Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then don’t be surprised by incels, rise of leaders you hate, and social disharmony.  Everything is connected.  As a Marxist you should know this.  

Another interesting aspect is that humans do adapt... the world has changed many times since 50,000 BC (just as an example) and yet this is the one time that they will not be able to do so. More fascinating logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there gender differences?  Sure.  We experience the world differently based on our genders.  In my view that brings a balance to this world that is necessary.  

 

You say "When female activists meet with verbal opposition — as anyone who watches student protests on YouTube can observe — they are far more likely than men to react emotionally, sobbing or screaming, which effectively shuts down any dialogue.."

 

Men and women both react emotionally.  Women are more likely to cry and sob, men are more likely to react with aggression and anger.  In all cases the logical part of the brain becomes disconnect and civil discourse becomes inaccessible.

 

I think we all have a lot to learn from each other, and rather than using our differences to shame and insult, and toss gasoline of the fuel of gender wars, we should endeavour to make some efforts to understand and appreciate one another and the balance and beauty each bring to the table.

 

Edited by DMGregoire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Another interesting aspect is that humans do adapt... the world has changed many times since 50,000 BC (just as an example) and yet this is the one time that they will not be able to do so. More fascinating logic. 

Entrenching an advantage for one gender or group through policies is a recipe for contempt.  We can’t socially engineer equality any further by giving extra advantages to certain groups because we’re now seeing the results: disenfranchisement and resentment.  It has to stop.  Our legislation/policies have gone too far.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Entrenching an advantage for one gender or group through policies is a recipe for contempt.  We can’t socially engineer equality any further by giving extra advantages to certain groups because we’re now seeing the results: disenfranchisement and resentment.  It has to stop.  Our legislation/policies have gone too far.  

so when is the civil war going to be here.. be sure to give an exact date and time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 12:30 PM, CdnFox said:

well ...  in fairness they haven't been voting as long as we have. Maybe they'll get better at it?

Canada has become a nation of feminist men. I saw a joke the other day on the internet where on the left hand side of the joke was a picture of men in combat gear ready to fight in some battle somewhere. 

On the right hand side was a picture of some so called men who were wearing hippy torn clothing, tattoos and ear rings on their heads and bodies, blue colored hair, and some acting and looking like a bunch of lesbian cowgirls. 

This appears to be what men today are starting to become. Where have all the men gone? They appear to have gone feminine. ☹️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Those statements are not connected. The marian reforms changed how soldiers were orgainzed when the legions WERE formed - it has nothing to do with whether or not they kept a large standing army. 

You're so totally wrong about this it's not even funny anymore.  You're making yourself look like a genuine fool, blathering demonstrable nonsense and you're too ignorant and/or too stubborn to realize (or admit it).  

The Roman Legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

For about 200 years ish after that The army was still conscripts as needed, with a very small number of legions kept active.  They wouldn't even move to standing forces till much later and even then they still did a lot of it by conscription as needed.

By Augustus' reign:

With the army having become professional and permanent, soldiers were needed to fill the legions. All Roman soldiers were either volunteers or voluntarii who signed on for 16 years (later extended to 20 and then again to 25) or conscripts or lecti. Most were volunteers, however, if necessary, recruits could be obtained through a dilectus.

...

The remaining 28 legions were reduced to 25 when Publius Quinctilius Varus lost 3 legions in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Legionary/

You're so completely, and utterly clueless that it's not worth responding to after this.  You're a sad, clueless and angry little man, embarrassing yourself nearly every time you pound something out on the keyboard here. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, taxme said:

Canada has become a nation of feminist men. I saw a joke the other day on the internet where on the left hand side of the joke was a picture of men in combat gear ready to fight in some battle somewhere. 

On the right hand side was a picture of some so called men who were wearing hippy torn clothing, tattoos and ear rings on their heads and bodies, blue colored hair, and some acting and looking like a bunch of lesbian cowgirls. 

This appears to be what men today are starting to become. Where have all the men gone? They appear to have gone feminine. ☹️

well 'masculinity' itself has been deemed to be 'toxic', so even those who think like men have learned to hide it well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're so totally wrong about this it's not even funny anymore.  You're making yourself look like a genuine fool, blathering demonstrable nonsense and you're too ignorant and/or too stubborn to realize (or admit it).  

this is typical of you. In fact it's being shown you were wrong - as you often are becuase you attempt to learn topics as you go on google. When you realize you're wrong you just start lashing out like a child.

Claiming that reforms that took place 600 years or so before the end of the empire prove the empire was in dire peril at the end is dumb. If it was it wouldn't have lasted another 600 years

And the only thing  you demonstrated is that you're trying to justify your position by reading google as fast as you can, and getting it wrong.

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The Roman Legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms.

Sure - well trained and drilled - AS NEEDED. That was one of their greatest strengths - they could raise and train a professional army in no time. Well mostly - occasionally it went badly.

But it would be 100 years after marius before they kept any real standing forces.

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

By Augustus' reign:

That was OVER 100 years later!!!!!!  Holy shit boy - could you look like more of an illiterate dolt! :)  so 100 years after marius they START to begin to have standing forces and EVEN THEN they still raise a lot of what they need when they need it :)

Does NOBODY on the left check dates?!?!

So your claim that the marius reforms created a standing army is only off by a century!!!  LOL  - no biggie :)

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The remaining 28 legions were reduced to 25 when Publius Quinctilius Varus lost 3 legions in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE.

Yeah - they didn't tend to keep them permanently, only based on need so if they abandoned the germanic areas they didn't need to replace them!  DUUUUUUHHHHHH

And again - that was it. THey never threatened rome and the empire went on for another 500 years. That battle made almost no difference to rome, other than to be the end of attempting to take the germanic lands.

So no - the BIGGEST BADASS MAJOR ATTACK the "germans" launched.... basically fizzled. They killed 3 legions - very impressive - but that was it and then they fell back on attacking each other. Rome wasn't bothered a bit.

Your understanding is so pathetic you don't even realize you've proven all my points.

Marius's reforms had nothing to do with standing armies - it would be 100 years before rome bothered with having any other than the pretorian and a couple of standing legions for immeidate security (the legendary 13th being one).

The border skirmishes lasted the entire history of rome and of the byzantine empire - it made no real difference. 1400 years worth of history there - gee for something you claim was catastrophic it sure takes it's time having a fatal impact :)

The western roman empire died because of continuously worse and worse leadership focused on strength rather than skill and increasing beaurocracy that chewed up the available fund.  Not 'germans'.

You look like a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re such a victim of MSM talking points.  The cost of living was lower and America was more energy independent under Trump.  Those are facts.  Trump also launched Operation Warp Speed leading to the fastest and widest availability of free vaccines of almost any country.  Canada was a laggard purchaser of the failed Chinese Sinovax.  We then had to overspend to play catch-up.  That’s the fact, Jack.  

Once again, did you fact-check this?

Aside from you moving the goalposts about being energy independent, no, we weren't closer to being energy independent when Trump was president than we are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Once again, did you fact-check this?

Aside from you moving the goalposts about being energy independent, no, we weren't closer to being energy independent when Trump was president than we are now.

You don’t seem to know basic facts about recent world events.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You did elsewhere - and schools are for education, not PROGRAMMING or sexual grooming. The 'normal' agenda for a school is quite clear - this is a seperate agenda that the Letter people deny and then have to admit to. As i said - nobody trusts you, you lie far too often both personally and as a community.

Schools are for education. Part of education is teaching kids about the real world. Like I said before, some parents may not like that the real world is made up of Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on. But too bad, children need to learn that other religions exist. Likewise, they need to learn that some marriages are people of the same gender, other marriages are people of different genders.

And you can keep screaming "nobody trusts you" like a psychopath, but the truth is that most Americans support trans rights. That's why the Republicans got whooped in the midterms. The transphobia is a losing strategy.

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Seriously. Go back and count.  Cinderella - no parents except an evil step mom. Snow white - no dad. Ariel  - no mom. Nemo - no mom,  Belle in the original - no mom. Rapunzel - no dad.  Bambi -  Mom and dad divorced and dad is deadbeat until mom gets killed. 

Get back here with those goalposts!

Like I said, the movie Descendants has a heterosexual married couple with a son.

Quote

So lets not lie. As i said disney doesn't really even do heterosexual couples. Do they.

Alright then, name a Disney movie that doesn't depict heterosexuality.

Cinderella? Nope, she marries a prince. Snow White? Nope, also marries a prince. Ariel? Becomes a human and marries a prince. Are you noticing a pattern here?

 

Quote

As noted - not a lot of shows where hetero couples were the main characters. The ones that are are all family sit coms that follow a specific model because it's popular and it's harder to explain how a gay couple has three children.

The gay couple adopted a child. There, I explained it.

Sitcoms have been featuring main cast couples since the days of The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy. The latter even had a son. Was that GROOMING because it depicted heterosexuality and even a child that was the product of sex? No, because that's not the real issue here. The issue is homophobic weirdos who clutch their pearls over a gay couple being depicted as normal.

Quote

And schools have been moving away from secularism and don't recognize ANY holidays that aren't offical ones. So - perfect example

Any evidence for that? 

 

Quote

 

"The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion with teachers, academics and a "panel of experts," the company told AP."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033

 

 

So, in other words, there was no mob of people demanding the books stop being published. This wasn't "cancel culture," this was a private company deciding to stop publishing a few books after private discussions. Which was exactly my claim.

I accept your apology.

 

Quote

It's hilarious that you CONSTANTLY CLAIM that the republicans BANNNNNEEEEEDD BOOOOOOOKS - for taking them out of school libraries only but claim that ceasing the sale entirely and removing them from ALL libraries is not a book ban.

So here's the difference. In the Dr Seuss case, a private company is no longer publishing their own material. I disagree with the decision, but a private company can do what it wants with its own property.

In the DeSantis cases, Republicans are banning libraries from renting out books that neither party owns. It's politicians using state power to censor people, as opposed to people choosing to not rent out their own material.

It would be like if you wrote a book, but decided not to publish it, as opposed to you writing a book, publishing it, and then the government banning stores from selling it. The latter case would be authoritarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So, in other words, there was no mob of people demanding the books stop being published.

5 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Schools are for education.

But not indoctrination.  And it's not appropriate to be teaching children about sex and complex issues like that too early.

And pretending that it's ok doesn't make it ok. Sorry for the inconvenience.

And it's true - nobody trusts you. Thats why when people accuse you of grooming everyone finds it believable.

Quote

Get back here with those goalposts!

Yawn.  typical - i prove you're wrong and you resort to cheezy buzzwords.

I said disney doesn't do hetero parent relationships. You claim oh yes they do they do all the time i just saw it freeeeaaak oooouttt.

So  i list 'em.  And you claim that somehow is moving the goalposts.

What a disgusting liar you are

Quote

The gay couple adopted a child. There, I explained it.

"a" child? YOu need 3 or 4 for a good family sit com.  It's not really believable that a gay couple would do that, so it gets complicated to write.

How many gay couples do you know that adopted 4 kids?  It's not really a common thing.

So you can pretend it is - but we both know you're lying.

Much easier to say they're a hetero family with 4 kids.

8 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So, in other words, there was no mob of people demanding the books stop being published.

Definitely not - the radical left is in the minority and the vast majority did not have a problem with the books. That's the thing about cancel culture - you don't need a tonne of people for it to work.
So a bunch of left wing freaks demanded it and got it. And of course the left supports that .

The left is ALL about book banning when it suits their agenda. They only want books they like available.

10 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So here's the difference. In the Dr Seuss case, a private company is no longer publishing their own material. I disagree with the decision, but a private company can do what it wants with its own property.

In the DeSantis cases, Republicans are banning libraries from renting out books that neither party owns.

So here's the lie in what you said.  The book company was approached and pressured by outside forces to give up their books.  they didn't go seek those peole out - they came and said 'Your book is unacceptable, kill it or we'll cancel you".

And desantis, the guy in charge of PUBLIC services is banning books from PUBLIC SCHOOL libraries that his gov't is directly responsible for. But the company can still sell the books, nobody's trying to cancel them.

Soooooo.  Yeah.  The left wing's version is a lot closer to a book banning. And a gov't deciding what goes in a gov't run library is actually pretty normal.

So you can complain about his  non -ban 'book banning' after you decide that the leftwing actual book banning is not ok.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

I do, because I get my news from multiple sources and I fact-check as much as possible.

America is closer to being energy independent now than we were under Trump.

ROFLMAO!!!!!  - you get your news from multiple LEFT WING sources and i notice that it's always the same :)

You ignore anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

That's why it's obvious to this guy and everyone around you that you are in fact ill-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO!!!!!  - you get your news from multiple LEFT WING sources and i notice that it's always the same :)

You ignore anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

That's why it's obvious to this guy and everyone around you that you are in fact ill-informed.

Actually, I also get news from liberal media. And like I said, I fact-check often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But not indoctrination.  And it's not appropriate to be teaching children about sex and complex issues like that too early.

"Indoctrination" is just a buzzword. What fascists really mean when they say "indoctrination" is just facts that they don't like. Teaching kids the fact that gay people exist is "indoctrination."

I do think we should encouraging kids to ask questions and be curious, but some things are just facts. Gay people exist, the world is round, Switzerland is in Europe, trees grow upwards, and so on.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And it's true - nobody trusts you. Thats why when people accuse you of grooming everyone finds it believable.

So how come most Americans support LGBT rights? How come the Republicans got their cheeks clapped in the midterms?

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I said disney doesn't do hetero parent relationships.

And I proved that you're wrong. Descendants has a hetero marriage with a son. Furthermore, virtually every Disney movie depicts heterosexuality in some form, such as Ariel becoming human so she can marry a prince. Media has been educating children on the reality of human sexuality since forever. It's only when there's a gay couple that it's an issue.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Definitely not - the radical left is in the minority and the vast majority did not have a problem with the books. That's the thing about cancel culture - you don't need a tonne of people for it to work.
So a bunch of left wing freaks demanded it and got it. And of course the left supports that .

First of all, we don't know if the people they consulted were left-wing. They could have been liberal, apolitical, or even conservatives who just thought publishing the books were a waste of money.

Secondly, "cancel culture" is the idea that a crazy group of lunatics is demanding that something be censored. Cancel culture is not when a private company has a meeting with consultants about a few books that most people didn't even know existed.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And desantis, the guy in charge of PUBLIC services is banning books from PUBLIC SCHOOL libraries that his gov't is directly responsible for. But the company can still sell the books, nobody's trying to cancel them.

But you understand that is authoritarian, yes? The government is banning books from public libraries because they don't like the content.

This is nothing like a private company choosing to stop publishing their own property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

"Indoctrination" is just a buzzword.

no, it's a real word.  It means what it's used for. "Goalposts" is a buzzword.

 

4 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

So how come most Americans support LGBT rights?

Because most americans and Canadians think that there's nothing wrong with being gay. And just like most heteros most gays are decent people.  But - groups like the far left and the far right have agendas that normal people are leery of.  So when people like yo say "C'mon, there's no agenda here, we just think it'd be great if crossdressers in sexy outfits read gay positive stories to children for no reason!" there's a fair bit of distrust.

That's why "woke" has become a pejorative.

6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

And I proved that you're wrong.

Nope - i was correct. You tried to change the question to 'displays heterosexual behavior' or some stupid thing but that wasn't the issue - the issue was how many have hetero married main characters - i noted that in almost every single disney film there is only one parent, or they're both dead. 

Sorry - what were you saying about goalposts :)  The left always tries to accuse others of what they do :)

9 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

First of all, we don't know if the people they consulted were left-wing.

Yeah we do. Ferociously so.  Prove me wrong.  Lets see any sources that contradict that.

They were very left wing, I heard some interviews with a few of them.

10 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

But you understand that is authoritarian, yes?

It would depend - i had undestood that these were only public libraries associated with schools. In such a case no, that's not authortarian the gov't is supposed to make decisions about what is or isn't age appropriate

If they're saying NO libraries ANYWHERE can carry the book then yes that's very authortarian and i would be opposed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

no, it's a real word. 

It's a real word when it's used in good faith. But when you say "indoctrination" you really just mean education about facts that you don't like. Conservatives don't have a problem with right-wing children's media.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Because most americans and Canadians think that there's nothing wrong with being gay. And just like most heteros most gays are decent people.  But - groups like the far left and the far right have agendas that normal people are leery of.  So when people like yo say "C'mon, there's no agenda here, we just think it'd be great if crossdressers in sexy outfits read gay positive stories to children for no reason!" there's a fair bit of distrust.

So you're lying when you say the drag queens are in sexy outfits. As for the rest, nobody is denying there is an agenda here. The agenda is to normalize the breaking of gender roles. And the reason the Republicans got stomped in the midterms is because normies are generally alright with this. You keep saying normal people don't trust the "far-left agenda." The truth is that your version of "far-left" is the normie view in America and most of the western world.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - i was correct. You tried to change the question to 'displays heterosexual behavior' or some stupid thing but that wasn't the issue - the issue was how many have hetero married main characters - i noted that in almost every single disney film there is only one parent, or they're both dead. 

No, I said that Disney depicts straight couples all the time. And you were incorrect because even if we're just talking marriage, I said that the movie Descendants features a straight married couple with a son. You don't have to admit you're wrong, I know conservatives are too cowardly to ever do so.

The point is, children's media regularly depicts heterosexuality and it's never an issue. It's only an issue for the fascists when it's gay people represented in any way.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah we do. Ferociously so.  Prove me wrong.  Lets see any sources that contradict that.

They were very left wing, I heard some interviews with a few of them.

Source?

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It would depend - i had undestood that these were only public libraries associated with schools. In such a case no, that's not authortarian the gov't is supposed to make decisions about what is or isn't age appropriate

But this isn't really about age, it's about censoring ideas that the government doesn't like. "And Tango Makes Three" doesn't have any explicit material. But because it's about two male penguins adopting a baby penguin, it was banned.

Why can't you just admit that you're fascist? Do you not think you can make good arguments for fascism being a better system than democracy? We can argue fascism vs socialism if you weren't such a sissy-ass beta.

Edited by Americana Antifa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nationalist said:

Define acceptance. I think most folks accept them. But I suspect you want more than acceptance.

Most people in the western countries accept them, but when it comes to trans identity, it's only a slight majority.

And part of acceptance on a social level is representation. If gay people are completely invisible in children's media, then we clearly haven't accepted gay rights as a society. Like I said earlier, Disney depicts heterosexuality in virtually every movie. Why can't homosexuality be depicted in at least a few Disney movies with mild regularity?

Ever hear of the Scully Effect? This is why representation matters.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/xfiles-dana-scully-effect-women-stem/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Most people in the western countries accept them, but when it comes to trans identity, it's only a slight majority.

And part of acceptance on a social level is representation. If gay people are completely invisible in children's media, then we clearly haven't accepted gay rights as a society. Like I said earlier, Disney depicts heterosexuality in virtually every movie. Why can't homosexuality be depicted in at least a few Disney movies with mild regularity?

Ever hear of the Scully Effect? This is why representation matters.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/xfiles-dana-scully-effect-women-stem/

Abnormal sexual behavior is a fact of life. So is insanity. Should we normalize that for children too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Abnormal sexual behavior is a fact of life. So is insanity. Should we normalize that for children too?

It depends. Do you mean we should normalize mental health the same way we normalize physical health? I think we should teach kids to treat mentally ill people with the same compassion we treat paraplegic people. And we should definitely destigmatize mental illness so people are more willing to go to therapy if they need it. 

As for sexual behavior, that's more of a high school thing. With grade school, we should just have LGBT representation.

Though high school sex ed does need to expand too. One of the reasons gay and bi people have more STDs is because sex ed is heterocentric and super vanilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...