06 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrWhile I agree that much of the feminist movement is not about insecure women, I must also acknowledge that for every bias there is some factual basis. Anyone who for any reason says "I want to be an equal" is fine and just in their cause. However, there are people that take a movement too far. Equality is one thing, but countering one predjudice with another is counterproductive at the least! It is only right to wish tobe treated in the same fashion as any one else, regardlessof gender, race, etc. It is a whole other ballgame when one side becomes bias against the other because of an existing bais held by the latter. The problem is that these two very different points of view often put themselves under the same banner. Each individual in this world is different and should not be labeled as anything but that distinct individual.
I know you never said explicitly that women were intellectually inferior to men. You did, however, indicate that it was insecure man-hating women behind the feminist movements. The fact that you found it more plausible that it was some emotional weakness (insecurity) or irrational anger (man-hating) that led to the feminists movements reveals a particular, i ...[text shortened]... d Nazi guards. Both these groups were wtill brutally oppressed. Does this seem strange to you?
It might personally amuse you bbarr to know that growing up I was considered a "heathen". Yes, a heathen. All because I was Christian. In the US it is very odd for this kind of scenario to say the least as the Christians are (at least considered) the dominant religion in this country. Nonetheless, it was so. There will always exist some unusual situation to which a stereotype fits, and others that are the complete reverse. The bottom line is that when we label each other, we limit our perception. Everyone has their own unique traits and thoughts to give to this world, as well as some flaws.
06 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr, Nazi concentration camps and slavery plantations were not functioning societies but both work camps. Everybody would eventually die in the Nazi Camps apart from the offspring of military generals who were allowed to conduct affairs with the opposite sex. Slaves in plantations were considered to be the same as machines, used for labour. Maybe they are societies by dictionary definition, but, I don't think it right to use that as an example of oppressed societies. Therefore, I still maintain that it is hard to think of a minority oppressing a majority in a 'functioning' society.
I know you never said explicitly that women were intellectually inferior to men. You did, however, indicate that it was insecure man-hating women behind the feminist movements. The fact that you found it more plausible that it was some emotional weakness (insecurity) or irrational anger (man-hating) that led to the feminists movements reveals a particular, i ...[text shortened]... d Nazi guards. Both these groups were wtill brutally oppressed. Does this seem strange to you?
Feminist movements aim to combat myths about feminist movements and females in general, why have them in the first place?... then I wouldn't have a problem with them. I don't think its courageous to claim your being oppressed when you're the majority and you've made a choice to be a member of the society. If you really feel like society is limiting your potential then go somewhere else. The truth is men and women need each other, so to claim that one is opressing the other, to me, is incorrect. Men and women both have a choice, and we on the whole, choose to live are lives together. To further my statement, I personally think women are wonderful creatures, but at times, I do think they must be from a different planet 😀.
-Nick (male but born with both)
PS: Yes that is a joke
06 Apr 03
After thought, BBarr after all this debating how about a game of chess. I know your rating is significantly higher but with extensive use of online databases (I normally don't use them, as to me, they are too comprehensive) I'm sure I could give you a relatively close game. If you accept just challenge me. Then we shall let our two minds (well yours and a databases atleast) clash in the form that brought us together on this site in the first place.🙄
-NAH
06 Apr 03
Originally posted by HentschelYou like the sound of your own voice, don't you?
After thought, BBarr after all this debating how about a game of chess. I know your rating is significantly higher but with extensive use of online databases (I normally don't use them, as to me, they are too comprehensive) I'm sure I could give you a relatively close game. If you accept just challenge me. Then we shall let our two minds (well yours a ...[text shortened]... s atleast) clash in the form that brought us together on this site in the first place.🙄
-NAH
06 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by Mock TrueI love the sound of my own voice especially while typing. I mean take a look at the facts, 13 moves and 86 posts. Its obvious that I don't come here to play chess. Mock True how could you see right through me so clearly?
You like the sound of your own voice, don't you?
:'(
Sorry 87 posts.
06 Apr 03
Originally posted by HentschelYou are very pretentious aren't you?
I love the sound of my own voice especially while typing. I mean take a look at the facts, 13 moves and 86 posts. Its obvious that I don't come here to play chess. Mock True how could you see right through me so clearly?
:'(
06 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by HentschelWhy isn't this a correct analogy. For the oppressed, the society in which they live is non-fuctional. It doesn't provide what is necessary for their needs. This non-functionality is more extreme in the cases mentioned, but the phenomena is similar. Many feminists claim that they are being exploited for reporoductive and domestic labor. The difference is one of extreme degree, not a fundamental difference in kind. But regardless of this, now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You know the position you advocated in your original post is intellectually bankrupt, and know you are merely obfuscating the issue. Your claim was that the women behind the feminist movements were motivated by insecurity and that feminists in general are man-haters. Not only is this factually in error, it also reveal a deep contempt for women who dare to oppose the systemic inequity they face. You claim you "don't think its courageous to claim your being oppressed when you're the majority and you've made a choice to be a member of the society. If you really feel like society is limiting your potential then go somewhere else". So, apparently, it is less courageous to fight for equal treatment in the country where you live than to move somewhere else. Essentially, you're claiming it is an act of cowardice to fight for equal treatment and a courageous act to flee. But this is, of course, nonsense. So feminists choose to live among men and fight for equal treatment in the society where they live. Are you claiming that by choosing to live in a particular place you are thereby committed to respecting all the practices of the place, even those that are blatantly immoral. If you were right, then the respective civil rights movements of M.L.King and Ghandi would be wrong, or at the very least, act of cowardice.
Bbarr, Nazi concentration camps and slavery plantations were not functioning societies but both work camps. Everybody would eventually die in the Nazi Camps apart from the offspring of military generals who were allowed to conduct affair ...[text shortened]... t 😀.
-Nick (male but born with both)
PS: Yes that is a joke
Dealing with such silliness is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I don't have the patience to try to keep you an track in this debate. You have not really responded to any of my points, and have just nit-picked my use of analogy. Where you have tried, bumblingly, to make a point, you just dig yourself into a deeper hole. Leaving yourself commited to the freakish and disgusting claim that M.L. King and Ghandi were less courageous for not just leaving their respective countries. If you can't see that your last post commits you to this claim, then you simply do not understand what you are saying, and any further debate is pointless. If you actually agree that your view commits you to this claim, and accept that M.L.King and Ghandi were less courageous for struggling against their oppression, then you either do not understand the word 'courage', or you are unmoved by the incoherence of your view. In either case, again, further debate is pointless.
06 Apr 03
Originally posted by HentschelHow about South Africa during Apartheid? - How about much of Southern USA during the periods of segregation after slavery?
Slaves in plantations were considered to be the same as machines, used for labour. Maybe they are societies by dictionary definition, but, I don't think it right to use that as an example of oppressed societies. Therefore, I still maintain that it is hard to think of a minority oppressing a majority in a 'functioning' society.
07 Apr 03
Originally posted by OmnislashI posted my findings.Were they trashed?
Hey misslead, did you ever find out about Wicca? I'm curios as to what your opinion of them is. 🙂
Anyone else for that matter too. 😉
I put a post up saying I copied and pasted.
My own view is:I am happy how I am,but any path to salvation is a true path.
Linda.
08 Apr 03
Originally posted by HentschelThis is the sort of personal attack that should NOT be allowed on RHP. I visit the forums very rarely nowdays as there are too many people like yourself, probably without sufficient brain cells to play a decent game of chess, but with enough spite and prejudice to write egotistical trash. Do you know what it is like to listen to someone's heart beat and hear it echo your own? Have you ever received a love poem while writing one? Have you ever whispered softly to a fluttering butterfly. Have you ever been married?
Read some of the posts in the thread, thought they were amusing. Doesn't anyone else want to try and imagine who Misslead is? To me she seems like a feminist, AKA a man hater. Now why would that be? Was her heart broken by a man? Was she never excepted by men? Why the hell is she giving all this feminist/religious babble, very few women play chess in ...[text shortened]... le to develop her social skills, maybe chess is her outlet. Threats of leaving, we all shudder.
I was married last year, my wife is intelligent, she is childlike, she is mature, she is innocent, she is angry, she is fragile, she is volatile. I LOVE HER.
Most of your "points" are too bigoted to deserve an answer; but you say
"Was she never excepted by men" the truthful answer to this is yes! at times she has been excluded but whatever path life takes she will not walk it alone
I will always love her.
Tony
08 Apr 03
Originally posted by Alley CrimeAre you married to Lynn,Tony?
This is the sort of personal attack that should NOT be allowed on RHP. I visit the forums very rarely nowdays as there are too many people like yourself, probably without sufficient brain cells to play a decent game of chess, but with enough spite and prejudice to write egotistical trash. Do you know what it is like to listen to someone's heart beat and ...[text shortened]... luded but whatever path life takes she will not walk it alone
I will always love her.
Tony
(Johan losing the plot big time...)