| | to the female supremacists (you know who you are)
""Face facts boys: the y-chromosome is just a damaged x that cannot even stand on one foot ... certainly not when it's drunk :-)"
define "damaged"? by what standard is something damaged? by what standard is something properly or improperly function. if you cannot substantiate this construct, you must abandon it. as it stands, this really is just as nonsensical as the "women have too many X chromosomes" comment.
"But my tolerance runs short when those 'pleasures' are imposed on 'unconsenting' women"
speaking of trying to get people to back down, here you do the same, by implicitly comparing our counter arguments to rape in hopes of morally intimidating us.
"As for the 'natural state of the female form and femininity':"
I will side with you on this one, vera. i'm not one for rigid aesthetic standards on gender either. actually, I sometimtes have the reverse problem of the one you mentioned: going into a male bathroom and being told its not the girl's room. or being told that I come across as being gay or feminine without really meaning too. I do not know where this particular cue comes from, as I do nothing intentionally to this effect, but apparently I sometimes come across this way.
"thinking came first from the women, not the men"
mr malcolm: the fact of the matter is that questions of whenever conceptual integration was first done and by whom are long lost to history and will not be resolved within our lifetimes. however, you come to assert that women, as a group, as such, thought earlier and more significantly than men. again, given that this would have happened far before the dawn of the written record, there is really no grounds to say this. but not only do you assert this, you assert that this without qualification, so as to imply that this is a categorical truth across all developing early cultures. your motivation betrays itself, mr malcolm: you are a traitor to the male gender who promotes non-verifiable mythologies in the name of promoting the post-feminist doctrine of collectivist biological superiority of women. the phrase "war children" comes to mind.
"biology is the passing of the children, without which there'd be no men... which made the women equally important.."
fine, but this has no connection to your earlier point: you still have not proven that women used conceptual consciousness before men did.
"the many facts that indeed the women were first, were better and will remain last"
here we have said doctrine of female biological supremacy spouted out blatantly. while females on average live longer, there is no evidence for any other point:
were first? for what? to what? and by how big a time frame? this statement is vague to the point of being conceptually meaningless, and serves not to present actual argument, but to rally her allies in a sexist, collectivist call for tribal pride.
"were better?"
this statement speaks for itself. you can literally feel the collectivist tribalism ooze out of it. females, vera flatly asserts, are superior to males. collectively. so much for individual achievement. so much for howard roark. one's worth as a human being in this world view is decided by by the fact that women are asserted to be superior, and, thusly, men are inferior. and note that no qualifications are given, clearly implying that she expects this belief to be so significant that it is unneccessary to grant qualifications and exceptions to it. contrary to this borderline naziism (replace the word "women" with the word "aryan" and what do you get?) the plain fact is that the range of abilities and moral worth is so scattered across both genders that it is senseless to declare one superior to the other, as she has done here, and that one must instead judge human beings as volitional individuals. we may also ask questions of by what standard she believes women to be superior, as this remains unexplained.
"will remain last"
and here, we have the final conclusive evidence of her tribal collectivism: she envisions a future in which only her collective remains, and the alternate groupings are extinct. in other words, will "remain last", after all males are dead. in other words, there is some point in the future, which vera is clearly looking forward to, in which males will be extinct and women will rule the earth alone and all XY hominid specimens are just rot and bone. I wonder, vera, do you simply believe this to be some sort of inevitability, or do you wish that women take action to enact this? the similarities between feminism and naziism become clear with even this cursory analysis, both cases believe in the utmost superiority of their tribal unit to the other, propose that their tribal unit deserve all credit for the creation of civilization, and wish, whether idly or with plans to enact also, for a future in which the other is extinct and their "master race" (or "master gender") is free to dominate the earth, unfettered from the burden of subhuman monstrosities.
(Edited by Robert Bisno on 8/26, 2:03pm)
|
|
