Topic: exercising my free speech - page 2. (Read 2742 times)

This book looks interesting.  I will have to check it out.

I have been thinking that the women's lib movement has been detrimental to society in many ways.  As a woman it sometimes feels like now we are not only supposed to be responsible (for the most part) of child rearing and home-making but also be a breadwinner too. That is really quite impossible to do well, I believe.  Usually something suffers. Having married a man (happily for 20 years now) I learned early on that my husband's priorities were not the house, cooking, cleaning etc.  That was just how he was wired.  I could try to change him or just be content with what a great guy he was in all other areas.  I grew up with the example of a mom that was a "Super mom".  She was the primary bread-winner in our household.  She worked tirelessly and I was often put to the side because of that.  I did not want my children to suffer or feel neglected so I made an effort to make them, and my husband a priority.  That meant giving up some of my career aspirations and focusing my attention on more domestic things.  It is rather hard because now society make me feel a bit guilty for not buying into the working woman, women's lib movement.  But I have a happy marriage, relatively happy kids and I think that is in part to the fact my husband gets some self-esteem by being the provider and I bring him satisfaction by taking care of the mundane things he really (as a very smart guy) just does not care about that much, such as shopping, cooking cleaning etc.  It works for us anyways.  Although I think it is OK for a woman to work if she chooses to, but I really think it is not often the best choice and emasculates the man's role in the family.  Just my thoughts.

I feel sad for this person. I am not qualified to say anything to (her) as I am a man I guess. I just hope whoever made this person the way (she) is is paying dearly: jail or under a bus, etc.

This link will be helpful.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

You must have had some really bad experiences with men to come up with such fucked up conclusions about them and I don't agree with a thing you're saying, your basically like all the other people who live in their own world and won't ever accept that someone has a different viewpoint to them.

To 'go out with' is a rubric of value. Framing a person's whole value in these terms is belittling and you know it.
An object has no will and no license, and is subject to the value judgements of (again, for lack of a better word) men.
There's another way to put this: If your prime concern with women is whether you'd go out with them, you are not concerned with what they think, rendering them objectified. One may not be focusing on objectifying someone, but when one thinks of someone as existing wholly inside their frame of reference it limits the person being thought of.
To go out with and to inflict harm upon often overlap, don't you agree?
I suppose often is up for debate, then. I'd argue that often is putting it lightly, considering the global ethics at play today.

Haven't you ever considered it arrogant to think 'men' consider women to be objects? You're actually glorifying with an excessive amount of drama how attractive you are and as I said before, no matter physical appearance in regards to uptight arrogant feminists I don't think I could ever bring myself to go out with them and this is why .

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters

by Helen Smith

http://amzn.com/1594036756

You just called yourself a predator, and likened human beings to produce.
This speaks volumes.

I expect nothing out of men.
I avoid them when I can because it's obviously too much to ask for men to not consider women to be objects to be dated and judged.
To be considered attractive is fine until the person considering you attractive has harmful intentions, which is more often than not, believe it or not.
Now, when it comes to harm- a man might consider that a perk.

It is more like picking up vegetables at the supermarket: people always avoid the "damage" ones. Is this fair? And not all vegetables or fruits look like phallic objects either.
Then a war like event happens and it will be perfectly OK to fight that rotten tomato from the canines of that giant subway rat because you'll need to feed yourself. This is how we are wired and many experiments are showing us just that on many levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyI77Yh1Gg
Social re engineering on a massive level could change that, maybe.

You and I belong to the top predator's club on this planet. When things get tough you will make a choice between going on living or not. When your survival instinct will kick in you'll realized how close you are to those "phallocentrists".

In the mid time, we have both electricity and access to the internet and both living in a war free zone (Detroit, Chicago, Zetas Cartel controlled Mexican cities excepted.)

Agreed; only by throwing away preconceptions and accepting the idea that one is not a gender, but a human with a gender, does the person understand equality; what does sex matter?--it often doesn't, outside the very specific roles hardcoded into each, being, men impregnate, women carry.  By accepting that one is not a person first, but a gender, or an age, or a color, do they become the preconception they're designed by the same preconception to hate.

If you want to be treated as a woman, so you should be, and you will receive just treatment; if you wanted to be treated as a man, so you should be, and you will receive just treatment; but if you want to be treated as a person, so you should be, and you will receive just treatment.  It can't be both ways; a person can not be both equal and unequal on a whim; you either believe yourself first a human being, amongst your fellow human beings, or you do not.

LMAO ktttn aren't you the one who made the thread the OP is ranting about? ( I could be wrong because I'm going by memory here ) When it comes to femi-nazi's or wannabe feminists ( I'm not talking about the actual feminist movement here but the made up one ) they are no better than better organised and intelligent gold diggers because they still expect the man to do everything for them except without the perks of being in a relationship.

As far as I'm concerned it's only until they want to actually live on their own independently and be respected as an individual that they're anywhere near a real feminist, when it comes to your version of 'objectifying' that's just sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex and everyone perceives it how they like, not everyone shares the feminist view that it's a bad thing to be considered attractive .

Like picking what brand of cereal you want to buy..
Because phallocentrists see women as consumer goods. The ones who know they're being objectified are damaged.

Do not forget: Until cloning becomes legal, they do not reproduce. Also, lots of women in the radical feminism movement love abortion. If you think long run like in bitcoin-year, they are on a self destructing path of total annihilation.

I am sure the great amazon women existed in the past. Once the men realized to just avoid being kidnapped until those warrior hit the menopause age, it was game over for the great tribe.

When you have a battle plan against Mother Nature (or Daddy Nature), make sure you have all the scientific knowledge to not only create an amazing team but a whole military strategy to win your "war"

Homosexuals, hermaphrodites and anyone feeling to be "in between" the sexes are part of humanity as long as they was a recorded history, but only through radical technology their tribe will grow beyond the same statistical numbers.

In the mid time just enjoy their inspiring writing as they are ephemeral, as always.

That's actually really true I always make a mental note when I see some angry woman ranting or if I see a girl RL acting like they do to never ever date them, helps you identify some of the craziest ones.

Yeah he mad. Also reactionary. Also doesn't know that it's a self moderated topic with his womanbashing nonsense.

The radical feminism movement is a good thing. It points to men the women they should avoid sharing their bed with, the rest of their life.

One night stand is OK though.

:-)

umadbro?

I can't post in the "radical feminism" topic because the OP is a whinny fascist commie weasel who complained to the mods so I wouldn't be able to post.
Well I've just recieved a message stating that I can start a topic if I have a complaint and I'm doing just that.