Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is there a general discontent towards women?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 


Where did I say that you were right? And what makes you think I am being loyal to my gender. I am saying that there are bad apples in every bunch...including men and women. You can't generalize a whole gender because there are a few completly morally defunct women out there, the same way I can't generalize a whole gender because there are a few "playas" out there. This is life, you have to weed out the good from the bad. If one happens to pull the wool over your eyes, you learn from it and move on. You don't go around and say "all women are decievers" or "All men are cheaters" just because you got screwed over.




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Not being sexist, but I believe that the world would be a better place if ruled by women. Very few women accept the horrors we see in the world today.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Not being sexist, but I believe that the world would be a better place if ruled by women. Very few women accept the horrors we see in the world today.


don't you mean "not to be sexist but men are basically evil"

if more of them would get up off their lazy child rearing backsides and go into politics it might happen.

the backlash against slutty women is because no-one likes slutty women, neither sex can trust the little minx's. besides, you can't mess with a million years of evolution and expect not to be burnt.

men have been bred to be dominant, because women, and this is a fact, tend to find dominant type men more attractive during ovulation. it's just plain old natural selection. if women then decide they want to be dominant, both sexually and in the wider arena of life, of course it's not going to sit comfortably with guys. and don't give me that equality crap, the above poster is a good example of the dominant wish.

another thing, one of the most obvious things in the world is that you will be treated in accordance with the signals you give off. men see slutty women as disposable and unreliable, they see ball breakers as a pain in the obvious place. most women aren't far behind men in this regard. if most women choose to be one or the other, most men will treat most women accodingly. such is life, deal with it.

it comes down to the simple fact that good men like nice girls and they seem to be in short supply at the moment.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Not being sexist, but I believe that the world would be a better place if ruled by women. Very few women accept the horrors we see in the world today.


This looks very intelligent until you think it through that women dont have to accept the horrors of the world when they by rote can get someone else to take the RISKS out of life for them. By rote I mean social roles...default settings. When horror happens to most women it is unfair..immoral.

Some people call this a security blanket.

I dont think this quote is intelligence at all.. Women do not tend to take the RISK men take in setting up the system and then the maintenance which keeps the system operating. To do this requires RISK...discomforture..inconvenience....lots of postponed gratification. What I hear when statements like the above are quoted..is that ..after the system is set up..all the RISKS have been taken by someone else in setting it up...women should rule...without RISK. Of course someone else will do the RISK of maintaining it.

This is Queen Bee ism. Fuedalism. This is also very akin to politics. In politics you can take credit for something you havent done..and transfer blame to others unseen when it does not work out. In politics one can also get others to take RISKS while reaping the benefits. Politics is in fact the ideal femminine occupation...there are very close parallels in how these two systems operate..they are both often very much Occult.

This quote is in fact a very sexist statement. IT implys...... without thinking that someone would question it...that women can run the world in a equitable manner without RISK. This is the kind of statement people buy into because it looks good on paper...untill the details have to be fleshed out. The RISKS taken.
Life requires RISK...nothing is free out here. By this I mean free of RISK.

This type of quote above is also indicative of "Entitlement " mentality so popular today. It is so popular they dont think anyone else can see through it. Once again the message is "Entitlement without RISKS."

RISK Changes everything for everyone. Never do you see the concept of RISK mentioned. BEWARE!!

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 20-5-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


Actually I also find that to be a sexist statement. I think men and women should work together. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses.

Pie, I disagree with the fact that men like the nice girls. There are plenty of men who go after the bad girls, get their heart broken and then proceed to continue to chase after the bad girl that broke their heart. Women do the same thing. So again, I just can't understand why people can't see that we all have our issues with the opposite sex and it all turns out pretty equal, both men and women.

Orangetom, there are women that take the risk and get into politics. However isn't the main reason why Walter Mondale lost the presidential race was because he had a female as his vice president candidate? There are women who take the risk, I just don't think that many people are quite yet open minded enough to vote for a woman. My late mother in law made a comment that all women who go into politics are sinful women, that it's a mans job and that women should stay at home where they belong. I think this attitude is still alive and well in many people in our society...especially the older generations who believe that men should work and women should stay home.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by snowflake_obsidian
 


Snowflake,
You are correct here.



Actually I also find that to be a sexist statement. I think men and women should work together. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses.


I too think that men and women should work together through both thier strengths and weaknesses. I find with the woman I am seeing that she is much better at social skills, telephone etiquette...by far...also computer skills. Where as I am a bit better with money and handling certain problems involving risk, inconvenience and discomforture.

There are in fact women who get into politics. I agree. The problem I have Snowflake..with both male and female politicians ...is that many of them think and act/conduct as if this is a system..and if they can only get to the correct spot in the "system" they can control and make the system do what they want or need for political reasons...ie..in order to make the poll numbers come out correctly ..according to their template they are currently running. There is little consideration in this set up to those peoples taking the RISKS ...the considerations are primarily political..not practical on a daily basis. This is in fact a HIJACKING..for political purposes. They can remain hidden and concealed behind the scenes from the results of what they do. This was the emphasis of my statement in my previous post. Both males and females can do this...but historically it is more a femminine trait....women tend to understand this more than men. Among the men..it is the most femminine who understand this kind of indirect power. Most politicians I tend to catalog as femminine.

When I heard that a presidential administration was concerned primarily with Poll numbers...not the buisness of the American public....I knew immediately that a HIJACKING had taken place. It is not a difficult concept to understand. I also knew here that the most effeminate had taken office.

As to Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro..I saw their interview where someone asked her a question..about her not having any military experience..and possibly becoming the President and Commander in Chief....her answer was..." I dont understand the question...How does that pertain to someone who wants Peace??"

I noted immediately that as an astute politician she skirted the question..and also noted was the concept that she avoided RISK for fluff.
She got a huge round of applause. She did not answer the question. This is also the technique of other politicians today. Specifically Barrak Obama. Fluff Pieces. Barrak is not alone in this technique as Hillary too will do this. It is mostly that the generation coming up is no smarter than the previous. More emotional if anything.

Polilticians are to me mostly femminine..all of them....in that they tend to assign the risks to others...while they reap the benifits. Hence I made a statement somewhere that if politicians vote for war they should be required to lead the attack. It was this way in the early days of the Roman Republic. It would cut down on alot of wars.

I also know that most women dont like any kind of inconvenience, discomforture, and RISK associated with solving these problems. The common tack is to get someone else to solve these problems for them.
This is one reason the "Victim Dictum " has become very popular among them for years and years now... and the talk show format mostly directed to women and the effeminate.
Women politicians would just be more of this kind of stuff. You already have a generation of male effeminate politicians playing to this kind of thing for the female votes. This has been quite clear to me since back with Mondale/Ferraro.

I am curious as to how this is going to change when they begin selling the soul of this nation for the hispanic vote?? Will they turn on the blacks, women, and the gay/transgendered community for the Hispanic
vote...with give away programs at the expense of these groups.?? Or at the expense of all of us. Is this when people will begin to catch on and ditch their emotional jag for thinking??

Do women take risks..absolutely. They do, however, take risks primarily within a female social context..not a male social context. The males by social context...construct is assigned a different kind of RISK. Different RISK is not equal.

This context...construct is what is never defined in these kinds of posts.
Amazingly ..most males are totally ignorant of this process and think this is entirely normal. This is also why so few want to put emphasis on RISK.
I am going through this debate in this post here...The Conspiracy Against Manhood.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am getting more flack from the men who cannot seem to define what is happening to them but must always define things in terms of male tostesterone. Astonishing. I Find these men in their own ways to be quite femminine and have told them so in that thread.

I think that women should be taking RISKS out here..and in a similar manner to men. I dont think that women should stay home if they want to work. I think that if a male wants to stay home and raise the kids..she should go out an work and take RISKS to support..not just help out. Even two perhapsed three jobs if necessary. Even without a safety net under her. This would be equal. By the way...how does this kind of equality effect the children if there are any??
I just dont approve of the social default settings which often pass for equalty and entitlements practiced by so many ..including the above..Oracle. Social default settings/constructs playing through as a career opportunity and entitlements ..are not equality and they are also not RISK. They are in fact a way to reduce RISK while appearing to be Equal.
I greatly disapprove of Feudalism and Queen Beeism..in any form. Male or Female.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 21-5-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


You really want me to talk about the inconvieniences, discomfort and RISK that women go through? You know where I am about to go and don't make me have to go there.

Don't most politicians either skirt the questions of their debates or straight out make empty promises? Were women even allowed in the military at that time? That all happened when I was about 4 years old.

I'm not a big Hillary fan but I think she could take the risk. One of Minnesota's senators Amy Klobachar, I think she could take a lot of risk. We will just have to see where the future leads us huh.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
i dont like it when we do the whole men verses women thing, its pointless. btw can someone remind me of what this thread was about i kinda forgot



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 


Aren't you the original poster? Shouldn't you know what it's about?

You asked why is there a general discontent towards women. That's what the thread is about, and when you post a question such as that, then of course there is going to be a men vs women debate.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 


What I find really sad is that women and sexuality is even an issue. If we want to have sex with one man, no men, or a million men, it is our right, and our business, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, so what?

This really shouldn't be an issue. We have been able to own land without having the persmission of a husband for quite some time now and guess what? We can vote too! So, this shouldn't be an issue either!

I'm off to see what men I can find, but that wasn't any of your business! LOL

Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowflake_obsidian
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


You really want me to talk about the inconvieniences, discomfort and RISK that women go through? You know where I am about to go and don't make me have to go there.

Don't most politicians either skirt the questions of their debates or straight out make empty promises? Were women even allowed in the military at that time? That all happened when I was about 4 years old.

I'm not a big Hillary fan but I think she could take the risk. One of Minnesota's senators Amy Klobachar, I think she could take a lot of risk. We will just have to see where the future leads us huh.




IM not a big Hillary fan either because of the buisness of polls being so important when they were in the White House. Office by polls..not what the public needed or wanted.

Agree most politicians do skirt the questions...both the major partys ..which is why my disappointment with the body politic and the phoney media...which shills for them.

Yes..I do want you to talk about the inconveniences/discomfortures women suffer.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by princessjade
reply to post by DuneKnight
 


What I find really sad is that women and sexuality is even an issue. If we want to have sex with one man, no men, or a million men, it is our right, and our business, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, so what?

This really shouldn't be an issue. We have been able to own land without having the persmission of a husband for quite some time now and guess what? We can vote too! So, this shouldn't be an issue either!

I'm off to see what men I can find, but that wasn't any of your business! LOL

Cheers!


Princess...you went to public school???

I read womens magazines and even romance novels. They are mostly about sex and sexuality. It is also clear in the talk show format. ..Take away the sex and sexuality and you dont have much of a program. SAme with the magazines and romance novels. By the way..on occasion I will take the quizzes and look for intelligence here too.

This is why I ask if you went to public school.
The problem I find out here...Princess...is finding a woman who knows more than just sex and sexuality and all the trappings and expectations/beliefs surrounding this "Religion."

YOu come across like many women here....not impressed.


I'm off to see what men I can find, but that wasn't any of your business! LOL


You Gotta get in the last word.!!

As to the womens vote...I will cover this in some length here.

Back when this was considered and past by amendment....the body politic saw a huge possibility of getting an easily controllable, malliable, predictable voting block. They knew that women would be primarily security oriented. Based on security issues they could pretty much gaurantee how women would vote. This represented a huge shift in potential in high electorial vote states. They also knew that women could be put on the controllable string by emotional issues.

Abortion is just such an emotional issue to gaurantee womens votes. It was quite effective at one time but losing its influence to technology.
Abortioin became such a placebo as a control issue that it became the very litmus test for any office..even dog catcher. IT became not ..whether a person was qualified for any office.....but what was ones stance on abortion. This is how a public is kept dumb and ignorant about a concept or issue.
Abortion became the issue through the womens vote to control most of the offices in the land for one particular party.
Aboriton was the control agent...through votes.
The body politic didnt care one whit about the issue or the results except that this placebo could get power and control for them through the voting booth...particularly in high electorial vote states..which meant states with lots of women ..ie..large citys.

The abortion issue is a parasite issue. A method for the body politic to parasite off the emotions and ignorance of the public. And they will keep the nation as dumb and ignorant of this as possible.

Amazingly ..it became technology which was to weaken the abortion issue today...not thinking and understanding. What has weakened the abortion issue is a device called a sonogram....ultra sound.

When a woman sees the video or photograph of unborn child through a sonagram...they know instinctively what is in thier bodys or the bodies of thier friends. They are no longer deluded by speeches and rhetoric. Sonagrams brought this home clearly to many women. This is not a concept I learned from a man but a woman clued me into this. I would have never understood this on my own.
I am grateful to her for teaching me this concept.

What the womens vote did in politics was shift the whole concept of politics to security/sexual issues...economics too. Politics is economics..no difference. The key vote particularly in high electorial vote states with large citys and female populations... became the womens vote...not the males vote.
As a result ..the male voice for a long time now became merely background clutter...in the political arena.

This knowlege and understanding alone...gives clarity to the falseness of the dogma still popular that this is a patriarchial society.
This society is a matriarchial society masquerading as a patriarchial society so as to continue to play through unchallanged...unquestioned ..undebated.

This is why a person like Princess here can make this quote her last statement in an attempt to get in the last word...They are so accustomed to a male trembling at the "power" of thier sexuality. This statement also clears it up that many believe by this technique..that it is in fact now days... a matriarchial socitey ..women play through unchallanged and men drool.


I'm off to see what men I can find, but that wasn't any of your business! LOL


It becomes obvious by the technique..it is all they have.sex and sexualty...it must be used to get in the last word. It is in fact double talk. The very concept she claims is sad and shouldnt be an issue....she uses to throw in your face...and makes it an issue.in order to get in the last word. This is why it is double talk. It is politics of the worst kind. A textbook double standard.
It is really pitiful once you know it for what it is. Want to know why there is discontent with many women ....Princess is clearing it up nicely.

You males out here need to pull your heads out of your backsides and recognize this fingerprint. You are going to run into it more and more in women who know that men are mostly to dumb and ignorant to catch it much less put light on it.

This kind of women and womens thinking...beliefs..gives women of honesty and integrety a bad name and this is unfortunate...even sad.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 22-5-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
OrangeTom, you really shouldn't be so intimidated by women! We really can be quite nice. I really guess I do not understand why you take us to be such a threat. Come on. Do we really hold that much power against men or have you given us that much power?

If we really have that much power, that makes us really powerful, or is it just perception? Perception is reality, what is your perception?


Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by princessjade
 


PrincessJade,

I am not intimidated by women. I just dont have alot of use for women who attempt to change my value system..replace it with theirs..without offering real value to me in return.

I also dont have alot of respect for what passes for most of manhood today. It is very overated...often it is alot of flatulence. I can say the same thing for most of womenhood...once you know.

Apparently you have not read my posts in that thread...about Manhood. I am getting as much flack from the men as from the women...more in fact.
Even the males today cannot think much further than their testosterone and thier oil shortage mentality. Well..perhapsed I should say..what passes for testosterone.

Read my posts on that other thread..begining here on page 5 in the thread
The conspiracy against manhood.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However..I am also not impressed today with what passes for estrogen.
Little use or respect for it.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 22-5-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


OrangeTom,

I am sure you have a mother, we all do. Why would you speak such filth about women?

Do you really think all women just gather is some large room and conspire to make men's lives miserable? Do you really think we only have time to conspire to make your life hell? All we can do is sit around and think about ways to take away your manliness and testosterone? Come on.........

How can we possibly all get together and conspire when we work or raise children or sit on our butts or whatever it is we women do? We may be too busy just living to worry about making you misreable! I am too busy to conspire about how to beat men down or about how to take away a man's manliness or how to push him out of the family or whatever other stuff you speak about that I absolutely disagree with.

Although I am not sure where your anger is rooted, I really wish you would at least stop being so intimidated! LOL We are just women and although we do hold power, I think you are giving us a bit much!

Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by princessjade
reply to post by DuneKnight
 

What I find really sad is that women and sexuality is even an issue. If we want to have sex with one man, no men, or a million men, it is our right, and our business, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, so what?
This really shouldn't be an issue. We have been able to own land without having the persmission of a husband for quite some time now and guess what? We can vote too! So, this shouldn't be an issue either!
I'm off to see what men I can find, but that wasn't any of your business! LOL
Cheers!


of course women have the right to do anything. I aint arguing that, more power to women. But there is a difference in the roles each gender plays and stuff like that depending on alot of factors so basically what i want to say is that women shouldnt strive to be men but rather try to be better women. I also think its appropriate to say that nowadays its not women trying to be as equal as men but more so men trying to be as equal as women. back in the day there was alot of respect for women it was actually a custom to show that respect however now its the complete opposite its more of custom to show ur disrespect for women.
btw, were u saying that its ok for women to be a sex objects? if women want themselves to be disposable then fine by me. and just wondering do women have sexual fantasies anyway like guys do.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by DuneKnight]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuneKnight
of course women have the right to do anything. I aint arguing that, more power to women. But there is a difference in the roles each gender plays and stuff like that depending on alot of factors so basically what i want to say is that women shouldnt strive to be men but rather try to be better women.


Exactly. In my opinion, their are certain things that each gender has an advantage in. What exactly those things are is up for debate, but instead of everybody doing the same thing, it would be far more beneficial for each gender to do what they do best. And that doesn't mean anybody has to "stay in their place." What I've seen from many "feminists" these days is a mentality that says "Well, men do it, so why shouldn't we!?" Guess what? I don't have to be the first to tell these women that men aren't perfect. I know a woman who believes that since it's okay for men to be loud and boisterous of their accomplishments, so should women. She actually goes out of her way to boast her accomplishments because she feels that anything less would be a form of oppression in which women are taught to be meek and underplay their achievements, and men are allowed to run around spouting off how great they are. "Well, if a man were to do that, he'd be respected. If a woman were to do that, she'd be called a bitch." Maybe that was true 60 years ago, but to me and I think most other people, a man who runs around talking about how great he is at everything is just as obnoxious as a woman who does the same. I see being humble and polite as a virtue that many women have, not as a personality trait that society has coerced them into excepting.

I guess what it all comes down to is embracing our differences instead of trying to ignore them or level them out. "A woman can do anything just as well as a man can." Don't mean to sound sexist, but this is a lie, and so is the vice versa. Women, biologically, aren't as physically strong as men. Get over it. Men can't give birth. Big deal. That's why we have female counterparts. I would trust a random woman to take care of a child a thousand times before I'd trust a random man. Why? There are very obviously far more male sexual predators than female sexual predators. And of course, this doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, but these differences are one of the reasons we have two genders instead of just one in the first place. If we ignore them and try to make everybody the same, who knows what kind of disasters await us. Neither gender is "better," but without the other, neither would last very long on their own.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 


DuneKnight ...JadePrincesse's statement for which you quote doesnt make good nonsense merely because of the double standard she herself uses in order to play through...yet uses sex and sexualty to get in the last word. It is typical and textbook today. This technique is also and often used by politicians. It is in fact..pure politics when you think it through.

What Jadeprincess is arguing for is being more female..not woman. This is obviouis to me. You need to be able to know and identify this fingerprint.

The roles while different are becoming disfunctional today..in lieu of the me generation...and consumerism..consumer justifications. Male and female. That is the problem behind much of the discontent being argued by this post. The other problem with this is that I find many males or men cannot define this when it is presented right in front of them. Some can ..but most cannot.

Herman,

I agree with the buk of your post. with one proviso.

I would be very particular about what random woman to whom I would trust my childats. It is obvious to me that the standards for women/females has taken a rapid drop in the last 15 years. It is falling more rapidly today...ie..faster.

Anonymous ,
I will respond to your post later when I return. I have not forgotten your post but must very soon shove off for the day.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
And what makes a woman a better woman and not a man? So women shouldn't vote or worry about politics and trust someone else to run it for them? Women shouldn't play sports or become firefighters or police officers? We should just worry about being barefoot, pregnant and having dinner on the table by the time you get home?

How about if we ALL try to become better people instead of worrying about specific gender roles. We should teach our children to be the best people they can be.

Also, I don't believe that there was more respect for women 15 years ago. 15 years ago was 1993 and many women were just as they are now. Also I don't feel that there was a lot of respect for women pre-womans rights movement either or there never would have been one.

Woman have been told in western society for centuries that we are not to enjoy sex and we are supposed to be submissive to men. I will admit that some women go overboard with this new found freedom, but everyone needs to learn balance.

Also, there are many men who are emotionally responsive. I think these military situations that we are in right now with Afghanastan and Iraq are because our leader was responding too quickly to his emotions.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowflake_obsidian
Also, there are many men who are emotionally responsive. I think these military situations that we are in right now with Afghanastan and Iraq are because our leader was responding too quickly to his emotions.


ok i get ur point no more sexism. but dont underestimate political tactics involving wars. These two wars were calculated to meet certain people's demands and was executed rather well, no wars in the past had military mobilized so fast. Plus soldiers fought in afganistan after the '9/11 castration' as a way to strike back as it was a defensive tactic (4th generation warfare) against invincible forces which honestly required a speedy attack and its also because news all day at the time showed taliban shooting women in the head with AK-47s.
Iraq however was a different matter that involved the disappointment of being unable to find osama bin laden, so rather Bush decided to overcompensate for that by chasing Saddam instead. Get back America's pride.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join