It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I as well learnt that the earliest cultures were matriarchies. The role of the male in pregnancy was unknown and the female form was venerated as a sort of self contained fertility figure of some magical standing.

The early Venus statues, the Celtic equality of men and women (women could divorce their husbands for example), all point to earlier societies being matriarchal in design.




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chris_stibrany

Here is a stream-of-consciousness essay I wrote on the change in the role of women in culture and their objectification to help a friend recently that is sort of relevant:


The thing is, in my mind, that women have largely been objectified
since the beginning of written history.

The earliest cultures were actually Mater or women cultures. The woman
was the head of the tribe. If you look at the many goddess statues
celebrating the woman as the rational head of the tribe, with the
pregnancy being a sign of godliness, you can see that we have changed
a lot.

For example, [ upload.wikimedia.org...
] celebrates the female figure in pregnancy.

In ancient Celtic societies, of which I know that Lusitania was a
large Celtic stronghold against the Romans, the woman was not just
subservient figure of the husband, she had equal rights. She could
initially divorce her husband, when she saw any evidence of cheating
on her. And furthermore, she was valued as a warrior and voice of
wisdom in the tribe

Women's wisdom, in the the realm of spirit, and plants for example,
was highly valued. She was able to contact the realm of the spirits
due to her naturally open state (the female is naturally open versus
the male who is naturally closed and active, not passive).

One great example of the woman as a centre and leader of the tribe is
Boadicea [ www.historic-uk.com...
] She not only assumed head of her small tribe, but she also drew
local tribes together with her leadership skills.

Then the Romans came and they were more paternal, they valued the male
over the female. However, the raising of the goddess was still in
existence. They worshipped Minerva, Isis, and Vesta among other
goddesses. The real fall came with Christianity.

Once the Christian world came to be it was the real death-knell of not
just female superiority, but female equality. Now it was all about
males. It is not just because the Torah and the Bible put women in
smaller places, but because the New Testament also bows to the Old
Testament. There are no female strong warriors or thinkers.

Goddess worship and some attempt at equality happened during the so
called Dark Ages when although there was not a strong system of
civilisation, there were resurgences of old Hermetic thought. Witch
covens grew up. The average person was afraid of this knowledge
because it did not reflect the new 'knowledge.' Furthermore it was
frightening because to these so-called God-fearing Christians,
elevating a woman to the level of a man, and even beyond, was not just
frightening, it was blasphemy.

Thus the witch trials began, as women tried to regain their self-worth
and old status in secret.

We can fast forward to the so called Enlightenment in the Rennaisance
era and realise that though women may be elevated somewhat (1500
years later than biblical times) to their proper place, that the
rational thinkers are now fighting the heads of State and Church.

They do not want any equality among men and women because perverting
the re-written, corrputed Holy books such as all of the re-edits of
the Bible, women are impure.

Then you fast forward once again to modern times. Where as we know,
women are objectified as sex objects. This is not because they are
weaker or 'only worth bearing children.' The real reason women are
objectified is to sell.

The most attractive thing to both sexes is an attractive woman. Men
will feel sexually attracted, and women will either feel appreciation
or feel a bit of envy. This sells things.

In other words, we are at a perversion of the very start of culture.
Women need to be elevated to a place which is equal to men. Once
they ruled the cultural realm, due to their wisdom and guidance, and
now they are on the bottom of the pile due to Christianity, Islam
(didnt mention but its true) and the Middle Ages fear of witchraft.

There is a modern resurgence of women being back where they belong but
they have a long way to go.


There are a lot of pit-falls and dangers to this 'new' resurgence of
movements, many of which have already been co-opted. For example:
feminism may have started as a natural movement, but now it has
largely been used by lesbians and men-haters to throw down equality.
We are talking about equality, not supremacy.

At any rate, I think we can look to the past to find a time when women
were appreciated and their spiritual side was appreciated.

We have to make sure that the idea of women as sex-objects does not
become multiplied.

I think I could have said it better but I hope that helps



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
I as well learnt that the earliest cultures were matriarchies. The role of the male in pregnancy was unknown and the female form was venerated as a sort of self contained fertility figure of some magical standing.

The early Venus statues, the Celtic equality of men and women (women could divorce their husbands for example), all point to earlier societies being matriarchal in design.


No, those things you mention don't point to that at all. Yeah Celts were fairly democratic compared to the likes of Romans (Pater Familias and big daddy dictator), but that doesn't at all prove some kind of matriarchy. And as I already said, Venus figurines aren't proof of any either.

If you can quote any respected anthropologists arguing for an ancient matriarchy, then maybe I'll believe you.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: InTheLight

Funny how it took the introduction of Christianity, specifically the reformation to validate women in the west
The pill just turned them into sex objects, never recovered from that unfortunately


What are you talking about? Before Christianity women were largely held to the same standards as men in Native American culture. It wasn't until Christianity was introduced that the value of women dropped in American society. As far as Europe, that was influenced by roman culture as it spread the Roman Empire, which later forced its people within the Empire to become Christian, often with violent results for resistance.

So I have no idea what you are talking about here. Christianity as a whole is largely misogynist in general with that whole original sin crap, not letting women into the priesthood (again because of that original sin crap), and heck even the Virgin Mary myth perpetuates the idea that women who have sex are bad or evil (heck your post I'm quoting labels women as "sex objects" for taking the pill which is pretty misogynist as well). So if anything the introduction of Christianity strengthened misogynist feelings among a populace when it is introduced. It is secularism that is largely responsible for more equality for women.


Dear krazyshot
Can you go read my post again

I think you agreed with my statement and didn't even understand you agreed with my statement

Secularism does not and in no way validate the importance of women.
Don't just say what you want people to believe, prove it

Secularism sexualised women and is now doing the same to children, or is playboy a book in the bible

You have got to be joking

I know
China, one baby policy, if your one child is a girl, kill it,,secularism, God bless them for helping women the whole nation over
That's evidence krazy, evidence, want more
edit on 23-5-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: riley

Rome was not a Christian state. If you note, I suggested women's equality wasn't recognized till after the reformation, after Luther protested at worms

Can you show me some regions women were equals prior to Luthers reformation

Thanks



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
omg this one time in history there was this matriarchal society one time and they did nothing of note.

I believe according to studies it takes about 15 years after womens suffrage for a country to start big welfare programs.

If you are reasonable parent you will teach your son to be masculine and a man. would you rather live in a society of masculine men or this growing society of uber passive feminine white knights.
Mating doesn't work on the terms of equality. masculine and feminine energy are yi and yang. The protector/provider and the nurturer.
What's sad is the average decent guy ate this stuff up and become a beta noob. Meanwhile his low iq criminally deranged classmate didn't care about no women equality and is slaying it with women.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No Rome was not a christian state. Their sexist ideals were incorporated into Christianity and continued to then spread like a virus through other countries/regions where women became property with "love honour and obey".

In ancient Ireland for example women could own property and inherit. Some other regions were indeed sexist but not this very black and white sexism which we have been experiencing for the last thousand years. God only being allowed to be male now is one major difference that has really impacted women negatively.


www.theguardian.com...

Ancient Egypt, 3100 BCE and after: Women hold equal financial rights with men. As scholar Janet Johnson writes, “Egyptian women were able to acquire, to own, and to dispose of property (both real and personal) in their own name. They could enter into contracts in their own name; they could initiate civil court cases and could, likewise, be sued; they could serve as witnesses in court cases; they could serve on juries; and they could witness legal documents.” Women don’t always exercise these rights, Johnson says, because of social factors.

Biblical era, 1800BC and after): Under Jewish law, women have the right to own property and sue others in court without a man representing them. Wives can’t inherit directly from their husbands – unless it is a gift or they have no children – but daughters can inherit if they don’t have brothers. The Book of Numbers, the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible, lays down an early law of personal finance: “If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.” Sons who inherit are expected to use the estate to support the women in the family.

Ancient Hinduism, 1500BC and after: Women have the right to control stridhan, or property before marriage, which includes gifts from parents, friends and strangers as well as earnings from her own work. Divorce is not allowed and inheritance laws favor male family members.

Ancient Greece: Women’s financial rights are constrained compared to earlier societies. Women are not allowed to inherit property or take a case to court unless a male guardian is in charge. Women can, however, trade and engage in industry, such as tavern-keeping, although work in the classical watering hole is reserved for the lower classes.

Ancient Rome: The pendulum swings back as freeborn Roman women are allowed to divorce, own property and inherit. Divorce is easy to get – presaging the Christian opposition to splitting up marriages – but the husband has the legal right to keep the children.

Byzantine Empire, AD565: The Justinian laws – named for the emperor, known as “the last Roman”, who created a template for modern western civil law – allow women to be married without a dowry. Some working women, including prostitutes and tavern-workers, do not have the right to marry Roman citizens and can only be kept by Roman men as concubines. If a woman cheats on her husband, he can divorce her and “keep the pre-nuptial gift, the dowry and one third of any other property she possessed”. Justinian’s wife, the Empress Theodora, a former actress and wool-spinner, left her jobs when the emperor courted her. She is widely credited with influencing him to expand property and divorce rights for women.

The Middle East, AD600s: Islam is founded in Arabia and allows women the right to inherit estates, own property and initiate divorce. As in Jewish law, when a parent dies the eldest son receives a double share of the inheritance. Men can inherit half their wives’ estates, unless they have a child, in which case men only get 25% of the estate.

Europe, 800s: Anglo-Saxon laws allow women to own their own property, before and after marriage. In Norse societies, women are also allowed to conduct business as equals with men.


There are many more examples.

I must say I am perplexed with the idea of this thread. People seem to think women just got rights now and being "elevated". Nope they just started getting them back in the last hundred or so years after a millennia. Three thousand years ago perhaps the role of women was not seen as just being so "give birth and serve your husband" bs.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Raggedyman

In all reality, women always had a crucial role in humanity up through civilization. It is likely that women were the initial discoverers of the cyclic nature of the seasons, animal husbandry, and domestication of plants and agriculture in general.

Matriarchal societies are not uncommon, excepting the modern era where a patriarchal society took a stranglehold on the entire planet. Women, prior to Abrahamic religions, were highly valued within a society. The sheer abundance of neolithic Venus figures found would seem to indicate as much, anyway.


Women have always had a crucial role in society, not a single person would ever understate their role in society, not one I could imagine would need to be reminded, but that wasnt the issue we were discussing.

Its likely that both men and women were the initial discoverers of the cyclic nature of the seasons, animal husbandry, and domestication of plants and agriculture in general, and I have never heard a rational argument to contend that.
In fact your statement would be pushing the limits of sexism, suggesting that women are better and discovered more than men when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

Matriarchal societies are very uncommon, name a few please, i think you will find it hard to find any of any reasonable population in history, ever

As for the goddess Venus, she was a sex toy, goddess of love, beauty, sex, fertility, prosperity, victory, and desire. Those traits dont represent an indication of anything never mind value

You can say what you want Furry but you must be able to back it up with more than opinion and Venus statues.

www.reddit.com...

Lets be honest, women have never been highly valued, truthfully i dont believe in equality, women are complimentary to men as men are complimentary to women
I do believe they hold an as significant, possibly more important role than a man in families, families are the foundation of society
Women are as equally important as men, possibly even deserving more respect, just not blind allegiance and corrupted beliefs of their past roles.

The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future
By CYNTHIA ELLER
Beacon Press
www.nytimes.com...

Thats not my opinion.
edit on 23-5-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Matriarchal societies a historical myth? The problem with that argument is history has been recorded by a patriarchal society with a patriarchal political agenda. They went to such extremes they committed genocide against women suspected of being part of matriarchal religions. There is no hiding the witch burnings.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: Raggedyman

Matriarchal societies a historical myth?
The problem with that argument is history has been recorded by a patriarchal society with a patriarchal political agenda. They went to such extremes they committed genocide against women suspected of being part of matriarchal religions. There is no hiding the witch burnings.


The witch burnings?
Not what I would call matriarchal societies, they were covens, if indeed there were covens.
The burnings were bad, it was wrong, it wasnt gender genocide, maybe religious murder.

It still doesnt suggest history shows matriarchal society as this paper would indicate

The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future
By CYNTHIA ELLER
Beacon Press
www.nytimes.com...

I am sorry, its not my opinion, its a paper explaining that matriarchal societies were not common
If there were and I am not saying there wasnt, they are not recorded so its an assumption.

I have nothing against matriarchal societies or women in control in society, its just not common in historical recordings.

I dont believe in equality, women are better at some things and men at other things, respect and understanding how both sexes compliment each other is far more important.

Genocide against women, most wars were and are fought between men, men kill more men than women, its how wars are fought, sorry thats a fact

I cant find ant stats about Gender genocide anywhere, sorry

That Age article you linked
they were not matriarchal societies, they were societies that valued women, offered women some forms of equality.

I am not arguing the value of gender, women should have equal rights, be respected and honored.
They are valuable and valid in our society.

My point is simple, christianity taught that women were equal in all ways to men, in christian society.
Christianity played an important role in womens rights

www.faithstreet.com...


This was confirmed by the apostle Paul when he stated, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ then you are . . . heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).


But women matriarchal societies, dont see the evidence



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: Raggedyman

Matriarchal societies a historical myth?
The problem with that argument is history has been recorded by a patriarchal society with a patriarchal political agenda. They went to such extremes they committed genocide against women suspected of being part of matriarchal religions. There is no hiding the witch burnings.


The witch burnings?
Not what I would call matriarchal societies, they were covens, if indeed there were covens.


They were mostly just medicine women who's religious beliefs explained the power of their medicines. Going to the medicine woman to be healed sounds like matriarchal culture to me.


The burnings were bad, it was wrong, it wasn't gender genocide, maybe religious murder.


No. Just.. no.


Masses of women were "murdered" ex. some simply for being female with red hair. If they had green eyes that was seen as being even worse. Instant death sentence. They went to alot of effort in slaughtering women and using a patriarchal religion to do so. Religious leaders going to the effort of testing a woman's guilt by drowning her obviously feared something. They were trying to destroy rival religions.. even turning their goddesses into "saints" to make converting them more effective.

Murder implies one off killings. The inquisitions spread across Europe where women were rounded up drowned or burned alive. If you are going to downplay a genocide by calling it merely religious murder then I do not see any more point discussing this issue with you. Your belief is on par with denying the Nazi holocaust happened.

If you deny the witch hunts were genocide (there is plenty of proof it was) I doubt any amount of evidence would be enough to prove to you any matriarchy existed.

Final reply to you please do not respond. I find your claims highly offensive.
edit on 23-5-2016 by riley because: typos

edit on 23-5-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
In my own estimation...."IF" reincarnation is true I would say that the souls that have taken on the roles of females are definitely the more advanced souls ( as a general rule ). It is definitely the more challenging role to assume, as are the roles of minorities ( generally speaking ) . I do firmly believe that women ( at least some ) have a connection to one another, on a level that men are not aware of. I have had a number of personal experiences that would strongly indicate this...although it is not something that I would ever expect them to admit to. It may very well be that they have knowledge/abilities on a spiritual/inter-dimensional level that are utilized by them to fulfill an as yet undisclosed purpose. All I can say is...that they as a whole have shown themselves to be superior to males in many regards ( again I speak in generalities ). These are all my own opinions based on my own observations.....



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The benefit for men (and women) will involve various types of work where the person most qualified for it and available just happens to be a woman.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Deer raggedyman,

No I understood your post completely. It shows a warped view of how women should be treated. Your words convey an idea that women shouldn't be sexually liberated like men are. You try to pin the sexualization of women on secularism when it was Christianity repressing the sexuality of women in the first place that secularism is fixing.

Newsflash, sex isn't a bad thing. Christianity is one of the Abrahamic religions which has contributed to the male dominated society we live in. Things like witch hunts, forcing women to cover their entire bodies, the double standard of letting men who have sex before marriage off the hook while condemning the women, etc. These things are and were all practiced by ALL the Abrahamic religions. The fact that you think this has been good for women paints you as part of the problem, not the solution.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Deer raggedyman,

No I understood your post completely. It shows a warped view of how women should be treated. Your words convey an idea that women shouldn't be sexually liberated like men are. You try to pin the sexualization of women on secularism when it was Christianity repressing the sexuality of women in the first place that secularism is fixing.

Newsflash, sex isn't a bad thing. Christianity is one of the Abrahamic religions which has contributed to the male dominated society we live in. Things like witch hunts, forcing women to cover their entire bodies, the double standard of letting men who have sex before marriage off the hook while condemning the women, etc. These things are and were all practiced by ALL the Abrahamic religions. The fact that you think this has been good for women paints you as part of the problem, not the solution.


You silly boy
Men should not be sexually liberated, they should be sincere and loyal to their spouses

Sex is a great thing, awesome, in a loving relationship that is based on care and respect

You have the problem, you think women are just sperm resepticales for enjoyment not commitment

Silly boy

The rest of your comments suit your disrespect for women
Just a being who wants and needs sex



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Just a being who wants and needs sex


Duh... It's called being human and alive. You can have fun being intimidated by sex, but I'm not afraid of it. Nor do I care about having it outside of a relationship. The risks can be severely reduced if done properly too. But then again none of this has anything to do with the double standard created by Christian society towards women and men and sex.

PS: Stop ad homineming me. I'm not the topic of conversation. If you don't like my morals, too bad. I'm not here to please you anyways. The fact that you are trying to attack my character by trying to paint me as a sex maniac just shows how desperate your argument is. Stay on target, mate.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: InTheLight





Klassified, Excellent speech on the video, which brings up more questions.

As I was contemplating Krazyshot's cultural immersion = generational and cultural change theory, religious dogma kept creeping up on top. Look at one of the richest countries in the world - Saudia Arabia - and the continuing oppression of women - why? - religious dogma or false interpretation?

Historically, women have been challenging religious dogma as well, but with little headway.




Sarah Grimke, in responding to the condemnation of the Congregationalist Clergy, repeatedly focused on the principle that women have a moral responsibility before God, just as men do, to use their gifts and act for the good of humanity. She wrote: The motto of woman, when she is engaged on the great work of public reformation should be,—“The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid.” She must feel, if she feels rightly, that she is fulfilling one of the important duties laid upon her as an accountable being, and that her character, far from being ‘unnatural,’ is in exact accordance with the will of Him to whom, and to no other, she is responsible for the talents and gifts confided to her. (Schneir 42, italics are mine) Furthermore, she explained that the duties of following Christ, as laid down in the Sermon on the Mount, make no distinction based on sex. Both men and women were called by God to “let their light shine.” But, men have distorted Scripture and kept women from being able to live as moral agents with the freedom to use their gifts. Why have they done this? Because, Sarah Grimke claimed, the ”lust of dominion was probably the first effect of the fall; and as there was no other intelligent being over whom to exercise it, woman was the first victim of his unhallowed passion” (38). Thus she is using the Christian doctrine of sin to open up a conversation on women’s rights. In unforgettable language, she wrote that she was asking “no favors for my sex” but only that her Christian brothers would “take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God designed us to occupy” (38).


eewc.com...

Recently, we see nuns challenging the division of power with the Pope thinking he may throw them a crumb or two.

www.nytimes.com...

What I am thinking is that it was and still is male religious leaders re-interpreting religious dogma to hold on to power and control within most world religions and maintain the oppression of women as is has always been done. Point in fact, nowhere in the Quaran does it command women to cover their whole bodies, in fact, it suggests they just cover their chest and dress modestly.




Dress Code for Believers* Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. God is fully Cognizant of everything they do. And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to God, O you believers, that you may succeed.* (24:30-31) *24:30-31 Dressing modestly, therefore, is a trait of the believing men and women. The minimum requirements for a woman's dress is to lengthen her garment (33:59) and to cover her chest. Tyrannical Arab traditions have given a false impression that a woman must be covered from head to toe; such is not a Quranic or Islamic dress.


www.submission.info...

So, does it not stand to reason, that chaste religious leaders receive no benefit in elevating women within the religious ranks nor society because there are no offspring's future successes to consider?
edit on 24-5-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

"they did nothing of note"

really.....
it was the women in those matriarchal societies that managed to figure out just what medicinal properties the plants around them had.... most of our modern drugs can trace their origins to that knowledge of the plants. it was women who began to cultivate the edible foods.
the most esteemed woman in the primitive tribe was the witch doctor, who knew the medicinal value of the plants and such.. the most esteemed men were the chief, who had proven himself in his art of war and the shamen who spent his days playing in the spiritual real....doing nothing of note!



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I must say everyone's contributions are most impressive and the historical references bring light to the times when women were valued and how they were valued and the introduction of oppression and repression of women. But I am hovering (and stuck) over the negative role some religions (or false interpreted teachings) play in the continuation of the oppression of women's rights in all countries - rich or poor. Then we have what some call 'religious police' ensuring women remain within the confines of a what I term a "mess" of misinterpreted religious dogma and backward cultural oppression towards women, where in poorer countries I would think that men must first be elevated, before any benefit may be had from the elevation of their spouse.

Then we have a society where men are elevated but there seems to be no benefit to elevating women. so, I need to ponder this one further.

www.hrw.org...
edit on 24-5-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
the suffragette movement was set up because only the rich landowners could vote, including women.
only after the first world war, when so many serfs gave their lives for their country the laws were changed.
in 1918 the property qualifications for men was scrapped and also for women aged over 30.
in 1928 allowed women to vote at the same age as men.
the reason the female gender is pushed for the right to vote is simple, people would look at history with a different view if the knowledge was widespread that only rich landowners (including women) could vote.
pushing the false belief that only women couldn't vote allows the idea that equal opportunities came in, in either 1918 or 1928.

fast forward to current times.
with equal pay still an issue, globally, it isnt surprising women's rights groups are still seeking parity.
however a quick look at those that oppose women's rights, with a seeming abundance here, they tend to pick up on ridiculous arguments, while using snarl words and playing the victim card ad nausea.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join