Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry

OH YEAH! x10000000000

there was a girl i worked with and the guys used to say she had "hot girl syndrome" or somesuch because she wouldn't really smile at them or make eye contact or talk too much. but if she was less attractive they wouldn't have cared if she ignored them. it was a weird effect.

My best friend is much thinner and better looking than me, and so was my friend at university. But I used to really fancy them.

My quoted post has nothing to do with Christian households, but rather human biology.



My wife begs to differ. She is the one who found out about CDD and told me what it was. About once every two months, she gets rebellious. I'll tell her truths about life and responsibility, and she'll just pout and make rebellious grunts like a spoiled kid, and push her feet against me in defiance. I get a look on my face that tells her what's coming, she looks scared but at the time there is acknowledgment on her face that it's what she needs at that moment. I get her into a spanking position, at which she whines, but complies. I spank her until I see the rebellion is gone (it doesn't take but 10 or 15 seconds), and then I stop, and she immediately tells me how much it helped her, and her attitude is clearly totally different, and mature again. She tells me how she did indeed feel genuinely rebellious at the time, but that part of her wanted me -- needed me -- to punish her for it, and that her asking-for-it demeanor was literally that -- asking for it. She also says my spanking her is, right afterwards, very calming to her, and helps her see things clearly again.

I asked her last night what I should say to you people in this thread about CDD, and she said that she read about a study in which men, women, and children received harsh correction (she didn't say what that meant). The men responded simply by getting very angry, whereas women of all ages had the same response as the children -- their attitudes were shaped in the direction intended by the discipline. I don't believe men are exactly the same as women, nor do I believe they were meant to be the same, nor treated the same in every way. I do believe they are both human beings with equal mental powers and both deserve respect as such, but I believe in differentiating between men and women, in the old Southern "lady" and "gentleman" style of celebration and embrace of those differences, rather in trying to artificially minimize the differences between the sexes as if those differences are a mere nuisance, rather than a joy. Ladies in the Old South were proud to be ladies, and gentlemen proud to be gentlemen, and they each dressed and acted as such -- in ways that emphasized rather than hid those differences. I don't think a woman has anything to prove by putting on a pantsuit.

I don't deny there are exceptions to the rule. But it's a fallacy to say that the exceptions to a rule negate the rule.

It's actually commendable of you to be a breadwinning feminist, as it gave you more credibility than if you were to basically say, "I have a vagina. Women rule!" like some feminists do.

That's why you never see serious female actresses who have more than a C-cup -- the women in charge tend to dismiss such naturally-endowed aspiring actresses, even if they are every bit as good actresses as those who are allowed to make it as serious actresses. Real feminists would encourage all women, but I guess the naturally-large-chested look too "exploitable", or "enjoyable to men", or something otherwise evil to them, so they must be held back. I saw a show about how women with large natural breasts are treated by both men and women, and it's pretty deplorable -- as if these women asked for mega-boobs. Women treat them like sluts, and men can't stop staring creepily.

My brother once took me to Bone Daddy's, a restaurant staffed with women who have hot bodies and daddy issues. All are scantily-clad and welcome male attention. You feminists might be glad to know: I looked our waitress straight in the eyes, and spoke to her with respect. I did it because I believe in seeing straight through the body to the person, and addressing the person as a person.

My excuse is that I'm usually uncomfortable with eye-to-eye contact. In case anyone were to ask.

By the way, all women are women, and even feminist ladies don't object to women using their feminine wiles to get what they want.

That's valid. I'm one of those Aspies who is not always uncomfortable with eye contact. It depends on the situation.



Are you speaking for all feminist ladies? Because I have heard many of them object specifically to women using their feminine wiles to get what they want -- mainly in the form of bitter criticism of women who choose to dress sexily.

Feminine wiles extend far beyond dressing sexily. Granted, women do begin at an early age to learn to use their sexuality to get men to do things for them. Women are, by and large, much smarter than men, much more adept at playing social games, and much more socially competitive.

Women who criticise other women's sexy appearance are only trying to bring down the competition.

Even older women, who are well past their prime physically and sexually, know how to use their wiles to get what they want, and to bring men into submission.

I guess it's the whole dressing-like-men, talking-like-men, and acting-like-men thing that makes me think they're not intending to use their feminine wiles.

Serious feminists emphasize intelligence and drive to achieve success, not cheap tricks of manipulation. If they intended the latter, they wouldn't respect themselves, and all of feminism would be deliberate dishonesty. You can see by now that I believe there is a sliver of good to feminism: that if one is eclectic about the subject, one can see that the very best that feminism has to offer women is actually something good: the message, "Don't whine because you're a woman, simply buck-up, work hard, and succeed. Don't take the little-girls'-tears method of getting your way, for that will only reinforce the female stereotype of second-class people who can't compete, but need to cry and whine to achieve success. Instead, succeed through honest, hard work, and you will earn genuine respect and shatter stereotypes at the same time."

This etymological fallacy proves all your arguments!

Wait you seriously think the differences between males and females indicate, males should be in charge of females? I'd have to disagree there.

I actually suck at nurturing kids, and I may be able to cook and clean but actually trying to run a home? unless it's just me there that might be an issue so I'd be careful about assuming all females are good at the exact same things and all males are good at the exact same things. These kinds of generalizations don't really help either side.

Not that I am particularly worried as I am probably going to just start considering myself gender neutral, regardless of my biological gender...then I'm not obligated to try and live up to either role .

As I said earlier, there are exceptions to the rule. Take yourself. You yourself feel pretty gender neutral, or at least not particularly feminine, so you sound to me like you would be an exception. Also, I'm not saying women are born knowing how to take care of a home or raise children, and that they cannot do physical labor. I'm saying that their instincts are such that training in domestic areas is usually more successful with women than with most men.