feminist views and domestic violence
- Thread starter jopoblo
- Start date
This is stupid.
She speaks of changing our society. Feministic ideas(etc). Stupid shit, real stupid shit.
The next thing to happen is women is the only living creature (except for animals).
If that is the case, then I intend to ignore this thread.
It is so stupid, that only god can kill you.
She speaks of changing our society. Feministic ideas(etc). Stupid shit, real stupid shit.
The next thing to happen is women is the only living creature (except for animals).
If that is the case, then I intend to ignore this thread.
It is so stupid, that only god can kill you.
strawberrykisses
Registered Member
What I've never understood is when women call themselves "Feminist" and then advocate that women are BETTER than men. Even in the fight for "equality" there are always contradictions - in the case of domestic violence, wouldn't it appear, logically, the more society breaks gender stereotypes, the more domestic violence there would be? Men beat each other up all the time, but they refrain from beating up women just because they're women.
you do know, how many contradicitons (I AM THE BIGGEST FREAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE LOL) there are in, well, even that?
there are more "superior" males in this world than females are superior to males.
as mush sexist crap as you will bring about, you can't beat that statement.
nor that men are the makers lol.
regardless, i'm a butterfly when it comes to criticism and love.
hahaha.
fuck me.
there are more "superior" males in this world than females are superior to males.
as mush sexist crap as you will bring about, you can't beat that statement.
nor that men are the makers lol.
regardless, i'm a butterfly when it comes to criticism and love.
hahaha.
fuck me.
strawberrykisses said:
It is interesting how many women are against feminism. That's okay with me.
I must disagree with you, however, on your statement that the more society breaks gender stereotypes, the more domestic violence would be. Think of how adrenaline works. The more you stimulate it, the stronger the response gets. The same is true of the neuro-biochemical process that results in sexual excitement. When you get to the point where you've lost control of your anger, and perhaps even of your sex drive, you can't intelligently choose what object or person you take your anger out on. Ergo, men who are used to beating up on men find themselves beating up on their wives and/or children. This is also a part of the process that perpetuates the cycle of child abuse. Victims grow angry and resentful, and the strongest model they have for dealing with their anger is their abuser, so when they become parents, they find themselves in their abusing parent's shoes. Please keep the comments coming.
Women are aganist feminism because it is abusive.
You are sexist.
I will advoid your ideas of changing our society, because, your beans smell bad. Not only do they smell bad, but they taste, bad too. I guarentee you with 100% accuracy that this issue has already been presented.
yes.. *laugh*: i am entertaining. I am entertaining because nothing I say is wrong.
That's the unfortunate part, about it however...
What are your ideas? "Ban" men their balls? Ban men their naturality? What do you suggest, you haven't once. All men are gay, ok, that's grey. Great, I mean. Oh, no, you are a pissant. I'm sorry....
Let me see what it is your trying to do.
You are a feminist hypocrite. If you are able to contridict my statement there, I will listen.
In every other case, you will remain, a feminist hypocrite. You feminists are the worst type of humanity, especially when such a line of thought is already done and over with. Feminism is a thing of the past.
Let me wonder, have you ever noticed that... AHRRMM... there is a thing called Post Modernism?
i wonder if you have ever even read. Wait, you're lesbian, that's right.
Sucks because I can't even say shit to you. You're too busy with your achedemia that your bullshitin around. Why do I advoid your posts? Because they miss the point entirely. They're stupid. They continue the same line of thought of (just a passing participant): here is what we should do, men are violent, (bla bla bla), yet... you talk about it in such a way, as if you are VERY seroius about it. ANd that is annoying as hell. I think most would agree with me?no
in every case, your arguements to say the least are lack of beans.
I am guessing you would have men castrated at birth, or one nut removed.
if not, ...
well...
What are you saying.
You are stupid.
You are sexist.
I will advoid your ideas of changing our society, because, your beans smell bad. Not only do they smell bad, but they taste, bad too. I guarentee you with 100% accuracy that this issue has already been presented.
yes.. *laugh*: i am entertaining. I am entertaining because nothing I say is wrong.
That's the unfortunate part, about it however...
What are your ideas? "Ban" men their balls? Ban men their naturality? What do you suggest, you haven't once. All men are gay, ok, that's grey. Great, I mean. Oh, no, you are a pissant. I'm sorry....
Let me see what it is your trying to do.
You are a feminist hypocrite. If you are able to contridict my statement there, I will listen.
In every other case, you will remain, a feminist hypocrite. You feminists are the worst type of humanity, especially when such a line of thought is already done and over with. Feminism is a thing of the past.
Let me wonder, have you ever noticed that... AHRRMM... there is a thing called Post Modernism?
i wonder if you have ever even read. Wait, you're lesbian, that's right.
Sucks because I can't even say shit to you. You're too busy with your achedemia that your bullshitin around. Why do I advoid your posts? Because they miss the point entirely. They're stupid. They continue the same line of thought of (just a passing participant): here is what we should do, men are violent, (bla bla bla), yet... you talk about it in such a way, as if you are VERY seroius about it. ANd that is annoying as hell. I think most would agree with me?no
in every case, your arguements to say the least are lack of beans.
I am guessing you would have men castrated at birth, or one nut removed.
if not, ...
well...
What are you saying.
You are stupid.
my chance to express my ideas:
you are stupid. you are stupid because you are a woman. ... please don't bann me. you are stupid because you women always say shit like that; it's only the women. I assure you that you are the only one who creates the violence; you and your castrating ideals.
stick a fork in it shudder woman.
you are stupid. you are stupid because you are a woman. ... please don't bann me. you are stupid because you women always say shit like that; it's only the women. I assure you that you are the only one who creates the violence; you and your castrating ideals.
stick a fork in it shudder woman.
strawberrykisses
Registered Member
"It is interesting how many women are against feminism." (sorry can't work out how to quote) (existabrent - please don't make a comment about female inability with technology)
Well, i'm not exactly against feminism. It is annoying though, how most men automatically assume you're a feminist...!
Of course I don't agree that women should be shoved in the kitchen and should clean the house, or should give up their careers to raise their children, or should do whatever their husbands/brothers/fathers tell them to otherwise get beaten. But, I do think that male dominance (NOT 'superiority') is natural.
And my comment was merely saying "in theory" that's how it should work. Obviously, it doesn't.
Also, gender 'stereotypes' do not come from nowhere, and although some females may think otherwise, they are usually not too derogatory. Stereotypes like women are obsessed with their weight and clothes...more often than not, they ARE. You don't see men running around complaining that women automatically assume they're sloppy and lazy!
Well, i'm not exactly against feminism. It is annoying though, how most men automatically assume you're a feminist...!
Of course I don't agree that women should be shoved in the kitchen and should clean the house, or should give up their careers to raise their children, or should do whatever their husbands/brothers/fathers tell them to otherwise get beaten. But, I do think that male dominance (NOT 'superiority') is natural.
And my comment was merely saying "in theory" that's how it should work. Obviously, it doesn't.
Also, gender 'stereotypes' do not come from nowhere, and although some females may think otherwise, they are usually not too derogatory. Stereotypes like women are obsessed with their weight and clothes...more often than not, they ARE. You don't see men running around complaining that women automatically assume they're sloppy and lazy!
existabrent said:
History ceaselessly unfolds, and, someday, not today, perhaps, the pendulum begins to swing the other way.
Yes, Eb, I have noticed Postmodernism. Kindly read the following:
Postmodern philosophy is a radical criticism of Western philosophy, because it rejects the universalizing tendencies of philosophy. It applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, neo-relativism, neo-marxism, gender studies and literary theory. It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a rejection of doctrines such as positivism, Darwinism, materialism and objective idealism.
Postmodern philosophy emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. In this context it has been used by critical theorists to assert that postmodernism is a break with the artistic and philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, which they characterize as a quest for an ever-grander and more universal system of aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. Postmodern philosophy draws on a number of approaches to criticize Western thought, including historicism, and psychoanalytic theory.
Postmodern philosophy is criticised for prizing irony over knowledge, and giving the irrational equal footing with the rational.
Some see postmodernism as essentially a kind of semantic gamesmanship, more sophistry than substance. Postmodernism's proponents are often criticised for a tendency to indulge in exhausting, verbose stretches of rhetorical gymnastics, which critics feel sound important but are ultimately meaningless.
I have also noticed something that you seem to do quite a bit in your responses to my rhetoric--"attack the messenger." Have you ever noticed that one? In case you are not familiar with the complete phrase (which, I assure you, is forgivable), it goes like this: "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." I see, of course, that you have attacked my message plenty of times, although I'm not always clear on your meaning(Why the multiple references to beans?), but you also seem to favor launching attacks against me personally, rather than continue to try arguing your point until you've reached an effective conclusion to justify your strong reactions. Methinks he doth protest too much,
and perhaps he knows deep down I have a point. I do not fretfully wait for your reply. I expect more of the same from you, and that will only serve to further my conviction.
Last edited:
strawberrykisses said:
I have no problem with your acceptance of stereotypes. Everybody must generalize, if we are to be able to think; the world is just too complex not to look for similarities among groups. But to say things like, "All black men are good at sports," "All jews are save and invest their money judiciously," or "All males are naturally dominant," is going a little too far. I'm sure you have come across dominating women or submissive men. And even nature changes. I'm sure that the men of today are not nearly as aggressive of the "men" from the dawn of civilization. Evolution changes people, my dear, and we are a society that is highly dependent upon technology (Look at us right now!)--and knowledgeable of how to use it to facilitate our survival--and evolutionary adaptations like knocking out your partner and dragging her into your cave are just not necessary for the continued reproductive success of our species any longer. And, yes, we have tendencies which we associate with a particular sex, some of which may be innate or natural, but we choose how to behave in response to internal as well as external stimuli. If we know a certain behavior makes us or someone else miserable, we can choose to work at discontinuing that behavior and work at seeking alternatives that work for ourselves as well as others.
I am a feminist, and everyone should be. During the reign of feminine values on Earth just after we invented agriculture in the fertile crescent, humanity existed in relative peace with little sign of warfare, suitable worship of life creation, creativity and ecstatic psychedelic religion.
In the 1950's domestic violence was hardly thought of as a problem. Women had little economic power, and often tolerated horrible conditions, having nowhere to turn. With the rise of feminism (which is actually just a re-discovery), we now pay serious attention to this kind of violence. Our society is a more fair and just place because of it.
In the 1950's domestic violence was hardly thought of as a problem. Women had little economic power, and often tolerated horrible conditions, having nowhere to turn. With the rise of feminism (which is actually just a re-discovery), we now pay serious attention to this kind of violence. Our society is a more fair and just place because of it.
spidergoat said:
Thank you, Spidergoat. I can finally rest for a bit. I grew weary of "talking to testosterone." I hope it is obvious that I am a feminist (although a man). And I have long felt averse to those who believe that merely a strong conviction in their incidental beliefs is all the proof they need that their arguments are correct. I have also recently sought evidence of the past prevalence of a matriarchal society and, so far, only found mentions of the possibility of such an existence during my brief search of the internet. I am encouraged to hear confirmation of it from another person. I have been preparing for a presentation on "the abuse of women and children and how it relates to ethics." Could you tell me where I could find a clear source of "the reign of feminine values," as you aptly put it? And when you say "we," I assume you mean "women" invented agriculture in the fertile crescent? That is awesome information. It's incredible that such information remains so deeply hidden that I was even unable to find one obvious source of it during my internet search. I guess I just didn't have enough specifics to do an adequate search.
Cooperative values doesn't mean ignoring who you are or eliminating gender. It's just a model for society based on mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. I suggest reading "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler to learn more about this period of early civilization.jopoblo said:
http://www.partnershipway.org/index.html
spidergoat said:
Thank you for your respectful suggestion.
By the way, I would never suggest eliminating gender, or ignoring who you are. In fact, a part of who you are is how you place yourself among and relate to people of a different sex, race, orientation, etc. And that, in turn, gives people feedback for their own response which also becomes a part of their identity.
I suppose that respect of differences is all that is called for, which should lead to the ability of all of us with differing traits to trust each other to accept and respond acceptably to those differences. When you have an attitude of disrespect, it is like saying, "All that matters is me and what I want. And you are not conforming to my wishes," which leads to hostility, which leads to violence.
I don't quite know if this answers the question at hand, and I didn't quite bother to read all of the thread.
But the role of men and women has a historical background. Think back to when we were hunters and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. The woman gets pregnant and spends 9 months creating a child. After the 9 months she now has the chore of feeding it and taking care of it until the child can fend for itself.
So for each child it is a few years of her life that she is quite handicapped when it comes to going out into the wilderness, running tens of kilometers a day and trying to catch something to eat or whatnot. It makes historical sense that the man would become the "stronger" and more aggresive gender, as it was much easier for him to go out and to the physical work while the woman tended to the children.
And alot of civilizations tended to have many children. A family with 5 children was not uncommon, geeze just look back 3 generations ago, how many children were in your great grandparents family? Not all of them would survive, or be successful in order to take care of the family as they got older. Thats like 20 years of the womans life raising children.
In today's context it does not matter anymore. We live in big cities, where woman can work at home, drive to the grocery store, and have maybe 1 or 2 children. What we have physically is a remnant of hundred of thousands years evolution. We needed the roles of men and women in order to survive as a species. It doesn't matter anymore, or at least as not to as big of an extreme as it once did.
The trick is to understand that although our gender roles don't "need" to be different, we ARE different, due to our history. Ignoring our physical make-up and evolutionary traits (as some feminist groups suggest) is beyond stupidity. Just realize that we are living in a time where both sexes can fight the same war, even though one might have have a certain advantage on a certain battleground
But the role of men and women has a historical background. Think back to when we were hunters and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. The woman gets pregnant and spends 9 months creating a child. After the 9 months she now has the chore of feeding it and taking care of it until the child can fend for itself.
So for each child it is a few years of her life that she is quite handicapped when it comes to going out into the wilderness, running tens of kilometers a day and trying to catch something to eat or whatnot. It makes historical sense that the man would become the "stronger" and more aggresive gender, as it was much easier for him to go out and to the physical work while the woman tended to the children.
And alot of civilizations tended to have many children. A family with 5 children was not uncommon, geeze just look back 3 generations ago, how many children were in your great grandparents family? Not all of them would survive, or be successful in order to take care of the family as they got older. Thats like 20 years of the womans life raising children.
In today's context it does not matter anymore. We live in big cities, where woman can work at home, drive to the grocery store, and have maybe 1 or 2 children. What we have physically is a remnant of hundred of thousands years evolution. We needed the roles of men and women in order to survive as a species. It doesn't matter anymore, or at least as not to as big of an extreme as it once did.
The trick is to understand that although our gender roles don't "need" to be different, we ARE different, due to our history. Ignoring our physical make-up and evolutionary traits (as some feminist groups suggest) is beyond stupidity. Just realize that we are living in a time where both sexes can fight the same war, even though one might have have a certain advantage on a certain battleground
if you expect much the same from me, only know i'm going to continue my point until yours falls. haha. i'm kidding, but there are many, and already completed, pages about this elsewhere. what, should i copy something from my book, just to amuse you? no i've already entertained you enough? oh, you're paying attention to my male gender. "i suppose this and that": it's unfortunate that spider goat for example and so many other greats, quit being like me and are themselfs, only to be attacked by the feminists.
this is about my pov but i should calm it down a little maybe? fine. it is ... stupid, to suggest such things as have already been suggested and are over with. that is why i created a thread called "this is all BS" or something in the free thoughts. certainly i could give a better response than this, but this is just a POST to tell maybe some things? i don't know.
anyway, the "feminism" debate issue deal thingey is another POV that just sucks. lol. it's just a pov, it's just some crap.
i think intellectual crap is stupid and everyone here shouldn't act so smart, they're fuckin' themselfs up.
anyway, ifyou're still reading, what?
lol. what is the point in this thread?
i like it, but....
this is about my pov but i should calm it down a little maybe? fine. it is ... stupid, to suggest such things as have already been suggested and are over with. that is why i created a thread called "this is all BS" or something in the free thoughts. certainly i could give a better response than this, but this is just a POST to tell maybe some things? i don't know.
anyway, the "feminism" debate issue deal thingey is another POV that just sucks. lol. it's just a pov, it's just some crap.
i think intellectual crap is stupid and everyone here shouldn't act so smart, they're fuckin' themselfs up.
anyway, ifyou're still reading, what?
lol. what is the point in this thread?
i like it, but....