• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

International Day of the Girl

Wrong.

This is about men having the power in those societies to enforce such nonsensical ideas.

This is about powerful countries like America and Germany and Japan doing nothing to help end this nonsense.

In fact, in many cases, these countries prop up these archaic countries for political gain....like America does with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.


If the rest of the world said 'enough' to these barbaric practices, I believe they would end within a generation.

But since men still run the world and most really do not care that munch about it...little is done.

Most men care more about getting laid, their favorite sports team winning and buying a nicer car/house/smartphone then whether women have enough rights (unfortunately, I know I do when push comes to shove).

Many, many men secretly want women to have less rights and for things to go back to the 'old days' (I am NOT one of those though).


How long do you think this would go on if men were the ones being abused/ill treated?

Not long at all. The western governments would FREAK OUT if it was widespread.

As a female I most certainly don't believe how on earth having an equal and opposite reaction is going to change anything - what you're suggesting here is not equality. It's reversal of status where things are just turned 180.

That's not even the issue though.

But I agree with what else you wrote in the aforementioned post - except that I don't think this particular post actually disputes mine. I think you and I both raised adequate points - minus your view that women being put in power everywhere and removing the 'evil men' would do anything . . . that's not the goal or the problem here.

Some other patriarchal societies do not support child-brides . . . and don't treat women like **** just because of heritage and lineage following through the male. In fact - in some other countries who are patriarchal there's a hefty penalty for attempting a relationship with a minor. See - not all are ****ed up. If some managed to provide some type of respect then others can too without becoming a completely different society altogether.

They don't have to have women trumping the political world - even though some do have women in seats of government, etc. And they don't have to abandon the structure or general values that guide their society or familial structures, either.

Just quit hooking up Tatua with Hakian when she's 12 and he's 25 and we're good.
 
As a female I most certainly don't believe how on earth having an equal and opposite reaction is going to change anything - what you're suggesting here is not equality. It's reversal of status where things are just turned 180.

That's not even the issue though.

But I agree with what else you wrote in the aforementioned post - except that I don't think this particular post actually disputes mine. I think you and I both raised adequate points - minus your view that women being put in power everywhere and removing the 'evil men' would do anything . . . that's not the goal or the problem here.

Some other patriarchal societies do not support child-brides . . . and don't treat women like **** just because of heritage and lineage following through the male. In fact - in some other countries who are patriarchal there's a hefty penalty for attempting a relationship with a minor. See - not all are ****ed up. If some managed to provide some type of respect then others can too without becoming a completely different society altogether.

They don't have to have women trumping the political world - even though some do have women in seats of government, etc. And they don't have to abandon the structure or general values that guide their society or familial structures, either.

Just quit hooking up Tatua with Hakian when she's 12 and he's 25 and we're good.


Ahh...okaaay.

Anyway...

I say if women want complete equality, they must be the ones to personally instigate it.

That means gaining political power.

You disagree?
Fine.

I am a man and I know men better then you ever will.

And imo, the fastest way for women in the world to gain complete equality is for women to gain political power.

If you wait for men to do it...it will take far, FAR longer.


Have a nice day.
 
Ahh...okaaay.

Anyway...

I say if women want complete equality, they must be the ones to personally instigate it.

That means gaining political power.

You disagree?
Fine.

I am a man and I know men better then you ever will.

And imo, the fastest way for women in the world to gain complete equality is for women to gain political power.

If you wait for men to do it...it will take far, FAR longer.


Have a nice day.

Ok - I've said as much as I feel necessary about child-brides . . . I think we both agree it's a bad practice - so that's not even the issue here between us.

Equality - a general topic:
How are women suppose to gain power (and then end child-brides) and then bring around equality for other women *later* after power is established if they aren't considered equal in some measure first? Your approach is backwards - FIRST you have to be considered equal in several ways and THEN you can consider becoming more in power. This is just common sense.

In the US we've been able to vote since 1920 - that was one form of equality which happened only after several other major social changes like giving a woman the right to file a patent for an invention, and the right to own property if she was unwed. So on - so forth. Suffrage came later. But we've yet to have a majority in Congress or other seats and positions of power - and of course that includes the presidency. In fact - it will probably be that was for quite some time because we're not retards - I'm not about to support a female in politics JUST because she's IN politics and we share the same anatomy. I support who I believe can get the job done right and done well and if no women step up who I feel can fulfill that position then I obviously won't be voting for them.

I don't place my gender above all other things. Between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton I'll just pass and rest my case.

Equality happens in steps - equality bit by bit first from the bottom up . . . positions of power come much later. MUCH LATER. Especially in our society where people must approve of you, support you and believe in you before they want you in office - here you have to be worthy of it. You must have support and respect FIRST before you can even engage the idea.
 
Ok - I've said as much as I feel necessary about child-brides . . . I think we both agree it's a bad practice - so that's not even the issue here between us.

Equality - a general topic:
How are women suppose to gain power (and then end child-brides) and then bring around equality for other women *later* after power is established if they aren't considered equal in some measure first? Your approach is backwards - FIRST you have to be considered equal in several ways and THEN you can consider becoming more in power. This is just common sense.

In the US we've been able to vote since 1920 - that was one form of equality which happened only after several other major social changes like giving a woman the right to file a patent for an invention, and the right to own property if she was unwed. So on - so forth. Suffrage came later. But we've yet to have a majority in Congress or other seats and positions of power - and of course that includes the presidency. In fact - it will probably be that was for quite some time because we're not retards - I'm not about to support a female in politics JUST because she's IN politics and we share the same anatomy. I support who I believe can get the job done right and done well and if no women step up who I feel can fulfill that position then I obviously won't be voting for them.

I don't place my gender above all other things. Between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton I'll just pass and rest my case.

Equality happens in steps - equality bit by bit first from the bottom up . . . positions of power come much later. MUCH LATER. Especially in our society where people must approve of you, support you and believe in you before they want you in office - here you have to be worthy of it. You must have support and respect FIRST before you can even engage the idea.

Comparing the inept Sarah Palin with the smart, seasoned Bill Clinton is ridiculous.

Compare him to his wife would be a better comparison.


And 'equality happens in steps'?

No offense, but that is ridiculous.

Equality is an absolute. You do not sit back and ask for an inch. You stand up and demand the mile.

And you can live in denial all you want, but power comes from the top down.

Look at the latest economic downturns. All the big banks and some big corporations got into trouble and yet they managed to get the politicians to con the masses into paying their hard earned taxes to bail out billionaires.

The masses have virtually no power. They just think they do.

The only power they have s with voting.

And if you sit back and wait for 90+% of male politicians to care about female equality in private (sure, in public they will/claim they care - they have to) and push for it? You will be sitting a LONG time and many women will suffer needlessly.


I am not going on and on about this.

You want female equality at the fastest pace? Then the best way to do achieve that (IMO) is for the more women in the more positions of power.

You don't agree? Whatever.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
And 'equality happens in steps'?

No offense, but that is ridiculous.

Equality is an absolute. You do not sit back and ask for an inch. You stand up and demand the mile.

And you can live in denial all you want, but power comes from the top down.

Look at the latest economic downturns. All the big banks and some big corporations got into trouble and yet they managed to get the politicians to con the masses into paying their hard earned taxes to bail out billionaires.

The masses have virtually no power. They just think they do.

The only power they have s with voting.

And if you sit back and wait for 90+% of male politicians to care about female equality in private (sure, in public they will/claim they care - they have to) and push for it? You will be sitting a LONG time and many women will suffer needlessly.


I am not going on and on about this.

You want female equality at the fastest pace? Then the best way to do achieve that (IMO) is for the more women in the more positions of power.

You don't agree? Whatever.


Have a nice day.

You just don't understand how real change that affects and permeates through multiple layers of culture and society actually happens . . . :shrug: Never mind that we have centuries of significant change to actually look to for examples of how best to achieve it. Everything from religious freedom to individual freedom regarding slavery and even the formation of our own country being accepted as a separate entity standing on it's own = steps.

You're wanting fast and instantaneous - and it does not happen that way. So sorry - it just doesn't when what needs to change are people's views and values in mass number. It is slow. I don't want some quick-mercurial fix. I was solid and permanent. Something that won't taper when the dopamine levels bottom out - something that's solid and won't cave when **** gets rough 50 years later.

That's just how it is - it would be nice to just snap fingers or have a few tough people make it all happen in short order but that is not reality.

I don't get why you don't see that for what it is. When you want something that's big you have to work your way up to it from the bottom - that's just HOW it is.
 
Last edited:
You just don't understand how real change that affects and permeates through multiple layers of culture and society actually happens . . . :shrug: Never mind that we have centuries of significant change to actually look to for examples of how best to achieve it. Everything from religious freedom to individual freedom regarding slavery and even the formation of our own country being accepted as a separate entity standing on it's own = steps.

You're wanting fast and instantaneous - and it does not happen that way. So sorry - it just doesn't when what needs to change are people's views and values in mass number. It is slow. I don't want some quick-mercurial fix. I was solid and permanent. Something that won't taper when the dopamine levels bottom out - something that's solid and won't cave when **** gets rough 50 years later.

That's just how it is - it would be nice to just snap fingers or have a few tough people make it all happen in short order but that is not reality.

I don't get why you don't see that for what it is. When you want something that's big you have to work your way up to it from the bottom - that's just HOW it is.

No...that is how it was.

The world is different thanks to everyone owning cellphones and twitter and YouTube et al.

Look at the Arab Spring? Country after country rose up, something impossible just a few years ago.

And you want to ignore mass media and the potential to put huge pressure on Western governments to help speed up the process in the name of 'slow and steady'?

Ridiculous.

There is no sane reason not to do both - slow and steady AND active political pressure.

And if this issue REALLY means a lot to you - then you should insist your politicians take action on it.

And the chances of a woman taking said action is undoubtedly a lot more then most men.


No offense, but it is you who is stuck in the past.

The world is changing and shrinking.

Now is the time for those who truly care about the disadvantaged to actively fight for their rights through the power of the new media and the power of the ballot box.


Good day.
 
Wrong.

This is about men having the power in those societies to enforce such nonsensical ideas.
This is about powerful countries like America and Germany and Japan doing nothing to help end this nonsense.
In fact, in many cases, these countries prop up these archaic countries for political gain....like America does with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...countries with leaders/prominent politicians that openly encourage this kind if behavior.


If the rest of the world said 'enough' to these barbaric practices, I believe they would end within a generation.
But since men still run the world and most really do not care that munch about it...little is done.
Most men care more about getting laid, their favorite sports team winning and buying a nicer car/house/smartphone then whether women have enough rights (unfortunately, I know I do when push comes to shove).

Many, many men secretly want women to have less rights and for things to go back to the 'good old days' (I am NOT one of those though).
How long do you think this would go on if men were the ones being abused/ill treated?
Not long at all. The male dominated western governments would probably FREAK OUT if it was widespread.
They would probably call it a terrorist cell's work or something...anything to justify invading these places to put a stop to such practices.

But because so many if these middle-aged male leaders do not really care all that much about female equality ( despite the PCM crap they spew in public), they will do little to help these poor women.
Are you seriously suggesting that problem would be worse if the West brought more political pressure to bear in these countries to end these barbaric practices?

Don't be ridiculous.
If the West cared as much about cruelty to women as they do about Iran getting nukes, the problem would end FAR faster.

Hopefully you're aware that those sorts of statements will not get you laid any faster than the rest of us. Girls will just think that you're a P**y.

Not even Freud could figure it out.
 
Last edited:
No...that is how it was.

The world is different thanks to everyone owning cellphones and twitter and YouTube et al.

Look at the Arab Spring? Country after country rose up, something impossible just a few years ago.

And you want to ignore mass media and the potential to put huge pressure on Western governments to help speed up the process in the name of 'slow and steady'?

Ridiculous.

There is no sane reason not to do both.

And if this issue REALLY means a lot to you - then you should insist your politicians take action on it.

And the chances of a woman taking said action is undoubtedly a lot more then most men.


No offense, but it is you who is stuck in the past.

The world is changing and shrinking.

Now is the time for those who truly care about the disadvantaged to actively fight for their rights through the power of the new media and the power of the ballot box.


You disagree? You are wrong if you do.


Good day.

Why can't men in power have influence in this regard? Why do you think only women have the power to change this? Men can't oppose child-brides? Are you suggesting that every male in the world supports it instead? Of course you know that's hardly true. Why do you believe women hold the magic key, here?

You're assuming that having more women in any political office or seat in various countries like the US or Germany is going to make some sort of a change even though the attitudes of the people who do support these things (the ones that need changing) aren't willing to listen to who is giving the message. If they don't respect women NOW then why - on earth - would they listen to the pleas of female political leaders around the world who start cropping up?

Just because we have advanced technologically in some areas of the world and we've changed a bit doesn't mean the entire world has changed - everyone and everything hasn't followed through with that same change of pace and response. You can't take a people and force them to immediately see things your way - you have to persuade them and compel them on a level that they accept in some fashion.

This isn't a new issue, you know - it's been tackled off and on for quite some time. Some places have ended the practice - maybe we should pay attention to what swayed them instead of jumping to false conclusions.
 
Hopefully you're aware that those sorts of statements will not get you laid any faster than the rest of us. Girls will just think that you're a P**y.

Not even Freud could figure it out.

I say what I think.

Any woman that I could 'talk into bed', I am not interested in bedding.
 
Why can't men in power have influence in this regard? Why do you think only women have the power to change this? Men can't oppose child-brides? Are you suggesting that every male in the world supports it instead? Of course you know that's hardly true. Why do you believe women hold the magic key, here?

You're assuming that having more women in any political office or seat in various countries like the US or Germany is going to make some sort of a change even though the attitudes of the people who do support these things (the ones that need changing) aren't willing to listen to who is giving the message. If they don't respect women NOW then why - on earth - would they listen to the pleas of female political leaders around the world who start cropping up?

Just because we have advanced technologically in some areas of the world and we've changed a bit doesn't mean the entire world has changed - everyone and everything hasn't followed through with that same change of pace and response. You can't take a people and force them to immediately see things your way - you have to persuade them and compel them on a level that they accept in some fashion.

This isn't a new issue, you know - it's been tackled off and on for quite some time. Some places have ended the practice - maybe we should pay attention to what swayed them instead of jumping to false conclusions.
If you think that male politicians will be as motivated as female politicians - then I think you are incredibly naive.

Anyway, I have zero desire to get into some long, pointless debate with someone whose mind is closed on an issue.

I have stated my thoughts.

You do not agree...so be it.


Have a nice day.
 
If you think that male politicians will be as motivated as female politicians - then I think you are incredibly naive.

Anyway, I have zero desire to get into some long, pointless debate with someone whose mind is closed on an issue.

I have stated my thoughts.

You do not agree...so be it.


Have a nice day.

Sure - agree to disagree. I think you have a lot to learn about world political and human nature.
 
The UN really has to stop thinking anyone cares what they think. They can declare whatever they want or push for whatever they want but the only countries that will care is the ones that signed on to it. Everyone else will lift their middle finger and let it linger until the UN moves on to the next issue that they decide to meddle in.

In short, no one cares what you think UN, so STFU.
 
Okee dokee.


Have a slow and steady, play it safe day.

LOL - why'd you change your post? Did you think it was offensive to me?

Here - I'll run for president and just fix all this **** straight up. . . give me your vote and a million bucks and voila! Equal rights for all - as well as free chocolate and midol.

If H Clinton ran for president would you vote for her? Do you vote for every female who runs for any seat in office?
 
It's awkward that "white males" never complain when a white male is celebrated. President's Day? 43/44 white males celebrated. Columbus Day? Celebrating the day a white guy claims to have "discovered" America. Thanksgiving? Celebrating the last time white males were nice to the Indians. But no, we MUST specifically celebrate The White Male as if there were no other days where "white males" were celebrated.

You could apply that same argument to things like black history Month. Why should there be a black history month if we already celebrate MLK Day? You're missing the point of his post entirely.
 
LOL - why'd you change your post? Did you think it was offensive to me?

Here - I'll run for president and just fix all this **** straight up. . . give me your vote and a million bucks and voila! Equal rights for all - as well as free chocolate and midol.

If H Clinton ran for president would you vote for her? Do you vote for every female who runs for any seat in office?

I changed my post because I am bored with this discussion.



Have a nice day.
 
Im dead serious. What do you find so hard to believe? Conservatives always have something negative to say when a holiday/celebration of some NON white person is discussed..

It's always "when are we going to get our (white) day."

I once got into a debate with a person much like yourself that opposed black history month and all other special days/holidays for certain groups and their causes. I have actually done that a few times in fact. The opposition to such things as nothing to do with lean and it has nothing to do with racism or genderism, but of a general disapproval of the idea of holidays for pushing personal motivations.
 
The UN really has to stop thinking anyone cares what they think. They can declare whatever they want or push for whatever they want but the only countries that will care is the ones that signed on to it. Everyone else will lift their middle finger and let it linger until the UN moves on to the next issue that they decide to meddle in.

In short, no one cares what you think UN, so STFU.

Interesting.

First you say no one cares what the UN thinks.

Then you tell them to shut up.

No one tells someone to shut up for if they do not care what they are saying...they just stop paying attention to them.

But your first response is to try and muzzle them.

Sounds link you do care what they think after all.
 
Interesting.

First you say no one cares what the UN thinks.

Then you tell them to shut up.

No one tells someone to shut up for if they do not care what they are saying...they just stop paying attention to them.

But your first response is to try and muzzle them.

Sounds link you do care what they think after all.

??

I honestly don't give two ****s what they think, but I know the US government might follow their nonsense if they agree with it. I consider that a danger to this country and I very much care about that.

I'm personally tired of them declaring things rights and then seeing the government try to follow it. Positive rights are NOT rights, but violations of liberty.
 
I changed my post because I am bored with this discussion.



Have a nice day.

LOL

You just knew what was coming next - me pointing out your contradiction and attempt to claim superiority over other males and distance yourself from them as if they're vermin and you've somehow breached the wall.

Apparently I have more faith in males than you do.

But I think it's strange that you see 90% of males in politics as being aloof - or supportive, even - of views that might work against equality. But somehow women are still suppose to just sidestep all of them and make **** happen anyway?

If 90% of said males (I know this is just an exaggerated figure for argumentative purposes) secretly oppose equality - then obviously that's a huge issue that has to continued to be dealt with rather than ignored, don't you think?

And what do you suppose it was maybe 50 years ago - or 150 years ago? What would the % be of males who opposed equality either publicly or privately? Seems to me that we've come a very long way - but have a bit of a ways to go in our own country, yes? But still - we're getting there. . . and it's not going to be reversing which is of the utmost importance. The average male - whether he realizes it or not - does support equality. Why? Because a lot of men don't like the idea of having to take care of another adult for the rest of their lives.
 
Interesting.

First you say no one cares what the UN thinks. Then you tell them to shut up. No one tells someone to shut up for if they do not care what they are saying...they just stop paying attention to them. But your first response is to try and muzzle them.
Sounds link you do care what they think after all.

Henrin's post accurately reflects how Americans feel about the UN. We would prefer that they were out of our country, let them take their expensive prostitutes, luxury apartments and limousines to some other country, we don't want them here. The UN is correctly perceived by Americans as a mechanism to transfer money from Americans to the UN delegates and a few 3rd world countries. Beyond that, to Americans, the UN seems to be bereft of an identifiable mission or accomplishment.
 
LOL

You just knew what was coming next - me pointing out your contradiction and attempt to claim superiority over other males and distance yourself from them as if they're vermin and you've somehow breached the wall.

Apparently I have more faith in males than you do.

But I think it's strange that you see 90% of males in politics as being aloof - or supportive, even - of views that might work against equality. But somehow women are still suppose to just sidestep all of them and make **** happen anyway?

If 90% of said males (I know this is just an exaggerated figure for argumentative purposes) secretly oppose equality - then obviously that's a huge issue that has to continued to be dealt with rather than ignored, don't you think?

And what do you suppose it was maybe 50 years ago - or 150 years ago? What would the % be of males who opposed equality either publicly or privately? Seems to me that we've come a very long way - but have a bit of a ways to go in our own country, yes? But still - we're getting there. . . and it's not going to be reversing which is of the utmost importance. The average male - whether he realizes it or not - does support equality. Why? Because a lot of men don't like the idea of having to take care of another adult for the rest of their lives.

Lol...whatever.


Have a nice day.
 
You could apply that same argument to things like black history Month. Why should there be a black history month if we already celebrate MLK Day? You're missing the point of his post entirely.

We celebrate black history month for the fact that MLK day is nothing but a token of appreciation to the kind of black civil rights leader the white protestant majority liked. Where is Malcolm X day? Huey P Newton day? Or are those black men not worthy of celebration too? MLK Jr was the kind of black man liked and revered by people not really interested in black civil rights for anything other than photo OPs.
 
I once got into a debate with a person much like yourself that opposed black history month and all other special days/holidays for certain groups and their causes. I have actually done that a few times in fact. The opposition to such things as nothing to do with lean and it has nothing to do with racism or genderism, but of a general disapproval of the idea of holidays for pushing personal motivations.

Please point out someone that is liberal and is against those holidays. Of course there will be an exception to the rule, but let's not be naive, it's those of the RIGHT persuasion that have disdain for these NON white holidays. Are you one of them?
Im guessing that you are.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom