Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
I find the same thing to be true of my dad, Happiest. The patronizing thing versus chivalry, I mean. In his case, I think it's because, to him, I am still his baby and he wants to step in there and do things for me like he did when I was a kid. I'm all grown up now and don't need that. With my husband, it's easier to take because we're partners instead of parent and child. So the chivalry seems more courteous and less parental. Both of them call me "Baby," and I like it from Dave and could do without it from my dad. I'm well aware that this is an unfair double-standard on my part, but that's how it is.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
Now, this is all my personal opinion, but I firmly believe that whenever a woman invokes that special right of equality, but then turns around and wants me to do something special for them, they deserve a swift punch in the jaw.
For whatever reason, I suspect you'd have no qualms about asking for 'something special' from a woman sans punch in the jaw. If you make a shit-ton of money, you might be able to find a women with an IQ over 40 willing to listen that drivel for awhile. I wouldn't expect anything extraordinary from that type of person though. If you actually want to have conversations with intelligent people, you might consider presenting yourself in a more intelligent manner. If all you're after is 'interesting arguments,' you're right on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
The women I get along with the most are lesbians; lesbians are awesome... I wish I was one...
On a tangent note, it makes me sick to be exposed to male breasts all the time while female breasts are censored/hidden from public view. Just because ours do not function we get to go topless without anything to cover them up? Ladies, you shouldn't have given up on the bra burning! (I support topless equality)
This is interesting. I get along fabulously with gay men. I like you, have a knack for picking the exact wrong dating partners. Maybe the appeal of gay people of the opposite sex is the impossibility of a sexual relationship.
And yeah, most of the moobs out there are pretty gross.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
It was over 30 years ago, and I didn't get into it with the guy, but he looked like he'd been in military service himself. I think that he meant that the women were not pleasant to be with, for various reasons.
One of the strongest arguments against putting women in combat, or any dangerous occupation, is that men's lives are put at further risk because they tend to have a protective instinct toward females. I realize that the lunatic fringes of feminism are trying to eliminate this tendency in boys, but is this really what we want? It would probably make things worse.
In response to that top part, that's interesting. His comment cracks me up for some reason.
In response to the bottom part, I can see why that might be a fairly strong argument, to be honest. The military men I know do indeed have a protective instinct toward women, and I suppose it could put them at risk in a combat situation in certain ways. I find that protective tendency, incidentally, very sexy, just like chivalry. Some women don't like that protectiveness, but I think you're right that they're the ones who aren't comfortable with femininity (or vulnerability).
In practice, from what I've seen in documentaries about military prep, if it's anything like paramilitary/fire and police training, and from what they taught us, that's what fire-police training is based on, that protective instinct is actively cultivated and trained into all the military "brothers" and "sisters."
The whole unit is drilled over and over at supporting and protecting each other in all sorts of situations. Your entire reason for being there is to back your brothers/sisters/partners up, support them, firefight or rescue alongside them, step in and save them if need be, serve the department together, and protect your fellow "soldiers" whether you like them personally or not. That's all part of the whole military "team" mentality. At least in theory it is.
I'd hope that a well trained combat soldier wouldn't necessarily sacrifice one gender over another, but I'm sure the situation could come up. Those male-female dynamics definitely have a way of sneaking in and changing things even when they're not supposed to. Maybe with enough time and training, it could work. Be interesting to me to see if it could. I think if things get worse in Afghanistan or with Russia or Iran in addition to Iraq, we're going to need to give serious consideration to both a draft and to females in combat. I'll get some flack from the no-wars-for-any-reason folks for saying that, but I think it's true.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
I am changing my mind about a lot of things on this topic.
I felt the draft was always a good thing! We had it most of my young life!
I could never pass the physical agility of a fireperson, carry a 150 pound house up several flights of stairs! Any woman that can do that, even with a little training should be in the military and do what they can.
The above edification was very eye opening! :thumbsup:
Somehow, "When Harry Met Sally" comes to mind!
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
Chilvalry can't be commanded or instructed because then it loses the essence of what it is. A genuine, compassionate act for a human being, generally for a member of the opposite sex, stereotyped as a man doing something for a woman. I will gladly offer my seat to a lady, old or young, though now i think about it, i feel less obliged to offer that seat to a man, unless he's old. If someone demanded my seat on the principal of chivalry, i wouldn't punch them in the jaw, but i'd think about it, while declining their generous offer. If some crazy woman wants to start swinging at me, momma said knock you out. Firstly, i'd block her and if she continued her assault, i would gladly show her the meaning of equality. Thinking you're above anyone because of your sex, that you can assault people and get away with it because the rule is 'never hit women' is ignorant. Ofcourse i'm not advocating violance against women or anyone, i'm a pascifist until the heat is brought and then i do what must be done. There are intelligent women as well as stupid, same goes for men. I couldn't have a political or philisophical conversation with my ex, it would go completely over her head, this doesn't make her stupid, she prefers other issues. Though it seems a lot of girls focus too much on what i believe to be trivial issues, such as hair and make up and shopping blah blah blah. Some women dress slutty and then get angry at the men who want them for sex, they say i'm not a whore, but they're wearing a whores uniform. I think men are more amusing then women, maybe because i'm a man. Though i've said a lot focus on trivial issues, others are too serious all the time, they need to let their hair down, go wacky, go crazy, lighten up, smoke a fucking joint! Some femal comediennes are funny, but the majority i find to be appauling. The cycle of opposite sex interaction continues. Women get paid less then men, life is a lot harder for women, i respect them wholeheartedly, well the ones that deserve respect.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I think you're ignoring the fact that you said most women are not intelligent. Whether you felt this to be true or not it probably should not have been voiced aloud as it just reaks of ignorance. In addition you are confusing courtship to equal rights.
In the end as human beings we are still animals. Just about every species in the animal Kingdom has a courting process they go through when trying to select a mate. We are no different. These "inequalities" you speak of are simply courting behavioral patterns that have been instilled in us for a very long time.
So basically you're a tough guy behind a keyboard? Are these things you would never say in public? Why be a person on an internet forum when you're not that person in real life? Honestly that's just pathetic, be yourself no matter where you are or who you're with.
I don't believe you've strengthened your argument at all with this post, you've just weakened it.
Owned. You AND Stinksters :hippy:
**EDIT** Quit while your behind..... 'All knowing buddha.....' :D
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
My comment about women getting pregnant in order to avoid a draft was simply thinking of a WARTIME draft. If 2 years of military service were a requirement for ALL Americans before the age of 25, I doubt that intentional 'accidenta'l pregnancy would be an issue, since you'd just be postponing it.
And a co-ed service requirement would be equal as hell.
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
The act of 'chivalry' is what defines a man between a gentleman.
Your mannerisms, your demenour, how you respect yourself, how you treat people, it goes along way. I don't think concepts like these are "old-fashioned."
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
DaBudha,
equality != indentical
You're right, equality means equality:
e·qual·i·ty
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
Equality has zero to do with roles, gender-based traits or any kind of behavior at all. Women seek equal rights. Women seek to be equally valued for equal abilities and hold equal status for equal performance. How does this translate into, "I want you to treat me exactly like you treat a man?"
I think I know all too well the kind of woman you're talking about. Spoiled, self-centered primadonnas who think the world should bend over backwards to please them. And their man should not only bend over, but do back-flips. And their only job is to look pretty. They don't say much interesting unless you care where they got their hair did or what shade their nails are today. I can't handle 'em and I'm a woman. I avoid them like a plague. They're called narcissists.
Sounds like you've been dating this personality type. Stop. Find someone like Stinky. And stop generalizing your personal experience to a whole gender. This is why people are calling you sexist and whatever other words it was you objected to. It's bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
I have problems. Gee thats a very acute observation. And you don't, right? Of course I have problems friend. If I didn't, I wouldn't be much of a human being.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. I don't blame women for anything. I'm starting to believe that most people don't actually read the original post, because some of the comments here are just mind boggling...
What people are trying to get across is that you are blaming these problems on women. You are blaming other people for how the world (or at least 51% of it), is treating you. You are blaming women for the fact that you're an army of one man in this thread. Despite the fact that there are men amongst the opponent troops.
In general; if a significant amount of people are treating you in the same negative manner, you're doing yourself a disservice by refusing to look at what you might be doing to contribute. We typically do reap what we sow. Playing the victim doesn't get anyone anywhere, even when they are truly a victim. And it sounds to me like you're a victim of your own closed mind here.
You're not being logical about this stuff. You're focused on arguing your point and aren't considering opposing viewpoints. You refuse to swap moccasins.
That's why your mind is boggled.
If I was one of those who insulted you, know that wasn't my intention. Just the truth as I see it. Seriously, you did not come across at all intelligently in your original post. I skimmed most of the rest of the thread after that. I've reread some a bit more attentively. It appears you did tweak your persentation style. You do not appear to be stupid. You do appear to be ignorant.
ig·no·rant
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
I too am a different person on the internet. This is because I have edit and logoff. I can step away until I can be less emotional and more respectful if I feel offended. In fact, there is one person I'm forced to keep in my life that I refused to communicate with outside writing. Eliminated the heated arguments. So if you seriously were looking for a civilized debate rather than a fight, your original post boggles my mind.
If you're looking for agreement, I doubt you'll sway most of these folks. I'd like to see someone with the guts to come in agree with you though. I'm quite sure your belief is not unique.
You really stacked the odds against yourself posting in a Women's Issues category on a cannabis forum.
Focus thy rebellious courage. Use it for good. Start a "'The War on Drugs" is dead and the DEA killed it!' or "'Reefer Madness is dead and Science killed it!" crusade. Srsly. Armed with a bit of study of debate and some good research studies, you could become a hard-core advocate. Hit the books!
Marijuana Law Reform - NORML
http://www.safeaccessnow.org
MPP Homepage
http://boards.cannabis.com/medicinal...rows-list.html
Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.
I will not, now or ever, take back what I've said. I brought up a sensitive topic, and I have an opinion that most people don't like. However, I never ONCE blamed ANYONE for ANYTHING. I'm merely giving my viewpoint on a topic. If people choose to think me ignorant because they REALLY don't like what I say, that's just fine. I won't try to change someone's opinion and there isn't a single person here who has given me an example of what I'm blaming people for. Yes, I'm an asshole. I guess that's just too bad, but my point stands.
P.S. I've gotten 3 positive reps for this thread and not one negative. What does THAT say?
P.P.S. Make that 4 positive reps.
