Feminism: Destroying the Male and Female Relationship

page: 44
85
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Perhaps the disconnect is due to the fact that you apparently believe that African American's struggle for equality somehow magically ended 'before the 1970s' hence your inability to appreciate the parallels between the two ongoing struggles.


You were comparing my comments about feminists in 2011 with totally unrelated comments that supposedly occurred during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s US, that was intended to end segregation between black and white people.

To press you once more: please elucidate the relevance that you feel is apparent between the two different movements in the two different eras.

To put it bluntly: ''put up or shut up''.


It's still a very shabby tactic to flippantly use a serious case of mistreatment and discrimination ( such as the treatment of black Americans pre-1970s ), and use it to try and ''justify'' a completely unrelated point which has no relation to the scenario or discussion at hand.


Logically fallacious, and an extremely poor show.




posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Completely wrong Women and children were at the bottom of the pile. If you were serious you would have considered the class issues but even then you would be wrong. Did you rerlise that women were actually chattel?

Did you realise that my mother ( a respected deputy head teacher) was told to get her husband's permission to buy her son (me) a cheap HI Fi that she could have easily afforded to make Higher Purchase payments for in the 1970s??

Of course she questioned this idiocy and brandished her pay slips at the salesman. Do you realise a guardsman escaped jail for rape because "he had a promissing career" in the 70s. Of course the victim then probably became a feminist but was also traumatised to be scared of men.

Have you ever seen a "comdey called on the Buses". It is full of cruel attacks on women as a class. They were either fat and Unattractive or absolute Hotties to be chased after both were cartoon versions of reality.

I could go on but you can see anyone holding your views would of course fuel feminism and the feer of society going backwards.

It is people like you who generate feminazis. (Newton's third law of motion)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
Completely wrong Women and children were at the bottom of the pile. If you were serious you would have considered the class issues but even then you would be wrong. Did you rerlise that women were actually chattel?


Nonsense.

The treatment of women and children depended on the circumstances and surroundings of where they lived/were raised.

Your suggestion that ''children were at the bottom of the pile'' is contradictory, as children had to grow up to be the men of the next generation who supposedly continued to keep ''women and children at the bottom of the pile''.

Sorry, but you've been brainwashed by revisionist, PC propaganda.


Originally posted by tiger5
Did you realise that my mother ( a respected deputy head teacher) was told to get her husband's permission to buy her son (me) a cheap HI Fi that she could have easily afforded to make Higher Purchase payments for in the 1970s??

Of course she questioned this idiocy and brandished her pay slips at the salesman.


Do you realise that my Grandfather had to fight in the First World War, purely because of his gender ?

While his wife and children stayed at home living the same life as they had done before the onset of the War, he had to risk life and limb, purely because he was a man.

Please remind me again of this supposed anti-female discrimination in the past.



Originally posted by tiger5
Have you ever seen a "comdey called on the Buses". It is full of cruel attacks on women as a class. They were either fat and Unattractive or absolute Hotties to be chased after both were cartoon versions of reality.


LOL.

I've seen some of that in passing; it's sometimes repeated in the early hours on ITV3.

I think that the comedy is quite dated, and if it has some sexist attitudes in it, then it's hardly representative of British comedy in the 1970s.

Dad's Army, Steptoe and Son, Monthy Python etc. are all classic British comedies from that time that aren't overtly sexist, so if ''On the buses'' is sexist - as I say, I've only occasionally caught some of it - then maybe that isn't an accurate example of Britain at that time.


Originally posted by tiger5
I could go on but you can see anyone holding your views would of course fuel feminism and the feer of society going backwards.

It is people like you who generate feminazis. (Newton's third law of motion)


My views, of course, would fuel feminism; feminists can't handle a logical, thoughtful approach, as their views are based upon emotional bitterness.

If feminazis are generated by people like me, then I know that I'm doing the right thing.

What's that saying about ''snakes in the grass'' ?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You do realise that women had to work in the factories and made the ammunition for their men at war as well as raise the family and keep the household going in their absence?
Not all were living the life of riley watching leave it to beaver or whatever was the equal to American Idol back then.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
You do realise that women had to work in the factories and made the ammunition for their men at war as well as raise the family and keep the household going in their absence?


Of course, what the women went through was so much more terrible than dying an agonising death by gunshot wound, infection, disease, or just being left to die of hunger or thirst alone in a muddy trench which is populated by the unrecognisably mangled and land-mined damaged bodies of your mates.


Poor show.



Originally posted by Flighty
Not all were living the life of riley watching leave it to beaver or whatever was the equal to American Idol back then.


Still; better than getting your head blown off.


edit on 2-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
A simple truth that Staunch Feminists will not admit is that they don't simply want Equality. Why? Because Equality means not only are you given rights and freedoms but also means you are bound by RESPONSIBILITIES that one cannot back away from.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
A simple truth that Staunch Feminists will not admit is that they don't simply want Equality. Why? Because Equality means not only are you given rights and freedoms but also means you are bound by RESPONSIBILITIES that one cannot back away from.


That's a nice soundbite, but could you please give me an example of a staunch feminist who does not want equal responsibility? I believe in qualified equal pay for equal work. I am not a supporter of altered tests for the same job. I say if there are 10 open positions then the top ten qualified applicants get the job regardless of race, sex, age, religion, or lifestyle.

I do not consider myself a "feminist", but I have an aversion to the "lil" woman syndrome some like to believe in as pertaining to a wife and mother staying home and following her husband without regard to her future. Regardless of what some posters seem to believe, women are still struggling for equal pay for equal work. I see it everyday at my workplace.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Serenity08 because: forgot "age"



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


So why then the beef with Feminism which is making war participation of both sexes more equal?
It was after all Feminists who pushed to have women in the military while a lot of men were dead set against it.
In fact, depending which male you talk to, some are glad that women are just as at risk as they are of being conscripted in the next world war, others don't want a female beside them in the trenches.
So I guess it only highlights that just like women, men have varying ideas on what the sexes should be doing and not doing.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I think that you are revising history. The wages received by men and women in the 70s were completely different. Women were barred from the upper echelons of the job market to an even greater extent than now. If you wish to revise history at least do so with some :

A )style; or

B) Humor.

I have offered you a snapshot of why things were so bad for women.

I fail to understand your assertion that life in WW2 was great for women and children. Frankly No war ever is.

You seemed to ignore the issue of class in my previous post. let me explain. thereis a class system within the west but within that thereis a caste system also women and certian minorities in the 70s used to be particularly opprsed by dint of their class but also got another form of oppression was due to their gender.

Let me put it another way.
The poorest bloke could go home and beat up his wife and child and the police would not give a damn.

Do you wish top go back to those "good old days"?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Women have always held a higher degree of responsibility. We work to help support our families. We carry the brunt of the weight -- and many times, all of the weight -- when it comes to raising our children. It usually falls to us to do the cooking, cleaning, and laundry. By and large, women work far harder for less pay then their male counterparts for the same job -- even in the corporate world.

To suggest that women don't carry their fair weight or are less than responsible is both disingenuous and laughable.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serenity08
That's a nice soundbite, but could you please give me an example of a staunch feminist who does not want equal responsibility?


It's easy to give an example of a ''staunch feminist'' who wants to shy away from responsibility...

They are the people who just define themselves as ''feminists''.


Simples !



edit on 2-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
So why then the beef with Feminism which is making war participation of both sexes more equal?



''Which is'', not ''which was'' ?


Feminism was formed on the basis of a lie, and it is still being perpetuated on that same lie.

It's not my problem that you are unable to see this.


Originally posted by Flighty
It was after all Feminists who pushed to have women in the military while a lot of men were dead set against it.


What on earth has this got to do with my comments about male discrimination in years gone by ?

You can't mix the present with the past when it suits you... Oh, I forgot, you can, if you're a feminist.


Originally posted by Flighty
In fact, depending which male you talk to, some are glad that women are just as at risk as they are of being conscripted in the next world war, others don't want a female beside them in the trenches.
So I guess it only highlights that just like women, men have varying ideas on what the sexes should be doing and not doing.


Again, I have to politely request what relevance your above words have to my point ?

Your ''counter-arguments'' seem nonsensical, to say the least.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
I think that you are revising history. The wages received by men and women in the 70s were completely different.


When did I comment on men's and women's wages in the 1970s ?

Have you got a source to affirm the fact that men and women were paid completely differently in the 1970s ?

Or is this just, shall we say, ''bollocks'' ?


Originally posted by tiger5
Women were barred from the upper echelons of the job market to an even greater extent than now.


Women aren't barred from the upper echelons of the job market now, so your comment immediately loses points for its truthfulness.

However, I shall humour you, and request a source, or any semblance of proof, to support your claims that women are ''barred'' from the upper echelons of the job market; either now, or in days gone by.

Or are you talking b-lox again ?



Originally posted by tiger5
If you wish to revise history at least do so with some :

A )style; or

B) Humor.


I'm not the one who is revising history.

This isn't a variety show, and I'm sorry if my posts aren't a little more vaudeville.



Originally posted by tiger5
I have offered you a snapshot of why things were so bad for women.


Yes you have.

You gave me an example of your mother having difficulty in buying an electrical product, because the store manager wasn't accustomed to a lady being able to afford a product on her own.

That is a clear case of sexism and gender stereotyping.

I'm not denying that women were socially marginalised, but men were also discriminated against by society in equal fashion.


Originally posted by tiger5
I fail to understand your assertion that life in WW2 was great for women and children. Frankly No war ever is.


It was WWI that I was talking about.


I never said that life was great for women and children. You are distorting my comments.

What I am saying is that life for women and children before 1914 didn't get altered drastically for the next four years.

Life, during that period, for men, involved them being forcibly deployed to risk life and limb in a ridiculously indefensible war.

So much for female oppression, eh ?




Originally posted by tiger5
You seemed to ignore the issue of class in my previous post. let me explain. thereis a class system within the west but within that thereis a caste system also women and certian minorities in the 70s used to be particularly opprsed by dint of their class but also got another form of oppression was due to their gender.


If there was a class system, then surely it would effect both men and women, and these ''certain minorities'' in equal measure ?

Sorry, but the ''class'' explanation doesn't cut it.


Originally posted by tiger5
Let me put it another way.
The poorest bloke could go home and beat up his wife and child and the police would not give a damn.

Do you wish top go back to those "good old days"?


Again, your above comment fails on two levels:

1. You are telling us about a hypothetical incident, where an issue of domestic violence would not be dealt with.

I need to have some tangible evidence of the police ignoring a distressed mother, to be able to believe that there was any flippancy on the police's part in these days, in relation to this kind of domestic assault.

2. There are no ''good old days''.

There are just ''days'' that we experience in the present !

Why do you have to attempt to link my views with antiquated views of the past ?



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
We work to help support our families.


Of course, men don't do that at all.



Originally posted by maria_stardust
We carry the brunt of the weight -- and many times, all of the weight -- when it comes to raising our children.


Oh, hear we go ( ! )

Complaining about ''having'' to bear a child, and using that to try and gain sympathy is rather a low trick.

Bearing a child is a choice.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
It usually falls to us to do the cooking, cleaning, and laundry.


Nonsense.

I love to cook, don't mind doing the laundry, and I find cleaning quite cathartic.

I guess that doesn't make me a ''real man''.



Originally posted by maria_stardust
By and large, women work far harder for less pay then their male counterparts for the same job -- even in the corporate world.


I need a source for the statement that ''women work far harder for less pay then their male counterparts for the same job''.

This sounds like emotion-filled, illogical rubbish.


Please provide me with some validation for your ridiculous claim, or are you still trying to cling on to the coat-tails of this supposed ''female oppression'' ?



Your position on this issue has become practically untenable...

Please provide me with some factual information that supports your bizarre comments...



edit on 2-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DavidLV
 


David....I read many of your posts since page 41 and I'll throw this at you

You say it took God 6 days to create the world and he rested on the 7th day; what if it took 6 days for God to destroy the world and He rested on the 7th day? He? Who came first, the chicken or the egg?

I can't argue with you in regards to your statements of Christianity and how screwed up it is, even I know that, but Judiasm is far from perfect and most certainly NOT original by any means and are just copies of legendary stories of more ancient ones that have been copied.

Your attitude towards women in general is not a healthy one. You seem to blame women on all the ills of the world when in fact 99.9% of those destroying the very core of family, community and unity is man himself.

Who decides on how women dress? Males
Who created porn? Deviant sexually depraved Males
Who runs the media? Males
Where did homosexuality first originate from? Deviant sexually depraved Males
Who created all religious books? Males
Who heads our lame judicial system? Males
Who runs politics? Males
Who created gambling? Males
Who runs our banking systems? Males
Who runs our military? Deviant sexually depraved Males
Who created lil bras and frilly pants for 3-4 year old little girls? Deviant sexually depraved Males
Who, 99.9% of, are paedophiles? Deviant sexually depraved Males
Who, 95% of time, commit spousal abuse? Cowardly males who think they are real men
Who created child soldiers? Males
Who, 99.9% of, are pimps? Males
Who commits more murders? Males
Who murders more children? Males
Who created GMO? Males
Who sucks our waterways blind until empty? Males
Who's big brother watching you? Males
Who said that it's a woman's job to stay at home, cook, clean etc? Males
In fact, who are the ills of this world? MALES

Now if you males want your women to respect you then I suggest you go clean up your act and get some real intigrity. REAL men don't cry nor disrespect women no matter who or what they are!!!

Oh and that little science/math comment you made is absolute balony. Many have come forward long before your time and figured it out long ago.
edit on 3-1-2011 by bluemirage5 because: No reason



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


I guess it's true because you say it's true?

How many women are doing the hard labour work? Removals, bricklaying, construction, deliveries, stock deliveries etc. ? Not many. Those that do are usually whining and asking for help from their male counterparts - I have worked in a warehouse and experienced this myself. Young, pretty, old, ugly, thin, fat, sane, crazy women of all types had the expectation that men ought to do the physical stuff and they should not even be asked because it was unfair. And who was first to bitch about missing out on extra hours and overtime work? The women. This is just one example of women wanting the same entitlements that come with the job without taking on the extra responsibility.

Your statement that women work harder and longer than men on average has no basis in reality. Not all women are mothers that have to juggle a job and family duties like you mentioned. In fact, the number of women choosing to embark on careers and put off having and raising kids has increased substantially over the last two decades. And what about fathers that have to work hard to support their families? Do they get the same recognition as women? No, they are just expected and condemned when they don't; women always praised when they do.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Now if you males want your women to respect you then I suggest you go clean up your act and get some real intigrity. REAL men don't cry nor disrespect women no matter who or what they are!!!

So men should give respect to women regardless of how women treat them, but men should under no circumstances disrespect a women. Hypocrisy. Women have no obligation to act like "real women" and "stop crying" but men do. Hypocrisy. When women complain about men it is a question of the man's integrity, but when men complain about women it's a question of their attitude towards women in general? Hypocrisy.

You can't change men any more than men can change women. If you want men to treat you with respect, you should earn it just like they are expected to earn your respect. Women are adults and they should be treated as such - not like oversized children expecting the state to bail them out when the going gets tough.
edit on 3/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Oh, hear we go ( ! )


I have to correct myself here...

Oh, here we go !



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


When a man treats a woman with basic respect regardless of who or what she is, believe me, she will change her wicked ways and he becomes a God of things....he will not only command respect he will also be loved dearly. It's called reverse psychology.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Well here are some links regarding pay differentials

www.managers.org.uk...

www.ehow.co.uk...

oep.oxfordjournals.org...


Knock yourself out there is plenty more where that came from.





top topics
 
85
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join