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.

 

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   


Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

I can't believe this is even debatable in 2012... How has this made it to 5 pages long? The answer is clearly NO, men should not rule over women. If men ruled over women it would definitely not be for women's on good..


Equal rights for all.



edit on 28-5-2012 by TheCelestialHuman because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman


Equal rights for all.




OK----need to see more women doing plumbing work. More in the coal mines. More on the front lines for the military getting killed for the country. Lets get them selling RADS to the nuclear industry.

That is real equal rights.

No more eye candy games to gather attention in the work place. And they need to learn to talk as rough as the guys.

And they need to serve on Submarines.

When the draft cranks up the females get enlisted in equal portion to the males.



Equal Rights has invaded the Police Force these days and in order to accomodate that issue, what used to take one officer to make a stop or an arrest now takes at least two others. Reason, the female officer can't handle big guys and they have to call in two other males to deal with things.


edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: If the females have not served their country in equal portion to the males, it isn't equal anything.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


That is not equal rights... That is equal jobs. if what you are suggesting, is equal rights, then in order to be equal everyone would have the same jobs.. This is not the case.
Definition of equality:


1. fairness, equal opportunity, equal treatment, egalitarianism, fair treatment, justness the principle of racial equality





"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Everyone should be born with the same rights, this is not the case everywhere in the world, but its something we should strive for. All we really have is privileges, a list of temporary privileges.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Real Equal Rights means you have to be just as fair to the guys, and if the females can't really do the job and the males have to cover for the weaknesses, it isn't equal rights for the males.

Equal Rights is a fantasy that is about loading down the system with inefficiency in too many cases.

Real Equal Rights means no special advantage for either sex and each pulls their load.

If there is going to be quotas for hiring, the it goes across the board into military, high risk jobs, and so on.


Legislation that calls Equal Rights things that puts females into positions that has to have males work load increase to accomodate that happening isn't a good idea. Or having to have males change their speech is also an imposition.

One major case in point is female patrol persons that have to tie up resources and change long standing methods into those taking even more human resources, is the upmost of crazy inefficiecy.


Check out females in Govt Electrician Jobs, the don't end up pulling wires, bending conduits, they get little gofer jobs and don't help carry the load. There are hundreds of cases for these problems increasing the costs of everything.

edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Bogging down the system and making things not work well, running up costs



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

I think your definition of equal rights is slightly skewed.. You are focusing on the job aspect of it. Equal rights is more than just jobs. it is things like free speech, freedom of religion, etc.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 

I think your definition of equal rights is slightly skewed.. You are focusing on the job aspect of it. Equal rights is more than just jobs. it is things like free speech, freedom of religion, etc.


I think my view is a lot more accurate to point at where things are not working well, running up costs, etc.

And how areas like China are going to take over the US due to these continual problems with the US falling apart due to too many different masters. Not to mention Islam is likely going to take over Christianity, due to some real long standing cover up of actual truths. Islam, like China, does not let the male - female issues turn the system into an inefficient mess.

There are tradiational roles that have been part of the natural order for civilizations that got that way because they worked best. Going against that Natural Order invites chaotic problems.


Looking at the school systems, where there were male Principles in charge, the kids knew not to mess with him. The Male Principle and Asst could run the school, and there was not a single female teacher complaigning because it worked. Now, with the females running Principlal things you got to have uniformed police male types walking the hallways. What used to need only a Saftey Partol student volunteer thing, now has to have several uniformed police types directing traffic. The US is coming apart at the seams from these going against the natural order themes that worked for millions of years.



There are real reasons the Joint Chiefs are not Female and a real reason why the US President should always be male, because in this day and age the issues for nuclear war happen over spans of minutes and any hesitiation or weak deal making can be the end in a really big set of flashes.


Recruiting females into the military so they can work rear jobs to be able to push the males into the front line, isn't called Equal Rights. Real Equal rights has gender equity on battlefields too.

edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Going against the natural order, driving up costs dramatically, and loosing control at each additional step



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
No, and the way that question is phrased implies sexism. It is saying that man has to control woman to protect them, as if woman were some sort of inferior being that doesn't know anything.

Nobody has the right to 'rule' over anyone.


We are rule following entities. That is what we do all day long.
Someone then must enforce and makes the rules.

No choice.

No rules would be chaos and no one wants that.

A ship, so to speak, must have a captain.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
[

Female leadership in the US really is something that is literally pulling the US down like a rock to the bottom of the sea.

America is finished, done, ruined.

edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: America has no more room to entertain female princesses in the workplace


What female leadership?

The U.S. has never had female leadership and yet you blame women for U.S. shortcomings.

Give your head a shake.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman


Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

I can't believe this is even debatable in 2012... How has this made it to 5 pages long? The answer is clearly NO, men should not rule over women. If men ruled over women it would definitely not be for women's on good..


Equal rights for all.



edit on 28-5-2012 by TheCelestialHuman because: (no reason given)


Yes and you will note who has denied women equality.
Men who rule for themselves and not for woman's or the family's sake.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
[

Female leadership in the US really is something that is literally pulling the US down like a rock to the bottom of the sea.

America is finished, done, ruined.

edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: America has no more room to entertain female princesses in the workplace


What female leadership?

The U.S. has never had female leadership and yet you blame women for U.S. shortcomings.

Give your head a shake.

Regards
DL


Female leadership in areas like School Principals and School District Superintendants, which used to be mainly male's territory.. Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State Dept., and Condi Rice before as high level leadership roles. Half the world doesn't pay any attention to them. Condi, of Texaco fame, pushes the texaco oil agenda in the Islamic areas and starts a huge mess with 911 and two wars. Female starts wars and how many males get killed? Give Hillary about a month and she'll get a war with Iran going.

The US has lots of female leadership in various areas.

Do give your grey matter an infusiuon of reading where female leadership occurs.


Another prime example of Female issues was the Catholic's invasion of South Vietnam, right in the middle of Communism take over and trying to stem that issue using Nuns.

Those blunders of the Church and the Nuns got a number of them shot up, which then had the Vatican telling we got to go avenge and protect the other Nuns. Pretty soon that protect the females theme turned into the Vietnam war that killed quite a number of male Americans. Then it gets the Diems both get killed, and the US run out of the country under Nixon.

Buddhists don't have female monks, and they don't value using females to advance the church and capitalistic invasions of their territory. China just flat shoots missionaries like John Birch and Bill Wallace and others for playing games with religion.

All that war death issue sprang off female Nuns being a pain in S. Vietnam's side.


One can tell there are issues with female's role in life with the sudden popularity of the 3 books on "50 Shades of Grey". This has a male dominance factor that lots of women long to have so they don't have to lead.


edit on 28-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: 50 Shades of females in the leadership area---and shopping while 911 burns



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

We are rule following entities. That is what we do all day long.
Someone then must enforce and makes the rules.

No choice.

No rules would be chaos and no one wants that.

A ship, so to speak, must have a captain.

Regards
DL


No, not 'all' of us are rule following entites. Some of us actually want freedom. The only rules that should exist are common sense ones, like do not force a person to do thing against their will (no killing, no raping, and no stealing), and do not mess up nature (no toxics going into the air causing cancer)... These are common sense and it actually GIVE freedom, if you mess up nature it'll be harmful and kill and if you do things against people will slavery can happen....

Anything else, is just extra stuff taking away freedom.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
If women ruled the world they would make slaves of men, and if women ruled the world and found a way to reproduce without man there would be no man because women would get rid of him. Sorry but women are the deceivers when it comes down to a battle of the sexes.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 


It is extremely sexist to make such a general assumption of all women.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by greyer
 


It is extremely sexist to make such a general assumption of all women.


In a post like that I had to speak of the majority of modern women, not all by any means. In the past when modern society didn't exist I would have said differently - but I am thoroughly convinced with our place in society today that what I said is correct(as we all are here on ATS lol). I have seen too much already in favor.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
All I see in the negative postings are pathetic excuses for men who have such low self esteem that they want women to be their doormats since they aren't capable of excelling at anything else in the world.
The men (and the women I guess) that are on here defending and calling for equality are comfortable enough in their manhood to realize that they don't need a doormat, they need a partner.
I don't want somebody who is going to listen to everything I say and do everything I tell them to do. I'm comfortable with who I am, I don't need a slave, I don't need a doormat. IF that's what you fellas need, then it's you with the problem, not everybody else.

Here's a study for you:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Researchers said that at their core, the male of the species had changed little since Neanderthal times, when reproduction was their prime objective.



However, their interest fell off significantly when they were questioned about their interest in pursuing a longer-term relationship with the "dumb" women.

The study concluded: "The assessment of a woman's immediate vulnerability may be central to the activation of psychological mechanisms related to sexual exploitation."

Relationships expert Jean Hannah Edelstein said: "It's not a recipe for a happy relationship to select a partner based on what you perceive to be their inferiority."
.


Some of us have evolved past the Neanderthal status, it's s shame there are so many who are still stuck back there.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
If women ruled the world they would make slaves of men, and if women ruled the world and found a way to reproduce without man there would be no man because women would get rid of him. Sorry but women are the deceivers when it comes down to a battle of the sexes.


If sexist egotists were their only option , you'd probably be right, however, there are many more who aren't sexist egotists than those who are... although there are several on this thread who definitely fit the previous category.

What I'm seeing is a group of men who are single and not by choice with another group of happily married men trying to explain to them but they don't want to listen. Probably a few women here and there as well, but mostly, the sexist posts are the guys who can't find someone who wants to be in a relationship with them due to their attitudes and probably never will... unless there's a sale on doormats somewhere.
edit on 28-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Greatest I am

We are rule following entities. That is what we do all day long.
Someone then must enforce and makes the rules.

No choice.

No rules would be chaos and no one wants that.

A ship, so to speak, must have a captain.

Regards
DL


No, not 'all' of us are rule following entites. Some of us actually want freedom.


Freedom is a farce. If you take it then you also take the responsibility of insuring that everyone else has it. A rule.
We all live in oligarchies. No one is free in those except the man at the top.

You are a rule following entity.
You awake in the morning and begin by following the rules of nature.
You are an evolving entity and you follow two rules all day. You either cooperate or compete with those you interact with. That is all you do each day. All within the laws or rules of your society. Unless you break a law of course.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
If women ruled the world they would make slaves of men, and if women ruled the world and found a way to reproduce without man there would be no man because women would get rid of him. Sorry but women are the deceivers when it comes down to a battle of the sexes.


Poor puppy has been deceived.
Grow up and get over it.

It is healthy not to hold grudges pal.
As you can see, it has made you hate and fear all women.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
It gets down the the simple fact that man rules over women for their own good, Case in point is a female police person cannot even bring down a disorderly drunk without excessive force issues. Males protect the females only via added resources.

Try watching a 100 lb female police person take down a 250 lb drunk male that doesn't want to cooperate. It gets down to having to call in two males to get the guy pushed up against a wall or down on the ground and putting cuffs on the fella. Then push him into the wagon or the back seat of a cruser. Men, to accomodate a little 100 lb female police person, ties up 3X the resources it used to take to keep the female safe from being run over.

Take other instances, where the little female cop either tazers a large male or shoots a large male because she can't handle the situation as a male might in terms of size and strength. Every little female police claims they felt threatened when the male even weighs the same as they or is larger. What happens is excessive force being used that would not happen with the male.

Nobody needs to attempt to throw perjoratives against what is obvious and fact. Going against the DNA's genes between the male and female translates to much more hassel and costs and risks to the public. It is also going against the tradiational roles or the natural order, which always finds the serendipitous methods. Doing such methods moves to the less efficient, the more dangerous to others, and breaks away from what did work best.


I do think it has been shown with stories of Amazons that are slowly being found and discovered that the females went to extremes to dominate over males. They were more extreme in battle and so on, so they woud be more feared then males. And in many causes the males were killed, hobbled, and managed as useless cattle. Now, even the history is beginning to show these same type flaws in going against the grain of common sense of DNA of males and females.


The fact is the DNA sets the genes and for many jobs that work best with male DNA for strength and for dealing in negotiations in many religions. In most all cases where they have a system working against the gene poll's natural order methods the costs and risk rise precipitously when using females and cause male resources still have to rule over the weaker woman that basically can't do many jobs.

It happens even in simple electricians work when the light weight woman can't use a manual conduit bender, or pull large wires, but federal quotas tells they have to hire females. In these cases the females end up being called "Tokens" and they usually get to become nothing more than eye candy on the job and eventually cause problems. In these cases the males do the real work and basically rule over the females to be there as tokens.

The lists go on and on. Even in Islam it appears to have been such a problem issue that women have to be covered up, so the sex and male issues don't have a chance of occuring or even being spoken about. In Islam countries the problems that commonly happen here on a daily basis become an issue for stoning. I don't think anyone will find a female police in an Islamic country. So, it appears many countries make use of common sense.

One can propose that females should be placed into all walks of jobs, but breaking the age old rules of natural orders results in added manpower allocations for the man to rule over and support the females that can't do various jobs efficiently. And also stacking problems upon problems when doing this breaking of natural order system rules of the millenia.

It is also difficult to consider the female as the master of situation when the age old methods for strong leadership are just not present.

All this female moving into the work force doesn't work well.


In every case, when females push into areas that violate the natural order of human systems the system becomes weaker and more chaotic, and it can and will cause the failures of the system to increase.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by greyer
If women ruled the world they would make slaves of men, and if women ruled the world and found a way to reproduce without man there would be no man because women would get rid of him. Sorry but women are the deceivers when it comes down to a battle of the sexes.


Poor puppy has been deceived.
Grow up and get over it.

It is healthy not to hold grudges pal.
As you can see, it has made you hate and fear all women.

Regards
DL


I really hate to tell you, but the FBI statistics tell the female is more apt to tell lies in support of crimes and cover ups than the males. So, it would appear that you also accuse the FBI's statistics of being false.

But the case is more that you have to attempt to toss some dirt on something that is criminal statistics fact, as well as supported by the term "connive" being essentially a word reserved for female methods. What is allowed in the female world to gain success just is not as prevalent in the male's world.

Like it or note, there are differences in how the female and male process information and work to gain advantage. The female is much more apt to be overly emotional, fabricate tales that a male would not ever consider as valid.

Such causes large amounts of problems in the US.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join