|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 19:28:56 GMT -5
That's the BEST result of the feminist movement: now men have to either be nice because they are in fact gentlemen (not because of womens' dependency) or display themselves as pigs.
If you're really a good person, you'd hold a door open for someone because it's a nice thing to do, not because of some stupid tradition, or because it's part of the social order that keeps you on top.
Feminism keeps men on their toes, prevents the pigs among them from hiding behind tradition, and gives women the ability to walk away from someone who simply goes through the motions of being a gentleman when, in fact, he has absolutely no character whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 20:49:30 GMT -5
That was the most utterly crazed explanation of the tradition of holding doors for women I have ever had the pleasure to behold in my entire life. Why am I not suprised it came from our resident lunitic remedios.
Do you mean to tell me remedios, that back in the day, when this demeaning tradition was common place, every pig (obviously your sexest term for man) held the door for you? If they did I don't believe you would have your bigoted attitude towards them.
While were using nicknames to describe the opposite sex, I'd like to end this post by saying that I find your conclusion absolutly absurd, and that I will from now on refer to any ignorant feminist as a dumb sow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 20:54:08 GMT -5
Your thinking is totally off. If someone has no character then what makes you think that they would possibly uphold a character code? And why would you care if they were going through the motions? Can you really tell what someone really thinks?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:28:45 GMT -5
First of all, please quote me saying that opening the door for someone is "demeaning." Where exactly did I say that? Oh, yeah, that's right, I NEVER DID. Your reading comprehension is obviously VERY POOR. Not surprising coming from a conservative.
Second of all, please quote me saying that every man is a "pig." Show me where I said this. Oh, that's right, you can't, because I NEVER DID. I said that SOME men are pigs, much like some women are, well, you can pick whatever word. Are you arguing that everybody has character? Are you stupid?
My point, dear idiotic friend, was that in the olden days ALL a man had to do to be considered a bona fide gentlemen was to hold open doors. And I'm sorry, but that's NOT character, it's politeness.
Character is not expecting someone to make sacrifices that you wouldn't make yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:42:34 GMT -5
You want me to quote you saying things you didn't say  I would have to say your writing comprhension is VERY POOR. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:44:44 GMT -5
If you can't quote it, don't claim I said it. Get it, idiot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:44:57 GMT -5
You did say, dear sow, that men with no character followed character codes. People with no character don't care about being considered gentlemen stupid, get it straight.
I think being involved with gimpy driving you stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:48:34 GMT -5
No, I said that holding open a door does not require that the person doing it have character. All it requires is an arm and some fingers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:49:05 GMT -5
Also, you labled me a bigot because I don't respect women who kill their babys, so saying you called all men pigs isn't to far from your dirty posts. Time to get off the computer and read a book, you might learn something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:50:13 GMT -5
Yeah, but why would someone with no character go through the motions dummy?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:50:32 GMT -5
Actually, I called you a bigot because you clearly have very backward ideas of how women and men should interact. Abortion has nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:52:19 GMT -5
Okay. Tell me how I think women and men should interact genius.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:54:23 GMT -5
Why wouldn't they? especially when it's all they have to do to be considered a man of good character. The fact that this is no longer enough forces men to re-evaluate their entire person and better themselves.
I thought you conservatives understood the effect competition has on product. Because of feminism, men are forced to compete more to get what they once only had to open a door to get. And that's a good thing, idiotic dinosaurs like you bedamned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 21:58:36 GMT -5
Listen, anyone who actually knows me knows I'm not a sexist. I hold doors for women anywhere I am. My mom works stupid. To lable me a women hater because I don't like people who are cowards and kill kids is crazy.
I still don't get how holding a door back in the day gave you a free pass to kick your wife's @$$ at home your resoning is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 22:05:25 GMT -5
Men shouldn't ask women to make sacrifices they wouldn't make themselves without making themselves indented to them at the outset. Now that women can and routinely do make as much money as men, the fact that men argue that women, as a rule, should still be the ones to stay at home with the kids belies the fact that they simply don't want to have to make the sacrifice they're asking women to make. Beyond that, these same men not only argue that women should be the ones staying at home, they argue we should do it and take their undying gratefulness as sufficient return for our sacrifice. Would you work for the eternal gratitude of your employer? Even if they gave you room and board? I DIDN'T think so. And don't give me that crap about continuing humanity, because men get to contribute to continuing humanity, AND secure their own sustenance, and be a fully functioning independent adult, none of which is true of women who trade careers for family. Gratitude isn't enough. You wouldn't take it, why should we?
|
|
