Women live in world built by men. We have oppressed them for far too long and are now trying to make up for our actions by granting them certain advantages. We take pity on them in a way. Women are the most dangerous because they can be tigers in sheep clothing. Ultimately, it is because of their perceived inferiority that they can get away with a lot.
Yes, and their talors being males in power that give them the sheep clothing to wear. It isn't because they are seen as inferior. I can give many examples, one of them being a boy getting stripped by three girls, with video proof of it happening. The girls didn't need to hide in "sheep clothing", the law just decided and put it on the report as "Just some girls playing a prank". It becomes obvious the law side of society is babying females, not getting fooled by them.
We pity them. Babying in my opinion is a form of treatment that shows inferiority. Also, keep in mind of how I stated in my original comment that the female libido is portrayed as very low. Of course the sex drive of men is obvious, but not women. Rape is a touchy subject as people believe that it cannot be done by a female, when in actuality it can, I would know.
But we're not talking about rape. I'll stick to what I said, babying people is a treatment that expresses inferiority. When we take care of children we do it knowing that they cannot take care of themselves. Thus, we see them as inferior in some regard.
Also. "We" haven't oppressed "them" at all. You haven't oppressed women today, and neither have I, and women today aren't being oppressed by people today. So saying "we", people that did no oppressing, are to make up for "our", not ours" actions towards "Them", none of the women today", is just so wrong.
If I was to say "Americans need to make it up for the British for the revelation" simply because British people died in the past, and as I'm British, should they treat me special? No, so why should women today be treated better for things I never done, and things they never went through?
If we're going by that logic, we should just force all those women to sign up to the military, since males were forced in to it when the wars were happening, while women didn't need to, not to mention when they would humiliate males for not going in to war, which actually happened.
To answer your second paragraph, I never once stated that we should treat women better. I'm stating that we do. Blacks were oppressed in the past and now we, as in the nation of America, is trying to make up for it by giving them advantages. I'm sure you know this but a white male has less of a chance to be accepted into a college than his black counterpart simply because of ethnicity. America wants to right the historical wrongs that it committed and by granting people that it has wronged special privileges is the route that they are going about.
I'm not saying what America should do, I'm merely stating what it is doing.
Sorry, I assumed you thought we should be doing that. My apologies.
I'm against that happening, nobody is responsible for it today, and nobody suffers from it today, so why shou;d white heterosexual males be less taken care of than people that had no wrong done on them? Just irritates me.
Again, I apologize. I thought you agreed with it happening, that was my bad for assuming.
As a Hispanic male I completely agree that it is unfair to white males today. We have evolved since the Jim Crow days and are more accepting of other races. I think that we should all have an equal chance of going to college. However, I do think that schools need diversity. But that still shouldn't mean that a person should get special privileges because of something that he can't control, like skin color.
Oh and really it's alright. Honestly, I'm glad that I actually got to argue with ItDuz. So thanks.
Ya sorry about that. I've seen how you deal in arguments. I thought that I should approach you as logically as possible. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed this debate just because it seemed very tamed compared to how others react to arguments. Also, and I apologize if this is creepy, but I think that this was the first ever full length conversation I've ever had with you and you seem like an interesting person to talk to.
I preffer those types of arguments, the calm logical ones. I enjoyed the debate aswell, for the exact same reasons you did. It's not creepy at all. I actually enjoy debating with you, you seem like a calm, see both sides type of person, which is rare on here.
I agree. I was actually a little frustrated when I say that no one on here actually gave a direct answer to your question on the poll. It's like as if they were ashamed to or something. I keep hearing that we're all just one big family yet it seems that some people are scared to give an opinion on this issue.
Well, thanks, it means a lot coming from you. But we also need people like you on IIN. I mean I know I said that you can cold sometimes, but the truth isn't always pretty. I'm glad that you can be honest about most topics. Some people need to hear the truth.
By the way, you never responded when you asked me if I could name a female with as much power as Hitler. I'll quote what I said cause I want your opinion on her.
"Cleopatra controlled men with her looks. She ruled an entire society because of her ability to control the masses with her beauty. Hitler was brilliant at persuasion as well. The only difference between the two is how they used their power."
Also, Catherine the Great would be another example of a female who ascended to king status. Though her actions were a bit different.
Thanks for your understanding. A lot of the time I myself realize I can be cold when unneeded, but I feel like most of my honesty is a cold truth.
Sorry, I never seen that bit, I'll respond to it now. I would say most of her actions were possible due to her beauty. Yes, she was impressive, far more than many males in history, but it was her looks that mainly allowed her to get that far, which was something that didn't require skill, it was something that by coinsidence (her looks). Where as Hitler wasn't attractive, and he got that far without the benefit of being beautiful/attractive. I don't think that she can be compared to Hitler in the sense of why they got so far by their own control, where as Cleopatra got that far alot of it due to her beauty, not the other traits she had. Very impressive woman, and I wish I had more time to read up on her and give more points, but I'm having to write this out on the sneaky side; I've sneaked on my brother's computer, which he doesn't like. To sum it up: I think she doesn't compare to Hitler, Hitler done what he did by his skills that weren't given to him at birth, where as Cleopatra's main trait for her getting far was given at birth, something that required no skill etc.
I'll have to get back at you on the Catherine part. When my computer is fixed, and you see me comment on something in about a weeks time from now, it'll be when I'm on my own computer, so remind me of her so I can get back to you on this subject.
Thanks for reminding me of that point, I didn't see it on your previous one.
I'll admit that Cleopatra got to power because of something that was out of her control. However, being a brilliant orator is also a skill that someone is born with. I mean, do you think that you can convince others to join a cult? Some people can't become brilliant orators. I mean would you take Rodney King seriously if tried to convince to kill Jews? I think that both leaders got to power because of natural gifts.
Oh and that's kind of odd to hear that you have a brother. I've always pictured you as an only child.
I agree, using the tools you're given is great, but compared to using worse tools and doing far more with the lesser tools, and going further than someone using great tools they were born with, then I see that as being more impressive.
I have quite a few simblings, half of them I don't even know. I live with an older and younger brother.
My life is pretty boring since I moved away from Wales. I'm mainly on my computer, and when I'm not, I'm working on the farm, feeding the horses, etc. One of our horses just gave birth a few days ago, so more work. I now live in an isolated area. I just moved here a while ago, and I hopefully will get to college soon.
All this time I thought you lived in America. Working on a farm seems pretty cool. Although being isolated seems a little odd. I mean it's fun for a while but then you sort of start to miss civilization. On the bright side at least you're never bored. Plus I'm amusing that you get fresh breakfast.
If only I lived in America. I heard it's pretty hard there, but I think I would preffer being there than being in the UK. It seems cool, but it can get tiring and boring. I agree, civilization is definetly being missed. Although, I've moved here and haven't really met people my age to engage in social activity, so being around city areas would be pointless if I have nothing to do. I am always bored, most areas bore me, only one place has been interesting, and that was due to someone I knew being there, not the actual place itself.
What's even worse is that the connection here is terrible.
I think you've mentioned him before. He sounds like a good friend. I live in California and granted it's safe and beachy here, but it can get boring. Can you drive? If so then you can get your friends and hang out and stuff.
Yeah, he is the only friend worth mentioning. We done most things together. California sounds nice, wanna' trade? I can't drive, sadly. I have no real need to drive at this moment in life, but I hope to get my license when I hit around 23-25.
That's a pretty late time to get your license. Why so late? I'm planning to get mines by the end of the year. In all honesty, I would actually love to trade. Summer's coming up and England sounds like an interesting place to visit. I mean the scenery looks amazing. Women are pretty attractive, not that I'm a ladies man or anything. Also, I think that it would be great to live in a different society than this one.
Friends are good to have, I know that I probably wouldn't have made it this far if it wasn't for them.
Yeah, but I don't really have much need for one, and I doubt I will for a while, but I can't see the future, so I might get it sooner for some reason. It gets pretty boring, but maybe you believe the same of the area you live, it's just that we haven't experienced the other's area of living.
The females are definetly lacking in attractiveness nowadays here. The majority of them are using make up so much that it looks like their makeup is actually chocolate spread. Like Snooki, she is the person they seem to be taking inspiration for style from...If you can say she has style...
The women here aren't attractive. I don't mean to sound shallow but there aren't really any attractive girls around here, at least not at my school. According to my best friends sister, who actually met Snooki, she's is quite nice but extremely short, like 5ft. Most girls here aren't anything special, then again I'm still in high school so everyone is pretty much the same, not that I'm any different.
I agree, I think we both find where we live boring but because we've never experienced each others societies we're curious. Yes, where I live its pretty boring, very safe, but boring none the less.
You know I still think that going to England would be fun. I heard that I could just take a bus every cause it's so small over there. On top of all that I could go and explore Europe. I've always wanted to see Auschwitz and the Eiffel Tower. You're lucky that at least you can leave and go to different countries cheaply.
LOL What a squishy post! The US is pretty boring if you're not interested in certain things and/or people. The state you live in has the biggest factors. Alabama- horrid. Uneducated, unattractive, boring. Florida- If you have money it's great, however, if you live Florida you probably don't. Also, the people suck. Just my opinion, though. Don't mind me.
It isn't because they are seen as inferior. I can give many examples, one of them being a boy getting stripped by three girls, with video proof of it happening. The girls didn't need to hide in "sheep clothing", the law just decided and put it on the report as "Just some girls playing a prank". It becomes obvious the law side of society is babying females, not getting fooled by them.
But we're not talking about rape. I'll stick to what I said, babying people is a treatment that expresses inferiority. When we take care of children we do it knowing that they cannot take care of themselves. Thus, we see them as inferior in some regard.
If I was to say "Americans need to make it up for the British for the revelation" simply because British people died in the past, and as I'm British, should they treat me special? No, so why should women today be treated better for things I never done, and things they never went through?
If we're going by that logic, we should just force all those women to sign up to the military, since males were forced in to it when the wars were happening, while women didn't need to, not to mention when they would humiliate males for not going in to war, which actually happened.
I'm not saying what America should do, I'm merely stating what it is doing.
I'm against that happening, nobody is responsible for it today, and nobody suffers from it today, so why shou;d white heterosexual males be less taken care of than people that had no wrong done on them? Just irritates me.
Again, I apologize. I thought you agreed with it happening, that was my bad for assuming.
Oh and really it's alright. Honestly, I'm glad that I actually got to argue with ItDuz. So thanks.
Hey, you didn't only argue with me, you corrected me a few times aswell.
It's not creepy at all. I actually enjoy debating with you, you seem like a calm, see both sides type of person, which is rare on here.
By the way, you never responded when you asked me if I could name a female with as much power as Hitler. I'll quote what I said cause I want your opinion on her.
"Cleopatra controlled men with her looks. She ruled an entire society because of her ability to control the masses with her beauty. Hitler was brilliant at persuasion as well. The only difference between the two is how they used their power."
Also, Catherine the Great would be another example of a female who ascended to king status. Though her actions were a bit different.
Sorry, I never seen that bit, I'll respond to it now.
I would say most of her actions were possible due to her beauty. Yes, she was impressive, far more than many males in history, but it was her looks that mainly allowed her to get that far, which was something that didn't require skill, it was something that by coinsidence (her looks). Where as Hitler wasn't attractive, and he got that far without the benefit of being beautiful/attractive. I don't think that she can be compared to Hitler in the sense of why they got so far by their own control, where as Cleopatra got that far alot of it due to her beauty, not the other traits she had. Very impressive woman, and I wish I had more time to read up on her and give more points, but I'm having to write this out on the sneaky side; I've sneaked on my brother's computer, which he doesn't like.
To sum it up:
I think she doesn't compare to Hitler, Hitler done what he did by his skills that weren't given to him at birth, where as Cleopatra's main trait for her getting far was given at birth, something that required no skill etc.
I'll have to get back at you on the Catherine part. When my computer is fixed, and you see me comment on something in about a weeks time from now, it'll be when I'm on my own computer, so remind me of her so I can get back to you on this subject.
Thanks for reminding me of that point, I didn't see it on your previous one.
Oh and that's kind of odd to hear that you have a brother. I've always pictured you as an only child.
I have quite a few simblings, half of them I don't even know. I live with an older and younger brother.
What's your home life like? If you don't feel comfortable answering you don't have to.
I was probably most active when I lived in Wales.
It seems cool, but it can get tiring and boring. I agree, civilization is definetly being missed. Although, I've moved here and haven't really met people my age to engage in social activity, so being around city areas would be pointless if I have nothing to do.
I am always bored, most areas bore me, only one place has been interesting, and that was due to someone I knew being there, not the actual place itself.
What's even worse is that the connection here is terrible.
I can't drive, sadly. I have no real need to drive at this moment in life, but I hope to get my license when I hit around 23-25.
Friends are good to have, I know that I probably wouldn't have made it this far if it wasn't for them.
The females are definetly lacking in attractiveness nowadays here. The majority of them are using make up so much that it looks like their makeup is actually chocolate spread. Like Snooki, she is the person they seem to be taking inspiration for style from...If you can say she has style...
I agree, I think we both find where we live boring but because we've never experienced each others societies we're curious. Yes, where I live its pretty boring, very safe, but boring none the less.
You know I still think that going to England would be fun. I heard that I could just take a bus every cause it's so small over there. On top of all that I could go and explore Europe. I've always wanted to see Auschwitz and the Eiffel Tower. You're lucky that at least you can leave and go to different countries cheaply.
Yeah, I suppose I am. I want to travel more when I'm older.
The US is pretty boring if you're not interested in certain things and/or people. The state you live in has the biggest factors. Alabama- horrid. Uneducated, unattractive, boring. Florida- If you have money it's great, however, if you live Florida you probably don't. Also, the people suck.
Just my opinion, though. Don't mind me.