Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[romeohwho]

Comprehension? You fail hard.



It is my answer this time, because such material has been previously covered. You simply fail to take notice, as you've previously admitted to not reading/viewing links, etc.



Given your previously admitted, and thus willful, ignorance, it is a proper response.



(Facepalm!) You've missed the point entirely. No surprises there. It's about having the option for these things, and of which feminism has falsely claimed as their doing in spite of the option already being there for women prior to feminism.

Will repeat-that is precisely what you said. You're not losing the plot are you froddo?
Am waiting for the data-men choosing to stay home with the kids so women can work in the community-start from 1800 and keep going in any direction. Get back to me when you have the numbers. Childcare centres pre- 1970's-how many in Melbourne for instance?
And feel again the need to remind you, just because you believe something to be true, well that doesn't make it true-its a simple concept but you really do need to get your head around it.

 

[tesseract]

Will repeat-that is precisely what you said

You can repeat yourself as often as you like, it still won't change the fact that you've failed to comprehend what was stated, as well as made a strawman from the comment.

You're not losing the plot are you froddo?

Projection much. Senility is getting the better of your senses, old man.

Am waiting for the data-men choosing to stay home with the kids so women can work in the community-start from 1800 and keep going in any direction. Get back to me when you have the numbers. Childcare centres pre- 1970's-how many in Melbourne for instance?

Of course you're waiting for the data based upon the strawman you've built.

And feel again the need to remind you, just because you believe something to be true, well that doesn't make it true-its a simple concept but you really do need to get your head around it.

Oh, the irony. This is rich coming from someone who has a history of failing to back up his claims.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Do you get a commission every time you use the word strawman?

 

[romeohwho]

You can repeat yourself as often as you like, it still won't change the fact that you've failed to comprehend what was stated, as well as made a strawman from the comment.



Projection much. Senility is getting the better of your senses, old man.



Of course you're waiting for the data based upon the strawman you've built.



Oh, the irony. This is rich coming from someone who has a history of failing to back up his claims.

Haha. Try and get some sleep Tesso. You need it. Things will look better in the morning. Tell me you will not stay up till all hours trawling the internet for some nutjob who validates your nutty ideas. Are we agreed on that?
Instead, if you have to search the net- keep it real and get those child care centre stats will ya.

 

[tesseract]

Haha. Try and get some sleep

Forever projecting. Though, nowadays, you need siestas, too.

Tell me you will not stay up till all hours trawling the internet for some nutjob who validates your nutty ideas. Are we agreed on that? Instead, if you have to search the net- keep it real and get those child care centre stats will ya.

You're basically saying that you only want information that confirms your bias and thus tickles your ears. You've just validated my claim that you're a dogmatic ideologue. Nice work. I hope you washed your foot before you put it in your mouth.

 

[romeohwho]

Forever projecting. Though, nowadays, you need siestas, too.



You're basically saying that you only want information that confirms your bias and thus tickles your ears. You've just validated my claim that you're a dogmatic ideologue. Nice work. I hope you washed your foot before you put it in your mouth.

Well if you can provide, as previously requested, the data that supports your theory about the 'nature ' of women, am all ears. But you haven't been able to provide data for your claim,( how surprising) so you may as well do something useful and find the info that refutes your silly claims.
ps do enjoy a siesta though-you should give it a try.

 

[tesseract]

Well if you can provide, as previously requested

Someone who avoids backing his claim now asking for others to back their claim? Oh wait, it's not my claim, it's your claim, via strawman.

the data that supports your theory about the 'nature ' of women, am all ears.

You're not all ears, for hypergamy has been discussed and evidenced already ITT. You're not paying attention. Then again, you've admitted to not reading/viewing links. You ask for data, but admit you don't read/view it. So, you're full of s**t.

But you haven't been able to provide data for your claim

Correction: your claim. More specifically, your strawman.

ps do enjoy a siesta though-you should give it a try.

The difference between you and I in this regard is that you take them out of necessity, while I can take them for leisure.

 

[romeohwho]

Someone who avoids backing his claim now asking for others to back their claim? Oh wait, it's not my claim, it's your claim, via strawman.



You're not all ears, for hypergamy has been discussed and evidenced already ITT. You're not paying attention. Then again, you've admitted to not reading/viewing links. You ask for data, but admit you don't read/view it. So, you're full of s**t.



Correction: your claim. More specifically, your strawman.



The difference between you and I in this regard is that you take them out of necessity, while I can take them for leisure.

Think you will be interested once you start doing some research and pretty sure you will be thrilled to see good old Gough was instrumental in the changing role of women in the workforce when he began to fund pre-school and child care centres when he came into gov't. Then it developed further and subsidies came along/extended hours etc. All of these factors enabled women to return to work-economics, social attitudes, not 'nature'. That is a dinosaur concept.
Now seriously-go to bed. It'll look better tomoz.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Do you get a commission every time you use the word strawman?

It went on to mention the word 3 times in the next 2 posts.

 

[Maggie5]

Think you will be interested once you start doing some research and pretty sure you will be thrilled to see good old Gough was instrumental in the changing role of women in the workforce when he began to fund pre-school and child care centres when he came into gov't. Then it developed further and subsidies came along/extended hours etc. All of these factors enabled women to return to work-economics, social attitudes, not 'nature'. That is a dinosaur concept.
Now seriously-go to bed. It'll look better tomoz.

This is what Tess is looking for in a partner

 

[Lebbo73]

Were Job and Lot feminists?



Back up your claim.

Avoidance, deflection, name calling, insults.
Your true colours are showing for all to see. You are a fraud.

Where is the name calling and insults?

 

[Maggie5]

Where is the name calling and insults?

Are you serious, read the thread.

This is what I mean about your posting style, what did you just contribute to the thread topic?

Just maybe you are better than this which is why I took you off ignore, was I wrong?

 

[Lebbo73]

Are you serious, read the thread.

This is what I mean about your posting style, what did you just contribute to the thread topic?

Just maybe you are better than this which is why I took you off ignore, was I wrong?

I am happy to stand corrected. I just never saw any name calling or insults in the new posts I read since I was last logged on!

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Tessy's tactic is to come in and call people childish names; mangina etc. But he presents these as serious arguments.

So when people call this sexist misogynist bigot a sexist misogynist bigot, he claims victimhood.

 

[Maggie5]

I am happy to stand corrected. I just never saw any name calling or insults in the new posts I read since I was last logged on!

Perhaps you should catch up instead of trying a 'gotcha' moment where I am concerned.
Would make a much better discussion and sharing of ideas and opinions.

 

[tesseract]

Think you will be interested once you start doing some research

What would you know of research, given your feelings based ideology?

and pretty sure you will be thrilled to see good old Gough was instrumental in the changing role of women in the workforce when he began to fund pre-school and child care centres when he came into gov't.

So, women already had the option, but Gough further incentivized it. That makes my point, not yours. You just lack the cognition to understand this.

Then it developed further and subsidies came along/extended hours etc. All of these factors enabled women to return to work-economics, social attitudes, not 'nature'. That is a dinosaur concept.
Now seriously-go to bed. It'll look better tomoz.

This is irrelevant, for it's getting away from the fact that women already had the option. All you've spoken about here are the incentivizes given to women to make making a particular choice easier. So, you've missed the point... again.

You make your claims without backing them up, just as you've done again here. I've previously discussed the part of female nature which is hypergamy, it's role in women's decision making on such matters and have also explained how it's part socialization, in this case traditionalism. You'd know this already, but you admit to avoid reading/viewing links. Such displays your willful ignorance.

 

[romeohwho]

What would you know of research, given your feelings based ideology?



So, women already had the option, but Gough further incentivized it. That makes my point, not yours. You just lack the cognition to understand this.



This is irrelevant, for it's getting away from the fact that women already had the option. All you've spoken about here are the incentivizes given to women to make making a particular choice easier. So, you've missed the point... again.

You make your claims without backing them up, just as you've done again here. I've previously discussed the part of female nature which is hypergamy, it's role in women's decision making on such matters and have also explained how it's part socialization, in this case traditionalism. You'd know this already, but you admit to avoid reading/viewing links. Such displays your willful ignorance.

Could this be any more tedious? Do some research -simply cannot be bothered with your guff old chap. I have been patient and reasonable with you, but its too ridiculous for words.
http://www.oecd.org/australia/1900259.pdf
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=aer

 

[tesseract]

Do some research

I have, and you've admitted to ignoring it.

I have been patient and reasonable with you, but its too ridiculous for words.

Making strawman arguments is not what I'd consider being "reasonable".

http://www.oecd.org/australia/1900259.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/australia/1900259.pdf

Information on Australian early childhood education and care isn't relevant to whether women had the option to work and be the breadwinner in the family unit while the husband minded the kids. You're still missing the point. You're senile.

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=aer

Early childhood education review similarly misses the point as to whether women had the option to work and be the breadwinner in the family unit while the husband minded the kids.

You've veered the issue of course and have linked to irrelevant information.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Making strawman arguments is not what I'd consider being "reasonable".

I wish we could still use 'thread tools'. I'd love to see how many times it has the word strawman.

I'd guess over 150.

 

[romeohwho]

I have, and you've admitted to ignoring it.



Making strawman arguments is not what I'd consider being "reasonable".


Information on Australian early childhood education and care isn't relevant to whether women had the option to work and be the breadwinner in the family unit while the husband minded the kids. You're still missing the point. You're senile.



Early childhood education review similarly misses the point as to whether women had the option to work and be the breadwinner in the family unit while the husband minded the kids.

You've veered the issue of course and have linked to irrelevant information.

Do the reading froddo-the salient factors are contained in that research.( that you have apparently not bothered to peruse-funnily enough a criticism you regularly accuse me of-isn't that called hy, hyp, hypocrisy Tesso)
I understand that reading long, learned documents requires more effort and skills than watching some whacko on youtube does, but that is what real research and real conclusions are based upon. Try it sometime. Maybe have a little siesta, so you are able to concentrate, then read away.
Me, am off to watch my nephew playing football. A most affable young man, probably partly because he was sent to child care. Yep, his parents both worked. That would not have been possible 50 years ago because child care wasn't available/financial constraints.

 

[tesseract]

Do the reading froddo-the salient factors are contained in that research.( that you have apparently not bothered to peruse-funnily enough a criticism you regularly accuse me of-isn't that called hy, hyp, hypocrisy Tesso)

I gave it quick browse, read the contents and question how Information on Australian early childhood education and care and an Early childhood education review is relevant to whether women had the option to work and be the breadwinner in the family unit while the husband minded the kids prior to feminism. You haven't shown how your links display any relevance to the actual subject matter. You could link any old off-topic thing and similarly say "the salient factors are contained in that research, but you have apparently not bothered to peruse". Why would I bother when you haven't displayed whether your links are on-topic. To do so, cite the relevant information.

I understand that reading long, learned documents requires more effort and skills than watching some whacko on youtube does, but that is what real research and real conclusions are based upon. Try it sometime.

If only your links proved to be on-topic - which their table of contents suggest they're not. Your mere and empty claim that they on-topic is insufficient. Display that they are.

 

[Frodo of Past]

Feminism is in my opinion a post enlightenment distortion.

I'll say up front that I believe women to be superior to men in importance to mankind.

I say that because children are our future and the nurturing of children is the nature of women.

Men are natural providers and protectors.

The distortion has arisen as many women have become co-providers and dumped children on surrogates.

It is against nature and causes problems with these children in adulthood.

 

[cartwright]

Just saw an ad for Tyler the creator.

Advertised for 13+ /licensed with ID /7:30pm

http://mobile.news.com.au/entertain...forming-visa-row/story-e6frfn29-1227463559338

Lyrics such as
"His songs include the lyrics: “Rape’s fun”, “Rape(d) a pregnant b*tch and told my friends I had a threesome” and “I wanna tie her body up and throw her in my basement.”

Yeah. He can get stuffed.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Feminism is in my opinion a post enlightenment distortion.

I'll say up front that I believe women to be superior to men in importance to mankind.

I say that because children are our future and the nurturing of children is the nature of women.

Men are natural providers and protectors.

The distortion has arisen as many women have become co-providers and dumped children on surrogates.

It is against nature and causes problems with these children in adulthood.

West Coast

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Company is offering a $15,000 scholarship to a high-achieveing penultimate year FEMALE law student at the moment in WA.


I've never seen a scholarship for a high achieving male law student - because that would be sexist :/

This is despite the fact that women outnumber men in Law enrolements 60-40 and maybe even closer to 65-35 and female graduates outnumber male grads.

But we gotta keep looking out for da girls.


Is it too much to ask to just give scholarships to PEOPLE and not a specific gender or race.