, many due to the infidelity of the husband.
While he is playing away from home, and the missus is living the life of a domestic goddess, what happens when hubby decides she is alittle 'old' and wants to trade her in for a 'younger' model.
So much for life as a housewife, when after 10 plus years she has to re-enter the job market.
As to the 'sex on tap' comment, you sound as though you have little or no respect for women.
My sex life however is a private affair and I wouldnt be so crass or insecure to 'boast' about it.
Love and marriage/love and marriage/They go together like a horse and carriage/This I can tell you brother/You can't love one without the other- Frank Sinatra
Hey, if some women want 'domestic bliss' great.
I would point out that 2 out of 3 marriages fail, many due to the infidelity of the husband.
by Steelhamster on Nov 08, 2004
In the USA, not necessarily elsewhere. Many other nations with very traditional marriages have divorce rates of only 1%. The infidelity you mention as a problem is close to equal that of the wifes rate in the USA isnt it? And the USA is a very typical western society wracked by social problems, high crime rates, that could be all blamed on dysfunctional families and lack of respect for families and marriages and any old tradition that has been labeled as OLD and OUTDATED.
As to the 'sex on tap' comment, you sound as though you have little or no respect for women. by Steelhamster on Nov 08, 2004
LOL. I may be crass about simple biological truth, but of course I have respect for women I am one. I just don't see any reason to dodge around basic truths and commonsense with politically correctness or because it may offend some one with the odd idea that one gender is more pure or more good than the other.
My sex life however is a private affair and I wouldnt be so crass or insecure to 'boast' about it.
by Steelhamster on Nov 08, 2004
Each to their own. Some dont see it as boasting.
Besides, you wanted to have a go at me as if I was lying about my own marriage, and trying to imply that my wife wasnt happy with being a housewife (which as I said, she is VERY HAPPY being a housewife and raising kids).
I really dont understand why have a such a problem accepting that, because it happens to be true.
I don't need to be desperately trying to convince myself of what happens to be true.
what happens when hubby decides she is alittle 'old' and wants to trade her in for a 'younger' model. by Steelhamster on Nov 08, 2004
Nothing at all unless he's rich. Only rich guys can afford younger models. Average guys with average incomes just get old, and the young women say "You're as old my Dad!", which basically means the typical average guy hasn't got a chance in hell of getting a younger model. The young women are more interested in young guys, not old guys with greying hair and potbellies - unless the old guy is rich.
Trading in old wife for young wife is a great cliche, that only happens to be true for old, rich guys - not joe average.
On the infidelity note, hey in the USA I've read in some surveys that over 50% of wives cheat too. Most divorces are due to male infidelity, there are a numerous other factors. As to the 2 out 3 failure rate of marriages in the USA, well they sound like my divorced parents who couldn't even make their second marriages work. They had all these silly ideas, politically correct ideals, and my mother was filled with typical feminist ideas, and so was my father's 2nd wife as well. All those silly ideas got them was fucked-up marriages and divorce in less than ten years - both times - in both 2nd marriages.
My wife and I are real glad we didn't follow our parents example of how to make a marriage politically correct. Btw, my wife hates feminists too - and so most of her housewife friends. You know feminists often behave as if they hate housewives? Always disparaging and insulting the importance of motherhood, raising kids, and domesticity. There was a survey that I read where 50% of women hated feminism, because it feminists were in general so insulting of the importance of motherhood and raising families and being a housewife.
*Most divorces are due to male infidelity, there are a numerous other factors*
I meant to type are NOT due to male infidelity, there are numerous other factors. Money (loss of job often leads to divorce), lack of time together (she wants more time, he's too busy working or visa-versa), different libido (either way), sterility (one can't have kids, the other has always wanted kids), impotence or frigidity, widely divegent expectations of what married life will be like (the real biggie these days), the contraceptive pill (it stuffs up how the male partner smells to the female - many women are now aware of this and avoid the pill), and a whole lote more -
Go ahead, blame only the guys. That's a typically PC idea.
Wasnt trying to be PC, just using current statistics.
I know women are as culpable of a failing marriage as a man.
Hey, good luck to you, in your marriage, you will be bucking the odds if you make it past 10 years.
Hey, good luck to you, in your marriage, you will be bucking the odds if you make it past 10 years.
by Steelhamster on Nov 09, 2004
We already made it past 20 years :)
Give that man a kewpie doll!
I trust this is the correct expression in the US?
It was in 1933.
Give that man a kewpie doll!
I trust this is the correct expression in the US?
by Steelhamster on Nov 09, 2004
I don't even know what a kewpie doll looks like, and I'm not a yank.
"The actual purpose of romantic love is procreation of healthy offspring.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 08, 2004
Biologically, yes, of course it is! What's wrong with you? Do you have something against everything that is natural?"
by Daughter_of_Khitai
I never said it is a bad thing. I was just countering Grapost's definition of love. Grapost said: "That's the purpose of love.
To make you love them and WANT to PROVIDE for them. That way men WANT to GIVE them everything they need to survive."
"vast conspiracy theories again." ?
It is not conspiracy, it is fact. Men have wanted to keep women from providing for themselves. It is evident in the history of most cultures. The Chinese used to foot-bind women to keep them from being independent. This crushed women's feet. Europeans used the dreaded corset, which although looks good, was so tight it made women's movement restricted. Ribs were even broken as a consequence in many cases. Don't even get me started on Arabs. Throughout history men have opposed the idea of independent women.
It is not conspiracy, it is fact. Men have wanted to keep women from providing for themselves. It is evident in the history of most cultures. The Chinese used to foot-bind women to keep them from being independent. This crushed women's feet. Europeans used the dreaded corset, which although looks good, was so tight it made women's movement restricted. Ribs were even broken as a consequence in many cases. Don't even get me started on Arabs. Throughout history men have opposed the idea of independent women.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 10, 2004
No, its not a fact, and never was.
Lets look at those myths you repeat;
~ (The Chinese used to foot-bind women to keep them from being independent.)
= Chinese mothers used to footbind daughters, not Chinese fathers, and wasnt for keeping them from being independent; it was because smaller feet were believed to be more feminine. It was women doing this to their daughters. It was a fashion only among the wealthy, no farmer would ever have do such a thing as they needed every hand they could get.
~ (Europeans used the dreaded corset, which although looks good, was so tight it made women's movement restricted)
= Maybe its news to you, but the corset was a fashion created by women, invented by women, to seduce and flirt with men. Many women (including myself) like to wear a corset also because they can be very comfortable, like being hugged all the time, and because they do make a tight sexy waist. As the ribs being broken, well women VOLUNTARILY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY, JOYFULLY buy and wear high-heels and sometimes break their ankles too. Accidents happen.
~ (Don't even get me started on Arabs.)
= Whats the matter? Are you going to bring up female circumcision, which is not Arab but African, and which is done by women upon young girls. Not done by men.
Or were you going start talking about the hijab which makes perfect fashion sense considering the harsh sun and climate of a desert country and isnt any more irrational than wearing a tight miniskirt and high-heels which is a crazy fashion choice of women, not forced on them by men at all.
You really should come with some actual support for your opinions. Throughout history, it could also be said that women opposed the idea of independent men thats a big part of the reason behind our rules of marriage too; do you think most men in the West enjoy being straitjacketed into monogamy over the past few hundred years?
Foot-binding and the corset were both subjugation. I have studied these sociologies. I am aware that mothers encouraged it, because at the time it seemed the only way for women to get by- to accept the chauvinistic values. Some 80- 90% of Chinese women bound their feet. Women who did not were ususally of certain ethnic and cultural minorities.
You fallaciously assert: "no farmer would ever have do such a thing as they needed every hand they could get." - Not true. It was a social expectation for nearly ALL women including farmers. Even female beggers and water carriers in many regions were pressured through social norms to bind their feet.
You assert that: it made women "more feminine". Well of course that was ONE of the reasons: "Sexual allure was reason why women were pressured to bind their feet. Men... were sexually aroused by the foot-bound woman's swaying walk and uplifted buttocks; and they... fired their imaginations no less than did the woman's sexual organs. Women with unbound feet, therefore did not easily find husbands." (Eastman)- See, the implicit threat made by men. 'If you don't conform, you will be shame', this is because women who didn't marry were considered a disgrace due to social norms created by men. But there is another reason behind it:
"There is a dark sociological explanation of men's having encouraged women to bind their feet ... By thus restricting women's movements, physically reinforced the rigid ideals of female 'virtue' and isolation... a woman confined to the household had no need for learning; she aquired no experience of the outside world; and she was thus kept ignorant and palpably inferior to men. Thus a means of subjugating and ensuring male dominance." (Eastman, 1988).
As for the corset: "European women were squeezed into iron- or whalebone-reinforced corsets that misshaped their bodies and sometimes severely crippled them. For example, when a two year old girl died in 1655, medical examination revealed that "her iron bodice was her pain, and had hindered the lungs to grow... her breastbone pressed very inwardly, and... two of her ribs were broken, and the straightness upon the vitals caused the difficulty of breathing and her death". (Eastman) - This is where we get the silly Western sterotype of a poor helpless meak woman fainting. It was true, women fainted constantly due to the tightness of the corset. Your comparison of this to potential accidents wearing high-heels is ridiculous. You also assert: "they can be very comfortable" Yes, as long as you do not tighten it to the extent that men encouraged in the old-times.
You assert that female circumcision, foot-binding, and the dreaded corset were enforced on women by women. The fact of the matter is that those women were desperate for their daughters to fit into a society in which social norms were made by the men. It was the men who implicitly enforced the ideologies. The ideology of: 'you will not marry us if you do not conform'. Fear tactics. Mothers, socially conditioned by male-dominating ideologies thus forced them on their daughters.
"high-heels  which is a crazy fashion choice of women, not forced on them by men at all." - Don't be silly, designers are dominantly men.
"No, itÂs not a fact, and never was." - I don't care if you want to live in denial of history. I can understand why you would wish to stand up for men, they are much more respectable today than they use to be. As long as you do not take your contemporary freedoms, for which your ancestors strived so hard for, for granted.
"There was a survey that I read where 50% of women hated feminism"
Where did your read that? One of Murdoch's conservative newspapers? Which country? Let me guess- it was a conservative basket-case country. It is foolish of them to hate feminism. They voted this in a survey did they. May I remind women where their right to vote came from.
Given that marriage was a form of indenture when it was first devised Steelhamster
No it wasnt. It was a partnership deal, either between families or individuals dependent on the culture. Sometimes it was a fair deal, sometimes it wasnt. Culture and other circumstances varied this greatly. You generalize too much.
"There was a survey that I read where 50% of women hated feminism" (Daughter)
Where did your read that? One of Murdoch's conservative newspapers? Which country? Let me guess- it was a conservative basket-case country. It is foolish of them to hate feminism. They voted this in a survey did they. May I remind women where their right to vote came from.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 12, 2004
Ive read similar surveys, not by newspapers but university studies. They tend to result in a big lot of noise by feminist leaders who CLAIM to represent women, when in fact they often dont represent any women except themselves and their particular lobby group. The right to vote has got nothing to do with modern feminism and its current form of ideological dogma. Like you, they claim credit for actions and ideals that were spread by women, while ignoring that many of those women who that modern feminism claim as founders would not agree at all with the current All Men Are Evil ideology that is spread by such as you.
-
How do you classify a country as a conservative basket-case; are these the countries where the majority of people disagree with your POV?
-
Btw, Im one of those women who cant stand feminism; the views of modern man-hating feminism with their twisted mythology of conspiracy and evil history are repellent. Lots of normal everyday women hate feminism; it is an ideology that while claiming to represent women has too often been the source of more problems for normal women.
-
Only 50% hated feminism? Im surprised that particular survey didnt find more. In Japan, its more like 99% of women think feminists are crazy and foolish troublemakers. I read a survey that of 90% of housewives in Sydney, Australia hated feminism and thought it did not represent them.
-
Feminism is a bit like Communism. Communists claimed to represent the common workers, then tried to ram their ideals down peoples throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that werent practical, and tried twist and distort history to claim there was an evil conspiracy that had gone on forever. Feminists claim to represent women, try to ram their ideals down womens throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that arent practical, and try to twist and distort history to claim there is some evil conspiracy that has gone on forever.
I don't care if you want to live in denial of history. I can understand why you would wish to stand up for men, they are much more respectable today than they use to be. As long as you do not take your contemporary freedoms, for which your ancestors strived so hard for, for granted.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 12, 2004
Get your soapboax. You're no better than anyone else.
I don't care if you want to live in denial of history. I can understand why you would wish to stand up for men, they are much more respectable today than they use to be. As long as you do not take your contemporary freedoms, for which your ancestors strived so hard for, for granted.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 12, 2004
Get off your soapboax. You're no better than anyone else.
Maybe it's you who are in denial of history.
"high-heels ÃÂ which is a crazy fashion choice of women, not forced on them by men at all." - Don't be silly, designers are dominantly men.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 12, 2004
But the women buy them by their own choice, and are not FORCED to do so. Also, many of the designers are women. Not all are men.
and the dreaded corset - by Eurotopia
What is so dreaded about the corset? Do you have some kind of phobia?
Btw, corsets were INVENTED by women, and designed by women. Not men. Lots of women LOVE TO WEAR CORSETS! What is wrong with you?
You also assert: "they can be very comfortable" Yes, as long as you do not tighten it to the extent that men encouraged in the old-times. by Eurotopia
You are really sick and ignorant aren't you? Men weren't doing any encouraging, women were doing it to themselves. It was the fashion, and people do insane crazy things for fashion.
I'm reading through what you've written and I'm beginning to suspect that you have some kind of mental problem.
Some 80- 90% of Chinese women bound their feet. by Eurotopia
That's blatantly a false statement. Only the wealthy did this. I have Chinese friends too, and their explanation was simple; women with bound feet are useless - they can hardly walk and have to be waited on by servants. The servant women of course did not have bound feet, neither most normal women in China. Who was going to do the work, or farm, or go to the market, or anything else?
For example, when a two year old girl died in 1655, (talking about horrors of corsets)- Eurotopia
So, great, wonderful, you found one example. How many examples of women wearing high-heels who broke an ankle or leg or worse, can people come up with? I did it once just stepping out the front door of my own house. Women's fashion. Not men forcing them, but women's own choice. No Evil Men Conspiracy, just women choosing their own fashion.
Men come up with silly fashions too; look at neckties - great chance for strangulation and stupid accidents. Men used to wear high-heels to back in the 18th Century in Europe. People do really stupid things for fashion - it's not a conspiracy.
social norms were made by the men. - by Eurotopia
Social norms have been made by women AND men, not by one gender or the other. One gender can't really dominate, because while the men are doing men things, it was women raising the children, and the mothers instilled their own social values. Our languages were largely created by women, that's basic anthropology, child development, and linguistis. Anyone who studies the subject of language will quickly learn this. Children learn to speak from their mothers, and they learn their social values from their mothers too. Core personality and the most basic values have already been set by the age of 7 years old.
Men come up with silly fashions too; look at neckties - great chance for strangulation and stupid accidents. Men used to wear high-heels to back in the 18th Century in Europe. People do really stupid things for fashion - it's not a conspiracy.
by Tank_Girl on Nov 12, 2004
That's a good reason so many men hate neckties. At my highschool, we had to wear them, and other kids loved to grab hold of them and near-strangle you. Long coats can get you killed too; last year a I read news report of a businessman who was killed when his coat got caught in the doors of a train. The train started to move, he tripped and fell, and too late somebody stopped the train.
Feminism is a bit like Communism. Communists claimed to represent the common workers, then tried to ram their ideals down peopleÂs throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that werenÂt practical, and tried twist and distort history to claim there was an evil conspiracy that had gone on forever. Feminists claim to represent women, try to ram their ideals down womenÂs throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that arenÂt practical, and try to twist and distort history to claim there is some evil conspiracy that has gone on forever.
by Tank_Girl on Nov 12, 2004
Zionism is like that too. The Zionists claim to represent Jews, and carry on that whenever anyone says something nasty about Israel that they're being anti-semetic which is ridiculous. Zionism doesn't represent Jews, but act as if they do. Just as you say Feminism is an ideology that claims to represent all women but most of the time seems to only represent the loony-left man-hating female chauvinists who like to ram "Women's Studies" down young female university students throats, filled with lots of historical distortions and All-Are-Evil propaganda. They even ignore biology and make silly claims about social conditioning that aren't any more scientific than the USSR's old communists pseudo-science Lamarckianism nonsense.
Feminism is a bit like Communism. Communists claimed to represent the common workers, then tried to ram their ideals down peopleÃÂs throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that werenÃÂt practical, and tried twist and distort history to claim there was an evil conspiracy that had gone on forever. Feminists claim to represent women, try to ram their ideals down womenÃÂs throats with no commonsense and lots of ideas that arenÃÂt practical, and try to twist and distort history to claim there is some evil conspiracy that has gone on forever.
by Tank_Girl on Nov 12, 2004
Zionism is like that too. The Zionists claim to represent Jews, and carry on that whenever anyone says something nasty about Israel that they're being anti-semetic which is ridiculous. Zionism doesn't represent Jews, but act as if they do. Just as you say Feminism is an ideology that claims to represent all women but most of the time seems to only represent the loony-left man-hating female chauvinists who like to ram "Women's Studies" down young female university students throats, filled with lots of historical distortions and All-Men-Are-Evil propaganda. They even ignore biology and make silly claims about social conditioning that aren't any more scientific than the USSR's old communists pseudo-science Lamarckianism nonsense.
Tank_Girl- "Maybe it's you who are in denial of history." - History is something that must be analysed. There are many areas of history that are not official. Many aspects of history are 'generally accepted' yet other schools of thought offer valid analysis as well. And Numanx rejects the feminist school of thought being taught in university. Why should it not be taught? Why should students not openly debate the subject? Girls are free to write essays against the ideology in university. Same with the communist school of thought- it shouldn't be ignored- should be studied and debated. "historical distortions" - not distortions, but interpretations.
"modern feminism claim as founders would not agree at all with the current All Men Are Evil ideology that is spread by such as you." - Ahh, I see, no wonder your so pissed of at me! I do NOT think all men are evil. Not even most. I believe ALL people are actually good at heart (yes I'm an idealist). You generalise as well. You classify feminism as one single ideology. The problem is that it is far more complicated: There are many branches of feminism. I disagree with many feminists- some seem like they want to 'turn the tables' and become MORE powerful than men, so as to dominate. I disagree with that branch. There are many cases in which men are the underdog, eg, divorce settlements tend to unfairly favour women more. That is not right, nor is it equality. Another branch pushes for equality nothing more, nothing less. And Another branch pushes for MORE equality but NOT absolute equality.
"high-heels ÃÂÃÂ which is..." - I honestly have nothing against high heels.
"What is so dreaded about the corset?" It depends on the type. Whale-bone enforced ones can be extremely painful. HISTORICALLY they were made too tight making breathing difficult, and painfully distorting bone shape. Presently, they are not made tighted to the same extent. You assert that some women love corsets... well that is fine- I doubt it is done too tight. But are you assuming that I am instructing women that : "if you wear a corset you are not a free woman, I order you to stop!" Once again, if that is how you have interpreted, then I can understand why you would be pissed off. That is not what I meant at all.
"You are really sick and ignorant aren't you?" and "mental problem" - there's no point in making it personal. And in answer, I draw my conclusions from research and reading, not ignorance.
"Some 80- 90% of Chinese women bound their feet. by Eurotopia
That's blatantly a false statement." - My quote is from an anthropologist. Women in China predominantly bound their feet. Why they did it is open to controversy and debate. But facts and figures are not debatable. I have studied it. Around 80% did bind their feet. It was not merely an aristocrat thing. (keep in mind, I am speaking of a certain period of Chinese history of which the practice of footbinding was at its peak). "Who was going to do the work, or farm, or go to the market, or anything else?" - Which proves it wasn't even practical. Women performed their roles with their small feet.
"How do you classify a country as a conservative basket-case" - Yes, they are the one's who majority do not value tolerance. I tolerate feminist critics. I debate with them, not argue and I value their stance when it is well-thought out.
"(talking about horrors of corsets)... So, great, wonderful, you found one example." It is a typical example of many typical such cases. "How many examples of women wearing high-heels" - stop comparing it to high-heels. The extreme tightness of the corset in old times made breathing difficult- it was common. An accident with high-heels is RELATIVELY uncommon.
"One gender can't really dominate" - yes they can. In modern times however, it varies from realtionship to relationship. I see many cases of boyfriends dominating their girlfriends- which I disapprove of. I also sometimes see girlfriends dominating their boyfriends- which I ALSO disapprove of.
"Feminism is a bit like Communism." - The only comparison I can see, is that both push for some kind of equality. That is all. And it is not about feminists trying to represent ALL women. It is about telling women that they have the CHOICE. It is okay for women to CHOOSE to be housewives, etc IF that is what THEY want. Feminism is about women having the freedom to choose what they want. Feminists attempt to represent ALL women? What about feminists who are not even female?! Yes, that's right, many MEN believe and stand up for women's rights. Many men are actually 'feminists'. It is not a gender divide of men vs. women- as there are men who support feminism and women who oppose it. Just like many white people supported the civil rights movement for more racial equality with blacks, etc. Most of the books on women's rights and feminist school of thought's analysis of history were written by men.
"loony-left man-hating female chauvinists who like to ram "Women's Studies" down young female university students throats" - you have a distortion of feminism and feminists... actually it depends which branch you are describing. I hope you are not basing your stance on the conservative mass-media.
"They even ignore biology and make silly claims about social conditioning" - You would be silly to claim social conditioning doesn't exist. Gender roles in many cases are social conditioning. Not only for 'feminine' roles, but also 'masculine' ones. Why are women AND men socially discouraged to do certain things? Because of OLD trends that are not necessarily relevant in contemporary times. And it is a good thing that universities offer women's studies (may I ask, is it even compulsory? If it is a course requirement there is probably good reason), it is important for women to know that they have CHOICE. As for biology, explain to me how biology justifies a male secretary being paid more than his female counter-part.
"They even ignore biology and make silly claims about social conditioning" - You would be silly to claim social conditioning doesn't exist. Gender roles in many cases are social conditioning. - Eurotopia
You're a very silly person to say that I claimed that social conditioning did not exist. I didn't say that. There you go, diving straight into attacking without thinking again. I was referring to how it is common in the feminist propaganda to distort the truth and tell lies about basic biological gender differences, of which there are more set by own genes than the Victorian Era ideology that you keep expounding upon can accept. Human biology is much more a part of our gender roles than feminists like you will admit too. Much of what seem to think is only culture is built-in, pre-wired, much more than people want to know about or like to know. That's why so many elements are the same in 99.9% of human societies; not because of some evil conspiracy.
You really are a wacko aren't you?
As for biology, explain to me how biology justifies a male secretary being paid more than his female counter-part.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 13, 2004
Perhaps you can explain to me then, why in our modern society in the West, women have 4 times the chance of getting a job compared to men, why teenage males have 4 times the female teenage suicide rate, why there is 300 times more money spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer, why there are now almost no male teachers in our schools and boys now have almost no male role models to look upto in their own personal lives because daddy and mommmy divorced with a divoce rate 60 times higher and a crime rate 80 times higher than the majority of nations where feminists do not politically dominate - because make no mistake about it; feminists dominate and there is definitely no patriarchy telling corporations to hire women for gender equality requirements rather than for actual ability. Looking at how fucked-up feminism has damaged the social fabric and families, it's no wonder that western society is a screwy mess and families fall apart. Man-haters like you have successfuly destroyed your own countries and the current generation of latch-key kids is paying for it. I haven't heard of any male secretaries getting paid more female secretaries of the exact same age for decades. hen such a thing did occur, it was because the man was trying to support his wife and children. What you have them do has already happened; both now HAVE TO WORK, no choice, out of sheer desperation, and the boys wander the streets now in gangs; thank you very much for making life so much harder, and more dangerous, now we have so many more broken homes and psychotic antisocial kids to worry about.
And it is a good thing that universities offer women's studies (may I ask, is it even compulsory? If it is a course requirement there is probably good reason), it is important for women to know that they have CHOICE. - by Eurotopia
That would be fine if they really did have a choice; but that doesn't happen. There's social pressure and very often an unspoken, if not official requirement. On top of which, the students are taught things contradictory to both scientific knowledge and commonsense. They are fed "facts" that are really only distortions intended to bias them against men. Thus all their future relationships are poisoned, their marriages fail at a ridiculous rate, and with very stupid ideas they get conned into a viewpoint of the world that simply isn't true. Really stupid ideas like there being some vast male conspiracy against women (which really is a load of horsehit - but you keep going on about it).
"loony-left man-hating female chauvinists who like to ram "Women's Studies" down young female university students throats" - you have a distortion of feminism and feminists... actually it depends which branch you are describing. I hope you are not basing your stance on the conservative mass-media. by Eurotopia
No, I'm basing it on years of study and personal experience and having read most of the feminist crap because it was spoon-fed to me at school by loony people just like you. I've even met some loony feminists like Germaine Greer and that other one who keeps going on about missiles being some form of phallic envy, plus a few others at various places. I get around. You're as nutty as they are (I have to agree with Tank_Girl (? I think it was) or was it Daughter who said she started to believe you were crazy).
"Some 80- 90% of Chinese women bound their feet. by Eurotopia
That's blatantly a false statement." - My quote is from an anthropologist. Women in China predominantly bound their feet. Why they did it is open to controversy and debate. But facts and figures are not debatable. I have studied it. Around 80% did bind their feet. It was not merely an aristocrat thing. (keep in mind, I am speaking of a certain period of Chinese history of which the practice of footbinding was at its peak). "Who was going to do the work, or farm, or go to the market, or anything else?" - Which proves it wasn't even practical. Women performed their roles with their small feet. by Eurotopia
I think that it's far more credible to trust what Tank_Girl and Daughter_of_Khitai said about it than your quote from somebody like Eastman who was a complete outsider and self-serving at that. Besides, not only does what Tank_Girl and Daughter say about it make a lot more realistic sense, Daughter_of_Khitai is Chinese so she probably knows a lot more about her own national culture and what people did way back then, than you.
As only rich people could afford to keep unproductive girls, foot binding was as a show of wealth and status. - that's from Wikipedia.
While I agree it was a horrible thing to do, I just can't agree with Eurotopia's assertion that it was common among 80-90% of Chinese women (which is a very crazy idea), nor can I agree with Eurotopia's misogynistic neurotic claims that one gender of the human race is more pure/good than the other, that one gender is always victimized by the other gender, in some crazy delusion of an eternal conspiracy.
Daughter_of_Khitai-
"Footbinding probably originated among dancing girls in the palace during the late Tang dynasty... the dancer acheived artistic effect by LIGHTLY binding their feet. Admiration for small-footed women then spread to ladies of the court.. It was probably during the period of Mongol rule that the practice spread to the common classes... By the nineteenth century (when it was at its peak) up to 80% of women bound feet." (Eastman) ... and you are right to some extent, he continues: "Those who retained their natural feet were usually from the LOWEST social classes or were members of certain ethnic and cultural minorities."
In some provinces it was more common for most: "Even female beggars and water carriers in Honan and Shensi had tiny feet." (Eastman)
Numanx- "it's no wonder that western society is a screwy mess" - I am proud to be from the West.
You assert that feminists do dominate. Yes, those of a certain branch do. NOT the one's who want more gender equality.
""facts" that are really only distortions" - They are not distortions they interpretations. And bias exists in most texts which is why I always do wider reading in my studies.
"feminists dominate" - my branch doesn't want that. I'm for Gender equality NOT female empowerment.
"women have 4 times the chance of getting a job compared to men, why teenage males have 4 times the female teenage suicide rate, why there is 300 times more money spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer, why there are now almost no male teachers in our schools and boys now have almost no male role models to look upto in their own personal lives because daddy and mommmy divorced with a divoce rate 60 times higher and a crime rate 80 times higher than the majority of nations where feminists do not politically dominate " - where did you get those statistics? If they are correct, it displays NEW inequalities that must be addressed. You raise interesting points that must be taken into account if there is to be true equality and fairness. I have already stated I disapprove of divorce cases unfairly favoring women. As for boys joining gangs, that was occuring even before neo-feminism became rampant. It is more due to the fact that they are of poor economic status. There must be a lessening of the gap between rich and poor.
Oh and it is easy to accuse those with a different opinion of being "crazy", it only displays intolerance.
It is still a man's world though.
"Women throughout the world continue to be disadvantaged relative to men across a broad spectrum of educational statisitcs, such as literacy rates, school and college enrollments, and targeted educational resources. Women also enjoy less access to advance study and training in professional fields such as science, engineering, law and business. In addition, within occupational groups, they are almost always in less prestigious jobs, they face formidable barriers to political involvement, and everywhere they receive less pay than men." (Kegley and Wittkopf)
In politics women's roles are miniscule "given the current instituional, legal, and socio-economic constaints to women's access to oppurtunities." (UNDP 2001)
"There is abundant evidence now that regimes and the states beneath them in fact take deliberate steps to sustain a sort of hierarchial gendered divsion of labour that provides them with cheapened, often completely unpaid, women's productive labour" (Enloe 2001)
"Women and their dependent children constitute at least 70% of all current refugees while it is usually male refugees within camps who presume to have authority, often using it to strengthen men's militia's... preventing women from gaining access to UN literacy class" (Enloe 2001)
Did you know it wasn't unitl 2001 that sexual slavery was not a war crime at The Hague. Traditional hesitance to adapt women's human rights.
"The river of thought on human rights and development runs inexorably toward the emancipation of women and everywhere and the moves for more equality of men and women." ( 'State of the World' 2002 )
"Only when the potential of all human beings is fully realised can we talk o true human development" (UNDP 1995)
Oh and also, the term 'man-hater'? Wanting equal status with men does not make such women 'man-haters'.
"one gender of the human race is more pure/good than the other" - all humans are inherently and naturally capable of good, compassion, mercy and selflessness.
By the nineteenth century (when it was at its peak) up to 80% of women bound feet." (Eastman) - Eurotopia
Sorry, but it's still a load of rubbish and a major exaggerration for many practial reasons. Who was going to support all these women, how could they do ANYTHING if they can hardly walk? Plus, despite what this Eastman says, footbinding was only for the rich because to suport women who couldn't perform any real work is a very expensive thing to do and the vast majority of Chiness did not have that kind of wealth. Was the entire male population of the country waiting on them hand and foot? I don't care who this Eastman person is, they exaggerrating by an extreme amount. If the statement was 80% of the women of the wealthy elite, that would be believable, but it is definitely a lie that it was 80% of the women in China. Who was going to support all these women who could do no real work?
"one gender of the human race is more pure/good than the other" - all humans are inherently and naturally capable of good, compassion, mercy and selflessness.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
Funny how you can say that and then also keep pushing your delusions about some vast evil male conspiracy to subjugate all women for the thousands of years.
Oh and also, the term 'man-hater'? Wanting equal status with men does not make such women 'man-haters'. - by Eurotopia
But you still carry on like a man-hater. You use a distorted view of history which is false, and try to twist and distort to paint a picture of men being participants in some eternal conspiracy against women.
Also equal status with what? Each gender has different abilities and different talents and biologically different roles that can't be fully or properly duplicated by the other gender as effectively. While you claim that you want equal status, and claim to represent the interests of women with your ideals, you at the same time try to convince everyone that there's been some evil male conspiracy that has gone on for thousands of years. That isn't equality; that's misogynistic chauvinism to the point of neurosis; you act like a person who hates men, not a person who wants equality.
Besides, each gender really is different. Would you ask a mouse to do an elephant's job or ask the elephant to live in the mouse's home?
What do you want to do? Surgically and chemically and genetically modify the human race to be all neutered equals wirh exactly the same abilities and no specialities at all in some extreme form of the communist utopia? Anything less than that, and you have to accept that we are different. You can't trumpet about equality while trying to make out that one gender is evil and guilty of being involved in a huge conspiracy against the other gender; this hatred is what is most repellent about the ideology of western feminists.
"Even female beggars and water carriers in Honan and Shensi had tiny feet." (Eastman)
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
This quote from Eastman is a misrepresentation; that isn't evidence of footbindng. Many women in parts of China have naturally small feet, especially in comparison to European women. The ideals of beauty affecting natural selection, in much the same way one african tribla group all have huge bottoms because for thousands of years, that is what was considered beautiful among them.
It is still a man's world though. -by Eurotopia
That is a POV completely dependent on which part of human society you are talking about. If you are looking only at high visibility roles, it might seem that way, but the power of decision making is not always in the most visible places. The male leader of a community must still go home to his wife, and it is very noticeable in politics that unmarried men are not trusted by the community as leaders. Also your quotes about literacy problems while trying to assign blame on men fail to take into account the role of women in such choices; if forced to juggle the time between learning to read and taking care of her children and home, most mothers will choose the later especially in primitive conditions with no wonderful technologies such as washing machines being available (btw, while we can thank men for inventing such things, it was their wives who harangued them into doing it most of the time).
As for boys joining gangs, that was occuring even before neo-feminism became rampant. It is more due to the fact that they are of poor economic status. There must be a lessening of the gap between rich and poor.- by Eurotopia
Divorce impoverishes children the vast majority of the time, and the man will have no interest in supporting a woman that he is getting nothing from. Trying to force divorced men to pay for children that they can not see, and to support a woman who has hurt them is blatantly unfair, and doomed to failure. Taxation and every other legal enforcement has failed, and will continue to fail because many men who can not flee (for good reason as the whole setup is unfair), will choose lower-paying jobs or unemployment rather than support a family that they are not a part of. Statistical studies have shown that on average, the children suffer from divorce the most, academically and psychologically, and the boys of such families are the most likely to join gangs and turn to crime. IN western nations where feminism is strong, divorce rates are sky-high, and crime rates for violent crime are a hundred times higher than eastern nations.
Why are women AND men socially discouraged to do certain things? - by Eurotopia
Such as? You should mention some specifics, often there are some very good reasons for the particular gender within the circumstances. Many times it's simply because one gender is biologically and psychologically better at performing the role in the society than the other, and not so good at another task. A lot of old traditions are there for very good reasons, and sometimes supposedly good changes have very bad effects; we only have to look at the massive social problems and high crime rates in western nations to see the result. Has feminism made things worse overall in the west? It certainly seems that way. A simple ideal; make both genders equal in everything, has become the cause of a social disaster because it's proponents had the foolish ignorance that gender made no difference on ability, when everyone else knew it did, these feminist idealists ignored not only commonsense and common people's experience, but also have continued to ignore scientific evidence since the 19th century that male and female have huge differences in abilities and psychology. I am quite glad that my colour vision is better than a man's (and that as a woman I can see shades of colour which no man can see because I have a greater variety of colour receptors in my retina), and can happily accept that men have better nightvision. I can accept that I am not physically as strong as man and won't be without chemical enhancement, since my immune system is also twice as efficient, and during pregancy it doubles again. I can accept that I am not as good at reverse-parking a car because my spatial sense is not as good, but also accept that i have a greater ability to communicate as a pay-off. I can accept that as a female, my ability to navigate via a map is poorer than a man's but in pay-off I can also accept that my ability to find a short-cut from point A to point B is better. I can accept there are deeper psychological differences and many other differences, why can't you?
"women have 4 times the chance of getting a job compared to men, why teenage males have 4 times the female teenage suicide rate, why there is 300 times more money spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer, why there are now almost no male teachers in our schools and boys now have almost no male role models to look upto in their own personal lives because daddy and mommmy divorced with a divoce rate 60 times higher and a crime rate 80 times higher than the majority of nations where feminists do not politically dominate " - where did you get those statistics? If they are correct, it displays NEW inequalities that must be addressed. by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
New inequalities which were created as a result of Feminism's domination of the political agenda of western nations in the first place. I really don't believe that those who created the problems through blind and foolish ideals can do anything but make them worse. The statistics are correct as far as know, and most of them can be easily verified, as similiar numbers have been published in studies since the 1980s, if anything they are getting worse. Btw, Australia currently has the worst male teenage suicide rate in the world and one of the world's highest divorce rates at 60%. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that Australia is also the home of the feminist Germaine Greer, author of the Female Eunuch. She's not been very skillful in the art of a good marriage either - while publicly she's been very derogatory of women who FREELY CHOOSE to be housewives on numerous occassions.
You asked what other religion would cut off people's heads. Umm, lets see, the French did it in the French Revolution, where they beleived they were doing God's will(those are christians). And lets not forget the Inquisition, where Christians mercilessly beheaded Jews and Muslims for refusing to call Jesus God. Oh, Jinn, how quickly stupid losers overlook history. Tsk, tsk. I would expect more from the so-called "expert" on Islam.
by Spirit_of_Truth on Nov 15, 2004
What a load of crap! Please refer readers to where history says the French were beheading innocent civilians during the Revolution because they believed they where doing God's will.
Please tell readers where the Bible instructed the inquisition killings.
Frankly, I could care less about Christianity but at least civilized Christians have sought reformation. On the other hand Islam has changed almost nothing in the past 1400 years of its barbaric and archaic history. This is clearly evident to all who have intelligence. The Quran is very clear and percise with instructions and guidelines for when beheading is acceptable and required. Would you like me to provide you the list? Why don't you show me where such nonsense is provided for Christians from the Bible?
There is a vast difference between those who follow the teachings of their faith to commit acts of violence and those that commit violenec in spite of what their faith teaches.
No surprise. Many Muslims attempt to defend the modern day acts Islamic terrorists by going back into world history from centuries past. Why? Enough said.
Ah, it looks like Jinn the lying bastard has decided to spread more of racist propaganda around, but has gotten confused between this ballot and the one called "Is Islam intrinsically evil?". What happened Jinn, did Ben_the_Sultan get you upset because he's another person who's smarter and more knowledgeable than you? Should be used to that by now, or did you get bored with playing one of your alts and forgot?
Oh and it is easy to accuse those with a different opinion of being "crazy", it only displays intolerance.
by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
Yes, intolerance for crazy fools and idiots.
"Women and their dependent children constitute at least 70% of all current refugees while it is usually male refugees within camps who presume to have authority, often using it to strengthen men's militia's... preventing women from gaining access to UN literacy class" (Enloe 2001) by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
Let's examine what is really happening in this situation;
1~ That's a lot of kids, who have be taken care of by their mothers.
2~ In a refugee camp with the usual limited facilities and primitive conditions, mothers are going to be VERY BUSY taking care of their kids and niot have much time little luxuries of limited practical value in the circumstances like going to literacy classes, so it's doubtful the men are stopping them at all. Mothers don't have the time.
3~ 30% of the population are men, so if 30% are women, and 40% are children, which seems like a reasonable ratio, really there are a lot of men with their own families. Yet the quote is trying to imply that all the men are rogue unattached men without families; that seems EXTREMELY unlikely. It's more probable they are poorly armed, and only so as to protect their own community and families which seems quite laudable to me.
"There is abundant evidence now that regimes and the states beneath them in fact take deliberate steps to sustain a sort of hierarchial gendered divsion of labour that provides them with cheapened, often completely unpaid, women's productive labour" (Enloe 2001)by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
You keep quoting this Enloe like they wrote the holy bible or something. I'd much rather know where is the support for this statement, not just the statement by itself which is meaningless. It's an oppinion ONLY otherwise, and others might come to s different conclusion. I have seen abundant evidence that regimes and the states beneath them in fact take deliberate steps at behest of feminists and capitalists and communists and a whole bunch of airheaded idealists with only their own selfish goals in mind that end up either deliberately or stupidly destroy families and the social fabric.
On the ballot by Susie "Christians: Why does the bible have lowering things against women in it?", there is this comment -
(You might not know this, but feminism failed in countries with a non-western culture. It simply didn't fit. The women of those countries listened to those ideas, and rejected them because the ideas premise (that men are subjugating women in some vast conspiracy) didn't fit reality as they know it. In the west, feminism went hand-in-hand with capitalism, because doubling the number of workers in the workforce drastically increased the competition for jobs, reduced wages per worker, and increased consumer spending thus raising prices - particularly this shows with housing prices. Now in many western nations, a single working man CAN'T support his family with only his income, so the wife HAS TO WORK - that's not choice, that's desperation, and our kids are sufferring for it.
by Guest_749e8 on Oct 31, 2004)
"Women and their dependent children constitute at least 70% of all current refugees while it is usually male refugees within camps who presume to have authority, often using it to strengthen men's militia's... preventing women from gaining access to UN literacy class" (Enloe 2001) by EUROTOPIA on Nov 15, 2004
I find this statement to be deliberately misleading in how it presents an assumption that may, or may not, be true. It's very typical of the distortions that occurr when somebody wishes to push an agenda without real factual support, while giving the appearance of being more knowledgeable on the subject, as if to say; you have to believe our assumptions, don't think for yourself. Numanx is correct to point out there are problems with it. Just for starters, it tries to present that as women AND children are in the majority, that they should democratically be the leaders. The first biggest problem with this is that it doesn't state how many women there are, but lumps them together with children as if they were equals. That';s very typically feminist, btw, denigrating women who are mothers and homemakers by treating such an occupation as being less worthy of respect. Of that 70%, how many are women, and at what age they are counted as women? Different cultures have their own POV on this, varying the age generally from 15-21 plus. How many of the 70% are children? Do you really expect the children to have a say in the leadership by lumping them together with the women? What if there's 20% women, and 50% children, that's 70% in total. So, the 30% remainer are all men right? How many of the men are fathers and husbands? How many of the men are brothers or other male relatives of the women and children? At what age are they considered men, as teenagers and older or what? Refugee camps are usually without any kind of police force, so the people tend to create their own, and since they are trying to escape from persecution and violence, of course many of the men will be armed to protect their families and relatives. So, a bunch of politically motivated outsiders come in from a western nation and call them "militias" to present an image of all the men being violent rogues. Kind of like the US military's labelling of the Iraqi resistance as terrorists and insurgents. Refugee camps have lots of children, and mothers desperately trying to keep them alive in awful conditions. This Enloe tries to present the assumption "male leaders preventing women from gaining access to UN literacy class" when it's more likely the women have NO TIME to care for useless things in a refugee camp like literacy classes; they have so many other things to do, and are going to be very exhausted emotionally and physically. There are no time saving devices like washing machines, microwave ovens, and vacuum claners. Everything has to be done by hand; and they are going to flat out busy every day trying to take care of their children. Don't mistakle the men as being lazy and not doing anything either; real life doesn't work that way, they'll be trying to get their families into a better situation in whatever way they can, not sittng around being waited on. They'll also be trying to protect their fasmilies and what community that they have at the refugee camp. Enloe's statement doesn't mention how many men take UN literacy classes either - should we immediately jump to conclusion that the women let them, or come to more likely conclusion that most of them are going to be too busy trying to help their families survive?
Enloe's statement doesn't mention how many men take UN literacy classes either - should we immediately jump to conclusion that the women WON'T let them, or come to more likely conclusion that most of them are going to be too busy trying to help their families survive?
Why are women AND men socially discouraged to do certain things? - by Eurotopia
Did you fail in real life experience and basic observation of gender differences? Humans are animals, mammals of the primate family, and like other primates there are HUGE basic differences between the sexes. We can't be physically or mentally equal, we have different biological roles, and that's nature. Women and men are naturally better at different things, and naturally worse at others. You really want to encourage women to become the equal of men in everything and do all the same jobs and be just like men? Then encourage men to become exactly like women? Despite the most basic REAL differences that mean the men will always be better at certain tasks, and women will always be better at a different set of tasks. We're human, we're different, we are not equal and men and women CAN'T do everything equally well, and work best in some specific roles that the opposite sex (male or female) can't do as well.
As Daughter_of_Khitai says on Nov 15, 2004; "What do you want to do? Surgically and chemically and genetically modify the human race to be all neutered equals wirh exactly the same abilities and no specialities at all in some extreme form of the communist utopia? Anything less than that, and you have to accept that we are different."
I've thought some more about this, and it seems to me that for some people marriage would end up being a form of subjugation, while for others it would not. Some people are just unable and unwilling to live with another person. Others are unable to maintain a commitment. But still others might be happy to get married.
Humans dont belong to the primate family. Only neo-darwinists stuff that propaganda down peoples throat to suit their interests.
Men and Women in their natural state are not different or in any way that is of significance
As Daughter_of_Khitai says on Nov 15, 2004; "What do you want to do? Surgically and chemically and genetically modify the human race to be all neutered equals wirh exactly the same abilities and no specialities at all in some extreme form of the communist utopia? Anything less than that, and you have to accept that we are different."
Or capitalist Utopia.
Conventional marriage between socialised sheep is not a marriage.Human Sheep are not capable
of even being themselves so they are not capable of true relationships.Their is only a spectrum of form
dynamic but no essential difference to someone being accquantance- friend- intimate-stalker
Most Humans are brainwashed projecting internalised intrapsychic structures on others and living in a coordinated choreographed simulated dream world.
Love one another but make not a bond of love
let it rather be a moving sea between
the shores of your souls.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but
let each one of you be alone even as the
strings of a lute are alone they still
quiver with the same music.
You shall be together when the white wings
of death scatter your days.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
and let the winds of the heavens dance
between you.
Give your hearts but not into each other's
keeping, for only the hand of life can
contain your hearts.
And stand together yet not too near
for the oak tree and the cypress stand
apart and do not grow in each other's
shadow.
- Kahlil Gibran
I can't stand Kahlil Gibran's stuff - people keep using at weddings, and I've read through much of it, but IMHO, he's got it all wrong. They sound like the sort of sugary nonsense that coats lies very well. To me, his writing has a dark and untrustworthy core.
As Daughter_of_Khitai says on Nov 15, 2004; "What do you want to do? Surgically and chemically and genetically modify the human race to be all neutered equals wirh exactly the same abilities and no specialities at all in some extreme form of the communist utopia? Anything less than that, and you have to accept that we are different."
Or capitalist Utopia.
by bigmonkeynuts on Nov 21, 2004
Men and Women in their natural state are not different or in any way that is of significance
by bigmonkeynuts on Nov 21, 2004
Sounds to me like you swallowed the propaganda and didn't realize it. So, BMN, are you one of those who want to turn humans into homo uniformis and wipe out all difference - how far would your kind go? Would you use force to convince us, driven by a fanatical ideal that hates the idea of gender differences and chooses to ignore those which exist, straitjacketing humanity into an artificial equality that is both unfair and unnatural to the vast majority? Congratulations, BMN, you are on the same side as them; the right and left wings of the same evil eagle.
They don't want families, they want individuals - who are weak, isolated, easily manipulated, easily intimidated. They don't like the idea of children - they'd take them away from parents(who are supposedly bad role models) - so they can use them as workers from their new *adult* age of Four Years Old. We don't need parents teaching their kids *wrong* ideas - they need the kids to only accept the ideas of being good, independent, self-aware WORKERS who don't listen to their wrong-headed parents with those old-fashioned ideas of family. All life is an illusion, believe what WE say instead. Teaching about safety is a waste of time; it costs money and there's way too many of these lower-people anyway, let's make sure they have a good high death rate so they keep the population down.
Behind every rose-tinted, honeyed vision of new age equality there resides a deep lie. The poison pill is sugar-coated. The grand mythology with it's vast vistas of human potential to ignore all race and all gender and all difference | |
