Uh, no, it's because you have an inferiority complex. Are you superior because you have a pair of jugs?
Uh, no. Nobody is superior. Not being superior doesn't make you inferior. It makes you equal. Everyone is equal.
You do realize that women have minds of their own right? Do you need to take them hostage? When has a man forced you to do anything against your will? Hm? Can you list at least ONE example? Your premise is flawed.
Yes, they do. I've never disputed that. Forcing them to want things they don't really want is kind of like taking them hostage, I guess. Technically everyone who hasn't been liberated is a hostage to the patriarchal system. You do realize that Patriarchy is just as bad for you, right?
And so you admit that placing responsibilities on someone is taking away their freedom?
Okay... so were not the GASP men who helped win our independence from the British in the Revolutionary War not taking on responsibilities to grant freedom to the colonies? Did not the wives of our soldiers in WWII take on the responsibility of ensuring the war machine kept running?
Political privileges do not constitute freedom. The people of the rebellious colonies didn't become free just because they stopped being British subjects. The identities of their masters simply changed. Women in WWII were socially expected to take on hard factory work to fight men's political struggles. Do you honestly believe they had much choice? Do you honestly think the average girl really wanted to drop out of school (assuming she was allowed to go at all) and go work long, dangerous shifts building bombs in a forsaken factory somewhere?
Uh, you do realize that there are women in Congress right now who took on responsibilities as elected officials on their own right? So, taking on ambition is a ball and chain to 'freedom.'
At least it was a consciously chosen thing. It's what they really wanted to do rather than what they were told they should want. I don't see how it's ambitious to live the rest of your eighty years of life in domestic subservience to some man.
Yes, she is. She chose that life. She used that freedom to take on her role as a wife and a mother. Something you evidently don't understand.
What you evidently don't understand is Patriarchy's role in convincing them to do this. You probably don't understand Patriarchy itself either. It's the entirety of the male-centered power structure of society. It's the pervasive ideological substratum in our cultural consciousness that is the foundation of sexism. It's the memetic virus that says men do this and women do that and wanting to do or be something different than your assigned role is an abomination. Nobody can withstand that kind of messaging unless they consciously focus on it. It's too deeply ingrained for most people even to see.
Uh, yeah? This is a free country after all. The glass ceiling as you see it is just open sky to everyone else.
It is to everyone who is a white, heterosexual, cisgender, Christian, conservative, wealthy male, yes.
Yeah? If she chooses to be a wife and a mother, that is her choice is it not? If she wants to take a 2000 mile road trip across America in a van with her children with husband in tow, that is her choice is it not? You are clueless. Who are you to dictate a woman's choices? It's her freedom that gives her choice, not her choice that restricts her freedom. Take the suffragists for example. They took on the responsibilities of starting a movement that ensured women the right to vote, which blows a hole in your uber feminist theory.
What I'm saying is exactly what I said in the point above: it really isn't her choice. It's the choice made for her by Patriarchy. She simply chose to follow suit because she doesn't know any better, because she hasn't been taught better, because men like you will stop at nothing to keep her dumb and submissive. An educated, ambitious, liberated woman who understands her own power and desires poses the biggest threat possible to the system which you believe caters to your interests and desires. The irony is that you're just as much as slave to Patriarchy as the average woman. It hurts you just as much as them. You just don't see it because it does so in different ways.
If marriage was a one sided affair, then why does the priest make both the man and woman take the vow?
That's a relatively recent tradition. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this.
And what makes you think its that way today? A woman owns herself, her body when not with child, and holds dominion over her offspring. If she chooses to marry that is her choice, a choice she makes with her freedom.
Again, this is a choice made for her. She didn't truly make that choice for herself. She does own her body at all times, by the way, "with child" or not.
And I have come to the distinct conclusion that a lot of women would disagree with you. Who are they to love bot not a man? Another woman? Which reminds me... what happens if she is a lesbian? Oops, that's another hole, and a glaring contradiction.
This doesn't really follow. At least a relationship between two women is between social equals. At least then there's no disparity in power.
And I don't think you are in any position to tell people what to do. Speaking of 'conditioning,' have you looked in the mirror lately?
I'm still mired in Patriarchal thinking and my own privilege too. The difference between us is that I'm aware of it. I see it and try to overcome it.
The whole idea of marriage is to put the needs of the other above your own. Both man and woman. And honey, women aren't perfect.
Then we're in agreement about the moral necessity of putting another's needs over your own wants (which is the basis of liberalism, btw; there might be hope for you after all). This is exactly what I'm advocating here. It's your moral duty to give her what she needs, even if it's something you don't want.[/QUOTE]
