are you a feminist?

chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
are these the ones doloresistere was having trouble with?

annabenedetti 37
Arthur Brain 29
Rusha 25
bybee 19
 
R

rexlunae

New member
annabenedetti said:
That's why I said strong and feminine. It is possible to be both, you know.

Feminine as in soft, nurturing and caring in nestling a baby, kissing away his tears and his booboos, helping a young one learn how to tie his shoes, care for a baby puppy, rocking him back to sleep after a bad dream, all of those things and many, many more ways of being gentle and feminine.

And strong - as in wiping the bottom of a dying father who could no longer control his bodily functions with as much care and love as I wiped the bottoms of my babies. Of watching the bodies of two loved ones zipped into body bags, and handling the mortuary details with calmness, of countless sleepless nights at the ER, of fighting for my life twice after childbirth complications, of crawling on the floor to the bathroom to throw up while taking care of three kids under the age of six also throwing up, of standing up to arrogant doctors who though they were God in the defense and protection of my loved ones in hospital, of countless dinners cooked, laundry loads washed, toilets cleaned, baseball, soccer and track events cheered, groceries shopped, doctor's visits scheduled, leaves raked, garden weeded, windows washed, vomit cleaned up from car seats, floors, beds, and little bodies, prescriptions filled... usually with inadequate sleep and while fending off sexual harassment from men who see themselves as strong and women as weak.
Click to expand...

Ok, that was a great post.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Traditio said:
Then may the record show that I emphatically am not a feminist! Any measure which enfranchizes more stupid people is, to my mind, a most stupid measure (not saying that all women are stupid; that said, like any population, there are a vastly greater number of stupid women than non-stupid women).

I also strongly dislike the fact that women can drive cars.
Click to expand...

Go to Saudi Arabia. You'll fit right in.
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Selaphiel said:
:dizzy:

This post isn't exactly making a great case for your lack of stupidity...
Click to expand...

1. I fail to see why you're surprised at the first thing that I said, and also why the word "stupid" comes to mind. When's the last time that you've heard me speak favorably of democracy? The vast majority of people should not be allowed to vote; they aren't qualified to do so, and I could adduce several arguments for this.

If you enfranchize women (the vast majority of whom are, just like any other population, very stupid), then you just have even more unqualified stupid people who are voting, and the vote, say, of an Aristotle is worth even less. At least if women can't vote, Aristotle's vote counts for 1 in a hundred million. If women can vote, his vote becomes half as valuable (or, conversely, twice as worthless).

Furthermore, for all (I hope) Annabenedetti's insistences that she is against the liberal social agenda (in particular, women's "reproductive rights"), I find it difficult to believe that the enfranchizement of women had nothing to do with it. Who do you think is so interested in furthering these things, if not women? And do you honestly think that politicians would be interested in "reproductive rights" if it didn't mean that it would buy them more votes?

To my mind, the fact that a politician has to care what women think (because, otherwise, he won't be as likely to get elected) has a direct impact on "women's reproductive rights" as a political issue.

The fact that women can vote just adds one more interest group to an inherintly flawed political system; it just takes the politicians' eyes that much more away from the common good.

2. As for why it's a social disaster that women can drive, do I really need to argue for this? Is it really not evident enough to you to accept it at my merely suggesting it?
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Selaphiel said:
:dizzy:

This post isn't exactly making a great case for your lack of stupidity...
Click to expand...

Oh I disagree. It makes a strong case as to why feminism is necessary and continues to grow stronger as his type just fades into the background ...
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Traditio said:
1. I fail to see why you're surprised at the first thing that I said, and also why the word "stupid" comes to mind. When's the last time that you've heard me speak favorably of democracy? The vast majority of people should not be allowed to vote; they aren't qualified to do so, and I could adduce several arguments for this.

If you enfranchize women (the vast majority of whom are, just like any other population, very stupid), then you just have even more unqualified stupid people who are voting, and the vote, say, of an Aristotle is worth even less. At least if women can't vote, Aristotle's vote counts for 1 in a hundred million. If women can vote, his vote becomes half as valuable (or, conversely, twice as worthless).

Furthermore, for all (I hope) Annabenedetti's insistences that she is against the liberal social agenda (in particular, women's "reproductive rights"), I find it difficult to believe that the enfranchizement of women had nothing to do with it. Who do you think is so interested in furthering these things, if not women? And do you honestly think that politicians would be interested in "reproductive rights" if it didn't mean that it would buy them more votes?

To my mind, the fact that a politician has to care what women think (because, otherwise, he won't be as likely to get elected) has a direct impact on "women's reproductive rights" as a political issue.

The fact that women can vote just adds one more interest group to an inherintly flawed political system; it just takes the politicians' eyes that much more away from the common good.

2. As for why it's a social disaster that women can drive, do I really need to argue for this? Is it really not evident enough to you to accept it at my merely suggesting it?
Click to expand...


Not much would help your post, content-wise; however - correct spelling may have provided better camouflage.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Traditio said:
If you enfranchize women (the vast majority of whom are, just like any other population, very stupid), then you just have even more unqualified stupid people who are voting, and the vote, say, of an Aristotle is worth even less. At least if women can't vote, Aristotle's vote counts for 1 in a hundred million. If women can vote, his vote becomes half as valuable (or, conversely, twice as worthless).
Click to expand...

Unless that Aristotle happens to be female. In which case, you're forcing her to live voiceless in a world run by stupider people.
 
Selaphiel

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Traditio said:
1. I fail to see why you're surprised at the first thing that I said, and also why the word "stupid" comes to mind. When's the last time that you've heard me speak favorably of democracy? The vast majority of people should not be allowed to vote; they aren't qualified to do so, and I could adduce several arguments for this.

If you enfranchize women (the vast majority of whom are, just like any other population, very stupid), then you just have even more unqualified stupid people who are voting, and the vote, say, of an Aristotle is worth even less. At least if women can't vote, Aristotle's vote counts for 1 in a hundred million. If women can vote, his vote becomes half as valuable (or, conversely, twice as worthless).

Furthermore, for all (I hope) Annabenedetti's insistences that she is against the liberal social agenda (in particular, women's "reproductive rights"), I find it difficult to believe that the enfranchizement of women had nothing to do with it. Who do you think is so interested in furthering these things, if not women? And do you honestly think that politicians would be interested in "reproductive rights" if it didn't mean that it would buy them more votes?

To my mind, the fact that a politician has to care what women think (because, otherwise, he won't be as likely to get elected) has a direct impact on "women's reproductive rights" as a political issue.

The fact that women can vote just adds one more interest group to an inherintly flawed political system; it just takes the politicians' eyes that much more away from the common good.

2. As for why it's a social disaster that women can drive, do I really need to argue for this? Is it really not evident enough to you to accept it at my merely suggesting it?
Click to expand...

1) I of course assume that you are included in the elite that should be allowed to vote? Democracy might not be perfect, but it seems to me to be the best form of rule of the ones that have been tried. And what rexlunae said, it assumes that there are less intelligent women than intelligent men, which is also nonsense of course.

2) No, it is actually utterly ridiculous. If anything, research shows that women are safer drivers.
 
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
annabenedetti said:
That's the second time you've forgotten yourself:

chrysostom 69
annabenedetti 42
Arthur Brain 29
Rusha 27
bybee 19
Click to expand...

Oh no! Judging by this, Chrys is the number one feminist, followed by Anna and the Bunny Man!

I am only beating Bybee at this point. :(
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Rusha said:
I am convinced that huge egos shrink the brain ...
Click to expand...

It's kinda funny that Trad is so into philosophy, because it seems like it ought to encourage humility, not bluster. But the more he has delved into his field of chosen study, the less he has seemed able to accept that other people have thoughts that might be worthwhile.

What he's really saying, I think, is that if you allow women to vote, it dilutes his own vote, and obviously that's a huge loss to the world.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
rexlunae said:
It's kinda funny that Trad is so into philosophy, because it seems like it ought to encourage humility, not bluster. But the more he has delved into his field of chosen study, the less he has seemed able to accept that other people have thoughts that might be worthwhile.

What he's really saying, I think, is that if you allow women to vote, it dilutes his own vote, and obviously that's a huge loss to the world.
Click to expand...

He fancies himself a philosopher king.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top