Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

truth.. got extended family that can testify

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

This is so gross & disturbing. pic.twitter.com/AktGdBEVK3

— Patriarchy Hannah (@harmonizedgrace) January 13, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

---

' intels '

Still another of your amusing woke slang.

Somehow I suspect the term applies to you far more than this married guy with 3 adult offspring .

---

Are you comparing yourself to me again? Yes how and mighty you must be to not be an intel. Well done on the adult offspring parts, sex at least 3 times! You know, some people never figure the dang thing out, but you sure did! What a man of position, 3 adult offspring! Sicem KaiBear!

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

---

' intels '

Still another of your amusing woke slang.

Somehow I suspect the term applies to you far more than this married guy with 3 adult offspring .

---

Are you comparing yourself to me again? Yes how and mighty you must be to not be an intel. Well done on the adult offspring parts, sex at least 3 times! You know, some people never figure the dang thing out, but you sure did! What a man of position, 3 adult offspring! Sicem KaiBear!

---

Thank you youngster.

Now go cash that 20 hour Burger King paycheck and begin reimbursing your parents for all that college tuition .

[Travel literature is full of images and stories of men ascending Everest, launching surfboards into Pacific waves, mountain biking down rocky trails, and commanding yachts or safari vehicles.

But the travel industry knows what the average American does not. That is, women are statistically and actually much more likely to travel than men. The average U.S. traveler is a 47-year-old woman. And whether women travel with their partners, their families, friends, solo or in groups, 80% of all travel decisions are made by women. In 2021, one publication estimated that women, who see travel as both a reward and escape, would spend $125 billion on vacations.

To put it simply, women love to travel. And frankly, they seem to love it more than men.]

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

..............I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the baby dies in utero, the procedure to remove it isn't an abortion.

If that doctor truly thinks the Texas law is so poorly worded that it even puts him/her at risk for prosecution for removing dead fetuses, then what you've got is a very stupid doctor. And it doesn't say much for you too, if you really couldn't understand this for yourself.

---

The problem is it is the reality of a poorly thought out law.

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

They all three are similarly made up, and Mormons are a sect of Christianity, as is Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Tell that to the medical community. The procedures are the same, irrespective of fetus status. A dead baby is treated no different than a non-viable baby. You can write equitable laws that are not subject to the mere whims of the mother. I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

Ah yes, in order for your thesis to work one must equate all cults and religions as the same. That way you can ignore the reality of the differences in how their followers live in order to claim they are all the same and all guilty of the behavior of one. How incredibly stupid. Almost as stupid as claiming the removal of a dead human from the womb is the same morally as KILLING the human in the womb and then removing them.

---

Religions are cults. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same. Religions are a cultural phenomena that arises to provide answers to the human plight, by attributing the unknown to the supernatural, and to provide a means of social order.

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

They all three are similarly made up, and Mormons are a sect of Christianity, as is Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Tell that to the medical community. The procedures are the same, irrespective of fetus status. A dead baby is treated no different than a non-viable baby. You can write equitable laws that are not subject to the mere whims of the mother. I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

Ah yes, in order for your thesis to work one must equate all cults and religions as the same. That way you can ignore the reality of the differences in how their followers live in order to claim they are all the same and all guilty of the behavior of one. How incredibly stupid. Almost as stupid as claiming the removal of a dead human from the womb is the same morally as KILLING the human in the womb and then removing them.

---

Religions are cults. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same. Religions are a cultural phenomena that arises to provide answers to the human plight, by attributing the unknown to the supernatural, and to provide a means of social order.

---

Probably food for thought that when liberals/atheist think they can change human nature...they are wrong.

We are hard wired for religious faith.

Even if you reject the old religions of humanity....you will just end up creating new ones in the future...and there is no reason to think the future progressive religions of mankind will be any better (and probably worse) than the previous ones.

Already things like Climate Change, transgenderism, and DEI have all the classic hallmarks of a cult belief system.

Whenever Liberals tell you that mankind will be better off without God worship....remind them that Communism & Fascism in the 20th century were essential new religions/cult faiths.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

---

' intels '

Still another of your amusing woke slang.

Somehow I suspect the term applies to you far more than this married guy with 3 adult offspring .

---

Are you comparing yourself to me again? Yes how and mighty you must be to not be an intel. Well done on the adult offspring parts, sex at least 3 times! You know, some people never figure the dang thing out, but you sure did! What a man of position, 3 adult offspring! Sicem KaiBear!

---

Thank you youngster.

Now go cash that 20 hour Burger King paycheck and begin reimbursing your parents for all that college tuition .

---

On my bucket list is working at a fast food joint, serving fries. I'll get there some day! Can't imagine the silver spoon you must have been born with, to talk down about parents sending their kids to school? Are you Trump? Your parents started making you a real estate manager when you were 5 so you could pay for college with cash?

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

---

' intels '

Still another of your amusing woke slang.

Somehow I suspect the term applies to you far more than this married guy with 3 adult offspring .

---

Are you comparing yourself to me again? Yes how and mighty you must be to not be an intel. Well done on the adult offspring parts, sex at least 3 times! You know, some people never figure the dang thing out, but you sure did! What a man of position, 3 adult offspring! Sicem KaiBear!

---

Thank you youngster.

Now go cash that 20 hour Burger King paycheck and begin reimbursing your parents for all that college tuition .

---

On my bucket list is working at a fast food joint, serving fries. I'll get there some day! Can't imagine the silver spoon you must have been born with, to talk down about parents sending their kids to school? Are you Trump? Your parents started making you a real estate manager when you were 5 so you could pay for college with cash?

---

LOL my father grew up desperately poor in LA during the Great Depression . Joined the Navy in 1941 just in time to be bombed at Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

He was paid 21 dollars a month. 2/3 of which he sent to his mother.

Retired as an officer.

No silver spoons available in a military household.

However I did pay for all three of our kids to graduate from college. With grad school an additional cost with 2 of the kids.

But each of them are now millionaires in their own right and reasonably happy .

Good return on our investment.

Meanwhile, exactly what have you accomplished with the university investment provided by your parents ?

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

As far as Biblical "headship" goes. There may have a case for it in those instances where the "head," as it were, loves his wife at the level where he is willing to die for her.

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

They all three are similarly made up, and Mormons are a sect of Christianity, as is Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Tell that to the medical community. The procedures are the same, irrespective of fetus status. A dead baby is treated no different than a non-viable baby. You can write equitable laws that are not subject to the mere whims of the mother. I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

Ah yes, in order for your thesis to work one must equate all cults and religions as the same. That way you can ignore the reality of the differences in how their followers live in order to claim they are all the same and all guilty of the behavior of one. How incredibly stupid. Almost as stupid as claiming the removal of a dead human from the womb is the same morally as KILLING the human in the womb and then removing them.

---

Religions are cults. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same. Religions are a cultural phenomena that arises to provide answers to the human plight, by attributing the unknown to the supernatural, and to provide a means of social order.

---

Probably food for thought that when liberals/atheist think they can change human nature...they are wrong.

We are hard wired for religious faith.

Even if you reject the old religions of humanity....you will just end up creating new ones in the future...and there is no reason to think the future progressive religions of mankind will be any better (and probably worse) than the previous ones.

Already things like Climate Change, transgenderism, and DEI have all the classic hallmarks of a cult belief system.

Whenever Liberals tell you that mankind will be better off without God worship....remind them that Communism & Fascism in the 20th century were essential new religions/cult faiths.

---

You conflate ideology with religion.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

They all three are similarly made up, and Mormons are a sect of Christianity, as is Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Tell that to the medical community. The procedures are the same, irrespective of fetus status. A dead baby is treated no different than a non-viable baby. You can write equitable laws that are not subject to the mere whims of the mother. I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

Ah yes, in order for your thesis to work one must equate all cults and religions as the same. That way you can ignore the reality of the differences in how their followers live in order to claim they are all the same and all guilty of the behavior of one. How incredibly stupid. Almost as stupid as claiming the removal of a dead human from the womb is the same morally as KILLING the human in the womb and then removing them.

---

Religions are cults. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same. Religions are a cultural phenomena that arises to provide answers to the human plight, by attributing the unknown to the supernatural, and to provide a means of social order.

---

Probably food for thought that when liberals/atheist think they can change human nature...they are wrong.

We are hard wired for religious faith.

Even if you reject the old religions of humanity....you will just end up creating new ones in the future...and there is no reason to think the future progressive religions of mankind will be any better (and probably worse) than the previous ones.

Already things like Climate Change, transgenderism, and DEI have all the classic hallmarks of a cult belief system.

Whenever Liberals tell you that mankind will be better off without God worship....remind them that Communism & Fascism in the 20th century were essential new religions/cult faiths.

---

You conflate ideology with religion.

---

He's pointing out the historic and continuing attempts to substitute something else for God, which is readily apparent to any rational observer, and arguing that it is human nature to find higher meaning somewhere. He's not wrong.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters."

-Camille Paglia

---

And???? Some men have. And, some men have physically, and psychologically abused, and even abandoned their women and children or worse...

---

Sure,

But what do you think is the ratio is of men in history that have used their physical strength to abuse their wives and kids vs sacrificed and work endlessly to take care of them?

Patriarchal societies have survived for thousands of years…not because they brutally oppressed women and children….but because they provided protection and security and allowed the family (and thus the civilization) to flourish.

---

TS said "Biblical patriarchy, which is what you're advocating, if enforced upon women is abusive in and of itself." Biblically, it means it was baked into the system. Women are not 2nd class citizens because in the reign of God all are equal.

---

1. What government is forcing biblical patriarchy on women today in 2023? If anything our current society and government is anti-biblical patriarchy.

2. How would you enforce your own notions of "equality"?


3. How would we even determine when "equality" was achieved?

---

UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia ... when you consider the are Abrahamic religions. You could even argue the state laws in Texas regarding abortion rights are patriarchal by extension. (I'm pro-life before you go down that rabbit hole)

---

Claiming to be pro-life doesn't make your post less nonsensical.

---

Thanks for your admission.

---

Yes, I freely admit your ridiculous attempt to claim Islam is the same as Christianity therefor Christian nations are evil patriarchies is not in any way bolstered by your claim of being pro-life. Procedures removing dead babies are not abortions.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic patriarchal religion as is Judaism, and Christianity as an extension of Judaism. The problem is there is no distinction in the procedure, therefore doctors are afraid to perform one, the way the law is written. Also, there are circumstances where an abortion is needed due to viability and health of the mother. You end up with situations like we have now with women who need and abortion, and can't get one, because of overreaching, poorly crafted and written law; leading to situations where an over zealous prosecutor charges a woman for a miscarriage.

---

Islam is a merely a made up religion created by a conman who lifted passages from Judaism in order to try and give his creation legitimacy. That in no way equates with Christianity and Judaism any more than Mormons do and it certainly doesn't condemn Christian nations due to the actions of Muslims nations, as you're attempting here.
Removing dead humans from the womb is not an abortion. Period. There is nothing to abort. There is no pregnancy if the child is dead. People who pretend otherwise are trying to demonize those who want to stop the abortions that make up the VAST majority of all baby killings; abortions based on the mere whims of the mother.

---

..............I know of a couple whose baby died at 21 weeks. She had to have an abortion for her health. Her doctor will no longer perform that procedure under the same circumstances - due to the poorly written law here in Texas, and now due to Paxton's overzealous prosecutorial mindset.

---

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the baby dies in utero, the procedure to remove it isn't an abortion.

If that doctor truly thinks the Texas law is so poorly worded that it even puts him/her at risk for prosecution for removing dead fetuses, then what you've got is a very stupid doctor. And it doesn't say much for you too, if you really couldn't understand this for yourself.

---

The problem is it is the reality of a poorly thought out law.

---

No, the problem in this case is just poor thought.

The patriarchy has strange monuments. pic.twitter.com/Zz6BRenhQu

— Way of the World (@wayotworld) January 21, 2024

A strong political divide is emerging between young men and women in many countries:https://t.co/kPY21noAt8 pic.twitter.com/5KDhYkxIEQ

— Dina D. Pomeranz (@DinaPomeranz) January 26, 2024

Trad wives are out, now kids on TikTok are dressing up as “mob wives.”

Seems like every trend for young women is some kind of escapism from the present.

They’re just cycling through old movies and cultural tropes. pic.twitter.com/hmhKHtex3B

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) January 28, 2024

Women's usage of anti-depressant medication and alcohol across age cohorts has spiked in recent years, as their political polarization has increased dramatically relative to everyone else, especially among white women. https://t.co/MkGo3zjrQj pic.twitter.com/tDVICPyaCy

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) January 31, 2024

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

. The basics and general premise of all religions are the same.

---

Except for the number of god(s), the nature of those god(s), the nature of man, and what human behaviors those god(s) find acceptable. But this is a common false statement by atheists who wish to deny any sort of divine accountability for their own behaviors and are their own supreme authority.

---

Atheists, theists (even Christian theists) behave in accordance with their own psychological sense and notions of morality. Some rely on the evidence of reality, and rationality, while others don't.

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm surprised someone with your misogynistic views hasn't converted to Islam.

---

Acknowledging that there is a natural created order for headship and family stability is not "misogynistic".

Feminism has had disastrous consequences in western society and for the family.

---

Your mythical assertion is mysogenistic by definition. There is no objective evidence supporting a natural created order for women.

There is no evidence that equal rights for women has had anything other than positve consequences for society, and women. I think most women prefer western society to your middle eastern society.

---

No, women in this day and time have been tricked into thinking that having a career is somehow more fulfilling than having a family. There are tons of vidieos on tick tok and youtube showing unhappy 40 year old cat ladies that believed the lies they were told by Sex and the city. Most women these days would much rather be a stay at home mom with a husband who is the breadwinner. It's the natural order and always has been for a reason,.

---

Right…, Tik Tok and Youtube are definitley reliable sources, LOL. It's amazing how one TV show can upend the "natural world order. " I just don't understand why all of these deadbeat husbands and fathers allow their women out of the house when they clearly shouldn't. They're cluttering up the roads driving around. Trumper men need to get together and have Bryan Hughes sponsor some more well thought out legislation. Revoke their driving privileges, and right to vote. That'll keep them home. Keep'em pregnant and busy with lots of children. I don't guess you could blame men for failing to make enough money so their wives don't have to work. On the other hand, maybe men shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman or father children, until they show they can provide enough money to maintain the "natural world order in their home." A stiff prison term for failure would fix that! Where is Bryan Hughes when you really need him?

---

No one can legitimately answer for 'all women'.

Though I suspect many women would dearly appreciate the opportunity to stay home with their children and have a stable husband provide enough money to support them all.

Other than the first 3 years of our marriage, I have been the sole breadwinner in our relationship. However after watching all the work my wife has done caring for our extended family, it's obvious I had the easier task.

You married TS ?

---

The thing is, and you might ask your wife this to make sure, some women want a choice in the matter. Your suspicions shouldn't determine squat for all of humanity, and that is exactly the problem. Entitled men who think that a "I suspect" should determine gender roles for everyone.

---

Another one of your incoherent ramblings.

Either you are perpetually stoned, under the age of 19 or incredibly stupid.

---

Women should have the same choices that men do, in terms of how to live their lives. This is not compatible with the patriarchy. Is that plain enough for you, or is basic English "incoherent?"

---

That sounds good, but is impossible. The reason we're at 3rd or 4th generation feminism is the practical reality that true equality is impossible. These latter versions recognize the shortfalls and lack of true equality and move to the absurd and destructive that only exacerbate the impossibility of it. Males and females were not designed to be equal. They were designed to be compatible. Compatibility has elements of shared purpose that evolve as societies evolve, but there are inequalities in both directions that are required for that to work.

---

I disagree, they were absolutely designed to be equal. Not the same, of course different, but plenty of women make for treat leaders, way better than many men. We all know it. Equality does not mean the same outcome can be achieved, in social contexts it means given the same sex-blind opportunities.

There will almost always be more male politicians than female, but that should never stop anyone from considering a female for office.

---

There will always be more male bricklayers, mechanical engineers, soldiers and police, and more female nurses and teachers, but for some reason the conversation defaults to power or wealth positions (leaders as your reference). Hyper success realms are never the effective measure of social equality, and are false benchmarks. How societies stratify at the foundational level determines ultimate social coherence. So once again, compatibility and symbiosis of strengths, not equality, is what is most important.

---

Incorrect on your assumptions. Don't you know it's current year? I agree and say all the time equal opportunity will not lead to equal outcomes, but it will lead to as fair of outcomes as we can get. The US will never reach 50% female Presidency, but 0%? We can know for sure that in many election years many Americans were biased against females, even if we are from outer space.

I thought it was just a basic common assumption that we treat the Preamble as if it is saying all men are equal is mankind, not just biological males, but I guess first wave feminism still has work to do. The very idea that someone could argue for women being under the boot of men as a rule is actually not even funny, I'll admit I'm a bit offended.

---

Did you graduate from Baylor ( or any other university ) ?

If so what was your degree in ?

Are you currently employed full time utilizing said degree ?

---

You aren't the first to try doxxing people on this forum, pathetic though, every time. I did graduate from Baylor though. I never knew all you who thought women should be servants to men, so I'm ok Hu ft by mu no u the hju

---

Interesting

Was not familiar with the term 'doxing' however since you applied it to me , I looked it up.
No I am not remotely interested in obtaining your personal identity.



Merely curious if you provide your own livelihood.

As I have known several women with views such as yours and inevitably they either don't use their expensive degree or don't work at all.

---

The correct thread to try another forum favorite, the oe compare a poster to a female as an insult. No, females are not insults. If I had been born one, I'd be fine with it.

I feel bad for the women in you guys' lives. This is the type of attitude that justifies domestic abuse. Women are worth respecting and giving freedom, and no "you remind me of a woman" pathetic bs is going to change my mind.

---

Honest mistake

Thought you had previously referred to yourself with female pronouns. With your bizarre comments and disjointed thought processes it's hard to keep track.

Meanwhile under the category of 'feel bad'.

I feel bad for whoever paid for your education. As it is obvious you are not on any kind of fast track in the business world.

Amazing the amount of money some individuals will spend on a BA degree that generates less than 150 k in annual income.

---

I don't quite remember anyone else quite as try hard as you. Let me guess you are rich and therefore right about everything?

---

These days 'rich' begins with a net worth of at least 20 million.

And with such a standard I am not rich.

Meanwhile you are condescending ( in a totally clueless manner ) 90% of the time.

Amusing to watch you stumble around, but makes me wonder how you could possibly be paying your own way. Someone else has just got to be providing for you.

---

As you said, your mistake.

---

LOL

About whether or not you are female ?

Guilty as charged.

---

Again, only incels would think being a female is an insult.

---

' intels '

Still another of your amusing woke slang.

Somehow I suspect the term applies to you far more than this married guy with 3 adult offspring .

---

Are you comparing yourself to me again? Yes how and mighty you must be to not be an intel. Well done on the adult offspring parts, sex at least 3 times! You know, some people never figure the dang thing out, but you sure did! What a man of position, 3 adult offspring! Sicem KaiBear!

---

Thank you youngster.

Now go cash that 20 hour Burger King paycheck and begin reimbursing your parents for all that college tuition .

---

On my bucket list is working at a fast food joint, serving fries. I'll get there some day! Can't imagine the silver spoon you must have been born with, to talk down about parents sending their kids to school? Are you Trump? Your parents started making you a real estate manager when you were 5 so you could pay for college with cash?

---

LOL my father grew up desperately poor in LA during the Great Depression . Joined the Navy in 1941 just in time to be bombed at Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

He was paid 21 dollars a month. 2/3 of which he sent to his mother.

Retired as an officer.

No silver spoons available in a military household.

However I did pay for all three of our kids to graduate from college. With grad school an additional cost with 2 of the kids.

But each of them are now millionaires in their own right and reasonably happy .

Good return on our investment.

Meanwhile, exactly what have you accomplished with the university investment provided by your parents ?

---

It is tiring trying to argue with someone who doesn't care about ideas but only material accomplishments. I'm sorry but if the best you can do is parrot "tell me your occupation and how much money you have" you are simply not worth giving the time of day. I normally argue with idiots l I e you on this forum, but in personal life I avoid you people. Enjoy knowing your progeny make millions.