In my opinion, and to simplify, I peceive the problem as this.
Feminists took Feminism to unrealistic, dilusional extremes.
Of course a woman can survive/exist without a male and live a happy, fulfilling life. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they choose.
I have always and completely believed women have every right to do and choose what they want. Just as males. I have never understood how anyone could think otherwise.
But as Corporate, Angelica and a few others have mentioned; many feminists pretty much became men-hating militants who operate in this extreme and absolute hatred towards men which segregates their own existence.
In terms of individuals, women can get along without men just fine.
They can even raise and lower the toilet seat all on their own, without us. Which makes me wonder why they can't do it when they live with us. But I regress and that's another question and subject matter for another thread.
In terms of species survival, they need us. They don't exist without us, as we don't exist without them. It is, we are.....a symbiotic existence.
Any notions or idealisms claiming otherwise are silly, misguided and I suspect driven and rooted by some emotional scars manifesting as hatred.
In the same way that there are men who hate women for similar reasons.
I know I have a very difficult time without a woman in my life. Women .....dare I say it....I know it sounds corny, cliche and just downright cheesey; but women...a woman...completes me. It's the truth.
I've learned more from the women (mom, grandmother, girlfriends and friends) in my life...through out my life; than I have ever learned from any men.
And I believe (because a few have told me so) that many of the women in my life have learned a lot from me.
Corporate, good stuff!
Angelica, as usual, you're brillaint and beautiful!!! Speaking of women who have thought me a few things....that is.
We're coming into a phase of sythesis. Of synthesizing the male/female intelligences. This way, we complete the circle of whole-brain intelligence. When we do so, we get a synergistic effect, awakening to our potential. To potential. Unawareness of potential is due to lack of ability to perceive it, all the while it sits there within and before us.
The male/female intelligences...the metaphorical right/left brain intelligences are a synthesis of logic, intuition and emotion.
When we synergise God/Goddess, and recognize them as one whole, then we see that which stems from the All.
And for the record, I thoroughly and completely believe Angelica is absolutley accurate with this. I see it happening.
Well, you don't seem to be one of the feminists I am describing, but make no mistake: the feminists that drive the movement forward believe that marriage is enslavement for women, that children are the shackles of that enslavement.
Should women have the choice to stay at home to raise their children?
"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Simone de Beauvoir
edit: compare this view of egalitarian feminist de Beauvoir with the view of conservative feminist (a branch of feminism that many feminists seem to have forgotten or simply ignore) Clare Boothe Luce:
"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."
And for the record, I thoroughly and completely believe Angelica is absolutley accurate with this. I see it happening.
Where there is the beautiful blend of the masculine and the feminine...and I see you blend these, my friend....there is understanding of this!! By integrating the two, we develop whole brain perception. Which brings SYNTHESIS, or understanding of the Whole. Attunement to natural life principles. Seamless integration wtih life!
It's a beautiful thing!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Should women have the choice to stay at home to raise their children?
"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Simone de Beauvoir
edit: compare this view of egalitarian feminist de Beauvoir with the view of conservative feminist (a branch of feminism that many feminists seem to have forgotten or simply ignore) Clare Boothe Luce:
"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."
it's clear the first woman is operating under a patriarchal mindset herself, by using language structures such as "authorized" to make her point. And by the use of "should" she shows her lack of alignment to Nature as She is, which is typical of the linear, external symbolic male intelligences. In this dominate-nature mindset, we are not harmonious with it but seek to impose our will upon it.
I've known many women (myself included), who in their womanhood yearned for children, had them, and did their best to honour their inner natural dictates in caring for them, hands on, only to be met with a major social force in rampant messages that told them/me that they are inadequate in choosing the inner calling. These messages, created by feminism, advocate following the patriarchal structured socially sanctioned dictates, such as being working mothers, or superwomen, which actually ask us to be slaves to symbolic-male dominated systems rather than support us in honouring the inner (symbolically feminine) voice.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
yeah, I'll wait to see how this all turns out. We'll see what kind of results they can acheive and what kind of unknown, long-term side-effects or defects could occur with such a thing.
For the mean time you still need us:D
We'll see who you turn to when that large, hairy, ugly spider walks into your living room:D Or when the car needs an oil change:D
Applying Title IX to science education has nothing to do with women's rights. Title IX say not to discriminate on the basis of sex, well, today it does just that. Right now, it's only been applied to sports causing the cancelation of countless men's sports programmes. This means a great number of male athletes can not get sports scholarships and great sport teams are being cut (some that have produced Olympic winners many times). Arizona State, which already has more women on their sports teams, is considering a women's rowing team in order to comply with Title IX. In order to be eligible for a scholarship you don't even need any experience in rowing. All you need to do is be female. There is of course no men's team.
Now, I don't have a problem with equal opportunity but you can hardly call it that, can you? It's statistical proportionality. It means that if a college has 50% female students, 50% of the athletes must be female, regardless the actual interest in sports among women. So it could very well be that out of the 50% female students only 20% has an interest in sports, while 30% of the male students has an interest in sports. If were talking about a 50 000 student total, it would mean that 2500 male students simply aren't allowed to sport (or five male student won't get a scholarship).
yeah, I'll wait to see how this all turns out. We'll see what kind of results they can acheive and what kind of unknown, long-term side-effects or defects could occur with such a thing.
For the mean time you still need us:D
We'll see who you turn to when that large, hairy, ugly spider walks into your living room:D Or when the car needs an oil change:D
oh please! i've battled far worse than spiders.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
If women didn't have men, who would they complain about to their girlfriends? Who will tell them that that shirt doesn't make them look fat?
well it looks like we'd have the perfect life then---we wouldn't be complaining at all! and we know which friends to go to for the truth and for what we want to hear.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
In theory it sounds good. But reality is something entirely different.
Since I read about Title IX I've done some research and quite frankly it seems it has caused more harm than good. Not only are men who deserve a place in athletics teams, gymnastics teams not allowed, the teams are often just cut (for practical reasons viz. $), women are also getting places they don't deserve.
(note that while looking into it I found an abundance of women (who benefitted from Title IX) who agreed that this causes harm to men and who admit that in their college women were just less interested in sports than men, while there were plenty of men who desperately wanted to compete but couldn't.)
So perhaps you are right, perhaps it doesn't have to be this way but it certainly is. It's unfair. Today it creates a huge injustice towards men.
You should really ask the question if there are more women's sports teams because women want them or because they must be there because of a government rule. I happen to think, from what I've read and from my own personal experience that it's the latter.
There's really no denying, VictoryGin (that is probably one of the coolest names on this board by the way), that right now it is unfair in many many cases.
Perhaps it's not intrinsically unfair (but even that can be debated), but as it is applied today it is. So if feminists agree with Title IX and want it applied, they shouldn't just work to get it applied, but they should also work to get it applied correctly. At least, that's my view. Just consider the source of the pdf-file: National Women's Law Center. They heavily support Title IX but what are they doing to make sure it is applied correctly and fairly?
In theory it sounds good. But reality is something entirely different.
Since I read about Title IX I've done some research and quite frankly it seems it has caused more harm than good. Not only are men who deserve a place in athletics teams, gymnastics teams not allowed, the teams are often just cut (for practical reasons viz. $), women are also getting places they don't deserve.
(note that while looking into it I found an abundance of women (who benefitted from Title IX) who agreed that this causes harm to men and who admit that in their college women were just less interested in sports than men, while there were plenty of men who desperately wanted to compete but couldn't.)
Perhaps you are right, perhaps it doesn't have to be this way but it certainly is. It's unfair. Today it creates a huge injustice towards men.
You should really ask the question if there are more women's sports teams because women want them or because they must be there because of a government rule. I happen to think, from what I've read and from my own personal experience that it's the latter.
There's really no denying, VictoryGin (that is probably one of the coolest names on this board by the way), that right now it is unfair in many many cases.
Perhaps it's not intrinsically unfair (but even that can be debated), but as it is applied today it is. So if feminists agree with Title IX and want it applied, they shouldn't just work to get it applied, but they should also work to get it applied correctly. At least, that's my view.
VictoryGin, I think it's an established fact that women are emotionally unstable and need the strong, hard comforting words and hands of men to help them through the day.
VictoryGin, I think it's an established fact that women are emotionally unstable and need the strong, hard comforting words and hands of men to help them through the day.
Or perhaps it was the other way around...
Women don't need us for anything. We'll just have to learn to accept that, live with that and move on.
In a related story, I'm starting my own manufactoring company for designing and manufactoring extremely life-like, realistic-scaled women...for our sexual pleasure. Each body part will feel and function, sexually speaking, in a near identical manner as the real women.
Only difference is, you'll never have to tell her to shut up; 'cause these babies won't talk:D:D
men always had that 'freedom'....with BC, so can women.
It helps me to get into the mind of the feminist or liberal, as the case may be, in this forum.
Otherwise, I would have no way of hearing statements like this, that reinforce my own beliefs. So, in a sense, thank you.
Here, you basically state, flat-out, that women should be more like men in this regard. And they should use artificial means to do so. True freedom comes in a pill or another form of contraception. So, those who cannot afford BC, for example, are not truly free. They are bound, and they do not know it?
To me, this appears to be an incredibly decadent view of freedom. Freedom means that I can have as much sex as I want without having any consequences, in terms of producing children. Your view of freedom doesn't merely oppose Christian teachings, but it opposes many non-Christian systems of moral thought.
Freedom comes from using our reason. When we use our reason to the greatest extent possible, we do what human beings are meant to do - we function ideally. No one would ever say that the lazy guy who never had a profound thought in his life was the ideal human.
When we have sexual intercourse with people that we do not intend to have children with, this represents an incredibly unreasonable proposition. We do things with no thought of the consequences. You wouldn't play with dynamite with no thought for the consequences. You wouldn't have a child without thinking about what that child would need.
When we choose to take birth control or have abortions, we eliminate the inherent value of sexual intimacy. It becomes an act that is devoid of the possibility of children and the resulting joy that brings.
Having intercourse without the possibility of producing children is like making a beautiful painting only to throw it in the trash when you finish it.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."
Luce was a fine woman.
And she offers women options, while de Beauvoir does not. De Beauvoir is afraid that women will choose something she does not approve of...the shackles of ideology exposed!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
But I would like to mention that there many men who also don't have it in them to play/fullfill the "traditional" or established role of hunter/protector/providor.
Some men don't have it in them. And many men cerrtainly don't make good fathers or husbands.
I know I'm stating the obvious, but there are people who some times forget that.
It helps me to get into the mind of the feminist or liberal, as the case may be, in this forum.
Otherwise, I would have no way of hearing statements like this, that reinforce my own beliefs. So, in a sense, thank you.
Here, you basically state, flat-out, that women should be more like men in this regard. And they should use artificial means to do so. True freedom comes in a pill or another form of contraception. So, those who cannot afford BC, for example, are not truly free. They are bound, and they do not know it?
To me, this appears to be an incredibly decadent view of freedom. Freedom means that I can have as much sex as I want without having any consequences, in terms of producing children. Your view of freedom doesn't merely oppose Christian teachings, but it opposes many non-Christian systems of moral thought.
Freedom comes from using our reason. When we use our reason to the greatest extent possible, we do what human beings are meant to do - we function ideally. No one would ever say that the lazy guy who never had a profound thought in his life was the ideal human.
When we have sexual intercourse with people that we do not intend to have children with, this represents an incredibly unreasonable proposition. We do things with no thought of the consequences. You wouldn't play with dynamite with no thought for the consequences. You wouldn't have a child without thinking about what that child would need.
When we choose to take birth control or have abortions, we eliminate the inherent value of sexual intimacy. It becomes an act that is devoid of the possibility of children and the resulting joy that brings.
Having intercourse without the possibility of producing children is like making a beautiful painting only to throw it in the trash when you finish it.
WOW.
all i can say to that is thank bejeebus my husband does NOT think like you...and has happily made certain we both remian 'free'...by the artifical means of a snip-snip.
seriously, if that's your view of the world, cool....differing perspectives. however, for me, a big HELL YES.....having the CHOICE and OPTIONs afforded by birth control is a GREAT thing. i take it then that you ONLY engage in sexual interourse for the purpose of procreation and NEVER for the pure pleasure and intimacy it brings you and your partner. good for you. some like to enjoy sex for the sake of sex itself; even those who plan on having children, someday....for those who already have all the children they want....for those planning the spacing of their children...those who cannot procreate ever...and those who have no desire to ever procreate. c'est la vie...
btw - many, many people are not religious...at ALL...so using a religious 'argument' really doesn't hold much weight. beyond that, there are those who ARE religious, and yet somehow manage to balance out their control over their bodies with their personal, religious beliefs. beyond that, feminism in itself should not be seen to run counter to religion, but if you believe it does....so be it.
Having intercourse without the possibility of producing children is like making a beautiful painting only to throw it in the trash when you finish it.
maybe you just ain't doing it right.
seriously....umm......no. the 'beautiful painting' is the closeness and intimacy shared, there need not be any 'end result' beyond that for there to be beauty in it. i see no beauty in such a world when one cannot enjoy sexual intimacy for the sake of sexual intimacy. then all of those folks who cannot reproduce, beyond the years of reproduction, etc...just shouldn't bother eh? :eek: *shudders*
all i can say to that is thank bejeebus my husband does NOT think like you...and has happily made certain we both remian 'free'...by the artifical means of a snip-snip.
Be careful that you don't embarrass or otherwise shame yourself, your husband, or your marital vows by speaking so...haphazardly...about your marriage.
seriously, if that's your view of the world, cool....differing perspectives. however, for me, a big HELL YES.....having the CHOICE and OPTIONs afforded by birth control is a GREAT thing. i take it then that you ONLY engage in sexual interourse for the purpose of procreation and NEVER for the pure pleasure and intimacy it brings you and your partner. good for you. some like to enjoy sex for the sake of sex itself; even those who plan on having children, someday....for those who already have all the children they want....for those planning the spacing of their children...those who cannot procreate ever...and those who have no desire to ever procreate. c'est la vie...
The relativistic perspective. The whole, "what's good for you might not be good for me and agree to disagree blah blah blah." I'm a moral objectivist, but there's no need to argue about that right now. Nonetheless, we have complete control over our own actions and we must make moral decisions - I've chosen the better part, I like to think.
I'm not saying it's popular but, if we're going to think about intercourse logically, we must consider its consequences. If sexual intercourse can be entirely for pleasure, then it becomes no different than drinking excessively, doing drugs, or eating whatever we want. It's means and end are both pleasure. Activities like that are the most base imaginable.
If all we seek is physical pleasure in all its forms, we are no different than pigs or any other animal that seeks pure pleasure without a purpose. But most people consider themselves to be higher than animals, so why not act like it?
btw - many, many people are not religious...at ALL...so using a religious 'argument' really doesn't hold much weight. beyond that, there are those who ARE religious, and yet somehow manage to balance out their control over their bodies with their personal, religious beliefs. beyond that, feminism in itself should not be seen to run counter to religion, but if you believe it does....so be it.
If you read my post, I took care to mention that many non-Christian thinkers oppose feminist suppositions. Aristotle and Kant, to name a few. Kant was concerned with establishing morality in a world without religion, and so he sought universal norms. Himself, he tried to remain physically pure.
maybe you just ain't doing it right.
seriously....umm......no. the 'beautiful painting' is the closeness and intimacy shared, there need not be any 'end result' beyond that for there to be beauty in it. i see no beauty in such a world when one cannot enjoy sexual intimacy for the sake of sexual intimacy. then all of those folks who cannot reproduce, beyond the years of reproduction, etc...just shouldn't bother eh? :eek: *shudders*
There's a plethora of theological discussion about couples who have intercourse without the hope of conceiving. Googling that subject can help. One Christian example involves Abraham and Sarah. Yahweh tells them that Sarah will conceive, even though she is barren. So, even if a couple believes they cannot conceive, according to our faith, all things are possible in Christ Jesus. And many couples have tried and tried and not conceived. Eventually they were able to though, and they view it as miraculous.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
well it looks like we'd have the perfect life then---we wouldn't be complaining at all! and we know which friends to go to for the truth and for what we want to hear.
Not complaining at all????? I call bullshit.
You'd just all be muttering under your breathes since you'd have no one to yell and at blame your problems and your own deficiencies on.
I know I have a very difficult time without a woman in my life. Women .....dare I say it....I know it sounds corny, cliche and just downright cheesey; but women...a woman...completes me. It's the truth.
I totally agree with you here! You're a Pisces, right? A water sign.. The reason our signs are compatible is because water signs want to meld with their partner.
My Taurus self is ruled by Venus and therefore I thrive in relationship/Love. For me, enlightenment hinges on being in Sacred relationship. I am designed to find completion/Wholeness there.
Angelica, as usual, you're brillaint and beautiful!!! Speaking of women who have thought me a few things....that is.
Thank you so much. I am humbled. Peace my friend.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
stonedpony put me in a category with Plato....I take that as a compliment!!
You seem to be doing mighty fine, my friend...
In truth, if stonedpony is not understanding me, then I'd like to uncover the why...is it hostility..is it lack of communication on my part...lack of understanding on stonedpony's part...
i understand you angelica. i just dont agree with you and your flighty views.
Comments
Feminists took Feminism to unrealistic, dilusional extremes.
Of course a woman can survive/exist without a male and live a happy, fulfilling life. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they choose.
I have always and completely believed women have every right to do and choose what they want. Just as males. I have never understood how anyone could think otherwise.
But as Corporate, Angelica and a few others have mentioned; many feminists pretty much became men-hating militants who operate in this extreme and absolute hatred towards men which segregates their own existence.
In terms of individuals, women can get along without men just fine.
They can even raise and lower the toilet seat all on their own, without us. Which makes me wonder why they can't do it when they live with us. But I regress and that's another question and subject matter for another thread.
In terms of species survival, they need us. They don't exist without us, as we don't exist without them. It is, we are.....a symbiotic existence.
Any notions or idealisms claiming otherwise are silly, misguided and I suspect driven and rooted by some emotional scars manifesting as hatred.
In the same way that there are men who hate women for similar reasons.
I know I have a very difficult time without a woman in my life. Women .....dare I say it....I know it sounds corny, cliche and just downright cheesey; but women...a woman...completes me. It's the truth.
I've learned more from the women (mom, grandmother, girlfriends and friends) in my life...through out my life; than I have ever learned from any men.
And I believe (because a few have told me so) that many of the women in my life have learned a lot from me.
Corporate, good stuff!
Angelica, as usual, you're brillaint and beautiful!!! Speaking of women who have thought me a few things....that is.
And for the record, I thoroughly and completely believe Angelica is absolutley accurate with this. I see it happening.
Should women have the choice to stay at home to raise their children?
"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Simone de Beauvoir
edit: compare this view of egalitarian feminist de Beauvoir with the view of conservative feminist (a branch of feminism that many feminists seem to have forgotten or simply ignore) Clare Boothe Luce:
"It is time to leave the question of the role of women in society up to Mother Nature--a difficult lady to fool. You have only to give women the same opportunities as men, and you will soon find out what is or is not in their nature. What is in women's nature to do they will do, and you won't be able to stop them. But you will also find, and so will they, that what is not in their nature, even if they are given every opportunity, they will not do, and you won't be able to make them do it."
naděje umírá poslední
It's a beautiful thing!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
not quite so true.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937813/
cross the river to the eastside
I've known many women (myself included), who in their womanhood yearned for children, had them, and did their best to honour their inner natural dictates in caring for them, hands on, only to be met with a major social force in rampant messages that told them/me that they are inadequate in choosing the inner calling. These messages, created by feminism, advocate following the patriarchal structured socially sanctioned dictates, such as being working mothers, or superwomen, which actually ask us to be slaves to symbolic-male dominated systems rather than support us in honouring the inner (symbolically feminine) voice.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yeah, I'll wait to see how this all turns out. We'll see what kind of results they can acheive and what kind of unknown, long-term side-effects or defects could occur with such a thing.
For the mean time you still need us:D
We'll see who you turn to when that large, hairy, ugly spider walks into your living room:D Or when the car needs an oil change:D
it doesn't have to work like that.
http://www.aahperd.org/NAGWS/titleix/pdf/DebunkingTheMyths.pdf
cross the river to the eastside
oh please! i've battled far worse than spiders.
cross the river to the eastside
If women didn't have men, who would they complain about to their girlfriends? Who will tell them that that shirt doesn't make them look fat?
Oh please, most of you want us as bad as we want you. Most of you couldn't be happy without us in your lives!!!!
Besides, who would you blame for all your problems, if there were no men in your lives?:D;)
well it looks like we'd have the perfect life then---we wouldn't be complaining at all! and we know which friends to go to for the truth and for what we want to hear.
cross the river to the eastside
HA. that's what you want/need to think.
cross the river to the eastside
In theory it sounds good. But reality is something entirely different.
Since I read about Title IX I've done some research and quite frankly it seems it has caused more harm than good. Not only are men who deserve a place in athletics teams, gymnastics teams not allowed, the teams are often just cut (for practical reasons viz. $), women are also getting places they don't deserve.
(note that while looking into it I found an abundance of women (who benefitted from Title IX) who agreed that this causes harm to men and who admit that in their college women were just less interested in sports than men, while there were plenty of men who desperately wanted to compete but couldn't.)
So perhaps you are right, perhaps it doesn't have to be this way but it certainly is. It's unfair. Today it creates a huge injustice towards men.
You should really ask the question if there are more women's sports teams because women want them or because they must be there because of a government rule. I happen to think, from what I've read and from my own personal experience that it's the latter.
There's really no denying, VictoryGin (that is probably one of the coolest names on this board by the way), that right now it is unfair in many many cases.
Perhaps it's not intrinsically unfair (but even that can be debated), but as it is applied today it is. So if feminists agree with Title IX and want it applied, they shouldn't just work to get it applied, but they should also work to get it applied correctly. At least, that's my view. Just consider the source of the pdf-file: National Women's Law Center. They heavily support Title IX but what are they doing to make sure it is applied correctly and fairly?
Pointing out that it can be fair is not enough.
naděje umírá poslední
In theory it sounds good. But reality is something entirely different.
Since I read about Title IX I've done some research and quite frankly it seems it has caused more harm than good. Not only are men who deserve a place in athletics teams, gymnastics teams not allowed, the teams are often just cut (for practical reasons viz. $), women are also getting places they don't deserve.
(note that while looking into it I found an abundance of women (who benefitted from Title IX) who agreed that this causes harm to men and who admit that in their college women were just less interested in sports than men, while there were plenty of men who desperately wanted to compete but couldn't.)
Perhaps you are right, perhaps it doesn't have to be this way but it certainly is. It's unfair. Today it creates a huge injustice towards men.
You should really ask the question if there are more women's sports teams because women want them or because they must be there because of a government rule. I happen to think, from what I've read and from my own personal experience that it's the latter.
There's really no denying, VictoryGin (that is probably one of the coolest names on this board by the way), that right now it is unfair in many many cases.
Perhaps it's not intrinsically unfair (but even that can be debated), but as it is applied today it is. So if feminists agree with Title IX and want it applied, they shouldn't just work to get it applied, but they should also work to get it applied correctly. At least, that's my view.
naděje umírá poslední
VictoryGin, I think it's an established fact that women are emotionally unstable and need the strong, hard comforting words and hands of men to help them through the day.
Or perhaps it was the other way around...
naděje umírá poslední
LOL, that's what I know. You women would eat each other alive if all you had was women around you, all the time.
Makes for a nice dream, though. Enjoy!
Women don't need us for anything. We'll just have to learn to accept that, live with that and move on.
In a related story, I'm starting my own manufactoring company for designing and manufactoring extremely life-like, realistic-scaled women...for our sexual pleasure. Each body part will feel and function, sexually speaking, in a near identical manner as the real women.
Only difference is, you'll never have to tell her to shut up; 'cause these babies won't talk:D:D
It helps me to get into the mind of the feminist or liberal, as the case may be, in this forum.
Otherwise, I would have no way of hearing statements like this, that reinforce my own beliefs. So, in a sense, thank you.
Here, you basically state, flat-out, that women should be more like men in this regard. And they should use artificial means to do so. True freedom comes in a pill or another form of contraception. So, those who cannot afford BC, for example, are not truly free. They are bound, and they do not know it?
To me, this appears to be an incredibly decadent view of freedom. Freedom means that I can have as much sex as I want without having any consequences, in terms of producing children. Your view of freedom doesn't merely oppose Christian teachings, but it opposes many non-Christian systems of moral thought.
Freedom comes from using our reason. When we use our reason to the greatest extent possible, we do what human beings are meant to do - we function ideally. No one would ever say that the lazy guy who never had a profound thought in his life was the ideal human.
When we have sexual intercourse with people that we do not intend to have children with, this represents an incredibly unreasonable proposition. We do things with no thought of the consequences. You wouldn't play with dynamite with no thought for the consequences. You wouldn't have a child without thinking about what that child would need.
When we choose to take birth control or have abortions, we eliminate the inherent value of sexual intimacy. It becomes an act that is devoid of the possibility of children and the resulting joy that brings.
Having intercourse without the possibility of producing children is like making a beautiful painting only to throw it in the trash when you finish it.
-Enoch Powell
Luce was a fine woman.
And she offers women options, while de Beauvoir does not. De Beauvoir is afraid that women will choose something she does not approve of...the shackles of ideology exposed!
-Enoch Powell
But I would like to mention that there many men who also don't have it in them to play/fullfill the "traditional" or established role of hunter/protector/providor.
Some men don't have it in them. And many men cerrtainly don't make good fathers or husbands.
I know I'm stating the obvious, but there are people who some times forget that.
WOW.
all i can say to that is thank bejeebus my husband does NOT think like you...and has happily made certain we both remian 'free'...by the artifical means of a snip-snip.
seriously, if that's your view of the world, cool....differing perspectives. however, for me, a big HELL YES.....having the CHOICE and OPTIONs afforded by birth control is a GREAT thing. i take it then that you ONLY engage in sexual interourse for the purpose of procreation and NEVER for the pure pleasure and intimacy it brings you and your partner. good for you. some like to enjoy sex for the sake of sex itself; even those who plan on having children, someday....for those who already have all the children they want....for those planning the spacing of their children...those who cannot procreate ever...and those who have no desire to ever procreate. c'est la vie...
btw - many, many people are not religious...at ALL...so using a religious 'argument' really doesn't hold much weight. beyond that, there are those who ARE religious, and yet somehow manage to balance out their control over their bodies with their personal, religious beliefs. beyond that, feminism in itself should not be seen to run counter to religion, but if you believe it does....so be it.
and this:
maybe you just ain't doing it right.
seriously....umm......no. the 'beautiful painting' is the closeness and intimacy shared, there need not be any 'end result' beyond that for there to be beauty in it. i see no beauty in such a world when one cannot enjoy sexual intimacy for the sake of sexual intimacy. then all of those folks who cannot reproduce, beyond the years of reproduction, etc...just shouldn't bother eh? :eek: *shudders*
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Be careful that you don't embarrass or otherwise shame yourself, your husband, or your marital vows by speaking so...haphazardly...about your marriage.
The relativistic perspective. The whole, "what's good for you might not be good for me and agree to disagree blah blah blah." I'm a moral objectivist, but there's no need to argue about that right now. Nonetheless, we have complete control over our own actions and we must make moral decisions - I've chosen the better part, I like to think.
I'm not saying it's popular but, if we're going to think about intercourse logically, we must consider its consequences. If sexual intercourse can be entirely for pleasure, then it becomes no different than drinking excessively, doing drugs, or eating whatever we want. It's means and end are both pleasure. Activities like that are the most base imaginable.
If all we seek is physical pleasure in all its forms, we are no different than pigs or any other animal that seeks pure pleasure without a purpose. But most people consider themselves to be higher than animals, so why not act like it?
If you read my post, I took care to mention that many non-Christian thinkers oppose feminist suppositions. Aristotle and Kant, to name a few. Kant was concerned with establishing morality in a world without religion, and so he sought universal norms. Himself, he tried to remain physically pure.
There's a plethora of theological discussion about couples who have intercourse without the hope of conceiving. Googling that subject can help. One Christian example involves Abraham and Sarah. Yahweh tells them that Sarah will conceive, even though she is barren. So, even if a couple believes they cannot conceive, according to our faith, all things are possible in Christ Jesus. And many couples have tried and tried and not conceived. Eventually they were able to though, and they view it as miraculous.
-Enoch Powell
Not complaining at all????? I call bullshit.
You'd just all be muttering under your breathes since you'd have no one to yell and at blame your problems and your own deficiencies on.
My Taurus self is ruled by Venus and therefore I thrive in relationship/Love. For me, enlightenment hinges on being in Sacred relationship. I am designed to find completion/Wholeness there.
Thank you so much. I am humbled. Peace my friend.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no, stoned poney was making a statement of observation.
i understand you angelica. i just dont agree with you and your flighty views.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
is that right? so i cant understand you unless i agree with you or at the least acknowledge that you have a valid point?