pleep: There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed while the white female plantation wives were restricted, they couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

Let a feminist tell history the plantation wives had it harder, or just as hard as the slaves in the field. "Slaves got to vote before women!"

I'm sorry i refuse to be brainwashed by feminism like you guys have.

This is still pure nonsense. They were not children. At that stage you're clearly infringing on rights, and that is oppression/discrimination. They never should have had the right to 'restrict' (ugh, call it what it is) them in the first place, at all. Was the favor returned? Casuistry or sophistry, not sure what to call this. For instance 'less able' is now not equal to 'inferior'? *smh*

Again, you're welcome to your opinions, but wow.

pleep: There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed[/b] while the white female plantation wives were [b]restricted, they couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

How can you even read this crap and not find anything wrong with it?
@bold, so women should be restricted because they are like children and therefore less capable than men? Less capable in terms of what? Physical strength? Men are also less capable when it comes to child bearing but I don't see you advocating restricting the freedom of men on those grounds.

I didn't find the link I was searching for but I think this comes close;

http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0657.pdf

@ Wiegraf Again, did men back then think women were inferior in the worst sense? not necessarily. They were seen as like children are to adults, this is the term i use because they is no other way to describe this concept to you guys. It was not true inferiority, but a gender role based on physical differences. Just like a child is not seen as truly inferior but less able to do certain things. If women were truly considered inferior would men have given their lives for them on the titanic?

Do you discriminate against your kids Mr. feminist, or do you protect them? .... do they sometimes resent you for this?

Once again you guys talk about history but you don't know what life was like back then. For most of human history it was very difficult for women to live alone, especially if they wanted to reproduce. They needed to trade certain freedoms in return for protection and provision, this eventually became a political and social foundation. The collective protection of women, restiricted them, but was balanced because it also sheltered them from most of the physical danger ever-present at that time and also from the incredibly back breaking labor that was needed to build human civilizations. (we still don't know how the pyramids were built, but probably not by women)

Women begin to collectively dislike patriarchy around the 50's mainly because of boredom not suffering. Mircowaves, laundry machines, and dishwashers were starting to make being a stay as home mom unnecesary for the first time. There was not enough work to keep their minds or their bodies occupied. Most young American women at that time had got a taste of independence while the young men were off getting blown up in the war, and they thought this new system would be preferable to living like their mothers did. 10 yrs later the feminist movement pops up and convinces the world that men have oppressed and mistreated women for all of human history.

And before you come up with another half baked argument, keep in mind i don't care if women wanted feminism or not. It doesn't bother me. All i care about is intellectual honesty. Patriarchy has been portrayed as an oppressive system that harmed women when in reality it was balanced and protected them.

Like i said, most men back then were just like you guys are, over-protective of women. You just show it differently now.

fellis:
How can you even read this crap and not find anything wrong with it?
@bold, so women should be restricted because they are like children and therefore less capable than men? Less capable in terms of what? Physical strength? Men are also less capable when it comes to child bearing but I don't see you advocating restricting the freedom of men on those grounds.

I didn't find the link I was searching for but I think this comes close;

http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0657.pdf

Relax lady, im not "advocating" anything, im just telling the truth about history. And yes, society does consider males less capable at raising children, thats why in America the mother usually gets default custody & the dude pays child support.

Ask Mondi cheeks about that.

pleep: Relax lady, im not "advocating" anything. And yes, society does consider males less capable at raising children, thats why in America the mother usually gets default custody.

Ask Mondi cheeks about that.

I wonder why you didn't say men should be slaves or restricted because of child bearing issues.
Just go to bed.
Your mum will be upset if she finds out you sneaked out of bed to use the computer.

^ Is that how you respond when someone proves you wrong? The only inferior women are feminists, as you so often demonstrate

pleep: ^ Is that how you respond when someone proves you wrong? The only inferior women are feminists, as you so often demonstrate

You didn't prove jackrabbit wrong. Stop kidding yourself.
Oh wait, you are still a kid. . .keep kidding yourself then.

haha, 19 is a kid to you? don't you know thats how old many the of the young men who defend your country are?

pleep: haha, 19 is a kid to you? don't you know thats how old the many of the young men who defend your country are?

How are you even pulling off this staying-up-late thing without getting caught? Did your folks travel? You're browsing alone in your room with your phone?
I am filled with curiosity
But seriously though, how many countries were taken into consideration for that your happiness graph?

@pleep, you still miss the point. Discrimination is always oppression, regardless of circumstance. A nobel prize who couldn't get a job as a professor for instance, because she was female (maria mayer). Regardless of how you spin it, ultimately they did not have a say, that is what matters most.

Men oppressed? They could always go home and bully their wives, through antiquity. Sacrifices? Both sides sacrificed so that is moot. Yet, women have been more or else property, through greece to just maybe 100 years ago or so. And again, they were neither children nor inferior (except of course athletically).

Whether they claim to be happy, perceive themselves as being protected etc, moot. They had no say in the issue. That is the very definition of oppression. If it was men doing the oppressing, then the question of who was more oppressed is clear, no? This is fairly simple

wiegraf: @pleep, you still miss the point. Discrimination is always oppression, regardless of circumstance. A nobel prize who couldn't get a job as a professor for instance, because she was female (maria mayer). Regardless of how you spin it, ultimately they did not have a say, that is what matters most.

Men oppressed? They could always go home and bully their wives, through antiquity. Sacrifices? Both sides sacrificed so that is moot. Yet, women have been more or else property, through greece to just maybe 100 years ago or so. And again, they were neither children nor inferior (except of course athletically).

Whether they claim to be happy, perceive themselves as being protected etc, moot. They had no say in the issue. That is the very definition of oppression. If it was men doing the oppressing, then the question of who was more oppressed is clear, no? This is fairly simple

The dude knows he is wrong. He just won't admit it.
Admitting defeat is awfully difficult wiegraf
Try to understand

No, you miss the point. All i am saying is that patriarchy was a balanced system that was not unfairly burdensome to women, I never said men were oppressed don't put words in my mouth.

The definition of the word oppressed is; "To keep from progressing though the use of severe and unjust use of force or authority." That would be to say that men were collectively using harsh authority to prevent women from living better lives, this is silly because the wellbeing of both males and females has always been intertwined. None can progress without the other. To apply the word oppression to patriarchy is a blatant lie.

Whether they claim to be happy, perceive themselves as being protected etc, moot. They had no say in the issue. That is the very definition of oppression.

No that is the very definition of restriction, not oppression. I could spell this out to you guys a million times and you wouldn't understand, because you don't want to accept it. Half of it is because you don't want to look wrong, the other half is stupidity

fellis:
The dude knows he is wrong. He just won't admit it.
Admitting defeat is awfully difficult wiegraf
Try to understand

You r like a little cheerleader rooting for your burly gladiators while they fight the big bad pleep.

pleep: You r like a little cheerleader rooting for your burly gladiators while they fight the big bad pleep.

You're an exposed troll still trolling.

^ You are like a white knight, trying to impress women with the blood of the dragon you slayed ....or rather tried to slay.

pleep: ^ You are like a white knight, trying to impress women with the blood of the dragon you slayed ....or rather tried to slay.

And you are like a kid that doesn't know when he's beat

And you are acting like a bytch in heat woot it rhymes.

now run along fellis.. big burly men are speaking.

pleep: And you are acting like a bytch in heat woot it rhymes.
now run along fellis.. big burly men are speaking.

Who is the big burly men you are referring to?
These children and their fantasies sef.

fellis:

Who are the big burly men you are referring to?
These children and their fantasies sef.

*Logicboy and Wiegraph silently shed a tear... but quickly brush it away with their sleave*

pleep: *Logicboy and Wiegraph silently shed a tear... but quickly brush it away with their sleave*

lol
Whatever.
You lost the argument in this thread and that is what's important
You lost.
Deal with it and stop trying to draw attention from your defeat by being insultive.

lol i lost? ok, the ppl with a brain disagree. This was truth and logic vs brainwashing, emotions and lies, it is not possible for me to loose.

btw. i love it how ur manginas are the only ones who liked that comment

pleep: No, you miss the point. All i am saying is that patriarchy was a balanced system that was not unfairly burdensome to women, I never said men were oppressed don't put words in my mouth.

The definition of the word oppressed is; "To keep from progressing though the use of severe and unjust use of force or authority." That would be to say that men were collectively using harsh authority to prevent women from living better lives, this is silly because the wellbeing of both males and females has always been intertwined. None can progress without the other. To apply the word oppression to patriarchy is a blatant lie.

No that is the very definition of restriction, not oppression. I could spell this out to you guys a million times and you wouldn't understand, because you don't want to accept it. Half of it is because you don't want to look wrong, the other half is stupidity

Same old nonsense. Pleep-kun, watch the way you post if you don't want to be belittled.

-Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
-The state of being subject to such treatment or control.


You have claimed men have suffered as well, yes? That it all balances out. What you call suffer, restrictions, what not, is oppression you m.oron, regardless of how you color it. The mess you think rephrasing will actually mean anything? Or perhaps you have a special version of english you use? Just because some endured it with a smile does not change the nature of the situation. Only sociopaths would see it the way you do. Seriously, you come across as some sort of cheap imitation of eric cartman.

This post, again is sheer stoopidity, but you're welcome to your opinion. And it's just that, a really s.hitty opinion which has no basis in fact or common sense. Equating restriction to oppression.. Did they have a say in framing this restrictions or not you imbe.cile? I would suppose that qualifies as severe and unjust force, no? Or you think they could have just had their way without repercussions of all sorts, hmm? You think they've not been subjected noted and one-sided cruelty through the ages, hmm? You may be in dire need of some emasculating in order to put some sense into that rock you have for a brain.

The rest is your usual nonsense. Stick to bieber for now. I'm off.

Read this post again dumbo, it explains the difference between 'oppression' and 'restriction' for those who are logically impaired.

pleep: There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed while the white female plantation wives were restricted. They couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

Let a feminist tell history the plantation wives had it harder, or just as hard as the slaves in the field. "Slaves got to vote before women!" But in reality, they prolly had it even better than the white men.

I'm sorry i refuse to be brainwashed by feminism like you guys have.

This is what happens when you confront a mangina with the truth.

That's not how it works
Is this why you're afraid of females
Lol, vagoos don't bite. Silly vi.rgin

Of course vaginas dont bite, i love vaginas

That picture represents a mangina

Maybe these Manginas will take it better if they hear it from a white atheist. This guy is saying alot of the same stuff i was saying...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs

pleep: Maybe these Manginas will take it better if they hear it from a white atheist. This guy is saying alot of the same stuff i was saying...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Nw3zyYpvs

Oh, because he is one white guy and an atheist on youtube, he is right?


Your mother must have been a real XXXXX for you to be this foolish on women and everything.


The amazingatheist is a professional ranter on youtube. Watch that video and see how intoleran and arrogant he is. He insulted feminism and feminists on twitter but he expected no backlash. Two of you are azzholes of the same feather

You require a white man to tell you what to think pleep-kun?

No i already believed this stuff...you guys are the one that need a white man to tell you. I know how black ppl are, a fellow nigeiran could tell you the truth all day but you wont accept it.

So here is your white man. enjoy or do you want me to find a white woman to tell you?

pleep: No i already believed this stuff...you guys are the one that need a white man to tell you. I know how black ppl are, a fellow nigeiran could tell you the truth all day but you wont accept it.

So here is your white man. enjoy or do you want me to find a white woman to tell you?

Okay, you have finally acknowledged that you are foolish.


Great

Logicboy03:


The amazingatheist is a professional ranter on youtube. Watch that video and see how intoleran and arrogant he is. He insulted feminism and feminists on twitter but he expected no backlash. Two of you are azzholes of the same feather

what did he say....? "feminism hopes to end gender inequality by only focusing on the issues of one gender" Thats insulting to you?

kid why do you call urself logical? you are the most emotional babyish twit i have ever seen on this website.

pleep: what did he say....? "feminism hopes to end gender inequality by only focusing on the issues of one gender" Thats insulting to you?

kid why do you call urself logical? you are the most emotional babyish twit i have ever seen on this website.

Insulting to the feminists, not me.


A ridiculous statement on feminism if you ask me.


Feminists also support paternity leave

http://feministphilosophers./2011/01/19/uk-paternity-leave-changes/