Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.In fact, one of most talked-about "reasons" given by conservative anti-equal-rights pundits is that women can't be drafted because of the complications arising from pregnancy and childcare.
Wow, my sexism meter just broke. And that feeling is not dizziness, it's cognitive dissonance when confronted with something that goes against your bigotries.Women are endowed with a natural responsibility for bringing a child into this world. This is amazingly used as both a reasoning for that women should not be drafted, and how the fact that they are not drafted is therefore showing a lack of responsibility, which should entail a lack of rights.
Sorry, but that's just unreasonable thinking. Women statistically go into the underpaid careers that are so vital to running of society, whether at peace or war, and support the troops in so many ways, that the arguement is just unreasonable on so many points, that my head is spinning and I'm unable to type anything more on this subject!
No you didn't. I said "by and large". Duh.
And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.
No you didn't. I said "by and large". Duh.
Wow comparing a miltary draft which is a choice of individual governments to a basic human right. Thats amazing!And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.
SallyNow said:And that's coming from a man, who, as you just siad, aren't really good about relating information or caring. So why should anyone listen to a man about anything?
See how silly stereotyping can be?
And yet the feminists who railed against conservatives so vehemently for their rights somehow lack the same gusto when it comes to their responsibilities.
Wow, my sexism meter just broke. And that feeling is not dizziness, it's cognitive dissonance when confronted with something that goes against your bigotries.
Yes I do, but I fail to see how this relates to anything I've said in the last few posts.
If I were you judging me (gheh, bear with me), I (that is, you) would be stereotyping if I blew off ol' Received without giving a moment to prove whatever "guy generalization" you may have. As it turns out, I'm, like, awesome at caring and relating, and this is why I'm pursuing a career in counseling. It isn't stereotyping to have certain preconceptions based on induction. It isn't stereotyping to validate these preconceptions when they appear to fit after multiple tests of the person in question. It is stereotyping if you don't allow the person to prove that he or she isn't beyond the generalization.
Imagine a person you've just met appears to fit a type -- say he fits the nerd type: he's clearly skinny, without muscles, he may stoop his head a little bit, and he doesn't say anything at all when conversation is appropriate. Your duty as a human being is to suspend your judgment until this person has been tested enough. And even if he fails the test -- and is by all appearances "just a nerd" --, you still have the duty not to absolutize your conclusion, but always be open to revision. You would be stereotyping if you let your preconception be projected onto this person without allowing him a chance to disprove this preconception -- to tread beyond generalization to particularity, in whatever way.
of course christians do get raped and killed simply because they are christian but because it doesn't happen in the US then it doesn't seem noteworthy.Really, demanding to be abused equally might be noble, but it sure isn't reasonable. Fighting the abuse that exists *is* reasonable.
I mean, Christians sometimes complain that they aren't allowed to force their religions on others in public, but gay people are allowed to go around existing as gay in public. I've never heard of a Christian arguing for the right to be raped and killed just for being Christian.
The difference being that I base my views on personal experience (which I can train myself to ignore) rather than on what society in general or more likely a bunch od people I have never met who have who knows what agenda think. remember the whole concept behind slavery. The view was that black people were not as good as white people therefore they aren't equal and they are second class citizens and it is fine to make them slaves.But that's the thing: it isn't an assumption; if anything, it's more an extraction. You're basing a conclusion on certain things you interpret through experience that relate to the person in question. This is where induction comes in. If you've never experienced a frat boy, you'll only see a guy decked out in polo, deadpan face, talk of drink, sex, angry at women for not giving them sex, etc. Eventually you come across many more of these instances where all these things correlate (but not necessarily precisely; there is room for deviation among variables, but not extreme deviation), and you come to associate the different variables. Reasonably so. That's the point of induction: the more a thing recurs, the more likely it's burned into the structure of whatever context we're talking about. It's not assumption; it's extraction based on induction.
of course christians do get raped and killed simply because they are christian but because it doesn't happen in the US then it doesn't seem noteworthy.
You know I thought that I stay out of this - but I can't. So tell me WHY are we turning everything around??Yep, you know what? I agree. We don't need to work. We should take care of the domestic side of things (assuming we're all in perfect, nuclear family settings of course).
And in fact, why should we even bother going to university? Or being educated at all? Because we won't be needing it if we're not going to work anyway.
And on the topic, why have the right to vote? Or have political opinions, or opinions on anything? Because we're uneducated and inferior for work, so there's no point of an uneducated person voting if they don't even understand who or what they're voting for.
And while i'm on the topic, how about we remove welfare benefits for single mothers? They should be leaning on a man to provide. But they shouldn't work either, because they're uneducated, and it's not their role anyway.
What I said is that woman are equal, should have education and so on, should get married, have a good job to save for their goal with their husband.
BUT as soon as the woman takes her first child maternity leave she should be free to fullfill her role in life as mother untill the last child has finished the high school, which would be in most cases 18.
This is a time were children need the mother, and no father can make up for this.
Most educated women would be looking for a career way before that. I am glad that you both are happy with the way things worked out (at least I hope your happy) but there is more then one right way to do things.Of course after the children left home our educated woman would be bored at home and will seek a carier again. Proof it with my own example, after my two boys left home, my wife studied at 50 at wagga wagga UNI IT and is today a very happy manager of a library.
This is the nature of life circle - and all this woman's lib. crap is so wrong.
Hardly, a woman having the freedom to live her life on her terms, that is true woman's lib.If a woman is allowed to live for her calling as God created her - this is true woman's Lib.
TheDag said:The difference being that I base my views on personal experience (which I can train myself to ignore) rather than on what society in general or more likely a bunch od people I have never met who have who knows what agenda think.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?