Boazy/Polycarp/AGIR

>>> FRACCY joins the fray in defense of the women.... <<<<

WTF?

Here's a little advice; before you start a rant on your opinion of me, try reading my post first. That way you will appear less of an idiot.

Hope this helps:

>>>> Agree with Briar Rose, Brian Holden manages to denigrate the abilities of both men and women.

All women are naturally nurturers, all men are naturally warriors.

B.S.

Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:18:20 PM <<<<

As you clearly are in need of help, please try to follow:

1. I was in agreement with Briar Rose.

2. The B.S. was for Bull Sh1t, being a disclaimer on the previous line that men and women fall into distinct little boxes; nurturer or warrior.

I sincerely hope you are able to comprehend my post. I can always spell it out, but I'm not sure if I can make it any shorter given your level of concentration.

If you are still having difficulties, perhaps you could read Briar Rose's post to understand just what I was in agreement with.

Vanna - Which "studies into women's happiness"? Admittedly I haven't read any but struggle to believe there is 'worldwide' statistical data available. Can you quote sources?

Regarding Australia: I'd agree womens happiness is decreasing - along with mens. I believe much is due to overheated economics and personal expectations. 30 / 40 years ago people expected to start with essentials and save to acquire luxuries. Homes were modest but much more affordable. Most couples with family could, with care, live off one income. As a society we've sacrificed quality (of life) for quantity (of possessions). Just my thoughts ...

Regarding you claiming twice the rate of mental illness occurring in single women - How about PEOPLE OF EITHER SEX suffering mental illness are much more likely to be partnerless?? Onset of common psychiatric complaints - bipolar disorder and schizophrenia typically occurs in adolescence or young adulthood. Symptoms tend to discourage offers of matrimony. When sufferers marry or develop mental illness during the marriage, erratic, even dangerous behaviour, lack of effective treatment, knowledge, understanding, social acceptance etc often scuttle the relationship. Mental illness predisposes to single status not the other way round.

Since divorce nowadays is a "no blame" process, where is evidence for your claim: "You will also find abuse is one of the least likely reasons for divorce."? What are the the most likely reasons for divorce? Are you referring to de facto marriages as well as legal marriage?

Quote: "You will also find the vast majority of males are not aggressive."
Virtually every human is CAPABLE of aggression with males more likely to express it physically. Testosterone factors here. HOWEVER socialisation teaches us that aggression must be controlled. I believe that the majority of males manage their innate aggression in appropriate ways as do most females.

Feminism is no longer terribly relevant. The work is done. However without the womens movement western women would 'enjoy' similar conditions to females in countries like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Treated well or badly, nevertheless having little to no say about most aspects of their lives. Or would that suit you Vanna?

Vanna, if you are going to claim that 'feminism has been wonderful for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists', you should provide evidence of which feminists are endlessly telling us this - things are certainly better than they were, but 'wonderful'? The agenda is fairness, rather than happiness, and it certainly isn't a won war. The figures on pay differences between the genders say it all - and the gains of early feminism and cost of being a super woman who can supposedly juggle family and work with ease are being constantly re-evaluated. Which is why we now have emphasis on work-life balance for both men and women, and on it goes.

On the subject of 'testosterone driven' soldiers who regard women in their ranks as sex objects, I have it on good authority from one amongst them that the problem soldiers are the young men who regard themselves as irresistibly attractive - and therefor assume no woman would genuinely repel their advances. They also think their attractiveness will make them an automatic target for gay soldiers, hence their homophobia. Its a matter of vanity as much as hormones.

Candide, "They also think their attractiveness will make them an automatic target for gay soldiers, hence their homophobia."

That would be news to the ADF and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, both of whom have often remarked upon the absence of complaints by homosexuals in the armed forces following their acceptance as service men and women. If you have a more credible source then out with it.

You wrote also of 'testosterone driven soldiers'. What you could have said but you didn't was that there integration of women into the armed forces has been excellent and the level of complaint of sexual harassment is low and surprisingly so given the circumstances under which the armed forces operate. It is not like David Jones is it and many charges of sexual harassment in the military do not involve offenders in powerful positions forcing their attentions on allegedly vulnerable women. In the military sexual 'harassment' is usually among equals, or the lower ranks making some very unfair sport of a more senior rank and gender offered another spicy way of doing that. It is so often a foolish prank that goes wrong and could humiliate.

In the military especially there is the danger that feminism could become about totems as it can be in civilian life (which is where you appear to be headed - the man-hating and women-hating rhetoric of radical feminism and its opponents) and service women would be very opposed to that. They can and do stand on their own two feet.