• 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!

The End of Men

Catz Part Deux said:
For the vast majority of history, women have had no voice in selecting their government. They could not own property. If they divorced, they almost always automatically lost custody of their children. Their husband could beat them with impunity. Their father or male relatives determined who they would marry. If the woman refused, she might be forced/raped. Her economic options were EXTREMELY limited.

Sounds a lot like indentured servitude to me, with no hope of ever buying freedom.
Click to expand...

For the majority of history, most of the peasant class didn't have much of any property to speak of.
The vast majority of people, both male and female, have had extremely limited economic choices.

Guess what else, for most of the history of civilization, practically no one had a voice in their government.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
For the majority of history, most of the peasant class didn't have much of any property to speak of.
The vast majority of people, both male and female, have had extremely limited economic choices.

Guess what else, for most of the history of civilization, practically no one had a voice in their government.
Click to expand...

So? Men had a voice for centuries before women...and the overwhelming majority of social control.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So? Men had a voice for centuries before women...and the overwhelming majority of social control.
Click to expand...

Uhhh no.

Voting was rarely universal for men.
Most of that was relegated to those of nobility.

Social choices were again made by the nobility, which routinely accounted for less than a percent of all people.
Not exactly the supreme male dominance that you guys speak of.
 
Mell said:
My boyfriend also is heavily supportive of womens rights. Though he can be as insensitive to them as men generally are, because they simply dont see the issues that effect women and not them, until women put them forward for attention.
Click to expand...

I think that my boyfriend is actually a lot more sensitive to women's issues, for the most part, than I am. I've spent so long in male-dominated fields that when i see cases where women are in the trenches, breaking new ground, and are dealing with men making rude comments, I'm like, "The women should just suck it up and grow some balls. How did they think it would be to work in NASCAR (or insert any other stereotypically male place of business)?"

I've really never wanted anything but to be treated like one of the guys and given the same opportunities to show that I can earn my own place.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Uhhh no.

Voting was rarely universal for men.
Most of that was relegated to those of nobility.

Social choices were again made by the nobility, which routinely accounted for less than a percent of all people.
Not exactly the supreme male dominance that you guys speak of.
Click to expand...

Even amongst the nobility, women had zero options, and less amongst the poor. Spare me the sob story.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Uhhh no.

Voting was rarely universal for men.
Most of that was relegated to those of nobility.

Social choices were again made by the nobility, which routinely accounted for less than a percent of all people.
Not exactly the supreme male dominance that you guys speak of.
Click to expand...

We don't have 'nobility' in this country. Never have. You must have us confused with the country we revolted against. ;)
 
Mell said:
What about you try putting yourself in womens shoes and then giving an opinion.

And, what about men making the choice to be a parent? Are you suggesting we segregate the responsibilities of this and make women solely reponsible for it, both economically and otherwise. Those who are determined to be sexist would say this, but at the same time critisise modern custody laws.
Click to expand...

I do plenty of things that a sexist would classify as "women's work."

I think people should be left to do as they please.
We don't need this crap about who is better than the other.
We shouldn't be defining what women should do for the betterment of all women.

Let them decide as individuals.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I absolutely adore women who use their sexual prowess as a tool to manipulate men who are deserving of it. Of course, society frowns upon women like these because they consider it disgusting to manipulate. However, I say more power to them. If you have an advantage, take it.
Click to expand...

Women generally associate their worthiness of love with their age and looks and men associate theirs with their power and wealth. But, in reality these things do not buy love. Any women who believes her sexual prowess will win more love or man who believes power and money will win him love will be frowned upon, because these people are not being true to themselves, and are not in fact gaining more love.

Beautiful women do not receive more love than less beautiful women, and nobody loves a greedy power hungry male tyrannt such as are the leaders of too many countries. Many dont know why they dislike women who only focus on physical beauty and men who only foucs on power. It is because these people dont truly value themselves, which causes others to disrespect them, because everybody is more than their looks and wealth. As well as that, they are basically 'losers' because love is highest human need and most of what we strive for is in the hope that it will win us more love and those who are shallow or ignorant enough to believe that looks or wealth is their fast track to love are wasting themselves.

While I see nothing wrong with the pleasures of romance, whatever material items it entails, I do see something wrong with overvaluing materialism, and with manipulating people.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Absolute, complete crap.
Women in the nobility had 1000x more power than the any poor man.
Click to expand...

This is absolute crap. Women of the nobility lived in gilded cages. In fact, the expression gilded cage was likely invented to describe them.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Absolute, complete crap.
Women in the nobility had 1000x more power than the any poor man.
Click to expand...

Oh really. Did women in the nobility decide who they would marry? Of course not. Did they have the power to elect representatives to government? Nope. In many societies, their lives were incredibly restricted. They could not even show their faces in public, for the most part.

Take a freaking history class.
 
Mell said:
This is absolute crap. Women of the nobility lived in gilded cages. In fact, the expression gilded cage was likely invented to describe them.
Click to expand...

Would they have traded their position in life for that of any man or women in the peasantry?
Which accounted for 99% of the population.
Like or not, no.

Not to mention that women did have power, even if it was expressed through the male leaders, they could still get things done if they wanted to.
Hardly the same could be said of anyone in the peasant class.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Let them decide as individuals.
Click to expand...

Not all women have the safety and legislation to protect them as we do. And what women needs is the same all over the world. They need safety, in order to be able to put forward their needs, and stand up for their rights. In the meantime, they depend on those of us who already do have this safety to speak up and make others aware that they have needs that are not being acknowledged.

''We don't need this crap about who is better than the other.''
Glad you think so. Stop doing it then.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh really. Did women in the nobility decide who they would marry? Of course not. Did they have the power to elect representatives to government? Nope. In many societies, their lives were incredibly restricted. They could not even show their faces in public, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Yea, I feel for those chicks in the nobility. :roll:
They had it so much worse than the guy plowing the fields from dawn to dusk.
Generally being worked to death in order to feed those people.

How about the guy conscripted in war, yea he had it so good.
Dieing and all for political reasons.

Catz Part Deux said:
Take a freaking history class.
Click to expand...

I've taken many, that's why I find your hyperbole and general exaggerations to be ridiculous.
 
Mell said:
Not all women have the safety and legislation to protect them as we do. And what women needs is the same all over the world. They need safety, in order to be able to put forward their needs, and stand up for their rights. In the meantime, they depend on those of us who already do have this safety to speak up and make others aware that they have needs that are not being acknowledged.
Click to expand...

Women in the first world have it just fine.
Women and men in the rest of the world, not so much.

I don't pick a gender to fight for, I think everyone should have a choice in making a good life.

Mell said:
''We don't need this crap about who is better than the other.''
Glad you think so. Stop doing it then.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who posted an article about women being better than men.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not to mention that women did have power, even if it was expressed through the male leaders, they could still get things done if they wanted to.
Hardly the same could be said of anyone in the peasant class.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting? That we dont need women leaders? We desperately do need them.
Men are generally unaware of womens issues, until women highlight them. While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, I still see the valuable role she is playing by keeping things such as the womens issues in places such as DRC, Afghanistan... in the spotlight. And, it is not just third world hell holes that womens issues need to be highlighted about. For example, there is the unequal gender pay, in all the developed countries.
 
Mell said:
What are you suggesting? That we dont need women leaders? We desperately do need them.
Men are generally unaware of womens issues, until women highlight them. While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, I still see the valuable role she is playing by keeping things such as the womens issues in places such as DRC, Afghanistan... in the spotlight. And, it is not just third world hell holes that womens issues need to be highlighted about. For example, there is the unequal gender pay, in all the developed countries.
Click to expand...

Women need to work in the same jobs and put in the same hours, in order to get the same pay.

It's unequal because women don't do the things that guys do in order to earn money.
Someone even wrote a whole book on the subject with facts and figures proving it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Women need to work in the same jobs and put in the same hours, in order to get the same pay.
Click to expand...

Who's saying otherwise? I work in a male field, put in the same hours, and get the same pay.

Someone even wrote a whole book on the subject with facts and figures proving it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Impressive research.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Women need to work in the same jobs and put in the same hours, in order to get the same pay.

It's unequal because women don't do the things that guys do in order to earn money.
Someone even wrote a whole book on the subject with facts and figures proving it.
Click to expand...

WTF? Since when?

Look, I'm all about the individual and I don't blame my tits for any lower pay. (quite the opposite, actually *ahem*) I blame individuals for their lack of negotiating skills to get higher pay, regardless of their gender. My pay IS equal to men in my position.

But to say that women don't do the same work is utter bull****. I've worked in male dominated fields most of my life and I did the same goddamn work the guys did.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Who's saying otherwise? I work in a male field, put in the same hours, and get the same pay.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you get payed the same. Many/most companies have a policy that their employees keep their rate of pay secret from other employees.

''Women need to work in the same jobs and put in the same hours, in order to get the same pay.''
They should be valued and get payed fairly for the jobs that women are more attracted to. Anyway, you are just being unreasonable and refusing to look into the gender issue more. Nobody who cares about human rights could look at that information, and still be dismissive about womens issues, unless (s)he simply does not care, or is irretrivably sexist. Some people are rigidly and immovably sexist and do not want to be any other way.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Would they have traded their position in life for that of any man or women in the peasantry?
Which accounted for 99% of the population.
Like or not, no.

Not to mention that women did have power, even if it was expressed through the male leaders, they could still get things done if they wanted to.
Hardly the same could be said of anyone in the peasant class.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point here? It does not count, if something worse can be found? I dont know if this is utter carelessness about women and their rights on your part, or just poor debating skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom