Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
This seemed incomplete to me. Have you done what you suggest here? What conclusions did you draw?
Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
This seemed incomplete to me. Have you done what you suggest here? What conclusions did you draw?
No, this is bizarre. Where did this come up from and why would you even care? What the hell weird sort of diversion is this, now?
It's not a cop out, nor does it have anything to do with religion. Your argument strongly implied that women don't choose to participate in pornography - which obviously they must, unless for some reason they lack free will.
Your only other argument is to invoke some sort of protection racket: women need men to protect them from men. Even a retard like your pitiful self should be able to see the problem with that.
But you're not able to choose either one, so I can't mock how stupid they are. Yet.
No, you genetic disaster, I want to speak to someone who knows how to use the English language in a meaningful way. It has less to do with your inability to write beyond a first-grade level and more to do with the fact that, by virtue of not being able to think critically, you can't communicate critically.
Well, I think he means "Women need good men to protect them from bad men." Which is, of course, absolutely true and is essentially the reality of the world, whether you can admit it or not.
The worst mistake in history was when men gave women the right to vote! The world went downhill steadily after that, and it's continuing to go downhill and I see no stopping it.
Baron Max
Sure, studies done by women, of course!! Why don't they commission me to do those studies?
No, it's a step backwards! And I think the problems with western youth is a prime example of that backward step. ...wild, uncontrollable kids who feel that it's their right to fuck over anyone and everyone.
Baron Max
You are such a comedian! You do make me laugh! I think previous generations had no problem with the idea of "fucking" over anyone. It's interesting considering that you are old you would even care. It seems you are more worried that those who "fucked" over others and gotten used to it are losing that priviledge.
That might not have been their goal, but it was the final effect in their actions.
Baron Max
Man, you used to be fun with your trolling. What happened?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
A troll is someone who simply posts to trigger reactions. Sometimes to pull threads off course intentionally, sometimes just to get people worked up. In other words the idea of exchanging ideas or putting out opinions or developing a dialogue are not the motives. It is simply to upset and fuck with people.
I don't think you are a troll by the way. Some of you posts have had that flavor, but whose haven't.
I don't think you are a troll by the way. Some of you posts have had that flavor, but whose haven't.
(Insert title here)
Yeah, see ... it's only you and Dobson and the like that see it that way, though. Your question--
--is a non sequitur. You made an assertion, considered a response, and asked a fine question for a different discussion. At each exchange, you're making less sense. This is an interesting one:
I mean, what exactly do you mean? You or Dobson are going to have to establish where you get this bit about motherhood--
--and what it's supposed to mean.
The selfishness involved with the problems of economic distribution predate this feminism that scares the crap out of you by centuries. In fact, it's part of what made marriage and motherhood symbols of oppression.
The racism and slave mentality don't lend much to the dignity of your vision:
You posted two separate responses to my paragraph. Of the immigration question, you wrote, "is there another option?". To the notion of overpopulation, you wrote, "we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world". It's fair enough if you want to say you were only making jokes to avoid the discussion. But in light of those two lines, your statement--
--seems a bit disingenuous. But then again, there is something inherently disingenuous about an argument that would chastise as selfish the desire for equality, while calling for a return to an oppressive and exploitative arrangement.
An interesting argument. Feel free to actually make it when you've the time and inclination. I understand it will be a complex one. Just the outline will suffice, whenever you've got it ready. We can work from there.
That was, to a degree, the suffragettes' point.
Look, you made the point that it's not clear to you why motherhood "is oppressive". I actually wonder whether you really care or not. As women secured their not-quite equal footing in society--which was a step up from a generation before--one of the constant drumbeats in opposition was that woman's role was in the home, as a mother. And one of the long arguments of the misogynists has been that the liberal progress toward social equality has somehow diminished motherhood by not making it the focus and obsession of a woman's existence.
You're already tilting windmills. The arguments you state that you oppose or don't understand are mere caricatures drawn up by conservatives in order to simplify necessary anthropological, psychological, and sociological considerations. When you say it's not clear why motherhood excludes one from voting, you're insisting on a perverse and simplistic consideration of history, anthropology, psychology, and sociology, at least. When you say it is unclear why maintaining the population is a source of indignity, you're insisting that whoever you're disagreeing with is arguing the point you'd rather they be arguing. When you ask "why exactly is motherhood damaging to a woman's sense of self respect", you're inventing a question according to the argument you'd rather be having.
No, it's not. At least, not according to your arguments. Don't get me wrong, the thread can be about whatever you want to imagine it's about. But it's not about the social implications of historical events and processes, it's about the social implications of a dystopian projections. When you use phrases like "engineering changed roles of gender", you tip your hand, Lightgigantic. You're not making some neutral, curious inquiry.
That's the problem with dragging your religious proselytizing into the EM&J forum. You make these accusations of selfishness, but want to hide the counterpoint in another forum.
(1) Somebody can find some better references on the toy shop story before I care about it. Dobson's consistently unreliable about such things; his penchant for exaggeration renders him ineffective for the expectation of dishonesty.
(2) There is a difference between the differences in height, weight, musical talent, &c. that have an effect on what people do and how they live, and the differences between genders and skin color and how the law regards them. Demanding that all genders are equal before the law does not erode a positive image of motherhood, unless, of course, that "positive image of motherhood" is misogynistic.
What was the question? No, seriously, what was the question?
And? Which of those countries are the United States of America?
Let's see ... Ireland had a female president, right? Mary Robinson? Shall we do in the U.S. what Ireland did? Ban abortion, but in our constitution we should guarantee that no mother should be forced to work?
Benazir Bhutto has been in the news of late. She emerged from a nation where customary regard for women still produces violence against women in ways we Americans consider savage. Shall we bring those conditions to our women?
What? Anything to make sure a woman isn't your equal?
Then don't make up words to help dramatize your argument. Duh.
And for centuries, this historical lineage has seen that relationship unequal. And that's exactly what has Dobson and his ilk so upset. Women should only be equal, by that argument, when men say they're equal.
Oh come on. What, with the mess heterosexuals made with their Christian-derived marital traditions, someone was bound to try that angle.
More language that is either deceitful or astoundingly presumptuous.
I'm just tired of trying to make the flying leaps you demand. You're setting such ridiculous terms that there's really no point to playing along with them.
All people are equal before the law, Lightgigantic.
It's clear that people ought to know better than to desire respect from you. But the idea that holding people as equal before the law is impossible would be funny except that the ignorance it testifies to is, in fact, sad.
Well, he's dishonest, a professional hatemonger, and profits by advocating human suffering. I suppose "disrespectful" would be an interesting umbrella charge.
Yes, yes. Whatever you say.
Dude, you posted shite religious propaganda with no contextual commentary in EM&J. Maybe you missed the point earlier: excuse the fuck out of me for trying to raise ethical considerations. Really, I had no idea you were going to take it so personally, else I would have just saved us all the effort and pitched it aside to the Cesspool. Seriously, since it was just something you found while cleaning up your hard drive, I figured to give it some background and raise some ethical considerations to justify its place in EM&J. And you went and got all pissed off about that, to the point that--
--you're getting self-righteous over something you probably shouldn't. As Xev noted--and you quoted her on that point, too--I did challenge the content of the article. But since you need a reminder, there is the part about the first essay in the book, the one that contains the stock prayer story number whatever, a fairly obvious challenge to Dobson's veracity. And then I denounce his credibility: "... I've learned from considering whatever the current situation was that Dobson simply cannot be trusted." And then I even follow it up by showing that Dobson left details out of one of his incident examples in order to sharpen the sense of outrage one was expected to feel. And I asked about the library. Why wouldn't he give better information about the library? So, yes, I have challenged the credibility of Dobson's examples, and I'm willing to clarify right here: the man is full of shit.
What the hell does that even mean?
_____________
Notes:
° Wanted? - The paragraph that followed was originally intended to clarify. For your own reasons, of course, you split it into two paragraphs; I do not (cannot) object to this. But I do wonder about the fact that in neither case did you address the portion you quoted.
Additionally, though, you presume that the world population is an ideal number for humanity. We would probably be a healthier species at 3-4 billion than we are now. Adjusting the distribution system to meet the population is one thing; choosing an arbitrary population spec, though, is entirely arbitrary.
The second portion of the above-cited paragraph, involving misogyny and phallosupremacy, you dismissed curiously by making an irrelevant admonishment about extremes and then digress about pornography.
I mention all this because the issues addressed in that portion still plague our discussion. In fact, some of your caricature questions only make sense if we ignore those issues.
Lightgigantic said:
Yeah, see ... it's only you and Dobson and the like that see it that way, though. Your question--
and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?
--is a non sequitur. You made an assertion, considered a response, and asked a fine question for a different discussion. At each exchange, you're making less sense. This is an interesting one:
L: the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)
T: Wanted?°
L: you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?
T: It's a step along the way. The poor and the stupid, of course, will be the last to figure that out.
L: and who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid
T: I think there's a strange correlation taking place. If you really think family and reproduction have been so damaged by the concept that all humans deserve certain respect regardless of their gender, I should probably be quite happy to leave you so discouraged.
L: and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?
T: Wanted?°
L: you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?
T: It's a step along the way. The poor and the stupid, of course, will be the last to figure that out.
L: and who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid
T: I think there's a strange correlation taking place. If you really think family and reproduction have been so damaged by the concept that all humans deserve certain respect regardless of their gender, I should probably be quite happy to leave you so discouraged.
L: and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?
I mean, what exactly do you mean? You or Dobson are going to have to establish where you get this bit about motherhood--
... who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid ...
--and what it's supposed to mean.
The selfishness involved with the problems of economic distribution predate this feminism that scares the crap out of you by centuries. In fact, it's part of what made marriage and motherhood symbols of oppression.
The racism and slave mentality don't lend much to the dignity of your vision:
L: just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11
T: And immigration takes care of the rest? There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with.
T: And immigration takes care of the rest? There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with.
You posted two separate responses to my paragraph. Of the immigration question, you wrote, "is there another option?". To the notion of overpopulation, you wrote, "we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world". It's fair enough if you want to say you were only making jokes to avoid the discussion. But in light of those two lines, your statement--
It's still unclear why maintaining the population is a source of indignity (while selfishness continues to get the green light)
--seems a bit disingenuous. But then again, there is something inherently disingenuous about an argument that would chastise as selfish the desire for equality, while calling for a return to an oppressive and exploitative arrangement.
An interesting argument. Feel free to actually make it when you've the time and inclination. I understand it will be a complex one. Just the outline will suffice, whenever you've got it ready. We can work from there.
That was, to a degree, the suffragettes' point.
Look, you made the point that it's not clear to you why motherhood "is oppressive". I actually wonder whether you really care or not. As women secured their not-quite equal footing in society--which was a step up from a generation before--one of the constant drumbeats in opposition was that woman's role was in the home, as a mother. And one of the long arguments of the misogynists has been that the liberal progress toward social equality has somehow diminished motherhood by not making it the focus and obsession of a woman's existence.
You're already tilting windmills. The arguments you state that you oppose or don't understand are mere caricatures drawn up by conservatives in order to simplify necessary anthropological, psychological, and sociological considerations. When you say it's not clear why motherhood excludes one from voting, you're insisting on a perverse and simplistic consideration of history, anthropology, psychology, and sociology, at least. When you say it is unclear why maintaining the population is a source of indignity, you're insisting that whoever you're disagreeing with is arguing the point you'd rather they be arguing. When you ask "why exactly is motherhood damaging to a woman's sense of self respect", you're inventing a question according to the argument you'd rather be having.
No, it's not. At least, not according to your arguments. Don't get me wrong, the thread can be about whatever you want to imagine it's about. But it's not about the social implications of historical events and processes, it's about the social implications of a dystopian projections. When you use phrases like "engineering changed roles of gender", you tip your hand, Lightgigantic. You're not making some neutral, curious inquiry.
That's the problem with dragging your religious proselytizing into the EM&J forum. You make these accusations of selfishness, but want to hide the counterpoint in another forum.
(1) Somebody can find some better references on the toy shop story before I care about it. Dobson's consistently unreliable about such things; his penchant for exaggeration renders him ineffective for the expectation of dishonesty.
(2) There is a difference between the differences in height, weight, musical talent, &c. that have an effect on what people do and how they live, and the differences between genders and skin color and how the law regards them. Demanding that all genders are equal before the law does not erode a positive image of motherhood, unless, of course, that "positive image of motherhood" is misogynistic.
What was the question? No, seriously, what was the question?
And? Which of those countries are the United States of America?
Let's see ... Ireland had a female president, right? Mary Robinson? Shall we do in the U.S. what Ireland did? Ban abortion, but in our constitution we should guarantee that no mother should be forced to work?
Benazir Bhutto has been in the news of late. She emerged from a nation where customary regard for women still produces violence against women in ways we Americans consider savage. Shall we bring those conditions to our women?
What? Anything to make sure a woman isn't your equal?
Then don't make up words to help dramatize your argument. Duh.
And for centuries, this historical lineage has seen that relationship unequal. And that's exactly what has Dobson and his ilk so upset. Women should only be equal, by that argument, when men say they're equal.
Oh come on. What, with the mess heterosexuals made with their Christian-derived marital traditions, someone was bound to try that angle.
More language that is either deceitful or astoundingly presumptuous.
I'm just tired of trying to make the flying leaps you demand. You're setting such ridiculous terms that there's really no point to playing along with them.
All people are equal before the law, Lightgigantic.
It's clear that people ought to know better than to desire respect from you. But the idea that holding people as equal before the law is impossible would be funny except that the ignorance it testifies to is, in fact, sad.
Well, he's dishonest, a professional hatemonger, and profits by advocating human suffering. I suppose "disrespectful" would be an interesting umbrella charge.
Yes, yes. Whatever you say.
Dude, you posted shite religious propaganda with no contextual commentary in EM&J. Maybe you missed the point earlier: excuse the fuck out of me for trying to raise ethical considerations. Really, I had no idea you were going to take it so personally, else I would have just saved us all the effort and pitched it aside to the Cesspool. Seriously, since it was just something you found while cleaning up your hard drive, I figured to give it some background and raise some ethical considerations to justify its place in EM&J. And you went and got all pissed off about that, to the point that--
--you're getting self-righteous over something you probably shouldn't. As Xev noted--and you quoted her on that point, too--I did challenge the content of the article. But since you need a reminder, there is the part about the first essay in the book, the one that contains the stock prayer story number whatever, a fairly obvious challenge to Dobson's veracity. And then I denounce his credibility: "... I've learned from considering whatever the current situation was that Dobson simply cannot be trusted." And then I even follow it up by showing that Dobson left details out of one of his incident examples in order to sharpen the sense of outrage one was expected to feel. And I asked about the library. Why wouldn't he give better information about the library? So, yes, I have challenged the credibility of Dobson's examples, and I'm willing to clarify right here: the man is full of shit.
What the hell does that even mean?
_____________
Notes:
° Wanted? - The paragraph that followed was originally intended to clarify. For your own reasons, of course, you split it into two paragraphs; I do not (cannot) object to this. But I do wonder about the fact that in neither case did you address the portion you quoted.
If we put more thought into when and why we reproduce, the next generation will do okay. In the meantime, when I look at the traditional roles for men and women, I see a couple of things. First, there is a sort of justification that comes from necessity. Technologically and economically, American society, at least, has transcended that condition. Secondly, there is a history of misogyny and phallosupremacy infecting those traditions. It wasn't enough that men and women should have certain roles; men just had to go out of their way to make women miserable about it. Much of the transformation Dobson and his ilk despise so greatly is in fact a backlash against the excesses within the so-called traditional structure.
To the first portion, up to transcension, you invoked population statistics. By the way, 21 is a growth number. 20 is for stability. It's a simple figure: 1 child per parent = 2 children per woman reproducing. If we recall that women are the statistical majority, that 2.0 requirement per woman actually comes down a little. Additionally, the longer historical trend, of course, is that the transformation of a woman's role in society has occurred over a period in which life expectancy has increased. Thus, 2.0 will actually create, in the short term, an increase in the population, as people aren't dying out at the same rate. In the long term though, math is math.Additionally, though, you presume that the world population is an ideal number for humanity. We would probably be a healthier species at 3-4 billion than we are now. Adjusting the distribution system to meet the population is one thing; choosing an arbitrary population spec, though, is entirely arbitrary.
The second portion of the above-cited paragraph, involving misogyny and phallosupremacy, you dismissed curiously by making an irrelevant admonishment about extremes and then digress about pornography.
I mention all this because the issues addressed in that portion still plague our discussion. In fact, some of your caricature questions only make sense if we ignore those issues.
Xev
promising .... but I think it could do with a few more devices - both language and visual
eg
No, you gyrating genetic gumby, I want to speak to someone who knows how to use the English language in a meaningful way. It has less to do with your inability to embellish your cerebral dribble beyond a first-grade level and more to do with the fact that, by virtue of not being able to think without your head up your backside, you can't communicate without sounding like an asshole.
I have three things to say
It could also help if you post some mildly offensive visuals - like say a pile of horse shit or something
There is a popular one of a guy with his head up his bum, but that one has been so over worked of late it might be more tasteful to try for something else.
Anyway, I am sure that if you stick around here long enough you will be able to finely tune your ad homming and thus be able to introduce an atmosphere of utter hostility in even the most non-controversial dreary topics ever posted.
The important thing is to never give up and keep on practicing
promising .... but I think it could do with a few more devices - both language and visual
eg
No, you gyrating genetic gumby, I want to speak to someone who knows how to use the English language in a meaningful way. It has less to do with your inability to embellish your cerebral dribble beyond a first-grade level and more to do with the fact that, by virtue of not being able to think without your head up your backside, you can't communicate without sounding like an asshole.
I have three things to say
- illiteration
- juxtaposition (notice the spectacular imagery the words "cerebral dribble" creates)
- never let an attempt for crass humor to slide
It could also help if you post some mildly offensive visuals - like say a pile of horse shit or something
There is a popular one of a guy with his head up his bum, but that one has been so over worked of late it might be more tasteful to try for something else.
Anyway, I am sure that if you stick around here long enough you will be able to finely tune your ad homming and thus be able to introduce an atmosphere of utter hostility in even the most non-controversial dreary topics ever posted.
The important thing is to never give up and keep on practicing
And I have three things to say:light said:
The large red fonts recently adopted by some righties around here don't do much for your arguments.
It's alliteration - illiteration is more like what you're doing in the next two points, and later with the "ad homming" and so forth.
Your idea of "humor" and mine vary considerably.
But all in all, if you want to take attempts to release mothers from their substandard and oppressed state and create a free and equable society that includes mothers, as an attack on motherhood as you imagine it, you at least do make a certain sense. It is an attack on motherhood as you imagine it.
Last edited:
Tiassa
what is so intrinsic about motherhood that places it as an issue that requires social reconstruction?
beats me why you can't see this, since you speak it loud and clear in the following paragraph
No, western women don't have an adequate fertility rate to maintain the population
Yes, immingration is the only means western countries adopt to deal with this issue
No, there is no shortage of ideas about how the large numbers of people in the world can be manipulated
:shrug:
Now, due to social advancement, we also have women suffering in single parent roles
women can bear children
no one else can
If they don't want to do this (for whatever reasons, real or imagined) then the human social body has serious issues
well yes it is
the changes can be attributed to an ideology (feminism or even the broader scope of liberalism)
social ideology does indicate social engineering
I haven't mentioned a single religious issue on this thread
It's you who has taken to heart the mission of drumming up a storm of anti-religious rhetoric
consider divorce settlement laws with the difference in gender issues
women who gain power do it how?
By cultivating the girlfriend image?
By cultivating the pseudo man image?
Or by cultivating the mother image?
“
You suggested early on that it makes the next generation "wanted" - with our exponentially growing social ills, this merely seems like more ideology
“
so you want to argue that there has been no radical changes in the broadcast of gender norms in the past several decades?
its quite straight forward
what is so intrinsic about motherhood that places it as an issue that requires social reconstruction?
beats me why you can't see this, since you speak it loud and clear in the following paragraph
the "terror of feminism" is not so much from the advocates but the resultant generation of displaced offspring
the statements I offered were simply reflections of the world as it is
No, western women don't have an adequate fertility rate to maintain the population
Yes, immingration is the only means western countries adopt to deal with this issue
No, there is no shortage of ideas about how the large numbers of people in the world can be manipulated
:shrug:
previously there were mostly women suffering in relationships
Now, due to social advancement, we also have women suffering in single parent roles
obviously motherhood is not as prestigious as it used to be - its ironic that the push for equality has simply meant women trying to become men (which means that women are equal to do anything and everything except raise children - which is kind of ironic since its something primarily unique to them) - fortunately third wave feminism looks like it may be moving the whole issue to some sort of thesis rather than just some sort of knee jerking antithesis
its quite simple
women can bear children
no one else can
If they don't want to do this (for whatever reasons, real or imagined) then the human social body has serious issues
and in the mean time you are introducing unnecessary anthropological, psychological, and sociological considerations to somehow over ride the simple fact that progressive civilization requires distinctions of gender (since even with a huge gov't budget to deal with all the social blow outs, the same result cannot be achieved)
lol
well yes it is
sorry
the changes can be attributed to an ideology (feminism or even the broader scope of liberalism)
social ideology does indicate social engineering
WTF?
I haven't mentioned a single religious issue on this thread
It's you who has taken to heart the mission of drumming up a storm of anti-religious rhetoric
once again, if you want to discuss real religious principles as opposed to apparent ones, there is an entire sub-forum just brimming with anticipation for you ....
Ok then
consider divorce settlement laws with the difference in gender issues
since there is actually no equality (materially speaking) its an absurdity to think that everyone can be equal before the law - The very nature of the position of a judicial board is to see the variables of time, place and circumstance and act accordingly
I think you have missed the point
women who gain power do it how?
By cultivating the girlfriend image?
By cultivating the pseudo man image?
Or by cultivating the mother image?
Afraid I will steal the stage from you or something?
or alternatively, social systems of mutual obligation have eroded. As men neglect their social obligations, women also become mutually non-obligated which disturbs the quality and quantity of the successive generations
if women also possess their husbands, its not clear why
and the social chaos of one parent families and the like is an improvement?
I guess in all the social engineering it was overlooked how relationships can be tenable with out gender roles
“
still yet to hear how you can carve a path of social equilibrium with your ideology
You suggested early on that it makes the next generation "wanted" - with our exponentially growing social ills, this merely seems like more ideology
and yet we still find that law imbibes understanding of differences in social implications (like in the case of divorce for eg) ....
seems like you are just exhibiting more of the impractical and dysfunctional side of liberal dogmatism - unless some party is willing to venture into the suggestion of respect, the only result of mutual disrespect is more disrespect ....
once again - the law is merely a social vehicle. Since the social body is composed of all sorts of varieties, your task to homogenize it, while perhaps applaudable in some circles, remains unattainable
“
If I was aware how much shit you store in your mind just for dumping on persons like him, I would have provided a few contextual suggestions - otherwise I thought the article had enough substance for a reasonable discussion (outside of christianity and the good cause to dismantle it)
glad you got that off your chest
erm - engineering social genders, ideology and all that - or did you forget it all in the euphoria of burning a christian on the stake?
I think the issue is more... so what if there has?
To say that change is bad is to say that the past was more preferable to the future. Yes, you can cherry pick situations to make your case - but it falls flat when viewed as a whole.
The entire argument stems from (religious) indoctrination of roles.
Lose the indoctrination and you can hopefully start to see that there should be no proscribed roles. Everyone should be able to fit the role of their (and society's) choice. The societal world may become less ordered/structured (which is not the same as more dangerous) but who is to say that is a bad thing?
There are of course physiological differences between men and women - but that does not mean that each HAS to fulfill that role.
Does a person HAVE to play a sport merely because they are exceptionally good at it?
You have little idea about this subject, do you?
Immigration is f**k-all to do with population numbers.
Immigration is partly about the age of the population of the society - and partly skill-sets.
As medicines improve, people live longer, the population become increasingly aged - which given the retirement age of 65 means that there are more elderly (retired, non-working) to young (working) people.
Since the young / workers are the ones who fundamentally support the society through their taxes, this gradual ageing is a bad thing - and if left unchecked results in massive tax burdens.
So immigration is used to try and keep the balance - more young people meaning more people to tax.
Additionally, as a society becomes wealthier (which it does in the West), less people are willing to do the lowest-skill type of jobs - or the vocational jobs where perhaps reward is not great (nursing etc) - and so immigration is used for this.
It is NOT used merely to maintain the population.
To think so is a GROSS simplification and misunderstanding of reality.
Further, it just simply is NOT true that in the West there is a lack of fertility rate to maintain the population.
Evidence
2003 and 2004 stats on birth and death rates - where, except in a couple of countries, birth rates EXCEED death rates.
This clearly shows that immigration is NOT needed to maintain population levels - and must therefore be for other reasons.
I suggest you support further claims with evidence.
Even further, who says that increasing population is a good thing?
Personally I think the world is far too overpopulated - a view I think is shared by many.
Are you advocating that the world NEEDS a perpetual population growth?
Only in terms of comparison to preconceived notions. Otherwise society, as it always has done, will adapt / evolve.
Eh? And where do you get this FACT from?
Last edited:
I suspect you're neither as stupid nor sinister as you portray yourself - What gives?
Beside the point. Your presumptuousness helps nobody. There have been radical changes about gender norms in the past several decades. Dobson's just having ninny hysterics about it.
Sigh. Let me read through the rest of your post, and then maybe we'll get back to Dobson's strange outlook.
Why introduce the intrinsic aspects of motherhood? The intrinsic problem is a social one. It is an intrinsic aspect of a particular social paradigm that requires reconsideration.
What the hell are you going on about?
See footnote to post #52.
And? Are you saying women should only suffer under the chauvinist heel? Don't blame women or feminism for the behavior of men.
See, this is where you're especially offensive. The idea that a woman might grow up, get an education, find a good job, and plan her family is somehow a decline in prestige from a girl gettin' married straight outta high school and poppin' out the babies like a good woman should?
Dude, no. That's just sick.
And I'll worry about the sun burning out when we get a little closer to it actually happening.
Absolutely no estimate I've found suggests anything resembling an alarming or dangerous drop in the birthrate. I don't understand why you're so worried about it.
There is a great difference between distinctions in gender and prescribing the roles thereof. I appreciate the idea of segregated bathrooms, but I'm not about to tell women what they can and can't do. And that, Lightgigantic, is what Dobson's about, and what it seems you are about.
It does actually sound suspicious: Quick! For the love of all that is good! Woman! get back under my thumb!
Engineering would be if the changes in ideology allowed the feminists to prescribe people's roles in the world the way chauvinism did.
The rest of it is called social evolution.
Dude, you dragged out a misogynistic Christian preacher as your topic starter. And then you proceeded to get upset at everyone for not giving you the responses you wanted to read.
Next time? Try giving some context with your own commentary. Don't get huffy because nobody can read your mind.
To reiterate: You dragged out a misogynistic Christian preacher as your topic starter. And then you proceeded to get upset at everyone for not giving you the responses you wanted to read.
I know, I know. I split the ... well, it wasn't a paragraph, but I guess I split the point. I reiterate so that maybe it'll sink in.
Rude, dishonest, cowardly.
Oh, and pathetic.
Again, since this one really seems to frighten you: While you have lamented "selfishness", you have fallen back on the deepest wellspring, swiftest current, and most devastating flood of selfishness in the culture. Your very topic starter is part of the ultimate selfishness on the planet.
Don't get me wrong. I agree there's something frighteningly selfish about the culture I live in. But I try to be realistic about where it comes from and what it means.
Why don't you set the context for me, since that's all you want to do anyway? I lost you in the jump from the toy shop to divorce settlements.
What a curious twist.
I mean, really ... I applaud ....
That is one of the best desperate twists I've ever seen.
Don't get me wrong, it's also poisonously disingenuous, but the absolute value of that twist is amazing.
I'm just going to let that one go, since the idea that women have the same rights as men in our society obviously scares you so badly.
Show me La Pieta Bhutto.
Have it. You'll give a new definition to the phrase "suicide bomber".
You're playing on a myth.
(A) You're playing on a myth.
(B) Darwin said it best: "It is intolerable to think of spending the rest of my life like a neutered bee."
(C) This is one of those times when you may have missed the point by making the split. (It happens.)
First, the social systems of mutual obligation at least in this cultural lineage, haven't been equal for a long time. And I mean a long time. Probably since back before the purpose of women was to be married off to gain in-laws.
Some one-parent families do very well. And two-parent families have plenty of problems.
The social chaos you lament is actually symptomatic of the screwed up marital traditions.
Well, just because you can't have a relationship with a woman who's your equal ...?
No, seriously ... most of the problems you've described about the decay of traditional gender roles occur within a spectrum that still considers those roles viable.
I want you to look at something. Yes, it seems out of left field, but I would like you to examine the following graph from The Stranger's 2007 sex survey:
Gender breakdown
Have at it. Explain to me something about "gender roles".
Look, dude ... I live in a place where people simply aren't going back to feeling horribly about themselves. You're talking about two gender roles when there's more than two genders. You're talking about a condition when most, if not all of those genders, felt oppressed by socially-prescribed roles. You're talking about a failed system that won't die simply because some people still need to play house.
I doubt your definition of "social equilibrium".
In the meantime, let's go back and figure out what you mean by "bizarre inflammatory introduction", since it's apparently so important to you.
The most problematic social ills--as related to our discussion--will fester strongest within more traditional, role-bound segments of American and Western society.
Equality before the law means equal consideration, not equal outcomes.
You're the one who suggested women would do better with "respect" instead of equality. Kind of like the "respect" that they shouldn't have to be troubled to vote?
So what you're saying is that the law should treat men and women differently because they're men and women? And because it is impossible to not regard them differently?
Sorry, dude. You're just wrong. If it's impossible, it's only because people choose to believe it is.
I find that disingenuous, considering that you continued your line with other people. Let's review:
If you'd gotten 'round to it before post #13, you probably could have avoided much of the rest of what distresses you.
I'd like you to notice a couple of things, LG. First, I was sincere when I noted in #6 that I was in a good mood when I wrote that post. However, you weren't interested in lightening up. You somehow missed that point with your complaint in #8. Really: I took a chance and raised some ethical issues instead of putting on my green cap and packing this thing off to the Cesspool.
Secondly, I gave your topic proposition fair consideration in #17, but as the discussion slid into the muck from there, it became quite obvious that you were already sold on the Dobsonian view.
Now, if you're not and weren't ... those contextual comments at the outset would have helped immensely.
I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt, but I'm really not sure what you expected from people.
Nope. People tried to make something useful out of it. But you whined about it because it wasn't what you decided to not tell us you wanted.
(And no, declaring your parameters won't constrain the discussion to those aspects, but it does help.)
Even without Dobson's name on it, misogyny will meet strong resistance.
I'm actually sad it came to that.
Okay, strike that last.
Sad ....
Okay, suspect words are boldfaced:
Would you say that the waxahachie has sheboyganed or yonkered in the past fifty years?
Lightgigantic said:
Beside the point. Your presumptuousness helps nobody. There have been radical changes about gender norms in the past several decades. Dobson's just having ninny hysterics about it.
Sigh. Let me read through the rest of your post, and then maybe we'll get back to Dobson's strange outlook.
Why introduce the intrinsic aspects of motherhood? The intrinsic problem is a social one. It is an intrinsic aspect of a particular social paradigm that requires reconsideration.
What the hell are you going on about?
See footnote to post #52.
And? Are you saying women should only suffer under the chauvinist heel? Don't blame women or feminism for the behavior of men.
See, this is where you're especially offensive. The idea that a woman might grow up, get an education, find a good job, and plan her family is somehow a decline in prestige from a girl gettin' married straight outta high school and poppin' out the babies like a good woman should?
Dude, no. That's just sick.
And I'll worry about the sun burning out when we get a little closer to it actually happening.
• The University Exchange estimates a world population of 384 billion by 2,300 CE. (Um ... okay.) More realistically, they say 12 billion by 2050.
• Gorhan Vlahovic, in his environmental considerations, projects ten billion by 2050.
• Minnesotans for Sustainability, even considering a reduction in the growth rate, projects a population of 9.1 billion at 2050; their numbers cite the U.S. Census Bureau's May, 2000 update.
• Support US Population Stability puts a 2025 estimate roughly at 8-9 billion.
• The United Nations, in consideration of the estimated six-billionth member of the population (1999) projected a world population between 10 and 11 billion by 2050.
• Gorhan Vlahovic, in his environmental considerations, projects ten billion by 2050.
• Minnesotans for Sustainability, even considering a reduction in the growth rate, projects a population of 9.1 billion at 2050; their numbers cite the U.S. Census Bureau's May, 2000 update.
• Support US Population Stability puts a 2025 estimate roughly at 8-9 billion.
• The United Nations, in consideration of the estimated six-billionth member of the population (1999) projected a world population between 10 and 11 billion by 2050.
Absolutely no estimate I've found suggests anything resembling an alarming or dangerous drop in the birthrate. I don't understand why you're so worried about it.
There is a great difference between distinctions in gender and prescribing the roles thereof. I appreciate the idea of segregated bathrooms, but I'm not about to tell women what they can and can't do. And that, Lightgigantic, is what Dobson's about, and what it seems you are about.
It does actually sound suspicious: Quick! For the love of all that is good! Woman! get back under my thumb!
Engineering would be if the changes in ideology allowed the feminists to prescribe people's roles in the world the way chauvinism did.
The rest of it is called social evolution.
Dude, you dragged out a misogynistic Christian preacher as your topic starter. And then you proceeded to get upset at everyone for not giving you the responses you wanted to read.
Next time? Try giving some context with your own commentary. Don't get huffy because nobody can read your mind.
To reiterate: You dragged out a misogynistic Christian preacher as your topic starter. And then you proceeded to get upset at everyone for not giving you the responses you wanted to read.
I know, I know. I split the ... well, it wasn't a paragraph, but I guess I split the point. I reiterate so that maybe it'll sink in.
Rude, dishonest, cowardly.
Oh, and pathetic.
Again, since this one really seems to frighten you: While you have lamented "selfishness", you have fallen back on the deepest wellspring, swiftest current, and most devastating flood of selfishness in the culture. Your very topic starter is part of the ultimate selfishness on the planet.
Don't get me wrong. I agree there's something frighteningly selfish about the culture I live in. But I try to be realistic about where it comes from and what it means.
Why don't you set the context for me, since that's all you want to do anyway? I lost you in the jump from the toy shop to divorce settlements.
What a curious twist.
I mean, really ... I applaud ....
That is one of the best desperate twists I've ever seen.
Don't get me wrong, it's also poisonously disingenuous, but the absolute value of that twist is amazing.
I'm just going to let that one go, since the idea that women have the same rights as men in our society obviously scares you so badly.
Show me La Pieta Bhutto.
Have it. You'll give a new definition to the phrase "suicide bomber".
You're playing on a myth.
(A) You're playing on a myth.
(B) Darwin said it best: "It is intolerable to think of spending the rest of my life like a neutered bee."
(C) This is one of those times when you may have missed the point by making the split. (It happens.)
First, the social systems of mutual obligation at least in this cultural lineage, haven't been equal for a long time. And I mean a long time. Probably since back before the purpose of women was to be married off to gain in-laws.
Some one-parent families do very well. And two-parent families have plenty of problems.
The social chaos you lament is actually symptomatic of the screwed up marital traditions.
Well, just because you can't have a relationship with a woman who's your equal ...?
No, seriously ... most of the problems you've described about the decay of traditional gender roles occur within a spectrum that still considers those roles viable.
I want you to look at something. Yes, it seems out of left field, but I would like you to examine the following graph from The Stranger's 2007 sex survey:
Gender breakdown
Have at it. Explain to me something about "gender roles".
Look, dude ... I live in a place where people simply aren't going back to feeling horribly about themselves. You're talking about two gender roles when there's more than two genders. You're talking about a condition when most, if not all of those genders, felt oppressed by socially-prescribed roles. You're talking about a failed system that won't die simply because some people still need to play house.
I doubt your definition of "social equilibrium".
In the meantime, let's go back and figure out what you mean by "bizarre inflammatory introduction", since it's apparently so important to you.
The most problematic social ills--as related to our discussion--will fester strongest within more traditional, role-bound segments of American and Western society.
Equality before the law means equal consideration, not equal outcomes.
You're the one who suggested women would do better with "respect" instead of equality. Kind of like the "respect" that they shouldn't have to be troubled to vote?
So what you're saying is that the law should treat men and women differently because they're men and women? And because it is impossible to not regard them differently?
Sorry, dude. You're just wrong. If it's impossible, it's only because people choose to believe it is.
I find that disingenuous, considering that you continued your line with other people. Let's review:
(1) Lightgigantic - topic post, no context
(2) Tiassa - additional information, commentary
(3) Lightgigantic - response to #2, inquiry for on-topic material, no context of topic
(4) Xev - response to #3, observation/commentary
(5) Lightgigantic - response to #4, commentary
(6) Tiassa - response to #3, explanation
(7) Xev - response to #5, additional information
(8) Lightgigantic - response to #6, misses point, complaint about off-topic posts, no context for topic
(9) Lightgigantic - response to #7, digression
(10) Tiassa - response to #8, inquiry as to what the topic is
(11) Xev - response to #9, inquiry as to when LG will contribute to topic
(12) Iceaura - response to topic
(13) Lightgigantic - response to #10, finally declares topic intent
(2) Tiassa - additional information, commentary
(3) Lightgigantic - response to #2, inquiry for on-topic material, no context of topic
(4) Xev - response to #3, observation/commentary
(5) Lightgigantic - response to #4, commentary
(6) Tiassa - response to #3, explanation
(7) Xev - response to #5, additional information
(8) Lightgigantic - response to #6, misses point, complaint about off-topic posts, no context for topic
(9) Lightgigantic - response to #7, digression
(10) Tiassa - response to #8, inquiry as to what the topic is
(11) Xev - response to #9, inquiry as to when LG will contribute to topic
(12) Iceaura - response to topic
(13) Lightgigantic - response to #10, finally declares topic intent
If you'd gotten 'round to it before post #13, you probably could have avoided much of the rest of what distresses you.
I'd like you to notice a couple of things, LG. First, I was sincere when I noted in #6 that I was in a good mood when I wrote that post. However, you weren't interested in lightening up. You somehow missed that point with your complaint in #8. Really: I took a chance and raised some ethical issues instead of putting on my green cap and packing this thing off to the Cesspool.
Secondly, I gave your topic proposition fair consideration in #17, but as the discussion slid into the muck from there, it became quite obvious that you were already sold on the Dobsonian view.
Now, if you're not and weren't ... those contextual comments at the outset would have helped immensely.
I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt, but I'm really not sure what you expected from people.
Nope. People tried to make something useful out of it. But you whined about it because it wasn't what you decided to not tell us you wanted.
(And no, declaring your parameters won't constrain the discussion to those aspects, but it does help.)
Even without Dobson's name on it, misogyny will meet strong resistance.
Okay, strike that last.
Sad ....
Okay, suspect words are boldfaced:
Would you say that the waxahachie has sheboyganed or yonkered in the past fifty years?
Last edited:
Sarkus
the solution to such conflicting suggestions however lies in an analysis of the present
if a person is willing to admit such changes then we could progress with examining things like trends
and to say that change is good is to say the future is more preferable than the past
the solution to such conflicting suggestions however lies in an analysis of the present
strange since you haven't even ventured how your general premise operates on a different principle to mine ....
atheists that have a sense of gender simply aren't practicing strictly enough?
fortunately people involved in family support and human services have a different outlook
correction - everyone should make informed decisions
I guess first you would have to establish what is meant by these words good and bad - so far you seem to have suggested that it is a good thing if a person achieves a status in society that they have chosen - so IOW if a person chooses to sell heroin that is a good thing (regardless of whether they get caught by the police or not - hey it may make their life a bit less structured, but that is not necessarily a bad thing)
if those differences are unique and if they don't do it, it begs the question who will
the issue becomes even more complex if there is dominant propaganda that playing a particular sport is low grade and not deserving of any respect, and that even if you are the world's number one at it, you are better off pursuing a career in haiku poetry or something
Ever heard of the TFR (total fertility rate)?
yes and thats the issue - will it change for better or worse
erm - were you born of a mother and father?
Tiassa
yes, managing world populations is certainly a difficult task if everyone on the planet is expected to come to the stage of first world consumerism
and no, first world consumerism is not a shining example of values (for which one could hope the notion of being "wanted" could foster)
I am saying that women suffer in mutual relationships with corrupted notions of obligation and that they also suffer in the role of single mothers (with or without the notions of obligation) - at least in comparison to a mutual relationship with properly established notions of obligation
(putting aside issues of availability, do you think most mothers would prefer to be involved in supportive relationships with the father of their children or go through the ecstasy of divorce/single parenting?)
BTW (just to save you from another hatred-of christian-inspired-sermon-on-the-mount) teaching values is a complex issue - ie you cannot establish "respect" by flooding the world with "hate" - values are taught by idealized conduct
Straight away I guess it might be asked what relevance any talk of idealized conduct might have in our gritty, down-to-earth world, where “cool” means being shallow, sullen, self-obsessed, sexually absorbed, emotionally numb, relentlessly materialistic and contemptuous of authority?
..... well there we have our idealized conduct
(gulp)
IOW it seems you are just plugging away with rhetoric as a substitute for the experience and knowledge of how woman can and do control their husbands
.... at the very least, the inadequacies of experience of 2nd wave feminism (which is what you appear to embody) is what paved the way for 3rd wave feminism
and some people can ride a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling and some people cannot ride even a tricycle
still, we see that a general pattern tends to emerge ....
but as a further point, the solution to this problem lies in the role of obligation between the genders being re-established (through the medium of respect) and not high tailing out further into the cosmos of selfishness
.... , needless to say, any which way you hang it, people are still feeling horrible about themselves (or alternatively, through the filter of selfishness it becomes "deny everything, blame everyone, be bitter")
flip that wild card any which way
I would hate to see you in a bad mood ....
(if a biologist can have an opinion about society that can be addressed outside of discussions of biology, why can't religious persons have an opinion about society that cannot be addressed outside of religion?)
in many places in the world, however, from latin america to asia, the word "mother" is a title of respect
(even to call an eight year old girl the title of "little mother" is also respectful)
needless to say, such activity in some parts of the west would constitute offense of even legal action.
and let me guess - those changes were not engineered by persons who advocated ideologies to challenge existing ones?
if we placed your contribution to antagonism on one side of the scales and measured it against the OP I think you would come out as the heavy weight champion
because you seem to have unresolved conflict issues on the subject
so you want to argue that the social impact of motherhood is a non-issue?
the degradation of civilization progresses at the rate of successive generations of poorly equipped offspring
no, 2.1 is the level for population maintenance (between the teacups and the lips, anything can happen)
yes, managing world populations is certainly a difficult task if everyone on the planet is expected to come to the stage of first world consumerism
and no, first world consumerism is not a shining example of values (for which one could hope the notion of being "wanted" could foster)
No
I am saying that women suffer in mutual relationships with corrupted notions of obligation and that they also suffer in the role of single mothers (with or without the notions of obligation) - at least in comparison to a mutual relationship with properly established notions of obligation
(putting aside issues of availability, do you think most mothers would prefer to be involved in supportive relationships with the father of their children or go through the ecstasy of divorce/single parenting?)
given the ever increasing statistical likelihood of divorce and delinquency of children, it appears that a few things are missing from such attempts of family planning
the only solution to increased population is either (re) learning values such as respect and doing away with selfishness or slaughter (in the form of abortion or war)
BTW (just to save you from another hatred-of christian-inspired-sermon-on-the-mount) teaching values is a complex issue - ie you cannot establish "respect" by flooding the world with "hate" - values are taught by idealized conduct
Straight away I guess it might be asked what relevance any talk of idealized conduct might have in our gritty, down-to-earth world, where “cool” means being shallow, sullen, self-obsessed, sexually absorbed, emotionally numb, relentlessly materialistic and contemptuous of authority?
..... well there we have our idealized conduct
(gulp)
and lo and behold, telling others what they can and can't do is also what you are about - does that make us equal?
Once again, if you think matriarchy can exist without defined gender roles, its simply more ideology (or alternatively bitter grapes from the whole shot-to-bits social scene of the west)
IOW it seems you are just plugging away with rhetoric as a substitute for the experience and knowledge of how woman can and do control their husbands
.... at the very least, the inadequacies of experience of 2nd wave feminism (which is what you appear to embody) is what paved the way for 3rd wave feminism
so you want to argue that feminism in no way shaped the image of masculinity in society?
or alternatively, cause and effect
what do they call attacking the person instead of the argument in discussion again?
if you hadn't blathered your lengthy christian hating rhetoric at post 2 (which is certainly a popular band wagon to jump on and a sure fire way to derail whatever is being discussed), I am sure the thread would have taken a different turn
I should have just axed the authors name
even I had posted a statement by Dobson about the price of oranges you would probably still paint the forum in antagonism
congratulations
I would have more respect for you if you would take such topics to the religion thread - now we wouldn't want to start talking off topic and get the post redirected would we. little miss moderator?
"try" is the operative word
its not clear how issues of gender play a prominent role in divorce settlements?
I don't have issues with being equal in front of the law - I am just trying to bring you to the point that such a notion is metaphysical - if you could understand that then perhaps you could see the problems of labeling "equal rights" as synonymous with it
how about indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher?
you want to argue that with or without a dysfunctional family atmosphere, children develop in the same fashion?
to those highly steeped in eurocentricity, anything outside it is mythical
lol - ditto above
only because a new ideology came on the scene to suggest otherwise - like the TV documentary broadcast in the OP
if women can come to the position of power in a way that 2nd wave feminism cannot dream of, its obvious that you have miscalculated some thing in your equation of gain
yes
and some people can ride a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling and some people cannot ride even a tricycle
still, we see that a general pattern tends to emerge ....
agreed
but as a further point, the solution to this problem lies in the role of obligation between the genders being re-established (through the medium of respect) and not high tailing out further into the cosmos of selfishness
once again we are back at your wild card of "equality" which can mean anything from equal rights (rights to what exactly?) to equal before the law
yes, technically its impossible for a single parent to get divorced (without forming a second relationship), but given the elasticity of contemporary law perhaps such an absurdity could be accommodated in the future
more confused than ever
it certainly was glaringly conspicuous that men who have sex change operations to become lesbians were completely neglected by the survey
perhaps in the 70's radical concepts of sexuality were heralded as the panacea for all gender issues (it was trendy to have a partner that was bisexual)
.... , needless to say, any which way you hang it, people are still feeling horrible about themselves (or alternatively, through the filter of selfishness it becomes "deny everything, blame everyone, be bitter")
you don't have to be a PhD in sociology to understand that the old ones become the dead ones and the young ones become the old ones
unfortunately, you are yet to offer any tenable solution - unless you want to argue that the establishment of single parent families has removed the burden of social necessity
yep
flip that wild card any which way
once again - equality has a metaphysical status - if you think it can be achieved without respect, its just some lop-sided ideology speaking through you (there's no social evidence to say the least)
keeping cozy by burning all those strawmen?
given that most people who appear for conviction in courts are likely to have performed crimes that bring to bear issues of motherhood or fatherhood (not too many people appear in court charged with shooting 2 dozen people), its not clear why you think it did or should operate otherwise
to be inhumane is certainly possible for us
lol - now would be a good time to establish your ontological status
ahem - other people who arrived after you set the religious band wagon in motion (and other people who are not heralded as being neutrally agnostic either)
needless to say, the neutrality of (2) onwards can be contested
its taken till round 13 for you to come close to exhausting your first wave of cathartic expression
and what picture do you think a mod on their forum driving home an issue that can only be addressed by going off topic while simultaneously threatening to post it in the cesspool creates?
I would hate to see you in a bad mood ....
You should stop and consider what you are sold out to - it could save you from jumping the gun on assuming what others are sold out to
Once again, I wasn't aware how thoroughly I would have to defend the ramparts
well, not a religious discussion, to say the least
(if a biologist can have an opinion about society that can be addressed outside of discussions of biology, why can't religious persons have an opinion about society that cannot be addressed outside of religion?)
Once again, given that you had set the mood at post number 2 and the persons involved would jump into any fray of "kick the theist", their neutrality can be contested
without Dobson's name on it, the thread probably would have progressed quite differently
Does that mean we have finished excessively using the word "dobson"?
I'm not sure
in many places in the world, however, from latin america to asia, the word "mother" is a title of respect
(even to call an eight year old girl the title of "little mother" is also respectful)
needless to say, such activity in some parts of the west would constitute offense of even legal action.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Perfect. Post something that indirectly attacks certain people. (in this case a quote, so that you don't even really have to take responsibility for it). Then when people react act smug in relation to their emotional reactions. You will continue to get negative reactions to the ways you want people to get into boxes, in this case women. Your posts regularly show your disgust at human nature, distrust of sexual desire and human emotions and free action in general. When this distaste for so much of what we are as humans gets a negative reaction you can pretend those reaction are more emotional, conflicted, etc.
Why not be honest and express your anger instead of hardening it up in permanent judgements of everyone? You think you anger does not exist or have effects in this crystal form? Sorry, it is coming through loud and clear.