Who here is a feminist?

[Kiko]

That's their culture. In those parts of the world they do things a certain way, and it works for them. Let's live and let live. The american indians lived a certain way, and then white folks came along and sneered at their lifestyle. Not good.

Okay, well drugging and raping women in nightclubs is very common in Chile and Argentina and rape is a very difficult crime to get a conviction on. It's all tied up to the disgusting concept of Machismo, Male Chauvinism. Just because something is part of someone's culture doesn't mean it isn't total dogshit.

Yes well that's an extreme example you're giving there, and yes it's not right. But machismo is the extreme end of a culture led by men, that doesn't mean that such a culture is bad. In fact it's very good for society to be led by men. Men are naturally good leaders with a track record to show, and women are better at nurturing. Together, with their own strengths, men and women make a great team. But when women try to be like men and vice versa, it tends to mess things up.

For a man to be whole and complete, he needs to have a healthy balance of masculine and feminine. Let's say, for argument's sake, 80% / 20% respectively. And for a woman to be balanced she should have an element of masculine qualities, but mostly feminine ones. If you've seen the yin / yang symbol, the black part has a white dot, and the white part has a black dot, symbolising balance. Complete harmony between the two, and a bit of each other in them too.

But when women try to compete with men, the message it gives is that men are better, and that therefore women need to aspire to be like them in order to be equal. The thing is, women are already equal to men.

And of course there are exceptions. There are men who are very feminine or effeminate, and women who are quite masculine, and that's fine too. But by and large, most men are masculine and most women are feminine. That's why society should by default cater mainly to those two types, simply because they're the majority. The minorities should be catered to also, but we should understand that priority must be given the the majority. People should be allowed to live as they please, but on the understanding that without masculine men and feminine women, aka the majority, society would fall apart.

[TaraJo]

Okay, well drugging and raping women in nightclubs is very common in Chile and Argentina and rape is a very difficult crime to get a conviction on. It's all tied up to the disgusting concept of Machismo, Male Chauvinism. Just because something is part of someone's culture doesn't mean it isn't total dogshit.

Yes well that's an extreme example you're giving there, and yes it's not right. But machismo is the extreme end of a culture led by men, that doesn't mean that such a culture is bad. In fact it's very good for society to be led by men. Men are naturally good leaders with a track record to show, and women are better at nurturing. Together, with their own strengths, men and women make a great team. But when women try to be like men and vice versa, it tends to mess things up.

For a man to be whole and complete, he needs to have a healthy balance of masculine and feminine. Let's say, for argument's sake, 80% / 20% respectively. And for a woman to be balanced she should have an element of masculine qualities, but mostly feminine ones. If you've seen the yin / yang symbol, the black part has a white dot, and the white part has a black dot, symbolising balance. Complete harmony between the two, and a bit of each other in them too.

But when women try to compete with men, the message it gives is that men are better, and that therefore women need to aspire to be like them in order to be equal. The thing is, women are already equal to men.

And of course there are exceptions. There are men who are very feminine or effeminate, and women who are quite masculine, and that's fine too. But by and large, most men are masculine and most women are feminine. That's why society should by default cater mainly to those two types, simply because they're the majority. The minorities should be catered to also, but we should understand that priority must be given the the majority. People should be allowed to live as they please, but on the understanding that without masculine men and feminine women, aka the majority, society would fall apart.

Is this your way of saying that someone like Ted Cruz or John Boehner would automatically make a better president than someone like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, just because of their gender? If so, I'll call bullshit. Penises or lack thereof do not inherently give or take away leadership qualities.

[Kiko]

What's wrong with taking care of your kids?

If you're being told you have to have kids whether you want to or not and that because of your sex you aren't really going to be suitable for anything other than making babies, that's wrong.

Freeze. Hold it right there. I asked you a simple question, which was :

What's wrong with TAKING CARE OF YOUR KIDS?

Try again.

---

Yes well that's an extreme example you're giving there, and yes it's not right. But machismo is the extreme end of a culture led by men, that doesn't mean that such a culture is bad. In fact it's very good for society to be led by men. Men are naturally good leaders with a track record to show, and women are better at nurturing. Together, with their own strengths, men and women make a great team. But when women try to be like men and vice versa, it tends to mess things up.

For a man to be whole and complete, he needs to have a healthy balance of masculine and feminine. Let's say, for argument's sake, 80% / 20% respectively. And for a woman to be balanced she should have an element of masculine qualities, but mostly feminine ones. If you've seen the yin / yang symbol, the black part has a white dot, and the white part has a black dot, symbolising balance. Complete harmony between the two, and a bit of each other in them too.

But when women try to compete with men, the message it gives is that men are better, and that therefore women need to aspire to be like them in order to be equal. The thing is, women are already equal to men.

And of course there are exceptions. There are men who are very feminine or effeminate, and women who are quite masculine, and that's fine too. But by and large, most men are masculine and most women are feminine. That's why society should by default cater mainly to those two types, simply because they're the majority. The minorities should be catered to also, but we should understand that priority must be given the the majority. People should be allowed to live as they please, but on the understanding that without masculine men and feminine women, aka the majority, society would fall apart.

Is this your way of saying that someone like Ted Cruz or John Boehner would automatically make a better president than someone like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, just because of their gender? If so, I'll call bullshit. Penises or lack thereof do not inherently give or take away leadership qualities.

No, it's my way of saying that men are generally better leaders.

[TaraJo]

If you're being told you have to have kids whether you want to or not and that because of your sex you aren't really going to be suitable for anything other than making babies, that's wrong.

Freeze. Hold it right there. I asked you a simple question, which was :

What's wrong with TAKING CARE OF YOUR KIDS?

Try again.

I never said anything about that specific issue. I need to know the context of the question before I can answer.

I mean, I could give an answer, but it would probably piss off a lot of people.

Is this your way of saying that someone like Ted Cruz or John Boehner would automatically make a better president than someone like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, just because of their gender? If so, I'll call bullshit. Penises or lack thereof do not inherently give or take away leadership qualities.

No, it's my way of saying that men are generally better leaders.

Ok, care to inform me what it is about testicles that somehow make superior leaders? Because I'm just about ready to call bullshit on you.

[LastPoet]

Kiko should really try this at the atheism+ forum. It would certainly be a blast

[Kiko]

Freeze. Hold it right there. I asked you a simple question, which was :

What's wrong with TAKING CARE OF YOUR KIDS?

Try again.

I never said anything about that specific issue. I need to know the context of the question before I can answer.

I mean, I could give an answer, but it would probably piss off a lot of people.

No, it's my way of saying that men are generally better leaders.

Ok, care to inform me what it is about testicles that somehow make superior leaders? Because I'm just about ready to call bullshit on you.

How about you tell me what it is about history that makes women as good at leading as men.

---

Kiko should really try this at the atheism+ forum. It would certainly be a blast

Tell me more.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

How about you prove your own assertions instead of asking someone else to disprove it?

[TaraJo]

How about you tell me what it is about history that makes women as good at leading as men.

Men took leadership positions in prehistoric times when societal needs were vastly different and big, manly muscles were kinda important. Nowadays, intelligence is a more important leadership trait than muscles, but culture has a nasty habit of lagging; because of that, there are plenty of people like yourself who seem to think men make better leaders without any good reasons for it.

[LastPoet]

Tell me more.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/index.php

As to men being better leaders, I don't think so, there are so many women that are excellent leaders, to the same level to the best men leaders.

In essesnce it isn't about gender, its about people. There are people that make good leaders, there are some that want to be leaders, but suck at it, and many that avoid leadership but would make good leaders. Gender has nothing to do with this. If you are going to make claims, you better substantiate them with evidence, because claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence.

[TaraJo]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/index.php

Damn. Sometimes I'm tempted to join that forum just to see how long it takes before I get myself banned. I'm guessing 2-3 hrs.