Gender 'Equality' Nonsense

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Get a room you two.

Care to join us:ninja

 

[GraceAbounds]

Care to join us:ninja

:clap Nice come back ... LOL!

 

[groundpounder]

And I remember that ST:TNG episode where the Enterprise landed on a planet where the roles were reversed - women dominated, were freely sexually promiscuous, had positions of power, etc.

I've always wanted to move there.

 

[groundpounder]

:clap Nice come back ... LOL!

well?

 

[SRC]

What I think ought to be rather irrelevant, the point is the ideas - whether they are true or false. Agreeing or disagreeing with a person is kind of nonsensical, the ideas are all that matters.

Really .. your reply is as non-sensical as you believ emine to be. All that can be is a agreement or disagreement on the idea. You ar enever going to get a solid "yes" or "no" answer.

I don't agree with your view, or your initial post .. I think it is shovanistic, extremely irrational .. and belittling to women in general. There have been PLENTY of women do marvalous things in this world .. women didn't start out being able to accomplish thing as men did because men held them in "check". Once they decided they didn't care what men thought .. women exploded onto the scene.

Women don't need men to do anything for them this day and time. They may like for them to, or even want them to .. but they are not needed for anything except sperm production. Same as men do not need women for any other reason except to bear children or keep them company. Both sexes are equally capable of handling things (of any nature) on their own.

Now whether or not either sex WILL do things for themselves is another matter. Genes have NOTHING to do with it, some of the best things have come from some of the mos tunlikely people .. it is character and integrity that makes the mark.

 

[GraceAbounds]

well?

No thanks. I have no desire to watch the sword fight.

 

[groundpounder]

I just don't see it going that way...

 

[LiberalVichy]

Let people use any damn method they want. It's all free association. There is no difference between business contracts and having you over to my house for tea. Someone doesn't like how I choose my friends? Fuck them.

I don't agree with your view, or your initial post .. I think it is shovanistic, extremely irrational .. and belittling to women in general. There have been PLENTY of women do marvalous things in this world

First of all, your complete misconception of what I stated is a trifle compared to the fact that this is totally irrelevant to what I said. I am citing historical, biological and anthropological facts. A lot of people write a lot of demagogic and disingenuous books by conveniently ignoring facts. You can not accurately judge a situation unless you understand the facts and have a theory by which to organize these facts into a coherent narrative. But the sort of anthropological, historical and economic understanding that is necessary for any real historical or sociological work is what's most lacking in 'popular sociology'.

 

[Minor Axis]

First of all, your complete misconception of what I stated is a trifle...

.

Your writing is much more complex than it needs to be to express an idea, no wonder people have trouble buying your arguments. When my first impression reading something is "huh?" or I have to read something three times to understand what is being said, either it's convoluted or the person is so much smarter than me... I prefer to think the former. Way too many big words strung together.

 

[gillibean]

People who make their words far more complicated than necessary are usually lawyers or are trying to show that they are smarter than everyone else. The latter is only effective if your grammar and spelling is impeccable.

 

[LiberalVichy]

People who make their words far more complicated than necessary are usually lawyers or are trying to show that they are smarter than everyone else. The latter is only effective if your grammar and spelling is impeccable.

The notion that I have a more extensive casual vocabulary because I read a lot of scholarly works doesn't even occur to you? Just because you don't use certain words in daily conversation doesn't mean that other people don't.

 

[gillibean]

Not good lawyers!

The good lawyers are usually very easy to understand in everyday life.

 

[gillibean]

The notion that I have a more extensive casual vocabulary because I read a lot of scholarly works doesn't even occur to you? Just because you don't use certain words in daily conversation doesn't mean that other people don't.

Did I refer to you specifically or say that my reasons included every last person?

 

[Minor Axis]

The notion that I have a more extensive casual vocabulary because I read a lot of scholarly works doesn't even occur to you? Just because you don't use certain words in daily conversation doesn't mean that other people don't.

I bet a dollar that if you talk like you write, you get a lot of blank stares. I'm not trying to put you down for the way you write, just saying that I think your arguments directed at less than exceedingly scholarly people are less effective because of it. You may have to talk down to us or at least me.

 

[Boomer]

My head...it...it hurts.

 

[Minor Axis]

No "may" about it--she's gonna have to notch it down to talk to you, especially in economics!

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm sure a lot of people will back me up when I say to LV here, :cliffs: please!!!:unsure:

 

[Obdurate]

lol It's not that confusing guys. Though I don't think there's much humanity in what she says, that's an argument for elsewhere.

 

[Peter Parka]

lol It's not that confusing guys. Though I don't think there's much humanity in what she says, that's an argument for elsewhere.

You're right there, she's already stated elsewhere that she dosent give a fuck about people dying of starvation.

 

[Obdurate]

Haha did she?