Prejudice against women

[Drea]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

[Black Dog]

Don't men feel any "pressure" or wish to continue the family line?

Maybe. But not to the same degree as women. When wa sthe last time you heard a man stressing about his biological clock.

How can you say the people of Afghanistan NEVER HAD ANY RIGHTS?

I didn't. You did, and I quote: "Never having a right is not a denial of rights."

So, by your logic, the women of Afghanistan, the majority of whom are rural and have never known any life other than the tribal, patriarchal system, the majority of whom are Pashtun (the folks behind such charming old proverbs as "Women belong in the house or in the grave."*) who are kept around mainly for their domestic work and for breeding more men and who have never had the kind of rights we're supposedly there to give them, these women, by your logic, not only are not denied any rights, but actually consent to their status as fourth class citizens. And don't shout at me because your argument sucks.

Oh and your little literary non sequiter? Yeah, it kinda helps me out:

Each of the men Edwards profiles were engaged in the political struggles of the country's recent history

I wonder: what of the women?

It makes me think alright. That all liberals must be so convinced, like you, of their own rightness that they can't see through their own fallacies and irrational thought processes and so go on blindly living in their fantasy world...believing that one day the whole world will be right....or should I say left.

Please: tell me what fallacies I've engaged in here. Point out the flaws in my argument.

I bet your favorite song is, "Imagine." It was voted #1 song of the 20th CENTURY, by the Liberal CBC.

Talk about believing in a pseudo-marxist trudeaupian world.

Really? I'm painting an ugly picture of power cruelly and arbitrarialy executed while you shut your eyes, hold your hands over your ears and deny any problem.

I've said it all, and you've said nothing of any value that would change my mind. Or change reality.

Translation: "LA LA LA. I'm not listening!"

Hasta la vista. I won't be back, bebe.

You been pwned! LOL

[Biblio Bibuli]

Don't men feel any "pressure" or wish to continue the family line?

Maybe. But not to the same degree as women. When was the last time you heard a man stressing about his biological clock.

OLOL !

[Drea]

Behind Closed Doors: The Invisibility Of Domestic Violence

A recent study by the World Health Organization found that intimate personal violence (IPV) rates around the world varied from 15% in Yokohama, Japan to 71% in Ethiopia. Here in the U.S. one out of four women will be assaulted by a partner during her lifetime.

Nope, women arent' oppressed... no sirree. One in four. That means if 8 women are in a room, 2 of them are being beaten by their husbands. If this isn't oppression, nothing is.

[jefferiah]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

I dont always agree with feminists Drea. And I am very conservative in many ways. But I think men and women are equal. I think women should have whatever jobs men can have, equal pay. I dont think it matters if a woman is not married. I am not married. I am a man. So what. But the feminist movement does have some whacky people in it too. I think they have done a lot for women though, perhaps. But still I wouldnt support them. Some of them are quite extreme I think. I heard something not to long ago about women at a certain company making less yearly than the men. This statistic outraged alot of women, but upon further investigation it was found that the hourly wages were the same, but women were working less hours and less overtime. It appears the reason for this was that the women wanted to get home to be with the kids after school. Whatever. Maybe alot of these women had husbands who said you are the woman you gotta come home when they get home from school. I dont know. Maybe alot of these women chose it personally. I think its probably a mixture. But either way the company is not to blame, right. Anyways, yep there is a lot of injustice to women still. But I wouldnt agree with the whole feminist movement either. I mean if you or I dont choose to marry thats fine right. But there was prominent feminist, I cant remember the name right now, who said women will never be free until we destroy the institution of marriage. And another who suggested women should all become lesbians.

[jefferiah]

The thing about movements is that although they may often be right in some respects, sometimes they take an opposite extreme. So even though I believe in equality i dont trust all those who claim to represent it. I dont know Gloria Steinem personally, but I would carefully examine all things she says. Women have had to fight the monster of oppression for a long time. But, as I think Nietzsche (another man i dont always trust, but who has hit the nail on the head about something more than once) said "take care that when fighting monsters you dont become the monster".

[betsy]

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

I do not deny that there were..and there are still oppressions happening in oppressive regimes.

And yes, I support some of the causes that the Womens' Group had fought for.

But I still do believe that this is not really a gender thing. It is about power.

And...no, when we're speaking of America, I still do not believe that women were oppressed. Oppression is not the term that I would use.

I will continue this discussion with you in a while...just have to go right now.

[betsy]

Nope, women arent' oppressed... no sirree. One in four. That means if 8 women are in a room, 2 of them are being beaten by their husbands. If this isn't oppression, nothing is.

Yeah, some scenario may fall under "oppression"....but you can't generalize that all violence that involve women is all about oppression. Depends on each case. Not that I approve of any violent response...unless it really warrants it like self-defense... towards the weaker sex....but there are cases where-in the woman is the first one to do violence to a man. If a woman flew at a man and started scratching his face and pummeling him, and the man shoved her....yes, it is violence....but will you use the term, "oppression?"

You think wife-abuse is not about power? Power that is being wielded by a husband who happens to be a jerk or a tooney? Strength can mean power.

I can just imagine Danny de Vito beating the daylights out of...Charlize Theron. Or Rosie O'Donell.

Hey, here's a good one: abuse is a problem too among same-sex couple! Same gender.

[Black Dog]

But I still do believe that this is not really a gender thing. It is about power.

What does this even mean? Feminsism, really, isn't about gender, but identifying and addressing the power imbalance between genders.

[Rue]

I appreciate Besty's honesty in her response. Look I do not doubt I have a male bias in my response, but I think its dangerous to equate bafoon behaviour in the house of commons with far more serious issues. All it does is take away from the serious of certain issues and lump them in with trivial issues.

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

To try make politics of this comment is patronizing and suggests women are so weak and thin skinned that

such a comment turns them into quivering wrecks. Seeing all the Liberal women line up turned them into

trivial charactatures of themselves and their gender.

To top it off, watching all the male members of parliament such as Saint Jack of Layton trot out their usual

self-righteous b.s. is a joke. It fools no one.

Give it a rest on the issue. The average Canadian is not that stupid that they can be manipulated and if you want to try make browny points from it youd own play the seriousness of real issues.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

As for Ms. Stronach and any other women who genuinely would have me believe they are weak and have fallen apart over this and feel traumatized, I have three words for you - get over it.

[Black Dog]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

[JerrySeinfeld]

In regards to the McKay incident, we know what he said. He said "you have her" in response to Mr. McGuinty commencing the stupidity by making a reference to McKay's dog. It is the utmost in hoppocracy for McGuinty to turn this into what it has become. He is equally as stupid. Technically all McKay said was "you have her" he did not say she was a dog and the inference has come from McGuinty, Layton and anyone else who wants to act all outraged and self-righteous. If he had said you already her, the dog... he would then have to apologize. But at no time did he say she was a dog and the rest is being inferred and in a world of free speech inference and actually saying something is what turns things into trivial pursuit.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake).

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

Now in regards to the world wide trade in women and children as sex slaves or domestic violence or abuse, lets get real and deal with such substantive issues.

I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women.

Because you choose to project "dog" to refer to "women" is a window into your own viewpoints.

Other than that it has nothing to do with Women - and Stronach should be chided for attempting to play that very weak card. Pretty rich coming from the last person women would want to model their lives after.

[Biblio Bibuli]

If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it.

He is a bad liar.

Isn't it the #1 requirement for politicians, ESPECIALLY the ones in high places, to be expert liars? To make lies sound truthful, to know when to hold onto lies and when to fold them, to when in doubt tell the truth?

Good thing is that Stephen Harper now knows that he's got an absolute amateur in a high position ... let's see how long it takes before he's got Pete where he belongs, in the dog house (aka back bench).

As Mark Steyn (or was it Aristotle, I always mix those two up) once said ... "Liars when they speak the truth are not believed".

Canada doesn't need proven liars in high places, ESPECIALLY not in Foreign Affairs.

[Black Dog]

Because you choose to project "dog" to refer to "women" is a window into your own viewpoints.

Other than that it has nothing to do with Women - and Stronach should be chided for attempting to play that very weak card. Pretty rich coming from the last person women would want to model their lives after.

Let's assume for a second that McGuinty's account of events is accurate. McGuinty made a remark about MacKay's dog and MacKay responds with "You already have her." So, tell me: to what was he referring? Are you saying that MacKay was implying that McGuinty was in possession of MacKay's actual canine companion? And that the gesture towards Stronach's seat was...perhaps a nervous tic? Please enlighten me as to alternate explanations. I'm sure it will be as scintillating and enlightening as the rest of your contributions to this board...

[JerrySeinfeld]

Because you choose to project "dog" to refer to "women" is a window into your own viewpoints.

Other than that it has nothing to do with Women - and Stronach should be chided for attempting to play that very weak card. Pretty rich coming from the last person women would want to model their lives after.

Let's assume for a second that McGuinty's account of events is accurate. McGuinty made a remark about MacKay's dog and MacKay responds with "You already have her." So, tell me: to what was he referring? Are you saying that MacKay was implying that McGuinty was in possession of MacKay's actual canine companion? And that the gesture towards Stronach's seat was...perhaps a nervous tic? Please enlighten me as to alternate explanations. I'm sure it will be as scintillating and enlightening as the rest of your contributions to this board...

even if mackay referred to A PARTICULAR woman - ie. Belinda Stronach - as a dog, your stretch implying that any reference to her as a dog would then translate into a statement about an ENTIRE GENDER is a window into your own viewpoints and generalizations about genders.

Using your flawed and implicitly sexist logic, referring to Peter Mackay as an asshole would be an insult to the entire male population.

[Black Dog]

even if mackay referred to A PARTICULAR woman - ie. Belinda Stronach - as a dog, your stretch implying that any reference to her as a dog would then translate into a statement about an ENTIRE GENDER is a window into your own viewpoints and generalizations about genders.

Pity for you I did no such thing. To quote myself: "Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarks were anti-women or that he's a misogynist..." So quite clearly, I'm acknowledging (in fact, endorsisng) the view that MacKay was referring to one particular woman and not women in general.

Now that I've batted away that gnat of an argument, would you be so kind as to answer my question and tell me what, if not Stronach, MacKay could have been referring to in his comment to McGuinty?

[JerrySeinfeld]

even if mackay referred to A PARTICULAR woman - ie. Belinda Stronach - as a dog, your stretch implying that any reference to her as a dog would then translate into a statement about an ENTIRE GENDER is a window into your own viewpoints and generalizations about genders.

Pity for you I did no such thing. To quote myself: "Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarks were anti-women or that he's a misogynist..." So quite clearly, I'm acknowledging (in fact, endorsisng) the view that MacKay was referring to one particular woman and not women in general.

Now that I've batted away that gnat of an argument, would you be so kind as to answer my question and tell me what, if not Stronach, MacKay could have been referring to in his comment to McGuinty?

First things first - I'd be interested to see how your weak attempt at logic can link an MP making a comment about a particular woman as being a comment upon our society's view of women as a whole?

Can't wait to see this squirminess....

[Black Dog]

First things first - I'd be interested to see how your weak attempt at logic can link an MP making a comment about a particular woman as being a comment upon our society's view of women as a whole?

Ah, now I see what your getting at. Your approach is so confused its hard to make heads or tales of it.

You're referring to this statement I made above: "But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women."

I'll have to bring you along slowly. First: can you think of a common derogatory term for women with canine connotations?

[Biblio Bibuli]

As Mark Steyn (or was it Aristotle, I always mix those two up) once said ...

I always knew that they shared wisdom. What I didn't know was that they also looked alike. The pictures of both of these titans, Mark & Ari, are side by side in today's NP, and the resemblance is absolutely stunning.

LOOK!

Here's an excerpt:

"They share wisdom, and facial features

I may have an explanation for the Steynomania sweeping the National Post readership. The recently unearthed bust of Aristotle featured in Wednesday's edition bears a striking resemblance to none other than ... Mark Steyn."

[JerrySeinfeld]

First things first - I'd be interested to see how your weak attempt at logic can link an MP making a comment about a particular woman as being a comment upon our society's view of women as a whole?

Ah, now I see what your getting at. Your approach is so confused its hard to make heads or tales of it.

You're referring to this statement I made above: "But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women."

I'll have to bring you along slowly. First: can you think of a common derogatory term for women with canine connotations?

No. Please enlighten me as to the terminology with which you are obviously familiar.

[betsy]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct.

I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine."

[JerrySeinfeld]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct.

I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine."

Women are cats, men are dogs we all know that.

SO the phrase like "top dog" is an insult to women?

How about someone who "works like a dog"? I suppose this is to be percieved as an insult to women by BLACK DOG and other overwhiney lefties?

How about "DOG AND PONY SHOW"? Surely this is in some way directed at the female underclass as well?

The song "who let the dogs out" certainly must have been misinterpreted by thousands of youths as a song about MEN? Black Dog and his lefty crybabies wouldn't have it! This is secretly a song about poor Belinda and other downtrodden women so oppressd by the societal reference to them -and only them- as animals.

lol

[betsy]

Black Dog everything you've said.... you are so succinct. Thank you.

Betsy, women have been oppressed for centuries. Sometimes throughout history entire groups of people have been oppressed. But even those entire groups who have been oppressed, oppress their women even further.

I have the right to vote, to drive, to live alone (remember when society ostrasized women who weren't married by 25?).... I have these rights because strong women before me fought for them. I'm thankful for all that they've done under the banner of feminism.

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct.

I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine."

Women are cats, men are dogs we all know that.

SO the phrase like "top dog" is an insult to women?

How about someone who "works like a dog"? I suppose this is to be percieved as an insult to women by BLACK DOG and other overwhiney lefties?

How about "DOG AND PONY SHOW"? Surely this is in some way directed at the female underclass as well?

The song "who let the dogs out" certainly must have been misinterpreted by thousands of youths as a song about MEN? Black Dog and his lefty crybabies wouldn't have it! This is secretly a song about poor Belinda and other downtrodden women so oppressd by the societal reference to them -and only them- as animals.

lol

What about the oldie, "How much is that DOGgie in the window?" Definitely a put-down for the women prostitutes.

[betsy]

Deleted.

Wrong thread. Darn!

[Black Dog]

No. Please enlighten me as to the terminology with which you are obviously familiar.

I'd advise that you stop playing dumb if it weren't so obvious that you ain't acting.

Women are cats, men are dogs we all know that.

SO the phrase like "top dog" is an insult to women?

How about someone who "works like a dog"? I suppose this is to be percieved as an insult to women by BLACK DOG and other overwhiney lefties?

How about "DOG AND PONY SHOW"? Surely this is in some way directed at the female underclass as well?

The song "who let the dogs out" certainly must have been misinterpreted by thousands of youths as a song about MEN? Black Dog and his lefty crybabies wouldn't have it! This is secretly a song about poor Belinda and other downtrodden women so oppressd by the societal reference to them -and only them- as animals.

Allow me to introduce you to my friend "context".