You, but talking about men instead of women.
The history of sexism...where did it begin? Why? Can we rid our world of it?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
You, but talking about men instead of women.
An example would be...I'm a female, I'm in a position of authority at a particular employer...I interview 4 women and 1 man for a vacant position in the company...the man is better suited for the position and has greater work experience and education than the 4 women...but, because he's a dude, I go with one of the less qualified women. I'm a sexist woman, yeah!
See? And it does happen, just not as often as with men against women.
That's just one example, but gives you an idea.
Bells
Staff member
Sadly, I don't think arauca finds anything wrong with this way of thinking. :shrug: I don't think arauca believes sexism exists, if memory serves me correctly as it relates to some of his other earlier posts in this thread. We went round and round...billvon had the patience of a saint.
It's not that he doesn't think it exists. He doesn't care and doesn't understand the humiliation and denigration of sexism and sexual assault. Look at his comments about victims of rape and paedophile priests as a prime example. He places the onus on the victim to not be raped. Even his comments that the children may have enjoyed it, so really, to him, it's not that bad.
Women's rights only extend as far as he, a man, will allow it. To him, his wife should be thanking him each time he washes a cup, for example. Because he is lowering himself to her level. That of a maid, his mistress and mother of his children. She has no actual identity for herself, except what he allows her to have and what he gives her.
Women who don't fit into those roles do not matter and who identify themselves outside of the little boxes he places them... They are selfish and sluts and whores. Like his comments about women's dress when it comes to rape. For rapists and for men like Arauca, it is always the woman's fault. Never the man's. He even goes so far as to try to divert the blame from the paedophile. Because the man can never be wrong.
Racism too?
Sounds personal???How about I'm a woman and I just want a man for a paycheck and a baby and then he can take a hike, but leave the paycheck please (and the baby)
It's treating someone as less than a whole person.
Our beautiful western world have survived and functioned for over 1500 years , by having a woman as a mother mistress and housekeeper, but now because man's compassion for a woman and putting her in higher esteem so she takes as if that is her position . If a woman does not cook ,and she does not keep the house properly , then what is he function ? mistress ? If so what does a man need her for ? she keeps the paycheck. That becomes to expensive , then it is cheaper to go to a bordello.
Not is not a woman and man are not partners they are supposed to be be two body that merge into one . I am grateful and respectful for my mother , sisters and my present wife the have been rise is that philosophy. I got married with my first wife , I ate hashbrown , ravioly and other can goods , she hardly did laundry , did not want to work , and on top I had some other woman for sex once a month. Now that I said all that Is that a partner that the women lib project ?. No wonder 50 % and over marriage end in divorces . Is that that this society is heading for . As we see now why get married why not just live for a wile then split . What about when you hit 70 or 80 tears old when you need a partner as you get sick more often ? Nursing home is the answer ?
There is nothing disgraceful , we need each other to help each other specially in old age when children vacate the house.. partnership does not work . because you can abandon each other at any time.
When you start viewing people, not just women, as having intrinsic value separate and away from the "functions" they perform, you'll start seeing why I'm sometimes offended by your comments. Women are not "around" to service men in the bedroom and kitchen. And men are not "walking paychecks." Women who view men as such are just as much in the wrong as men who view women as little more than sex toys and maids.
Open your mind up a bit.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Princess, yes. Jewish, no. Just as bright though.
She may well be the only true Christian because her morals match mine.
She makes a lie of this tune.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9ZZgDqzAg
And a truth to this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxYMNKQ_vNI
You will not understand it but the phrase I have in mind translates to, --- I did not choose for beauty but took the most beautiful.
Regards
DL
When you start viewing people, not just women, as having intrinsic value separate and away from the "functions" they perform, you'll start seeing why I'm sometimes offended by your comments. Women are not "around" to service men in the bedroom and kitchen. And men are not "walking paychecks." Women who view men as such are just as much in the wrong as men who view women as little more than sex toys and maids.
Open your mind up a bit.
My mind is open . I grew up in a blue callor society . Again . I look to women based on my mother and sisters , we all worked and my sisters husband worked , they are examples for me as women , and it is good women. Not the one which sits and manicure their nails all day long , and as walks shakes her behind , to attract male attention.
arauca said:
Does mankind really need men?
There might be a few benefits. "But that is a far cry from necessary and sufficient."
Don’t worry, though, Arauca. We might keep you around for pure entertainment or to kill a spider, or two.
Does mankind really need men?
There might be a few benefits. "But that is a far cry from necessary and sufficient."
Don’t worry, though, Arauca. We might keep you around for pure entertainment or to kill a spider, or two.
You're awesome.
You're awesome.
I have seen stupidity but this one would come from a lesbian or a stupid like bell.
That is your NY post article .
With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.
That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.
It also survived by owning slaves. Are you going to say that's the right thing to do as well, since it worked for centuries?
If all you want is a whore, then a bordello will be better for you than a real woman. If all you want is a cook, then hire one. If all you want is a housecleaner, then hire one of those.
Most of the rest of us prefer a partner to a servant. But whatever floats your boat.
I loved my mother, but could do without her cooking. I do not want another version of her. You might; that's up to you. Don't assume that what you want is what everyone wants.
That's the issue. Choose whatever kind of life YOU want - and leave other people to choose the kind of life THEY want.
You've never met any lesbians, then.