Now listen here, feminism...

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Oh FFS Scrap, did you really imply here women should do the caring for kids, because biology made them more capable to do so?

Yes, because there's suficient evidence to back that up.

Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent.

The majority of evolutionary psychologists I've spoken with would disagree with you on that and have considerable evidence to back that up.

Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers.

The exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology.

Do you have wings on your back??

Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.

In the majority of cases women get primary custody anyways. That is as it should be.

And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.

500 years ago, could a man be the primary caregiver for an infant? fuck no.

The only "bollocks" here is your absurd notion that there are no neurological differences between men and women despite the mountain of science that says otherwise.

Here's some Norwegian "scientists" who are as confused as you are.

[RageBeoulve]

Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.

Why are you doing that?

Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.

['andersom']

Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.

Why are you doing that?

Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly that boys and girls are different in body and mind. I agree that it is good for kids to be raised by more than one person, I agree that kids should have people of both gender making a difference in their life, by being committed to them.

The differences between you and me are not that big, when it comes to this, Rage.

['andersom']

Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent.

The majority of evolutionary psychologists I've spoken with would disagree with you on that and have considerable evidence to back that up.

Evolutionary psychologists will tell me fathers make crap parents?

Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers.

The exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

since when is plenty a word to use for exceptions?

Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology.

Do you have wings on your back??

Of course not, but I do not mind using ways of traveling that go faster than what biology would let my body do.

Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.

In the majority of cases women get primary custody anyways. That is as it should be.

Take a time traveling machine and go back to the stone age, you might be more happy there.

And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.

500 years ago, could a man be the primary caregiver for an infant? fuck no.

with lots of mothers dying during birth, there must have been men being the sole caregiver for kids.

The only "bollocks" here is your absurd notion that there are no neurological differences between men and women despite the mountain of science that says otherwise

Tell me where I said there were no neurological differences.

[RageBeoulve]

Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.

Why are you doing that?

Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly that boys and girls are different in body and mind. I agree that it is good for kids to be raised by more than one person, I agree that kids should have people of both gender making a difference in their life, by being committed to them.

The differences between you and me are not that big, when it comes to this, Rage.

Agreed. I just think feminism has run it's course, that's all.

[El]

Py and Elle are sensible to be sure, but they get their hackles raised when I speak critically of feminism, as if I were speaking critically of women.

That's never going to be ok in my book.

Oh, what, me getting my hackles raised is a problem, but your hackles are all over this damn thread and that's just fine? Serious double standard, dude.

And this is intensity.  What does it say right on our damn front page here, again?

There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.

Yes.

[El]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

[RageBeoulve]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.

Why are you doing that?

Translation:  I got caught red-handed putting words into Pappy's mouth and making straw-man arguments. Instead of making a retraction and perhaps apologizing, I decided to double down and pretend that Pappy was the instigator instead of the victim of my slanderous comments so that I could save face in the eyes of those who aren't paying attention.

Amiright??

[Hannah]

I'm so lost right now and don't get why the heck folks are getting so defensive...I'm to lazy to be defensive or go on it...then again, hey chill and pass the popcorn will ya? 

[Jack]

Some people enjoy the challenging types.

[Hannah]

Some people enjoy the challenging types.

it would seem that way...me I save the energy for a good work out like the work out DVD today kicked my butt! woo wee insanity workouts are well think of them as argument threads here in workout form on steroids 

Edit to add: so you insanity work out to be to dang tired to give a crap about things or type out an 'argument' would be a suggestion I have

[Jack]

Challenging people isn't necessarily about argument. Jack has already challenged you; you found it food for thought.

[El]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

weak.

[RageBeoulve]

Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.

Why are you doing that?

Translation:  I got caught red-handed putting words into Pappy's mouth and making straw-man arguments. Instead of making a retraction and perhaps apologizing, I decided to double down and pretend that Pappy was the instigator instead of the victim of my slanderous comments so that I could save face in the eyes of those who aren't paying attention.

Amiright??

I was talking about your behavior towards hykes, dude. I don't even know what words I was supposed to be putting in your mouth.