Feminism...

1…34689…13

Comments

  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    VictoryGin wrote:
    oh please! i've battled far worse than spiders. :)


    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;)
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    cincybearcat wrote:
    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
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    NMyTree wrote:
    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;)

    HA. that's what you want/need to think.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    VictoryGin wrote:
    it doesn't have to work like that.
    http://www.aahperd.org/NAGWS/titleix/pdf/DebunkingTheMyths.pdf

    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.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    VictoryGin wrote:
    it doesn't have to work like that.
    http://www.aahperd.org/NAGWS/titleix/pdf/DebunkingTheMyths.pdf

    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.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    VictoryGin wrote:
    HA. that's what you want/need to think.

    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...



    :D
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    VictoryGin wrote:
    HA. that's what you want/need to think.

    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!
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Collin wrote:
    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...



    :D

    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    decides2dream wrote:
    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Collin wrote:
    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."

    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
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Love that Luce.

    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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.


    and this:
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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*
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    decides2dream wrote:
    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
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,836
    VictoryGin wrote:
    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. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    NMyTree wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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.
    Dude, I'm honoured to view your evolution. And to see what you're really capable of. Peace.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • stonedponey
    stonedponey Posts: 47
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Stonedpony is being mean ;)

    no, stoned poney was making a statement of observation.
  • stonedponey
    stonedponey Posts: 47
    angelica wrote:
    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.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    stonedponey wrote:
    i understand you angelica. i just dont agree with you and your flighty views.
    Understanding is shown with understanding.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • stonedponey
    stonedponey Posts: 47
    angelica wrote:
    Understanding is shown with understanding.

    is that right? so i cant understand you unless i agree with you or at the least acknowledge that you have a valid point?

Categories