Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves

[BustyTheClown]

Busty...some "guys" opinion will be no more tainted then your opinion of men based on your own experience. I'm sure they will not react any differently then you would...if you were in power.

And I'm sure that you've never said..."all men are dogs..." or "men are such pigs..."

Good points, but I don't think I've ever said those things. Honestly. Maybe that's why I react the way I do to articles like this, because I don't tend to believe men are chauvinist pigs and assholes who will only give me what I deserve if I sleep with them. I know men aren't like that, and I don't want them thinking degrading things about me.

I'll get back to you when I have some sort of "power," lol...

 

[Olivianna]

Men of today's older generation grew up in the chivalric miasma of their time, which held that women were morally superior to men, and that civilized men protected women against any available vicissitude. A corollary was that women needed protecting. So common has this understanding been throughout
history that one may suspect it of being based in ancient instinct: In a less hospitable world, if men didn't protect women, something disagreeable would eat them, and then there would be no more people. So men did. And do.

I would, if I had the time and inclination, respond to every paragraph in this article. I have only a few things to say about the above excerpt -
The author's gross simplification of chivalry is 1) reduced to the point of inaccuracy and 2) only situated in a western European tradition. More on #1 - the supposed moral superiority in women that was admired by medieval/renaissance man was, for the most part, fictitious - women and men were off running around committing adultery quite often. The idea of the chaste and moral woman became fetishized and, ultimately, sexualized - wherein one could imagine Mr. Sixteenth Century saying something like: "Wow - she is so religious, that is hot." The evidence is copious - in paintings, architecture, and books such as Baldasare Castiglione's _The Courtier_. So - women were not *necessarily* considered to be any more moral than men.

Further, the protection of women, so to speak, had more to do with protecting the legitimacy of one's offspring, and therefore one's wealth/power - than saving women from boogeymen or monsters in the woods.

 

[Rambrat]

Good points, but I don't think I've ever said those things. Honestly. Maybe that's why I react the way I do to articles like this, because I don't tend to believe men are chauvinist pigs and assholes who will only give me what I deserve if I sleep with them. I know men aren't like that, and I don't want them thinking degrading things about me.

I'll get back to you when I have some sort of "power," lol...

See...there you go...

and perhaps power wasn't the appropriate word...position of influence...

and I'm sure you do possess some "power"...LOL

 

[Ishmael]

Well.

Instead of discussing the article on it's merits, or lack thereof, we have invective.

How terribly entertaining.

Busty, the other 800,000 were men. OK? Child abuse and neglect of the elderly fall into a completely different category of crime.

The fact of the matter is that the laws ARE taken into consideration in matters of employment and relationships. Pre-nupts are becoming more common. The employment bias is becoming more hidden. Marriages are more quickly broken. The reasons can be debated until the cows come home, but the laws are being taken into more serious consideration as time goes by greater numbers of people as they become aware of the unintended consequences thereof. Society is self adjusting in that way.

On the matter of legislated equality. It appears to be working. In the '50's and '60's, women controled 73% of the nations wealth. They now control 57%. So the laws have worked to the males advantage. By that reckoning, in a few more years the male population will have the 'real' power in their hands. Economic power.

And Marxist, taking a snippet of an authors work does NOT invalidate the work in total. And further more, a snippet withhout contextual presentation isn't even evidence to support a prima facia conclusion.

Ishmael

 

[Cheyenne]

Have a great day at work Cheyenne. You're a valuable employee and your presence is required.

THIS article is stupid. THIS article is the product of a racist / anti-feminist mind.

This is the same guy who wonders aloud why White men prefer Asian women...

Is that true as well?

Did I say THIS article was true? Did you even read my first post where I clearly stated what I agreed with from it and then said as for the rest of it, "nah?"

"This article is stupid." Why, because you proclaim it to be? Could you maybe try to be a bit more specific as to what about it is stupid other than you don't like the author?

I don't know how familiar you are with Cheyenne but she has a penchant for copy and pasting articles from reliable sources like The Washington Times on a fairly consistent basis.

Somehow I don't think she's looking for a sincere discussion.

Well, of course. Attack the author first. Then attack me. I welcomed you to participate, and that's your contribution to the discussion? Some things never change.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I don't bother to post an article and give my opinion if all I want is for you to read it and move on. It is posted for discussion purposes. And no, I don't just post articles that I agree with 100%. I post articles that I think will generate discussion. Period.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Where was I when all this was happening?

I find I cannot relate to what the author of this article is saying. IN my neighborhood, things were different.

As for gaining more power, my head has hit so many glass ceilings the top of my head is flat!

Ebony

 

[Marxist]

Just in case anyone is wondering, I don't bother to post an article and give my opinion if all I want is for you to read it and move on. It is posted for discussion purposes. And no, I don't just post articles that I agree with 100%. I post articles that I think will generate discussion. Period.

Funny how a great many of those articles tend to be hit pieces from Right Wing journals.

Expand your political reading (and posting) beyond Rev. Moon's The Washington Times and maybe I'll give a new response. Did you even bother to vet the source of that drivel?

I liked your article on lesbian adoption and we both posted about cousin marriage (although somehow you failed to post the whole thing from The New York Times, it's free y'know). It's not like I despise you out of hand, I just think you're a lonely woman looking to stir shit, not debate.

 

[Cheyenne]

I liked your article on lesbian adoption and we both posted about cousin marriage (although somehow you failed to post the whole thing from The New York Times, it's free y'know). It's not like I despise you out of hand, I just think you're a lonely woman looking to stir shit, not debate.

Guess what? The articles you "approve" of for me to post came from the same source as the ones you don't approve of- even from the same person, in some cases. I get them sent to me from an email list I belong to and participate in. The articles I find interesting and see potential for discussion, I post here. The other 50 or 60 I get each day I hit "delete."

Speaking of being lonely and looking to stir shit- are you EVER going to stop trying to insult me and comment on the content of this article instead? I am trying to do everything possible to GET you to discuss, but you are focused only on insults. As usual.

 

[Ishmael]

Funny how a great many of those articles tend to be hit pieces from Right Wing journals.

Expand your political reading (and posting) beyond Rev. Moon's The Washington Times and maybe I'll give a new response. Did you even bother to vet the source of that drivel?

I liked your article on lesbian adoption and we both posted about cousin marriage (although somehow you failed to post the whole thing from The New York Times, it's free y'know). It's not like I despise you out of hand, I just think you're a lonely woman looking to stir shit, not debate.

You engage in personal attack and innuendo while offering nothing of your own. No counter article, no scholarly writing, no statistics. Nothing.

I saw a reasonable matter of fact reply to your post answered in the above manner.

Anyone can say "I think the world is flat." and then go on to belittle and attack anyone that may presents evidence or opinion contrary to your position. That doesn't make you right, reasonable. or intelligent.

Ishmael

 

[Marxist]

Guess what? The articles you "approve" of for me to post came from the same source as the ones you don't approve of- even from the same person, in some cases. I get them sent to me from an email list I belong to and participate in. The articles I find interesting and see potential for discussion, I post here. The other 50 or 60 I get each day I hit "delete."

Speaking of being lonely and looking to stir shit- are you EVER going to stop trying to insult me and comment on the content of this article instead? I am trying to do everything possible to GET you to discuss, but you are focused only on insults. As usual.

Sorry about the personal shit but I believe in saying what I'm thinking, even when it's something hostile.

About the article itself?

Fred Reed is full of shit on a grand scale. His understanding of chivalry is mere opinion and he shows not one piece of proof that the glorious past was the glorious past. Nothing he says goes beyond bar room generalizations.

Example:

The romantic elderly male believed -- believes -- that women were the natural proprietors of the young.

Prove it Mr. Reed. That's what I thought. Dozens of generalizations but not a shred of proof beyond his own opinion.

That's fine if one is talking casually in a thread on Lit. but not for a columnist that expects people to take him seriously and gain insight from his thoughts.

Good enough for you Cheyenne?

Here are a few links to other news organizations that can help you with your copy and pastes.

www.salon.com

www.nytimes.com

www.slate.com

www.theonion.com

www.rottentomatoes.com

www.observer.com

and if you don't have the john birch society already bookmarked, here it is: www.jbs.org

Have a beautiful night my lovely floppy one.

 

[Marxist]

You engage in personal attack and innuendo while offering nothing of your own. No counter article, no scholarly writing, no statistics. Nothing.

I saw a reasonable matter of fact reply to your post answered in the above manner.

Anyone can say "I think the world is flat." and then go on to belittle and attack anyone that may presents evidence or opinion contrary to your position. That doesn't make you right, reasonable. or intelligent.

Ishmael

This has nothing whatsover to do with you. I have no idea who you are. Nor do I care.

BTW--I know your name is Ishmael by that little tag above your avatar. No need to put your John Hancock at the end unless you need reminding yourself.

 

[Cheyenne]

Sorry about the personal shit but I believe in saying what I'm thinking, even when it's something hostile.


Have a beautiful night my lovely floppy one.

So much for being sorry about the personal shit, huh?

Forget it. You just aren't worth it. I tried to be civil to you and all I got in return were more personal insults. Same as always.

 

[Marxist]

So much for being sorry about the personal shit, huh?

Forget it. You just aren't worth it. I tried to be civil to you and all I got in return were more personal insults. Same as always.

Wish a woman a good night and get piss in your coffee...I'll have to go back to being mean I guess.

 

[Ishmael]

This has nothing whatsover to do with you. I have no idea who you are. Nor do I care.

It does and it's obvious.

BTW--I know your name is Ishmael by that little tag above your avatar. No need to put your John Hancock at the end unless you need reminding yourself.

If it bothers you, don't read it. Hell, don't read anything. But if your idea of dialog is playing a game of "10's", start a thread. I'll join in.

Ishmael

 

[Cheyenne]

Wish a woman a good night and get piss in your coffee...I'll have to go back to being mean I guess.

Confused? Let me remind you then:

Dear Cheyenne,

Shut the fuck up and keep your floppy tits and thrice regurgitated opinions to yourself.

All you seem to be capable of is reciting or restating what has already been said somewhere else by someone else.

Try a support bra and an original idea every once in a while.

And this is how you wish me goodnight? You aren't "confused" at all. Your're just as ass, same as always.

Have a beautiful night my lovely floppy one.

 

[Northern Lights]

My .02.

This article is pure and total crap. It sounds like it was spewed from Rush Limbaugh's mouth himself.

I found this article morally repugnant and it fucking sickened me to read it.

I may agree with one sentence in the whole thing.

The problem is men AND women will read this and believe it.

And for the man who spoke about the backlash? It's already occurred. How the hell do you think articles like that were written.

Yeah, what she said.

The article is a total crock of untruths and generalizations. Has the author of the article actually spent any time in the workplace over the last 10 years?

Sounds to me like an article written to prompt the ire of rational people.

 

[Tyrael]

Don't worry bout it, Miss Chey...people like that aren't happy unless they are spitting on someone.

 

[thumbs2_ca]

I agree with Tyrael Cheyenne

Marxist is just looking for a reason to throw out the name calling and degrading remarks and it wouldn't matter if he even read your thread he would just throw some fake bit of information and say that you had posted it in another thread.
I don't bother reading his crap because sooner or later he falls back into his old self, which is someone that just likes to hurt people

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Marxist , be nice or I'll come up there and...... and I don't know what but it will not be nice!!!




grrrrrrrr

 

[Marxist]

Re: I agree with Tyrael Cheyenne

Marxist is just looking for a reason to throw out the name calling and degrading remarks and it wouldn't matter if he even read your thread he would just throw some fake bit of information and say that you had posted it in another thread.
I don't bother reading his crap because sooner or later he falls back into his old self, which is someone that just likes to hurt people

Prove it.

 

[bluespoke]

Hey Marxist

Why don't you just start a 'Why I hate Cheyenne' thread and post away to your hearts content?

Then the rest of us can get on with debating.

 

[MechaBlade]

rowr. I love catfighting... i mean... um... be civil, ladies.

 

[Marxist]

And this is how you wish me goodnight? You aren't "confused" at all. Your're just as ass, same as always.

Did you skip that class on Sarcasm and take an extra semester of Literalism?


Let me make this plain to you once more, and please, don't take this literally:

If someone consistenly posted articles from a journal associated with fascism and said "hey, what do you guys think about this?" wouldn't one have to think that that person had more than a passing fancy for Hitler?

I think some of those who don't pay attention to you are naiive in your "this is just something I found interesting and I'm passing it along" explanation for your c and p's.

You're no better than Christian Todd and his Boortzisms, REDWAVE and his ill-Marxist logic, or PPman's constant slap at America. The difference is that the above mentioned take a stand and owe up to their allegiances and agenda. No matter how much I disagree with them you've got to them props for their courage of conviction.

I can't say the same of you.

 

[Marxist]

Hey Marxist

Why don't you just start a 'Why I hate Cheyenne' thread and post away to your hearts content?

Then the rest of us can get on with debating.

Great idea. But I don't hate Cheyenne. I love her.


BTW--Suck my cock and paint your hair with my semen. Thanks.

 

[Cheyenne]

If someone consistenly posted articles from a journal associated with fascism and said "hey, what do you guys think about this?" wouldn't one have to think that that person had more than a passing fancy for Hitler?

I think some of those who don't pay attention to you are naiive in your "this is just something I found interesting and I'm passing it along" explanation for your c and p's.

No, I wouldn't.

From the same email source list where I get those articles, I get the jokes I post (Satan in Church) the medical articles (recently on uncut cocks and the couple who created a deaf baby on purpose) the articles about terrorism, status of education in our schools, even articles about penis parts found in juice bottles (a few here loved that one .) YOU focus on where the articles come from. I focus on the content of the articles, and don't care where they come from. New England Journal of Medicine, the New Yorker, the Enquirer even. Makes no difference UNLESS you want to mention something about the source while discussing the content of the article. You, however, never get that far. You're a one trick pony.

If you want to discuss the content of the articles I post, great. Join in . If not, if all you want to do is attack me personally no matter what the topic, then move along little doggie.