Are You a Misogynist?

[GFR7]

You're a conservative. You are instinctually driven toward preserving the status quo as you perceive it, because you instinctually perceive it as being the best, most righteous, and divinely authorized way we humans should behave. Would I be correct in assuming this?

And because this is part of your nature, you perceive the changes happening around you as a problem; a threat. And you are warning us about them this threat because you believe it. Am I still correct?

But I am not a conservative, so I am not inclined to protect the status quo as being the best, most righteous, or divinely authorized way of doing things. I'm a liberal, which means I encourage adaptation to new ways of thinking and doing things. For me, life is change, and change is an inevitable part of 'God's plan'. As we change, we grown and mature, and hopefully, improve as human beings. And that's what I'm seeing happening with marriage equality, and women's rights.

In this instance, I think the conditions favor adaptability, not rigidity. And the results will bear that out.

You have me pegged right, more or less. And yes, I believe it's in one's nature to be conservative or liberal, just as it is to be artistic or sports-minded.

I understand change and progress; I understand pragmatism. It's just with this issue, I believe it will be one day viewed as an error. We shall have to wait and see...... :think:

ETA: I read an article by a liberal woman, cannot recall her name or the title now. She believes future gays will look back at gay marriage and laugh and say, "what were we thinking?".

And SO much of the same sex marriage argument is based on FAD and EMOTION - not sound logic!!!

 

[PureX]

You have me pegged right, more or less. And yes, I believe it's in one's nature to be conservative or liberal, just as it is to be artistic or sports-minded.

I understand change and progress; I understand pragmatism. It's just with this issue, I believe it will be one day viewed as an error. We shall have to wait and see...... :think: ps I read an article by a liberal woman, cannot recall her name or the title now. She believes future gays will look back at gay marriage and laugh and say, "what were we thinking?".

We may ALL be looking back at marriage and saying; "what were we thinking!?!" :chuckle:

Once upon a time, we threw virgins into volcanoes to appease the wrath of the fire gods. As hard as it is to believe now, that was the status quo for the given times and places where it occurred. That's what people believed to be the most reasonable and effective course of action to take in the face of 'God's inexplicability'.

Now days we have Christians who think we should fall all the way back to some fantasy vision of biblical time, and that we should mimic the status quo of the ancient Jews. This is what happens when conservatism becomes obsessed with itself, and it turns against it's brother; liberalism. It's an insanely self-destructive perspective.

I assess the value of prospective changes by their relationship to Christian ideals: love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity. And NOT to ancient Jewish religious texts that say hate homosexuality, condemn and punish sinners, women are subservient, stone the whores, and all that sort of thing. And regarding the issue gay marriage and women's rights, I see them as being long over due expressions of brother/sisterly love, kindness, fairness, tolerance, and an appreciation for humanity. So for me it's not a difficult change to support.

 

[rexlunae]

You have me pegged right, more or less. And yes, I believe it's in one's nature to be conservative or liberal, just as it is to be artistic or sports-minded.

Here is something that I don't understand, though. You post really pretty awful articles about women, about feminists, about gay marriage, and then when you see a response, you just politely excuse yourself. And then you turn around and you start another thread with a set of articles that's the same or even worse.

Now, I appreciate amiability, I really do. But, if seems like you would have better results if you drove your point a little longer until some actual progress is made in the discussion one way or the other.

I understand change and progress; I understand pragmatism. It's just with this issue, I believe it will be one day viewed as an error. We shall have to wait and see...... :think:

Why do you think that?

ETA: I read an article by a liberal woman, cannot recall her name or the title now. She believes future gays will look back at gay marriage and laugh and say, "what were we thinking?".

Well, she's wrong. There is no rational reason that having the option of marriage would be a bad thing. Whether they decide to take advantage of it has yet to be seen, but as there are rather substantial financial incentives to be reaped, I would think that it would be pretty popular.

And SO much of the same sex marriage argument is based on FAD and EMOTION - not sound logic!!!

No more so than any other issue. And it isn't as if it's contrived. There is a lot of genuine emotion invested in the choice of a mate. Why would you begrudge that? As you should well know by now, there is a perfectly reasonable rationale for equal treatment. And if you don't know that, I can't imagine why we've been trying to talk to you up to now.

 

[PureX]

And SO much of the same sex marriage argument is based on FAD and EMOTION - not sound logic!!!

I understand, but keep in mind that mass media follows social trends, it DOES NOT CREATE THEM.

 

[Skybringr]

Keep talking, bro. You're a living, breathing monument to male insecurity.

You know what I say to a person who says that in perpetual defense to women?

*Lol
Says the ~bro~ trying to get brownie points from the females*

I'm sorry that my refusal to worship feminism and the women thereof makes me seem 'insecure'. Maybe I'm just a man, and feminist 'men' are better off just being women themselves :thumb:

VS

PICK ONE

 

[GFR7]

Here is something that I don't understand, though. You post really pretty awful articles about women, about feminists, about gay marriage, and then when you see a response, you just politely excuse yourself. And then you turn around and you start another thread with a set of articles that's the same or even worse.

Now, I appreciate amiability, I really do. But, if seems like you would have better results if you drove your point a little longer until some actual progress is made in the discussion one way or the other.



Why do you think that?



Well, she's wrong. There is no rational reason that having the option of marriage would be a bad thing. Whether they decide to take advantage of it has yet to be seen, but as there are rather substantial financial incentives to be reaped, I would think that it would be pretty popular.



No more so than any other issue. And it isn't as if it's contrived. There is a lot of genuine emotion invested in the choice of a mate. Why would you begrudge that? As you should well know by now, there is a perfectly reasonable rationale for equal treatment. And if you don't know that, I can't imagine why we've been trying to talk to you up to now.

OK, all valid points. Sadly and to my shame, I am a person who has strong opinions, but an even stronger desire to be kind and generous to all people around me. Some people say it is passive-aggressive. One friend told me, "You'd make a good Nazi, 'cause you'd go along with them not to hurt their feelings." For my own part I just think I have a flawed nature. :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yo

VS

PICK ONE

Neither, gross

 

[GFR7]

You know what I say to a person who says that in perpetual defense to women?

*Lol
Says the ~bro~ trying to get brownie points from the females*

I'm sorry that my refusal to worship feminism and the women thereof makes me seem 'insecure'. Maybe I'm just a man, and feminist 'men' are better off just being women themselves :thumb:

VS

PICK ONE

I pick the second.:first:

Here is another example: The first, a pseudo-intellectual wimp; the second,
prankish and proud, a man to his fingertips.

 

[annabenedetti]

Here is another example: The first, a pseudo-intellectual wimp; the second,
prankish and proud, a man to his fingertips.

"Prankish and proud?"

That wouldn't describe an attractive man IMO. I'd be more interested in what a man says and does.

 

[GFR7]

"Prankish and proud?"

That wouldn't describe an attractive man IMO. I'd be more interested in what a man says and does.

:ha: "Prankish and proud" is a direct quote from Nietzsche. I like prankish and proud in women, too.

Many women and men were attracted to Brando in his youth.

He was and still is viewed as an almost perfect male prototype.

 

[PureX]

"Prankish and proud?"

That wouldn't describe an attractive man IMO. I'd be more interested in what a man says and does.

Also, we actually know nearly nothing about either of those men. It's a bit troubling to see how easily and ignorantly they are being judged by nothing more than our own projections.

 

[rexlunae]

OK, all valid points. Sadly and to my shame, I am a person who has strong opinions, but an even stronger desire to be kind and generous to all people around me. Some people say it is passive-aggressive. One friend told me, "You'd make a good Nazi, 'cause you'd go along with them not to hurt their feelings." For my own part I just think I have a flawed nature. :idunno:

Well, if you have strong opinions, you'll be in good company here. And there's nothing shameful about wanting to be kind and generous. I just wonder why that doesn't apply at the point where you're finding these articles that say such awful things.

 

[GFR7]

Well, if you have strong opinions, you'll be in good company here. And there's nothing shameful about wanting to be kind and generous. I just wonder why that doesn't apply at the point where you're finding these articles that say such awful things.

To me, they aren't saying very awful things. :idunno: :nono:

 

[GFR7]

@Anna:

This is the female version (to my thinking)
of Brando's proud and prankish aura: (Chloe Sevigny)

 

[annabenedetti]

Also, we actually know nearly nothing about either of those men. It's a bit troubling to see how easily and ignorantly they are being judged by nothing more than our own projections.

I was going to say something about the superficiality of making judgments on looks alone, but I got sidetracked by the "prankish and proud" bit. :chuckle:

 

[GFR7]

Also, we actually know nearly nothing about either of those men. It's a bit troubling to see how easily and ignorantly they are being judged by nothing more than our own projections.

I read a bio of Brando. A couple of them. He was intelligent, complex, artistic; sweet, but had a lot of machismo; concerned with the rights of American Indians; an animal lover, and loved by both men and women (the playwright Tennessee Williams was in love with him). He was a fine actor and had a vulnerability to him.

 

[GFR7]

I was going to say something about the superficiality of making judgments on looks alone, but I got sidetracked by the "prankish and proud" bit. :chuckle:

:madmad: ................. :AMR1:

 

[Angel4Truth]

@Anna:

This is the female version (to my thinking)
of Brando's proud and prankish aura: (Chloe Sevigny)

Sevigny has had various relationships with men, though in 2006 she stated to the New York Post Gossip column: "I've questioned issues of gender and sexuality since I was a teenager, and I did some experimenting."[25] In a later interview, she stated that she "wouldn't call herself bisexual", and that she could never see herself in a relationship with a woman.[123] Nonetheless, she has been popular with the gay community throughout her career.[123] Following her relationship with Harmony Korine, which ended in the late 1990s, Sevigny dated British musician Jarvis Cocker, and later Matt McAuley, a member of the noise-rock band A.R.E. Weapons.[124] Sevigny and McAuley ended their relationship in early 2008, after being together for nearly eight years.

:rotfl: i guess experimenting with bisexuality is "proud and prankish"

 

[annabenedetti]

To me, they aren't saying very awful things. :idunno: :nono:

Because you're reading them through your perception filter. Seriously.

 

[PureX]

I read a bio of Brando. A couple of them. He was intelligent, complex, artistic; sweet, but had a lot of machismo; concerned with the rights of American Indians; an animal lover, and loved by both men and women (the playwright Tennessee Williams was in love with him). He was a fine actor and had a vulnerability to him.

That's more than I know about Brando.

What about the other guy, the one labeled "a pseudo-intellectual wimp"? What do you know about him?