Cultureculture

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:16 AM

 

What's wrong with patriarchy?

I see a lot of feminists complaining about it but not a lot of exposition as to why it is bad.

Any thoughts?

222 replies, 27744 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 222 replies Author Time Post
Reply What's wrong with patriarchy? (Original post)
I814U2CY Oct 2015 OP
Phlegm Monger Oct 2015 #1
UnseenGrad Oct 2015 #2
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #3
Phlegm Monger Oct 2015 #4
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #5
Phlegm Monger Oct 2015 #8
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #9
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #73
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #81
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #101
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #103
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #112
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #113
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #114
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #115
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #119
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #121
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #139
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #143
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #144
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #145
Miss Quay Oct 2015 #150
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #161
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #174
.30M1 Oct 2015 #217
shortviking Oct 2015 #27
Phlegm Monger Oct 2015 #34
ProLapse Oct 2015 #38
Phlegm Monger Oct 2015 #40
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #6
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #11
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #13
UnseenGrad Oct 2015 #15
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #49
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #51
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #56
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #58
i verglas Oct 2015 #70
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #74
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #76
i verglas Oct 2015 #82
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #84
i verglas Oct 2015 #89
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #93
i verglas Oct 2015 #98
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #102
i verglas Oct 2015 #104
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #105
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #166
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #167
762Justice Oct 2015 #148
i verglas Oct 2015 #153
762Justice Oct 2015 #156
i verglas Oct 2015 #157
762Justice Oct 2015 #159
i verglas Oct 2015 #69
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #86
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #90
i verglas Oct 2015 #91
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #94
i verglas Oct 2015 #96
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #97
i verglas Oct 2015 #99
Listener Oct 2015 #162
southernwriter Oct 2015 #117
ProLapse Oct 2015 #126
southernwriter Oct 2015 #134
ProLapse Oct 2015 #151
Gunslinger201 Oct 2015 #168
Listener Oct 2015 #164
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #187
Jenny Fromdablock Oct 2015 #7
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #10
Jenny Fromdablock Oct 2015 #12
saspamco Oct 2015 #14
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #17
nolens volens Oct 2015 #25
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #16
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #18
saspamco Oct 2015 #19
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #22
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #20
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #21
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #26
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #41
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #52
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #59
shortviking Oct 2015 #28
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #31
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #48
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #55
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #23
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #24
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #29
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #32
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #37
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #57
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #61
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #62
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #64
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #77
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #79
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #33
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #36
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #47
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #50
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #53
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #80
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #83
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #109
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #111
id-entity Oct 2015 #128
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #129
id-entity Oct 2015 #131
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #65
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #92
id-entity Oct 2015 #138
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #142
id-entity Oct 2015 #127
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #133
id-entity Oct 2015 #135
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #141
id-entity Oct 2015 #149
orson Oct 2015 #30
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #42
Argentina Oct 2015 #106
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #107
i verglas Oct 2015 #35
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #43
i verglas Oct 2015 #44
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #60
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #63
i verglas Oct 2015 #66
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #46
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #39
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #45
i verglas Oct 2015 #67
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #71
i verglas Oct 2015 #72
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #78
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #108
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #110
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #116
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #118
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #122
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #204
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #211
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #214
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #216
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #218
rahtruelies Oct 2015 #219
liberalguy Oct 2015 #54
i verglas Oct 2015 #68
liberalguy Oct 2015 #75
Ms.Eloriel Oct 2015 #85
i verglas Oct 2015 #88
liberalguy Oct 2015 #95
i verglas Oct 2015 #100
i verglas Oct 2015 #87
southernwriter Oct 2015 #120
i verglas Oct 2015 #140
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #152
i verglas Oct 2015 #154
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #155
i verglas Oct 2015 #158
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #160
i verglas Oct 2015 #169
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #171
saspamco Oct 2015 #173
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #178
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #175
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #177
southernwriter Oct 2015 #179
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #180
southernwriter Oct 2015 #182
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #181
southernwriter Oct 2015 #183
steelysunshine Oct 2015 #184
i verglas Oct 2015 #185
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #186
i verglas Oct 2015 #188
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #189
i verglas Oct 2015 #190
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #191
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #192
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #193
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #198
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #199
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #200
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #205
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #206
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #207
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #208
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #212
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #215
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #220
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply K
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #221
southernwriter Oct 2015 #194
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #195
southernwriter Oct 2015 #176
smoke check Oct 2015 #123
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #124
id-entity Oct 2015 #125
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #130
id-entity Oct 2015 #132
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #136
id-entity Oct 2015 #137
saspamco Oct 2015 #146
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #147
ProLapse Oct 2015 #209
Listener Oct 2015 #163
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #165
i verglas Oct 2015 #170
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #172
Listener Oct 2015 #196
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #197
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #201
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #202
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #203
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #210
I814U2CY Oct 2015 #213
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #222

Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:22 AM

1. What's right with patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:31 AM

2. Well...

They'd say "It got shit done" but that is up for an incredible amount of debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:31 AM

3. Every known advanced civilization.

 

If you're into that sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:37 AM

4. Because of patriarchy or despite patriarchy?

Pretty much every backward culture has been patriarchal as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:40 AM

5. Show me the advanced matriarchy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:01 AM

8. Isn't this thread about patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:06 AM

9. Yes, because there are no matriachies worth discussing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:05 PM

73. Cool. Glad to see you stand up and accept the blame.

For nuclear proliferation, famine, wars, a polluted planet and over exploited resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #73)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:17 PM

81. Patriarchy hardly invented famine and war; it merely excels at

 

prevailing under those conditions.

How do you beat a war-maker except by being an even bigger war-maker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #81)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:29 PM

101. I never said they invented it.

Only that they are responsible for all the bad as well as the good. The bad is starting to outweigh the good. Patriarchy ' s time is up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #101)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:39 PM

103. Sins of omission or commission or both?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #103)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:37 PM

112. Sins of confession.

Say three hail Mary's, read about ecofeminism and be on your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #112)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:40 PM

113. "Say three hail Mary's, read about ecofeminism and be on your way"

 

Ecofeminism makes me think maybe this isn't global warming but rather Mother Earth going menopausal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #113)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 07:48 PM

114. More like patriarchy has shot its proverbial wad.

And it's ready for its nap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #114)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:03 PM

115. I think most feminists' biggest fear is

 

Patriarchy will finish, put its clothes back on, go home and not call them in the morning.

Sure, she can throw a fit if she wants to but there's always another one twirling on the pole looking for approval and a few more dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #115)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:24 PM

119. Haw haw.

I've seen the well fed, pathetic, sex deprived losers that hang out in strip clubs.

Your metaphor is more correct than you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #119)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:03 AM

121. Yeah, they would never put a strip club somewhere the men earn a steady paycheck

 

while happening to be physically fit -- like an army post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #121)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:30 AM

139. Haw haw.

The world in not an army post.

But thanks for defending the red blooded American men who have to pay money to see some ass that doesn't belong to another dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #139)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:40 PM

143. "red blooded American men who have to pay money to see some ass"

 

News flash: Men don't pay to see ass. There's always plenty of ass willing to be displayed.

Men pay the ass to go away when they're done looking at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #143)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 01:13 PM

144. You do not now how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #144)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 01:14 PM

145. Enlighten us to your extensive experience in strip clubs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #145)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:19 PM

150. Yeah sure.

For a fiver.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #150)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:14 AM

161. Yeah...the thing about strip clubs is, I don't have to pay until after I've seen the goods.

 

That's how it works, me being the one with the money and power and whatnot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #161)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 12:38 PM

174. My husband is baffled by men who go to strip clubs.

He says it's not going to result in anything so why do it? Cruder when he says it, but that's the gist.

Actually, he would probably argue that the stripper has the power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Miss Quay (Reply #144)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 09:36 AM

217. Yeah, they are all just working their way through medical school aren't they?

Laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:13 PM

27. Answer the question

 

What's wrong with patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shortviking (Reply #27)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:34 PM

34. Last time I checked

I wasn't your dancing monkey.

Let me check again.




Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlegm Monger (Reply #34)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:10 PM

38. Dance I said!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProLapse (Reply #38)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:21 PM

40. Nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:55 AM

6. Patriarchy is the natural order

Feminism is this fake notion of equality we play along with to get the nookie we are totally capable of taking if we were less civilized

There it is. Alert away



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:12 AM

11. Hardly a revolutionary thought. In fact, it seems more...

 

evolutionary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:19 AM

13. Reality, what a concept!

I'm pretty amused watching men in dresses called women,

unskilled labor wanting more money,

Colleges offering degrees in nonsense that will guarantee you a career at Starbucks

A media that cheerleads for the Democrat party

One would expect to have to pay money for a show like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:37 AM

15. I'll have you know

That I paid good money to see that on stage in Louisville.

Of course, there they were dressed as the King and Queen of France.

(God rest your soul, Chris Farley)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:46 PM

49. How amusing when men make that sort of comment, as if y'all are barely controlling yourselves.

However, if a feminist were to make a similar comment, some of you would start crying about how we think all men are rapists. Are all men rapists somewhere deep inside of themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:50 PM

51. We are Civilized and Law Abiding

However this is the reality


Don't kid yourself. We're going along to get along

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #51)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:55 PM

56. At last -- a little honesty from the feminist detractors

Refreshing, if discouraging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #58)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:59 PM

70. an interesting variation on "might makes right"

 

Apparently, might makes violent and vicious.

I'm glad I'm not the one saying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #70)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:06 PM

74. If you were the one saying it, someone would have already alerted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #70)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:08 PM

76. I don't know about "right" -- if such a thing can be said to exist -- but might

 

most definitely decides who prevails and who does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #76)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:28 PM

82. please consider

 

reading the conversation you decide to join.

Specifically, in this case, the series of posts by the person I replied to. Starting with post #6.

And then, you could even consider responding to what the person you are replying to said.

I said nothing about "might makes right".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #82)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:32 PM

84. I never said you claimed might makes right.

 

You identified the other post as a variation of might makes right argument and that is what I responded to.

So your stuck-up pretense that I am not properly tracking the dialogue is - as usual - misplaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #84)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:40 PM

89. and so any time you have something to say about what I actually said

 

you let me know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #89)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:52 PM

93. I did but playing obtuse is how you duck out of losing fights.

 

You made a comment about physiological differences being a variation on might makes right. The tenor of your comments could hardly be said to have been approving and more in line with disapproving.

If you do approve of might makes right I will admit correction on surmising your tone.

However, I commented that might decides who prevails. Regardless of your approval or disapproval that remains a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #93)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:24 PM

98. you're the ducker here, Ducks

 

You made a comment about physiological differences being a variation on might makes right.
I did no such thing.

Try reading beyond subject lines. It will help you enormously.

Maybe if you keep trying, you will come up with an accurate statement of what I actually said. And hell, maybe you'll even reply to it.

Here it is again, if you want to give it a shot:

Apparently, might makes violent and vicious.

this being my take-away from what I replied to: a chart showing that strong men can lift heavier stuff than strong women, offered as "proof" that "reality" is men dragging women by the hair (an obvious euphemism for using violence to control women and coerce sexual relations).

The claim being made was:

Men are stronger than women
therefore men use violence against women.

However, I commented that might decides who prevails. Regardless of your approval or disapproval that remains a fact.
Does might decide that its holder will use it to harm others?

I would say that it is the holders of might who decide to use it to harm others.

In those cases where they do, that is. Not all of the mighty choose to use their might to harm others.

In fact, the cases of those who don't, and even of those who sometimes do and sometimes don't, would seem to disprove any claim that might is the determining factor in the choice to harm others, and prove that the determining factor is, rather, precisely that: choice.

So there we are.

Patriarchy stems from a collective choice by men to collectively use their might to harm women, with the tacit support of all those men who do not make that choice individually in any given situation but benefit from the collective choice and from collective and individual acts in furtherance of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #98)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:36 PM

102. "Men are stronger than women therefore men use violence against women."

 

That's pretty much how I interpreted your remarks.


In fact, the cases of those who don't, and even of those who sometimes do and sometimes don't, would seem to disprove any claim that might is the determining factor in the choice to harm others, and prove that the determining factor is, rather, precisely that: choice.

If a weak person must contend with a mighty person - regardless of who chooses to initiate the contention - who prevails?


Patriarchy stems from a collective choice by men to collectively use their might to harm women, with the tacit support of all those men who do not make that choice individually in any given situation but benefit from the collective choice and from collective and individual acts in furtherance of it.

I repeat:

If a weak person must contend with a mighty person - regardless of who chooses to initiate the contention - who prevails?

SPOILER ALERT:

Might decides who prevails.

Feminism is little more than those who cannot contend crying about those who do.

Those who have to beg to be equal aren't.

If someone wants to be equal they don't carry placards or start idiotic "studies" programs among the academic eunuchs; they just go out and live their lives without asking permission or whining about others not being fair.

God cares about fair.

But I'm not God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #102)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:58 PM

104. please, please try to focus your mind

 

If a weak person must contend with a mighty person - regardless of who chooses to initiate the contention - who prevails?
If a man chooses to use his might to harm a woman, what are your feelings about it?

If men collectively choose to use their might to harm women collectively, what are your feelings about it?

Why do men choose to use their might to "prevail" over women in ways that harm women?

When the subject of "contention" between a man and a woman is precisely whether the woman will be harmed by the man, why is who initiates the "contention" irrelevant?

Why must we assume "contention" where none exists until someone decides to harm someone else?

Why does someone who is physically stronger than someone else decide to harm the weaker person?

Do you go around the world knocking children, disabled people and senior citizens to the ground and taking their stuff because you can?

If not, why not?

Why does someone, or do some groups collectively, CHOOSE to harm other individuals, or other groups collectively?

Why are you so studiously avoiding the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #104)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:10 PM

105. I'm not avoiding anything. Behind your every question, whether you admit it or not, is the subtext

 

"Why won't they let me be equal?!?!"

For all you know you may very well be equal but you'll never know because you're too busy asking others to step aside on your behalf. That's not equal, it's contemptible.

Do you go around the world knocking children, disabled people and senior citizens to the ground and taking their stuff because you can?

No, but plenty do. And how do we stop them?

By projecting more/better might than they can.

You can't escape that fact.

If you want fair go cry to God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #76)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:15 AM

166. Darwin for sure

Survival of the fittest

Society takes the edge off

Women tame the brutes and everyone benefits

Family is important. The NUCLEAR family

I believe tampering with the traditional family structure is causing lots of problems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #166)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:17 AM

167. It'll be one more case of them squealing over getting what they cried for.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #70)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:08 PM

148. Both statements are true.

At the very end of things, nothing can be enforced without might. Guidelines can be issued, laws can be created, judgement can be passed down, but none of it matters unless you can have violators stopped. The last step of this whole chain, when all else fails, is to arrest or kill, and might will get those done, in areas where reason will not.

Might should not make right, but as mentioned, when everything else does not work, might wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 762Justice (Reply #148)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:20 PM

153. there were few words in my post

 

I'm not sure how the meaning of them can be, er, missed so easily.

If you want to try again, here you go:

Apparently, might makes violent and vicious.

noting, of course, that I was not and am not the one saying that.

What I said has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping "violators". It has to do with violating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #153)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 06:05 PM

156. Ok. I get that.

Who stops the violators?

You have described the problem, but it seems that might is required to stop the violators from continuing to violate.

Might may not be right, but it does work in these cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 762Justice (Reply #156)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:28 PM

157. try one more time

 

I DID NOT describe a problem.

I articulated a world view that IS NOT MINE.

I DO NOT BELIEVE that "might makes violent and vicious".

I believe that vicious and violent is a choice.

It may be a conditioned choice, in some cases, but it is NOT some sort of natural expression of might.

The strong DO NOT just naturally behave violently and viciously toward anyone weaker. They CHOOSE to do so.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with anything I have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #157)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:50 PM

159. Ok.

We will just have a beer instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:57 PM

69. truly a gas, ain't it?

 

And then there's the whole shtick that women oughta tote guns wherever we go, because, y'know, we just never can tell when somebody's going to rape! rape! rape! us.

And yet hardly any women ever actually get raped, have I got that right?


On a more serious note, I think we can answer the OP question in a word: rape.

There are a lot more words could be said, but that one really does suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #69)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:36 PM

86. Partially right

And yet hardly any women ever actually get raped, have I got that right?
You forgot the rest: because most of the allegations of rape are false.

Yes, "rape" is a very good response to the OP -- and I think you touched on the one i initially thought of as well: EVERYTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #69)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:45 PM

90. "And yet hardly any women ever actually get raped, have I got that right?"

 

Set aside statistics for a moment. Whether 1 in 5 women are attacked or 1 in 100 are attacked it is still not contradictory to say a woman is free to kill a would-be rapist.

In fact, if the odds were 1 in a million but the victim shot the attacker dead I would find her actions - admirable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #90)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:50 PM

91. seriously, have you ever considered

 

engaging in an actual discussion of a subject, at all?

What makes you think I am the slightest bit interested in your feelings about women who kill men who attack them?

Just so we're clear on that: I'm not.

Feel free to tell us your feelings about men who assault and kill women.

That might actually be relevant both to your initial question and to my response to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #91)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:54 PM

94. You're holding a conversation in a thread I started in a public forum

 

If my comments burden you put me on ignore or quit the forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #94)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:09 PM

96. I'm apparently not holding any conversation

 

A conversation requires at least two participants, and I appear to be the only one here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #96)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:20 PM

97. What you're doing is holding self-congratulating sidebars with those who, like you,

 

cannot refute so you retreat and complain about the mean ol' boys being mean because they're boys.

Which is why feminism is quickly being recognized as worse than useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #97)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:25 PM

99. and you're silly

 

Ta da.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #49)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:59 AM

162. Yeah that poster just admitted it

and rape is not "nookie." That poster has no idea what he's talking about, or is not capable of attracting real females.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:12 PM

117. Shut up Gunslinger, and make me a pumpkin pie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #117)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:56 AM

126. Pie is good, but only after my SAMMICH!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProLapse (Reply #126)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:50 AM

134. Subway is down the street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #134)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:30 PM

151. Well start walking!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #117)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:21 AM

168. Mmmmmm Pumpkin

But Key Lime is better



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:04 AM

164. Obviously false

Many women are smarter than many men, even stronger than individual men.

Once the restrictions were lifted, women went out and became doctors or whatever. It proved to be wrong they could not do it and reality proved they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Listener (Reply #164)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:28 AM

187. "Once the restrictions were lifted"

 

By whom? Was there some outside force?

If Group A has all the power and Group B has no power and there are no other groups then how did Group B gain any power except by allowances permitted by Group A?

How did Group A even gain its power in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:01 AM

7. Define patriarchy in the context you are talking about, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenny Fromdablock (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:10 AM

10. Per the OP, I'm looking for the definition as promulgated by feminists.

 

They have a working definition and claim it is bad bit they're a tad thin as to why it is bad. I want to work from their point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:16 AM

12. I don't know what their definition is either.

Is it one where men rule the government? Where men are the majority earners and women can be housewives? Both? Neither? More?

All I know is that the WNBA and LPGA are horrible. If that's a question this is pertaining to, then you know my answer. Forcing a corporation (like the NBA) to lose millions of dollars for the sake of some sort of faux equality, is one of the dumbest things we have going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:23 AM

14. You don't have any daughters, do you?

If you do, I feel sorry for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saspamco (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:58 AM

17. Why?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saspamco (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:04 PM

25. ALERTED!!

Close on the jury, apparently someone's tender sensibilities were ruffled and 3 of their pals were on the jury.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You don't have any daughters, do you?
http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=139404

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is uncivil, off-topic, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Pretty offensive comment saying the poster is a bad parent because he/she doesnt agree with the posters political views

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:50 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This might not be the stupidest alert yet, but it's certainly in the top three...if the alerter doesn't want to be offended I would suggest this is the wrong venue for the alerter especially when attempting to defend tripe such as this OP.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not civil.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pretty mild by most standards on here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 10:46 AM

16. Have you people ever heard of

GOOGLE?

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 11:02 AM

18. On most days it's impossible to get feminists to shut up. They'll pratt on incessantly about inane

 

tripe of no use to anyone, even themselves.

I'm curious to know if they can defend their nonsense or if they can only endure in "safe spaces" where they can censor dissent (a tremendous tell, if ever there was one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 11:17 AM

19. I'm wondering the same about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saspamco (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 12:01 PM

22. I'm willing and capable to have the contest. How about you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 11:19 AM

20. Well, why don't you do a litle RESEARCH so you can ask an intelligent question?

That would be a far more productive way to generate a DISCUSSION if that's indeed what you want. (I have a little trouble believing it is, but no matter.)

I'm just sick and tired of non-serious people (almost always men, btw), expecting to be educated (or pretending same) when they can't bother to lift a finger on their own.

What I think is that this is just a way to run feminists around in circles. I ain't payin'.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 12:00 PM

21. I.did the research. Feminist complaints about patriarchy amount to little except

 

argument by assertion. One could almond call it faith-based.

Those claiming (usually feminists, btw) that others do their own research are generally the ones living on blind faith and cannot articulate what it is they believe or why they believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:12 PM

26. I think you've just proven my point

Saved me a lot of time and trouble, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:24 PM

41. You've proven my point that feminism dismisses what it cannot refute.

 

It is little more than demands made as appeals to faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #41)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:52 PM

52. I hardly speak for all of feminism, but I won't play your stupid trolling games

You can get all huffy about it, pretend you have a case if you want. I don't give a flying fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #52)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:59 PM

59. "I don't give a flying fuck."

 

You know how much of a fuck I give?

Seventy-eight cents on the dollar (entire dollars are reserved for the garter).

You don't give a flying fuck so much you wandered into my thread to make a point of not defending against my point that feminism cannot defend itself. Well aren't you the wily one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:15 PM

28. Answer the question

 

What's wrong with patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shortviking (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:25 PM

31. I sure as shit don't take orders from you



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:45 PM

48. Don't answer the question. Make useless blustering posts, instead.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #48)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:53 PM

55. You mean don't play your trolling game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 12:38 PM

23. Well, an example of patriarchy gone bad would be the persecution of witches.

Now it's been a while since I looked at the Malleus Maleficarum but it's a misogynistic hit piece put out by the medieval patriarchal Catholic Church. Perhaps you should glance through it.

And before someone whines that men were persecuted as witches too, let's be clear that it was believed women were much more susceptible because of their natures, thus more women suffered persecution.

And before someone whines that the persecution of witches took place centuries ago, I will remind you that we have some MRA types that make comments about women's nature that, at least to the astute ear, might sound somewhat familiar. I'm talking specifically about the female's "carnal nature" or tendency to ride the "cock carousel," if you will.

It's an old, old story - men trying to define women, thinking they have that right or even that responsibility. These definitions often hurt women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:00 PM

24. I won't whine about the persecution of witches but I would ask why is that "bad?"

 

I'm sure Neanderthals would also be rather upset about being supplanted. Yet, here we are. Witches are no more than a variation on a theme that has been playing out since...ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:20 PM

29. You are asking why the persecution of witches is bad? If you have to ask . . . SMH.

Witches are no more than a variation on a theme that has been playing out since...ever.

Exactly. The persecution of witches was a variation of the "Othering" of women that has persisted through the ages. I mean, didn't you hear in Sunday School that a woman was responsible for the fall of man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:26 PM

32. Truly, he's just trolling

Have a look at the exchange with me for more details. He's not the LEAST bit interested in real information, just opportunities to troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:54 PM

37. I know. Nobody can really be that ignorant of history.

Well I guess they can on further thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #37)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:57 PM

57. Yeah, you got it on second thought

The real pity is, it's a WILFUL ignorance, the most odious kind.

But for fun, just have a look at his responses in this thread. He's purely out to troll and then bully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #57)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:06 PM

61. "He's purely out to troll and then bully."

 

bully (bull-ee) verb

The act of presenting feminists with an argument they cannot refute with facts.

Often employed in sidebars of a debate in order to shore-up flagging morale and wavering bravado.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #61)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:09 PM

62. LOL. More like "the act of presenting feminists with

such ignorance it's impossible to sort out to discuss."

Like the question to you of what supplanted witches. You were asked that because your asssertion was so flat out ignorant that I'm sure she wanted to know what you meant or perhaps wanted to try to figure out what you are smoking.

And that's my last response to you. Enjoy yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #62)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:15 PM

64. I'm more interested in existential matters. Near as I can tell Catholics and Protestants

 

persecuted the witches into virtual non-existence.

Why does that matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #64)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:09 PM

77. Do you think witches were real?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #77)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:12 PM

79. I'm sure it is not much different from what we observe today.

 

Some want to be witches. Some adhere to whatever emotionally assuages them. Some are mislabeled out of ignorance and some are branded as such out of expedience to those doing the branding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:27 PM

33. Do you know how many husks of dead societies you stand upon to complain about othering?

 

You are the product of othering.

Witches went the way of Neanderthals because they were as functionally obsolete. Why cry for either when the things that supplanted them proved more adapt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #33)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:53 PM

36. Okay, who supplanted the witches?

I know what theories exist as to why "witches" were targeted so let see what you learned in school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:44 PM

47. The more fit society supplanted them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #47)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:49 PM

50. With whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:52 PM

53. Who cares? Why does it matter? Do we waste such time navel gazing over

 

who replaced the hominids? Were there more worthy contenders? No, by virtue of the fact the more "worthy" contenders could not contend.

The fact remains every advanced, dominant civilization has arisen from patriarchal roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #53)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:16 PM

80. FFS, it matters because they were persecuted by a patriarchal institution that is still around.

and they were persecuted with the same old shitty arguments about women and their "natures" that exist to our present day. I also don't give a damn about dominant civilizations because you asked what is wrong with patriarchy and I gave you a shining historical example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #80)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:28 PM

83. I'm sure the Neanderthals felt persecuted as well.

 

History is nothing more than a catalog of one society destroying another and only those that did the destroying get to say why it happened. Romans persecuted Gauls, Visogoths persecuted Romans, blah-blah-blah.

Show me the cosmic mother/father/hermaphrodite that actually gives a rip about how many of anything have been - or will be - snuffed out.

Before anyone ever considered being a witch or an inquisitor the first and only thought in their heads were, "Must eat. Must fuck. Must not be killed."

Now all the witches are gone and the thoughts pretty much remain the same and witches failed to assuage enough of those concerns to see themselves survive. At least the inquisitor showed us witches are fairly useless when answering the "Must not be killed" concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #83)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:38 PM

109. Women were a part of the reigning society. That's what you don't get.

White European society killed women they targeted as witches. These women didn't name themselves as that, so it has nothing to do with whether "witches" did or did not assuage concerns. Besides, if you read anything about the witch trials, it was pretty damn hard to prove your "innocence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #109)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:49 PM

111. I haven't denied any of that. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

It doesn't matter what rationale the white Europeans cited at the barest essence we're talking about is nothing more than a clash of societies.

One society prevailed, the other did not. It's the same across the globe, across time and across races and cultures.

At the end of the day it distills down to: One society will project might and gather more resources in a way that allows them to dominate their rivals. The dominant society will endure, the other society will, by assimilation or extermination, cease to exist.

If your complaint is, "It is unfair" the rejoinder becomes, "Says who and to whom are you pleading?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:12 AM

128. Dominance

is the key word here. If you don't see what is wrong with dominance, you don't see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #128)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:30 AM

129. Everyone seeks to dominate. What the hell do you think an election is?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #129)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:42 AM

131. Not everyone

I don't seek to dominate. I think election is a farce, and I don't participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:18 PM

65. Addendum -- The received story is they were "persecuted"

 

into virtual non-existence by the Catholic and Protestant governments of the day.

Is there a different or broader story you would contribute? I'm actually interested to see your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #65)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:52 PM

92. Of course there is a broader story. There always is.

Two theories which intertwine:

1) Women had too much power in the medical arts (midwives, folk medicine)
2) Folk magic was in competition with the Church, women being the traditional practitioners of folk magic (healing magic).

There is vast array of reading material available on this topic and it really is fascinating. I did my graduate thesis on witchcraft and Morgan Le Fay (Arthur's bad girl sister, who really, if one studies Mallory's text, was no worse than her brother and Merlin). Morgan fought for what she wanted and she gave the order to tell Arthur she "feared him not."

Poor Morgan Le Fay. She was not Arthur's enemy in the old, old stories. But look what they did to her. Same old shit. I think I argued in my paper that her fall from grace aligned with the cultural shift of the view of witchcraft. It's been a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #92)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:47 AM

138. Ah, interesting

I was just thinking about the Sampo myth of Kalevala, and there are some parallels to your study and interpretation of Arthur and Morgan.

One interpretarion of Sampo is that it represents the power in shamanhood, and in Kalevala it's build by male smith for Louhi, female boss of North, who locks it inside a mountain, and then the men of Kalevala (lead by archetype of shamans Väinämöinen) go and steal it, Louhi goes after them, there's a battle and Sampo sinks to the bottom of Ocean.

The deepest layer of Finnish oral tradition - of which Kalevala was created - is very much a mythical map to shamanistic experience, and the theft of Sampo is also interpreted as cultural shift from matriarchal or balanced hunter gathering to patriarchal agricultural society. But there is no one correct interpretation of myths, that's the very essence of mythology. You can understand a myth only by living it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #138)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:39 PM

142. Thank you.

I know absolutely nothing about Finnish mythology and this all sounds intriguing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:05 AM

127. That's not the best example

E.g. in Finland where I live, most convicted witches were males. Witch hunt was more about collective psychosis and aggressive fear of shamanhood (which mixes genders and finds strength in union of feminine and masculine) - which paved way for the Enlightenment and Rationalism turned into psychotic technocratic materialistic religion and alienation from objectified nature than. No doubt there's a connection with patriarchy on deeper mythical level, but's that's another story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #127)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:46 AM

133. Interesting.

aggressive fear of shamanhood (which mixes genders and finds strength in union of feminine and masculine) -

I would argue that is a very real connection with patriarchy.

I haven't read about the witch hunts in Finland but I definitely will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #133)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:55 AM

135. Of course

there is a connection with patriarchy. But that don't justify the feminist narrative that witch hunt was about persecution of women, as it was about persecution of shamanhood - of which the current normative pill oriented and psychosisfobic "rational" and materialistic mental health is just continuation.

Here's a linky to witch hunts in Finland:
http://www15.uta.fi/yky/arkisto/historia/noitanetti/index.en.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #135)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:35 PM

141. But the witch hunts WERE about the persecution of women to a great extent.

Perhaps not so much in Finland, but we have textual evidence that fully backs up my claim and my claim is a great deal more than just a "feminist narrative."

There is simply no disputing the fact that women were the greater targets and historical church texts even tell us that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #141)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:13 PM

149. To great extent, sure

but the main issue was hunting witches, regardless of gender. And English word 'witch' is closest equivalent for Tungus word 'shaman', Finnish 'noita', etc. And if we follow the narrative that witch hunts were all about gender, or childishly compete on what gender was the greatest victim, we become blind to the fact that witch hunts never ended, with Age of Enlightenment they just morphed into "rational" denial of shamanhood and modern psychotherapy in Western and westernized societies.

That is, if you allow and believe that witches themselves might have some idea what the witch hunts were about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:24 PM

30. Nothing, if you're a patriarch

Handmaidens, otoh, don't fare so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:28 PM

42. Then let the handmaids make a better civilization. Oh. Wait. They can't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:17 PM

106. Because the patriarchs won't let them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #106)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:20 PM

107. Why should they?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:53 PM

35. father knows best

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/here-father-doesnt-know-best/article1338473/?page=all

Nearly 20 years ago, my colleagues at Environics in Toronto and CROP in Montreal began a study of Canadian social values. In our first survey of Canadian values in 1983, we asked Canadians if they strongly or somewhat agreed or disagreed that: "The father of the family must be the master in his own house." We posed more than 100 such questions to respondents that year. Our intention was to track these 100 items over time, dropping some, adding others; we hoped we'd measure what was important to Canadians or what was changing in our values and perspectives on life.

The "father must be master" question has become legendary at Environics. We love it because it measures a traditional, patriarchal attitude to authority in our most cherished institution: the family. ...

... Nineteen ninety-two was the first year we began conducting social-values research in the United States, the world capital of individualism and egalitarianism, of civil rights movements and affirmative action ...

... In our 2000 Canadian survey, only 5 per cent reported being strongly in support of patriarchal authority ...

... Meanwhile, we found that where 42 per cent of Americans believed the father should be master in 1992, the number increased to 44 per cent in 1996. We wondered if this was a statistical anomaly. We went back into the field in 2000 ... This time, 48 per cent of Americans said the father of the family must be master in his own home

Look around you to see what's wrong with patriarchy. It's pretty bleeding obvious.

And try not to pretend that the opposite of patriarchy is matriarchy, in future. You'll look more sincere in your discourse that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #35)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:30 PM

43. You know what's wrong with matriarchy?

 

It's unfit to supplant patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #43)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:31 PM

44. you know what's wrong with your post?

 

It has nothing to do with anything I said.

For starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #44)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:04 PM

60. Oh, look. He's learned a new term:

argument by assertion

And bless his heart, he's out to plaster it anywhere and everywhere he can, as if it is a suitable "response" to things he doesn't understand and in fact doesn't even want to understand. In his mind, that label trumps everything -- except possibly double-blind studies and/or mathematical theorems. Yeah, let's do double-blind studies on the patriarchy, shall we?

Pfffffft. Who cares? It is kinda amusing, though. I'll be interested in your continued responses if you're bored enough to engage further with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #60)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:12 PM

63. Double-blind studies? Mathematical theorems?

 

I know this much: If a theory does not coincide with observed reality it's generally reclassified as bullshit.

So, I'm nit sure what mathematical theorem would lead us to embrace feminist theory but looking around at all the feminist discontent in the world I'm going to suggest they are clinging to bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #60)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:40 PM

66. too bad he can't use it correctly in a sentence!

 

A direction to someone asking a question to look around themself for the answer is not "argument by assertion".

The question in the OP was "what's wrong with patriarchy?"

There was nothing there to argue for, against or about.

So I can't even see how one might reply to that by making an argument by assertion. I certainly didn't, in any event.

Even the reply "everything" would simply be an answer to the question, not a claim of any particular state of affairs.

But maybe he'll tell anybody answering "nothing" to stop arguing by assertion.



Sadly, I'm supposed to be getting a start on a largish job today ... At least it's tangentially about international development and not about shareholders' agreements, anyhow ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #35)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:43 PM

46. You wrote, "Look around you to see what's wrong with patriarchy. It's pretty bleeding obvious."

 

Your "it's pretty bleeding obvious" is just more argument by assertion.

What you call "wrong" I call advanced civilization. In fact, I call it the most advanced civilization possible by virtue of the fact that for all the feminist mewling they cannot supplant it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:19 PM

39. they want to be in charge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #39)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:40 PM

45. Of some things, sure. Kind of like men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:42 PM

67. yeah, like maybe

 

our own bodies ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #67)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:00 PM

71. If, as you claim, women do not have control over their own bodies

 

How did this state of affairs come to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #71)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:01 PM

72. patriarchy

 

There ya go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #72)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:10 PM

78. Why haven't less/non-patriarchal societies provided you with the world you want?

 

Why have the patriarchal societies so thoroughly dominated human history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:24 PM

108. more like everything and never ever to be held responsible for failed results

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #108)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 06:42 PM

110. I know that makes you feel big to say that, but no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #110)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:06 PM

116. its truth, deal with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #116)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:14 PM

118. It is not the truth, deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #118)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:17 AM

122. As if you could recognise truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #122)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:22 AM

204. See my sig line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #204)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:11 AM

211. quotes dworkian...................

no wonder you never make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #211)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:53 AM

214. It beats quoting Stormfront.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #214)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 09:26 AM

216. Not really- the Truth content is 100% lower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #216)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 10:08 AM

218. I'm sure in your mind it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #218)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 10:17 AM

219. I see that Reality is NOT your Strong Suite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:53 PM

54. Cognitive dissonance.

 

Feminists reject all the inhibiting parts of the patriarchy, while maintaining all the good bits.

"More education for women! Haven't you ever heard of 'women and children first'?"

I was recently asked to sign a petition to support a bill in California that "eliminated the discrimination women faced from workmen's compensation in which they were paid less". Reading the bill in question, their mechanism to accomplish this worthy goal is to change the way Labor and Industries calculated disability and attributed cause. Specifically, if you have an injured shoulder from playing competitive sports, this was considered when you subsequently reinjured it on the job. Similarly, if due to pregnancy you injure your back on the job, L&I would consider your pregnancy is partially causative.
The bill would establish that pregnancy, breast cancer, menopause and other women-exclusive maladies are exempt from that rule - If you are a 10 month pregnant woman who injures her back opening the office door, it's a 100% on the job injury.

This is a great example of patriarchy masquerading as equality. If we pass enough laws favoring women, eventually we'll be equal, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 03:53 PM

68. link please

 

"More education for women! Haven't you ever heard of 'women and children first'?"
said ... who? Google offers me no assistance.

I must say that I applaud the punctuation skills of whoever did say it. Perhaps you would like to take credit?

Google also doesn't find me:
"eliminated the discrimination women faced from workmen's compensation in which they were paid less"
Perhaps you could link to this bill, or proposed bill, so we can see what it actually says. Like where it excludes breast cancer but includes testicular cancer as a partially causative factor in a workplace injury.

You seem to be wanting to say that pregnancy is directly analogous to playing competitive sports ...

I just love some men's vision of "equality".

As far as I can tell, they put on special spectacles that allow them to see a world in which, apparently, both men and women experience pregnancy, childbirth and lactation, and so it would be horribly un-egalitarian to make any provisions that apply only to women in connection with those phenomena.

Patriarchy, evidently, involves rewriting nature. When it suits them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #68)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:07 PM

75. Here's one.

 

http://www.wci360.com/news/article/gov.-brown-rejects-gender-bias-workers-compensation-bill

Under current law, employees filing a workers’ compensation claim must be examined by a physician who is required by current law to state the disability and its cause. The doctor's report must apportion what approximate percentage of the disability was caused by the work activity versus other factors, which have included many of the “pre-existing conditions” that AB 305 would eliminate from consideration when determining an injured female employee’s claim: pregnancy and menopause. AB 305 also prevents psychiatric disability or impairment caused by any of those conditions, or by contemporaneous instances of sexual harassment from being considered when apportioning a work injury. Additionally, AB 305 requires that workplace injuries that cause breast cancer do not receive a lower workers’ compensation rating than the rating for prostate cancer.

In his message returning the bill to the Assembly without his signature, Brown wrote: “The workers’ compensation system must be free of gender-bias. No group should receive less in benefits because of an immutable characteristic. However, this bill is based on a misunderstanding of the American Medical Association’s evidence-based standard, which is the foundation of the permanent disability ratings, and replaces it with an ill-defined and unscientific standard.”

Directly analagous? Not at all. Getting hurt during sports isn't a choice. Pregnancy is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #75)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:32 PM

85. Trust me. Prenancy is quote OFTEN

NOT a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #85)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:39 PM

88. it doesn't matter whether it is a choice or not

 

(and in fact it is never a choice: women don't get pregnant by choosing to get pregnant. )

Pregnancy is an immutable characteristic of women, as a class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #85)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:07 PM

95. In this country, remaining pregnant is.

 

Otherwise what's the point of all the catterwauling about "eliminating choice"?

I was born at night, but not last night. Giving birth is a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #95)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:27 PM

100. you let us know, now

 

how things go when all the women in the world choose not to be pregnant.

The workers' comp claims will sure go waaay down, eh?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #75)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 04:36 PM

87. nice try!

 

You say:
The bill would establish that pregnancy, breast cancer, menopause and other women-exclusive maladies are exempt from that rule
and your source says:
Additionally, AB 305 requires that workplace injuries that cause breast cancer do not receive a lower workers’ compensation rating than the rating for prostate cancer.
... "cognitive dissonance", anyone? The two statements aren't even on the same planet.

The workers’ compensation system must be free of gender-bias. No group should receive less in benefits because of an immutable characteristic.
So obviously, your claim is that pregnant men would have been treated worse than pregnant women.

Either that or "playing competitive sports" is an immutable characteristic ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 08:31 PM

120. Serious thoughts to the OP.

When I think of patriarchy, I think of family. In theory, there should really be nothing wrong with one of the adults in the family having the final say so about things. Everybody gets to put in their input, and one person makes the final decision.

The problem is that some people have severely abused their authority or position. Men have beat up on women. Of course, it's not just patriarchal men doing that. I've learned about "enlightened" liberal men doing this as well. Liberals who think this doesn't happen needs to read the book "A Taste of Power" by Elaine Brown. She's a former black panther. She thinks her ideology is enlightening and empowering. Just one problem. The men in her book don't agree. She got the crap beaten out of her by so called enlightened men. (Disclaimer: Not a black panther supporter, just making a point). In theory, everybody looks down on woman beating, but their situation was somehow different.

Yes, some men have used patriarchy as an excuse to rape.

In reality, abuse of any type (physical, mental, emotional, sexual) are all abuses of power. Anybody in authority can abuse their power. People in authority can also do things honorably.

Whether a couple wants a patriarchy or a matriarchy should legally be completely up to the couple with no laws supporting it. It's between you two. If the person in authority crosses the line and breaks the law, then there's the law to step in.

I don't think these views allow men to control my body. I would never marry a man I didn't trust. I've seen too much abuse to do so.

I think the law should be in full force for abuse victims. They need to give much longer sentences for domestic violence to better protect women (or even men) who fear being killed when their abuser gets out. We have to stop making excuses for rape. So a woman might not be Snow White? So what? Nobody has a right to rape her and it's time we stopped buying those excuses to let somebody go or to be lenient.

You can conclude that patriarchy or matriarchy is okay in your own household and still defend the right not to be abused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #120)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 12:11 PM

140. so what "theory" is that?

 

As pointed out in the article I have oft cited, including in this thread,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/here-father-doesnt-know-best/article1338473/?page=all
it is the "theory" that a society should be run from the top down, that authority is vested in those who have the means to control the rest by force without their collective consent, that authority is passed on by those who hold it without the consent of the others, and that obedience to authority is the primary and unquestionable "value" of the society.

When I think of patriarchy, I think of family. In theory, there should really be nothing wrong with one of the adults in the family having the final say so about things. Everybody gets to put in their input, and one person makes the final decision.In what universe is there nothing wrong with an adult having their life controlled in every respect by someone else?

Of course, what you have done is define patriarchy in a nutshell.

And highlight the fact that it isn't just about family.

The problem is that some people have severely abused their authority or position.Indeed, corruption - the illegitimate use of power - is a problem in all societies (the family being the smallest society), however they determine the legitimacy of their governors.

We have invented things like democracy to limit the opportunities for corruption and ensure that any power exercised is exercised legitimately - with the consent of those subject to it, and in their interests. Any system that assigns authority without the consent (even tacit) of the people subject to it is not legitimate, regardless of how benevolent the holder of authority may be at any given time.

We don't apply that idea to societies--the problem with absolute monarchies is that some have severely abused their authority, but hey, that doesn't mean absolute monarchy is a bad idea; why would we apply it to families?

You can conclude that patriarchy or matriarchy is okay in your own household and still defend the right not to be abused. Or you can clear your head of the false "patriarchy/matriarchy" dichotomy and move into the modern era.

And no, you can't defend the right not to be "abused". In a hierarchical power structure where one party holds power, force will always be available to maintain and exercise that power, and will be used by at least some who do not want to relinquish it. The parent-child relationship is the obvious example; in that relationship, parents have access to force, even if, in our society, they are authorized to use it only in the children's interests. If you consent to power being exercised over you, you consent to force being used to maintain and exercise it. It's definitional. The only choice you might retain, if that power is not exercised in your interests, is to secede. Until recently, women were not able to make that choice, because they were denied access to resources, and in fact they were not permitted to: force was available to men to stop women from seceding, just as force is available to those who govern states to stop populations from seceding.
Yes, some men have used patriarchy as an excuse to rape. No, patriarchy is not an "excuse" to rape. Rape--physical harm, terror, degradation--and the constant threat of it are inherent elements of patriarchy; it is the manifestation of the power exercised by those who hold it over its subject class, a means of maintaining that power, and one of the benefits assigned to the advantaged class.


Adults do not need someone else to run their lives. The evidence for that is now indisputable; women are actually capable of living independently, despite centuries of inculcation of the contrary belief.

And there is no legitimate source of the power of any adult to run another adult's life--unless, of course, one adult chooses to assign that power to the other. And of course, as you well know, there are many determinants of choice, and being born into and reared in patriarchy goes a long way to obviating the capacity for choice. There is no reason to believe that any adult whose choice was not conditioned would choose to make that assignment rather than organize a family system in which each adult had an equal voice, and veto, and was free to secede if the other attempted to arrogate power to themself. Just like in a larger society. The evidence that there is no reason to believe that an adult making an unconditioned choice would make that choice lies in the fact that men virtually never make it. Unless, of course, you believe that women are just different and like to behave and be treated in the same way as children are.

Societies do not need someone on top to make decisions and command obedience to them, whose power derives solely from the threat or exercise of force or from consent obtained by deception.

And the pervasive patriarchy of our societies, overlaid on what we like to think of as democracy, to a large extent obviates the capacity for consent of the individuals and groups over whom patriarchal authority is exercised--these being not just women, but other groups assigned to inferior status, and denied resources, by any particular patriarchal authority in the interests of the group that holds that power.

Patriarchy is adept at dividing and conquering, and obtaining consent by deception, by many complex mechanisms. In our own societies, the adherence of some white women who are advantaged by patriarchy, and of men of colour or who are otherwise "othered" by a particular patriarchy and excluded from its full benefits, for example, can compensate for the possibility of poor white men choosing not to adhere when they realize that they are not actually sharing in the resources and benefits patriarchy pretends to assign to them. Recall that one argument for giving women the vote in the US was to negate the votes of black men, and consider Ben Carson and log cabin Republicans.

Patriarchy is hierarchical, and necessarily so even within its ruling class. There are overlapping pyramids, and maintaining the deception that those at the bottom of the advantaged pyramid benefit from the system is crucial. They have to see themselves as having access to power and resources that those in the other pyramids does not have.

Allowing them to exercise power over some of those other individuals, like their wives and random women against whom they may use force with impunity to get what they want, and giving them symbols and minor advantages to demonstrate their superiority to others, like enslaved racial groups, keeps them sweet. And if any of those other classes choose not to put up with that situation, some white men who do not benefit from patriarchy can be persuaded that women and black people and other disadvantaged classes who object to it are their real enemies, and are trying to get the little they have.

Those who do benefit from patriarchy, to whatever degree, work quite hard to maintain these deceptions and divisions.

As is quite apparent in this place alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #140)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:53 PM

152. "authority without the consent (even tacit) of the people subject to it is not legitimate"

 

1. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the consent of the governed he did so assuming - deist though he may have been - that the universe was created by a moral being with a moral purpose.

Evolution teaches a completely different. Life is an accident and has no moral purpose or design. Extermination is the rule. Competition for resources. Fight or die.

Which way do you turn?

2. It's kind of hypocritical for a gun grabber to be mewling about absolute authority


Until recently, women were not able to make that choice, because they were denied access to resources,

If your phrasing is as true as you state it you might as well say, "Women can't obtain anything unless a man first cedes it."


one of the benefits assigned to the advantaged class.

Assigned by whom? Was there a vote?


Patriarchy is adept at dividing and conquering, and obtaining consent by deception, by many complex mechanisms

Apparently whatever feminism pretends to offer cannot compete.


Allowing them to exercise power over some of those other individuals

Allowing them to exercise power? If they're the brutish thugs you portray why is it feminism only succeeds when the men are emasculated?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #152)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 04:52 PM

154. so

 

1. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the consent of the governed he did so assuming - deist though he may have been - that the universe was created by a moral being with a moral purpose. Who cares, and what does that have to do with anything I said?

Not me, and nothing.

Evolution teaches a completely different. Life is an accident and has no moral purpose or design. Extermination is the rule. Competition for resources. Fight or die.Evolution teaches me no such thing, any more than it teaches you such a thing. I'm not actually stupid, and didn't just fall off a turnip truck. The desperate dance of deception doesn't have any effect here.

Most dinosaurs are extinct. Human beings cooperate far more than they compete.

Don't your warrior heroes give their all for others? I think that's why I'm supposed to walk around thanking them.

The very fact that you and yours are so desperate to propagate your (alleged) world view kind of proves its inherent falseness.

2. It's kind of hypocritical for a gun grabber to be mewling about absolute authority Apart for the abject rudeness, it's plain incoherent of you to be saying that.

Until recently, women were not able to make that choice, because they were denied access to resources,
If your phrasing is as true as you state it you might as well say, "Women can't obtain anything unless a man first cedes it."No, I might as well say "because men had grabbed it", and used violence to retain it. What it has to do with "phrasing", I wouldn't hazard a guess.

And why men didn't and don't go around grabbing shit from every weaker man they came across, reserving their systematic and systemic attentions for women, why, who knows?

Once upon a time, they did. I wonder what happened ...

one of the benefits assigned to the advantaged class.
Assigned by whom? Was there a vote? Gosh, one might almost think you were getting the concepts. Of course, one actually has little doubt that you do.

Apparently whatever feminism pretends to offer cannot compete. And we deduce from this ... well, it's hard to tell, but I guess it goes along the lines of "whatever is, shall be, forevermore".

How long a stretch of human history was it before absolute monarchies met their, er, untimely ends? I guess there was nothing better, because it obviously couldn't compete.

Allowing them to exercise power over some of those other individuals
Allowing them to exercise power? If they're the brutish thugs you portray why is it feminism only succeeds when the men are emasculated?If I gave a shit, I'd wonder what the hell you were attempting to say. But I don't.

And, of course, all I do with really dumb "questions" loaded with one or more really dumb false premises is laugh at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #154)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 05:34 PM

155. I feel like I'm in an MMA fight with a pre-schooler.

 

Yet, I feel no reservations about delivering a rhetorical shin kick to the side of the head.

Who cares, and what does that have to do with anything I said?

Not me, and nothing.

Show me where consent of the govern arises. Do you have an empirical basis for your decree?

It you cannot show where it arises you're just spluttering away demanding everybody believe you just because you said it. That being the case no one is obligated to accept your pronouncement as truth.


The very fact that you and yours are so desperate to propagate your (alleged) world view kind of proves its inherent falseness.

If desperation to impart world views proves inherent falseness we can only draw one conclusion about all the Womynz studies programs.


Apart for the abject rudeness, it's plain incoherent of you to be saying that.

You bemoaned authoritarianism:

authority without the consent (even tacit) of the people subject to it is not legitimate

Yet, you're very keen on authoritarianism when it suits your purposes, i.e. gun grabbing.

Your hypocrisy on authoritarianism is on full display.


No, I might as well say "because men had grabbed it", and used violence to retain it. What it has to do with "phrasing", I wouldn't hazard a guess.

Which just reaffirms what I said. You're so desperate to escape what I'm saying you can't set aside your hysteria long enough to realize you're saying exactly what I'm saying.

If you claim men grabbed power and women cannot grab it back on their own - because patriarchy so absolutely denies women power - then you are saying women cannot gain power unless men cede it.

What are the feminists gonna do? Fight for it?

Or are they going to continue on with their usual MO of having whiny tantrums on the internet in the hopes that enough whipped males concede for them but run away to safe spaces and mutter "trigger warnings" when met with resistance?

One does not need to be a misogynist to see such behavior as beneath contempt.


Gosh, one might almost think you were getting the concepts. Of course, one actually has little doubt that you do.

Not nuanced enough for sarcasm, huh?


And we deduce from this ... well, it's hard to tell, but I guess it goes along the lines of "whatever is, shall be, forevermore".

How long a stretch of human history was it before absolute monarchies met their, er, untimely ends? I guess there was nothing better, because it obviously couldn't compete.

What replaced monarchies may well be better - for now. We may yet evolve back to monarchies or something entirely different. But the fact remains, the monarchies were replaced. They could not compete because the societies that replaced them could project more might and harness more resources than the monarchies.

That doesn't make monarchies bad and does not make democracies good. It just is. It is no more moral or immoral than homo sapiens replacing hominids.

Which - TADA! - is also why non-patriarchal societies have not produced an advanced civilization. They cannot compete.

Fight-Fuck-Eat-Try not to die-Rinse-Repeat is the sum total of existence. Anything more than that is either a luxury or a lie. Even then you're still gonna die. There's no prize for dying a good progressive. There's no, "Say 20 pro-gay Tweets" to absolve yourself of your sins. We die, existence ends, no Heaven, no Hell. Full stop.

Fight-Fuck-Eat-Try not to die-Rinse-Repeat


And, of course, all I do with really dumb "questions" loaded with one or more really dumb false premises is laugh at them.

The only false premise is you ought to be my equal - let alone be my better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #155)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:31 PM

158. try this

 

Show me where consent of the govern arises. Do you have an empirical basis for your decree?
Show me wtf you are talking about, and I might waste 5 more minutes of my time contemplating something else you say.

I have to warn you that I doubt that.

I've seldom seen as much obnoxious incoherence in my life.

Okay, that was hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #158)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:12 AM

160. I've already explained to you that you made your declaration about consent of the governed without

 

any underlying basis in fact. Show us where this dictum arises.

I bet you can't because everything you profess is nothing more than disjointed, self-contradicting, self-aggrandizing nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #160)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:59 AM

169. I'm going to take a wild guess here

 

because that's about all I can do on reading the wall of noise I am confronted with.

You are referring to this statement:

Any system that assigns authority without the consent (even tacit) of the people subject to it is not legitimate, regardless of how benevolent the holder of authority may be at any given time.

So phew, talk about feeling like one is facing an unarmed opponent without basic literacy skills (as you have done, even unto your subject lines, lest anyone gasp at my boldness) ...

I suggest you go someplace and take an actual course of study in something. Preferably, something that doesn't stop dead in its tracks in 1776 or thereabouts, too.

Talking to you is like discussing ... well, anything ... with someone homeschooled by people who think human beings mixed it up with dinosaurs. You "argue" from ... well, nothing ... but we'll call it "faith", since it sure ain't fact or reason.

The concept of "legitimacy" in political philosophy was not actually invented by moi, although I did study in some depth it many moons ago, and of course have kept abreast of developments and pondered it over those moons.

You might want to look into it. I mean, you probably don't want to look into it, but sometimes we need to do things that are good for us even if they make our heads hurt.

Those founding daddies of yours had a notion about it, even, as you remark. Kind of, like, an overarching notion. You can't actually proclaim the superiority of your system of government over any others, as you , not just old Tom Jefferson, do do, without invoking it, you know. And heck, it's even possible that you've heard of engineered (or manufactured) consent.

So, like, I just scratch my head. You maunder on about dogs eating dogs and devils taking the hindmost and spoils going to victors, and then you state as some article of faith that a system that expressly naysays (in word, even with fingers crossed) and counters (in deed, at least some of the time) all of that is the peak of creation.

My "dicta" arise from the combined intelligence and intellectual effort of countless smart and serious people, myself indeed included.

Yours apparently arise from very, very unenlightened self-interest and a crashing failure to understand much of anything, to be charitable, or a less admirable choice to pretend that what everybody knows is, isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #169)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:21 AM

171. I wasn't homeschooled. I was raised by liberal dopehead fucktards whose funerals I will not attend.

 

They popped pills, skipped work and consigned me to a child molester all the while explaining how Reagan ruined their worthless lives and how much better the world would have been with a second Carter term and, oh, they're doing sound engineering for a Michael Moore event.

You want to call out my upbringing? Go for it. And when you're done go play Captain Kirk and stick it where no man has gone before.

Your feminism is pulled from the same place. You can't justify one iota of it. It's a successive series of pointless demands divorced from recorded human history. The idealized world of feminism will not exist because it cannot exist by virtue of the fact it has never existed except in brief spasms that serve as exceptions that prove the rule.

"You can't hack it" is the contention of my OP and so far not one of the so-called.feminists has offered anything to counter my charge. It's truly amazing to see so much bravado attending abject cowardice.

"If you don't know why I'm mad there's no point in my telling you," isn't a winning argument for feminism, it's fodder for jokes about shrewish wives.

Can you defend the premise of consent of the governed?

Or, if you prefer, we can settle this behind the motor pool...like men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #171)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 11:31 AM

173. Thanks for explaining way more than you intended to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saspamco (Reply #173)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 03:19 PM

178. Works both ways

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #171)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 01:44 PM

175. Jury Results

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 12:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I wasn't homeschooled. I was raised by liberal dopehead fucktards whose funerals I will not attend.
http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=139939

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is uncivil, off-topic, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"go play Captain Kirk and stick it where no man has gone before"
Losing his cool as this poster obviously did, not even for any reason, is not an excuse for this uncivil language.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 12:34 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah, that's the only part that's over the line.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I find this thread, from start to finish, annoying enough for someone to lose their temper. In the whole diatribe to pick out that one sentence as a hide worthy remark... I'm letting it go since it seems like someone is more upset over the unflattering depiction of liberals.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: F***tards is over the top. Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #175)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 03:18 PM

177. huh

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #175)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 12:07 AM

179. Thanks for letting it stay.

It's nice to know he won't attend the funeral of his parents. Sheesh. Your parents are your parents. You love them no matter what.

I wish politics were the worse problems I ever had with my parents. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #179)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 12:42 AM

180. Thanks for assuming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #180)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:12 AM

182. Well, I would have voted to hide it, but my point stands.

People still see the ugliness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #179)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 07:54 AM

181. It's not their politics that earned my contempt. I only pointed that out to counter iverglas'

 

stereotype.

They are bad people. Dishonest, abusive, self centered, manipulative, violent.

I have spent my life vowing to not be like them.

What about their lives should I honor? Should I go just to say, "Better luck next time, assholes."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #181)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:13 AM

183. You should have said so in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #183)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:58 PM

184. He did say so...

I had no doubt the first time he said it his parents were very horrible people. I can almost feel the pain through the intertubes from the first time he said it. He won't go to their funerals. His parents might have been even worse than mine, I did go to my mother's funeral. It was more to support my siblings and to gloat though. I never shed a tear about her dying or having cancer though. I didn't know when my dad died. I just don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #181)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:18 PM

185. no, you did no such thing

 

I was referring to your inability to produce anything but bluster and ignorant insult to back up anything you say.

I said:
Talking to you is like discussing ... well, anything ... with someone homeschooled by people who think human beings mixed it up with dinosaurs. You "argue" from ... well, nothing ... but we'll call it "faith", since it sure ain't fact or reason.
and that was NO stereotype. It was an accurate description of a particular class of people who are not interested in either fact or reason, and prefer a worldview based on ignorance and irrationality, and pass their ignorance and irrationality on to their children.

Talking to them is pointless because they have no facts of their own and will listen to no one else's, and refuse to exercise their powers of reasoning so trying to reason with them is a waste of time.

You became sufficiently distressed with my own obviously factual and rational discourse that you resorted to telling me to shove things up my ass, and to falsely asserting that I operate from the premise that I ought to be your equal, when nothing would please me less, I assure you. Nor do I think I ought to be your better, any more than I think water ought to be wet.

You are actually a matter of the most supreme indifference to me. Sorry if that is the sound of a bubble bursting that I hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #185)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 03:18 AM

186. "You are actually a matter of the most supreme indifference to me."

 

Which is why you keep yammering about how unfair the world is, how mean men are and how oppressed womynz is.

You've been up and down this thread squeezing out self-congratulating sidebars as a testament to your "indifference."

Indifference?

HA! That's a good one.

If you were able to function on your own rather than sustain yourselves with your cherished enemies you and the others would be a functional adult instead of just feminists.

Next comes the part where you yammer, "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #186)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:25 PM

188. I have a case to make

 

which is why I don't have to make false statements about what you or anybody else says.

Too bad you can't say the same.

Your efforts to demean me (and anyone else) by pretending to believe I am not able to "function on <my> own", blah blah blah, are my giggles for the day, every time. Well, if they weren't so pitiable. (I have no need to offer any rebuttal to your false allegations; you know what sad, desperate bullshit they are all on your own.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #188)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:31 PM

189. If feminists were capable of being equal they wouldn't be crying for equality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #189)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:35 PM

190. maybe you should be quiet for a while

 

and see whether any sounds make it through once your wall of noise is silenced.

I'm not crying (or shrieking, or begging, or any other tedious nonsense you might like to come up with) for equality.

Reality is all around you. You too can hear it if you choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #190)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:44 PM

191. I see simpering waifs retreating to safe rooms because a woman - a real one - challenged their

 

carefully groomed orthodoxy of victimization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #191)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 02:12 PM

192. A "real" woman. SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #192)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 02:23 PM

193. Yes. The kind that is independent, assertive and successful on her own terms.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #193)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 10:23 PM

198. I see, "real" women are those who live by YOUR terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #198)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:55 AM

199. How can it be MY terms if she is not reliant on me or anyone else?

 

Y'all just complain for the sake of complaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #199)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 08:00 AM

200. I am referring to your use of the qualifier "real."

You think you get to determine who is a "real" woman, which is an ignorant assumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #200)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:35 AM

205. "You think you get to determine who is a "real" woman"

 

You're not the only one who gets to make value judgments, pookie?

You think you get to determine what I think, feel and value? Cuz that's what you're doing.

And those things we value tend to carry subjective terms like "real."

I'm not offended, we all do it; but we should be man enough to admit such things without embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #205)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:12 AM

206. What are you blabbering about? Of what idiocy are you advocating?

Deciding whether a woman is a "real" woman is not a value judgment. I mean, I guess you can "feel" a certain way all day long, but that doesn't mean shit now does it? A woman is a still a woman, regardless of how you feel about it. Her vagina isn't going to disappear just 'cause you are playing pretend.

I'm not offended, we all do it; but we should be man enough to admit such things without embarrassment.

Do you think I care if you are offended? And are we talking fake man or real man? Can a fake woman be man enough? Totally confused!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #206)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 11:26 AM

207. You seem upset. Would some chocolate and a hug help?

 

Tell me all about your day.

A woman is a still a woman, regardless of how you feel about it. Her vagina isn't going to disappear just 'cause you are playing pretend.

That just sounds so cisnormative and sexually objectifying.

I am trying to imagine by what contortion you had to inflict upon yourself to claim that I, at any time, implied an absence of genitalia in any of my comments about "a real woman" and the idiots against whom she was contrasted. Every parsing of that statement implies both parties are in full possession of their vaginas.

For a brief moment I almost considered you a rational feminist. Now I see you're not much different from the rest. Please tell me you at least had enough good sense to not wet yourself for equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #207)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:55 PM

208. Please save your patronizing tone for some fool who will buy it.

That just sounds so cisnormative and sexually objectifying.

Sure it does.

I am trying to imagine by what contortion you had to inflict upon yourself to claim that I, at any time, implied an absence of genitalia in any of my comments about "a real woman" and the idiots against whom she was contrasted. Every parsing of that statement implies both parties are in full possession of their vaginas.

No contortions needed. You're the dolt trying to argue that there are real women versus . . . well, some other kind. Genitalia does play a significant role in distinguishing the sexes. Women have vaginas. Men don't. I don't know what these fake women you believe in have.

For a brief moment I almost considered you a rational feminist. Now I see you're not much different from the rest.

Oh noes!! My life is ruined. RUINED I tell you!

Please tell me you at least had enough good sense to not wet yourself for equality.

Does the idea of that turn you on or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #208)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:17 AM

212. What an amazing spectacle to behold.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #212)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:56 AM

215. That's what women peeing themselves is to you? Bless your heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #215)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 10:57 AM

220. I wasn't referring to the easily duped waifs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #220)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 12:55 PM

221. K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #189)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:49 PM

194. Not a good argument.

Lots of people crying for equality. Feminists, men's rights activists, black people, immigrants, gays, Christians, Muslims, gun owners, smokers, etc.

I don't think the fact that they think they've been treated unfairly in some situations means they can't be equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #194)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:04 PM

195. How is the fact of any of that a refutation of my statement?

 

If someone needs someone else to relinquish power in order to be equal then they are not equal, they are dependent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #140)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 03:00 PM

176. Thank you for your reply.

I'll keep it short and sweet.

Family: It all really depends on who you trust. If you don't trust a man or a woman, then you have no business marrying them. A lot of the women who are choosing that don't feel controlled by a man.

Government: I'd never support patriarchy in that.

BTW, people abuse their power in Democratic and Republic societies. Perhaps it should all be eliminated.

I'll try to come up with a better answer later. Don't get yourself hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:19 AM

123. If you compare the two by the art they produce



Patriarchy was vastly of a higher quality.

Before anyone gets too upset, as far as I know she was inserting red paint packets in her vagina and squeezing the paint out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smoke check (Reply #123)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:49 AM

124. Gaia forefend we make any statement that reduces her to her sex organs.

 

Even though that is all she is capable of herself.

Prostitutes contribute more to the betterment of the world than that idiot ever will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 08:49 AM

125. What is wrong with Daesh

which is extreme form of patriarchy, practicing openly slave trade of female sex slaves to be constantly raped by patriarchal power? What is wrong with the patriarchal ideology of considering half of the human kind as property of the other half, either officially or inofficially ("between fist and stove")?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #125)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:32 AM

130. How will Womynz Studies majors squirting red paint out of their vaginas defeat ISIS?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #130)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:44 AM

132. I don't know

But I know how YPJ is defeating Daesh.

PS: and I get strong hunch that you are one of those that seeks dominatrix to get his kicks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #132)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:23 AM

136. One minute you bemoan ISIS dominating women. The next minute you extol the virtues of YPJ

 

How then are the others being dominated?

And you would be very wrong about my predilections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #136)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 10:36 AM

137. Others dominated?

Please clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:24 PM

146. Somebody needs to put this thread out of its misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saspamco (Reply #146)

Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:40 PM

147. Is that why you bumped it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #147)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:23 PM

209. I bumped this by accident.

 

Someone will call it harassment though......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:01 AM

163. Women don't like it

and has consistently rebelled against it for at least the last century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Listener (Reply #163)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:12 AM

165. Lots of groups don't like lots of things and consistently struggle against those things.

 

That, however, is not an indication of rightness or wrongness or utility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #165)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:04 AM

170. "rightness or wrongness"?

 

My goodness, you should pardon the expression. Where did that come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #170)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:24 AM

172. They're regular words.modified for the purpose of expressing a point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #165)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:13 PM

196. If it were the natural order, there would not be so many women

against it, and persisting against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Listener (Reply #196)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:16 PM

197. As if they're the only ones who get to decide.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #197)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 08:03 AM

201. All I know is people sure are threatened by feminism.

I mean, you would think the "right by might" patriarchers wouldn't even care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #201)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 08:48 AM

202. I once knew a girl that always turned the bread over before putting on the mayo

 

I didn't care - I still got my sandwich - but it did strike me curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #202)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:02 AM

203. Was she a "real" woman or just a fake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:58 PM

210. When feminists say "Patriarchy" what they really mean is "Civilization."

I forget who it was, but a famous woman once pointed out that if it was not for the "Patriarchy," we'd all still be living in caves, wearing clothes made of weaved grass, and living on subsistence diets. It was Da Patriarchy over generations that made life worth living above the level of an animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #210)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 07:23 AM

213. Just as civilization has been renamed patriarchy, advancement has been renamed greed.

 

Those who do the complaining who destroy the very things that have provided them with enough comfort and security to fret over their day to day survival thus allowing them the luxury to sit around and complain.

Or put another way - they're idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I814U2CY (Reply #213)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 01:10 PM

222. Yep: spot-on commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Cultureculture