If you want a reminder of how lucky we are to be rid of the bastards, just read Yvette Cooper in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper#start-of-comments
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Suhayl Saadi: “Statistically, most – not all – sexual abuse of children is committed by men and as we know it screws people up forever.”
Sexual abuse of children is statistically rare, especially compared to physical abuse and murder by parents, of which Mothers are the main perpetrators:
http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php
Murder is even rarer than sexual abuse. “Physical abuse” covers a very broad spectrum. The data you post is from the US, where people are convicted for slapping a child in a supermarket.
Again, please address the points. No-one here is suggesting that women are perfect. There are some deeply unpleasant people of both genders. They are, in both genders, in the minority.
You seem to have been hurt by a woman in some way. I almost understand: I myself was once savaged by an Alsation, and it took me a long time not to twitch when I saw one again. And I like dogs.
But is shrieking ‘NaziFemoZanuFascistthieves’
at women really any way to behave? There’s a fascinating discussion to be had, I suppose, about precisely how the genders are being exploited, in their different ways, but this is not it.
No-one here, you note, is attacking men.
So: ritalin, unequal pay, career inequality, care-work, and capitalism please. Bit of a long list, by now.
Indeed, murder is more rare; but not as rare as feminists telling the truth.
The point is that mother sugar-and-spice maternal loveliness, is more than three times more deadly to her own children than nasty wicked PATRIARCHAL daddy.
technicolour,
I’ve really answered most, if not all, of your points; it’s just that you don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.
Feminists are a political evil, and just as the scorpion said to the frog: “I’m a scorpion, it’s my nature to sting.” So it’s the nature of feminists to be evil.
when I say savaged, it was more of a playful nibble. What society needs, I feel.
“The point is that mother sugar-and-spice maternal loveliness, is more than three times more deadly to her own children than nasty wicked PATRIARCHAL daddy.”
This is it! The fact that you, poor person, obviously believed in this ‘sugar and spice’ image of ‘maternal loveliness’ in the first place, is why you are so repulsed and disgusted by the fact that women can behave humanly ie sometimes badly. You’re not alone, conditioning is a fascinating thing.
And so to bolster your feelings of betrayal and disgust you seek out the VERY rare occasions when a mother kills her child (in a different country) and flag the fact that it happens more frequently than the VERY rare occasions of patricide, to support your position.
And yet that one statistic can so easily be explained by the fact that women generally spend much more time with their children. To know more usefully, you would have to look at each case.
List of points (ritalin etc) above. I have another one: could you please name a ‘femininist’.
However, there is something lovely about maternity, just as there is something lovely about paternity. People are at their most lovely when they are happy, I find. If you’re saying that the working conditions in the UK are making it increasingly hard for women, and their families, to be happy, I’d agree with you.
technicolour: “List of points (ritalin etc) above. I have another one: could you please name a ‘femininist’.”
The Ritalin link… again… :
http://jimmygiro.blogspot.com/2008/08/educating-ritalin.html
And everyone knows the most powerful feminist in the UK: Harriet sugar-and-spice Harman… otherwise known as Mrs. Dromey
Harriet Harman, again. In what way is she a feminist?
technicolour wrote: “Harriet Harman, again. In what way is she a feminist?”
That’s it, I just won this debate!
very pleased for you: can you explain how?
have just looked at your ritalin link: you do not show how the fact that more women are teachers has anything to do with the fact that more children are being prescribed ritalin.
I’m sorry Mr Giro, I think you’re just having fun. Anyway, eleven o’clock, time to knock off. Look forward to hearing why you think Harriet Harman is a feminist. In the meantime, since you seem to know so much about the subject, could you name another feminist? I’d be interested in your critique of their opinions, too.
Just to give you a clue, no feminist would have supported the attack on Iraq.
Before you can give anybody a clue, you first have to get a clue.
No, rudeness isn’t the answer, Mr Giro: the answer’s the answer. Why do you think Harriet Harman is a feminist?
technicolour wrote: “Just to give you a clue, no feminist would have supported the attack on Iraq.”
JimmyGiro: “But with more women at the top, there would be a higher probability of a national Gleichschaltung of synchronised feminist opinion…”
Q.E.D.
Mr Giro: you didn’t answer my points about how policies that are not remotely socialist in nature are sometimes referred to as “socialist” in order to demonise them, nor how a deliberate, evil conspiracy involving a large number of people remains quiet, against all the odds.
You also don’t explain how your explanations regarding gender inequities are preferable to mine, and if you get stuck answering a point, you resort to patronising. Many of my points remain entirely unanswered.
This board is partly about the cut and thrust of debate, but over the years I’ve found it to be a great modifier and moderator of my perspectives too. Accordingly, I find that sometimes folks here award the other person the point, acknowledge an interesting contribution, or divert to light relief. But I’ve never seen you give any ground whatsoever, not an inch, and your posts appear to be driven by anger rather than the spirit of enquiry.
As per other comments, I wonder that you have received a great hurt from women in the past, and have brought your aggressive strands of thought in line with that. This is not intended to be judgemental nor dismissive; just a recognition that our views sometimes stem from our human responses to negative events rather than non-emotional, rational analysis.
Indeed, if nature’s decision-making coin had landed on its other side, I might be wearing your shoes: for my formative years, my mother was a violent authoritarian, and if the trauma had turned me to angry misogyny, I claim that it would not have been my fault. We’re all human Jimmy, and we all have failings. We just have to recognise it.
Jon: “…you didn’t answer my points about how policies that are not remotely socialist in nature are sometimes referred to as “socialist” in order to demonise them, nor how a deliberate, evil conspiracy involving a large number of people remains quiet, against all the odds.”
Not so long ago, in a little place called Germany…
No responses to the increasing list of unanswered questions from several, plus a fresh and unnecessary comparison to the Nazis?
Come on Jimmy, you seem pretty smart. But you’re dancing around the issues and refusing to confront them head on. The discussion will fizzle out quickly if you don’t at all engage with your interlocutors.
“…fizzle out quickly…”
Is that related to ‘slowly exploding’, or ‘being savaged by inanimate objects’?
probably related to the way a sparkler fizzles out quickly, I expect. You know, fff, – zt.
Feminism is all about women supporting each other, you say blindly, I say kindly, right? It’s also a stance against oppression, inequality and victimisation. Ergo, no feminist would have agreed to launching an illegal aggressive (male led) attack on women and children in another country, even if they didn’t mind the men being killed (and they would). That’s just not feminism, no matter what the warmongers call themselves. Glenda Jackson, for example, opposed it.
Anyway, too many good points swimming around unanswered now, for me. Ritalin, Mr Giro? It really isn’t women, you know, but then tackling the pharmaceuticals needs hefty research and some courage.
Jon, technicolour, I salute your attempts to engage, but he ain’t interested. He’s got views with which he is comfortable and he’s going to stick with them and will iterate them at the appropriate, or inappropriate, juncture.
It’s much easier to blame everything on one or other group of people and then stick everyone/ all ideologies which you don’t like in with that group. It protects one from acknowledging that the ‘other’ might just have a point as well and also that the world – and human society in general – is an incredibly complex entity. No-one really, has been able to produce a schema which accounts for everything in human society, let alone the universe. That’s what religions attempt to do. But of course, they all disagree with one another and within each of them as well. So, really, it’s a bit like joining the [insert name of religion or political cult], you get a potted explanation of everything. But, as that bearded bard said, there really are more things on earth and in heaven than can be fathomed in one’s philosophy.
The points were answered, but your feminist programmed brain cannot accept input unless it is associated with a pink dog-whistle.
The pharmaceutical companies don’t tell the, mainly feminist, educational psychologists to mainly use Ritalin on boys, that is exclusively the responsibility of the feminist controlled education system.
OK, I’m out too, unless you’re willing to engage, Jimmy. There is agreement here amongst people I’ve come to view as consistently reasonable that you’ve +not+ answered the points put to you at all, and I see it the same way.
I should be interested to have a conversation here or on your blog with you at a later date, should you be happy to answer questions directly.
Substantiate the claim that ‘educational psychologists’ are mainly feminists? No, thought not. Analyse what kind of feminists they are, if any – Dworkin or Greer? No, thought not. Resort to abuse instead? Yep. Poor show, Mr Giro.