If Women Ruled The World

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker »

ForCruxSake wrote:
thedoc wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: Well, given that a woman's nature is more usually noted as tending towards nurture and raising children, care in general, why would a matriarchal society tend towards war? I don't see the reality in what you said, especially as it was unsupported by any kind of factual evidence. It came across as said by someone who might have had more than your average man's personal experience of warrior like women....

:lol:
I heard an account of Hillary who burst into a room where Bill was having a meeting with some of his adviser's while he was president and she started screaming at him and he just sat there quietly till she finished and left. She was vicious and violent but couldn't act on her impulses in front of witnesses. She was certainly not gentle and nurturing to her children or husband, she is a vicious war mongering bitch.
Not letting you have it. You can't base all women's actions on the action of one particular woman. A woman so unpopular it makes you wonder whether other women would want to even be like her.

The Tibetan community was not instituted by one woman, nor is it under the control of one woman, but is a cultural phenomenon that has occurred outside of the more mainstream cultures around it, dominated by the rule of men. It must have grown out of a collective sense of what is good for the community. The men could simply have used their brute force to over power the women and take control but they haven't because the way they live has safeguarded their community for centuries. If you read on in the article, community members have left to join the mainstream, so they are not forced to stay.

It seems like a loose culture with fewer rules than in a man's world. No one is tied to anyone, no one is chattel, but relationships flourish out of a sense of love of desire to be together however long that might last.
Oh really. Does this sense of love also apply to feminine warriors?

A scientific approach is to list the characteristics of a feminine warrior:

- The feminine warrior is also a master of passive aggression. Feminine warriors get called bitches for this.

- Why do you suppose that is? Why that word?

- Applied to philosophical discourse, a tactic of the feminine is to ask a question of someone without offering a theory, then attempt to invalidate the answer using a variety of techniques, with little or no rationality. That suffices to meet the criteria of the popular label, but it’s only a philosophy of conflict, with rationality as the opponent.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by ForCruxSake »

Walker wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Yes, Vlad was very creative in his brutality, but he was a product of his times, does that excuse him for his actions?

I have just observed reality, how is that mysogynistic?
Well, given that a woman's nature is more usually noted as tending towards nurture and raising children, care in general, why would a matriarchal society tend towards war? I don't see the reality in what you said, especially as it was unsupported by any kind of factual evidence. It came across as said by someone who might have had more than your average man's personal experience of warrior like women....

:lol:
The paradigm is:

- A woman manipulates a man with his desire for sex, to get what she wants.
- A man manipulates a woman with her desire for security, to get what he wants.

This is the way of things. It is simple, basic, nothing new. It’s an old story.

- Within the time span of a fraction of a human lifetime, a new and evolving taxonomy of sex/gender identities has been discovered by science.
- Who knows, life-like robots may soon be a part of the mix.

- However, these are all variations upon the stated paradigm, which if analyzed closely, would involve attachment, desire, self-interest, manipulation, expectation, ideology … and so on.

- A woman warrior? Fearsome. Adept at detecting weaknesses and capitalizing on attachments. Her primary targets would be enemy women. Why? Because she knows that if she does not destroy them, men will rush to their defense, and she can use this causal knowledge to the advantage of the situation, as she defines advantage.
Great post! I agree with much of the above. Not sure about the life like robots, but yes, yes, yes to what men and women want from each other and how they behave to get it.

I don't deny that there are women warriors, but the type you describe sounds more like the archetype for a soap character. In Western society when women have seemed to be warriors it's more the feminist type. Suffragettes, political fighters for gender equality. The war is an ideological war for equality.

Move towards the third world and the Middle East and you see women fighting to stop war. In Liberia, where war waged for 14 years, a group of women came together to protest for peace. The movement grew when when Christian women were persuaded to join forces with Muslim women and they even publicly sought to show there was no social class divide among them when they would remove jewellery and anything that could show a class divide. Women united against war across religion and socioeconomic divide. In Ghana the West African Network fur Peacebuilding, dedicated to establishing peace across West Africa, helped the women form a network, the Women in Peacebuilding Network (WIPNET), who eventually became fundamental in the later peace talks that brought an end to war. It took them much protest and strange threats designed to embarrass leaders, but this is more representative of the way women fight. They cry and shame rather than hit people over the heads with rocks.

When the Iran-Iraq war, which waged for years, was sending its children to war, as it seemed to be running out of adult men to send, the women similarly wept and decried war, not that the men listened. It was the discovery that the US had played both sides off against each other with regard to arms and the shenanigans in Kuwait, that brought that war to an end. War is the bone-headed province of men. I don't think women find war productive: it's a waste of resources and a way to get their loved ones killed.

This pervasive attitude in women spots history across the globe and through the ages and is even borne out by the Greek classics, in Aristophanes' comedy 'Lysistrata', a gender politics play where a woman persuades the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands, and lovers, as a means of forcing the men to negotiate a peace, that will end the Peloponnesian War, a strategy, however, that ironically inflames the battle between the sexes.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Simplistic view of women for simpletons. :roll:
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Something I agree with. Women are just as likely to be psychopaths as men.
Agreed, but not all men, let alone the majority of men are psychopaths.
Where did I say all or most men are psychopaths?
You didn't say that all men were psychopaths, you said that women were as likely to be psychopaths as men, and I was pointing out that that was a weak statement because psychopaths are rare. It's not even AS IF "all men, or even the majority of men, are psychopaths" so why should comparing women to men as psychopaths hold any weight? It's a weak argument. Next time I'll know to spell it out more clearly.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How would you know if women don't usually act like this under these circumstances?
Because there would be A LOT MORE written about it through history and journalistic reportage. I notice that you've failed to back up what you are saying with much evidence.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The female concentration camp guards were notorious for their extreme brutality. Women are no more immune to their baser selves surfacing when they are given power as men are.
Yes, when working in a male created, and dominated, system. The women you are talking about are NOT women of power. They were the low orderlies not high ranking officials. Even *PRIVATE* Lynndie England's defence was that she was under orders and following the form of those around her, who were mainly men. I doubt if they had all been women, this would have happened, and that was the point of the original post: "If women ruled the world", not "If women ran with a pack of males in a male dominated society".

You bring up Nazi Germany's female concentration camp orderlies, who, again, were not under the instruction of female kommandants, but male superiors, in a system established by males.

But let's stop and look at the role of women in Nazi Germany:

"Hitler had very clear ideas about the woman's role in the Nazi state - she was the centre of family life, a housewife and mother. Hitler even introduced a medal for women who had eight or more children!

The Nazis had clear ideas of what they wanted from women.

Women were expected to stay at home and look after the family. Women doctors, teachers and civil servants were forced to give up their careers. Even at the end of the war, women were never asked to serve in the armed forces.

Goebbels said: "The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world."

Hitler wanted a high birth rate, so the population would grow. The Nazis even considered making it law that families should have at least four children.

The Law for the Encouragement of Marriage gave newly wed couples a loan of 1,000 marks, and allowed them to keep 250 marks for each child they had. Mothers who had more than eight children were given a gold medal. Unmarried women could volunteer to have a baby for an Aryan member of the SS.

Women were supposed to emulate traditional German peasant fashions - plain peasant costumes, hair in plaits or buns and flat shoes. They were not expected to wear make-up or trousers, dye their hair or smoke in public."

(-quoted from the BBC Bitesize GCSE page online that my my son is studying from)

That's how controlled women were under a Nazi, male dominated, society. It's my contention that it's male domination that creates the the kind of women you have brought up and that things might be different under a rule of women that had time to establish itself.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:England's story didn't go mainstream because women 'don't usually' act like that-- it's because it was filmed and leaked. And she's not the only woman in the photos. The other one there is some bitch called Sabrina Harman (who weirdly resembles one of the worst of the female Nazi camp guards). No doubt there were plenty more who didn't get caught.
Great so two of them being present proves your argument?!! In this day and age of proliferating social media and Wikileaks, if there was a lot more out there, you can bet your boots there'd be a lot more leaked. The people who are stupid enough to do these kind of things are stupid enough to want to brag about it.

It was isolated, and whilst I agree that there may be a FEW other such incidents, it doesn't represent the way MOST of the women in the armed forces act or how women would act en masse under the influence of a system where other women held executive powers and created the rules.
Last edited by ForCruxSake on Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Simplistic view of women for simpletons. :roll:
It's a lot more detailed and supported by factual evidence than your weak, unsupported 'opinions'. If it strikes you as simple, it's so that the likes of you will understand it. My work is done. :)
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by ForCruxSake »

Walker wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:The Tibetan community was not instituted by one woman, nor is it under the control of one woman, but is a cultural phenomenon that has occurred outside of the more mainstream cultures around it, dominated by the rule of men. It must have grown out of a collective sense of what is good for the community. The men could simply have used their brute force to over power the women and take control but they haven't because the way they live has safeguarded their community for centuries. If you read on in the article, community members have left to join the mainstream, so they are not forced to stay.

It seems like a loose culture with fewer rules than in a man's world. No one is tied to anyone, no one is chattel, but relationships flourish out of a sense of love of desire to be together however long that might last.
Oh really. Does this sense of love also apply to feminine warriors?
In that the culture may even have feminine warriors, of which I'm uncertain, I'd think the rules would apply to her, too. She would still have to entice a man. You can't hit a man over the head and expect him to get an erection, not unless he's a masochist. Not sure you're average female warrior would even be interested in that, she'd want more of a challenge! :D
Walker wrote:A scientific approach is to list the characteristics of a feminine warrior:

- The feminine warrior is also a master of passive aggression. Feminine warriors get called bitches for this.

- Why do you suppose that is? Why that word?
Is this some kind of text book definition, because this is the first time I've heard the phrase mentioned as if it's some kind of defined phenomenon? However, assuming Boadicea was one of your first 'feminine warriors', I don't think there's historical evidence to suggest everyone was calling her 'a bitch' or that she was 'passive aggressive'.
Walker wrote: Applied to philosophical discourse, a tactic of the feminine is to ask a question of someone without offering a theory, then attempt to invalidate the answer using a variety of techniques, with little or no rationality. That suffices to meet the criteria of the popular label, but it’s only a philosophy of conflict, with rationality as the opponent.
Personally, I think that's just a general form of argument. If you're saying it's how women argue, I'll just have take your word for it... but given the fact that many forum members here have to declare their gender, or let slip some fact exposing it, then more than likely they'll be assumed to be males. How on earth do you apply this form of thinking to posters here??? I'm sure some of the men here have used this method to argue, rather than discuss. It's a bit of a gross generalisation, isn't it?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker »

ForCruxSake wrote:Personally, I think that's just a general form of argument. If you're saying it's how women argue, I'll just have take your word for it... but given the fact that many forum members here have to declare their gender, or let slip some fact exposing it, then more than likely they'll be assumed to be males. How on earth do you apply this form of thinking to posters here??? I'm sure some of the men here have used this method to argue, rather than discuss. It's a bit of a gross generalisation, isn't it?
Pretty sure I wrote feminine, not women. If not, I meant to.

You don't have to take anyone's word for it.

Now that you know the principle, you can be alert for manifestations anywhere. The principle is larger than the forum.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker »

Return of the slimy innuendo.
Making noise like a player, for the Clinton foundation.

http://thehill.com/news/campaign/326805 ... larys-back
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
Agreed, but not all men, let alone the majority of men are psychopaths.
Where did I say all or most men are psychopaths?
You didn't say that all men were psychopaths, you said that women were as likely to be psychopaths as men, and I was pointing out that that was a weak statement because psychopaths are rare. It's not even AS IF "all men, or even the majority of men, are psychopaths" so why should comparing women to men as psychopaths hold any weight? It's a weak argument. Next time I'll know to spell it out more clearly.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How would you know if women don't usually act like this under these circumstances?
Because there would be A LOT MORE written about it through history and journalistic reportage. I notice that you've failed to back up what you are saying with much evidence.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The female concentration camp guards were notorious for their extreme brutality. Women are no more immune to their baser selves surfacing when they are given power as men are.
Yes, when working in a male created, and dominated, system. The women you are talking about are NOT women of power. They were the low orderlies not high ranking officials. Even *PRIVATE* Lynndie England's defence was that she was under orders and following the form of those around her, who were mainly men. I doubt if they had all been women, this would have happened, and that was the point of the original post: "If women ruled the world", not "If women ran with a pack of males in a male dominated society".

You bring up Nazi Germany's female concentration camp orderlies, who, again, were not under the instruction of female kommandants, but male superiors, in a system established by males.

But let's stop and look at the role of women in Nazi Germany:

"Hitler had very clear ideas about the woman's role in the Nazi state - she was the centre of family life, a housewife and mother. Hitler even introduced a medal for women who had eight or more children!

The Nazis had clear ideas of what they wanted from women.

Women were expected to stay at home and look after the family. Women doctors, teachers and civil servants were forced to give up their careers. Even at the end of the war, women were never asked to serve in the armed forces.

Goebbels said: "The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world."

Hitler wanted a high birth rate, so the population would grow. The Nazis even considered making it law that families should have at least four children.

The Law for the Encouragement of Marriage gave newly wed couples a loan of 1,000 marks, and allowed them to keep 250 marks for each child they had. Mothers who had more than eight children were given a gold medal. Unmarried women could volunteer to have a baby for an Aryan member of the SS.

Women were supposed to emulate traditional German peasant fashions - plain peasant costumes, hair in plaits or buns and flat shoes. They were not expected to wear make-up or trousers, dye their hair or smoke in public."

(-quoted from the BBC Bitesize GCSE page online that my my son is studying from)

That's how controlled women were under a Nazi, male dominated, society. It's my contention that it's male domination that creates the the kind of women you have brought up and that things might be different under a rule of women that had time to establish itself.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:England's story didn't go mainstream because women 'don't usually' act like that-- it's because it was filmed and leaked. And she's not the only woman in the photos. The other one there is some bitch called Sabrina Harman (who weirdly resembles one of the worst of the female Nazi camp guards). No doubt there were plenty more who didn't get caught.
Great so two of them being present proves your argument?!! In this day and age of proliferating social media and Wikileaks, if there was a lot more out there, you can bet your boots there'd be a lot more leaked. The people who are stupid enough to do these kind of things are stupid enough to want to brag about it.

It was isolated, and whilst I agree that there may be a FEW other such incidents, it doesn't represent the way MOST of the women in the armed forces act or how women would act en masse under the influence of a system where other women held executive powers and created the rules.
Psychopathy is a lot more common than you think. How many women do you want me to show? Your 'arguments' are ridiculous and juvenile (which you freely acknowledge) and are for the most part self-refuting, so that saves me the wasted energy.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Simplistic view of women for simpletons. :roll:
Well, well. We agree.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Psychopathy is a lot more common than you think. How many women do you want me to show?
I said nothing about pschopathy. You seem to be pulling that out of your arse. Nowhere, not in court, not in the reputable press, was Private England branded a psychopath.

Do you even know what pschopathy is? Let me help you out.

"People who are psychopathic prey ruthlessly on others using charm, deceit, sex or other methods that allow them to get away with they want. The symptoms of psychopathy include: lack of a conscience or sense of guilt, lack of empathy, egocentricity, pathological lying, repeated violations of social norms, disregard for the law, shallow emotions, and a history of victimising others."

Lynndie England didn't have a history of abusing others, or offending. She was in the thrall of Private Graner, with whom she was serving and involved, and whose baby she had whilst awaiting trial, and it was he that was deemed to be the dangerous one. She was described by others in warm terms, and a bit of a fool for falling for Graner, at her trial. She fell over herself with remorse, knowing she had fucked right up and was sentenced to three years for her stupidity. She wasn't even that charismatic. Basically, she wasn't a psychopath, you moron, and nowhere is she stated as being one.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Your 'arguments' are ridiculous and juvenile (which you freely acknowledge)
I did??? Or are you just pulling that out if your arse as well? Clearly whatever I've said, you take to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

If you are referring to the GCSE page I quoted, as being juvenile, it's actually written by academics. The history is detailed enough to make my point and I quoted the source to poke fun at you, by showing you even the average teen knows more about what the Nazis expected of their women, than you... but of course you would fail to see that, as you have already proved yourself as failing to see so much.

You might want to look up the words 'juvenile' and 'ridiculous' and then actually tie them to points I've made. Throwing out insults makes you insulting, not correct.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:....and are for the most part self-refuting, so that saves me the wasted energy.
I haven't contradicted myself and you appear to have spent a lot of time saying very little. You throw out unsupported opinions and quite clearly lack the ability to present a supported, well rounded argument.

It's also clear that because you have no counter argument with which to attack, you turn to personal attack. It's not your argument that's weak, as you don't have one. It's you that's weak for having to hurl abuse at someone you cannot rationally debate.

Please, I'd be very grateful if you *do* save your energy and leave responding to those who can actually present a well founded argument or comment.

I have already wasted so much time providing you with information you are too lazy to look up yourself. I get why people here ignore you, for the most part, and now it's time for me to join them.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Simplistic view of women for simpletons. :roll:
Well, well. We agree.
You could start making a habit of this. :wink:
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Psychopathy is a lot more common than you think. How many women do you want me to show?
I said nothing about pschopathy. You seem to be pulling that out of your arse. Nowhere, not in court, not in the reputable press, was Private England branded a psychopath.

Do you even know what pschopathy is? Let me help you out.

"People who are psychopathic prey ruthlessly on others using charm, deceit, sex or other methods that allow them to get away with they want. The symptoms of psychopathy include: lack of a conscience or sense of guilt, lack of empathy, egocentricity, pathological lying, repeated violations of social norms, disregard for the law, shallow emotions, and a history of victimising others."

Lynndie England didn't have a history of abusing others, or offending. She was in the thrall of Private Graner, with whom she was serving and involved, and whose baby she had whilst awaiting trial, and it was he that was deemed to be the dangerous one. She was described by others in warm terms, and a bit of a fool for falling for Graner, at her trial. She fell over herself with remorse, knowing she had fucked right up and was sentenced to three years for her stupidity. She wasn't even that charismatic. Basically, she wasn't a psychopath, you moron, and nowhere is she stated as being one.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Your 'arguments' are ridiculous and juvenile (which you freely acknowledge)
I did??? Or are you just pulling that out if your arse as well? Clearly whatever I've said, you take to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

If you are referring to the GCSE page I quoted, as being juvenile, it's actually written by academics. The history is detailed enough to make my point and I quoted the source to poke fun at you, by showing you even the average teen knows more about what the Nazis expected of their women, than you... but of course you would fail to see that, as you have already proved yourself as failing to see so much.

You might want to look up the words 'juvenile' and 'ridiculous' and then actually tie them to points I've made. Throwing out insults makes you insulting, not correct.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:....and are for the most part self-refuting, so that saves me the wasted energy.
I haven't contradicted myself and you appear to have spent a lot of time saying very little. You throw out unsupported opinions and quite clearly lack the ability to present a supported, well rounded argument.

It's also clear that because you have no counter argument with which to attack, you turn to personal attack. It's not your argument that's weak, as you don't have one. It's you that's weak for having to hurl abuse at someone you cannot rationally debate.

Please, I'd be very grateful if you *do* save your energy and leave responding to those who can actually present a well founded argument or comment.

I have already wasted so much time providing you with information you are too lazy to look up yourself. I get why people here ignore you, for the most part, and now it's time for me to join them.
Ooh, what's that? The wiki definition of 'psychopath'? There are many people who lean towards 'psychopathic' personality type, and they aren't necessarily overtly cruel or criminal. You seem to want to make an 'argument' out of nothing. You said something about women being caring and nurturing and I simply showed you that they can be anything but. What's to argue about? It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a lot of sadistic psychopathic personality types would be attracted to the military--male or female. There's no draft, so all of those thugs who are in the ME are there because they want to be.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Greta »

There'd definitely be fewer people if women ruled the world, especially fewer Africa and Middle Eastern births. Fewer people would make life easier for most.
Kaleon
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:03 pm

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Kaleon »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Psychopathy is a lot more common than you think. How many women do you want me to show?
I said nothing about pschopathy. You seem to be pulling that out of your arse. Nowhere, not in court, not in the reputable press, was Private England branded a psychopath.

Do you even know what pschopathy is? Let me help you out.

"People who are psychopathic prey ruthlessly on others using charm, deceit, sex or other methods that allow them to get away with they want. The symptoms of psychopathy include: lack of a conscience or sense of guilt, lack of empathy, egocentricity, pathological lying, repeated violations of social norms, disregard for the law, shallow emotions, and a history of victimising others."

Lynndie England didn't have a history of abusing others, or offending. She was in the thrall of Private Graner, with whom she was serving and involved, and whose baby she had whilst awaiting trial, and it was he that was deemed to be the dangerous one. She was described by others in warm terms, and a bit of a fool for falling for Graner, at her trial. She fell over herself with remorse, knowing she had fucked right up and was sentenced to three years for her stupidity. She wasn't even that charismatic. Basically, she wasn't a psychopath, you moron, and nowhere is she stated as being one.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Your 'arguments' are ridiculous and juvenile (which you freely acknowledge)
I did??? Or are you just pulling that out if your arse as well? Clearly whatever I've said, you take to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

If you are referring to the GCSE page I quoted, as being juvenile, it's actually written by academics. The history is detailed enough to make my point and I quoted the source to poke fun at you, by showing you even the average teen knows more about what the Nazis expected of their women, than you... but of course you would fail to see that, as you have already proved yourself as failing to see so much.

You might want to look up the words 'juvenile' and 'ridiculous' and then actually tie them to points I've made. Throwing out insults makes you insulting, not correct.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:....and are for the most part self-refuting, so that saves me the wasted energy.
I haven't contradicted myself and you appear to have spent a lot of time saying very little. You throw out unsupported opinions and quite clearly lack the ability to present a supported, well rounded argument.

It's also clear that because you have no counter argument with which to attack, you turn to personal attack. It's not your argument that's weak, as you don't have one. It's you that's weak for having to hurl abuse at someone you cannot rationally debate.

Please, I'd be very grateful if you *do* save your energy and leave responding to those who can actually present a well founded argument or comment.

I have already wasted so much time providing you with information you are too lazy to look up yourself. I get why people here ignore you, for the most part, and now it's time for me to join them.
Ooh, what's that? The wiki definition of 'psychopath'? There are many people who lean towards 'psychopathic' personality type, and they aren't necessarily overtly cruel or criminal. You seem to want to make an 'argument' out of nothing. You said something about women being caring and nurturing and I simply showed you that they can be anything but. What's to argue about? It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a lot of sadistic psychopathic personality types would be attracted to the military--male or female. There's no draft, so all of those thugs who are in the ME are there because they want to be.
You're missing out the basic principal of gender. We are not the same. Physically, men and women have different hormones, and different bodies. This includes neural pathways. Men are pumped with testosterone, whilst women are with oestrogen. Though there are cases where women have turned out psychopathic, so have men. These are neural anomalies. Not everyone is a damn psychopath, putting that point to rest. If a bunch of oestrogen pansies rules the world, then what would become of buildings and structures. How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.
Post Reply