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.
power to send men to war, in which many men are slaughtered
How did women have control over warfare at all? Choosing what to cook for dinner and deciding if hubby is going to get lucky aren't rights, and aren't the same as getting the right to vote, being able to file for divorce, and being able to choose a career.
How did women have control over warfare at all? Choosing what to cook for dinner and deciding if hubby is going to get lucky aren't rights, and aren't the same as getting the right to vote, being able to file for divorce, and being able to choose a career.
By only marrying warriors, it's that simple and looking down on men when they would not fight.
I think the reason the ladies have a hard time reading my posts and those of others is a simple fact that women and men cannot grasp:
Read the early papers on feminism. You think that feminism was used to help out women? Guess again. It was designed soley to tax more of the population and break up the family unit, that's it. If we wanted to stop discrimination against women, you did not need feminism to do that.
It is social engineering, I know it's hard to believe but it is. No conspiracy.
You think that you are getting a good deal by working in the career force, to a certain extent you are but more damage underneath the scene is being done.
One of the best ways to weaken a society is to break up and destroy the family unit. If you still fail to grasp what I am saying, you are lost.
How does being a mother and nurturer make a woman dumb? You have the choice of not being in the kitchen but life was way more functional back then than now.
Personally I do not think I want women to be in the kitchen as a guy but women are taught to "compete with men", "if a man can do it I can" and they bring this mindset into relationships and marriages with men.
You are giving him great advice to stay single because far too many women mess up a guy's life, take his kids, his assets, his home and his dignity and sanity.
Don't believe me? Men are many more times likely, I think 10 times if I am correct to commit suicide than woman after a divorce.
Hi Black Jack22,
I think it might be the part about hanging out with the guys. It implies that there is no recreational time among women.
Though one of the things I hate most about feminism is some of its assumptions which seem to miss that a career 200 years ago was, by and large, being a dirt farmer. Most of the inequities seem to center around a rather narrow sliver in time which was nothing more than revolutionary change out pacing our traditions. That women could not vote was more or less the practical reality that counting households made more sense given the indivisible units that they were and that counting votes did not have modern methods. Thus something done for the sake of efficiency and expediency was transmogrified into a polemical argument.
Yes women were more vulnerable to individual family structures and abuses because the power of the state was absent. However that was a matter of a personal affair. Certainly a woman with no men folk around marrying an abusive husband was in a rather hopeless condition just a a child was with an abusive mother. What society did not do is forcibly conscript women as they did men for example. Certainly a poor Brit pressed into service on a ship as a slave is not really worth mentioning when the goal is to promulgate the oppression of women only.
Certainly a 50s wife is lamented more than the husband that never saw 1950 having died face down in the mud during WWII. The argument and usual habit of response that only men cause such wars falls rather flat since every female leader of which I am aware used her military in a most liberal fashion.
As I often remark a person's station is largely a matter of class and the vicissitudes of fortune.
How did women have control over warfare at all? Choosing what to cook for dinner and deciding if hubby is going to get lucky aren't rights, and aren't the same as getting the right to vote, being able to file for divorce, and being able to choose a career.
Hi fleetiebelle,
Name a female leader that did not use military power.
Cleopatra? Zenobia? Indira Gandhi? Margaret Thatcher?
Name a female leader that did not use military power.
Of course leaders used military power, but BlackJack was implying that women in general historically controlled warfare, which was certainly not the case.
Quote:
By only marrying warriors, it's that simple and looking down on men when they would not fight.
Again, we're talking about 20th century men and women, who drive cars and have refrigerators full of food that they bought in the grocery store.
The more we go round and round with this argument, the more it seems that there are a lot of men who feel that they've missed out on some golden age where they could be treated like little princes and get all their needs taken care of plus sex on demand, and now evil women with their devious ways have ruined it all for them.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 01-14-2010 at 03:22 PM..
Choosing what to cook for dinner and deciding if hubby is going to get lucky aren't rights, and aren't the same as getting the right to vote, being able to file for divorce, and being able to choose a career.
Until recently, I don't think it was much of an option, really.
Of course leaders used military power, but BlackJack was implying that women in general historically controlled warfare, which was certainly not the case.
Hi fleetiebelle,
If there is no difference it is not worth mentioning. It implies that women act differently in power. So far they have not.
Quote:
Again, we're talking about 20th century men and women, who drive cars and have refrigerators full of food that they bought in the grocery store.
I would say no since socialism now tends to mask real productivity.
Quote:
The more we go round and round with this argument, the more it seems that there are a lot of men who feel that they've missed out on some golden age where they could be treated like little princes and get all their needs taken care of plus sex on demand, and now evil women have ruined it all for them.
That is indeed possible. I don't think there was a golden age. I would recommend that men be a benefit to their women or expect to see them exit the relationship.
Of course leaders used military power, but BlackJack was implying that women in general historically controlled warfare, which was certainly not the case.
Again, we're talking about 20th century men and women, who drive cars and have refrigerators full of food that they bought in the grocery store.
The more we go round and round with this argument, the more it seems that there are a lot of men who feel that they've missed out on some golden age where they could be treated like little princes and get all their needs taken care of plus sex on demand, and now evil women have ruined it all for them.
20th century women cheered and encouraged their men along with the rest of society to fight in war, for their country. Men go to war because they feel obligated to fight for the liberties of WOMEN and children.
Women comprise most of the voters and help the government to decide to send us to war by electing our leaders who want war, yet they do not fight in wars like men do.
You are once again making assumptions for reasons I know not. Sex on demand? Women have always controlled sex, that's just nature working, unfortunately they take it to the extreme in marriages at times. Princes? Well if women want to be treated like princesses, which is very popular these days, then I want to be treated like a prince.
Until recently, I don't think it was much of an option, really.
Hi JustJulia,
You are implying that women had no influence over their men. I do not recall my grandmothers or any of my female relatives complaining about this. Do you think it is man's natural state to consider woman slaves to be raped when they please? Such a man would be a sociopath. Yes its true there were sociopaths. I read in history quite frequently of men who fell in love with women who caused them to do outlandish things. In other cases, such as when Gothic women became the property of Romans, it was that they were barbarians rather than being women. Being a woman was probably far better for the vanquished. Being a galley slave, one would last about a year.
You are implying that women had no influence over their men. I do not recall my grandmothers or any of my female relatives complaining about this. Do you think it is man's natural state to consider woman slaves to be raped when they please? Such a man would be a sociopath. Yes its true there were sociopaths. I read in history quite frequently of men who fell in love with women who caused them to do outlandish things. In other cases, such as when Gothic women became the property of Romans, it was that they were barbarians rather than being women. Being a woman was probably far better for the vanquished. Being a galley slave, one would last about a year.
I cannot speak for JustJulia, but I know prior to the 1970s raping your spouse was not a crime in most states, much to the shame of my state North Carolina it did not become a crime until 1993. This may be what she is referring to.
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.
