Women as inferior?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

A few years ago, I dated a self described feminist for a short while.  One day she admitted that she thought women were inferior.  This came as a surprise to me being that I :  1) never really revealed my opinion to her one way or the other about the subject; and 2) thought that any self described feminist would never say such a thing.

So I wonder.. if some women or feminists do really think that women are inferior, then I must ask “In what way ?”  In what ways are women inferior ?

Personally, I think it goes without saying that the sexes are different.  But that does not mean I think of one as inferior to the other.  Different doesn’t mean inferior / superior to me.

On a side note, I realize that from reading some of the posts that not everyone is, shall we say, religious.  But I do believe that God sees everyone as equals since we all have souls, all make choices and are all welcome to believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again so that we may be saved.. both women and men.. rich and poor.

10-03-2006 05:57 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

Yep, definitely different. I agree with you.  And different does not equal better of worse though. To think one gender is better than the other is not having appreciation for what the other has to offer.

I am not christian but even in my religion, you cannot have the woman without the man and vice versa. The are incontrovertible, unchangable, forever and inextriably linked. The perfect complement to one another. We would but much poorer without each other. Not to mention extinct

Feminists who hate their own kind really must have issues!

10-03-2006 06:20 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

I would agree that men and women are equal in worth. But to simply say “different” is to relegate inequality to a mere deferential attitude. This is ridiculous. This is the same attitude that seeks to prevent us from referring to “mentally challenged” kids as retarded. As men, we should call it like it is. Leave the euphemisms up to the women who are incapable of coping with the truth.

Women are stupid. But this is not to imply that intelligence is of more value than wisdom. Or that being “stupid” hinders one from being valuable. wisdom is available to both sexes. “Unintelligent” women who have the WISDOM to stfu and submit to male authority are much more valuable than so-called “intelligent” women who run off at the mouth like a yapping little dog.

The problem is with the assignment of value. As with any function, value is assigned according to how well a particular thing fulfills its particular function. A watch that tells time is valuable as a watch, not as a hammer. A hammer that tries to imitate the function of a watch is no longer valuable because it attempts to defy the function it was specifically intended to fulfill. A hammer, designed to hammer, is valuable ONLY as a hammer. When it ceases to respect its function, it ceases to be of value. This is exactly why today’s women are “worthless” (using the term worth loosely).. to be more precise, they are of little value as they refuse to fulfill their function. They instead hope to usurp a man’s function. Now granted women CAN think and they do think. But as a general principle, this is not their function. Their thinking capacity is limited. They function to COMPLEMENT a man’s reasoning capacity. They are not intended to independently reason on their own (we’ve already noted the outcome of such mayhem.) A woman who earnestly regards this limitation and accepts her role is much happier because A) she becomes valuable to a man AS A WOMAN B) she is fulfilling her function which suits her design B) she is protected from the many symptomatic ills suffered by countless other women who refuse to let the responsibility for thinking rest on the man’s shoulders and D) men will recognize her value AS A WOMAN and seek to please her as a reward for her faithful committment to fulfill her function, as her function directly contributes to a man’s happiness as well.

This healthy cycle is the antithesis of the snowballing effect from hell called Feminism.

10-03-2006 07:33 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Tellafriend writes…

“This is exactly why today’s women are “worthless” (using the term worth loosely).. to be more precise, they are of little value as they refuse to fulfill their function. They instead hope to usurp a man’s function.”

I agree.. they devalue their sexual function when they try to compete with men.  They become less desirable for marriage or, if in one, as a marriage partner.  In essence, this is what Noer is arguing.

“Now granted women CAN think and they do think. But as a general principle, this is not their function. Their thinking capacity is limited. They function to COMPLEMENT a man’s reasoning capacity. They are not intended to independently reason on their own (we’ve already noted the outcome of such mayhem.) ”

This is where I disagree.  Of course women can independently reason.  I’ve seen it everyday.  It has to be one of their functions.  They have to independently reason which guy they want to marry over another.  Some of them reason that.. well .. Guy A over Guy B because Guy A has better earning potential.  This is crude and simplistic but it does happen.

” I would agree that men and women are equal in worth. But to simply say “different” is to relegate inequality to a mere deferential attitude. This is ridiculous. This is the same attitude that seeks to prevent us from referring to “mentally challenged” kids as retarded ”

When I said different, I did not have politcal correctness in mind.  I think my  track record here attests to that lol.  When I said different, I mean of course biological differences.  But I also mean emotional and so forth.  When I look at a woman, I do not look for what career women want me to look for.  I do not look at their careers or college diplomas.  Instead , I look for youth and attractiveness.  I look for their capacity to give birth to my children and the amount of fun I’m going to have doing it along the way.  A woman may look at me in terms of how well I’m going to provide for her along the way.  Two different reasoning strategies here but one is no more inferior to the other.

“This healthy cycle is the antithesis of the snowballing effect from hell called Feminism.”

I agree, feminism is either an idea from hell or somewhere very close to the sun.  As  the great Ludwig Von Mises indicated…

if feminism sought to alter the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, then feminism is a spiritual child of socialism.  After all, one of socialism’s characteristics is its attempt to reform nature and natural laws by reforming social institutions.

10-03-2006 08:43 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
OneSmartChick
Regular Contributor
OneSmartChick

Tellafriend – You are sick.  Your opinions about women are dehumanizing.  There is NO basis of fact in your post – only your sick, twisted opinions.  Get some help before you wind up in jail.

10-03-2006 11:00 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

OneSmartChick wrote:
Tellafriend – You are sick.  Your opinions about women are dehumanizing.  There is NO basis of fact in your post – only your sick, twisted opinions.  Get some help before you wind up in jail.

No, he’s right. We all see it except for you chicks.

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

10-03-2006 11:05 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

OneSmartChick writes …

“Tellafriend – You are sick.  Your opinions about women are dehumanizing.  There is NO basis of fact in your post – only your sick, twisted opinions.  Get some help before you wind up in jail.”

I tell ya … for someone who loathes this guy you sure do follow him around .  A secret crush perhaps ?

10-03-2006 11:58 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
A woman who could not independently reason would be a piss-poor mother.

10-04-2006 12:02 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
FACT: Men like young, attractive, pleasant women, who want to have kids and look after them.

FACT: People only value things they want.

FACT: Career women do not want to have kids or look after them, they want to have a career.

FACT: Feminists are far from pleasant and have ensured a large number of non-feminist women are the same.

FACT: The only thing left is ‘young’ and ‘attractive’.

CONCLUSION: Feminism leads to objectification.

CONCLUSION: Feminists have made women worthless to men (apart from objectification).

FACT: Women over 35 are not ‘young’ or ‘attractive’.

FACT: People do not want something they consider worthless. Usually they throw it away.

CONCLUSION: Feminism has dehumanised women. Particularly those over 35 who are dehumanised to the point of garbage.

I thought it would be pretty clear by now.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 12:05 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“A woman who could not independently reason would be a piss-poor mother ”

that might be just the start of things lol

10-04-2006 12:06 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

SomePhatLemming Wrote:

A woman who could not independently reason would be a piss-poor mother.

Woo look at that! Someone just inadvertently hit on the reason for fathers.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 12:09 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
FACT: People only value things they want.

Just to clarify this one. That means what THEY want, NOT what YOU want them to want.

Might be a bit hard to grasp that one. It has impossible implications, like the world not revolving around you, other people not being under your control etc.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-04-200612:17 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 12:15 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Oh please darling, an ant farm has greater brain power and reasoning abilities than you.

We should have never allowed women to vote, just think of all the social services we wouldn’t be funding if women never voted! That was our first mistake, our rulers knew the outcome of women voting so they allowed it to increase the Power of the State.

Most women would serve the world best with their lips shut!!!

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

10-04-2006 12:34 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

FACT: People only value things they want.

Just to clarify this one. That means what THEY want, NOT what YOU want them to want.

Might be a bit hard to grasp that one. It has impossible implications, like the world not revolving around you, other people not being under your control etc.

Absolutely spot on.. it’s hard for me to want the things that a Narcissistic Personality Disorder career woman wants me to want.

10-04-2006 12:37 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Oh please darling, an ant farm has greater brain power and reasoning abilities than you.

LOL

10-04-2006 12:39 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Hey OneSmartChick, yes, you are right that the tellafriend is a sick person and he won’t end up well anyways.

It seems there only left a couple of sick, twisted-minded men full of anger, hatred and resentment here.

I may check here up once in a while as fun though, depending my bandwidth and mood… I guess you are doing the same here now right? Smart girl indeed!

10-04-2006 12:56 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Big_Daddy_Cool
Contributor
Big_Daddy_Cool

In my MBA class, there is this female instructor who is always telling us how the world’s population, especially in the developed nations is dwindling and how we will have a aging population, lesser young people, more healthcare expenses etc. etc. etc.

However, the same retard says that women, as soon as they get educated, don’t want to have kids because ‘we realize that having kids is painful, it can kill us’ etc. etc. etc.

Since this instructor is, needless to say, a feminist (who is obviously divorced twice) and who is a pure career woman, I do not see how she reasons those two points mentioned above…She is willing to admit that there is a problem but she is willing to take the ‘victim’ argument to justify it…

And I just don’t understand what the **bleep** she is suggesting. Should the women not be educated then so that we are still there in a hundred years from now?

So in answer to your post Halladay, I will say that women are inferior…not because God made them like that (although I do believe God has given the primary power to the man),  but because their own double-standard thinking (or lack of thinking) puts them in a situation where they are just not capable to deal with a problem the same way a man can…

Message Edited by Big_Daddy_Cool on 10-04-200601:09 AM

Message Edited by Big_Daddy_Cool on 10-04-200601:10 AM

Message Edited by Big_Daddy_Cool on 10-04-200601:14 AM

10-04-2006 01:06 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

ACatInSD Wrote:
*Garbage unrelated to topic*

You’re leaving because we now know you’re a liar about more than likely almost all of your stories?

Somehow I think “popping in from time to time” to you, will mean “regularly coming into threads spouting off-topic garbage and complaining how there is no decent discussion”.

We both know your real situation is a bitter single mother sitting at home on welfare.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 01:13 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Halladay wrote:
Tellafriend writes…

“This is exactly why today’s women are “worthless” (using the term worth loosely).. to be more precise, they are of little value as they refuse to fulfill their function. They instead hope to usurp a man’s function.”

I agree.. they devalue their sexual function when they try to compete with men.  They become less desirable for marriage or, if in one, as a marriage partner.  In essence, this is what Noer is arguing.

“Now granted women CAN think and they do think. But as a general principle, this is not their function. Their thinking capacity is limited. They function to COMPLEMENT a man’s reasoning capacity. They are not intended to independently reason on their own (we’ve already noted the outcome of such mayhem.) ”

This is where I disagree.  Of course women can independently reason.  I’ve seen it everyday.  It has to be one of their functions.  They have to independently reason which guy they want to marry over another.  Some of them reason that.. well .. Guy A over Guy B because Guy A has better earning potential.  This is crude and simplistic but it does happen.

Hey smart guy, they CAN independently do anything, just like children CAN pick their own food out and CAN cross the street whenever they feel like it. That doesn’t mean they do it EFFECTIVELY. And when you let a woman independently reason which guy she would WANT to marry, you end up with the situation we have today–women going after what they THINK they want and ending up miserable because they don’t actually know what they NEED. This is why women are so easily influenced by other peoples’ opinions. They are not capable of figuring this out on their own nor are they meant to make such important decisions on their own. They are trained to decide who to marry, they don’t independently reason their way into any successful relationship. I’ve dated way more women than you. I know a lot more about how women reason than you do. Which is why I know that they don’t reason effectively at all, ESPECIALLY when choosing a partner.

” I would agree that men and women are equal in worth. But to simply say “different” is to relegate inequality to a mere deferential attitude. This is ridiculous. This is the same attitude that seeks to prevent us from referring to “mentally challenged” kids as retarded ”

When I said different, I did not have politcal correctness in mind.  I think my  track record here attests to that lol.  When I said different, I mean of course biological differences.  But I also mean emotional and so forth.

Well then the “differences” you’re referring to are already pretty apparent. Why point them out.

When I look at a woman, I do not look for what career women want me to look for.  I do not look at their careers or college diplomas.  Instead , I look for youth and attractiveness.  I look for their capacity to give birth to my children and the amount of fun I’m going to have doing it along the way.  A woman may look at me in terms of how well I’m going to provide for her along the way.  Two different reasoning strategies here but one is no more inferior to the other.

This is where you’re dead wrong. If the goal is different, then BOTH strategies are inferior because both neglect the consummate result– a blending of 2 personalities not the accomodation of 2 different agendas. People that “date” do that already.

And you further assume that the sum of these 2 strategies is somehow innate rather than merely acquired by social propriety or parental influence.

“This healthy cycle is the antithesis of the snowballing effect from hell called Feminism.”

I agree, feminism is either an idea from hell or somewhere very close to the sun.

Hold on, I’m still laughing..

As  the great Ludwig Von Mises indicated…

if feminism sought to alter the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, then feminism is a spiritual child of socialism.  After all, one of socialism’s characteristics is its attempt to reform nature and natural laws by reforming social institutions.

Can’t I just wear an “I hate Feminism” t-shirt instead? So much less reading.

10-04-2006 04:44 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

OneDUMBBIITCH barked:
Tellafriend – You are sick.  Your opinions about women are dehumanizing.  There is NO basis of fact in your post – only your sick, twisted opinions.  Get some help before you wind up in jail.

Yes, moron. You worrying about my well being is comforting.

Now I know you’re too stupid to even grasp what I’m saying, so I’ll just say it in a language you can understand:

BAD DOG! BAD!

Now go fetch your stick you dumb biitch

This is why dumb biitches should never be included in important conversations. How could a biitch end up this stupid? Welcome to Feminism 101

10-04-2006 04:54 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

ACatInSD wrote:
Hey OneSmartChick, yes, you are right that the tellafriend is a sick person and he won’t end up well anyways.

It seems there only left a couple of sick, twisted-minded men full of anger, hatred and resentment here.

I may check here up once in a while as fun though, depending my bandwidth and mood… I guess you are doing the same here now right? Smart girl indeed!

Hahahhah.. oh great.. now we get the Crazy Cat Lady when her MOOD is right..

Hopefully her extra yoga classes will fill the free time between her tarot card business and psychic hotline activities, because I’d hate for that crazy biitch to be in the mood..

10-04-2006 05:06 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Halladay wrote:
Tellafriend wrote:

“When I look at a woman, I do not look for what career women want me to look for.  I do not look at their careers or college diplomas.  Instead , I look for youth and attractiveness.  I look for their capacity to give birth to my children and the amount of fun I’m going to have doing it along the way.  A woman may look at me in terms of how well I’m going to provide for her along the way.  Two different reasoning strategies here but one is no more inferior to the other.”

This is where you’re dead wrong. If the goal is different, then BOTH strategies are inferior because both neglect the consummate result– a blending of 2 personalities not the accomodation of 2 different agendas. People that “date” do that already.

Not Dead Wrong by a long shot.  Both strategies are different but the goal is reproduction.  Both sides use strategies they perceive as advantageous to themselves.

And you further assume that the sum of these 2 strategies is somehow innate rather than merely acquired by social propriety or parental influence.

Reproduction is innate.  It is one of the most, if not the most, innate things people do lol.

10-04-2006 06:13 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Happy_Bullet wrote:

SomePhatLemming Wrote:

A woman who could not independently reason would be a piss-poor mother.

Woo look at that! Someone just inadvertently hit on the reason for fathers.

Oh please. According to what I’ve heard from the men around here, a woman’s job is to stay home with the kids 8-9 hours a day while Daddy is at work, and when Daddy comes home from work, he’s tired, so Mommy keeps the kids out of Daddy’s hair then, too.

That means 8-9 hours alone with children, deciding what to do when one is throwing a tantrum, the other has diarrhea, and the other is trying to flush the cat down the toilet….knowing when to take a sick child to the ER….parent-teacher conferences, helping with homework, toilet-training, monitoring what they watch on tv, providing them with healthy meals….can all these things be put on hold because, “Oh wait, umm, I’m not sure how to handle this. Kids, wait until your father comes home!”

If women weren’t capable of reasoning on their own, that would actually make a very good case for men being stay-at-home dads and women going off to work in factories.

10-04-2006 09:44 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Question for HappyMom, if she’s reading: do you lack the ability to independently reason?

10-04-2006 09:45 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:14 PM

10-04-2006 10:21 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
ZammoTheWeird
Contributor
ZammoTheWeird

That means 8-9 hours alone with children, deciding what to do when one is throwing a tantrum, the other has diarrhea, and the other is trying to flush the cat down the toilet….knowing when to take a sick child to the ER….parent-teacher conferences, helping with homework, toilet-training, monitoring what they watch on tv, providing them with healthy meals….can all these things be put on hold because, “Oh wait, umm, I’m not sure how to handle this. Kids, wait until your father comes home!”
Yes, raising kids is not easy. That’s why it takes it takes the combined efforts of a mommy and a daddy to do the job effectively and successfully. Sometimes, a father does need to step in, hence, waiting ’till father gets home. Hey, that’s life as parents.

Some folks – women and men alike – see the tasks above as wonderful, exciting, and deeply fulfilling responsibilities. Others see those tasks as miserable, tedious, and unrewarding. The latter group of folks, obviously, should not be having kids.

There would be more stay-at-home dads if single women felt that was a priority characteristic when selecting a partner. The current state of things, however, is that single women want security, stability, and a good career in their men. Check the dating websites if you don’t believe me. And no anecdotal evidence to the contrary, please.

If you want more stay at home dads, please start a national campaign to convince your sisters to pick men who want to stay at home and raise kids while the women go face the rat race to bring home a healthy paycheck. Oh, and convince those women that the ONLY option they have is to go out and work while leaving the kids at home with dad.

10-04-2006 10:30 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
Amen reclaff!

phatcat,
Parents have to present a united front. The discipline has to be consistent. That means there has to be an agreed upon standard. The husband, the leader of the family has to decide what that is(in our house it comes from teh Bible). Input from the wife is often necessary regarding specific details since she tends to tasks that he doesn’t.

When two people marry they become one. There cannot be peace in a house with two equally independent people. They would butt heads and accomplish nothing.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 10-04-200610:42 AM

10-04-2006 10:41 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“BECAUSE THEY LOVE THEM”

This is actually one of the first times I believe one of the male posters on this board has mentioned love. It’s refreshing given that I’ve come away from many postings with the impression that many view marriage as nothing more than a life-long business deal and children as a means to carry on a blood line.

10-04-2006 10:56 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

dumbbroad wrote:
“BECAUSE THEY LOVE THEM”
This is actually one of the first times I believe one of the male posters on this board has mentioned love. It’s refreshing given that I’ve come away from many postings with the impression that many view marriage as nothing more than a life-long business deal and children as a means to carry on a blood line.

Indeed.

And just to clarify, since my entire post was not quoted, in the first paragraph I mentioned that some of the men on this board have said things to the effect that they don’t want to have to deal with kids when they get home, the wife should be the one helping the kids with homework after the man has been working all day, the husband shouldn’t have to do anything but bring home the paycheck, etc. I wasn’t talking about the men on here who are decent men and understand marriage as a partnership, and who don’t make asinine claims such as women shouldn’t think, reason, or speak without the help of a man. I’ve got no intentions of preaching to the choir.

10-04-2006 12:25 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

HappyMom wrote:
Amen reclaff!

phatcat,
Parents have to present a united front. The discipline has to be consistent. That means there has to be an agreed upon standard. The husband, the leader of the family has to decide what that is(in our house it comes from teh Bible). Input from the wife is often necessary regarding specific details since she tends to tasks that he doesn’t.

When two people marry they become one. There cannot be peace in a house with two equally independent people. They would butt heads and accomplish nothing.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 10-04-200610:42 AM

I never said otherwise. I was referring to tellafriend’s assertation that women have no reasoning skills without a man to help them. To imply that a mother has no reasoning skills when the father isn’t home is ridiculous. Agreed?

10-04-2006 12:27 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Phatkat if taking care of children is “Work” get yourself defertilized your children are better off unborn. Little kids need their mom 24/7, deal with it. We deal with the fact that out of our paycheck we get to spend maybe 10% on ourself. Did you never asked yourself why daddy buys less clothes and shoes than mommy ? As for the father, if he doesnt spend some of his freetime he has with the kids due to the mother doing all of the housework he stinks as a father. Luckily most fathers do enjoy spending time with their kids if it wouldnt be for femimom unloading some of the chores on him which she should have all done while he was at work.
You could always marry a careerless man and make him stay at home, but i guess that just does not feel right, does it ?

10-04-2006 12:35 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

It’s somewhat ironic that children reach school age just about when they need Mom less than infants or toddlers. So it’s 4-5 years of early childhood care then comes:

Drop off kids at school 8:00am
Meet girlfriends at Starbucks?
Go to gym maybe?
Grocery store once a week
Choose between vacuuming or going to the mall(gee, tuff one)
Watch Oprah, Jerry or your favorite soap.
Pick up kids

The day is yours to do as you choose until 1-3pm!  You can free up even more free time putting the crumb-crunchers into stranger care or hire a nanny.

Don’t give us that crap that it takes all day to slave over a hot stove an houseclean when men have invented the microwave, dishwasher and washer/dryer for your convenience.

Message Edited by toadman on 10-04-200609:40 AM

10-04-2006 12:39 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

Well,  This one got seriously off track. I was looking forward to seeing all the personal opinions as per Halladays posed questions. Darn! Even Tellfriend answered the question quite nicely. I didn’t agree with him, but that’s ok.

Come on guys and girls! Post you opinions and try not kill the person next to you!

10-04-2006 12:50 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:15 PM

10-04-2006 01:27 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Cassius wrote:
Phatkat if taking care of children is “Work” get yourself defertilized your children are better off unborn. Little kids need their mom 24/7, deal with it. We deal with the fact that out of our paycheck we get to spend maybe 10% on ourself. Did you never asked yourself why daddy buys less clothes and shoes than mommy ? As for the father, if he doesnt spend some of his freetime he has with the kids due to the mother doing all of the housework he stinks as a father. Luckily most fathers do enjoy spending time with their kids if it wouldnt be for femimom unloading some of the chores on him which she should have all done while he was at work.
You could always marry a careerless man and make him stay at home, but i guess that just does not feel right, does it ?

Taking care of children IS work. I didn’t say the work wasn’t worth it. Geeeez, chill out already. I really don’t know how you got all that out of my one post.

I’m actually contemplating taking your advice, and it “feels” just fine. I’ve discussed it with my boyfriend, and I have the higher degree and therefore the higher earning potential, so we have discussed the implications of me working in the office part-time and out of the home part-time, with him possibly taking on a part-time job as a supplemental income.

Message Edited by phatkat811 on 10-04-200601:48 PM

10-04-2006 01:46 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

My wife rarely cleans the house. I cleaned it in 20 minutes!!!

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

10-04-2006 02:52 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:15 PM

10-04-2006 03:38 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“This is actually one of the first times I believe one of the male posters on this board has mentioned love.”

This doesn’t mean it’s not important, it’s just that once we’re beyond the age of ____ (fill in blank) we’re more immune to the effects and it starts to seem like an unaffordable luxury. After all, men loving carries no/little weight in the child custody hearings.

But since you brought it up, two quotes/thoughts…

“Love needs no advocacy these days…” – John Gordon

“All our pain comes from restraint of love.”
– Robinson Jeffers (from The Loving Sheperdess)

So it’s not entirely off the radar screen, it’s just that circumstances force the attention elsewhere. A man who marries for love is a fool, in the opinion of most here I’d guess.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-04-2006 04:44 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

minx12 wrote..

“Well,  This one got seriously off track. I was looking forward to seeing all the personal opinions as per Halladays posed questions.”

hey that’s ok.. i’m just going around secretly riling people so i can publish a book full of deliciously juicy quotes.

i wonder if subscriptions to forbes has declined or increased since noer’s article was first published ??   or maybe not much effect at all ?

10-04-2006 07:45 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

dumbbroad wrote..

“BECAUSE THEY LOVE THEM”

This is actually one of the first times I believe one of the male posters on this board has mentioned love. It’s refreshing given that I’ve come away from many postings with the impression that many view marriage as nothing more than a life-long business deal and children as a means to carry on a blood line. ”

i’m disappointed in you dumbbroad.  i wrote a very loving response to a thread posed awhile back about “would i marry a  girl who came from divorced parents”.

i figured you took better notes than this..

10-04-2006 08:09 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:16 PM

10-04-2006 08:22 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Ok, a fool who’s been lucky. Good for you. The argument here is, after all, statistical in nature, and I’m sure you know of fellows who haven’t been quite so fortunate as you. Don’t take what I said personally.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-04-2006 08:36 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:16 PM

10-04-2006 08:42 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

yea martian.. there’s a woman out there that appreciates a smart blue faced  type of guy.  you’ll be ok

10-04-2006 09:43 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

“You’re leaving because we now know you’re a liar about more than likely almost all of your stories?

Somehow I think “popping in from time to time” to you, will mean “regularly coming into threads spouting off-topic garbage and complaining how there is no decent discussion”.

We both know your real situation is a bitter single mother sitting at home on welfare. ”

Wow you are so imaginative! It will be the biggest regret in my life that I haven’t get any advantage of this country’s welfare system! I should screw up at least one American man in order to do so, it will be a very fun adventure

You said the normal sky is purple, not blue, and it will be purple instead of blue?

Go ahead and find a doctor before you really become screwed up.

10-04-2006 09:48 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
What you don’t understand ACatInSD, is that no-one on this board has any reason to believe a word of what you say.

Here we have someone making grandiose claims (which contradict other things she’s said) and saying, she’s *almost* going to prove it, but then quickly backtracking and saying she’s leaving.

Here are your options:

1) Put up: Get your invisible poodleboy on here.

2) Shut up: STFU about your supposed personal situation.

If you don’t do either of these, as far as I’m concerned your most likely situation is a lonely single welfare mother who is angry at the world, and on prozac (or needs to be).

Actually I have good basis for the last part of that.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-04-200610:22 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 10:21 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
To answer the main topic of this thread, it’s simple:

In the context of a relationship, neither are inferior. Men and women are inherently complementary.

The entire reason for men and women was a separation in reproductive strategies. One providing for, the other taking care of children. As males and females separated in those goals, it became who was BEST at their respective role that was the one that reproduced more, in comparison to their competing peers.

Note: The prize for who was most successful did not go to who alternates between roles most effectively.

I have issues with the whole definition of “inferior” here, but let’s say we’re talking about “inferior as independant beings” here.

In this role, men are MORE capable than they would be in a relationship, seeing as we have the provider, protector etc. capability but we also have disadvantages, like it takes a lot of effort to learn to live for ourselves. Men are not particularly hedonistic, as a result of this selection pressure so we tend to have a surplus. In my case, I simply chose to work less. I nevertheless still have a surplus. I try to spend it on things that I’d like, of course. I often find myself buying for my male friends at the end of the day though. As I find a lot of my male friends also do. (This includes meals at restaurants, movies etc. funnily enough. I’ve also been making sure my Father is taken care of. I tried doing volunteer work but it didn’t work out because feminists were involved in the organisation which converted me to anti-feminism and thus against the organisation. I make donations to MediaRadar.) Note that I’ve found it a NEGATIVE to success with them, to spend any money on women, so a pittance of my income goes on that.

Women are decidedly LESS capable, seeing as evolution had decided they were to have a provider. The government appears to have been a defacto, but ultimately inferior, replacement for men directly. Women are also effectively incapable of providing for themselves during pregnancy and think with emotions less than logic, which I’d state was inferior for things like “long term planning”. Ultimately the situation we have at the moment is the government underwriting lemming-like behaviour from women. This won’t continue forever as it is unsustainable. On the other hand women are hedonistic and can tend to do with as much provision as is available, and still remain in deficit rather than surplus. In the real world this results in higher taxes as the government tries to underwrite this sort of thing, and massive credit card debt anyway. It can also lead to emotional and health problems which the government may then be asked to underwrite as the women were expecting to be provided for in the end when they decided to take on the behaviour that led to them.

So:

In relationship: Men and women roughly equal.

Independently, in terms of effectivness: Women inferior, men superior.

Independently, in terms of happiness: Both inferior. (Unless men learn to live for themselves, which we are being forced to do, which will leave women in quite the pickle).

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-05-200602:17 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-04-2006 11:28 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“The government appears to have been a defacto, but ultimately inferior, replacement for men directly”

No argument there.. plus the fact a father helps provide discipline over unruly kids.  thus, hopefully being a role model and deter crime that could happen later on.

10-05-2006 12:29 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“To answer the main topic of this thread, it’s simple:”

Women are better at babies; men are better at everything else.

A 50-50 split.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-05-2006 01:36 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Halladay wrote:
Halladay wrote:
Tellafriend wrote:

“When I look at a woman, I do not look for what career women want me to look for.  I do not look at their careers or college diplomas.  Instead , I look for youth and attractiveness.  I look for their capacity to give birth to my children and the amount of fun I’m going to have doing it along the way.  A woman may look at me in terms of how well I’m going to provide for her along the way.  Two different reasoning strategies here but one is no more inferior to the other.”

This is where you’re dead wrong. If the goal is different, then BOTH strategies are inferior because both neglect the consummate result– a blending of 2 personalities not the accomodation of 2 different agendas. People that “date” do that already.

Not Dead Wrong by a long shot.  Both strategies are different but the goal is reproduction.  Both sides use strategies they perceive as advantageous to themselves.

And you further assume that the sum of these 2 strategies is somehow innate rather than merely acquired by social propriety or parental influence.

Reproduction is innate.  It is one of the most, if not the most, innate things people do lol.

Yeah I’m not sure if you realize this but most guys don’t get married to reproduce. Neither do most women for that matter.

If I run a race and my goal is to finish first, the result may ISSUE in a trophy being won, but the goal is not to get the trophy. The goal is to win the race. Runners are happy to receive a trophy which acknowledges and memorializes their accomplishment, but the ULTIMATE goal is not to win the trophy. That issues from accomplishing the ultimate goal.
Thanks for trying to keep up though.

10-05-2006 04:34 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

reclaff wrote:
phatkat811 wrote,

“If women weren’t capable of reasoning on their own, that would actually make a very good case for men being stay-at-home dads and women going off to work in factories.”

As for “independent reasoning,” phatkat811, EVERY marriage (whether the partners admit it or not) is a MUTUAL LOVING DEPENDENCE on each other.  That means ALL reasoning – HIS and HERS – is shared.  Yes, she must make decisions all day long on the fly.  But the two of them have discussed BEFOREHAND the priciples underlying their reasoning.  In raising my son, my wife and I were of LIKE MIND on parenting.  So in that sense, neither her reasoning nor mine is fully independent.

Only a fool would have a spouse as a resource and not USE him/her!

Okay there’s confusion here that needs to be cleared up. You’re confusing dependence and function. Again, another byproduct of feminist reasoning which seeks to equalize and negate the proper functioning of men and women.

As a man, you’d have to be a complete idiot to rely on your wife to be the head decision maker. Relying on a spouse as a “resource” is not the same as letting your spouse have equal authority in the decision making process. So this statement is really a feminist position which undermines and neglects the appropriate roles of both genders.

Men are leaders. They are especially to lead their family. This means they have the final say over all decisions, whether right or wrong. Now granted the husband may take a wife’s counsel into consideration, but he should not give her the authority or let her usurp his authority to make the FINAL decisions for the welfare of the family or the relationship. Female idiocy is the exact reason we are in this dire situation in the first place. This is what happens when you try to co-head up a single entity. Marriage is not 2 separate individuals competing for authority. A proper view of marriage comes from the body. The head is like the man, the body is like the wife. The head directs the body and the body express the head. Both have their own unique and necessary function. But the body should never have 2 heads. And neither should the body try to lead the head.

A man is designed to be head over the woman in a relationship and this is seen practically speaking on here. When women try to think independently of men, they end up sounding like complete idiots (refer to phatkat) When women stay under the authority of a man, they end up receiving the benefit of the man’s provision and are now considered valuable because they are now in a position to fulfill their proper function. And they are safeguarded under the guiding wisdom of men which is much more competent than that of women alone.

so don’t confuse “depending” on one another for sharing equal authority. This is foolishness.

A house divided will ALWAYS fall.

Message Edited by tellafriend on 10-05-200604:52 AM

Message Edited by tellafriend on 10-05-200603:41 PM

10-05-2006 04:50 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

minx12 wrote:
Well,  This one got seriously off track. I was looking forward to seeing all the personal opinions as per Halladays posed questions. Darn! Even Tellfriend answered the question quite nicely. I didn’t agree with him, but that’s ok.

I don’t post to see how “nice” I can be. I post to answer things to my satisfaction. I post common sense and reason as an antidote to idiot women like you on here. You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t expect children to grasp adult concepts. Just nod your head and pretend.

10-05-2006 04:55 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:17 PM

10-05-2006 11:21 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
It is not the natural course for men to be leaders of their families. The natural course for men is to be ruthless, lazy, slothful, violent beasts. The Islamic world follows this natural course easily. To build a prosperous empire, the natural course of man has to be restrained, either by government edict or religious edict. If there be no true religion to restrain man, then the government must come in and restrain men. This is why feminist ideology attacks all vestiges and semblances of true religion, because they want to see the government restrain men, rather than have a free society where men are restrained by their god-given consciences with the aid of true religion. There may be a few men in any given society that consider themselves fully capable to restrain their propensities for evil without aid of true religion, but this is not true for the vast majority of men — just look at the whole of human history for the proof of this fact. We are no different of people today than any people in the last 6,000 years, so don’t fool yourselves into thinking we today are on some kind of higher plane of consciousness. The conscience of man may be god-given, but it must be nurtured by society elsewise men’s consciences will be seared as if with a hot iron, and suddenly men use their women and children as “missle defense systems” as they do in the islamic world, because they have no conscience, no remorse, no feelings of wrongdoing, when they see the hellfire missle blow their women and children to pieces.

Young boys have to have their god-given consciences nurtured with true religion, if we ever hope to see a truly free society, elsewise the strong arm of the law will have to reign down on these boys when they become adults. This is precisely what goes on in the islamic world and precisely what feminist ideology seeks to bring about. Women/mothers would rather put their trust in the government to produce compliant men, rather than put their trust in God and true religion. I believe Jesus even said something like, “Where you put your trust, there is where your heart is.” Women of the feminist ideology (in whole or part) have their hearts trusting in the government — and this ideology is so foreign to the founding fathers of America they are probably turning over in their graves at the sheer idiocy of so many American women today.

Young men do not automatically become leaders by nature, they must go through “basic training” and still further advanced training. Usually, the best training is leadership by example — the young man looks at his father first and foremost. If the young man was raised in a good fashion by a good father, odds are that young man will emulate the goodness his father displayed. If the young man had no father around to learn leadership skills from, such a young man will have to learn male leadership elsewhere otherwise he will have a tough time at life. It is this patriarchy that feminist ideology seeks to demonize and destroy, because leadership by example is the most powerful learning tool, and seperating young boys from their fathers will destroy patriarchy and leave a societal vacuum that only a strong fascist government can fill lest society melt-down into chaos.

Women can complain and whine about the lack of “good” men today, but it was women and their feminist ideologues whom have contributed greatly to the destruction of the patriarchy which had served a freedom and liberty loving nation for two centuries. In the mean time, we just keep passing more anti-male laws, we keep raising taxes to enforce those anti-male laws, and we go deeper into debt building more prisons to incarcerate men because the long-trusted and reliable patriarchy that built the most powerful world empire must go. As they say, “you won’t know what you had, until it’s gone.”

The insanity of feminist ideology won’t stop on account of men alone, men don’t even comprise a majority of voters in America, thus if the insanity of feminist ideology is ever to stop it will take an awakening on the part of many women. I haven’t seen it yet, and I don’t hold out much hope for many women awakening. It hasn’t happened in 6,000 years of human history yet, so if women in America were somehow to have an epiphany of the evil that feminist ideology is and take action, it would be a first for women to do such in all of recorded human history. It seems to me, that women would rather just let evil take it’s natural course, rather than get involved in stopping the evil, unless of course the perceived evil hits too close to home, then they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” -Albert Einstein

10-05-2006 12:25 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“…it will take an awakening on the part of many women. … It hasn’t happened in 6,000 years of human history yet,”

And, I’d say, not in all the tens of thousands of years of the stone age before recorded history. Great post.

Ok, so one of the arguments I’ve been hearing from those who consider themselves more moderate than the ones who are incessantly crying about how history is one long torture chamber run by men against women (particularly male feminists), is the idea that, gee, patriarchy hurts both sexes. I.e., it’s equal in it’s oppression. Or, in other words, it’s twice as bad since it’s oppressing everyone.

Since you’ve been thinking about such things, what’s the answer to this?

The gambit makes my head spin — they’re like lawyers “arguing in the alternative” (“if you didn’t like that theory, here, try this one…”.

I’d be interested to know what you think.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-05-2006 12:54 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

MartianBachelor wrote:
“…it will take an awakening on the part of many women. … It hasn’t happened in 6,000 years of human history yet,”

And, I’d say, not in all the tens of thousands of years of the stone age before recorded history. Great post.

Ok, so one of the arguments I’ve been hearing from those who consider themselves more moderate than the ones who are incessantly crying about how history is one long torture chamber run by men against women (particularly male feminists), is the idea that, gee, patriarchy hurts both sexes. I.e., it’s equal in it’s oppression. Or, in other words, it’s twice as bad since it’s oppressing everyone.

Since you’ve been thinking about such things, what’s the answer to this?

The gambit makes my head spin — they’re like lawyers “arguing in the alternative” (“if you didn’t like that theory, here, try this one…”.

I’d be interested to know what you think.

It would depend upon how one defines “oppression”. All evil movements re-define words for propagandistic purposes. All evil movements take the exception to the rule, and make the exception to the rule, the rule. Feminist ideology has done likewise.

When the feminist ideology was birthed on this continent, they went amongst the poor recent immigrant families and found some men who were drunken ba$tards that beat the snot out of their kids and wife, and they used these fringes of society (poor immigrant families), to birth an entire movement that attacked the whole of society. Then the women got the right to vote, and once women got the right to vote they straightaway led the charge to take away men’s alcohol. When prohibition failed miserably, the proper thing to do would have been to simultaneously repeal women’s right to vote since women showed they are incapable of responsibility in a liberty-loving society by leading the temperance movement which resulted in Prohibition.

What feminist ideology frequently refers to “oppression”, they no doubt consider a wifely duty to obey her husband as “oppression”. In that same regard, patriarchy could be described as “oppressive” to men because patriarchy forces men away from their slothful nature. So, yes, when you hear people say patriarchy is “oppression”, it is true but only when you first define “oppression” properly. People who are ignorami mistake obedience for oppression.

When children grow up into screwed-up young adults, it is human nature to look upon the father of those children with contempt. Some will even look with pity upon the screwed-up children and say, “If only those children had a better father, they would have turned out okay.” You’ll will never hear anyone say of screwed-up young adults, “If only they had a better mother, they would have turned out okay”, even if the mother is a crack whore. It’s human nature to put all the responsibilty upon the father. This is why patriarchy works, this is why patriarchy builds world empires, and this is why the best hope for human kind is patriarchal societies — because patriarchy is closest to nature, by giving the leadership to men because nature puts all the responsibility upon men. Opposite nature, is feminist ideology, which is destined for failure, and along the way feminist ideology will bring nothing but a path of misery. Ideas have consequences. Communism brought equality to society, as most everyone under communism was equally poor and miserable, I see the same with feminist ideology. Feminist ideology desires “equality”, but the only kind of “equality” that feminist ideology will ever acheive is to have men and women equally miserable. We see that today, especially amongst those femnags and maginas that bought into the lie of feminist ideology.

Martian, I like the quote on your tag-line from zed the zen, such a statement is so true.

10-05-2006 02:51 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

porkchops38 wrote:

MWhen the feminist ideology was birthed on this continent, they went amongst the poor recent immigrant families and found some men who were drunken ba$tards that beat the snot out of their kids and wife, and they used these fringes of society (poor immigrant families), to birth an entire movement that attacked the whole of society. Then the women got the right to vote, and once women got the right to vote they straightaway led the charge to take away men’s alcohol. When prohibition failed miserably, the proper thing to do would have been to simultaneously repeal women’s right to vote since women showed they are incapable of responsibility in a liberty-loving society by leading the temperance movement which resulted in Prohibition.

Nice try.

Prohibition: 18th Amendment. Ratified 1/16/19.
Women’s suffrage: 19th Amendment. Proposed 6/4/19, ratified 8/18/20.

10-05-2006 03:31 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
Wow, I was off by a few months. The point is that both amendments were brought about because stupid women ran around complaining about not having the right to vote, and complaining that men should not be allowed to have alcohol. One stupid woman even threw herself in front of horse and was trampled to death at the horse races, simply because she couldn’t vote. How stupid is that?

The temperance movement and the women’s suffrage movements were inextricably linked, that’s why both amendments came about virtually simultaneously. If you’re going to pass one assinine amendment, minus well pass two assinine amendments, I guess was the reasoning. Prohibition was realized for the assininity it is, it’s unfortunate that women’s suffrage has not been repealed yet because of its’ assininity as well. Women’s suffrage is sending the western world into a debt hole from which it will never recover in a hundred generations — thus we are on the precipice of 100 generations of slavery. For every woman that you may think is smart enough to have the right to vote, there’s a thousand women that aren’t intellectually capable to make a constitutionally informed vote. The ratio for men is probably about 1 smart male voter for every stupid male voter. Thus, a liberty-loving people practicing self-governance under a constitutional representative republic, has the best chance for prosperity and happiness on the whole, when women STFU and smart men view voting as their constitutional duty whilst stupid men don’t.

If I was born with a **bleep**, I’d be writing my elected representatives begging them to repeal the 19th amendment for the sake of the Union and our future, and I’d be organizing groups to acheive that end, because the 19th amendment and the assininity it’s caused in our society won’t even have a chance to stop until such happens. Until then, expect the assininity to continue and to continue to get more assinine day by day. Biitchy women got us into the stupidity of the 18th and 19th amendments, and all that’s needed now is for women to use their biitchiness traits to biitch our society to repeal the 19th amendment. Once women biitch their way to repeal the 19th amendment, then all they got to do in our representative republic is STFU after that, and let men figure out the best way to get out of the $117 trillion current debt hole, and the additional $65 trillion future debt hole the federal government is facing.

10-05-2006 04:50 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Tellafriend wrote..

“Yeah I’m not sure if you realize this but most guys don’t get married to reproduce. Neither do most women for that matter.”

That’s a pretty bold statement for there to be 6.5 Billion people on earth and the vast majority either married or having been married.  Plus all the biological clocks out there on alarm when women are in their 30’s.

If I run a race and my goal is to finish first, the result may ISSUE in a trophy being won, but the goal is not to get the trophy. The goal is to win the race. Runners are happy to receive a trophy which acknowledges and memorializes their accomplishment, but the ULTIMATE goal is not to win the trophy. That issues from accomplishing the ultimate goal.
Thanks for trying to keep up though.

Well don’t strain yourself too hard there bro LOL

10-05-2006 04:54 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Are men not responsible for their actions then? MEN were ultimately responsible for prohibition and women’s suffrage, since women could not put the laws into effect. If men can’t help but listen to what is essentially (in your eyes anyway) stupid women bitching and moaning, and do what they say, what does that make those men??

If you’re off by claiming that once women got the right to vote, they made sure prohibition was put into effect (that’s a bold claim, more than being off by a few months), what other parts of history are you getting twisted around?

10-05-2006 05:01 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

reclaff wrote:

That was a very thought-provoking post, tellafriend.

My response to phatkat811 was concerning the question of independent reasoning in a marriage.  Your point is directed at the matter of leadership within a marriage, which is something altogether different.  You will allow, I trust, that a husband and wife, reasoning from common principles agreed upon in advance, make many independent decisions over the course of a day, and that each has sufficient faith and trust in the other to make those decisions correctly based on those common principles.  You will further allow, I trust, that such independent decision-making based on common principles fits within the marital framework of a mutual loving dependence.

Agreed. This is why I left it alone when you first touched on this issue in your previous post. You’re elaborating very well here, but you gave the initial gist of it in your previous post.

I’ll just add one crucial addendum often misunderstood: the issue of being right.

Women think authority simply rests on who is right. This is foolish, immature and ultimately dangerous.

While a man will be right about 90-95% of the time, he will no doubt screw up. He will make mistakes. He will take wrong courses of action. He will be dead wrong at times. But here’s the key issue–authority.

Parents will be wrong when they raise their children. They WILL, guaranteed, make bad decisions along the way. BUT as long as those decisions aren’t life-threatening, they should be followed regardless of their practical validity.

Sometimes a parent is wrong in a judgment of arbitration between siblings. It is not the child’s job to correct the adult and usurp the adults authority by refusing to accept the decision. It is the child’s obligation TO OBEY the parent. This keeps a proper authority structure. The adult on the other hand should realize that he will make mistakes. He should be willing to acknowledge them and should be compassionate in his attitude and handling of his family, as we both agree, the ultimate basis for any of this outward activity is and should be LOVE. But the role of either party is not to usurp the role of the other party just because the other party isn’t doing it right. A parent should delegate his authority to the child and put the responsibility of a family’s welfare on a child’s shoulder simply because the child is right from time to time while the parent is wrong. Neither should the child try to usurp the adults role by refusing to obey the authority of the parent because the parent happens to be wrong. One can be obedient in attitude while being disobedient in action. Eg. if the parent tells the child to jump off a bridge, the child disobey that command because it’s an immoral command BUT with the attitude of obedience.

I do not agree with the president’s call to War but I honor his authority over me as president. This is being under proper authority, even if the authority is misguided or flat out wrong. Without this proper order, we lose many benefits of remaining under authority. If a son were to reject his father’s authority over him, he would suffer many grave consequences to his life as a result. Similarly, a wife should be under the proper governing authority of her husband. The issue is not one of right or wrong. The issue is one of maintaining a happy, feasible and harmonious relationship.

Having said all that, a marriage does require a leader as ultimate authority.  The leader in a marriage, just as in a corporation or any other hierarchal organization, assumes overall decision-making authority; assumes critical decision-making authority; resolves conflicts; works collaboratively to establish guiding principles; delegates day-to-day decision-making authority, tasks, and responsibilities based on those principles; and assumes responsibility for the success of the marriage.

I realize this may seem a reduction of marriage to a cold, impersonal business paradigm.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The leader in the marriage takes on these tasks, and assumes full responsibility for the success of the marriage, out of deep, permanent, abiding love.

Now we can argue until the 100,000th post on this forum, until we are blue in the face, until the cows come home, or until hell freezes over.  We can whine and fuss and tinker and tamper and try to social-engineer changes to the destruction of the culture.  We can live in denial and attempt to ignore either millions of years of evolutionary development and history or the clear written word of God.  But nothing we do can alter a simple, basic, undeniable truth:

As a general rule men are natural-born leaders, and husbands are best suited to assume the leadership role within the family.

Our propensity is definitely to lead. Our training, however,  will determine if we are actually fit to lead (ref. porkchops down below)

That there are exceptions to this rule does not alter its basic truth as a general rule.

I am the leader and ultimate decision-maker within my family.  This is what I want, what my wife wants, and what my son wants.  My wife and son play vital roles within the family unit.  The family does not exist without their contributions.  I could not live a full, happy, contented, and rewarding life without the continual nourishment of their love and companionship.  They are EVERYTHING to me.

And that is PRECISELY why I am the leader of my family.  I am providing everything I am capable of providing, everything I have learned to do and learned to be, the leadership skills I have developed – painfully – since the time I was a boy, to help my wife and son in any way I can.  With a tip of the cap to dumbbroad – I am the leader of my family BECAUSE I LOVE MY FAMILY DEEPLY.  My wife and son want me to be their leader, and my leadership role is how I demonstrate my deep and abiding love for them.

Men generally are better equipped to assume leadership and responsibility for the family as a matter of both nature and nurture.  Going back to evolutionary hunter-gatherer days, men have been the protectors of the family and the providers.  These are leadership roles.  From the time a male is born, he is driven by the force of his own ego, and his ego perpetually craves leadership roles.  Boys view leadership as so important they feel a need to demonstrate their leadership capabilities in order to prove to themselves they are in fact a male.  The process by which a boy grows into a man is nothing less to him than a process of gender identification.  He must prove to his male peers, and to the male adults who challenge him, that through competition and challenge – in sports, in Boy Scouts, on wilderness treks, even in the classroom – he can overcome obstacles, endure privations, bring pain upon himself without complaint, and demonstrate his toughness – in short, he must prove he has leadership capability.  Only when he has proven this capability and suitably impressed his peers does the boy genuinely feel male.  He is learning to be a MAN.  Far from being a distasteful process, a boy CRAVES this opportunity.  He BEGS to be given a chance to show what he is made of.  His ego is starved and demanding to be given the opportunity to lead.  From the time he is born, a male drives himself to learn leadership.

A woman, on the other hand, is not driven by her ego.  From the time a woman is born, she knows she is a woman.  She is comfortable in her identity as a woman.  Her ego does not demand she prove that identity to anyone.  She knows from an early age that she has an important societal role in giving birth and raising the next generation.  This is part of her comfort in her gender identity.

Instead of ego, a woman is driven by her vanity.  Her vanity craves human relationships.  This is contrary to a man, who measures his growth by his leadership credentials.  When asked to describe his worth to the culture, a man will list his functions, accomplishments, job title, promotions, awards, and so forth.  A man identifies himself by his ROLE or FUNCTION.  A man wants to be RESPECTED for these roles and functions.  A woman, on the other hand, will describe her worth by the HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS she has cultivated.  For example, notice on this board how the career women describe their worth in the corporate world.  It’s not by what job title or salary they command, it’s by how they are treated in the workplace.  Many have pointed to being treated just as a man would be treated in the same position.  Others have pointed to the corporate teams they work with or have established.  Still others talk about their managerial responsibilities in terms of how many professionals report to them or that they direct.  All of these examples emphasize human relationships.  These relationships feed a woman’s vanity.  They make her the center of attention.  From the time a woman is a young girl, she learns to become a nurturer and a conciliator, in order to develop more and stronger relationships.  A woman wants to be ADMIRED for her relationships.

And this is exactly why women attack men in this specific area when they do feel worthless. They lash out at men, calling them “losers”, telling them that “no one will love them.” What they are really speaking about ironically are their own insecurities about not being loved enough, needed enough or wanted enough. This is why women seek validation by consensus. This is why women judge their worth based upon how many friends they have (refer to myspace for a ridiculously comical view of “friendship” collecting activities by women) and how well they are received by others. This touches on their self-esteem directly and this is why it’s always so vigorously defended no matter how ridiculous the defense.

Women remain in denial as a coping mechanism to alleviate the stress of being unsuccessful in maintaining a relationship, basically being unsuccessful in receiving the necessary social validation they need and crave.

By now the natural roles of husband and wife in a marriage relationship should be clear.  The husband’s inclination and skill is directed toward leadership, and that role is one he will want to assume in the marriage.  In so doing, he is putting to work a skill that has been growing in him all of his life.  The wife’s natural inclination is directed toward nurturing and relationship-building.  She will gravitate toward raising the children, and just as importantly, seeing to the emotional health and happiness of the marriage – a man will not do this, or at least, will not do it well.  The wife is not really inclined to take on the husband’s leadership role, but the nurturing role she is inclined to take on is VITAL to the success of the marriage, and cannot be assumed by her husband with the same level of success or competence.

Nothing in this delineation prevents a wife from taking on a career, or a husband from being a house husband.  In fact a good husband will do his share of the work around the house (though some have argued otherwise), and a father’s role in raising the children is ESSENTIAL; he must contribute to their upbringing his character strengths of helpfulness, trustworthiness, perseverance, discipline, integrity, courage, steadfastness, and loving compassion and kindness.

If a husband is earning the bread, the wife should be taking care of the house or performing those duties which suit her nurturing function. Society has been twisted to empower women to upset this healthy distinction. Females were never meant to take on the role of males. This has warped society into an unnatural and unhealthy economic climate where women are put in positions of authority over men. We should be careful when we define ‘career’ because most women would make great “career” bakers. They do not make great career CEO’s, lawyers, positions involving complex reasoning, etc.

And neither should husbands be put in a housewife position. This is shameful to a man’s authority. Men initiate, women respond. Men give, women receive. Even sex tells us this much. The men penetrates. He is the giver of pleasure. The woman receives the pleasure given to her. But there is MUTUAL satisfaction in this necessary and natural relationship.

There can be troubles with any arrangement, of course, for example if the husband feels threatened by his wife’s successful career, or if the wife feels compelled to second-guess her house husband’s capabilities.  But if the two of them operate with the husband as ultimate authority, the wife as nurturer and relationship-builder, all within the context of a mutual loving dependence, coupled with a shared vision for future success and happiness, they will have gone a long way toward assuring their marriage will be a happy one.

Anyway, that’s what my wife and I have done for 25 years and counting.

KUDOS! May the state grow blue balls looking at your happy union with envy and disgust.

10-05-2006 05:51 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
The short answer:

No. Men and women have equal worth before God.

However! Men are appointed to lead, women are destined to submit.

I have a nice six part series explaining why on my blog, as well as posts here that back up my point of view.

Peace.

http://www.mamonaku187.blogspot.com

10-05-2006 06:01 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

“Women remain in denial as a coping mechanism to alleviate the stress of being unsuccessful in maintaining a relationship, basically being unsuccessful in receiving the necessary social validation they need and crave.”

Well said again my friend! All women need to do is do the things men need them to do, and in return they will get the Attention, cuddling, love, praise, self assurance, confidence that they crave!

Nowadays they become Contentious bitches, nagging, complaining, angry, hurtful, backbiting, gossiping, frustarated and demand that a man treats them as if they were all of what was said in the above paragraph.

Message to you ladies, if you want a man that is as perfect as we can be, knock off you’re **bleep**tey attitudes, get a reality check, and start being loved the way you want to be loved!!! Us men are not changing, you women need to, and you can forget all of which you learned in you’re feminagging classes, those works of immorality will only lessen the success of  marriages.

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

10-05-2006 06:12 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

phatkat811 wrote:
Are men not responsible for their actions then? MEN were ultimately responsible for prohibition and women’s suffrage, since women could not put the laws into effect. If men can’t help but listen to what is essentially (in your eyes anyway) stupid women bitching and moaning, and do what they say, what does that make those men??

If you’re off by claiming that once women got the right to vote, they made sure prohibition was put into effect (that’s a bold claim, more than being off by a few months), what other parts of history are you getting twisted around?

It makes those men who passed the 18th and 19th amendments stupid. This isn’t rocket science cupcake.

You’re sidestepping the real issue because you inherently know that the real issue makes women’s suffrage 100% assinine. The real issue is that women’s suffrage and the temperance movement were inextricably linked. Both amendments were crafted by pressure from biitchy women, both were passed under pressure from biitchy women, both amendments were assinine ideas that originated from the minds of stupid biitchy women. Thus, when the 18th amendment was repealed because of its’ assininity, so should have been the 19th amendment. If you can’t understand that logic, you can’t understand anything. Until then, keep sidestepping the real issue just like an illogical woman. Heck, the Klu Klux Klan even supported women’s suffrage movement and the temperance movement. When the KKK is on your side, that should tell you something? Yes, that should tell you that your ideas are assinine if the KKK agrees with them. This isn’t rocket science cupcake.

I’m not asking you to deal with the real issues, because as a woman you are biologically incapable of dealing with real issues, so I understand why as a woman you are led by nature to sidestep the real issues. Which is why it would be a great comfort to men, and a betterment for society if women would simply STFU and let men get on with the business of leading society. If you still feel compelled to interject your sidestepping comments, then take a stab at the $117 trillion current debt problem and $65 trillion future debt problem, we could all use a good laugh.

10-05-2006 06:13 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union

The purpose of the WCTU is to combat the influence of alcohol on families and society. Frances Willard, a noted feminist, was its second president.

The WCTU perceived alcoholism as a consequence of larger social problems rather than as a personal weakness or failing. Thus the WCTU was very interested in a number of social reform issues including: labor, prostitution, public health, sanitation and international peace. As the movement grew in numbers and strength, members of the WCTU also focused on suffrage. The WCTU was very instrumental in organizing women’s suffrage leaders and in helping more women become involved in American politics.

In addition to campaigning against alcohol, the WCTU addressed social ills stemming from drunkenness such as domestic violence. It also campaigned for reforms that would improve the status of women in society, such as the right to vote.

Anyway, I see that now we’ve established that it was a mistake to give women the right to vote we’ve moved (naturally) on to the argument that “men are just as bad because we GAVE women the right to vote”.

Basically, it looks like we’re all in agreement. Women’s suffrage and the resultant social decays are a result of weak, blinded by LOVE (tip of the hat to idiot dumbbroad) men not PUTTING THEIR FOOT DOWN and:

Taking seriously the whining of inferior women.

Lesson learned I say. Seeing as due to the above basically meaning it makes little difference whether women vote or not because we’re f*cked anyway, we may as well see if the lesson of not taking women seriously has taken and repeal women’s suffrage.

I’m vindicated in being an anti-feminist. I used to believe in women’s suffrage (before this board).

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 10-06-200602:42 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-06-2006 02:36 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Halladay wrote:
Tellafriend wrote..

“Yeah I’m not sure if you realize this but most guys don’t get married to reproduce. Neither do most women for that matter.”

That’s a pretty bold statement for there to be 6.5 Billion people on earth and the vast majority either married or having been married.  Plus all the biological clocks out there on alarm when women are in their 30’s.

It’s not really a bold statement, really just a reasonable one. What’s bold is to assume that the point of two people getting together is to reproduce. Like I said before, if you can’t comprehend the common sense reasoning behind it, at least you get points for trying to keep up

If I run a race and my goal is to finish first, the result may ISSUE in a trophy being won, but the goal is not to get the trophy. The goal is to win the race. Runners are happy to receive a trophy which acknowledges and memorializes their accomplishment, but the ULTIMATE goal is not to win the trophy. That issues from accomplishing the ultimate goal.
Thanks for trying to keep up though.

Well don’t strain yourself too hard there bro LOL

Don’t worry, bro. It’s not really a strain to debate nonsense

10-06-2006 03:14 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Tellafriend wrote..

“It’s not really a bold statement, really just a reasonable one. What’s bold is to assume that the point of two people getting together is to reproduce. Like I said before, if you can’t comprehend the common sense reasoning behind it, at least you get points for trying to keep up ”

Well you are assuming that people marry and have no intention to reproduce.  I offered 6.5 billion reasons.. namely people.. to bring to light that they do.  Which is 6.5 billion reasons better than your point.

“Don’t worry, bro. It’s not really a strain to debate nonsense ”

oh well don’t flatter yourself there bro.. no need for you to worry at all

10-06-2006 07:28 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Saloon_League

The Anti-Saloon League was the leading organization lobbying for Prohibition in the United States in the early 20th century.

Founded as a state society in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, its influence spread rapidly. In 1895 it became a national organization and quickly rose to become the most powerful prohibition lobby in America. It drew most of its support from pietistic Protestants and their ministers, especially Methodists, Congregational, Disciples, and Baptists.

The League lobbied at all levels of government for legislation to prohibit the manufacture of alcohol. Its most prominent leader was Wayne Wheeler. It fought wet candidates such as Al Smith in 1928, but Smith led the opposition to prohibition, which was repealed in 1932.

You could also argue that things started going downhill once blacks got the right to vote. Wanna hit that too? *yawns*

10-06-2006 10:48 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
I believe I told phatkat to STFU, the only thing we need to see come out of phatkat is how she is going to repeal the assinine 19th amendment, so her and her sisters can stop plunging the anti-male, fascist nanny-welfare state America into a debt hole from which it will take 100 generations of slavery to recover from.

As usualy, phatkat can’t stop herself from sidestepping real issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement

“The Civil War (1861-1865) had interrupted the temperance movement while Americans were preoccupied with that struggle. Then, after the war, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was founded. The organization did not promote moderation or temperance but rather prohibition. One of its methods to achieve that goal was education. It was believed that if it could “get to the children” it could create a “dry” sentiment leading to prohibition.

In 1880 the Women’s Christian Temperance Union established a Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction in Schools and Colleges, with Mary Hunt as National Superintendent. She believed that voters “must first be convinced that alcohol and kindred narcotics are by nature outlaws, before they will outlaw them.” She decided to use legislation to coerce the moral suasion of students, who would be the next generation of voters. This gave birth to the idea of the compulsory Scientific Temperance Instruction Movement.

By the turn of the century, Mary Hunt’s efforts proved to be highly successful. Virtually every state, the District of Columbia, and all United States possessions had strong legislation mandating that all students receive anti-alcohol education. Furthermore, the implementation of this legislation was closely monitored down to the classroom level by legions of determined and vigilant WCTU members throughout the nation.

Temperance writers viewed the WCTU’s program of compulsory temperance education as a major factor leading to the establishment of National Prohibition with passage of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Other knowledgeable observers, including the U.S. Commissioner of Education, agreed.

Because of the correlation between drinking and what we now recognize as domestic violence — many of the women who were beaten by their husbands observed that their husbands were likely to do so when drunk — the temperance movement existed alongside various women’s rights and other movements, including the Progressive movement, and often the same activists were involved in all of the above. Many notable voices of the time, ranging from Lucy Webb Hayes to Susan B. Anthony, were active in the movement. In Canada, Nellie McClung was a longstanding advocate of temperance. As with most social movements, there was a gamut of activists running from violent (Carrie Nation) to mild (Neal S. Dow).

Many former abolitionists joined the temperance movement and it was also strongly supported by the second Ku Klux Klan. Often called the KKK of the 1920s, it had been established (or revived) in Georgia in 1915 largely to defend that state’s prohibition laws. Promoting and even enforcing temperance became a cornerstone of the Klan’s agenda as it spread throughout the country.”

As anyone with half-a-brain can see, the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement led by Mary Hunt was perhaps single-handedly credited with the passing of the 18th amendment due to their “getting the children” indoctrinated with propaganda in the classrooms —

“Temperance writers viewed the WCTU’s program of compulsory temperance education as a major factor leading to the establishment of National Prohibition with passage of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Other knowledgeable observers, including the U.S. Commissioner of Education, agreed.”

The assinine women involved in the temperance movement were the same assinine women who led the women’s suffrage movement as well for the most part. The 18th amendment was assinine, and the 19th amendment is assinine. They both came from the same assinine women. We got rid of the assinine 18th amendment, the sooner the assinine 19th amendment is gone then the better.

Once again, phatkat, either give us a good laugh by solving the $182 trillion debt problem in America, or give us a good bit of encouragement by explaining how you will go about repealing your right to vote and the right to vote for your assinine sisters, so men can begin to fix the massive nanny-welfare feminazi state debt hole, elsewise just STFU with your sidestepping assinine comments.

10-06-2006 11:25 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Halladay wrote:
Tellafriend wrote..

“It’s not really a bold statement, really just a reasonable one. What’s bold is to assume that the point of two people getting together is to reproduce. Like I said before, if you can’t comprehend the common sense reasoning behind it, at least you get points for trying to keep up ”

Well you are assuming that people marry and have no intention to reproduce.  I offered 6.5 billion reasons.. namely people.. to bring to light that they do.  Which is 6.5 billion reasons better than your point.

“Don’t worry, bro. It’s not really a strain to debate nonsense ”

oh well don’t flatter yourself there bro.. no need for you to worry at all

Hey bro, you’re assuming that people start off the discussion of marriage with “so how many kids do you want?” So you didn’t really give 6.5 billion reasons. You presented 6.5 billion apples and oranges.

And If I needed to flatter myself, I’d stop including you in the lecture. Bro.

10-06-2006 12:02 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

phatkat811 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Saloon_League

The Anti-Saloon League was the leading organization lobbying for Prohibition in the United States in the early 20th century.

Founded as a state society in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, its influence spread rapidly. In 1895 it became a national organization and quickly rose to become the most powerful prohibition lobby in America. It drew most of its support from pietistic Protestants and their ministers, especially Methodists, Congregational, Disciples, and Baptists.

The League lobbied at all levels of government for legislation to prohibit the manufacture of alcohol. Its most prominent leader was Wayne Wheeler. It fought wet candidates such as Al Smith in 1928, but Smith led the opposition to prohibition, which was repealed in 1932.

You could also argue that things started going downhill once blacks got the right to vote. Wanna hit that too? *yawns*

You stupid biitch, are you trying to imply that black men are are as efffing stupid as idiot women like you?

Skin color is one thing. Gender is entirely another. An efffing moron like you would hardly grasp the difference.

10-06-2006 12:13 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
What I’m tired of is men blaming women for all THEIR problems. It does smack of the way racist whites blame blacks for their problems. They have statistics to back up their argument too, ya know. So if you’re a white male you might as well start blaming everyone who wasn’t born like you.

10-06-2006 12:28 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

Are men not responsible for their actions then? MEN were ultimately responsible for prohibition and women’s suffrage, since women could not put the laws into effect. If men can’t help but listen to what is essentially (in your eyes anyway) stupid women bitching and moaning, and do what they say, what does that make those men??

If you’re off by claiming that once women got the right to vote, they made sure prohibition was put into effect (that’s a bold claim, more than being off by a few months), what other parts of history are you getting twisted around?

Yes, men were indeed ultimately responsible for women’s suffrage – and it was a serious error in judgment. Despite their extraordinary intellectual and creative talents, men are not god-like. Men do make mistakes. Just because men are masters of the world you women only live in doesn’t mean they can cover every situation perfectly.

Even back in the early 20th century, there were some men who foolishly bought into the feminist notion that the deep, fundamental differences distinguishing men from women were irrelevant in determining the rights and proper roles of each sex in a modern society.

Then there was the chivalrous element, as men sought to elevate women out of an erroneous sense of what men believed to be fairness and justice.

If these men had acted out of a true sense of fairness and justice, they would have rejected suffragist demands, and continued to prohibit women from voting. Because it is only fair and just that women – being stupid, emotionally immature, and not as capable as men – NOT be granted the right to influence the government or policy.

And speaking of stupid and emotionally immature, your post above is exactly that – and a clear example of why women are not fit to vote (among other activities).

The mistake men made in granting women expanded rights and freedoms is a mistake that will be up to men – not women – to address and correct. Your job as a woman is to not interfere with men as they find ways to correct the mistake.

Your job is simply to turn off your brain (which wasn’t much use to begin with anyway); keep your mouth shut; stay out of the way; and obediently comply with whatever outcome is decided upon by men.

Message Edited by Pete on 10-07-200612:27 AM

10-06-2006 02:20 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

Tellafriend wrote

“Hey bro, you’re assuming that people start off the discussion of marriage with “so how many kids do you want?” So you didn’t really give 6.5 billion reasons. You presented 6.5 billion apples and oranges.

And If I needed to flatter myself, I’d stop including you in the lecture. Bro.”

Well human reproduction means children.. not apples and oranges.  And I never said that when two people first meet.. that the first words they ask are how many kids the other one wants.  But check out such things as personal ads… I mean many of them indicate there whether they want kids or not.   And not only that, women and men size each other up as to how advantageous they are for reproduction .   Just when they ask each other about it is up  to them.. the timing part.

Lecture ?  You don’t have the qualifications or credentials to lecture

Message Edited by Halladay on 10-07-200610:07 PM

Message Edited by Halladay on 10-08-200602:18 AM

10-06-2006 05:08 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius

phatkat811 wrote:
What I’m tired of is men blaming women for all THEIR problems. It does smack of the way racist whites blame blacks for their problems. They have statistics to back up their argument too, ya know. So if you’re a white male you might as well start blaming everyone who wasn’t born like you.

The doubel standards, the anti male divorce laws the anti male laws the debt a nanny state builts is what we complain about not ALL our problems, ok maybe for some its all the problems they have. You are right though to get angry if we blame women in general over it because they do not do anything about it. We could as well ask women to solve the nuclear stand off, or to provide alternative energy sources or to defend our borders.

10-06-2006 10:06 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Saloon_League

You could also argue that things started going downhill once blacks got the right to vote.

Not in any convincing way. What’s your point? The Anti-Saloon league had nothing to do with blacks. The Black Civil Rights Movement was in no way closely related to some such massive screw up as prohibiton. Not analogous in the slightest.

Can YOU think of something? I can’t.

What I’m tired of is men blaming women for all THEIR problems.

Yep, she’s retarded.

Okay, If “blaming other people for something that affects you” is off the board, we can strike most feminist causes. We can bring back the “rule of thumb” law legalsing domestic violence and if you whinge you can STFU, because it is YOUR problem and it’s not reasonable to blame other people for YOUR problems.

Pathetic logic as usual. I don’t know why you bother really.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-07-2006 05:00 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
I AM against most feminist causes. Tell me one that I’ve rallied for, besides a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.

10-07-2006 12:18 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

As I understand it, the “rule of thumb” as a legal prescription for how to whup yo ho has proven to be an old wives tale. Who knows – I’m not in a position to reasearch it with any expertise, but I’ve heard – over the past twenty some years – that there never was any such rule or law, and that the phrase is what we previously believed: Just an expression indicating an informal or customary guideline in any context. What really IS interesting is that the brigades of beligerent bimbos have successfully created in the popular consciousness a belief in some historical event that seems not to be real.

10-08-2006 01:53 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

I AM against most feminist causes. Tell me one that I’ve rallied for, besides a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.

A woman who is against “most” feminist causes is worthless, and unfit to be a wife.

She must oppose ALL feminist causes to have any value whatsoever in men’s eyes.

Not surprisingly, you belong in the former category. You rally for the one cause without which feminism could not exist: “a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.”

And don’t you bullsh*t me and say: “I support a woman’s right to stay home.” You may say you support that right, and you may even mean it to some extent. But it is ultimately an insincere, token gesture on your part – because you don’t place a high value on this right at all.

Your primary goal is ensuring that women be able to leave the house and have a career. You would not express support for the right of women to stay home and be housewives if it meant sacrificing this primary goal of yours.

It is THIS goal above all – women going outside the home to seek careers – that you crave for, that you value far more than domesticity, or obedience to a husband, or devotion to family.

It is THIS goal behind which lies your mindless, self-centered female nature to maximize your personal freedoms and choices – at the expense of virtually anything and anyone else.

I bet if I asked you to explain to me WHY it’s important for women to maximize their freedoms and choices, you couldn’t give me even a half-intelligent answer.

You see, this is why women are stupid, and not to be taken very seriously. They don’t know why they do what they do, what their purpose is – or what they should regard as important.

Message Edited by Pete on 10-09-200603:25 PM

10-09-2006 05:39 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
A woman who is against “most” feminist causes is worthless, and unfit to be a wife.

She must oppose ALL feminist causes to have any value whatsoever in men’s eyes.

I know plenty of men who would disagree with you, but anyway, I won’t lose sleep knowing I have no value to you. I have plenty of value to the people in my life who matter.

Not surprisingly, you belong in the former category. You rally for the one cause without which feminism could not exist: “a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.”

Fair enough, I do.

And don’t you bullsh*t me and say: “I support a woman’s right to stay home.” You may say you support that right, and you may even mean it to some extent. But it is ultimately an insincere, token gesture on your part – because you don’t place a high value on this right at all.

Your primary goal is ensuring that women be able to leave the house and have a career. You would not express support for the right of women to stay home and be housewives if it meant sacrificing this primary goal of yours.

Some of my closest friends are stay-at-home mothers, and they have my utmost respect. One of my closest friends is a working mother whom I have advised to stay home for a while. But since you already have decided what I think and value, I guess that is a moot point.

Your phrasing is interesting here. You call it a RIGHT to stay home, but you don’t want women to have a right to do anything else. You want them to stay at home whether they like it or not. If something is forced, is it really a right? Heck, I support men’s choice to stay home if it is financially possible. I believe it is healthy for anyone to have interests outside of the home, but it doesn’t have to be a full-time job if the money is not needed.

I do not see why a woman’s choice to stay home should affect my choice to do what I do. I do value taking care of children when they are small, and I will do my utmost to ensure that my children are taken care of by myself and others in my family. However, I do not see why a woman who has no children, or who has children that are in school during the day, needs eight extra hours a day to clean the house.

It is THIS goal above all – women going outside the home to seek careers – that you crave for, that you value far more than domesticity, or obedience to a husband, or devotion to family.

It is THIS goal behind which lies your mindless, self-centered female nature to maximize your personal freedoms and choices – at the expense of virtually anything and anyone else.

Well, I don’t salivate when I see a woman in a business suit or anything. I haven’t done a thing to ensure that other women can have careers, so if that is my A-number-one goal in life, I’ve done a pretty crappy job of pursuing it. I do value my own career, but I also value domesticity and devotion to family, and those values do not have to contradict. If it came down to career vs. family, I would choose family in a heartbeat. For me and many other women, it does not come down to that choice. I do respect my significant other and I believe in the marriage concept of obedience; however, that is much different from the way that a dog obeys a human or a child obeys a parent. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen evidence that a man of your thinking can distinguish between those concepts, so I will leave obedience out of this for now. I certainly don’t approve of anyone doing anything at another’s expense.

I bet if I asked you to explain to me WHY it’s important for women to maximize their freedoms and choices, you couldn’t give me even a half-intelligent answer.

Simple. Because it’s important, and natural, for all human beings to want to maximize their freedoms and choices, so long as they do not hurt others.

You see, this is why women are stupid, and not to be taken very seriously. They don’t know why they do what they do, what their purpose is – or what they should regard as important.

You never asked why I do what I do, you just assume I don’t know. That approach isn’t something I would call stupid, but it is ignorant.

10-09-2006 04:55 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

phatkat811 wrote:
I AM against most feminist causes. Tell me one that I’ve rallied for, besides a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.

A woman just died in my city, she was 92 years old, born in 1914. She was never married and never had any kids. She left her entire $2.5 million estate to the Salvation Army. She worked most of her adult life as a secretary at a factory in my city, she retired from her job in 1976. Her obituary doesn’t mention the disposition of her 37 cats.

If you are rallying for a “woman’s right to work outside the house”, you’re a dumbazz rallying for problems that don’t exist, because this woman born in 1914 had no problems finding lifetime employment, she even amassed a $2.5 million fortune in so doing. Those women born in 1914 were so oppressed.

10-10-2006 11:54 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

A woman who is against “most” feminist causes is worthless, and unfit to be a wife.

She must oppose ALL feminist causes to have any value whatsoever in men’s eyes.

I know plenty of men who would disagree with you, but anyway, I won’t lose sleep knowing I have no value to you. I have plenty of value to the people in my life who matter.

You SHOULD lose sleep. Because that would show you cared and respected what men think about you, which is what EVERY woman with ANY self-respect or dignity should be mindful of. All you’ve revealed here is just how debased you are as a person; a low, piece of feminist garbage who feels no shame in revealing how little she cares about what others (particularly men) think about her.

One more thing: you seem to be deluding yourself in believing that my remarks are aimed solely at you. Actually, my remarks are aimed at:

1) women as a WHOLE who think like you, and have the same poor, contemptible attitude as you have. They collectively – not just you – are worthless and of no value to men, and

2) the men out there who are reading, and who should know that these western women are simply worthless and damaged beyond repair. They are poor marriage prospects who are best shunned and rejected. They will not provide men with happiness. There are far better alternatives than these ruined female creatures.

Not surprisingly, you belong in the former category. You rally for the one cause without which feminism could not exist: “a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.”

Fair enough, I do.

And that – coupled with your defiant (and un-feminine) attitude here – is precisely why you are placed in that category of worthless women.

And don’t you bullsh*t me and say: “I support a woman’s right to stay home.” You may say you support that right, and you may even mean it to some extent. But it is ultimately an insincere, token gesture on your part – because you don’t place a high value on this right at all.

Your primary goal is ensuring that women be able to leave the house and have a career. You would not express support for the right of women to stay home and be housewives if it meant sacrificing this primary goal of yours.

Some of my closest friends are stay-at-home mothers, and they have my utmost respect. One of my closest friends is a working mother whom I have advised to stay home for a while. But since you already have decided what I think and value, I guess that is a moot point.

You did exactly what I told you not to do: you bullsh*tted me.

“Some of [your] closest friends are stay-at-home mothers”? Simply replace that with, “I support a woman’s right to stay home.”

Your support for a woman’s right to go outside the home and seek a career reflects a fundamentally feminist view that spites nature, man, and reality. Having such friends as you described above is merely an insincere, token gesture on your part.

And no, I did not decide what you think and value. You already stated clearly what you think and value when you defiantly affirmed that you support “a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can.”

And by supporting this very right, your primary goal is indeed to ensure that women be able to leave the house and have a career – a goal that UNDERMINES the traditional, natural female roles of wife and mother.

So despite your expression of “utmost respect” for these friends of yours, ultimately you don’t place a high value on this right to stay home at all. Actually, I should say that you don’t place a high value on the DUTY of a woman to stay home and be a wife and mother, and on the values on which this duty is based.

Your phrasing is interesting here. You call it a RIGHT to stay home, but you don’t want women to have a right to do anything else. You want them to stay at home whether they like it or not. If something is forced, is it really a right? Heck, I support men’s choice to stay home if it is financially possible. I believe it is healthy for anyone to have interests outside of the home, but it doesn’t have to be a full-time job if the money is not needed.

As a matter of fact, the whole concept of “women’s rights” is feminist in nature, and I am opposed to it in principle.

Women do not understand what “rights” are or why they are important. And neither do women really deserve rights. “Women’s rights” defy a man’s natural duty to place women under their supervision, and to provide women with firm guidance and discipline.

That is why I corrected myself in the previous response just above. Any b*tch can easily express support for the “right” of a woman to stay home and be a housewife.

But that only begs the REAL issue of whether that same b*tch supports the DUTY of being a housewife, and the VALUES on which this duty is based – values that are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the feminist goal of undermining traditional female roles. That is an entirely different question that has NOTHING to do with “rights.”

In reality, “women’s rights” serve only to empower women, which is an abomination; a defiant act of disrespect and rebellion against men and society. The widespread acceptance of “women’s rights” – like homosexuality – is indicative of a deep abnormality and disorder in society.

I do not see why a woman’s choice to stay home should affect my choice to do what I do. I do value taking care of children when they are small, and I will do my utmost to ensure that my children are taken care of by myself and others in my family. However, I do not see why a woman who has no children, or who has children that are in school during the day, needs eight extra hours a day to clean the house.

You STUPID, selfish, feminist b*tch. All one sees here is narcissistic, self-centered childishness; “choice” merely for choice’s sake. You have NO idea why a family is important, or what its purpose is; hell, you don’t even understand the CONCEPT of purpose.

In your childish selfishness, you left out the one person who probably matters the most; who is responsible for your well-being and survival; without whom your life would have no meaning or purpose; without whom you or any other woman could not have children, or families – or even a functioning, modern society to live in: the MAN. Typical worthless, piece-of-trash American woman.

Get this through your inferior female brain: women are NOT thinkers. It is not your job to think; it is a MAN’S job. HE has to decide what is important, NOT YOU. Because as a woman, you are too stupid and self-centered by nature to know what’s important. Your job is merely to FOLLOW him and serve as his devoted subordinate as he takes care of you and the offspring that you provide for him.

It is THIS goal above all – women going outside the home to seek careers – that you crave for, that you value far more than domesticity, or obedience to a husband, or devotion to family.

It is THIS goal behind which lies your mindless, self-centered female nature to maximize your personal freedoms and choices – at the expense of virtually anything and anyone else.

Well, I don’t salivate when I see a woman in a business suit or anything. I haven’t done a thing to ensure that other women can have careers, so if that is my A-number-one goal in life, I’ve done a pretty crappy job of pursuing it. I do value my own career, but I also value domesticity and devotion to family, and those values do not have to contradict. If it came down to career vs. family, I would choose family in a heartbeat. For me and many other women, it does not come down to that choice. I do respect my significant other and I believe in the marriage concept of obedience; however, that is much different from the way that a dog obeys a human or a child obeys a parent. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen evidence that a man of your thinking can distinguish between those concepts, so I will leave obedience out of this for now. I certainly don’t approve of anyone doing anything at another’s expense.

You IDIOT female moron – rallying for the cause of women seeking careers doesn’t mean you envy a woman in a business suit everytime you see one. The important point is that YOU DESIRE and ADVOCATE this particular feminist goal of yours – a goal that boils down to a senseless female craving for more freedoms and choices at the expense of reason, and long term stability of the family and society.

And furthermore, choosing family over career DOES contradict supporting “a woman’s right to work outside the house and to choose that work the same way men can” – for reasons I have already explained above. As long as you support this basic feminist goal of undermining traditional female roles, your stated choice of “family in a heartbeat” is meaningless.

The main rule for men is that women are too stupid to take what they say seriously – and your case here is no exception. You take contradictory positions which indicate a shallow, poor understanding of the issues, and you spout words like “obedience” that you don’t even mean or probably even understand.

Do you even know what “obedience” means? I’ll tell you: it’s following your husband, and deferring to his judgment and decisions, because he is looking out for his family. You stupid, dishonest b*tch. If you’re too much of a feminist b*tch to do what is naturally expected of you, then don’t make false claims like you “believe in the marriage concept of obedience.” That way, you at least won’t sound like a f*cking idiot.

I bet if I asked you to explain to me WHY it’s important for women to maximize their freedoms and choices, you couldn’t give me even a half-intelligent answer.

Simple. Because it’s important, and natural, for all human beings to want to maximize their freedoms and choices, so long as they do not hurt others.

You STUPID b*tch. EVERY response coming out of your mouth only reveals your CHILDISH IDIOCY, selfishness, and incompetence as a thinker. You’re too stupid to even see what a tremendous EMBARRASSMENT you are to yourself. What did I say already about women not being able to think?

You female dipsh*t moron, society operates on VALUE-BASED RULES. There are LIMITS that must be OBSERVED, you stupid b*tch – even when no one around is immediately hurt. It’s NOT ENOUGH just to “not hurt others” – because then society falls apart.

Get this through your thick female head: your capabilities as a woman are INFERIOR to man’s, both in thought and action. Your job is not to think – that is a MAN’S job. Your job is to comply, and follow him. You don’t have to understand what he’s saying, just shut up, nod your head, and do what he says.

It is because of gross female stupidity such as what you’ve written that women cannot be allowed to be free with numerous choices. Ultimately, men must restrain and control women’s behaviors.

You see, this is why women are stupid, and not to be taken very seriously. They don’t know why they do what they do, what their purpose is – or what they should regard as important.

You never asked why I do what I do, you just assume I don’t know. That approach isn’t something I would call stupid, but it is ignorant.

You have revealed plenty – the information you provided on this thread and elsewhere is enough and then some. And your subsequent responses – loaded with typically feminist childishness and foolishness – has only confirmed and reinforced my initial remarks.

Message Edited by Pete on 10-11-200603:08 AM

10-11-2006 12:43 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
You SHOULD lose sleep. Because that would show you cared and respected what men think about you, which is what EVERY woman with ANY self-respect or dignity should be mindful of. All you’ve revealed here is just how debased you are as a person; a low, piece of feminist garbage who feels no shame in revealing how little she cares about what others (particularly men) think about her.

Oh, I do care what people think about me. Just not a man who doesn’t even know me and hides behind a computer screen to hurl insults at me. The likes of you I really couldn’t care less about.

One more thing: you seem to be deluding yourself in believing that my remarks are aimed solely at you. Actually, my remarks are aimed at:

1) women as a WHOLE who think like you, and have the same poor, contemptible attitude as you have. They collectively – not just you – are worthless and of no value to men, and

2) the men out there who are reading, and who should know that these western women are simply worthless and damaged beyond repair. They are poor marriage prospects who are best shunned and rejected. They will not provide men with happiness. There are far better alternatives than these ruined female creatures.

You did point me out specifically, saying YOU fall into this category, don’t YOU bullsh*t me, etc. But whatever. You can tell a good man how worthless I am and he’d just laugh at you, so I’m not too worried about you starting a revolution here.

And that – coupled with your defiant (and un-feminine) attitude here – is precisely why you are placed in that category of worthless women.

…..

You did exactly what I told you not to do: you bullsh*tted me.

Ooooh no. I disobeyed the mighty man on the internet. What a bad bad unfeminine bitch I am. I’m gonna go cry now.

Wait a tic, don’t have time to cry. Gotta run to my masters class, in the program in which I’m getting an 4.0, which I got into without taking the GRE because my undergrad GPA was high, in the college that I got to attend at half price because I was a national merit scholar because my ACT score was 32. But wait. I’m a dumb woman who can’t think straight and I’m inferior to every man who has ever walked the earth. Boo hooo hooo.

The rest of Pete’s post: more insults, broken record hate-spewing, lame attempts to bring homosexuality into the debate, saying I don’t know how to value family even though he knows nothing about my family, yawn. Trying to make me feel bad about myself because he assumes I give a sh*t what he has to say. Didn’t really work. I’ll never get those 10 minutes of my life back.

10-11-2006 03:37 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

You SHOULD lose sleep. Because that would show you cared and respected what men think about you, which is what EVERY woman with ANY self-respect or dignity should be mindful of. All you’ve revealed here is just how debased you are as a person; a low, piece of feminist garbage who feels no shame in revealing how little she cares about what others (particularly men) think about her.

Oh, I do care what people think about me. Just not a man who doesn’t even know me and hides behind a computer screen to hurl insults at me. The likes of you I really couldn’t care less about.

No, you don’t care – not when you hold feminist positions that are inherently destructive to men and women, and disruptive to society as a whole.

And those positions (such as “gender equality” ) not only fly in the face of reality, but form the basis of behavior that is NECESSARILY hostile and offensive to men.

Ultimately, feminism and feminist-inspired behavior requires female indifference to what men think about you, or to what is good for society.

And that is why American women like you are worthless garbage.

One more thing: you seem to be deluding yourself in believing that my remarks are aimed solely at you. Actually, my remarks are aimed at:

1) women as a WHOLE who think like you, and have the same poor, contemptible attitude as you have. They collectively – not just you – are worthless and of no value to men, and

2) the men out there who are reading, and who should know that these western women are simply worthless and damaged beyond repair. They are poor marriage prospects who are best shunned and rejected. They will not provide men with happiness. There are far better alternatives than these ruined female creatures.

You did point me out specifically, saying YOU fall into this category, don’t YOU bullsh*t me, etc.

There’s a word to describe what you just wrote above: psychosis.

Quite simply, you are mentally unstable. And your feminist attitudes fuel that instability and weakened grip on reality.

But whatever. You can tell a good man how worthless I am and he’d just laugh at you, so I’m not too worried about you starting a revolution here.

Your personality is so foul and warped, you don’t even know what a good man is, you stupid b*tch. If a man were good he could only be filled with revulsion and contempt at what a foul, disgusting woman you are.

Your empty arrogance is actually a hallmark quality of American women, and consistent with female self-centeredness. The fact is, you have nothing to offer men. Good men will size you up, and they’re going to look for more than just your snatch. And quite frankly, that’s the only thing right now you have to attract men.

And I don’t know about “revolution,” but we are inevitably approaching that time when attitudes and behavior of women like you will come to an end – an end that will very likely come dramatically, and in ways you probably will not like. You women of modern western societies leave a permanent legacy of deep shame, ruin, and disgrace that future women will spend lifetimes cursing and vowing never to repeat.

And that – coupled with your defiant (and un-feminine) attitude here – is precisely why you are placed in that category of worthless women.

…..

You did exactly what I told you not to do: you bullsh*tted me.

Ooooh no. I disobeyed the mighty man on the internet. What a bad bad unfeminine bitch I am. I’m gonna go cry now.

It seems you didn’t get enough fatherly discipline (if any) when you were being brought up. That’s why you are American female trash, talking this reckless sh*t. At another time, you would have been slapped for talking like that. And it would have been not only legal, but more important, correct and appropriate. A normal, well-behaved woman who knows her place never talks like that to a man who’s teaching her a lesson. Just one more example from a worthless trash American woman to remind us why women need to be supervised by men to make sure they behave properly.

Wait a tic, don’t have time to cry. Gotta run to my masters class, in the program in which I’m getting an 4.0, which I got into without taking the GRE because my undergrad GPA was high, in the college that I got to attend at half price because I was a national merit scholar because my ACT score was 32. But wait. I’m a dumb woman who can’t think straight and I’m inferior to every man who has ever walked the earth. Boo hooo hooo.

The rest of Pete’s post: more insults, broken record hate-spewing, lame attempts to bring homosexuality into the debate, saying I don’t know how to value family even though he knows nothing about my family, yawn. Trying to make me feel bad about myself because he assumes I give a sh*t what he has to say. Didn’t really work. I’ll never get those 10 minutes of my life back.

Women at the core are fundamentally stupid, and will always need men to guide her along – not the other way around.

It doesn’t matter really what your educational achievements are when you show NO admirable, pleasing qualities, except selfishness, childishness, vindictive hatred, and narcissism. I have news for you: selling men on what you did in school will not make you a better person in men’s eyes. You are damaged goods, rotted by the evils promoted by the women’s movement. And men will reject you, and rightly so, as they look for better women out there in the world.

And for the record: I did not “bring homosexuality into the debate.” I brought women’s rights into the debate. The point was to emphasize that the concept of women’s rights is LIKE homosexuality in that both are insidious abnormalities, acting as both symptoms and causes of society’s destruction.

Again, you offer nothing of value to men. None. Your behavior here is poor, and so is your personality. Seriously, who would value such a low piece-of-garbage American woman like you? You can easily be discarded by the wayside while men look for something better. That is what deeply worries you, and that is why you continue to post here.

Message Edited by Pete on 10-11-200610:18 PM

10-11-2006 07:49 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
YAWN.

10-11-2006 10:05 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:
YAWN.

In other words, you have effectively conceded that your position is indefensible.

Do not lie anymore, and say you care about what men think of you. Do not run down the list of your hollow and meaningless educational achievements in order to validate yourself.

Do not waste time with men who regard you American women as trash, and point out your poor character and behavior.

As long as you choose to childishly display your disgusting behavior here, men will call on it – and remind you why you are inferior to men, and must be trained like dogs to behave properly.

10-11-2006 10:26 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
I just mean I’m done wasting my time with you. Sweetie, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you KNOW you don’t know what you’re talking about. You know that in 100+ posts I have never shown vindicitive hatred. You know that you don’t know me from anyone you have run into on the street. You know that my achievements actually are impressive as far as 95% of the world is concerned. You know that I do have a good head on my shoulders, and it interferes with your power trip. You have no respect for other people, most likely because you’ve never learned respect for yourself. Remember, in the “obedience” equation you’re so fond of, the man has a responsibility to respect and care about the woman. You’re shirking every responsibility a man should have, save for ownership of a **bleep**, which actually anyone can fulfill with enough money and surgery. What you don’t want to do is adopt any sort of masculine traits that require effort. After all, it’s so much easier to sit at your computer and TYPE really hard.

10-12-2006 10:17 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

I just mean I’m done wasting my time with you. Sweetie, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you KNOW you

{face-saving BS snipped}

That’s what I said: you have conceded that your position is indefensible.

It is ridiculously easy for a man to argue, as I have, that your type (i.e., piece-of-garbage American women) is worthless and against his interest to pursue. And he could easily explain very clearly and precisely why.

You, on the other hand, can do NO such thing to convince men that your type is worth something to him. Despite your futile attempt at saving face, you are absolutely unable to defend your position in a way that would garner sympathy from men.

You really needed fatherly discipline growing up – it’s a great pity you didn’t get any. Either that, or you came from a broken home. That’s why you turned out to be a shi*ty, good-for-nothing American woman. You are just one more example to remind us why women need to be supervised and disciplined by men, to make sure women behave properly.

Again, do not waste time with your lies anymore, or challenge men who regard you American women as worthless trash, and who point out your poor character and behavior. Because everytime you try to fool people with your glib lies, I will be right there to blow your bullsh*t out of the water, and remind you and others of the poor quality woman you are.

Remember – when a man realizes the abundance of far better women out there in the world, he begins to wonder what he ever saw in American women in the first place. You can easily be discarded by the wayside as long as there is something better out there for men. That is what deeply worries you, and that is why you continue to post here.

10-12-2006 07:21 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Of course I can’t defend myself. I have no way of proving that the things you’ve said about me are untrue, and you have no way of proving that they are. I can say I didn’t come from a broken home and that my father disciplined me plenty, and you’ll retort with a clever “No he didn’t!” and round and round we go. Just because I have no way of proving you’re wrong doesn’t make you right.

I am still here, by the way, because if women don’t say anything, all the men throw a party and go “WE WON WE WON WE WON!” So if nothing else, I’m here to keep you from winning.

You really needed someone to teach you how to respect yourself and others growing up. Pity you didn’t get that.

10-13-2006 12:04 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

Of course I can’t defend myself. I have no way of proving that the things you’ve said about me are untrue, and you have no way of proving that they are. I can say I didn’t come from a broken home and that my father disciplined me plenty, and you’ll retort with a clever “No he didn’t!”

It seems obvious enough you didn’t have a father around to spank you, or teach you how to behave properly towards men. Because you turned out just as I described: a worthless, good-for-nothing American woman with no admirable or appealing qualities whatsoever for men to love or cherish you. Destroyed by the women’s movement.

I am still here, by the way, because if women don’t say anything, all the men throw a party and go “WE WON WE WON WE WON!” So if nothing else, I’m here to keep you from winning.

And this is why you are truly a piece-of-garbage American woman, totally without honor.

With each response you post, you just sink lower and lower, revealing even further another aspect of your poor character, and feminist stupidity. Here, for all to see, is evidence of your childish vindictiveness and hatred. What an utter, appalling disgrace American women are.

10-13-2006 01:31 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
It seems obvious enough you didn’t have a father around to spank you, or teach you how to behave properly towards men. Because you turned out just as I described: a worthless, good-for-nothing American woman with no admirable or appealing qualities whatsoever for men to love or cherish you. Destroyed by the women’s movement.

You responded just as I predicted. By the way, I only need one man to love and cherish me, and I’ve got him.

And this is why you are truly a piece-of-garbage American woman, totally without honor.

With each response you post, you just sink lower and lower, revealing even further another aspect of your poor character, and feminist stupidity. Here, for all to see, is evidence of your childish vindictiveness and hatred. What an utter, appalling disgrace American women are.

Because I don’t want you guys to throw a party about how much better you are than the women, I’m without honor and vindictive and hateful? In other words…..I’m sooooo meeeeeaaan! I’d love to see what you say when someone really does treat you badly. Eh, you probably just stand there and repeat yourself over and over and over thinking that gives you some sort of credibility.

Why am I posting here now? Because this is just getting too easy. It’s fun now.

10-13-2006 06:15 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom

phatkat811 wrote:

HappyMom wrote:
Amen reclaff!

I never said otherwise. I was referring to tellafriend’s assertation that women have no reasoning skills without a man to help them. To imply that a mother has no reasoning skills when the father isn’t home is ridiculous. Agreed?

You don’t even know what reason is.

I agree with Pete. Painful truths he writes, aren’t they? Ouch! Better you hear it while there is still time for you to behave and obey.

Ultimately, feminism and feminist-inspired behavior requires female indifference to what men think about you, or to what is good for society.

This ought to be framed and hung on the wall in every campus with a woman’s studies department.

Doing the right thing is what matter, not what makes you, or any other woman, feel good. That’s what the men have doing all along and that is what has given us a nice, comfortable society in which to safely raise our families. So, you idiodically view it as oppression and try to drag down every young, impressionable woman with you into that hole.

It sickens me that you will never look in the mirror and say “look at all the pain I have caused.”

10-13-2006 09:45 AM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:19 PM

10-13-2006 02:50 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
HappyMom,

That is the problem I have with Pete. He does not post truths, he posts speculations. He questions my intelligence, upbringing, and a host of other things that he, not knowing me, knows nothing about. Also, I never said that I am indifferent to what men think of me. I said that I do not particularly care what he, one man out of many, thinks of me because he chooses to fling insults from behind a computer screen. There are plenty of men who are an active part of my life, and I do care very deeply what they think.

I do believe I am doing the right thing in my life. If I were only doing what is good for me, I would find myself a rich, older man (a la Anna Nicole Smith) so that I could quit working and live in the lap of luxury. Instead, I recognized early on that in today’s society, the probability was that I would need to work to (a) support myself while searching for a mate, (b) save some money so that I will have something set aside for my kids when I have them; also so that I can buy a safe vehicle to drive them around in, and (c) be able to support my family in the future by either working part-time around my husband’s work schedule (this is when I have kids; I see no reason to sit at home all day when I am childless, and for the record, nobody on this board has ever given me a good reason why I should), possibly working full-time and letting him stay home with the kids if that is absolutely necessary, or staying home for a while and returning to work once the kids are in school.

I am not trying to “drag” anyone into my point of view. Did you miss the part where some of my best friends are stay-at-home moms, or that I’m trying to convince another of my friends, who works and just had a baby, that it is probably best in her situation to stay home? I don’t mind other people’s choices if they are doing what’s best for them.

I think I know when I am causing pain to people, and I’m sorry, I’m just not seeing how my life right now is bothering anyone, besides perhaps a few faceless people somewhere else in the country who wandered onto an internet forum.

10-13-2006 03:51 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
phatcat,
if you can’t see the pain that feminism has brought to american society, then you have your head in the sand. Young, otherwise marriagable women are hurt most of all when they grow up without fathers or good mothers, then they are encouraged to degrade and devalue themselves sexually. Then the legal system penalizes men for being men.

reclaff,

I’m confused on your point about submit vs obey.

Of course, I make independent decisions. It would be irresponsible of me not to take care of things for my famliy.

I see the difference between how a mother ought to be verses a child but I think women still need to follow what their husband’s say. That is best for families. I see obedience as part of submission. If I go out and do something agnaist my husband’s wishes becuase I want to that would not be submissive or obediant.

By behave I was addressing feminists who base their behavior on what ever they want to do vs following the right thing to do.

Gen 3:
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

10-13-2006 04:03 PM

Here is some of the pain I am talking about phatkat
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
this is just an example of the culture feminism creates.

Lets add to that destructive domestic violence laws which cause men to have to pay huge lawyer fees or worse go to jail for behavior that isn’t truly dangerous but rather a result of mixed signals from women. And add fatherless children growing up in homes without a strong male role model. Unstable family life due to possibility of an easy divorce. Killing unwanted children before they are born because they are not conveinient….

I see a whole lot of unnecessary pain for a whole lot of people

10-13-2006 04:45 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

HappyMom wrote:
phatcat,
if you can’t see the pain that feminism has brought to american society, then you have your head in the sand. Young, otherwise marriagable women are hurt most of all when they grow up without fathers or good mothers, then they are encouraged to degrade and devalue themselves sexually. Then the legal system penalizes men for being men.

I agree that children growing up in a one-parent family, the exploitation of women, and – ack – the current state of the legal system are not healthy. However, that was all started before my time. I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but just because I can’t see a society that doesn’t have women working, does not mean that I support anything and everything done in the name of feminism – I’ve never liked that label anyway – or that I actively recruit others into feminist causes. Perhaps if I was growing up in a different time, where women in the workforce wasn’t common, my opinion would be different. Now what it comes down to is that I need my income because I like food and a roof over my head, and I have worked to get a job that I am good at and enjoy doing.

10-13-2006 05:03 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:19 PM

10-13-2006 06:04 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

phatkat811 wrote:

It seems obvious enough you didn’t have a father around to spank you, or teach you how to behave properly towards men. Because you turned out just as I described: a worthless, good-for-nothing American woman with no admirable or appealing qualities whatsoever for men to
love or cherish you. Destroyed by the women’s movement.

You responded just as I predicted. By the way, I only need one man to love and cherish me, and I’ve got him.

And you responded just as I predicted: by not disputing the way I described you.

And this is why you are truly a piece-of-garbage American woman, totally without honor.

With each response you post, you just sink lower and lower, revealing even further another aspect of your poor character, and feminist stupidity. Here, for all to see, is evidence of your childish vindictiveness and hatred. What an utter, appalling disgrace American women are.

Because I don’t want you guys to throw a party about how much better you are than the women, I’m without honor and vindictive and hateful? In other words…..I’m sooooo meeeeeaaan!

Yes, you ARE without honor and vindictive and hateful, precisely for that reason. You ascribe imaginary motives to the men who post here, which reveals a mind consumed by bitter, jealous rage, and a desire for malice.

Again, you haven’t disputed how you were described. On the contrary, you revel in it. And you will be called on that behavior over and over again to remind you of the low, miserable, wretched woman that you are.

I’d love to see what you say when someone really does treat you badly. Eh, you probably just stand there and repeat yourself over and over and over thinking that gives you some sort of credibility.

Why am I posting here now? Because this is just getting too easy. It’s fun now.

Of course it’s too easy. It’s too easy for a woman with no dignity, self-respect, modesty, or any admirable feminine qualities (such as you) to wallow down in the gutter. Wallowing in mud can be considered “fun” in a childish, infantile sort of way.

You say you only need one man to love and cherish you? What a joke.

Why would a man do that? You have NO appealing or admirable qualities. You are utterly unable to argue that women who think and behave like you are worth something to men. Only an idiot would value such a low piece-of-garbage American woman like you.

You can’t defend your type. Your position is totally indefensible.

Face it: you’re ugly, worthless trash, of no value whatsoever to men.

Message Edited by Pete on 10-14-200609:18 AM

10-13-2006 06:28 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom

reclaff wrote:

reclaff,

I’m confused on your point about submit vs obey.

Of course, I make independent decisions. It would be irresponsible of me not to take care of things for my famliy.

I see the difference between how a mother ought to be verses a child but I think women still need to follow what their husband’s say. That is best for families. I see obedience as part of submission. If I go out and do something agnaist my husband’s wishes becuase I want to that would not be submissive or obediant.

HappyMom,

You believe the best course of action for families is for wives to always “behave and obey” their husbands. To obey, as I have pointed out, is to comply with his expressed orders and to act in a manner he has prescribed. Fair enough, but does your belief stand up under the test of extremes in marital behavior?

Suppose the husband, father of a six-year-old daughter, is a pedophile and child abuser. He commands his wife to fetch the young child for the explicit purpose of abuse and sexual gratification. Is it now best for the family for the wife to obey? Is that what God is seeking in Ephesians 5:22?

If so, you and I read different Bibles.

I say again, HappyMom, to submit in a marriage, as intended in Ephesians 5:22, is to yield to the husband as the authority, or to commit to him and his decision, when there is a conflict or difference of opinion not resolvable by the partners based on the merits. But this conflict must be between REASONABLE, MATURE positions, and BOTH husband and wife must arrive at their positions with a loving servant’s heart. Ephesians 5:22 is NOT a license for a husband to impose his selfish, immoral, or sin-filled will (for ALL – husbands too – have fallen short of God’s glory) on wife and family by mandating that his wife OBEY his every command. And a wife who Biblically adheres to a mistaken view of obedience, not reasoned submission, and blindly follows whatever directive her husband puts forth, however destructive, cruel or uncompassionate, is an ENABLER of the destruction of her own marriage and is acting as much against Scripture as her husband.

And I say again, HappyMom, reason is the ability to arrive at logical conclusions based on evidence presented before one. Independent reasoning by each partner, husband AND wife, based on common principles they have maturely discussed, delineated, and agreed upon in advance, and yes with husband as the head if need be, is critical to the success and happiness of the mutual loving dependence that is their family. This is the foundation and basis of submission – NOT NECESSARILY OBEDIENCE – as delineated in Ephesians 5:22.

I say again, HappyMom, wives are NOT called upon to OBEY, blindly, as a child, but to SUBMIT, in a reasoned fashion, as an ADULT.

You told phatkat811 she doesn’t know what reason is. Ok, well now you both do.

I see your poiny. I would follow a command to do anything unscriptural. I have pointed out things tha he has said or suggested that I thought were wrong or problematic. So I do use logic in that regard but not to usurp his authority.

Message Edited by HappyMom on 10-13-200607:21 PM

10-13-2006 07:17 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Women as inferior ?

Re: Women as inferior ?
HappyMom
Regular Contributor
HappyMom
I also wanted to add I know he isn’t perfect and thatwe all fall short of the glory of God but his heart is set to follow the right way.

10-13-2006 07:28 PM

Re: Women as inferior ?
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:20 PM

10-13-2006 09:02 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: