http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_us/obit_friedan
Thanks to her today's most American Women are not happy.
Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
- Thread starter DJDamage
- Start date
mroriginal2
Don Juan
every death is a sad death 
Brian20o2
Master Don Juan
And it sounds like that will be fiarly soon. I hope al qiada collapses and doesnt get a new leader.
Do you disagree with her? Nothing in the article indicates that she strived for anything other than equality and opportunity during a time when it didn't completely exist. Would you rather have a woman who sacrifices her ambition and dreams because she thinks its her duty to do so?
Men frequently err by talking too much. They often monopolize conversations, droning on and on about topics that bore women to tears. They think they're impressing the women when, in reality, they're depressing the women.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
LowPlainsDrifter
Senior Don Juan
What's so scary about Al Quaeda is that it's a highly distributed organization with mostly autonomous "cells" that are empowered to plan and execute their own missions. The overall objective "attack American and allied interests" was given already, now every head of the hydra is busy carrying that out.
Sure it would be something of a morale boost for us, but it won't incapacitate their organization. In fact a captured or even killed Bin Laden would be something of an inspiring martyr figure to them.
Our biggest problem in fighting them is radicalizing the moderates who are either against Al Quaeda or at least indifferent. Bin Laden probably moves freely about the Pakistani-Afghan border not because those people agree with his Wahabi extremism, but because they are indifferent to his cause or ours. It doesn't hurt that he most likely leaves fair amounts of cash for those who put him up for the night.
However, every errant missile strike, and every ham-fisted nighttime raid on the wrong house enrages civilians and puts them in his camp, not ours.
Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
Do women (on the whole) want, need or deserve to be treated equally with men?
Would a woman really want me to treat her like a bloke? or like a piece of feminim beauty?
And anyway if there was true equality, if a woman slaps me should I really knock her the fvck out, like i would do to a guy?
I'll phrase this annother way.
Everyone wants freedom, complete and utter joy in being absolutly free to do what ever they want.
But then is anarchy really the answer? truly we need rules and limitations to our natural tendencies?
My opinion is that women (as in the feminim sexuality) don't deserve equal rights (I say this thought my own observations) but only individuals deserve equal rights to men. And some women do have these qualities.
A quote which sums up my point here... of course a point masterfully put by pook.
Is equality truly the ideal we should be striving for as a human race?
Do women (on the whole) want, need or deserve to be treated equally with men?
Would a woman really want me to treat her like a bloke? or like a piece of feminim beauty?
And anyway if there was true equality, if a woman slaps me should I really knock her the fvck out, like i would do to a guy?
I'll phrase this annother way.
Everyone wants freedom, complete and utter joy in being absolutly free to do what ever they want.
But then is anarchy really the answer? truly we need rules and limitations to our natural tendencies?
My opinion is that women (as in the feminim sexuality) don't deserve equal rights (I say this thought my own observations) but only individuals deserve equal rights to men. And some women do have these qualities.
A quote which sums up my point here... of course a point masterfully put by pook.
bbestar
Banned
Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
not equality or opportunity, but extreemism
diplomatic_lies
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Messages
- 4,367
- Reaction score
- 8
Damned feminist dumbasses!
Perhaps we should just burn our imperial banner and let the peasants crap all over our polished floors!
All hail the Emperor! Death to Republicanism! I hope they chop off the heads of all those "revolutionaries".
Perhaps we should just burn our imperial banner and let the peasants crap all over our polished floors!
All hail the Emperor! Death to Republicanism! I hope they chop off the heads of all those "revolutionaries".
Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
The problem with this is that as a result mothers and wive's roles have changed over the years some for the good but mostley for the bad. Feminism created a philosophy that basically stated since the begining of time women have been supressed by men and they need to be independed and release themselves of these shackles. But they never took into account the nature of women and that by doing so she can not fully be happy. Its equivelent of an AFC guy who is not happy with himself because he is not fvcking women left and right like nature intended for him to do because he fears going against the norm of society (he believes in feminism as well that he should not show his sexual side even though he does not know its as result of feminism). Because of that he ends up blaming the whole world and he becomes angrier by accepting that philosophy just like other women who have done so as well.
Most women today want to have a career a husband and kids. However most of them cannot balance it out since its near impossible. Since you can't neglect your career because you can get fired women often neglect their kids and husbands for their own sake. Now I don't have a problem if a woman wants to have a career but if you are married and have kids they shouldn't come second. The social structures of familes have been broken down over the years and this is the end result of feminism because the women still end up blaming society for not getting ahead (even though society has almost fully embraced feminism) but herself and the choices she made in life.
DjDamage
The last part of that quate says: " She mustn't feel selfish and neurotic if she wants goals of her own, outside of husband and children".
The problem with this is that as a result mothers and wive's roles have changed over the years some for the good but mostley for the bad. Feminism created a philosophy that basically stated since the begining of time women have been supressed by men and they need to be independed and release themselves of these shackles. But they never took into account the nature of women and that by doing so she can not fully be happy. Its equivelent of an AFC guy who is not happy with himself because he is not fvcking women left and right like nature intended for him to do because he fears going against the norm of society (he believes in feminism as well that he should not show his sexual side even though he does not know its as result of feminism). Because of that he ends up blaming the whole world and he becomes angrier by accepting that philosophy just like other women who have done so as well.
Most women today want to have a career a husband and kids. However most of them cannot balance it out since its near impossible. Since you can't neglect your career because you can get fired women often neglect their kids and husbands for their own sake. Now I don't have a problem if a woman wants to have a career but if you are married and have kids they shouldn't come second. The social structures of familes have been broken down over the years and this is the end result of feminism because the women still end up blaming society for not getting ahead (even though society has almost fully embraced feminism) but herself and the choices she made in life.
DjDamage
Create self-fulfilling prophecies. Always assume the positive. Assume she likes you. Assume she wants to talk to you. Assume she wants to go out with you. When you think positive, positive things happen.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Re: Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
Do you really think that human rights should be applied on a person-by-person basis? That's a rather frightenting thought.
And I again quote,
Human rights are not exclusive to certain individuals.
They deserve the same rights. Whether they want them or not is irrelevant.
If the woman was physically as threatening as the guy, I would say that the rules are no different for her. Force is to be initiated only in defence of other force. Knocking her out would be going overboard.
Anarchy? I doubt that the woman in question was a proponent of anarchy. Tell me where she says that all laws and restrictions for women should be completely abolished.
Women are individuals. What do you propose? Screen every woman in the country and determine whether they should be allowed to have rights? Then just ignore the men?
Do you really think that human rights should be applied on a person-by-person basis? That's a rather frightenting thought.
That illustrates nothing but Pook's opinion.
And when equal rights were finally being accomplished..
Many men today want to have a career a wife and kids. If the man and the wife both work, and there is no time for the kids, whose fault is it? Both of theirs, for nothing figuring out how to make time to raise their kids. The mother is not the only one who can do it.
And I again quote,
Joe The Homophobe
Master Don Juan
This woman has done more damage to society than you can imagine. She is burning in hell as we speak.
Dimebag_Darrell
Banned
I cut myself
Peace and Quiet
If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.
Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.
This will quickly drive all women away from you.
And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
"Human rights" will always be there, it is from within socity and our beliefs that we further ourselfs and everyones lives.
In fact when the book was written (1963) the vast majourity of the current "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was already laid out and in effect. But yeah, you're right "Human rights are not exclusive to certain individuals." because they are Human rights.
----------
This is the point I was trying to get across. This is not about law, it's about people and what people think, which i think you'll find differs hugly for what the law thinks.
Do not let anyone dictate your beliefs, apart from you
The idea I was trying to get accross.
--------
I think you'll find most men wouldn't use equal force on a woman. And that majority of people would agree that, using equal or more force on a woman is unacceptable.
Then ask the men what they would do if annother guy slaps them,
they would knock him flat for being cheeky. <---- Particulary unAFC behavior.
Never did I suggest anarchy.
My point was. The essence of female sexuality (which people i.e people called females have) does not deserve to be truly equal (or on a par) with mens.
-----------
I'm saying young men should define thier own "human rights" as you call them, to dictate thier actions.
I have Nothing against the current human rights.
These are questions for the Afc's/men of today to ask themselfs. The ones who grow up influenced by what; the law, the news, government and the hundreds of other influences on our morality and personal principles, tell us. The ones that, play a large part in, shaping us into afc's as children and young people.
These are all aimed to target that flaw in the afc mindset and philosiphy (or "opinion" as you call it). Not to offer an idealised solution to the whole male-female agenda in our lifes and society.
--------------
The quote is nothing but his observations.
Hypothetically if you call every persons view on this an opinion (which logically you could define them as) we'd be more like logical beings picking and choosing our morality to suit us, not from what our hearts and human influences tell us is right and wrong.
To illustrate this point i'll cite music as an example.
You could have the opinion that,
"music is good because it is complicated"
that is an opinion.
now music which just sounds good to everyone is not an opinion. It just sounds good.
And I quoted Pook because his opinion almost reflects mine and maybe illustrates what I mean better. And people have probley taken a longer time to understand his posts.
--------
What I said has nothing to do with "human rights", you have misinterpreted, this is about what socity, and about what men (as in propper men i.e the leaders of society) believe is right and justified within thier own opinions and beliefs. It was a stab at the whole men and women are naturally equal sub agenda of feminism.
"Human rights" will always be there, it is from within socity and our beliefs that we further ourselfs and everyones lives.
In fact when the book was written (1963) the vast majourity of the current "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was already laid out and in effect. But yeah, you're right "Human rights are not exclusive to certain individuals." because they are Human rights.
----------
Do children deserve the same position in socity? Do the handicapped? Mentally ill? Does everyone regardless of if they deserve equal treatment, whether or not they want it have to accept it? and if so, why don't they have equal "rights" and true equal treatment?
This is the point I was trying to get across. This is not about law, it's about people and what people think, which i think you'll find differs hugly for what the law thinks.
Do not let anyone dictate your beliefs, apart from you
The idea I was trying to get accross.
--------
I raised the points I did, for all the people who express opinions like the ones you just did (wether you believe in them or not), "They deserve the same rights. Whether they want them or not is irrelevant." who have been led to believe the law is the absolute ideal for human (and therefore thier) morality and rational. (btw what you just said above basically sums up the laws opinion)
I think you'll find most men wouldn't use equal force on a woman. And that majority of people would agree that, using equal or more force on a woman is unacceptable.
Then ask the men what they would do if annother guy slaps them,
they would knock him flat for being cheeky. <---- Particulary unAFC behavior.
I was trying to explain my point in a simpler and cruder manner.
Never did I suggest anarchy.
Exactly women are individuals and therefore, according to my point, they should recive equal rights to men.
My point was. The essence of female sexuality (which people i.e people called females have) does not deserve to be truly equal (or on a par) with mens.
-----------
Once again you are misinterpriting what I said. My points have nothing to do with current human rights and laws.
I'm saying young men should define thier own "human rights" as you call them, to dictate thier actions.
I have Nothing against the current human rights.
These are questions for the Afc's/men of today to ask themselfs. The ones who grow up influenced by what; the law, the news, government and the hundreds of other influences on our morality and personal principles, tell us. The ones that, play a large part in, shaping us into afc's as children and young people.
These are all aimed to target that flaw in the afc mindset and philosiphy (or "opinion" as you call it). Not to offer an idealised solution to the whole male-female agenda in our lifes and society.
--------------
The quote is nothing but his observations.
Hypothetically if you call every persons view on this an opinion (which logically you could define them as) we'd be more like logical beings picking and choosing our morality to suit us, not from what our hearts and human influences tell us is right and wrong.
To illustrate this point i'll cite music as an example.
You could have the opinion that,
"music is good because it is complicated"
that is an opinion.
now music which just sounds good to everyone is not an opinion. It just sounds good.
And I quoted Pook because his opinion almost reflects mine and maybe illustrates what I mean better. And people have probley taken a longer time to understand his posts.
--------
"Don't get into the bra-burning, anti-man, politics-of-orgasm school," Friedan told a college audience in 1970.
To more radical and lesbian feminists, Friedan was "hopelessly bourgeois," Susan Brownmiller wrote at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedan began working to have the federal government enforce the Civil Rights Act as it applied to sex and not only to race, religion and national origin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when equal rights were finally being accomplished..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She had not stopped being a feminist, she said, "but women as a special separate interest group are not my concern any more."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/B][/QUOTE]
What are you trying to say? I agree with all this, and never disagreed with any of it.
This is all other peoples views (this is exactly what I object to). Have you read the book, or studied her life and works and come to your own comclusion? You are trying to defend what somone else thinks. And of all people, you take your quotes from a person who is writing a news article on her passing away.
And it is the mans fault. The male is the one who should be leading, it is his natural purpose. But still they are both partners, the woman is not a mans slave or impliment as it might have been in Fredian's time.
-----------
Finally,I don;t appologise for not having to explain myself directly and for using abstract writing. And please take time to read posts and understand them before you go into why they are wrong.
To more radical and lesbian feminists, Friedan was "hopelessly bourgeois," Susan Brownmiller wrote at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedan began working to have the federal government enforce the Civil Rights Act as it applied to sex and not only to race, religion and national origin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when equal rights were finally being accomplished..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She had not stopped being a feminist, she said, "but women as a special separate interest group are not my concern any more."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/B][/QUOTE]
What are you trying to say? I agree with all this, and never disagreed with any of it.
This is all other peoples views (this is exactly what I object to). Have you read the book, or studied her life and works and come to your own comclusion? You are trying to defend what somone else thinks. And of all people, you take your quotes from a person who is writing a news article on her passing away.
So your defending her because she says "bra-burning, anti-man, politics-of-orgasm school" (the angry lesbian feminists) are bad.
And it is the mans fault. The male is the one who should be leading, it is his natural purpose. But still they are both partners, the woman is not a mans slave or impliment as it might have been in Fredian's time.
Why do you highlight this phrase and try to make it into a supporting statment of yours? Because I took a stab at what is viewed as the core of feminism, by so many modern thinking people, maybe? Trying to jolt the AFC thinking out of the mind of the young men here, but oviously this is what you wanna think.
-----------
Finally,I don;t appologise for not having to explain myself directly and for using abstract writing. And please take time to read posts and understand them before you go into why they are wrong.
Thoughts of My own.
Rights aren't given, priviledges are. If something is a right, such as freedom, it can't be given, because it can be taken away. Priviledges, on the other hand, are given and taken. They're fluid. Don't confuse them. Our gov. doesn't GIVE rights, they merely PROTECT them. They do confer priviledges, which are those concepts NOT given by right of birth, but instead via law, such as driving a car. A priviledge, provided you can pay for it, and one they can take away should you be wreckless and careless.
------------------------------------
Her original premise was sound, it's the perversion that occurs by ANYONE seeking some claim to fame, desire to recreate the world, or megalomaniac. Women DO need a desire of purpose, even IF that purpose is her husband and family, she SHOULD know it and follow through with it.
Girls today may even have the desire to be a wife, a fabulous supporting wife, raise 10 beautiful children, but due to social programming, they are afraid, ashamed, and discontent with it.
In most cases, that's because they know Men want 50/50 now, so they have to own 50% of a burden they don't really want (or didn't want a little girls anways).
------------------------------------
I do blame the men. For allowing it to get so extreme. For accepting women they know won't work out, only the basis of need, of lack, of sexual desire, of being fools. If the woman doesn't exist who's viable for your needs to procreate, go without, that way you can't complain about something you don't support.
Men who succumb to it give their unspoken consent to it. Yet, they marry into it like the mob. It's not inherently BAD for women who don't want families to have other opportunities, but it perverts itself into a mainstream movement, where it has to be FURTHERED to everyone, it's gone too far. Make it an OPTION box for women growing up, and move on. Don't force feed it down people's throats as if every person must be a willing supporter of it.
I DO support women working and having a free mind; my mother has worked 25+ years as a nurse, as have MANY mother's here. Without those nurses, many of you posters would be dead or uncomfortable in the hospital scene. It was her strength and ability to generate an income that made the transition for my father's closed family business that much easier, so the children could continue unaffected.
So yes, IT does have its perks. Guys might be losing it here and misplacing blame, but not alot of guys CAN support 1 woman alone in today's client. Their economic status will not allow it. And even if that WAS the case, what's a woman to do when the children are gone? Stay at home twiddling her thumbs, incessantly cleaning the home, becoming bored and eventually making her home-grown porn site, or worse, banging the tender of your newly bought pool?
My only schtic with it is that it hurts YOUNG girls. They're as promiscuous as EVER, because the idea we're only flesh and blood animals is embedded in their head. Creatures of purely flesh, the girls have little regard for innerspirit, self, or higher values that make life GOOD. The populis talks of how society has degraded (and it has), yet we don't look at the individual pieces being players in a major game. It requires instilling the idea you can and are more than just an 'animal', as much as some people want to tell you that.
--------------------------------------------
To me, its anathema to consciousness and humanity to accept unfailingly the rule of an authority without question. LOTS of men are not fit to guide women, and make poor friends to men, and spreading this idea of unflinching devotion to man because she's a function of property damages her, her progeny, and civilization, because if that were so, the most powerful and rich would control the feminine resource, from those less able (as they did in the movie RollerBall).
A-Unit
Rights aren't given, priviledges are. If something is a right, such as freedom, it can't be given, because it can be taken away. Priviledges, on the other hand, are given and taken. They're fluid. Don't confuse them. Our gov. doesn't GIVE rights, they merely PROTECT them. They do confer priviledges, which are those concepts NOT given by right of birth, but instead via law, such as driving a car. A priviledge, provided you can pay for it, and one they can take away should you be wreckless and careless.
------------------------------------
Her original premise was sound, it's the perversion that occurs by ANYONE seeking some claim to fame, desire to recreate the world, or megalomaniac. Women DO need a desire of purpose, even IF that purpose is her husband and family, she SHOULD know it and follow through with it.
Girls today may even have the desire to be a wife, a fabulous supporting wife, raise 10 beautiful children, but due to social programming, they are afraid, ashamed, and discontent with it.
In most cases, that's because they know Men want 50/50 now, so they have to own 50% of a burden they don't really want (or didn't want a little girls anways).
------------------------------------
I do blame the men. For allowing it to get so extreme. For accepting women they know won't work out, only the basis of need, of lack, of sexual desire, of being fools. If the woman doesn't exist who's viable for your needs to procreate, go without, that way you can't complain about something you don't support.
Men who succumb to it give their unspoken consent to it. Yet, they marry into it like the mob. It's not inherently BAD for women who don't want families to have other opportunities, but it perverts itself into a mainstream movement, where it has to be FURTHERED to everyone, it's gone too far. Make it an OPTION box for women growing up, and move on. Don't force feed it down people's throats as if every person must be a willing supporter of it.
I DO support women working and having a free mind; my mother has worked 25+ years as a nurse, as have MANY mother's here. Without those nurses, many of you posters would be dead or uncomfortable in the hospital scene. It was her strength and ability to generate an income that made the transition for my father's closed family business that much easier, so the children could continue unaffected.
So yes, IT does have its perks. Guys might be losing it here and misplacing blame, but not alot of guys CAN support 1 woman alone in today's client. Their economic status will not allow it. And even if that WAS the case, what's a woman to do when the children are gone? Stay at home twiddling her thumbs, incessantly cleaning the home, becoming bored and eventually making her home-grown porn site, or worse, banging the tender of your newly bought pool?
My only schtic with it is that it hurts YOUNG girls. They're as promiscuous as EVER, because the idea we're only flesh and blood animals is embedded in their head. Creatures of purely flesh, the girls have little regard for innerspirit, self, or higher values that make life GOOD. The populis talks of how society has degraded (and it has), yet we don't look at the individual pieces being players in a major game. It requires instilling the idea you can and are more than just an 'animal', as much as some people want to tell you that.
--------------------------------------------
To me, its anathema to consciousness and humanity to accept unfailingly the rule of an authority without question. LOTS of men are not fit to guide women, and make poor friends to men, and spreading this idea of unflinching devotion to man because she's a function of property damages her, her progeny, and civilization, because if that were so, the most powerful and rich would control the feminine resource, from those less able (as they did in the movie RollerBall).
A-Unit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feminist Author Betty Friedan Dies at 85
What was? The actions of the woman in question? Or the feminist movement? The two are not the same.
You asked if we should really be striving for equality. Beyond having equal rights, what else is there to question? How do you define whether two genders are "equal"? You are going to have to be more specific in your wording.
You are trying to equate legal rights with natural rights. The two are grossly different.
You say, "the essence of female sexuality does not deserve to be truly equal with mens." Equal in what sense? "Female sexuality" is just a characteristic of the state or condition that women are in. How can it be given "equal" treatment? That's like saying that you can "treat happiness equally". You will need to be more specific.
Morality has a logical root. There is a reason that people think its bad to kill eachother, that reason is that everyone benefits by having the rule, "don't kill people." There is logic behind it.
When you leave morality to be arbitrarily decided by people listening to what their "hearts and human influences" tell them, you get airplanes flying into skyscrapers because someone has been taught that it's the right thing to do. Obviously that is an extreme example, but the same idea follows. Any principle that is not grounded in logic is a principle that will fail.
If there were only 3 people on earth, and they all agreed that it is good to kill people, would that make it a truth? No. It's still an opinion.
"It was a stab at the whole men and women are naturally equal sub agenda of feminism."
What was? The actions of the woman in question? Or the feminist movement? The two are not the same.
You asked if we should really be striving for equality. Beyond having equal rights, what else is there to question? How do you define whether two genders are "equal"? You are going to have to be more specific in your wording.
What do you mean when you say "deserve the same position"? The only things that anyone "deserves" are the rights they are born with, which they are entitled to no matter their condition.
You still asked the question whether women "deserve to be treated equally with men?" In answering that, it doesn't matter what the woman wants or what her beliefs are. What matters is that she is a person, and deserves the same rights as all other people.
That's a pretty wild claim to make without explaining why. Why does the fact that I believe that human rights are inherent mean that I believe the law is the absolute ideal for human morality? There are many things concerning the law that I disagree with. I believe that I have an inherent right to inject heroin into my body (not that I would), but the government would disagree.
You are trying to equate legal rights with natural rights. The two are grossly different.
I'm not interested in what most men would or wouldn't do, or what most men think or don't think. What matters is that force is to be used only in the defence of other force. If a woman attempted to slap me, I would have every right to do what I had to to make her stop. What I have to do, and what I could do, are different. It might just be a matter of grabbing her wrist. But if that is all that is necessary, and I punch her in the stomach, then I have crossed the line, especially since she is probably not much of a threat to me.
If a guy slaps you, then the same rules apply. But a 110 lb woman would not be able to deal very much damage to most men, so there is no reason for a man to try to prevent any serious damage by fighting back against her. It's different when you have another man of a comparable size standing in front you, as he could pose a very serious threat to you.That's what changes things.
Then you should say what you actually mean. Anarchy means... anarchy.
Ok good, at least we see eye to eye on the fact that everyone is entitled to the same rights.
You say, "the essence of female sexuality does not deserve to be truly equal with mens." Equal in what sense? "Female sexuality" is just a characteristic of the state or condition that women are in. How can it be given "equal" treatment? That's like saying that you can "treat happiness equally". You will need to be more specific.
I'm not sure that you understand what a right is. It is something that you are entitled to, such as the right to own property. How can people "define their own human rights?" You can't just make the claim that you are entitled to something and expect people to give it to you.
What questions?
Opinions and observations are not enough by themselves to prove a point. It's not a sufficient argument to simply state your beliefs, you have to give evidence of why they are valid. The quote you gave from Pook had no evidence to back it up so I dismissed it.
Morality has a logical root. There is a reason that people think its bad to kill eachother, that reason is that everyone benefits by having the rule, "don't kill people." There is logic behind it.
When you leave morality to be arbitrarily decided by people listening to what their "hearts and human influences" tell them, you get airplanes flying into skyscrapers because someone has been taught that it's the right thing to do. Obviously that is an extreme example, but the same idea follows. Any principle that is not grounded in logic is a principle that will fail.
No, it is still an opinion. And I challenge you to find music that sounds good to everyone.
If there were only 3 people on earth, and they all agreed that it is good to kill people, would that make it a truth? No. It's still an opinion.
I understand what you mean. I don't understand how it can be correct.
So it's ok for other posters to read this one page article, then make the conclusion, "Thanks to her today's most American Women are not happy?" I was trying to show how there was no evidence in the article to suggest that, and that there was in fact a lot of evidence which contradicted that point. Why do you expect me to read the book before I come to a conclusion, while you ignore any uninformed criticisms of her? My primary purpose was not to defend her ideas, but to defend the biased assault of those uninformed criticisms.
I'm defending her because her ideas are not being evaluated, people on this forum instantly see "feminism" or "feminist" and think "she is evil." I was asking questions to give her critics an opportunity to explain why they thought she was so bad, because I certainly don't see it from that single article alone. I don't see how they could have.
I highlighted this idea because people are treating her as if she fought against it, and I'm showing them that she didn't necessarily.
It is your responsibility as the poster to make sure your ideas are clear and that your writing is coherent. For example, when you say that people shouldn't necessarily be striving for equality, you have to explain yourself. I assumed you meant equality in the capacity of having equal rights. It's not that I'm not trying to understand what you are saying, it's that you are leaving out too much information.
Never try to read a woman's mind. It is a scary place. Ignore her confusing signals and mixed messages. Assume she is interested in you and act accordingly.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.