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.
Phew, this really tops the cake. I have never seen anything requiring men to act "oppressed and sad". Furthermore, most women wouldn't be attracted to men who act "oppressed and sad".
Has anyone else seen this trend in the USA? Men are supposed to act oppressed and sad to please women and to make the women they know feel good about themselves? On top of that women are permitted to act tyrannical because at one time several decades ago women were not permitted to vote. What is this social cancer about? It's a trend that makes me nauseated.
Sorry artsyguy...I've seen what you describe...but no way do I think it's a trend....Women are never "permitted" to act tyrannical...though they could be tyrants....and men are never "supposed" to act opressed and sad...though they may be opressed and sad......It seems kinda wierd that you would equate the fact that at one time women couldn't vote....with the idea that their great, great, great grand-daughters are reacting to this by becoming permittedly tyrannical......Guess you've just had a few run-ins with the wrong kind of women lately.
I thought it was suggesting that the general inability to "agree" on so-called "social rights" was behind the downfall of Chivalry, itself a social construct.
Some women like the advantages "Chivalry" affords them, and some women -- quite understandably -- DISlike the expectations "Chivalry" places upon them. I can see both sides. I try to stand for ladies on the bus or train, and appreciate those who appreciate me, laugh at those who attempt to eviscerate me most vociferously, because...
Some women aren't going to like anything except absolute power to have what they want when they want it and how they want it, so there never can be a right answer anyway, so I learn to ignore them and go make myself happy.
I guess either Dworkin works, depending on how one reads it.
I don't agree with the whole *stand up for a woman on the bus*...yeah unless it's an older person or someone disabled my backside is staying on the chair. Besides I can always use the disability card myself since I lost my right foot and have a prosthetic in its place
I don't agree with the whole *stand up for a woman on the bus*...yeah unless it's an older person or someone disabled my backside is staying on the chair. Besides I can always use the disability card myself since I lost my right foot and have a prosthetic in its place
I don't agree with the "stand up for a woman on a bus" either, but chivalry is nice and it can go both ways between each gender. Each situation is different, and I use common sense on who I get up and give my seat to. I would never let a disabled person, pregnant woman, elderly or someone who appears to be in trauma stand, sometimes I just give it up for the heck of it when I feel the need to.
Now back to the OP, why is Artsy concerned with women anyway?
Now back to the OP, why is Artsy concerned with women anyway?
Who the fudge knows. Maybe he was just having a boring day and needed to create a thread. Seems as though he's given up on this one anyway.
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.
Chivalry went down the toilet when the Dworkins of the world took over. 
