Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 85
- 50
- Banned
- #1
I'm of the persuasion that criticizing or attacking "women" as a whole, is the antithesis to anything resembling a civilization or 1st world country, given that, whether one invokes biology, the evolution of the law and civilization, or anything else, women of different walks of life, of course do make and have made civilization; as an example, a woman of 'higher' status in an era past, whether one invokes Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or anyone else, would have had higher overall 'status' and influence than a more 'ordinary' woman today typically does; regardless of what legal changes or element of purely 'arbitrary' discrimination not based on merits has been legally addressed; with fixed circumstances like family, birth, and so on and so forth having often tended to play a bigger role in the past, than at least theoretically today, in which more upward mobility and meritocraty is allegedly available, than in many times of the past.
Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.
But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.
As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.
In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.
Obviously were would be a huge difference in criticizing "a woman", or a specific subset, organization, or group of women in theory or practice, or specific actions thereof, whether one is talking about Sarah Palin, or Sarah Palin's "campaign team", or Hillary Clinton or otherwise.
But any childish notion which is predicated on attacking "women" as a whole, or predicated on contextually flawed myths, is ultimately a civilizational determent, and I see no further reason to allow such a juvenile thing to continue to persist.
As an example, take some freak who believe he was 'entitled' to sex simply because he exists, or that a date or a miserable, divorce prone marriage somehow entitles him to "sex" or so on and so forth, even if he invokes some mythos non-humorously about 'men', the reality is that in times past, he would've been quite a bit worse off than he was today.
In an 'ancient' era of male and female monarchs, it can be safely presumed that the king may simply have him, or other 'lower status' men into a eunuch and forced him to serve in the queens harem, rather than allowing or letting such more the inferior variety, whether one invokes evolutionary psychology, as per Pinker, the law, society, and civilization, or anything else, to simply exist and persist in his ugly and culturally hidieous delusion.