To be happy, women must admit they are not "equal" to men
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know, I think you would have more productive conversations if you weren't so needlessly antagonistic.Katatori-kun said:
There is a bit of truth to this, tho it feels very one sided. It's always bothered me when people insist on people or things being equal that are very different. While I believe everyone has the right to pursue their own happiness, I find some of the more hardcore feminists look down upon women who do not make the same choices they have.
Piorn said:
Also to the point of not liking the colour pink, that was probably more of personal preference and social things since pink was considered a boy's colour before/during the 1950's. (Personally, I hate pink)
I think the statement should be "we're all different" not just men and women.[footnote]Personal rant that may or may not have to do with anything you said or meant[/footnote] Some women like dresses and some men like dresses, so on and so on. I don't think we need carefully constructed social roles to be happy. Women don't need men to open doors for them or pull their chair out for them, so on and so on. Everyone should hold open doors for everyone regardless of gender/race/age blah blah blah.
But yes, men and women are different both physically and mentally. But everyone should be able to have interests outside (or within[footnote]There is nothing wrong with wanting a 'traditional life' of being a stay at home mom or having a normal marriage[/footnote]) of their social roles and be courteous to everyone.
Sorry about that friend, I went off on a bit of a tangent! I return you to your regularly scheduled Escapist!
Of course it's too peaceful.... I mean seriously......... When was the last time the US was in only one war at a time 1991?MarsAtlas said:
Hasn't the last decade of total global perfection taught us that the USA must be in two wars at once MINIMUM?
But on a more serious note.... has anyone ever tried just ignoring Fox News? You know, just pretend they don't exist....
Very clever beginning to the story OP I didn't catch the sarcasm till you showed the article on lesbians kissing.
Anyways I think that fox news article is BS, nobody should ever be dependent on another person to judge them and make them feel better about themselves. Also I'm 99% positive we as a country are happier overall then we where in the 60's or 70's.
Anyways I think that fox news article is BS, nobody should ever be dependent on another person to judge them and make them feel better about themselves. Also I'm 99% positive we as a country are happier overall then we where in the 60's or 70's.
It is not.MarsAtlas said:
Much of what we do is not what is best for an individual, but what is best for society in general.
There are individual rights that a majority may NOT interfere with, even if interference would be pro-social.
Imagine if you could outlaw all religions save one particular branch of Christianity. You'd have a much more homogenus society that is easier to govern. Social institions would all be teaching the same thing. It would also be a violation of our constitution.
Here's where I and Fox have a problem:
Fine. Some people do not want traditional lives (such as a Woman's highest calling to socialize a man through marriage, bear his children and be primary caretaker of the family. Man's highest calling: to take care of that woman and her children.)
A guy's life style, what makes him individually happy, can be greatly hampered by marriage. It can make it much harder to go out, get falling down drunk with your friends, commit a few crimes for pocket money so you don't need a steady job, etc. A woman can feel hampered by a man... always thinking he has a right to an opinion on how things work within the home. Comin home and sittin on the damn couch with his zuchini so to speak. See min. 1:30
But we're actually subsiding through government, people moving away from their highest calling. We're actually working on ways to have healthcare keep the middle aged college student, Sandra Fluke, barren. Everything that makes her beautiful and bright is not being passed on. Staying barren is certainly her right, but, damn! We're supposed to subsidize that? And, if you're paying attention, you know that is the tip of the iceberg.
It's a troll. It starts out plausible but descends into insanity in the latter third where the OP acts like a slave to men and bashes homosexuals. Any support of Fox News or traditional gender roles should have been a sign though.Helmholtz Watson said:
Overall, the position the OP is bashing isn't necessarily a bad position. We're not talking about apartheid-style "separate but equal." We're talking about "men are men, women are women, and that's okay." "Feminism," not real feminism but the "Feminazis" out there who dominated the 80s and 90s, seeks not to have women respected but to see men demeaned and put in the role they saw themselves in, much like revenge-based black-on-white racism you see street gangs ascribing to. There's a difference between "I can be independent and strong as an individual" and "I don't need no [insert gender]!" I say that because to be honest, whether you're straight or gay, it's part of human nature to want and feel the need for a significant other. Relationships can be a great thing, and marriage is a choice to be in a life-long one. We shouldn't demean that, just because we don't agree with certain people.
Have people in this thread ever read Rousseau's Emile?
That's centuries old French philosophy for you that's still being used today.
Sophie should be as typically woman as Emile is man. She must possess all the
characteristics of humanity and of womanhood which she needs for playing her part in
the physical and the moral order. Let us begin considering in what respects her sex and
ours agree and differ. In the mating of the sexes each contributes in equal measure to the common end
but not in the same way. From the diversity comes the first difference which has to be
noted in their personal relations. It is the part of the one to be active and strong, and of
the other to be passive and weak.
Accept this principle and it follows in the second place that woman is intended to please man. If the man requires to please the woman in turn the necessity is less direct. Masterfulness is his special attribute. He pleases by the very
fact that he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit. But it is the law of nature, which is more ancient than love. The faculties common to the sexes are not equally shared between them; but take them all in all, they are well balanced. The more womanly a woman is, the better. Whenever she exercises her own proper powers she gains by it: when she tries to usurp ours she becomes our inferior. Believe me, wise mother, it is a mistake to bring up your daughter to be like a good man. Make her a good woman, and you can be sure that she will be worth more for herself and for us.
This does not mean that she should be brought up in utter ignorance and confined to domestic tasks. A man does not want to make his companion a servant and deprive himself of the peculiar charms of her company. That is quite against the teaching of nature, which has endowed women with quick pleasing minds. Nature means them to think, to judge, to love, to know and to cultivate the mind as well as the countenance.
This is the equipment nature has given them to compensate for their lack of strength and enable them to direct the strength of men. As I see it, the special functions of women, their inclinations and their duties, combine to suggest the kind of education they require. Men and women are made for each other but they differ in the measure of their dependence on each other. We could get on better without women than women could get on without us.
To play their part in life they must have our willing help, and for that they must earn our esteem. By the
very law of nature women are at the mercy of men's judgments for themselves and
for their children. It is not enough that they should be estimable: they must be
esteemed. It is not enough that they should be beautiful: they must be pleasing. It is not enough that they should be wise: their wisdom must be recognised.
Their honour does not rest on their conduct but on their reputation. Hence the kind of education
they get should be the very opposite of men's in this respect. Public opinion is the
tomb of a man's virtue but the throne of a woman's.
On the good constitution of the mothers depends that of the children and the early education of men is in their hands. On women too depend the morals, the passions, the tastes, the pleasures, aye and the happiness of men. For this reason their education must be wholly directed to their relations with men. To give them pleasure, to be useful to them, to win their love and esteem, to train them in their childhood, to care for them when they grow up, to give them cotmscl and consolation, to make life sweet and agreeable for them: these are the tasks of women in all times for which they should be trained from childhood.
characteristics of humanity and of womanhood which she needs for playing her part in
the physical and the moral order. Let us begin considering in what respects her sex and
ours agree and differ. In the mating of the sexes each contributes in equal measure to the common end
but not in the same way. From the diversity comes the first difference which has to be
noted in their personal relations. It is the part of the one to be active and strong, and of
the other to be passive and weak.
Accept this principle and it follows in the second place that woman is intended to please man. If the man requires to please the woman in turn the necessity is less direct. Masterfulness is his special attribute. He pleases by the very
fact that he is strong. This is not the law of love, I admit. But it is the law of nature, which is more ancient than love. The faculties common to the sexes are not equally shared between them; but take them all in all, they are well balanced. The more womanly a woman is, the better. Whenever she exercises her own proper powers she gains by it: when she tries to usurp ours she becomes our inferior. Believe me, wise mother, it is a mistake to bring up your daughter to be like a good man. Make her a good woman, and you can be sure that she will be worth more for herself and for us.
This does not mean that she should be brought up in utter ignorance and confined to domestic tasks. A man does not want to make his companion a servant and deprive himself of the peculiar charms of her company. That is quite against the teaching of nature, which has endowed women with quick pleasing minds. Nature means them to think, to judge, to love, to know and to cultivate the mind as well as the countenance.
This is the equipment nature has given them to compensate for their lack of strength and enable them to direct the strength of men. As I see it, the special functions of women, their inclinations and their duties, combine to suggest the kind of education they require. Men and women are made for each other but they differ in the measure of their dependence on each other. We could get on better without women than women could get on without us.
To play their part in life they must have our willing help, and for that they must earn our esteem. By the
very law of nature women are at the mercy of men's judgments for themselves and
for their children. It is not enough that they should be estimable: they must be
esteemed. It is not enough that they should be beautiful: they must be pleasing. It is not enough that they should be wise: their wisdom must be recognised.
Their honour does not rest on their conduct but on their reputation. Hence the kind of education
they get should be the very opposite of men's in this respect. Public opinion is the
tomb of a man's virtue but the throne of a woman's.
On the good constitution of the mothers depends that of the children and the early education of men is in their hands. On women too depend the morals, the passions, the tastes, the pleasures, aye and the happiness of men. For this reason their education must be wholly directed to their relations with men. To give them pleasure, to be useful to them, to win their love and esteem, to train them in their childhood, to care for them when they grow up, to give them cotmscl and consolation, to make life sweet and agreeable for them: these are the tasks of women in all times for which they should be trained from childhood.
That's centuries old French philosophy for you that's still being used today.
No, it isn't.Nieroshai said:
And I always hated football, was bored by cars, found no amusement in mechanics, and wished for a toy oven since I was old enough to voice an opinion. Neither experience constitutes hard evidence: especially when the child would have grown up watching the same advertisements and shows on television, reading the same books, and seeing the same traditional roles in the world around him. It's impossible to raise someone in a cultural vacuum unless they're a feral child.Piorn said:
I'm not saying that men and women are necessarily identical - I'm not near qualified enough to make an educated guess - but I find it extremely hard to believe that testosterone levels or genetics are the reason men like cars.
OT: Did a double-take before I realised this was an ironic thread - even after recognising Vault from about the forum. D'oh.
