[skinster]

You want to set fire to a bronze statue of a little girl? Are you sure that you tired and not criminally unhinged?

Snowflakes are

[Pants-of-dog]

That's a cheap trick you copied from TIG.

It is an honour to be compared to TIG.

It doesn't work for him and it doesn't work for you; you might as well go back to calling everyone who does not buy your kooky beliefs a fascist.

Pointing out that someone is only discussing emotional reactions to situations is actually very useful. It lets everyone know that the "argument" is merely an appeal to emotion and does not require any rebuttal using facts or evidence.

Also, you will not find a post where I called anyone fascist, except for those who actually self identify as such.

As for the alliance of feminism and capitalism, Rich has actually kind of already answered it; there isn't much else to say. I would say the reason for the pro-feminism of "capitalism" is that actually when it comes down to it commerce is something at which women actually have natural competence in contrast to soldiery at which they are naturally exceedingly unable.

Yes, women can be (and are) very good at managing businesses. Despite this, most management positions are filled by men. An alliance between certain types of feminism and capitalism is theoretically possible, and may even be advantageous for both parties. But that is not the case today.

As for your soldier claim, please note that women would be much better at one aspect of soldiering: not raping women during the military campaign.

Prior to industrialisation every society was a society lead and ruled by soldiers as a caste or class, and because soldiery is a profession at which men excel and women fail, women tended to ride second class except where by accident they happened to be the wife/mother/daughter of a warrior. Industrialisation brought enormous and unprecedented wealth and influence to a class of people, the merchants and artisans, whom hitherto were barely above the labourers in terms of privilege. These people were generally less disparaging of women for the obvious reason that the excellences which they value are excellences which women can readily master as well as men: craftsmanship, marketing, bargaining and evaluation. They are also people that for reason of being very well civilised are thus poor at fighting are consequently very unintimidating to women. A women is dooming herself to failure by challenging a warrior brute like King Henry VIII or Alexander the Great but will have a much easier time asserting herself against soft handed & peaceable merchants.

Even the very first sentence of this "just so" story is not tue.

Industrialisation also induced a powerful change in people's value of physical strength versus cleverness. Prior to industrialisation physical prowess was valued quite highly as often it was the only solution a problem and consequently this disadvantaged the prestige of women for being physically weaker than men. With industrialistion brute force was more and more done by dumb machines created by clever men consequently physical prowess became relatively depreciated in favour of cleverness, but in the field of cleverness women's inferiority is by no means as obvious.

That's nice, but we are discussing the supposed alliance between capitalism and feminism. This paragraph is the beginning of an argument about industrialisation and a movement towards equality, which is not quite the same thing.

[SolarCross]

It is an honour to be compared to TIG.

I wasn't comparing you to TIG only stating the source of your debating trick of randomly flying off-topic by accusing other people of having feelings or some such.

Pointing out that someone is only discussing emotional reactions to situations is actually very useful. It lets everyone know that the "argument" is merely an appeal to emotion and does not require any rebuttal using facts or evidence.

Also, you will not find a post where I called anyone fascist, except for those who actually self identify as such.

You weren't pointing anything out just making a mischaracterisation as a distraction. Trolling essentially.

Yes, women can be (and are) very good at managing businesses. Despite this, most management positions are filled by men. An alliance between certain types of feminism and capitalism is theoretically possible, and may even be advantageous for both parties. But that is not the case today.

There may and probably are other reasons for that than some conspiracy against women. People are not just promoted for their perceived competence they are also promoted as a concession to a demand. It may be part of female psychology to just do a good job but not push hard for recognition whereas males may be more pushy for promotion. "The squeeky wheel gets the oil" as it is said. The other thing is when it comes to reproduction a lot of women do prefer to prioritise child care over career and in that common circumstance take themselves out of the running.

As for your soldier claim, please note that women would be much better at one aspect of soldiering: not raping women during the military campaign.

Which is of virtually no value to a military campaign. I am sure Stalin would have been really pleased that none of the women employed in his armies followed through with his general order for his soldiers to rape Berlin bloody, not.

Even the very first sentence of this "just so" story is not tue.

As a generalisation for the vast majority of pre-industrial societies it is exactly right.

That's nice, but we are discussing the supposed alliance between capitalism and feminism. This paragraph is the beginning of an argument about industrialisation and a movement towards equality, which is not quite the same thing.

Could you be more irrelevant and vacuous?

[MistyTiger]

There may and probably are other reasons for that than some conspiracy against women. People are not just promoted for their perceived competence they are also promoted as a concession to a demand. It may be part of female psychology to just do a good job but not push hard for recognition whereas males may be more pushy for promotion. "The squeeky wheel gets the oil" as it is said. The other thing is when it comes to reproduction a lot of women do prefer to prioritise child care over career and in that common circumstance take themselves out of the running.

Women also can be pushy. Why do you think the word "attention whore" exists? Women do like to be recognized for their achievements, just like men. Why have women compared their status to men? Because they want the same recognition that a man gets for doing the exact same job. *gasp* Mindblowing, isn't it?

If you have ever watched The King of Queens or any other sitcom, you will see loud women who whine all the time. Well guess what, characters like Leah Remini or Roseanne are not uncommon in the real world. They want people to hear them and realize that they take a lot of shit to survive and they will not just lie down and take it.

Also, while women do concern themselves about child care, how do you suppose that they afford said child care, hmm? You need money to take care of a child. Do you have any idea how much it costs for baby formula, diapers, baby food...all the supplies needed to raise a baby and let's not even mention the price of toys, books and supplies to help a baby grow up healthy and smart. It all adds up. Daycare is not cheap either so you see parents bring their kids to work, right? They do not want to pay for a babysitter, you can see this especially during spring break for the elementary school children. I remember I followed my dad to work one year, luckily his boss did not mind and I did not get in anyone's way.

[Oxymoron]

Women also can be pushy. Why do you think the word "attention whore" exists? Women do like to be recognized for their achievements, just like men. Why have women compared their status to men? Because they want the same recognition that a man gets for doing the exact same job. *gasp* Mindblowing, isn't it?

If you have ever watched The King of Queens or any other sitcom, you will see loud women who whine all the time. Well guess what, characters like Leah Remini or Roseanne are not uncommon in the real world. They want people to hear them and realize that they take a lot of shit to survive and they will not just lie down and take it.

Also, while women do concern themselves about child care, how do you suppose that they afford said child care, hmm? You need money to take care of a child. Do you have any idea how much it costs for baby formula, diapers, baby food...all the supplies needed to raise a baby and let's not even mention the price of toys, books and supplies to help a baby grow up healthy and smart. It all adds up. Daycare is not cheap either so you see parents bring their kids to work, right? They do not want to pay for a babysitter, you can see this especially during spring break for the elementary school children. I remember I followed my dad to work one year, luckily his boss did not mind and I did not get in anyone's way.

Women are wonderful creatures, the world would be a dark cold place without them... at same time without each other there would be nothing , civilization was built by the unique capabilities of both genders.

[Pants-of-dog]

I wasn't comparing you to TIG only stating the source of your debating trick of randomly flying off-topic by accusing other people of having feelings or some such.

You weren't pointing anything out just making a mischaracterisation as a distraction. Trolling essentially.

Sure. It must have been someone else who discussed my feelings towards capitalism and tried to claim this was hypocritical and/or unsettling.

There may and probably are other reasons for that than some conspiracy against women. People are not just promoted for their perceived competence they are also promoted as a concession to a demand. It may be part of female psychology to just do a good job but not push hard for recognition whereas males may be more pushy for promotion. "The squeeky wheel gets the oil" as it is said. The other thing is when it comes to reproduction a lot of women do prefer to prioritise child care over career and in that common circumstance take themselves out of the running.

Maybe, but without evidence, this is just you speculating.

Which is of virtually no value to a military campaign. I am sure Stalin would have been really pleased that none of the women employed in his armies followed through with his general order for his soldiers to rape Berlin bloody, not.

As long as we agree that men are not the best at all aspects pf soldiering, even if we accept all your sexist arguments.

As a generalisation for the vast majority of pre-industrial societies it is exactly right.

No. Not unless you are arguing that pre-industrial cultures have no diversity, which is patently false,

Could you be more irrelevant and vacuous?

As long as we agree that your "just so" story does not address the topic.

[Vasili Blokhin]

@SolarCross
I just notice reality here. Asian Americans are the new uncle ruckus now. Sad, they have a great culture and fought and even beat westerners lots of times; yet they're reduced to this. And Japan is even worse.

[SolarCross]

Also, while women do concern themselves about child care, how do you suppose that they afford said child care, hmm? You need money to take care of a child. Do you have any idea how much it costs for baby formula, diapers, baby food...all the supplies needed to raise a baby and let's not even mention the price of toys, books and supplies to help a baby grow up healthy and smart. It all adds up. Daycare is not cheap either so you see parents bring their kids to work, right? They do not want to pay for a babysitter, you can see this especially during spring break for the elementary school children. I remember I followed my dad to work one year, luckily his boss did not mind and I did not get in anyone's way.

The smart ones afford child care by pushing hubby out the door and make him get a job. The dumb ones let themselves get knocked up by feckless drifters and then go begging for handouts from the government or other soft touch.

Either way looking after babies competes with time spent looking after customers. Career women face tough choices that career men do not (or not so much). It has to be said that for most women it is no choice at all, baby wins every time.

For the top jobs there will be more blokes in the running than women and so the balance of probability it will be a bloke that will get the job.

[MistyTiger]

The smart ones afford child care by pushing hubby out the door and make him get a job. The dumb ones let themselves get knocked up by feckless drifters and then go begging for handouts from the government or other soft touch.

Either way looking after babies competes with time spent looking after customers. Career women face tough choices that career men do not (or not so much). It has to be said that for most women it is no choice at all, baby wins every time.

For the top jobs there will be more blokes in the running than women and so the balance of probability it will be a bloke that will get the job.

What if the hubby wants to split the cost of childcare 50/50? It is only fair.

Women also end up raising the child alone if the father goes to war and gets killed or the father dies young due to a heart condition like a cardiac arrest.

Believe it or not, some women choose their career over their child. Why do you think some kids hate their mom? One reason could be is that the mom is a workaholic and ignores them even when at home. Some moms are preoccupied with work perhaps because they are high level managers or they own a home business.

Women are wonderful creatures, the world would be a dark cold place without them... at same time without each other there would be nothing , civilization was built by the unique capabilities of both genders.

I agree, I love my mother.

Femininity just adds a nice flavor to life, it softens the rough edges.

[Dubayoo]

First of all, i did not treat people like stats. I pointed out the stats.

Secondly, what you said makes no sense.



So instead of responding to my argument, you are just going to try (and fail) to accuse me of hypocrisy.

Even if I am a hypocrite, my argument is still right and yours is still wrong.

What?

If you point out stats, then you're treating people like stats...

...and no, if you're a hypocrite, your argument's wrong. You're not making sense.

[Joka]

The alliance between feminism and capitalism has long been made with feminine makeup, hair, and clothes products overseas with slave wage labor.

"I care about the children worldwide" noted resident feminist writer of the book ,"My Magical Goddess Uterus" says as she sports a Louis Vuitton shoulderbag made in a Chinese sweatshop.

"What we need in the world is more social equality and as a feminist I proudly support that."

"Please live by my example and buy my book!"

[Pants-of-dog]

What?

If you point out stats, then you're treating people like stats...

Repeating your weird judgement about me does not make it any less nonsensical.

...and no, if you're a hypocrite, your argument's wrong. You're not making sense.

So if a killer says killing people is considered wrong, then the argument "killing people is considerd wrong" is incorrect because a hypocrite said it, and if a person who has never killed anyone says the exact same thing, it is then correct because there is no hypocrisy.

So according to you, the exact same statement can be correct and incorrect based on who is saying the statement. Lol.

[Hong Wu]

Back in the good ol' days for the left, if something happened and they didn't want you to hear about it, you probably didn't hear about it. They could just make up a reality and impress it upon people. Today they keep trying to do it yet sometimes their own efforts even get turned against them...

[Dubayoo]

Repeating your weird judgement about me does not make it any less nonsensical.



So if a killer says killing people is considered wrong, then the argument "killing people is considerd wrong" is incorrect because a hypocrite said it, and if a person who has never killed anyone says the exact same thing, it is then correct because there is no hypocrisy.

So according to you, the exact same statement can be correct and incorrect based on who is saying the statement. Lol.

I'm talking about rhetorical hypocrisy within the same topic such that you're contradicting yourself, not a contradiction between actions and words.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm talking about rhetorical hypocrisy within the same topic such that you're contradicting yourself, not a contradiction between actions and words.

Please explain how this shows that my argument is incorrect. Thank you.

[MistyTiger]

Back in the good ol' days for the left, if something happened and they didn't want you to hear about it, you probably didn't hear about it. They could just make up a reality and impress it upon people. Today they keep trying to do it yet sometimes their own efforts even get turned against them...

That is true for all US media actually.

So to get another view, I like to check international media sources.

[QatzelOk]

This is a perfect symbol for 20th Century feminism: a kitsch Norman Rockwell statue of a spoiled girl brat using up a public space to "say something" about girls being able to get rich.

Why not a lite-brite sculpture of the Spice Girls? Or a giant rubber vagina on top of the Empire State Building?

Is there anything too tacky for American identity politics?

Women are wonderful creatures, the world would be a dark cold place without them...

Here, you're not talking about women. You're talking about the sexual feelings you get from some of them. If dogs gave you a boner, you could talk about what a dark, cold place the world would be without dogs.

[Oxymoron]

Here, you're not talking about women. You're talking about the sexual feelings you get from some of them. If dogs gave you a boner, you could talk about what a dark, cold place the world would be without dogs.

I am talking about wives, mothers, and daughters, but gays only understand everything through boners.

[QatzelOk]

I am talking about wives, mothers, and daughters, but gays only understand everything through boners.

Straight men are totally the same.

The list of "non-bonable women" you give is just PR to cover your own ass. It's like when Anglo-Hebraic media go out of their way to cry about the Roma. For half a second.