Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will help you out: I'm calling others sheep for not accepting that they have a choice between traditional and nontraditional.
No, you call others sheep for being non-traditional. I'm surprised to see you even acknowledge that there is a choice. Congratulations, that's a step in the right direction! The next step is to stop letting it get to you when someone doesn't choose what you want them to choose.
No, you call others sheep for being non-traditional.
I did no such thing, "Doobage."
I called them sheep for adopting it en masse, and attempting to cast shame on anyone who didn't follow. It's evident by what they've become: Ballbusting, crude, obnoxious women, and frail, effeminate, sensitive men. Baaaaaaa.
You do realize that the earth is overpopulated and is not going to be in danger of human extinction due to a decrease in the birth rate. And that women are not made from the same mold and not all of the same mind so there will never be a time every woman decides never to become a mother. Actually a link from another thread stated that out of wedlock births were at 40% so it looks like the feminists are on board with motherhood and it is the fathers that you should be concerned with. Talk about selfishness.
Im sure that if the human species were ever at risk the same women who today make childbearing decisions based on their personal interests would make sacrifices for society as a whole.
You don't think that the 40% of out of wedlock births is because men-hating feminists have decided that the only thing men are good for is to donate sperm?
It is mothers AND fathers that we should all be concerned with. It's called family - something that many modern women have been taught to hate.
What could have been indeed. She could have decided to be childless, and where would that leave you?
And I doubt your grandmother would view her life as the wasted opportunity you're described here ... and that is exactly how you've framed it. Raising 9 children on her own is an accomplishment you WILL NEVER EXCEED in the corporate world of make believe accomplishments. There is no more difficult task, nor greater accomplishment than to have raised decent children that become successful members of their communities, who will, in turn produce similarly prosperous children that would one day revere you as grandmother. Conversely, no greater failure than to raise losers who possess the character of a common crook, who would steal grandmas purse if left unsupervised for a moment.
You may think that becoming Vice President of XYZ Corporation selling widgets that nobody really needs is the end all be all that your grandmother could have been but was denied .... but at the end, when you are replaced with a younger, fresher upstart ... you'll be forgotten like last weeks leftovers ... with no one to love and revere you ... left only with the illusions of accomplishment. And illusions cannot come to visit you on holidays and anniversaries.
Yay Success!
Interesting, and I hope you're giving this advice to men too, for they too might never experience the success of raising nine children and be revered as a grandfather. Men who become Vice President of XYZ Corporation, too, will be replaced and what'll they have then? No one to love and revere them but the illusions of accomplishment.
You don't think that the 40% of out of wedlock births is because men-hating feminists have decided that the only thing men are good for is to donate sperm?
It is mothers AND fathers that we should all be concerned with. It's called family - something that many modern women have been taught to hate.
Well when did the feminist movement start, well before the last decade. In 1960 5% of birth were out of wedlock compared to 40% now. If it were attributed to "man hating feminists" why the increase. Maybe the 40% is due to misogynists deciding the only thing women are good for is pump and dump.
The point is with 40% increase in out of wedlock births it cant really be argued that feminism is going to cause human extinction due to a refusal to have children. It seems that its the men that are missing in this equation.
Do you really believe women are being taught to hate family? Thats why so many are having children.
This may be the cogent post of the thread from the feminist perspective ... and I would suggest to you that a radical feminist would attack you on some of your points. And though I disagree with many of them, I understand your points.
The key I think is the denial of natural instinct and literal chemical composition ... defining it rather as a willful decision to dominate. Certainly there are those types (men and women) who's desire it is to dominate over others ... and I'd agree that more of these types come in male form ... but women are not immune.
More often than not though, it is the expression of the species inbuilt instincts that define the roles of women and men .. and not some overt conspiracy of men to persecute or relegate women to an underclass status. I'd say that strength is also expressed differently between the genders ... with physical strength of men greater than women dictating the protector status ... with the emotional strength of women dictating the educator status. And for all of the examples you can surely cite where women have been relegated the short end of the stick ... in a vast number of societies, women have also enjoyed special privilege and honor. The Italians come to mind here ... where the matriarch of the family has the final word ... the preeminent authority, and one dare not disrespect Momma. And this is by far not the only example.
The issue of being "Won" as viewed by you as an example of ownership is a bit distorted in my opinion ... whereas the alternative could be that those domineering oafs might actually view the women they are trying to "win" in the highest regard as the ultimate path for their happiness ... a "prize" can be viewed as being a collectible ... or can just as easily be considered the recipient of one's greatest affection and admiration. Wouldn't it be preferable and more pleasant to consider the latter?
So you deny the outward and overt hostility expressed by many feminists toward committed relationships .... and their very clear hostility toward men? You cannot do so honestly. You may embrace a more tempered philosophy yourself, but you cannot deny the other extreme views.
I want to address this comment specifically. You're absolutely, positively wrong here. Most men, historically have been owned .. perhaps owned by other men ... but owned nonetheless. Going back countless centuries, and all of the various forms ... from Royal Bloodline Monarchy, Feudalism, Slavery, we've seen far more "Caste System dominance" than we have seen gender dominance. And the vast majority of men have not owned themselves ... that is a myth of epic proportion. Even today ... the vast percentage of the US population are indentured servants to the top 1/2 of 1 %. We've simply been convinced to believe we are the freest people on earth. But you aren't ... you are free to do as you please, so long as you have permission ... whether that be in the form of a driver's license, a Fishing license, a building permit, or your willingness to allow a stranger to fondle your breasts prior to boarding your airplane flight. Once upon a time, that was considered sexual assault ... now it's called security. Do you feel more secure in not having the ability to say no to that? Is it not also emasculating for the the men to be forced to remain silent in the face of this violation of the women and children they are supposed to protect? The men don't own themselves anymore than women do ... and such emasculation of the American male is an ongoing agenda, assisted by feminism. And the unintended consequences are going to be disastrous if men continue to cower and refuse to be men again
What could have been indeed. She could have decided to be childless, and where would that leave you?
And I doubt your grandmother would view her life as the wasted opportunity you're described here ... and that is exactly how you've framed it. Raising 9 children on her own is an accomplishment you WILL NEVER EXCEED in the corporate world of make believe accomplishments. There is no more difficult task, nor greater accomplishment than to have raised decent children that become successful members of their communities, who will, in turn produce similarly prosperous children that would one day revere you as grandmother. Conversely, no greater failure than to raise losers who possess the character of a common crook, who would steal grandmas purse if left unsupervised for a moment.
You may think that becoming Vice President of XYZ Corporation selling widgets that nobody really needs is the end all be all that your grandmother could have been but was denied .... but at the end, when you are replaced with a younger, fresher upstart ... you'll be forgotten like last weeks leftovers ... with no one to love and revere you ... left only with the illusions of accomplishment. And illusions cannot come to visit you on holidays and anniversaries.
Yay Success!
The argument that if she had made other choices I wouldn't exist is really superfluous. Each and every one of us is an accident of genetics. If my mother had eaten a hamburger for lunch instead of chicken I wouldn't exist. If my father had decided to watch the news for a half hour instead of going to bed earlier, I wouldn't exist. Millions of sperm, one egg. My existence is completely random.
The argument about my grandmother's accomplishment of raising nine children versus a career is based on your perception of what is an accomplishment, not on what SHE considered an accomplishment. That's the point. She wanted to travel. Instead, she never got further than a few hundred miles from where she was born. She loved art, but never had the chance to create any of her own, and had precious few chances to enjoy art. If she had had more choices, then most certainly I wouldn't exist. Maybe her choices would have been pretty much the same. But I truly think that they wouldn't have all been the same. I loved my grandmother. I would have loved to have met the woman my grandmother would have become if she'd been permitted to do so. She spent her life fulfilling other people's expectations. But what about her dreams? Her ambitions? Even now, when she's been dead for a long time, you are still defining for her what she should be proud of, what she should value. You are telling us on this thread what woman should want, what we should do, what our role should be. Instead of asking us what we want, you are telling us what we should want. And the rationale for doing this is that it is better for society. Why?
Why is it better for society that more than half the population should put their needs and wants, their dreams and ambitions secondary to the other half of the population? What kind of society requires that one group subjugate themselves for the rest of society? A society that doesn't discriminate, not on the basis of gender or any other characteristic, is what we should aspire to. Going back to the past where women were relegated to a very narrow role is not something to aspire to.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 05-10-2011 at 02:54 PM..
You don't think that the 40% of out of wedlock births is because men-hating feminists have decided that the only thing men are good for is to donate sperm?
It is mothers AND fathers that we should all be concerned with. It's called family - something that many modern women have been taught to hate.
You don't think that the 40% of out-of-wedlock births is because of worthless deadbeat men who can't take responsibility for their own actions and disappear from their pregnant girlfriends' lives?
I'm dying laughing. Feminism is selfish. Because women should generously play a subservient role in society. And men should take that for granted. It's the proper order of things.
Do you understand that your insistence that women shouldn't be your equals is much more selfish than women wanting equality?
The better question is, why do you insist that this illusion of "equal" really exists? Until you can urinate your name in the snow with precision ... we won't be equal!
Seriously ... no one is equal .... neither gender nor even as individuals within our respective genders. You're head is so stuffed with propaganda, you can't see this plain fact.
No, you will not see in your lifetime a female linebacker playing for the Dallas Cowboys ... you're stuck with the lingerie league, so get over yourself.
What is it with you progressive liberals and your allergic reaction to honesty? You can't even bring yourself to say "I'm Pro-Abortion" ... you have to use the watered down version of "Pro Choice". Yet, when you deride the crowd you call "Pro Life" ... the opposite of that would necessarily be "Pro Death", would it not? You can't have it both ways.
Let's really get down to the nitty gritty truth ... grab yourself some Calamine lotion if you need to .... but the central theme of the Feminist movement focuses as much or more energy in promoting abortion as you do equality in the work place. One could reasonably conclude from that that you celebrate killing a baby as much as receiving a bloody promotion or a pay raise. So deeply ensconced in your own delusions of equality ... you can't even be honest with yourselves with regard to your own lack of morality. And the contradictions .... oh the great irony .... you hate men that behave like men ... yet you want to be one all at the same time. Your clocks are running backwards.
You've enthusiastically abandoned the fundamental nature and instincts which define the female in almost every species on the planet ... while you demand that the world acknowledge the legitimacy of your self delusions? Please!
You won't permit a challenge to your integrity or morality ... that is why any challenge is relegated to "hating women". Had it ever occurred to you that the behavior and attitudes being challenged are not "womanly" so therefore "hating women" is a thoroughly empty accusation?
This reminds me of an old joke .... a man entering an office building notices a woman right behind him ... so he opens the door and stands to one side to allow her to enter ahead of him. Poor fellow wasn't expecting the response ... woman: "How dare you, you male chauvinist pig ... I am woman, and I do not need you to open any doors for me ... and I find it insulting that you'd open a door for me because I'm a lady" ... the man replies: "Mam, I didn't open the door for you because you are a lady ... I did so because I am a Gentleman".
You don't think that the 40% of out-of-wedlock births is because of worthless deadbeat men who can't take responsibility for their own actions and disappear from their pregnant girlfriends' lives?
No, it's because of women who are certain that they don't "need a man" to be a mother. And if you're a highly paid Hollywood actress who can pawn your kids off on a nanny, I guess that's true. But other women get the idea that they can do it too, on a lot less money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
