| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Feminist Test | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 8 2009, 10:00 PM (1,019 Views) | |
| Ulgania | Jun 11 2009, 03:38 PM Post #51 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
I still feel like any contribution I can possibly make in this topic will still be of the trolling nature :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Quaon | Jun 11 2009, 03:46 PM Post #52 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
You are a liberal, as are the vast majority of Americans. It's simply that Americans have bastardized the use of the word liberal to mean center-left, when it doesn't mean anything close to that in reality. |
![]() |
|
| Eleytheria-Duo | Jun 11 2009, 03:48 PM Post #53 |
|
Resident Bystander
|
If you haven't figured this out on your own, allow me to spell it out for ya; I like "bastardization." Edited by Eleytheria-Duo, Jun 11 2009, 03:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Jun 11 2009, 03:51 PM Post #54 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
You could simply state your opinions if you like... |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Jun 11 2009, 03:53 PM Post #55 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
Not that classical liberalism is that conducive to the world. I think 'liberal' is just tossed around as 'moving against the status quo' more so than having a concrete ideology. |
![]() |
|
| Porcu | Jun 11 2009, 04:56 PM Post #56 |
|
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."
![]()
|
To quell my urge to post more demotivational pictures/posters I'll put in an observation... I've always found it interesting how "progressive" must be tied to "liberal." Oh, I agree with what Ulgania just said too... |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 11 2009, 05:51 PM Post #57 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I don't find it "horrifying". If I ever buy myself a wife, she better turn out to be worth more to me than pretty much everyone else on the planet. There's no point in marrying someone worth anything less than that. I don't believe in equality and I don't think you do either. The monetary transaction is just an entirely necessary and desirable part of the cultural milieu. (I love that word, milieu) A wife's family should be free to buy her a husband too (In the form of a dowry)
Asians are bad drivers not because we're mean, but because we're incompetent. There's no meanness involved, I swear. In fact, if an Asian (especially Japanese) driver ever gets in a wreck he or she would more than likely be the first to admit fault and apologize, despite the fact that whoever admits fault and apologizes first will get called out to pay the insurance money :lol: I admit, I'm not a great driver. :lol:
Current childrearing theories are completely ass-backwards. It's insane. And it both simultaneously reflects and reinforces lifelong unhealthy behaviors and social breakdown across generations. Current child-rearing theory holds that boys should be treated firmly, and girls should be treated gently. Current child-rearing theory holds that boys should not get too close to their mothers, or be treated too gently by their fathers. These theories are motivated by a misplaced and unscientific fear that a tenderly-treated boy will grow up to become a homosexual in the future. It's completely false. In scientific reality, it is the girls that need to be treated firmly, and the boys that need to be treated gently. This is because boys and men thrive when treated with gentleness and patience, whether by their parents or their spouses. Girls and women thrive when treated with firmness and authority, whether by their parents or their spouses. A boy who is treated with over-firmness by his parents runs the risk of growing up neurotic, unoriginal, passive-aggressive, and mean-spirited. This is why we can understand that so many schoolyard bully-boys had themselves been bullied earlier in life. To the contrary, a boy who is treated with patience, kindness, and understanding by his parents will have a better chance of himself growing up humble (yet courageous and self-confident), kind, gentle-hearted, and generous. A girl who is treated with over-gentleness by her parents runs the risk of growing up neurotic, vain, arrogant, petty, and mean-spirited. A girl who is treated with firmness by her parents will have a better chance to grow up humble, kind, gentle-hearted, and generous. Even after they get married and leave their parents, these principles still hold. Boys and men respond to gentleness, patience, and understanding, whether from their spouses or parents. Girls and women respond to firmness, authority, and direction whether from their spouses or parents. In many cases, parents are willing to give their boys corporeal punishment, but are unwilling to beat or slap their girls. This attitude reflects the false child-rearing theories and harmful false gender roles that I've described and refuted above. In reality, boys should be more indulged than girls. Boys should be given understanding and patience, thus allowing them to grow into responsible and self-motivated men. Parents should rarely, if ever, strike their boys. A transgressing or disobedient boy is best taught in the manly way - by leadership and example - so he can sincerely and genuinely understand the moral compass and return to his parents like a humbled prodigal son. Girls should be given firmness. A transgressing or disobedient girl should be taught in the womanly way - she should be slapped in the face by her parents. This will teach her humility, since she herself cannot so effectively discover humility like a boy can. There is no such thing as a prodigal daughter. Once she's lost, she's lost forever. If I ever have a daughter, I would smack her at least once a month until her adulthood (at 12 years old), to teach her some fear of God/Yahweh/Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/The Great Spirit. If I ever have a son, I would give him a book on the same topic. After my daughter becomes an adult (at 12), I won't slap her on a regular schedule but only if she has committed some stupid deed. These principles, if heeded by parents during their childrens' childhood, will result in mature and responsible grown men and women. Society will prosper. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 11 2009, 09:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Draxis | Jun 12 2009, 04:37 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Captain
|
So I went to a party tonight. I brought girl back home. I am sleeping on the couch she is sleeping on my bed. I am drunk she is even more. But well I doubt that if I did anything I would feel good as I think it would be pretty close to rape on either of us. But yes, couch. |
![]() |
|
| Konosha | Jun 12 2009, 05:52 AM Post #59 |
|
The Maui Boy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While what you just said would most likely anger and confuse many people, I have to deliberate. My girlfriend (Who is an American born Korean) was really given the a better treatment than you were describing, and she has turned out to be an esteemed artist now at the age of 19. One of my other friends was given a constant beating when she was growing up in Tonga until she was 10, she smokes weed everyday and has lived with her aunt since she was 13. My Platoon Sergeant in Afghanistan grew up in an ideal Omaha farm town, aside from his father being a crank addict, and mother a raging alcholic, he nevr exactly got the more "peaceful" punishment from his folks. He has turned out fine though, never got busted for drinking, never gotten a speeding ticket, always paid his taxes, an up-standing citizen and even better soldier. Finally another of my friends, lives a great life, has a nice house, goes to the best private school on Maui, has a strong moral father who knows when to crack the whip and show good guidance to his son. This boy is addicted to Salvia, goes partying every weekend, plays video games all day when hes not with his friends, and would probably piss his bed if he didnt want to go to the bathroom. Now am I saying your wrong? No, not at all, infact I would agree with you. I beleive its just American culture (I know Im probably just repeating what you have all said), shit when I was walking through shanty towns in Afghanistan I saw exactly what you just talked about. This might just be me, but it seems you were preaching a little Islam there brotha. In which case, make no mistake, I completely agree with what you just said. Edited by Konosha, Jun 12 2009, 05:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Jun 12 2009, 10:33 AM Post #60 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
I'm going to have to agree with Konosha, in a sense. When you look at the variety of issues many children grow up around, the ideas of self-worth change from individual to individual. Some may think that because the rod is spared, or because of ideal circumstances that they do not need to lift a finger in their lives, and the idea of the 'helicopter parent' is absolutely fine because it's guiding their lives in ways they no longer need to worry about. However, when the rod is not spared (or with TC's slapping idea) it can annihilate ideas of self-worth. Many children, if you go through a consistent treatment like that could view it as something dilatory or confusing. If they begin to question it, and your reasoning is used how much sense do you expect it to make? While I'm not saying it's the worst option, I don't see how using techniques that the child won't understand is useful in child-rearing. A slap when they do something idiotic later on could be just as confusing. What if it's something that the kid thinks is logical? Is it your idea of idiotic? My family thinks it's idiotic that I watch anime/read manga, but it's an interest that I pursue. Same goes for sitting at my computer for hours at a time writing untold-thousands of words, but should that deserve a slap? If I have a son or daughter I hope I can engage them to find their own interests in logical ways, and not through being physical. Besides, psychological punishment is JUST as useful as physical punishment, if not more-so :gnarkgnark: :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Jun 12 2009, 10:35 AM Post #61 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
Overrated. My online persona's ego would never allow me to simply state my opinions. Or... wait... I confused myself... :lol: anyway... in all honesty I did take the feminist test itself a few times, aiming to get a few different results. My personal result was very high, considering I was only going by my awareness and education. My result for who I am was a little lower, but I considered it to be rather irrational considering it was someone else's view of feminism, and not mine. Then again, my view of feminism is more around equality, and not promotion of either gender. People have actually called me a misogynist in real life considering some of the comments I've made about different movements, but retracted them when I elaborated. The promotion of any gender/race/nationality/ideology over another is going to bring about the same level of conflict as ever before, and saying one is better than the other, ever, is detrimental. But considering we live in a world where the status quo demands the promotion of one thing over the other, and the belittling or making one side look evil is necessary it's hard to actually accomplish. Fun example: I defended the positions of lobbyists in Washington for some final project in some class a couple years ago. 1/3 of the discussion was oriented around the Tobacco lobby, the 2nd third about the anti-Tobacco lobby, then the last third was about what I was actually discussing (mainly having to do with Israel, NRA, legislative issues, abuses of power, et al) So my ideas on feminism? Hardcore feminists will exist in the free world as long as white supremacists are able to walk and talk. Edited by Ulgania, Jun 12 2009, 10:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 12 2009, 04:16 PM Post #62 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The key, I think, is to provide the proper environment for the child's development in order to maximize his or her chances of fluorishing. Giving a kid a violin won't guarantee that he will turn out to be a Mozart, but it will increase his chances for musical development compared to giving him nothing. Likewise beating a boy increases the chance that his psyche will be screwed up in the future. Indulging a girl increases the chance that her psyche will be screwed up in the future. It's all about knowledge of probabilities. You are correct though, that a large part of it is "just American culture." A girl (or boy), no matter how well raised by her (or his) parents, can still be corrupted by the wider culture. Child-rearing habits are only one aspect of a healthy society and there are many aspects. However it is a good place and perhaps the best place to start improving things. Now, I'm not advocating that we should all immediately commence the beating of the women-folk. I speak of smacking daughters mainly to illustrate a key point. The key point is always that boys and girls should be treated like boys and girls and not in one ambiguous unisex way. As I've explained, a boy who is treated over-firmly runs the risk of becoming a bully. A girl who is treated over-gently runs the risk of becoming a brat. There's no equality or sameness here. Boys and girls have different psyches and different brain chemistries. You know how everyone talks about Girlfriends' Stockholm Syndrome? There's a Daughter's Stockholm Syndrome too. Girls will be more respectful of their parents if they are treated firmly and not indulged like "Daddy's Little Girls." Some American couples state that they prefer to give birth to daughters instead of sons for the ludicrous stated supposition that girls will take care of their parents better than boys will. Geez, will they ever be in for a surprise! They indulge their girl, they buy their girl all kinds of superfluous things, and when she grows up she locks her poor elderly parents in an institution and never comes to visit. I'm not surprised at all that elderly parents tend to be treated much better by their daughters in those patriarchal societies where women are rightfully subservient. Of course, a potential drawback to an extremely patriarchal society like China, India, or Korea is that parents will often abort female babies, resulting in gender imbalances. Japan seemed to have effectively addressed this with a widespread, religiously-motivated cultural stance against abortion. This reminds me of a related point. I don't seek to espouse Islam, since Islam reflects a pederastic cultural milieu whose customs toward women are as often motivated by a genuine hatred of women as by an actual love of women. A popular Islamic hadith ascribed to the Prophet goes, "It's natural to lust after little boys." They hate their women and love their little boys. Nonetheless I do grudgingly admit that the sociological clockwork set in motion by Prophet Muhammad is an admirably (maddeningly) stable one.
Oh, I wouldn't smack a girl for anything that she wouldn't easily understand. I'd smack her for doing things like crashing a car or running up a huge bill on her parent's credit card. And if she's simply nuts and thinks it's OK or "logical" to do things like that, I'd have no choice but to disown her. I wouldn't smack a boy though. The point of all this is not so much to punish, but rather to convey to one and all that boys and girls are endowed with distinctly different roles, expectations, and duties in life. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 12 2009, 04:42 PM Post #63 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Hmm your radical egalitarianism is unscientific and obscurantist... Also you forget to consider "Stockholm Syndrome". Women naturally want to be subservient. In a peaceful society with a minimum of conflict, men and women voluntarily sort into distinctly different gender roles. This is why "equality ideology" can only exist in a conflict-ridden society ruled over by a Big Brother government possessing police coercion and laws for everything, laws more numerous than the hairs on an ox. The type of "equality ideology" that you espouse can only be attained through involuntary and violent means. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 12 2009, 04:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Konosha | Jun 12 2009, 05:13 PM Post #64 |
|
The Maui Boy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe in a country that doesn't have internet, doesnt have TV, is 3rd world, and/or Islamic, but I dont think that hitting the girl if she does something terribly wrong would work here in America, nor would it be accepted by the wider population who see's beatings as immoral and impractical. See, if I had a daughter and lets say she does something really bad - like run up a massive phone bill - and I hit her. Im relatively sure that shes going to go tell her mom and Im going to (at first) be punished to the couch for a night. Sure if I keep slapping her though for doing wrong things she might stop doing them, but I might find myself on Oprah or Dr. Phil with a crying snoveling daughter asking why she deserved the beatings. Or so she doesn't get the slap for doing a misdeed, she decides to go out on the town, partying, drinking, smoking, having sex (I know you said stop beating her at 12, but sometimes it doesnt just stop at 12) for two reasons. One, because she isnt getting slapped. Two, because thats what our pop culture glorifies and tells us thats what we should do before we "grow-up". See I have no doubt that in a country like Sudan, which has little or no TV, no internet, and heavily Islamic that slapping the girl would make her stronger for the future. I bet it would even work in some parts of China too, because (while they are being westernized) their culture is just wired that way. In Belarus, perfectly fine, you could invite your family over while your at it to show thats your daughter is going to be strong. However if anyone from any of those countries comes to America, its going to be wrong, and you could lose custody of your kids. However I do agree with you that girls should be grown up with stern parents, just I stop just short of hitting them. Boy's on the otherhand, shouldn't be born by a Marine father, you get the shit whipped outta you reguardless... Trust me... |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 12 2009, 05:58 PM Post #65 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Well I gotta say, a man should never marry a woman who would ever consider tossing him on the couch for any reason whatsoever :lol: In Ithaca, Odysseus built his bed out of a gigantic oak tree, for himself and his wife Penelope to sleep in. How can Penelope, under any circumstances, toss Odysseus from his bed, that he built, from a huge fucking oak tree? :lol: Anyways, there are a lot of things wrong with this country, I agree. For example the government should pretty much never step in in custody disputes. And I acknowledge that the wider population does not agree with me. But then again, that is the reason I'm having this conversation. I am not chiefly interested in describing things "as they are"; rather I am more interested in expounding things "as they should be" - in the hopes of spreading these ideas through polemics and discourse. It's exactly because everything is not so hunky-dory with society that I even feel the desire to speak in the first place. That said, I have some hope left that social values can still be propagated. I do have an interest in studying the case of Japan, which is a technologically advanced country like the US, but has been much more effective at preserving its traditional patriarchal society. It becomes apparent that Japan's pop culture, though superficially similar to American pop culture, is upon closer inspection thoroughly imbued with patriarchal values and directly reflects their traditional gender roles. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 12 2009, 06:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Konosha | Jun 12 2009, 06:15 PM Post #66 |
|
The Maui Boy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LOL.
I can't really argue with that, its true. However the American public is as brain-washed to people talking about these things (and tuning them out) as North Korean's are brain-washed to every American is an evil monster bent on feasting on their entrails. Just as well I beleive American culture will never change, unless a Nuclear holocaust eradicates every strip mall and Paris Hilton look a-like on the planet. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 12 2009, 06:21 PM Post #67 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The last shred of hope I'm clinging on to is that the unfolding economic crisis will help reorient Americans to traditional values. That's because the traditional patriarchal way of life is still the most stable and all-inclusive way of life that can provide a "social safety net" for all the masses of population that will inevitably lose out as our fake, debt-fueled economy unravels. |
![]() |
|
| Porcu | Jun 12 2009, 10:05 PM Post #68 |
|
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."
![]()
|
This. |
![]() |
|
| Konosha | Jun 12 2009, 10:17 PM Post #69 |
|
The Maui Boy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think the current economic situation is enough to facilitate that great of a change in America (despite all of Obama's promises of 'Change'), to get back down to any sort of traditional values we'd need another World War that would send millions of young men off to war, while the women at home had to take care of everything. World War II was really the only time when no American was "over-indulged", where women had to be strong about themselves and where men had to have been grown up right or they would have been killed. I pray though, that for the sake of the world, we dont see another World War for two reasons. One because the world is fucked up enough, and two I just got home. :unsure: |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 13 2009, 12:39 AM Post #70 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I'm pretty sure Obama's stated plan of change is the precise opposite of the type of change we're referring to. Obama wishes to perpetuate the modern feminist/consumerist way of life (partly through brute-force sociological policies, and partly through brute-force economic policies that seek to ensure every village still has its strip malls that you mentioned earlier). Unambiguously, the economics of the Obama programme are quixotic and destined to fail. With subtler extrapolations, one realizes his sociological policies are on shaky foundations too, since the very democratic system itself is unstable. Imo the current economic situation is enough to facilitate a sea of change. Remember, the economic meltdown only started occurring 8 or 10 months ago. We have a long ways to go. Consider why we now know World War II wasn't nearly the biggest crisis in US history. WWII was actually a time of psychological optimism. What WWII demonstrates is that the mass of people are in fact generally hopeful and optimistic living during times of gigantic Good-vs-Evil global struggles, even if millions are dying all over the world and especially since unemployment gets tamed and the preceding Depression seems to have ended. Now if you want to study a case of true deprivation, consider the Great Depression or any of the 19th century economic panics right up to our first economic panic in 1819. Those were truly crushing times, psychologically and materially. However, if we're lucky, times of hardship can lead to social renewal and a retrenchment of traditional ways of living. Once people start realizing that the strip malls won't be coming back, and life won't so easy as back when government could blow a temporary economic bubble to make everyone feel good and give everyone a sense of false prosperity, people will then realize that the only lasting recourse we have is to return to a slower, humbler, traditional way of life. This is the way of life oriented around communities and localities, supported by traditional charity and social networks like churches, and reinforced by the social values associated with these ways of living. After other considerations, the enduring strength of the family lies in its economic advantages. Had the traditional family ever been economically disadvantageous, it would've been done in once and for all by the merciless process of economic evolution. But the traditional institution of the family still has much to offer in terms of being a social insurance network, and all signs point to its advantages, or even unavoidability, in today's climate. However, Obama is and will continue to be doing everything to stop this sea of change. Obama is and will continue to pursue various policies designed to counter these trends and designed to counter the natural erosion of feminism and other anti-traditional ideologies. Obama can therefore be called the ultimate Jacobin, a true ossified Status Quo Revolutionary. He is anti-change. It's actually quite obvious. With all the bailouts and other Obama policies, he is desperately trying to make sure the situation stays the same no matter what. He is desperately attempting to keep the strip-mall way of life alive, to make sure the same corrupt and overindulged way of life can keep on going unchanged. He is desperately attempting to ensure nothing changes, that we can continue to go to the strip mall and that Paris Hilton can continue to appear on glossy magazines as if nothing at all is out of the ordinary with the economy or the world. Realities will catch up to us though. Whether it's through nukes or the bankruptcy courts, the strip malls will go away. Hopefully not through nukes. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jun 13 2009, 09:07 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Mmmmm. N. Korean entrails! :P |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Jun 13 2009, 11:25 AM Post #72 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
I've ended a few relationships because I thought the girl was only with me because she thought she was supposed to be. Complete equality of labor can be achieved on a completely different spectrum, as well. While it would take the creation of an entirely new insular society, it could be done. Few laws, fewer regulations, and only traditions that demand women do the same amount of labor and have the same responsibility of men. It would be a society based on the proper socialization of children to show that literally the only difference in men and women comes from the physical differences necessary for reproduction. Thomas Moore can explain it better than I care to elaborate, so read Utopia. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 13 2009, 03:08 PM Post #73 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I've read Utopia and I don't think even its author took it seriously. Utopia stood against everything that More fought for his whole life and even persecuted heretics for. That's why Utopia is usually regarded as an idle curiosity, and not as a genuinely frightening Orwellian manifesto along the lines of Plato's Republic. Your theories about gender equality and radical egalitarianism should therefore be better be understood in the tradition of Plato's Republic, which is a long line of misguided intellectuals throughout history enamored of the futile idea of "proper socialization". The "proper socialization" you speak of can only be implemented through massive, overwhelming force and coercion. It would be impossible to achieve through peaceful means. And even if such "proper socialization" were attempted, it would not nearly attain its stated goals, since it goes against human nature itself. By the era of Brezhnev, even the Soviets had an inkling of the limits of socialization. They called it "voluntarism", or the erroneous belief that the will alone can triumph over the intellect and emotions. More generally speaking, it is the erroneous belief that the will alone can overcome human nature. Your optimism is unfortunately the same misplaced optimism that convinced the early Bolsheviks that they could remake mankind into the "New Socialist Man." As the brute-socialization process becomes revealed for the failure it is, reality soon sinks in, and all the early optimistic theories about the malleability of human nature must be revised. You speak of resolving conflict, but peace and conflict-resolution only occurs when human nature is understood and thus mastered, not when it is misunderstood and opposed. This is why the repeal of gender-equality laws and regulations inevitably leads to more peaceful and more efficient ways of living that are in accord with human nature. By peaceful and efficient ways of living I refer to traditional gender roles. Modern theories about gender equality can only exist when there is a massive, coercive police apparatus for enforcement. Since gender equality is a fight against human nature, it does not exist peacefully. For example, no amount of "proper socialization" to show that literally the only difference in blacks and whites comes from skin color would make white people better basketball players or better long-distance runners than black people. No amount of "proper socialization" will result in a society where women are capable of most efficiently fulfilling many of the roles "customarily" fulfilled by men. Differences are never only skin-deep (or "genitalia-deep" :lol: ). To teach that concept would simply be unscientific and futile. Therefore the way to sustain the gender equality theories you have in mind is with coercion. Through force, equality can be achieved. Using force and coercion, such as segregation laws, black players can be removed from the NBA until the NBA’s racial composition strictly reflects the country’s racial composition, which is only 10% black. Through force, such as anti-discrimination laws, women can be forcibly imposed onto male workplaces so that these workplaces strictly reflect the country’s gender composition, which is 50% women. However, if coercion is removed, people naturally (peacefully, spontaneously, voluntarily, and consensually) sort themselves to their maximally efficient role in the social matrix. In short - when coercive laws are removed, black basketball players will naturally find their way to the NBA. Women will naturally find their way to the kitchen. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jun 13 2009, 03:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jun 13 2009, 04:54 PM Post #74 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Never before has a thread been so derailed and remained on topic. Never before have I agreed so much with TC. |
![]() |
|
| Eleytheria-Duo | Jun 14 2009, 01:54 AM Post #75 |
|
Resident Bystander
|
TC, I am curious about one thing that I don't recall anyone asked you specifically... Several times you have argued that egalitarianism could only be maintained through "massive, overwhelming force and coercion," and several times you mentioned women will always find their way to the kitchen. But there will always be exceptions, and people who want to "break free" of the usual or typical for their society. So do humor me this... In your vision of the world, are you suggesting a woman should be blatantly denied what you view as a "mans job," or are you merely saying it shouldn't be encouraged? Edited by Eleytheria-Duo, Jun 14 2009, 01:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |













11:34 AM Jul 13