RE: Women. You have men by the balls.(...)
February 25, 2013 at 9:14 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2013 at 9:18 am by John V.)
(February 25, 2013 at 1:18 am)Rhythm Wrote:It was included in your explanation as well, and no, physical abuse isn't amusing.(February 24, 2013 at 8:23 pm)John V Wrote: You mentioned my main point yourself. Evolution resulted in men being bigger and stronger than women, and men used that strength to keep women subservient. Waiting a day or two then pretending it didn't happen is pretty lame, even for you.
Your explanation of how men keep women subservient is amusing,
Quote:but still not support for your claim.How so? You've agreed that men have historically used physical violence to oppress women. Do you dispute that evolution is capable of producing sexual dimorphism?
Quote:It isn't the size of the fist in any case, but it's proper application that counts. The few can oppress the many. The smaller person can subdue the larger one. Not that there has been some massive size difference between the sexes for the majority of our history either - and of course we still have the problem of cultures with average sized men and average sized women in which they do not hold a position of subservience. Take the time to learn the shit you choose to prattle on about.Sorry, but size and strength count. I take my daughters to taekwondo classes every week. A female black belt frequently says to the women and children, "I hate to admit it, but size counts." That's why they have weight classes in boxing and wrestling. Duh. It's amazing that you've backed yourself into this argument and don't drop it.