PDA

View Full Version : Feminism, gender-roles and the relation of physical appearance to the above



Nordhammer
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Personally, I am voting for Elistariel because she doesn't look ***** as many of the others do. What makes a woman beautiful should not be dependent on how good she looks in a bikini. I applaud the men who mentioned intelligence as part of a woman's beauty.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16613&stc=1

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 04:58 AM
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16613&stc=1

Chauvinistic bravado in action. Got to love it. :P
Notice how the woman holding the sign could never be considered a "Decoration". More so women indeed know how to use their Sex Appeal to their advantadge.

Awar
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:05 AM
Two extremes. The 'Hooters' group spend probably all the time in the world plus a good portion of their pay-check on tanning beds ( healthy Nordish girls with a brown tan :P ), gyms, hairdressers, manicures, plastic surgeons etc. while the 'activist' obviously has some hormonal disbalance. :D

Scoob
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:08 AM
Two extremes. The 'Hooters' group spend probably all the time in the world plus a good portion of their pay-check on tanning beds ( healthy Nordish girls with a brown tan :P ), gyms, hairdressers, manicures, plastic surgeons etc. while the 'activist' obviously has some hormonal disbalance. :D Those girls look burnt-up brown. Too much. A nice golden (not too dark) tan is not bad.

rusalka
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:27 AM
Two extremes. The 'Hooters' group spend probably all the time in the world plus a good portion of their pay-check on tanning beds, gyms, hairdressers, manicures, plastic surgeons etc. while the 'activist' obviously has some hormonal disbalance. :D
...And then there are people like me who have the best of both worlds (minus the Nordish tan, obviously). :P

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Those girls look burnt-up brown. Too much. A nice golden (not too dark) tan is not bad.

That could be from using Tanning Creams.
Usually blonde girls have a nature Golden yellow glow to their skin. Which complements their hair color, further heigtening their beauty.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:47 AM
Two extremes. The 'Hooters' group spend probably all the time in the world plus a good portion of their pay-check on tanning beds ( healthy Nordish girls with a brown tan :P ), gyms, hairdressers, manicures, plastic surgeons etc. while the 'activist' obviously has some hormonal disbalance. :D

What ever happened to "Natural Beauty"? If a girl has spend most of her time just making sure she looks half decent she must not be that Good Looking in the first place. Natural Beauty is indeed Effortless.

Awar
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:50 AM
I think that women who don't take care of their looks at all are just slobs,
the ones who spend all their time improving their looks are just neurotic.
Natural beauty exists for very young females, but, as time passes, they need to DO something to keep their beauty.

I know some women my age who look like they could be my grandmother, and I know some who look like they're 16. All in all, I prefer those who look their age ;)

Strengthandhonour
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:52 AM
Natural beauty is almost non-exsistent in our miserable society. Girls compete to see who looks better. I don't mind make-up, as long as it's not over used. Sometimes so much of it is added, that it simply looks disgusting. Let's be honest here, but I simply can't sit down and remember the last time I talked to a girl who gave a crap about national beauty.

Awar
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:54 AM
Heh... well, women are very competitive.
Every girl would like to be the ONLY one who looks good :)

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:03 AM
Too much makeup makes a girl look "plastic" not to mention like a Slut.

Natural Beauty indeed exists but usually only lasts from Teen years to early 30s. After that Women are desperate in attempting to retain their beauty as they know their Prestige and Status depend on it.

As for Plastic Surgery I think it's digusting. No amoung of Plastic Surgery will ever give you the effortless beauty that Nature endows on those Lucky few.
It has become an Epidemic these days. In fact some girls view it as a "Rite of Passage". Not to mention it is portrayed by the media as a cure all.

Has anyone seen the show Extreme Makeover? I find it both Disgusting and Hillarious.

Esther_Helena
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:06 AM
:sing I'm a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world. Life in plastic, it's fantastic :sing

Remember "The Swan" now that was a joke. Gotta love botox too, nothin' says "youth" like a total lack of facial expression :P

Awar
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:07 AM
Ugh. Extreme Makeover. If it promotes what I think it does, it can seriously depress me.

Scoob
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:33 AM
I think a big part of the problem is that women now stay single into their late 20's, 30's, or beyond, and marriages don't last as well as they used to.

Female beauty really only lasts through the teens and twenties, and after that it's way downhill. Incidentally, female fertility follows a similar pattern.

Modern people are so far arrogant to imagine they can cast off tradition in favor of "progressive" individualistic lifestyles. So far, these lifestyles, and the overall social patterns that go along with them, coincide with general social decadence (of which they are a major part) and the decline of civilizations.

And see my post on Augustus' reforms: moderns aren't the first people to be "free" of tradition. IMO tradition is the best thing, in lieu of something better.

In other words, if pretty girls got married to a nice guy when they were still young, had lots of beautiful kids with him, she'd spend her best years raising kids and having good sex with her husband, instead of neurotically trying to "look attractive" for losers who want some quick no-strings sex.

And a lot of this goes along with thinking long-term versus thinking hedonistically (i.e., in terms of immediate satisfaction). Quick hookups might be cool in high school or college, but aren't so cute for ageing thirtysomething bachelorettes.

And from a guy's perspective: who wants a girl who's been around the block? No thanks. Hopefully I'll find a nice pretty wife - if she gets a little chubby later in life, no problem, as long as she's a loving mate and mother. Being a good cook wouldn't hurt either. ;)

Esther_Helena
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:01 AM
Damn Scoob, where the hell where you when I was in High School? :lol and people wonder why I've never dated... Hookups are about the worst concept...I'll just leave it at that.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:21 AM
I think a big part of the problem is that women now stay single into their late 20's, 30's, or beyond, and marriages don't last as well as they used to.

Female beauty really only lasts through the teens and twenties, and after that it's way downhill. Incidentally, female fertility follows a similar pattern.

Modern people are so far arrogant to imagine they can cast off tradition in favor of "progressive" individualistic lifestyles. So far, these lifestyles, and the overall social patterns that go along with them, coincide with general social decadence (of which they are a major part) and the decline of civilizations.

And see my post on Augustus' reforms: moderns aren't the first people to be "free" of tradition. IMO tradition is the best thing, in lieu of something better.

In other words, if pretty girls got married to a nice guy when they were still young, had lots of beautiful kids with him, she'd spend her best years raising kids and having good sex with her husband, instead of neurotically trying to "look attractive" for losers who want some quick no-strings sex.

And a lot of this goes along with thinking long-term versus thinking hedonistically (i.e., in terms of immediate satisfaction). Quick hookups might be cool in high school or college, but aren't so cute for ageing thirtysomething bachelorettes.

And from a guy's perspective: who wants a girl who's been around the block? No thanks. Hopefully I'll find a nice pretty wife - if she gets a little chubby later in life, no problem, as long as she's a loving mate and mother. Being a good cook wouldn't hurt either. ;)

You raise valid points. We indeed are living in an age where Man is going against what Nature intended for him to be.

Yes all this "Invidiualism" is ruining Humanity is ruining the sense of Community and Connectness with Society at large.

I believe the Prime Reason Marriages don't last as long as they use to is correlated with the fact that women are getting married at an much older age. Where their Reproductive value is only decreasing and it is often difficult to start a family with Older women and without Offspring their is no Clue that bonds a Pair together.

I am sure the girls who fit your Ideal of what the opposite sex should be are out their. Though few and far between.

Abby Normal
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:47 AM
UGH! I hate it when people say things like this. The fact that looks are the most important It's too early in the morning for me to write another feminist treatise, but allow me to rely upon my standard arguments:


Natural Beauty indeed exists but usually only lasts from Teen years to early 30s.This is completely a matter of opinion (and yours is a smallminded opinion, mind you). The same could easily be said about men. I for one prefer younger men (sometimes those even younger than myself, and that is pretty young); see the below as for why 'aging' will never be nearly as much of a concern for men as it is for women.


After that Women are desperate in attempting to retain their beauty as they know their Prestige and Status depend on it.Yes, and this is pathetic. It disgusts me how status is still determined by means of appearance for women and by means of achievement for men. No matter who you are, what you do should be more important than what you appear to be.

Abby Normal
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 08:17 AM
What the hell; I can’t resist a little rant every now and then. Feel free to split this!

For those of you who tout the importance of 'natural beauty' above all else: Keep in mind that cosmetics are far from an invention of ''modern sluts'. Since ancient times, people have taken measures to improve upon what nature gave them, and I for one plan on continuing that tradition (though I far from condone plastic surgery and other extreme procedures).

Physically, femininity is synonymous with soft grace, harmony and beauty, while masculinity is synonymous with roughness, ruggedness and ugliness; in essence, femininity is form, and masculinity is function. (((Note that I am not making any implications about social gender roles, but merely contrasting the aesthetic nature of femininity and masculinity.))) To me, the most physically attractive people are those with the most ‘feminine’ features and, in general, I prefer the looks of people from the more ‘feminine’-appearing races. (((No, I am not a homosexual! I get this every time I tell someone I prefer ‘feminine-looking’ men. I think a lot more girls would agree with me if they were not so conditioned by society to prefer raw masculinity lest be called ‘lesbians’.)))

Why then is it that in our society, women who seek to improve upon their appearances and not men? It all goes back to the tradition of women being viewed as ‘commodities’ whose sole determining values of worth are physical attributes. Appearance is simply not as important for men, but by all means, it should be! In the animal world, it is the male who must appear beautiful for the female; very rarely is it the other way around. For those of you who turn to ‘nature’ when arguing the necessity of male dominance and (as you inevitably will), it is safe to say that females vying for male attention by means of physical appearance is highly unnatural.

Women exclusively have worked on their appearances long enough, and the time of male laziness in this respect should be over. A great debater must anticipate the every move of his opponent; someone will probably argue that it is ‘uncivilised’ for humans to mimic the patterns of the animal world. However, it seems that appearance being vastly important to only women is a recent ‘development’ (though this is hardly positive). For example, look at the ancient Egyptians, whose men (as well as women) wore makeup and wigs. Only a Nordicist would dare to call them uncivilised (oh, wait; according to them, the Egyptians were in fact Nordic rather than Semitic!)

Regardless, the Egyptians did what nature intended in this respect; and we should follow. (((Note: I am not promoting the subjugation of one gender over the other. I do not believe that men exclusively should be concerned about appearance, but that the importance of appearance among the genders, like wealth, should be more equally distributed.)))

Nordhammer
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Too much makeup makes a girl look "plastic" not to mention like a Slut.

And you get that nice makeup taste when you kiss them.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:32 AM
So, isn't anyone going to respond to my oddball ideas on gender?

If I sent in my pictures, y'all probably wouldn't say I am the most 'beautiful' female on this forum (though I would disagree). It is indisputable, however, that I am the smartest female on this forum! :P :P :P :P :P

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:47 AM
You're one of the youngest females on board. Everything else would have to be established first. ;)

kinvolk
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 02:58 AM
So, isn't anyone going to respond to my oddball ideas on gender?

If I sent in my pictures, y'all probably wouldn't say I am the most 'beautiful' female on this forum (though I would disagree). It is indisputable, however, that I am the smartest female on this forum! :P :P :P :P :P
I think you are quite nice looking.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:20 AM
I think you are quite nice looking.KINVOLK: If you took the time to read my previous posts, you'd know that this is NOT the kind of comment I wish to receive. 'Uppity-assed' is right! You completely ignored my statement on how physical appearance should NOT be the sole determinant of worth for women, and proceeded to tell me I am 'QUITE NICE-LOOKING'! This calls for WAR!

Oh and you have only seen a blurry, old picture that some stereotypical American 'WASP' male would find 'attractive'. If you saw me today; if you saw how I truly look (in my natural state), I doubt you would say such a thing. Very few American males would; as you have all been conditioned by ’our’ media to prefer the same mass-produced ‘look’! Thus, it no longer matters to me how many idiot American males (and females, by the same token) find me 'attractive'. I like the way I look now, and the kind of people I want to be around will think the same!

Back to my point: I bet you didn't even realize that your retarded one-liner is ENTIRELY contradictory to the nature of my other posts. In fact, I would assume that you were trying to utilize irony in an American bastard-like way; but judging from the content of your posts on the subject of America, you likely are not capable of such wit. Actually, even if you actually read my posts, it would be an overestimation to assume that you truly understood them. Let continue this flame-war continue, anyway!

rusalka
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:28 AM
Shut the hell up! If you read my previous posts, you'd know that this is NOT the kind of comment I wish to recieve. 'Uppity-assed' is right! You completely ignored my statement on how physical appearance should NOT be the sole determinant of worth for women, and proceeded to tell me I am 'quite nice-looking'. This calls for WAR!

Oh and you have only seen a blurry, old picture that some stereotypical American 'WASP' male would find 'attractive'. If you saw me today; if you saw how I truly look (in my natural state), I doubt you would say such a thing. Very few American males would; as you have all been conditioned by mass-culture to prefer the same freakin' look! Thus, it no longer matters to me how many idiot American males (and females, by the same token) find me 'attractive'. I like the way I look now, and the kind of people I want to be around will think the same.

Easy, girl. What the hell are you on? ;)

Okay, you don't look nice. I bet you're a pimpled wannabe goth teenager and definitely out of the "nice" category. Are you happy now? :P

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:35 AM
Easy, girl. What the hell are you on? ;) Caffeine!


Okay, you don't look nice. This kind of idiocy also perpetuates the 'double standards' I described earlier. When someone wants to truly insult a man, they go after his intelligence, his social status (or, even worse, the appearance of the woman in his life), but when someone wants to insult a woman, they go after her appearance. This mindset needs to end!


I bet you're a pimpled wannabe goth teenager and definitely out of the "nice" category. Are you happy now? :PPimpled, no. Wannabe goth, yes. Not nice, yes!

I might have come off as a bit harsh, but my point was that my original post was about how in our society, 'looks' are way too important to most women, and that our worth should be determined by more than physical appearance alone. Then, I posted again to make a sarcastic comment daring people to respond to my statement, and Kinvolk came along to say that I am quite nice-looking! If you read my post on page 9, you'll see why this seemed like a major slap in the face.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:51 AM
Caffeine!

This kind of idiocy also perpetuates the 'double standards' I described earlier. When someone wants to truly insult a man, they go after his intelligence, his social status (or, even worse, the appearance of the woman in his life), but when someone wants to insult a woman, they go after her appearance. This mindset needs to end!



What's wrong with having "This" kind of Mindset? A woman needs to look good to impress men... that is after all how a woman gains social status. And women know how to use their sex appeal(womanly wiles) to their advantadge.
I don't think this kind of Mindset will ever change it's just the way Mother Nature intended things to be.


Anyways why don't we start another Beauty Contest?
We have afterall no shortage of eager contestants.

Esther_Helena
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:54 AM
Hoo Boy! Abby Normal, first off, this is just my opinion, I cannot speak for others. I know beauty is and is not skin deep. One can be attractive and have the attitude of a jack ass, or ugly as sin and kind hearted. It's when one is attractive AND kind hearted that one becomes beautiful. (does that make sense?) As we obviously cannot get to know each member on a personal level here, we cannot truly judge for true beauty. I use the term "Beauty Contest" as it is the term commonly used in pagents which test for skin deep beauty. That is what this contest is, a contest of face-value beauty. If one loses, or wins, that does not mean that person is genuinly beautiful. Only they can know if they are or not. I understand your frustration/concern for how women are viewed, I agree it is wrong. Women should not be judged based soley on how they look, but they are. That is how we have been conditioned. Commercials and magazines show the "pretty people" because they sell things. Nothing wrong with that. It's a marketing strategy. (I'm starting to ramble here). It's when people stop paying attention to the "real world" and start going by the media's world that they become, sidetracked so to say. Movies give us stereotypes to go by, even though we should be able to judge people for ourselves.....after we have met them and gotten to know them. And I will go know before I get completely off topic.

rusalka
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:57 AM
Caffeine!

I knew you were up to something. ;)



I might have come off as a bit harsh, but my point was that my original post was about how in our society, 'looks' are way too important to most women, and that our worth should be determined by more than physical appearance alone.
Well, on that I agree. Women are almost always judged by their looks and unfortunately most members of the female sex are very vulnerable when it comes to physical appareance. It's a whole industry going on, of course. You have to look a certain way or you're not "desirable". And in order to look a certain way you buy all sorts of things, given the fact that there's no end to the stuff women buy, myself included, unfortunately. :)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:06 AM
So, isn't anyone going to respond to my oddball ideas on gender?

When I have time, yes I will reply to your oddball ideas on gender. And believe me they certainly of odd ball nature.



It is indisputable, however, that I am the smartest female on this forum! :P :P :P :P :P

Nahhhhhhh...........

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:14 AM
NP: There always have been and always will be people like you who are so blinded by the current status-quo that they fail to see beyond it, much less work toward achieving something better. On to your close-minded comments!


What's wrong with having "This" kind of Mindset?Everything that could possibly be wrong with a mindset.


A woman needs to look good to impress men...I am dumbfounded by this display of naivety. What if I told you that you need to look good to impress women, and that this is the only way for you to obtain status? Do you think that women actually LIKE being oppressed in this manner?


that is after all how a woman gains social status. And women know how to use their sex appeal(womanly wiles) to their advantadge.So you're saying that physical appearance should be the only venue for women to achieve status? What about if, (shock!) women were actually given the same right as men to achieve status through intelligence, achievement and hard work on things OTHER than appearance? This must be a radical notion to you, a pragmatist who apparently sees things strictly as how they are rather than how they should be.


I don't think this kind of Mindset will ever change it's just the way Mother Nature intended things to be.Oh, really? I've already countered this! In the animal world, it's the male who has to look good to impress the female. Very rarely is it the other way around. Read my post on page 9 for more.


Anyways why don't we start another Beauty Contest?Because it is misogynistic! I have taken another radical step on the path to feminazihood and have decided to take no part in this contest. I have no need to parade myself in front of people in hopes of affirmation of my 'self-esteem' in real life, and the same goes for the Internet. I am happy with my looks and do not need the approval of anyone. Quite frankly, comments about my appearance, both positive and negative (of which those commenting would doubtlessly keep to themselves in the 'real world') make me regret ever posting my pictures on the Internet.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:39 AM
Funny Abby condemns NP for his misogyny yet professes to be a Stalinist. Pretty ironic considering Stalin was a misogynist himself and I love his advice to his son Yakov about how "revolutionary women make poor wives". LMAO!

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:42 AM
Well, on that I agree. Women are almost always judged by their looks and unfortunately most members of the female sex are very vulnerable when it comes to physical appareance. It's a whole industry going on, of course. You have to look a certain way or you're not "desirable". And in order to look a certain way you buy all sorts of things, given the fact that there's no end to the stuff women buy, myself included, unfortunately. :)This raises a 'chicken or egg' question: Did the beauty industry spring up simply to manipulate the already-ingrained desire of women to look a certain way, or does the beauty industry completely control the way women want to look and the degree of emphasis placed on looks? Both, to a degree. Though I am a resentful pseudo-Marxist who loves to blame everything on the capitalists, I recognize that this pressure to look a certain way is an age-old societal problem; but as long as it is around, people will find ways to profit off of it.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:45 AM
Basically the capitalists commercialized and in many ways trivalized the practices surronding beauty.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:48 AM
Funny Abby condemns NP for his misogyny yet professes to be a Stalinist. Pretty ironic considering Stalin was a misogynist himself and I love his advice to his son Yakov about how "revolutionary women make poor wives". LMAO!Perun, you setting ridiculous standards! Just because I appreciate a particular character does not mean that I must endorse every view he propagated, much less every view he held personally. As you are quite 'eclectic' in terms of ideology yourself, you should understand this. I am a proud Stalinist feminist!

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:55 AM
So you're saying that physical appearance should be the only venue for women to achieve status?

Yeah thats pretty much it.



What about if, (shock!) women were actually given the same right as men to achieve status through intelligence, achievement and hard work on things OTHER than appearance?

Then women would not be achieveing much in society. Thats the irony of it all, women can only achieve when given a huge advantage over men. If the bars were set equal, women pretty always come out on bottom.



This must be a radical notion to you, a pragmatist who apparently sees things strictly as how they are rather than how they should be.

Yes pragmatism is in many ways a good thing. It saves you from trying nonsense projects that you know will get you nowhere anyways. Take for example the experiment of Communism.



In the animal world, it's the male who has to look good to impress the female.

True in some cases, false in others. Some specices its that way, in other species it's not. God determined thats not the way for the human species to operate.



Because it is misogynistic!

Oh no, we cant have that!

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:59 AM
Funny Abby condemns NP for his misogyny yet professes to be a Stalinist. Pretty ironic considering Stalin was a misogynist himself and I love his advice to his son Yakov about how "revolutionary women make poor wives". LMAO!

Stalin was the Ultimate Misogynist/Womanizer. The fact Abbey admires him is a glimpse of her true feelings on the matter of women's rights. :P

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:59 AM
Perun, you setting ridiculous standards! Just because I appreciate a particular character does not mean that I must endorse every view he propagated, much less every view he held personally.

It wasnt just personal. It influenced Soviet policies concerning women and their role in society. Stalin was not a feminist and indeed many feminist groups were labelled subversive and sent to the gulags. Trotsky and his supporters were(and still are) quite fond of denouncing Stalinist policies towards women as "misogynistic".



I am a proud Stalinist feminist!

An oxymoron that contradicts the whole Stalinist thinking towards women and their place in society. You're sounding more like a Trotskyist.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:06 AM
After visiting Russia, I often like to joke about how more communist the West is than Russia ever was. Paticularly in the case of women, this is especially true. The biggest anti-feminists you'll ever meet are 80 year old babushkas who actually lived and grew up under Stalin.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:06 AM
This raises a 'chicken or egg' question: Did the beauty industry spring up simply to manipulate the already-ingrained desire of women to look a certain way, or does the beauty industry completely control the way women want to look and the degree of emphasis placed on looks? Both, to a degree. Though I am a resentful pseudo-Marxist who loves to blame everything on the capitalists, I recognize that this pressure to look a certain way is an age-old societal problem; but as long as it is around, people will find ways to profit off of it.

Hello! Men(at least normal ones) have always vauled women based on the beauty they possess.
Women naturally aware of this have always desired to increase and maintain their beauty.

It's only natural that a Man puts the greatest value on the beauty of his mate because it is a sign of fertility and health.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:15 AM
It wasnt just personal. It influenced Soviet policies concerning women and their role in society. Stalin was not a feminist and indeed many feminist groups were labelled subversive and sent to the gulags. Trotsky and his supporters were(and still are) quite fond of denouncing Stalinist policies towards women as "misogynistic".You are sidestepping my statement that I am not required to share all of Stalin's opinions. I am no ideological purist; with this you should be able to identify.


An oxymoron that contradicts the whole Stalinist thinking towards women and their place in society. You're sounding more like a Trotskyist.My entire being consists of a jumbled pile of oxymorons. Thus, you should not take it unto yourself to associate me with that Kahlo-banging horny Jew due to this particular oxymoron!:P

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:16 AM
I am a proud Stalinist feminist!

Like Pushkin stated an Oxymoron.

What is destroying Western Society today is feminism the refusal of women to accept their gender roles. The arrogant urge to go against Nature. Women no longer want to raise families. They have refused to "contribute" and "sacrifice" on behalf of the Greater good pursuing their own vain pleasures instead.

Esther_Helena
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:24 AM
could a mod/admin split this thread?

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:27 AM
Yeah thats pretty much it.Care to explain why?

(Not that I don't already know why you think in this illogical way (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame39.html)).


Then women would not be achieveing much in society. Thats the irony of it all, women can only achieve when given a huge advantage over men. If the bars were set equal, women pretty always come out on bottom.You're so full of pompous rhetoric, but you're talking out of your ass as 'equality' between men and women has never truly been achieved. Women are not given 'unfair advantages' over men in our society; it's quite the opposite. Besides, even in our current system women as a whole are far from 'coming out on bottom'.


Yes pragmatism is in many ways a good thing. It saves you from trying nonsense projects that you know will get you nowhere anyways. Take for example the experiment of Communism. Pragmatism is an easy way out for lazy people who don't want to think of better solutions and and work towards them; and if Communism only 'looks good on paper', the same could be said for Christianity.

Right now I'll dredge up some quotes on the subject of idealism.


True in some cases, false in others. Some specices its that way, in other species it's not. God determined thats not the way for the human species to operate.See the above comment on Christianity. You and your dogmatic nonsense!:D


Oh no, we cant have that!Correct!

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:44 AM
More pompous albeit substanceless pro-'patriarchy' blusterings from Pushkin, Paladin & Co:


Hello! Men(at least normal ones) have always vauled women based on the beauty they possess.
Women naturally aware of this have always desired to increase and maintain their beauty.

It's only natural that a Man puts the greatest value on the beauty of his mate because it is a sign of fertility and health.You are even more of a TROGLODYTE than Pushkin in that you defend your arguments solely with your narrowminded definitions of 'common sense', 'nature' and 'normalcy'.

Pushkin actually makes legitimate (though refutable) arguments. Yours, however, are meaningless; the equal but opposite equivalent to:


"Women and men should be treated equally because that is fair. Equality between the genders is moral and therefore should be practiced."Read the above statement, and pretend that I have written it in response to your post. Now try to argue against it. You can't, because there is nothing to argue against (save for a few statements of opinion as to what 'equality' and 'morality' consist of!)

If you want to come back and actually debate, you should try to be persuasive and think a bit before you write such drivel as the above.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:56 AM
Stalin was the Ultimate Misogynist/Womanizer. The fact Abbey admires him is a glimpse of her true feelings on the matter of women's rights. :PI already told you that Stalin and I are not in agreement on the issue of women's rights.

This is what I hate about labeling myself as one ideology or the other: Someone will always pick out one view of mine that is not consistent with the ideology as a whole and claim that I am "not a 'real' such-and-such-ideology." Perhaps I should lay off the labels and just be me; that way I could avoid these attacks by purists.:P

By the way:

http://www.wao.org.my/graphics/school2.gif
Now I'm pissing off the low-level agents of the patriarchy (P 'n' NP, namely, but others as well) pictorally as well as verbally. :P :P :P

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:16 AM
Don't fight it...Resistance is Futile. As long as Males exist Patriarchy will be King. ;)
It seems to me you are a confused young lady. Who doesn't know the value of Gender Roles. But instead wants to create her own. Such Ignorance is despicable.

What do you mean by "Human Rights for Women"? You mean the right for Women to go against their "Gender Roles" what nature intended for them?

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:26 AM
could a mod/admin split this thread?

New thread title?

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:32 AM
Don't fight it...Resistance is Futile. As long as Males exist Patriarchy will be King. ;)
It seems to me you are a confused young lady. Who doesn't know the value of Gender Roles. But instead wants to create her own. Such Ignorance is despicable.Ignorance? You can call me crazy or just plain wrong, but the thought of you accusing me of ignorance is laughable. I am more well-informed about 'gender roles' than you, as I have demonstrated several times in this thread.

At one time I held 'traditionalist' views on every aspect of society (yes, even gender roles). I resented the traditions regarding the role of women, but I blindly supported them as not to 'betray' my ideology. Since then I have learned the virtues of a multifaceted ideology, and now that I realize that not all of my views must fit into the same category, I recognize that some traditions should be kept in name only or abolished completely.


What do you mean by "Human Rights for Women"? You mean the right for Women to go against their "Gender Roles" what nature intended for them?DON'T POST AGAIN UNTIL YOU READ THE POST ABOUT YOUR POOR ARGUMENTATION TACTICS. PLEASE!

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:36 AM
New thread title?
"The Great Debate: Feminism, gender-roles and the relation of physical appearance to the above"

I'd prefer that you split it starting with my first post, on page 9. :)

Zyklop
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 08:56 AM
Done :D

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 09:00 AM
"Women and men should be treated equally because that is fair. Equality between the genders is moral and therefore should be practiced."

Read the above statement, and pretend that I have written it in response to your post. Now try to argue against it. You can't, because there is nothing to argue against (save for a few statements of opinion as to what 'equality' and 'morality' consist of!)

What is moral and fair is that he does not whip her to make her go faster. ;)

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16754&stc=1

"An Albanian man smokes a cigarette as his wife carries hay alongside the national road in near Elbasan, near the capital of Tirana. In rural Albania, tradition dictates that women to do all the house chores with men never helping as this is seen to be a sign of weakness." February 24, 2003 (REUTERS/Arben Celi)

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 10:27 AM
Caffeine!
Hey, my kind of girl! Looks are irrelevant - but you'll have to drink coffee like a man if you want to survive in my world. ;)

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 10:32 AM
Hey Pushkin, tactical withdrawal back to the Phlegcave! There I'll teach you to trade patriacharlic conventional policies for radical sexual apartheid. Much better results for us guys! ;)

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 12:09 PM
I don't really think much of gender roles. Nowadays they have become quite obsolete anyway - whether or not this is a good thing is another question I won't go into at this point. As bachelor I do not feel intimated or my masculinity threatened by doing housework. I am used to it from early age and don't need a female for that. It also would not bother me if I stayed home and my wife/girlfriend/sugar mommy worked as long as the money would suffice. Such a scenario isn't that unrealistic around here, anyway - unemployment regionally goes up to 80%, so two incomes in most instances are not an option anyway.

Personally I have experienced that I prefer not working with and/or for women. That may have to do with the kind of women one encounters as superiors. I found them to be incapable, unintelligent, rancorous and mischievous. In my last job my female superior (with whom I absolutely did not get along) messed up - badly. She did not care and tried to transfer the responsibility for her faults on others (not me though). I got pissed and went to the next higher level, setting things straight and reporting other grave mistakes by her which had gone unnoticed so far. Needless to say that the next few weeks in the job weren't too nice for me. However, if a self-righteous woman wants to enter into a pissing contest with me she should better be experienced in peeing erect. In the end she got transferred to a position in which she could not do much damage and had nobody to order around. Women make mistakes, men make mistakes. I have found, however, that the way females are in total denial of their own mistakes makes working with them a pain in the ass (of course I am generalizing a bit here, but I am sure everyone has made the same experience). It is this tendency to drama and emotional releases I can't stand. It sounds funny, but women should learn to take it like a man - at least in jobs that are originally a male domain. However, in the army, in the police and with the firefighters I have found that women cannot do that. There are different standards for them and the men. Both mentally and physically they are predominantly unfit for these jobs - that is why some egalitarian legislation has to force them into these jobs. As a result the effectivity of the whole profession suffers badly. I could mention hundreds of examples.

If women enter into taditionally male domains they should be ready to be judged like a man would be judged. If they don't like it there are other opportunities.

I just realized that this does not have much to do with looks. So here is the bottom line: I don't go after looks, basically because I am no Adonis myself ( I am a Dennis, hahaha).

Freja
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 01:36 PM
Women naturally aware of this have always desired to increase and maintain their beauty.

It's only natural that a Man puts the greatest value on the beauty of his mate because it is a sign of fertility and health.
I´m a Gucci-feminist - I´m totally aware of the advantages my looks bring me, and I use it for what it is worth.
However, in many situations beauty can be a hindrance. I have to use much more energy and consider my appearance to be taken seriously at times. Luckily, I don´t use much make-up, so being without (ie. looking natural) is no problem.
That often does the trick. :D

I´m not out to change the world as I used to in my younger days. I concentrate on raising my sons to be good men, and well aware of the likenesses and differences between man and woman.

I strongly resent that most of you young males seem to view us past thirty (OK, almost...) as less beautiful. There are, as you will learn in time, many kinds of beauty. Youth is only one kind.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 01:42 PM
Hey Abbybaby, meet your future hubby. He knows exactly where your place is, hahaha!


UKIP's bloomer over women's rights

Martin Wainwright
Wednesday July 21, 2004
The Guardian

Europe's 200 million women yesterday acquired a new champion in the form of the United Kingdom Independence party MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, Godfrey Bloom. "I want to deal with women's issues", he declared, "because I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough."

Mr Bloom was speaking on his first day at the European parliament in Strasbourg as one of UKIP's 11 MEPs. "I am going to promote men's rights," he said, which was odd because he had just taken up a seat on the parliament's committee for women's rights.

For those women wondering why someone with Mr Bloom's views on their gender could deign to speak on their behalf, he said his mandate was clear: "I am here to represent Yorkshire women, who always have dinner on the table when you get home."

While the shades of Amy Johnson, the Bronte sisters and other famous Yorkshirewomen whirled beyond the grave, Mr Bloom unrepentantly went on local television - promptly syndicated - to make sure that his mission statement was understood.

"The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment," he said, citing his experience in the Territorial Army and a London investment firm for which he still works as a researcher. "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."

Mr Bloom, perpetually pin-striped and with an office answering machine which barks "Halt! Who goes there?", then briefly disappeared under a pile of furious responses from other MEPs, particularly from women.

He was denounced as "Neanderthal and absolutely terrifying" by Glenys Kinnock. Mary Honeyball, a Labour colleague on the women's rights committee, suggested an investigation of his business practices by a discrimination tribunal.

But Mr Bloom, 54, who took the last of Yorkshire's six seats in June, soon bobbed back up again with more on the same theme. "It isn't politically correct, is it?" he said. "But it's a fact of life. I know, because I am a businessman."

Yorkshire was absorbing his view of its women last night, but there were knowing nods in Wressle, a small town near Selby where Mr Bloom has his party headquarters.

UKIP's regional organiser, Tony Slater, was laid up recovering from a hip operation (and enjoying watching his friend on TV); but his wife said: "It goes over your head round here; we've all heard it many times before."

Mr Bloom, who fought two Westminster elections in East Yorkshire before reaching Europe, has made a name for one of the county's characteristics - blunt talk - while ignoring the other one - of "seeing and hearing all, but saying nowt".

Friends of Mr Bloom, who is known to some as Godfrey's Bloomers, point out that for all his straight talking, his home life does not bear out any notion that women should primarily scrub and cook.

His wife Katie is better-known than he is - or at least she was until last night - as one of the country's leading horse physiotherapists and as a "passionate" side-saddle rider.

She was not available for comment, but she has come to his rescue before. When UKIP was charged with xenophobia, he countered robustly that his wife was half-Polish.

The party might soon find itself in need of more such excuses. After a month in the political sunshine that saw it dominate coverage of the European elections, UKIP has already had to suspend one of its MEPs, Ashley Mote, who is facing allegations of housing benefit fraud.

Yesterday the party tried to laugh off its latest embarrassment. But the Tories - out for revenge - will be watching.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1265743,00.html

--
"America is the true country of downfall. The west of mankind. But the Atlantic sea is the isolating belt for the mind and every higher form of life." [Nikolaus Lenau, Sämtliche Werke und Briefe, in 6 vol.; published by E. Castle, Insel-Verlag, Leipzig 1910-11, vol. 3. Excerpt from the letter Georg Reinbeck, Lisbon in Ohio, March 5, 1833, p. 199)

"What makes one's words stick in one's throat whenever one attempts to have a conversation with an American is their monumental self-righteousness. They prove with every sentence, every action, that they know absolutely nothing, yet they pretend that they are the only people who know anything. When confronted with several alternatives they do not hesitate: with energy and assurance they immediately choose the worst. And what is particularly bad is the way they continually act contrary to their own true interests." [Ernst von Salomon, "The Questionnaire", 1951]

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 03:41 PM
You're so full of pompous rhetoric, but you're talking out of your ass as 'equality' between men and women has never truly been achieved.

Nor will it ever be achieved!




Women are not given 'unfair advantages' over men in our society; it's quite the opposite.

BS!


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm

The research commonly cited to support claims of male privilege and male sinfulness is riddled with errors. Almost none of it has been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Some of the data turn out to be mysteriously missing. A review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap. The typical boy is a year and a half behind the typical girl in reading and writing; he is less committed to school and less likely to go to college. In 1997 college full-time enrollments were 45 percent male and 55 percent female. The Department of Education predicts that the proportion of boys in college classes will continue to shrink.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. They get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow more-rigorous academic programs and participate in advanced-placement classes at higher rates. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high-level math and science courses. Girls, allegedly timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. Only in sports are boys ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance. Girls read more books. They outperform boys on tests for artistic and musical ability. More girls than boys study abroad. More join the Peace Corps. At the same time, more boys than girls are suspended from school. More are held back and more drop out. Boys are three times as likely to receive a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. More boys than girls are involved in crime, alcohol, and drugs. Girls attempt suicide more often than boys, but it is boys who more often succeed. In 1997, a typical year, 4,483 young people aged five to twenty-four committed suicide: 701 females and 3,782 males.




Besides, even in our current system women as a whole are far from 'coming out on bottom'.

Yes thats because of the unfair advantages women are given over men. Christine Sommers explains this to great length in her book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men



Pragmatism is an easy way out for lazy people who don't want to think of better solutions and and work towards them; and if Communism only 'looks good on paper', the same could be said for Christianity.

:rotfl!


http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/worth.htm

Materialistic socialists are given to proclaiming that Christianity is not a success, that it has not made the kingdom of God actual; it is nearly two thousand years since the Redeemer of the world appeared on earth and evil still exists, it even increases: the world is saturated with suffering and the burdens of life are no less for all that our salvation has been accomplished. These socialists promise to do, without God and without Christ, what Christ himself could not bring about: the brotherhood of man, justice in social life, peace, the kingdom of God on earth -- these unbelievers willingly use that expression, "the kingdom of God on earth"!

The only experience that we have of materialistic Socialism in practice is the Russian experiment, and that has not given the expected results. But there is no solution of the question in it. Socialism's promise to make justice rule on earth and to get rid of evil and suffering does not rest on human freedom but on the violation of it; its ends are to be realized by an enforced social organization which shall make external evil impossible by compelling men to virtue, righteousness, and justice--and it is this constraint that constitutes the great difference between Socialism and Christianity. The so-called "failure of Christianity in history" is a failure dependent upon human freedom, upon resistance springing from our Christ-given freedom, upon opposition by the ill will which religion will not compel to be good. Christian truth supposes freedom, and looks to an interior and spiritual victory over evil. Exteriorly the State can set a limit to the manifestations of wickedness and it is its duty to do so, but evil and sin will not be overcome in that way. There is no such dilemma for the socialist, because he knows no problem of sin or of the spiritual life; the only question facing him is that of suffering and social injustice and their elimination by means of an organization of life from without. God does not use force, for he desires man's freedom and not merely an exterior triumph of righteousness. In that sense it may be said that he maintains evil and uses it for good ends. In particular, the righteousness of Christ cannot be actualized by force. But the justice of Communism is to be attained by compulsion, and this can be done the more easily because any freedom of spirit is denied.

The argument based on a historical defeat of Christianity cannot be sustained. The kingdom of God cannot be imposed; if it is to be brought about we must be born again, and that supposes complete freedom of spirit. Christianity is the religion of the Cross, and it sees a meaning in suffering. Christ asks us to take up our own cross and carry it, to shoulder the load of a sinful world. In Christian consciousness the notion of attaining happiness, justice, and the kingdom of God on earth without cross or suffering is a huge lie: it is the temptation that Christ rejected in the wilderness when he was shown the kingdoms of the world and invited to fall down and worship. Christianity does not promise its own necessary realization and victory here below; Christ even questioned whether he will find any faith on earth when he comes again at the end of time, and foretold that love itself will have grown cold.
---Nikolai Berdyaev the Worth of Christianity and the Unworthiness of Christians

You were saying? :P

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 03:48 PM
You are sidestepping my statement that I am not required to share all of Stalin's opinions. I am no ideological purist; with this you should be able to identify.

No, you're sidestepping my argument that one cannot be a Stalinist and a feminist.



My entire being consists of a jumbled pile of oxymorons. Thus, you should not take it unto yourself to associate me with that Kahlo-banging horny Jew due to this particular oxymoron!:P

Im not basing it entirely on this oxymoron. Your ideology has more in common with Trotskyism and other forms of Western Marxism than it does to Stalinism. Not even Dugin would agree with you on this question.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 03:55 PM
Hey Pushkin, Abby is still young. Girls her age are everything and nothing, changing from week to week. It is a natural orientation process. Eventually she'll find out that the modern world is clearly in favor of females, at least in our allegedly civilized societies. They can join the army, we have to. They can have babies, but don't have to (and those most of them don't have any). They can apply for a job, get pregnant in a row and get full payment while not working one single hour (maybe not in the U.S., but here it is a big sport; I used to be hired on the same day with a skank who managed to be either pregnant or on maternity leave in a three year row. She worked exactly three days in these three years.) They get married, they get divorced, they get the kids, the dad gets the bills, a restraining order and a life in shame and poverty. Just attend a public session of the family courts and you'll see I am right. Males die younger, males die unhappy, their suicide rates have been steadily rising for the last 40 years.

The only factor that really holds back females is the females themselves. One female is the other female's wolf. There is no solidarity among them, just plotting and scheming. Most men realize this and prefer to stay among their own kind instead of taking a risk that could (and frequently does) ruin them financially, socially, morally and mentally.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:03 PM
Not even Dugin would agree with you on this question.
Nor would Limonov.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:06 PM
Check this out:

"[Stalin] hated intellectual women, referring to them disparagingly as "herrings with ideas." One might adduce the "Asiatic" pleasure he derived from asserting his authority over a meek and demure woman..."
--Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union Alex de Jonge pg.136

"[Stalin] disliked women, especially the priggish "herrings with ideas" to be found among the Bolshevik leadership, and enjoyed treating them with less respect than they fely deserved....he misbehaved at a dinner in Ordzhonikidze's apartment, singing obscene Georgian songs in the presence of Bolshevik ladies known to be "highly moral women." He also visited his mother and abused her in publiv, referring to her as 'you old whore.'"
--inbid pg. 204

LOL "herring with ideas" I like that! Interesting that Abby claims to be such an Asian yet fails to conform to the basic Asian gender notions; which are extremely misogynistic. Also Shinotism and Japanese culture is misogynistic. I only need to mention the Geisha to make this point clear.

So clear Abby is a real ideological oxymoron, who claims to be Asian yet adheres to so many Western ideals.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:12 PM
The geisha is probably the worst example, as it is one of the highest position a woman could reach in traditional Japan. It seesm to be a widespread belief that they were some kind of whores.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:15 PM
Hey Pushkin, Abby is still young. Girls her age are everything and nothing, changing from week to week. It is a natural orientation process.

I know I know. And I thought I was bad at that age, since my positions often changed. But they often changed on more specific isssues, while my main worldview remained intact.



Eventually she'll find out that the modern world is clearly in favor of females, at least in our allegedly civilized societies. They can join the army, we have to.

Damn I just turned back a good book about this! Feminism help bring an end to conscription in many countries, and thats what helped fuel their agenda.



They can have babies, but don't have to (and those most of them don't have any).

Not only that. If a woman gets pregenant and doesnt want the child, she can have an abortion. If the man doesnt want the child, he has to pay child support.




The only factor that really holds back females is the females themselves. One female is the other female's wolf. There is no solidarity among them, just plotting and scheming. Most men realize this and prefer to stay among their own kind instead of taking a risk that could (and frequently does) ruin them financially, socially, morally and mentally.

Indeed. It's like that one Simpsons episode:

Marge:"He prefers the company of men."
Homer: "Who doesn't?"

I certainly do(in the social and not sexual context for all you smart-asses here!)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:16 PM
The geisha is probably the worst example, as it is one of the highest position a woman could reach in traditional Japan. It seesm to be a widespread belief that they were some kind of whores.

Yes and why are they so respected? What is their main purpose? To serve every man's whim, except for sex. It's a perfect example of women earning respect for doing something respectful! :D

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:31 PM
Check this out:

"[Stalin] hated intellectual women, referring to them disparagingly as "herrings with ideas." One might adduce the "Asiatic" pleasure he derived from asserting his authority over a meek and demure woman..."

--Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union Alex de Jonge pg.136

"[Stalin] disliked women, especially the priggish "herrings with ideas" to be found among the Bolshevik leadership, and enjoyed treating them with less respect than they fely deserved....he misbehaved at a dinner in Ordzhonikidze's apartment, singing obscene Georgian songs in the presence of Bolshevik ladies known to be "highly moral women." He also visited his mother and abused her in publiv, referring to her as 'you old whore.'"

--inbid pg. 204

LOL "herring with ideas" I like that! I have already stated that I happen to disagree with Stalin on the issue of women’s rights, so this is irrelevant.


Interesting that Abby claims to be such an Asian yet fails to conform to the basic Asian gender notions; which are extremely misogynistic. Also Shinotism and Japanese culture is misogynistic. I only need to mention the Geisha to make this point clear.

So clear Abby is a real ideological oxymoron, who claims to be Asian yet adheres to so many Western ideals.Interesting that Perun’s only arguments consists of pointing out my ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘contradictions’. I am proud to be an ideological oxymoron! As I have said several times before, I am not ‘all-or-nothing’ when it comes to ideology. My views reflect many ideologies which come together in a gigantic, mentally unstable gumbo. As someone once said to me: “It’s like you take pieces of many ideologies, put them in a blender, select liquefy, and it comes out as its own ideology altogether!”

What more, though Asian culture is misogynistic, you can’t say the same is not true for traditional Western culture. Feminism could hardly be called a ‘Western ideal’!

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:34 PM
Maybe not a western ideal, but certainly a western achievement. Women weren't liberated under communism, the form of dependency simply changed.

Abby Normal
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:51 PM
Hey Pushkin, Abby is still young. Girls her age are everything and nothing, changing from week to week. It is a natural orientation process.My views don't change that often; definitely not as often as those of many others my age. Like Pushkin said, my basic worldview remains intact, though my opinions on individual issues - like women's rights - sometimes change.


Eventually she'll find out that the modern world is clearly in favor of females, at least in our allegedly civilized societies. They can join the army, we have to. They can have babies, but don't have to (and those most of them don't have any). They can apply for a job, get pregnant in a row and get full payment while not working one single hour (maybe not in the U.S., but here it is a big sport; I used to be hired on the same day with a skank who managed to be either pregnant or on maternity leave in a three year row. She worked exactly three days in these three years.) They get married, they get divorced, they get the kids, the dad gets the bills, a restraining order and a life in shame and poverty. Just attend a public session of the family courts and you'll see I am right. Males die younger, males die unhappy, their suicide rates have been steadily rising for the last 40 years.Naaaah. Something tells me that I wouldn't take well to this lifestyle. I'm going to be a journalist, but just to bring in the money for my work as a full-time political activist. ;)


The only factor that really holds back females is the females themselves. One female is the other female's wolf. There is no solidarity among them, just plotting and scheming. Most men realize this and prefer to stay among their own kind instead of taking a risk that could (and frequently does) ruin them financially, socially, morally and mentally.You are correct. Of course, women should be treated the same by society as men, but being around other women can be irritating at times because of how petty, competitive they are - many girls take things too seriously and are, for lack of a better term, bitches. The book "Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls" points out this kind of behavior.

I for one think that these traits were socialized as a defense mechanism; they have been taught, subconsciously or otherwise, that in our society they cannot gain status outright. Thus, they must do so underhandedly, through deceit and manipulation.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:10 PM
I have already stated that I happen to disagree with Stalin on the issue of women’s rights, so this is irrelevant.

And ironically Stalin would have had you thrown in a gulag or shot.



Interesting that Perun’s only arguments consists of pointing out my ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘contradictions’. I am proud to be an ideological oxymoron!

Of course you are, because you dont want to believe in anything.



As I have said several times before, I am not ‘all-or-nothing’ when it comes to ideology. My views reflect many ideologies which come together in a gigantic, mentally unstable gumbo. As someone once said to me: “It’s like you take pieces of many ideologies, put them in a blender, select liquefy, and it comes out as its own ideology altogether!”

Then that means you adhere to a Hegelian outlook. :P



What more, though Asian culture is misogynistic, you can’t say the same is not true for traditional Western culture. Feminism could hardly be called a ‘Western ideal’!

Tell me where did feminism first arise, the West or in Asia? Feminism or feministic ideas only appear in Asia with the colonization of the contintent and the influx of Western ideas. :eyes

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:12 PM
You are correct. Of course, women should be treated the same by society as men

No they shouldnt for the simple fact they are not the same. If you really want a obvious example of this, look between your legs!

Scoob
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:15 PM
The idea of equal treatment for women is problematic. Men treat each other in ways that women disapprove of. Do women want to stand around in locker rooms with men telling dirty jokes? I really don't think so.

So of course the standards of behavior are being rewritten along gender-neutral lines. Is this a good thing? The jury's still out. So far fertility and marriage success rate is way down.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:24 PM
The idea of equal treatment for women is problematic. Men treat each other in ways that women disapprove of. Do women want to stand around in locker rooms with men telling dirty jokes? I really don't think so. Scoob, you would not believe how dirty and below the waist female locker room talk is. I got this from reliable sources. Females aren't the angelic persons they are made to be. Some could even be considered sexual predators. On the other hand I don't think I have ever heard or told dirty jokes in the locker room since age 14 or so. Sex never was a topic there and we never compared the size of our genitals either. I cannot rule out that it may be different in the U.S., but personally I cannot verify that. So it does not seem to be a natural law.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:27 PM
On the other hand I don't think I have ever heard or told dirty jokes in the locker room since age 14 or so. Sex never was a topic there and we never compared the size of our genitals either. I cannot rule out that it may be different in the U.S., but personally I cannot verify that.

In the US it's reversed. After 14, its hard not to hear about sex or genitals in locker rooms! Pathetic if you ask me! :eyes

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:31 PM
Haha, after they had seen my genital there would be a deathlike silence and the guys would start talking about the weather instead. ;)

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:57 PM
I´m a Gucci-feminist - I´m totally aware of the advantages my looks bring me, and I use it for what it is worth.

Your honesty is very refreshing. :)

Unfortunately women who put so much of their self-worth in their looks greatly suffer as they age and lose their physical beauty. Some women have a nervous breakdown over this loss and become bitter.

Most of the women who aggressively complain about men being superficial are the ones who don't have the power of beauty on their side anymore.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:03 PM
When UKIP was charged with xenophobia, he countered robustly that his wife was half-Polish.

:lol This guy is hilarious.

They're afraid of a masculine, heterosexual self-respecting white male that speaks his mind... that's the worst thing in the world to them.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 07:25 PM
Hey Pushkin, Abby is still young. Girls her age are everything and nothing, changing from week to week. It is a natural orientation process. Eventually she'll find out that the modern world is clearly in favor of females, at least in our allegedly civilized societies. They can join the army, we have to. They can have babies, but don't have to (and those most of them don't have any). They can apply for a job, get pregnant in a row and get full payment while not working one single hour (maybe not in the U.S., but here it is a big sport; I used to be hired on the same day with a skank who managed to be either pregnant or on maternity leave in a three year row. She worked exactly three days in these three years.) They get married, they get divorced, they get the kids, the dad gets the bills, a restraining order and a life in shame and poverty. Just attend a public session of the family courts and you'll see I am right. Males die younger, males die unhappy, their suicide rates have been steadily rising for the last 40 years.

That is absolutely true. Most women seem to never be content, they can never have enough privilege.

The American "justice" system is far in favor of the female. Men are practically considered guilty until proven innocent, and proving innocence is very difficult. A woman is able to call the police and accuse a man of abuse with absolutely no evidence, and the police will take him away. Even something as small as him pushing her back lightly when she's screaming in his face and going ballistic is considered a punishable offense. Talk to any man who's been through a divorce and lost his house, half or more of his money and business to a woman that never earned any of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for child support and a man being responsible, but women are able to absolutely steal a man's life earnings and ruin him.


The only factor that really holds back females is the females themselves. One female is the other female's wolf. There is no solidarity among them, just plotting and scheming. Most men realize this and prefer to stay among their own kind instead of taking a risk that could (and frequently does) ruin them financially, socially, morally and mentally.

It's unfortunate really, especially now when our men and women need each other the most for our racial and national survival. It's every woman for herself.

Scoob
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 11:14 PM
Scoob, you would not believe how dirty and below the waist female locker room talk is. I got this from reliable sources. Females aren't the angelic persons they are made to be. Some could even be considered sexual predators. On the other hand I don't think I have ever heard or told dirty jokes in the locker room since age 14 or so. Sex never was a topic there and we never compared the size of our genitals either. I cannot rule out that it may be different in the U.S., but personally I cannot verify that. So it does not seem to be a natural law. Well, not just sex, not also the way men treat each other. The nice thing about women is that you can be a little softer with them than with other guys. If everyone acted like that? No thanks.

The model for male-male behavior is basically a war party (or, in modern terms, competitive sports team).

The model for female-female behavior is more like a love-in of mutual grooming, gossip, and generally sitting around.

So I think the dynamic between the two gender roles can work out very nicely, as each role balances out the weaknesses of the other.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 11:16 PM
I seem to know the wrong women then. ;)

Nordhammer
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 11:52 PM
I seem to know the wrong women then. ;)

Yeah really... my experiences are somewhat the opposite. The women are the combative types and the men are usually more cooperative as friends.

Abby Normal
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 03:18 AM
I strongly resent that most of you young males seem to view us past thirty (OK, almost...) as less beautiful. There are, as you will learn in time, many kinds of beauty. Youth is only one kind.Exactly! Traditional Japanese aesthetics appreciate the qualities of 'old' and 'weathered' things, such as a battered piece of wood or the wrinkled face of an old woman (supposedly because these things are 'in harmony with nature'). What more, geisha are considered respectable and even physically beautiful into their 50s and 60s. So much for Asians being more misogynistic than Westerners!

Of course this is hardly surprising, as Asians in general have a profound respect for the elderly that is simply not seen in the West. Some have even postulated that the amount of care and respect given to the elderly in Azerbaijan accounts for why the people there live so long.

Abby Normal
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 03:42 AM
Nor will it ever be achieved!How is this so? I have reason to suspect that your animosity towards women is a result of personal circumstances. You think you've got it so tough because 'modern women are all sluts' (in other words, they won't date you). This may be so, but it is obvious that men set the standards that influence them to behave in this way. Of course, women are fools for buying into it. It's a vicious cycle, and equality between the genders is the only way out!


BS!


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm

The research commonly cited to support claims of male privilege and male sinfulness is riddled with errors. Almost none of it has been published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Some of the data turn out to be mysteriously missing. A review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap. The typical boy is a year and a half behind the typical girl in reading and writing; he is less committed to school and less likely to go to college. In 1997 college full-time enrollments were 45 percent male and 55 percent female. The Department of Education predicts that the proportion of boys in college classes will continue to shrink.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. They get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow more-rigorous academic programs and participate in advanced-placement classes at higher rates. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high-level math and science courses. Girls, allegedly timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. Only in sports are boys ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance. Girls read more books. They outperform boys on tests for artistic and musical ability. More girls than boys study abroad. More join the Peace Corps. At the same time, more boys than girls are suspended from school. More are held back and more drop out. Boys are three times as likely to receive a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. More boys than girls are involved in crime, alcohol, and drugs. Girls attempt suicide more often than boys, but it is boys who more often succeed. In 1997, a typical year, 4,483 young people aged five to twenty-four committed suicide: 701 females and 3,782 males.


Yes thats because of the unfair advantages women are given over men. Christine Sommers explains this to great length in her book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men SIIIIGH. You should know better than to trust any statistic or 'fact' about social phenomena. It is reasonable to assume that all statistics of this manner are flawed; in some cases purposely, for the advancement of one agenda or the other. I could pull up several sources to counter what you have cited, but that would be a complete waste of time; you'd immediately denounce my sources as 'wrong' because they do not coincide with how you wish the world to be based on ideology.

Instead of dredging up studies and literary sources, how about sharing your own observations? When communicating with you on a forum I'd rather read what you have written yourself than what other people have written and you have happened upon. Or, as I said below, try paraphrasing, as it involves more effort on your part than simply copying and pasting from a source. :)


:rotfl!


http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/worth.htm

Materialistic socialists are given to proclaiming that Christianity is not a success, that it has not made the kingdom of God actual; it is nearly two thousand years since the Redeemer of the world appeared on earth and evil still exists, it even increases: the world is saturated with suffering and the burdens of life are no less for all that our salvation has been accomplished. These socialists promise to do, without God and without Christ, what Christ himself could not bring about: the brotherhood of man, justice in social life, peace, the kingdom of God on earth -- these unbelievers willingly use that expression, "the kingdom of God on earth"!

The only experience that we have of materialistic Socialism in practice is the Russian experiment, and that has not given the expected results. But there is no solution of the question in it. Socialism's promise to make justice rule on earth and to get rid of evil and suffering does not rest on human freedom but on the violation of it; its ends are to be realized by an enforced social organization which shall make external evil impossible by compelling men to virtue, righteousness, and justice--and it is this constraint that constitutes the great difference between Socialism and Christianity. The so-called "failure of Christianity in history" is a failure dependent upon human freedom, upon resistance springing from our Christ-given freedom, upon opposition by the ill will which religion will not compel to be good. Christian truth supposes freedom, and looks to an interior and spiritual victory over evil. Exteriorly the State can set a limit to the manifestations of wickedness and it is its duty to do so, but evil and sin will not be overcome in that way. There is no such dilemma for the socialist, because he knows no problem of sin or of the spiritual life; the only question facing him is that of suffering and social injustice and their elimination by means of an organization of life from without. God does not use force, for he desires man's freedom and not merely an exterior triumph of righteousness. In that sense it may be said that he maintains evil and uses it for good ends. In particular, the righteousness of Christ cannot be actualized by force. But the justice of Communism is to be attained by compulsion, and this can be done the more easily because any freedom of spirit is denied.

The argument based on a historical defeat of Christianity cannot be sustained. The kingdom of God cannot be imposed; if it is to be brought about we must be born again, and that supposes complete freedom of spirit. Christianity is the religion of the Cross, and it sees a meaning in suffering. Christ asks us to take up our own cross and carry it, to shoulder the load of a sinful world. In Christian consciousness the notion of attaining happiness, justice, and the kingdom of God on earth without cross or suffering is a huge lie: it is the temptation that Christ rejected in the wilderness when he was shown the kingdoms of the world and invited to fall down and worship. Christianity does not promise its own necessary realization and victory here below; Christ even questioned whether he will find any faith on earth when he comes again at the end of time, and foretold that love itself will have grown cold.
---Nikolai Berdyaev the Worth of Christianity and the Unworthiness of Christians

You were saying? :PSorry, but as of now I do not have the time to read your responses in the form of articles that you did not even write. Spend your time thinking of your own arguments instead of google-searching for other people's; if all else fails, at least make the minimal effort to summarize the arguments of others and put them into your own words.

This is a debate forum, and it should be expected of the participants to add their own input and not rely entirely on outside sources. Despite your undue bitterness you are an intelligent guy, and I'm sure you are capable of more than just 'copy and paste'.

Keep in mind that intelligence is not measured by the ability to pull up sources, but the ability to reason and produce one's own conclusions based on those sources. :)

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 04:52 AM
I strongly resent that most of you young males seem to view us past thirty (OK, almost...) as less beautiful. There are, as you will learn in time, many kinds of beauty. Youth is only one kind.

I don't. I prefer women from about 25-35. I like a fully developed woman. Past 40 tho and women's physical appeal starts to wane, the skin gets saggy and all that.

Nordhammer
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 04:57 AM
How is this so? I have reason to suspect that your animosity towards women is a result of personal circumstances. You think you've got it so tough because 'modern women are all sluts' (in other words, they won't date you).

A slut will sleep with anyone, a bitch will sleep with anyone but you. :)

Phlegethon
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 11:43 AM
Women only start becoming halfway normal after they have reached 35.

Taras Bulba
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 06:57 PM
Instead of dredging up studies and literary sources, how about sharing your own observations? When communicating with you on a forum I'd rather read what you have written yourself than what other people have written and you have happened upon. Or, as I said below, try paraphrasing, as it involves more effort on your part than simply copying and pasting from a source. :)

Ahh yes the "post your own thoughts" argument, which is often brought up whenever somebody cannot answer the previous argument. The truth is, our thoughts are not entirely are own. Whether you admit it or not, we are influenced by the thoughts of other people. Its a fact of life. Look into the lives of any great thinker/philosopher you will see they were greatly influenced by others. In fact they'll even quote their mentors in their own works.




Sorry, but as of now I do not have the time to read your responses in the form of articles that you did not even write.

Ie you cant refute it.



Spend your time thinking of your own arguments instead of google-searching for other people's

I didnt google search. I've read this essay plenty of times and have it saved. Now care to refute what Berdyaev said?



; if all else fails, at least make the minimal effort to summarize the arguments of others and put them into your own words.

I could, but I dont just see the point of it. They explain it better than I ever could on my own. Thats the very purpose of quoting. But I guess that escaped your mind. :eyes



This is a debate forum, and it should be expected of the participants to add their own input and not rely entirely on outside sources.



Despite your undue bitterness you are an intelligent guy, and I'm sure you are capable of more than just 'copy and paste'.

Indeed I am. See below



Keep in mind that intelligence is not measured by the ability to pull up sources, but the ability to reason and produce one's own conclusions based on those sources. :)

Yes. Except this is simply not that much of an important topic for me, so therefore for me to try to elaborate my own conclusions is really a waste of time for me. In fact I often have a terrible time trying to put my thoughts into words and often I find other people explain things better than I could. I post sources and quotes because I already agree with them. So in a sense I am posting my own thoughts, they're just spoken by other people. :P