|
Post by Matriarch on Feb 27, 2010 1:01:33 GMT
So some women would rather have a child on their own than in a relationship? Or the relationship went bad, or she got left literally holding the baby., or she chose that if she gets pregnant that is her own business, not his.
Time was that women got payment by right for having a child, but laws changed to make them dependent on a man they may not want to know and to suppress the idea that having children that only women do might have equal value to anything men do, or ee worse might incline men to oppose their commercial exploitation to say that even if they do not actually produce those children, maybe mate and child should take precedence over []Corporate demand[/i] The likes of 'Jade' hate 'men# because thar is how they choose men to be. Of course most men are nothing of sort but when they reject bigots like that, they expect women to far more 'liberated' equals
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 28, 2010 15:59:18 GMT
So some women would rather have a child on their own than in a relationship? Or the relationship went bad, or she got left literally holding the baby., or she chose that if she gets pregnant that is her own business, not his. Time was that women got payment by right for having a child, but laws changed to make them dependent on a man they may not want to know and to suppress the idea that having children that only women do might have equal value to anything men do, or ee worse might incline men to oppose their commercial exploitation to say that even if they do not actually produce those children, maybe mate and child should take precedence over []Corporate demand [/i] The likes of 'Jade' hate 'men# because thar is how they choose men to be. Of course most men are nothing of sort but when they reject bigots like that, they expect women to far more 'liberated' equals[/quote] AGHHHH! ;D your expectations of men and women are your own business. please stop announcing what you think individuals under your 'likes of' umbrella are thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 1, 2010 3:16:35 GMT
But who should I not know better than people under my umbrella? Just what is your problem with recognizing women as equal human beings whether they conform to traditional demands upon men or not? Who knows, it could lead to men respecting women as equals and social leaders instead of inferiors. It could lead to individuals of both sexes thinking that maybe 'the Economy' owes them and should serve them instead of them just being robots with no personal life or relationships serving the Corporate State's demands. Just what is your problem with believing women have rights equal and maybe above men? Why do you want to despise and condemn your own sex as inferiors so much instead of tackling conventional masculine-industrial supremacy? Why do you despise women and all they stand for and worship all the consumerist crap poured onto you so keep you subservient and obedient so much?
Woman? You told me last year you'd open your legs to any man who demanded it when any person with self-respect would wonder why the hell somebody want sex with them knowing they don't want it and would not enjoy it and would charge him with rape.
But that is how 'feminists' today define women as subservient to the social process that men have been liberating themselves from, in absolute contradiction to everything 'feminism' meant when it hoped to change society to suit women instead of women to suit society.
Your whole rejection of treating women as equals to the men you define as superior explains everything that your 'feminist' misogyny means and I shall copy it to every site that believes in equality of the sexes to show how 'feminism' is the reaction against equality and the misogynist inhuman product of Reagan-Thatcherism determined to indoctrinate 'femininity' (ie humanity) as 'inferior' for women just as it has been upon men instead of to liberate men and society to accept both sexes and their traditions as equal.
You define yourself as a subhuman inferior. So does Hartrick. That's your business. But you have no right to inflict your choice to be sub-human filth upon women in general, nor does any sane woman younger than 60 pay any attention to your dinosaur inferiority, and I am very glad, certainly none under 30 would ever see feeble-feminists like you as other than a blast from the past whose self-loathing sexist hang-ups I can no more understand than can any woman I've known who just never experienced your sense of grovelling inferiority to some stomping rapist fantasy 'men' you wish you could be. It's like explaining to cannibals that I just don't want to eat people.
I have to second and third guess where the hell unliberated sexist bigots like you re coming from before even trying to understand your failure to be equal normal human beings like women. If you'd announced that you belinged to some obscure Born-again Jesus sect it would be easier. But there's a;ways the off-chance that all British women have reverted to such feeble inferiors.
Just what is your problem with supporting women's right to have children? Or do you really believe that anything women do that men don't must be inferior because they are women? Just what is the problem that you and rapist-envying fuilth like Hatrircik have with accepting that wome n are not inferior to men?
|
|
|
Post by Erasmus on Mar 1, 2010 3:19:50 GMT
By the way, how do you turn what a large number of women choose to do into 'expectations' with the implication that there is something enforced or reprehensible about their choice instead of our failure to support their choice as equal to any other?
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Mar 1, 2010 9:43:48 GMT
So some women would rather have a child on their own than in a relationship? Or the relationship went bad, or she got left literally holding the baby., or she chose that if she gets pregnant that is her own business, not his. Time was that women got payment by right for having a child, but laws changed to make them dependent on a man they may not want to know and to suppress the idea that having children that only women do might have equal value to anything men do, or ee worse might incline men to oppose their commercial exploitation to say that even if they do not actually produce those children, maybe mate and child should take precedence over []Corporate demand [/i] The likes of 'Jade' hate 'men# because thar is how they choose men to be. Of course most men are nothing of sort but when they reject bigots like that, they expect women to far more 'liberated' equals[/quote] and in English?
|
|
|
Post by jamesjosh on Mar 1, 2010 16:08:05 GMT
So some women would rather have a child on their own than in a relationship? Or the relationship went bad, or she got left literally holding the baby., or she chose that if she gets pregnant that is her own business, not his. Time was that women got payment by right for having a child, but laws changed to make them dependent on a man they may not want to know and to suppress the idea that having children that only women do might have equal value to anything men do, or ee worse might incline men to oppose their commercial exploitation to say that even if they do not actually produce those children, maybe mate and child should take precedence over []Corporate demand [/i] The likes of 'Jade' hate 'men# because thar is how they choose men to be. Of course most men are nothing of sort but when they reject bigots like that, they expect women to far more 'liberated' equals[/quote] AGHHHH! ;D your expectations of men and women are your own business. please stop announcing what you think individuals under your 'likes of' umbrella are thinking. [/quote] So why do you keep feeding him ?
|
|
|
Post by unlogged bets on Mar 1, 2010 17:04:24 GMT
i'm not feeding him.
i am quite happy to ignore his posts - the trouble is that arguments involving this poster tend to degenerate into mad rants that are sufficient to get a board deleted.
fair warning - if i have to waste any more time on this guest, his ip will be banned
|
|