CLRV

How many? How many? Again, the difference you are arguing is one of degree only. And the Reign of Terror was a secular phenomenon.

I've already explained. Some Christian extremists busted loose, just like the evil Muslims do. Just like they do when they bomb abortion clinics. Just like they do when they murder doctors. Just like they do when they bomb children because God told them to do it.

I'm also hoping you'll do it without Cosmo. I shudder to think if any of you are actually trying those "19 sexual secrets that will make him crazy".

Nope. It was in your post under "inevitable consequence". It's called dialogue. With each other and with the men around you. Free from revolutionary cant. Free from self-deception.

All you've said there is it's the same thing and the only difference is one of degree. Except for that hilarious bit about the "drugged-out" Christian youth...

Oh dear. Did I get dangerously close to showing feeling or sensitivity there? Sorry. I know men aren't allowed to do that. It's just another of those "advantages" we lord over women. But in this instance I assure you I was calm. I'm just not going to discuss things I didn't say when I do put some effort into saying what I do say. So that's it, is it? Take some responsibility for your liberty and it's back to barefoot in the kitchen; nearly 100 years of progress in women's rights gone at a stroke? I doubt that.

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked, you'd find that most of the things Harper has done that you liked were under pressure from the NDP in exchange for their not swinging parliamentary votes against the PC's flimsy minority government and triggering an election Harper knows he'd lose. It's a safe bet that if such a threat of loss didn't exist, the PC's would be up to the same skullduggery that made you (and most of the rest of Canada) hate Mulroney so much. Maybe you should consider voting NDP for a change.

It's the exact equivalent. They tried to burn the place down. Arson. Ever heard of it? Most normal people would consider it an extreme and unacceptable reaction. Some have already posted their opinion that they didn't go far enough. It's only because these are so-called Christians that this wasn't plastered across the media as evidence of inherent savagery.

I've clearly said it's a good thing women are more sexually liberated. I've clearly said I think labels are unhelpful and put negative pressure on individuals of both sexes. I've said very clearly that women give each other too much slack for bad behaviour and don't give men enough credit for good behaviour. I find it hard to believe that I've been so unclear in my posting that you have somehow gleaned the exact opposite meaning from everything I've said. I can only conclude that you are skimming over or deliberately misinterpreting it so we can have a conversation about what I didn't say instead of what I actually said -- a very common phenomenon in online discussion. Small wonder that you think I'm "off base".

How many are aware that the CEO of the company that sold the lead-painted toys felt so disgraced by the incident that he hung himself? Apparently it's fairly common when Chinese leaders and public figures are disgraced. I wonder how many western CEO's have taken that kind of personal responsibility for their company's actions? oooo... the evil Chinese...

Perfect. Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

What's the difference between wood and water? Re-read my second-to-last sentence...

Precisely. Blatant protectionist measures within the context of a "free trade agreement". Hose job. America has this funny habit of signing agreements and then utterly failing to honour them the first time it becomes inconvenient. For a more recent example, see the Geneva Conventions. Or the disarmament treaties with the Russians (see my comments above about Putin's less than friendly stance these days). If such important documents can be used as so much toilet paper by one US administration, why would anyone in their right mind want to deal with them on something as crucial as water? Soft lumber I can live without. Water?

Canadian's ire over software lumber wasn't over the fact that we're dealing with Americans. It's the hose-job they were giving us on the deal. America invariably uses it's economic (and then it's military) might to sweeten all deals in their favour. Gee, d'ya think *that* might be at the centre of our hesitation to turn on the taps? Or could it be that certain forward-thinking people have recognized that in the reality of climate change, potable water will be more precious than oil in the future? Any deal we make now to sell our water will be seen in a decade's time as about as perspecacious as the Indians selling Manhattan island for a song. That's why Putin is sending his bombers to patrol the arctic again. That's why there are suddenly all these disputes about the resource rights to polar regions. Far from stopping climate change, there are those poised to profit by it. Wars will undoubtably result from this. Water rights will be way up on the list of things to fight about. Count on it.

The "pig" thing is just shorthand for the hump-anything, always ready, totally preoccupied sexual stereotype of men. Some men can feel pressure to try to live up to that. But perhaps that's a topic for another thread about how men are seeing themselves these days. As for how women see themselves... Women are tough on each other in a lot of ways. Chris Rock observed that when a man brings his new girlfriend around his buddies, they think "I gotta get a girl like that" but when a woman brings her new man around her friends they think "I gotta get HIM and I'll cut that bitch's throat to do it." There are plenty of ways that male interaction differs from female, so yeah I'd say there aren't a lot of men these days encouraging their friends to cheat or helping them with useful alibi. I'm sorry to say I have witnessed women doing this. That's why cheating is relevant here. I'm very glad that women are feeling the freedom to enjoy their sex lives. Honestly I am. But the real test is what people do with their freedom. The current stats indicate that more women than men are cheating now. Worse, they are giving each other a pass for it. Look at the tone of that article, the apologia being offered by the female "experts" to explain it. Women just aren't getting it from their marriage. They feel entitled. So that's all right then. I think you might have a harder time finding an article in a current men's mag saying that about cheating men. I know all I would have to do to find such an article is leaf through one of the Cosmo-type women's mags in my girlfriend's bathroom (it's either that or Archie comix -- long story). Well now, you'd have to ask the girls that one, but I think you'd find the answer surprising; especially if you were asking younger women who have been raised to be less repressed about their sexuality -- the ones who are also admitting to more cheating and more sex partners. Yep. And they're not getting half the credit they deserve. Men have been cleaning up their act for decades while the women complain the glass is still half-empty. Meanwhile, women are going around emulating all the worst behavior of men, then absolving themselves. As I said, these are the next steps I see as necessary in the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Sorry if they're too far "south" for some people, but it's how I see it.

Really? How many women have come in here to identify themselves as sluts, while the men cheerfully identify themselves as pigs? If a woman called herself a slut, wouldn't you think she had a problem? Yet here we have men saying "Look at me! I'm a pig!" and no problem. Is this a good thing? The rise of feminism in the past few decades has produced some very worthwhile changes, particularly in the attitudes men hold towards women. For example, most men no longer think a woman's place is in the home or that no really means yes. Yes, you will still find a few anachronistic holdouts on these things. Yes, there is still a ways to go, but there can be no denying some positive changes in male attitudes towards women. Where are the corresponding changes in the way women regard men? Men are still the pigs, even as more and more women cheat. Men are still the polymorphous polygamous perverts, while women are still virtuously monogamous; the pillar of the family, even as the numbers show a different story. In short, as women have gained more and more of the freedoms men have enjoyed, they have begun to do all the crappy things men have been doing. The only difference is, they give themselves a lot more slack for it. When a woman sleeps around, she's not cheating. She's exploring her sexuality. She's emancipating herself from phallocentric domination. When cornered, the final exuse is invariably that men have been doing it so now it's the girls' turn, as if two wrongs made a right. This, I think, is the next major stage in feminist thought. That's the next bulwark to be breached. Note your initial reaction to this whole idea. Why should it be women's responsibility to change? Because with freedom comes responsibility. Because if true equality is to be reached, it means changes for all in how we see ourselves and each other.

Please. There's an enormous double standard. When men do it, they're thinking with the wrong head. When women do it, the sisters are doin' it for themselves.

So now it's time that women admitted that part of themselves too? That's what I've been saying.

Did you think I was saying that men should start calling women pigs? I think a more reasonable interpretation might be that I was saying women should reconsider calling men pigs.

I was more asking when women would start amending this stereotype. It's a safe bet that AskMen.com is men writing and I don't think you'll get any argument about this from men.

This study isn't revealing anything new, apart from the fact that women are now feeling freer to be honest when answering these kinds of questions. The numbers never added up and a "slut" answer only demonatrates lack of statistical understanding. Even the most determined Town Pumps couldn't alter the numbers across the board in that degree. I wonder if such new honesty will also get women to reconsider the "men are such pigs" stereotype? "Common wisdom" currently tells us that men are rampant, uncontrollable sex maniacs who will mindlessly dry-hump anything that gets in their way, while women are almost Vulcan in their sexual self-control. We form this opinion early in our sexual lives, of couse. Young men are indeed as listed above, but the reality is we do chill out after a while. What we never discuss, however, is the same condition tends to affect women around the ages of 35-45. Studies are showing that women are admitting to extra-marital affairs to an equal or even greater degree than their male counterparts, particularly in the mid-life years. Yet we never seem to get around to updating that whole "men are such pigs" thing.

Freemasons run the country!

I figured I'd dumb it down a little, since my eariler direct references to scriptural quotes and the uses made of them by MLK and Ghandi seemed to go over everybody's heads. Note that you still cheerfully overlook their contributions; their direct connections between their faith and their deeds. Too busy digging up centuries-old rubbish about "dark ages" and Egyptian gods.

Well that settles that. It is officially a waste of time providing example and citation to these anti-religious close-minds. One last time, MLK and Ghandi both cited their respective scriptures in their efforts to create the concept of human rights we enjoy today. Abolishionists, suffragettes and civil rights all began in church. A simple web search on the subject shows that the modern concept of human rights was founded in religion. Now they're asking for a Bible quote on stem cell research? What a desperately pathetic rhetorical question. I'm done. There's no convincing anti-religious extremists any more than religious extremists. As I said before, they're two sides of the same coin.

I must be wasting my time providing links within the context of my post, because I'm almost sure the selection from my post you quoted linked to MLK's use of the Sermon on the Mount as the basis for his speech on human rights. It is no coincidence that the abolishonists, the sufferagettes and the civil rights movement all began in churches across America. The seeds of our modern concept of human rights are all to be found in articles of faith. And I can't say I'm going to be convinced to change my view of "religious history" by someone who thinks Moses handed down the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel for "Christians and Christians only". Christ's sermons and Beatitudes are commentary/amendment of the Commandments. Other enlightened spirits have come along since then to add their contributions. Faith evolves as men do. You are citing examples thousands of years old while dismissing contemporary faith moving mountains.