Can women protect their rights without male support????


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Can women protect their rights without male support????

Can women protect their rights without male support????
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Given that the ultimate way to protect your rights is through force, can women protect their rights without men?? I mean are they strong enough to take up arms??

08-30-2006 09:08 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

Not worthy of a response by men, obviously.

Stacy: Hey Ahmed who do you think you are? We’re empowered women! Go back to your neanderthal cave..
Jennifer: Yeah who do you think you are!?

Ahmed: “Insolent harlot western women! In’shallah! Allah u Akbar! God Is Great!”
*ka-ching…thwop! roll gurgle roll gurgle***

Like omg, Jen you like lost your head! Eeeek!!! Stay away! Help! Help! Anybody?

*crickets*

Message Edited by toadman on 08-30-2006 09:22 PM

08-30-2006 09:20 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself

Democles wrote:
Given that the ultimate way to protect your rights is through force, can women protect their rights without men?? I mean are they strong enough to take up arms??

No, but they protect their Vaginas from future husband penetration after the wedding day.

08-30-2006 09:21 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

toadman wrote:
Not worthy of a response by men, obviously.

Stacy: Hey Ahmed who do you think you are? We’re empowered women! Go back to your neanderthal cave..
Jennifer: Yeah who do you think you are!?

Ahmed: “Insolent harlot western women! In’shallah! Allah u Akbar! God Is Great!”
*ka-ching…thwop! roll gurgle roll gurgle***

Like omg, Jen you like lost your head! Eeeek!!! Stay away! Help! Help! Anybody?

*crickets*

Message Edited by toadman on 08-30-2006 09:22 PM

ROFLMAO!!!

Too funny!

08-30-2006 09:25 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

The point of this post is to show you that feminism is a non-selfsufficient or supporting concept.

Men should treat women as women, and those women that are aberrations of Nature that want to be treated as men by men while being women tagged as such anomalies. You know what to do with anomalies, don’t you?

08-30-2006 09:32 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

On a serious note, unless you  “ladies” have served time in the sandbox in the culture you have no idea how pampered and “empowered” you are. Take up arms for your rights or prepare for life-long subservience and Burkha-sizing(small, medium,large). Many of you will think I’m kidding, but that’s ok. Culling the herd of undesireables is in the plan(Actually genocide of western women after the men who pose a real threat).

Message Edited by toadman on 08-30-2006 09:40 PM

08-30-2006 09:37 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
Wow, those unreasonable women who want to work and have children and walk around without a male chaperone! Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

08-30-2006 09:56 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

Cmon, even Hooters girls are bright enough to know they need an escort to their car at closing time.

08-30-2006 10:02 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

fishnamedjames wrote:
Wow, those unreasonable women who want to work and have children and walk around without a male chaperone! Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

Well, let’s talk about morality. There is something a friend of mine says:

“Morality is an objective principle which defines inter-human relationships. There are only two principles on which inter-human relationships can be based: the law of the jungle, that might is right, or the law of mutual respect, that we allow each other to do what we want on the condition that we don’t infringe on the right of others to do the same. Which principle do you prefer, the war of all against all, or mutual self-restraint?”

Care to take a shot answering the question?

08-30-2006 10:02 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
I’m guessing they think Hugo is sufficient to protect them?

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-30-2006 10:44 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Can women protect their rights without male support????

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:
Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

What about all those terrible men who want to say they don’t want sex at the moment, and have to put up with screaming rage and the most vicious personal attacks a woman can dream up to punish him for that? Shall women just “bobbitize” all of us who don’t function like warm-blooded vibrators?

08-30-2006 10:52 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames

zacharias wrote:

fishnamedjames wrote:
Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

What about all those terrible men who want to say they don’t want sex at the moment, and have to put up with screaming rage and the most vicious personal attacks a woman can dream up to punish him for that? Shall women just “bobbitize” all of us who don’t function like warm-blooded vibrators?

Obviously I have a problem with women who sexually abuse men. Obviously that’s not okay.

Now go back and read the first few posts in this thread and then tell me my response doesn’t make some sense. A number of the folks here sound like they won’t be happy until they can treat women the way the Taliban treats women. You want to sit with that pathetic crowd and make those sorts of jokes? Be my guest. It’s actually pretty funny to read, in a sad sort of way.

08-30-2006 11:11 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:

zacharias wrote:

fishnamedjames wrote:
Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

What about all those terrible men who want to say they don’t want sex at the moment, and have to put up with screaming rage and the most vicious personal attacks a woman can dream up to punish him for that? Shall women just “bobbitize” all of us who don’t function like warm-blooded vibrators?

Obviously I have a problem with women who sexually abuse men. Obviously that’s not okay.

Now go back and read the first few posts in this thread and then tell me my response doesn’t make some sense. A number of the folks here sound like they won’t be happy until they can treat women the way the Taliban treats women. You want to sit with that pathetic crowd and make those sorts of jokes? Be my guest. It’s actually pretty funny to read, in a sad sort of way.

I defy you to find one of my posts where I have said anything like that.

08-30-2006 11:20 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
I didn’t say I was talking about your posts. I said I was talking about posts in this thread.

08-30-2006 11:55 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:
I didn’t say I was talking about your posts. I said I was talking about posts in this thread.

You said – “You want to sit with that pathetic crowd and make those sorts of jokes?”

08-31-2006 12:02 AM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

The question should be can women throw a grenade far enough so they don’t kill themselves in the explosion.

They also need miniature guns to get to the trigger easier. Hardly a far fight.

Jessica Lynch can tell us all about not fighting.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

08-31-2006 12:09 AM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Pathetic? I don’t think so, the point stands.

I do not much care to oppress women, but I do mind being manipulated or censored. Besides, the fact is that men and women are not interchangeble, but complementary. One needs the other.
I

08-31-2006 12:11 AM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
I was responding to posts in this thread, and then you responded to me in kind and acted as though because men suffer at the hands of women, that means it’s fine that other folks in the thread are joking that they should strip women of their rights, might makes right and all that. I apologise that I took that to mean you were joining in with them if that wasn’t your intention. I can see how you’d respond that way if you didn’t get the context of my sarcasm.

Peace. Maybe.

08-31-2006 12:42 AM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:
I was responding to posts in this thread, and then you responded to me in kind and acted as though because men suffer at the hands of women, that means it’s fine that other folks in the thread are joking that they should strip women of their rights, might makes right and all that. I apologise that I took that to mean you were joining in with them if that wasn’t your intention. I can see how you’d respond that way if you didn’t get the context of my sarcasm.

Peace. Maybe.

I was responding to your snottiness. That is the bad side of turning the old normal frictions between men and women into all-out war – once hostilities have been openly declared, people need to be more diplomatic than usual rather than less, if they don’t want to keep feeding the fire. I undertand exactly where these guys are coming from, and if push came to shove would be on their side not yours. Such is the legacy of hatred your sisterhood has sown.

So, peace on you, too. If you really want “peace”, next time hold your fire until you are sure the person you are firing at really is an enemy. That is exactly how women have turned so many men who used to love them into people who completely detest them.

08-31-2006 08:11 AM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius

fishnamedjames wrote:
Wow, those unreasonable women who want to work and have children and walk around without a male chaperone! Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

Yah the classic woman who is first hellbend on marrying then you can not have sex with her which would be fine but you can not have sex with sombody else eithier because then you get kicked out of the house you payed mortgage for. Why should men marry again ?

08-31-2006 09:11 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Can women protect their rights without male support????

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames

Cassius wrote:

fishnamedjames wrote:
Wow, those unreasonable women who want to work and have children and walk around without a male chaperone! Those terrible women who want to be able to say when they don’t want to have sex! They are so terrible! Who do they think they are? You should just kill them all. That would show them you are right.

Yah the classic woman who is first hellbend on marrying then you can not have sex with her which would be fine but you can not have sex with sombody else eithier because then you get kicked out of the house you payed mortgage for. Why should men marry again ?

Cassius: I don’t care who you marry. My point is not that men should marry them. My point is that a number of the folks who started up this thread don’t want to have reasonable discussions. This thread is proof of that.

Zacharias, reread the first few posts in this thread if you haven’t already. My snottiness? I’m not the one suggesting that since my gender could beat the **bleep** out of the other gender, that makes me right. That’s what a number of the other folks in this thread are joking about. You “understand where they are coming from?” So, does that mean no one should respond to them about their nonsense? Because they might have made a point you understood somewhere in there?

You know why I really shouldn’t have responded to them? Because they are wind-ups. They say ridiculous things and then when you say something to them, they want to try acting like you were debating some topic that you were obviously not responding to. Which is exactly what it looked like you were doing. Not your intention, not your intention, but you should really look at the earlier posts in this thread and consider that they are hurling insults. People can only have so much patience.

08-31-2006 02:56 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:does that mean no one should respond to them about their nonsense?
You know why I really shouldn’t have responded to them? Because they are wind-ups. They say ridiculous things

Yes, that is exactly why you shouldn’t respond to them. Some people just like to keep the sh*t pot stirred up and everyone’s blood pressure climbing. Others are just venting and blowing off steam.

If you have ever watched any football, the concept is the same as “being drawn off-sides.” People lose their cool, the screaming match starts, and all useful dialogue becomes ancient history. If it is non-sense, then why are you participating? One real risk when arguing with a fool is that an outside observer might not be able to tell which is which.

Maybe if people wise up enough to stop falling for it, some day there might actually be some useful and constructive dialogue. I’m not holding my breath, however.

08-31-2006 03:19 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
Hmmm. If you agree that that is what they are doing, then why to you support them and chastise me?

08-31-2006 03:49 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

fishnamedjames wrote:
Hmmm. If you agree that that is what they are doing, then why to you support them and chastise me?

Aren’t you the one claiming to be so much more intelligent? If that is the case, why are you acting like every bit as much of an idiot?

08-31-2006 04:03 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
I made no such claim.

08-31-2006 04:12 PM

Re: Can women protect their rights without male support????
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Democles says:

“Morality is an objective principle which defines inter-human relationships. There are only two principles on which inter-human relationships can be based: the law of the jungle, that might is right, or the law of mutual respect, that we allow each other to do what we want on the condition that we don’t infringe on the right of others to do the same. Which principle do you prefer, the war of all against all, or mutual self-restraint?”

Care to take a shot answering the question?”

Yes, I’ll take a shot at that. I think it’s a ‘false choice.’ Even if I allow the ‘law of the jungle’ to characterize the principle of achievement or dominence according to ability, and if I allow ‘mutual respect’ as its polar opposite, I have problems with calling morality an ‘objective principle.’ It can only be objective if it can be measured against a standard, and your standard seems to be a false choice. Naturally, there is equivocation involved in applying the term ‘law of the jungle’ to our conduct in society, and the ‘law of mutual respect’ is an ideal not likely to be found in law or conduct.

I don’t know that there is a ‘law of mutual respect,’ but I know of metaphysical principles based on the unity of opposites. For example, any good Buddhist can tell you that the separation of the world into things is the result of ego consciousness, and to unite existance through a change of consciousness implies ‘Do unto others …’ (something Buddha taught several centuries before you-know-who picked it up when those ideas migrated around the known world and influenced the Mid East.) I suspect you are expressing something like that religious principle. The problem is that mutual respect is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work as a legal system; people are not reliable, desires often conflict, and people don’t follow the ‘law’ – they lie, cheat, and steal. So, we need a legal structure to deal with these little problems like property line disputes and child custody. The Ten Commandments suffers from the same problem, but that doesn’t seem to deter the fundamentalists who cleave to them as fundamentalists always cling to simplistic, authoritarian answers.

Maybe the problem is that you are equivocating (equating) the ideas of law and morality. They are very different. For instance, what is the ‘law of mutual respect’ going to do about the question of abortion? How do you decide if abortion is infringing on the rights of the foetus, or the mother, or the father – or what to do when the mother and father have different desires that demand equal respect?

My suggestion is that you refine the terms of the proposition. For example: ‘Harmony in inter-personal relationships depends on respect for the other persons’ desires’ would be adequate.

Since I’m trying to be practical here, I want to mention that it was men, not women, who instituted laws – probably everything else too – and relations between the sexes and marital partners were part of the earliest legal systems. The feminist nuts can argue (inevitably) that those early attempts at equity were unfair, but the only way to argue that men didn’t try to be fair is to claim variously that men brutally replaced a goddess culture (pre-historical, of course -= before any written records) and that the legal system gave too much to men. In my opinion, no.

There are deep and essential differences between men and women, and differences between what they want, and what they want from each other. To organize society by giving (even in name) equality to two groups with conflicting desires is a formula for disaster. But, there are times in our collective memory when rulers enacted restrictions and freedoms selectively which resulted in disaster for everyone. They usually do it with some self enriching motive, and the group that believes it is being favored invariably accepts the boon to its fortunes. That is probably the nature and cause of the social chaos we are suffering from now.

It’s interesting to ponder the feminists claim that past history is an example of men being the privilaged group, and that this past history has led to conditions of social dominence by women. The feminists believe (forget whatever they say – we all know they’re liars) that women are superior to men in cleverness (or whatever) and women have wrested whatever power they have away from greedy brutal men. I say that men have given too much power to a faithless, unworthy sex, and the ones who have done it are wrong in one of two ways: Either they empowered women in the belief that it was the moral thing to do, and will benefit everyone, or they empowered women as a strategy to disempower men, and thereby gain control over everyone. Read Orwell, and study the structure, history, and effects of the Church of Rome. Take classes. Learn logic, rhetoric, and grammar (those are the hated main elements of a liberal arts education.)

09-30-2006 06:20 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: