|
Author
|
Topic: female equality
|
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 22, 2005 05:46 AM
 
Some people think I don't talk enough (although a couple would like me to shut up altogether), but since it's not done to critisize female equality, you'll forgive I don't talk too long here.
In th UK we now have the greatest number of women we've ever had in government, and we also have the most repressive government we have had in a century, including wartime. The latest thing is: they are going to pass a law in 4 days that says UK citizens can be held indefinitely, incommunicado, without trial under house arrest, thus overturning in 4 days, rights we had had for centuries. That's all I have to say.IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 22, 2005 08:36 AM
So, you're saying that the thrust behind the new oppressive policies is an increasing female presence in gov't?IP: Logged |
neptune's mermaid
unregistered
|
posted February 22, 2005 09:48 AM
 I think you should be more clear - otherwise some might jump to conclusions and misunderstand you 
IP: Logged |
LeoSweetHeart
unregistered
|
posted February 22, 2005 07:26 PM
yea you may want to be careful, remember there is an overwhelming majority of females here  I hope you weren't implying that we as a race aren't capable of making fair government legislation. Women have more than shown their capabilities in politics/ world affairs, so there  no offense IP: Logged |
BlueRoamer
Knowflake Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 23, 2005 02:41 AM
It's good that more women are being involved in politics in the UK, as is the case in the US lately....it's unfortunate that your prime minister is a pansy who plays patsy to the Bush administration. You'd think the women over here, and over there would have more sense. Take Condy for instance.How does she sleep at night? I think shes a robot. IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 06:47 AM
This is what I think: Women are as good as men, until they become mother animals. Then they are overwhelmingly susceptible to manipulation by propaganda about peados, terrorists etc. etc. Mother animals are singleminded. The world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as little Sammy's OK. Great for little Sammy, not so for the rest of us.IP: Logged |
neptune's mermaid
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 07:16 AM
Mothers wanting to protect their young - what’s wrong with that? Fathers do that too you know. It’s only natural for humans to protect the ones they love. So what you’re saying is parents should put their work before their children…and that’s the only way to save the world 
IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 08:52 AM
Not what I'mm saying at all, but feel free to misunderstand me.IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 09:01 AM
Hm.The fine people of New Zealand may disagree with ya - though, as I understand it, women have no legal right to paid parental leave there, so perhaps most of the top-ranking females in gov't are childless. Don't get me wrong - I actually do kinda see your point. I've known quite a few women who get...singularly focused...once having children. The majority seem to also become a bit more compassionate in the process, too. If you're talking about politics from a purely emotional level, it seems like they're more likely to have empathy for the pains of other mothers around the globe in situation "X".
I've heard a few say something to the effect of, "I simply can't imagine what the mothers in Iraq are going through - or the mothers of the soldiers, for that matter; this whole thing is wrong," in reference to Iraq; or "Those poor people in Sudan; I can't imagine what it must be like - what if your child died and you didn't?" To be fair, though, I've also heard some say, "I don't give a d*mn what happens, as long as my child's OK."
But then some'll say, "I want to make this world a better place for my child," the crux of the matter then being how they define "a better place". IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 12:57 PM
I'm glad we've found a meeting place Prox. Male members of parliament have to declare their vested interests. Perhaps females should declare motherhood as a vested interest. I like babies. I even like mothers, but I think Great Britain would still be a free nation today if there were'nt so many "mothers" in charge. The secret services seem to be run by women as well.IP: Logged |
Harpyr
Newflake Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted February 23, 2005 01:14 PM
quote:
we also have the most repressive government we have had in a century, including wartime. The latest thing is: they are going to pass a law in 4 days that says UK citizens can be held indefinitely, incommunicado, without trial under house arrest, thus overturning in 4 days, rights we had had for centuries
I don't think it has as much to do with mothers being in power as it does with having imperialists of either gender in power. We don't have all that many women in power at the highest levels of US gov't and yet we are repressing people in the same way here...... IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 23, 2005 01:36 PM
 Harpyr.M - I think you may be painting with too broad a brush there. For example, we have our very own Harpyr -
I can't speak to the genesis of her ideals, but if her participation in protests and her general earth-and-equality-centered approach to life is in any way linked to her being a mother, that would be a manifestation of her own concept of working to make the world a better place for, in part, her child. I don't believe that anyone can call her a conservative reactionary and keep a straight face. Then take Condi Rice - I don't believe that she has any kids, and no one could accuse her of being excessively liberal and impartial in international and domestic affairs of security. Gah, I don't have any time to re-read that to see if it makes any sense - my own kiddo's demanding some Mommy-time. IP: Logged |
Isis
Newflake Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted February 23, 2005 03:27 PM
I think your presumptions Malkouf are sexist. I see the point you're trying to make. I just find it sexist. It would be equally as silly, in my opinion, to insinuate that the world is in trouble merely because men tend to be in charge everywhere. To assert that as a "man animal" they exist to eat, screw and maintain an overblown ego through use of force and domination, and therefore govern with that as their primary governing principle, would be equally sexist. There is some truth to stereotypes, certainly. But to insinuate that world problems are a result of more women being in charge is as ignorant and intolerant as my father saying all our problems began when women were given the right to vote and blacks were allowed to sit anywhere on the bus (yes, he actually said that crap). Also, in defense of this "mother animal", every person I know whose mother didn't fill the stereotypical nuturing, loving, protective role typical of "mother animals" have serious emotional problems. Men and women. There is of course taking the protectiveness overboard, as Prox pointed out. I don't think these global issues have anything to do w/ the gender in charge, but moreso with cultural movements and mores, as well as political ideologies. I think both women and men can force their will upon people with only "their best interests" at heart, as a parent might. But as misguided as that is, I don't believe any gender has a monopoly on such behavior.
IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 24, 2005 03:20 PM
The thing is, Isis, people who pushed for more women in public life did so by implying that their presence would be a force for good.
Labels like sexist do nothing except kill the discussion, with their vaguely threatening undertones.
It is not at all the same thing with fatherhood. Look at the story of Abraham and Isaac in the bible. Abraham sacrifices his dearly beloved, that's dearly beloved son, in obedience to a Higher cause Can you imagine a woman doing that?IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 24, 2005 01:34 PM
quote:
It would be equally as silly, in my opinion, to insinuate that the world is in trouble merely because men tend to be in charge everywhere.
But that is just what women have always implied you know IP: Logged |
Isis
Newflake Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted February 24, 2005 02:05 PM
Not this woman.I think the world is in trouble because humans are stupid and self-serving. There are of course exceptions, but... I think if anything, I would say that the correlation between increased women in government and certain policies you're talking about, have more to do with the fact that women in goverment tend more to liberalism, and I would assign these problems to extreme liberalism/leftism before I would assign it to a particular gender. I do believe in some instances, women in public life is a force for good. To imply blanketly otherwise betrays what is either a fundamental contempt for women, a belief that they are inferior, or something to that affect, and THAT is what kills a discussion. When the premise from which you arguing is flawed. And in my opinion, you are sexist and therefore the position from which you are debating is fundamentally flawed. Giving me biblical examples doesn't prove anything. In my opinion it is nothing more than historical fiction. And trying to tell me that nearly killing your child to appease a god is an admirable thing I find to be very very sad. IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 24, 2005 02:09 PM
I think the world is in trouble because humans are stupid and self-serving. There are of course exceptions, but...  Couldn't agree more. There are exceptions, both male and female.
There's always the "but", though... IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 25, 2005 11:03 AM
Women have always supported conservatism in the UK, but that is not really my point.
The point is, feminists have constantly moaned that world would be a better place if they were given their rights, but this was never tested until now. Tony Blair suddenly appointed a large number of female members of parliament, where previously there had been very few, so perhaps for the 1st time in western history we can directly observe the result. And it's not good.IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 25, 2005 11:24 AM
Perhaps that's just a UK thing, then - Venus in Cap, etc.Women have a reputation in the US for being more Liberal-Leaning. Maybe you should get yourself a good Yankee. Perhaps a Kiwi Gal - they have a very large presence in New Zealand gov't, and they abolished their military and pumped those funds into social programs. IP: Logged |
maklhouf
unregistered
|
posted February 25, 2005 12:36 PM
OK well done for taking so long to get personal and roMANtic!
But I'll just reply to the underlying point, as it ties up with one Harpyr made earlier: Reliable authorities state that the current oppresive anti-terrorism measures in the US have been taught to your secret services by our secret services. We've been at it longer, but it's not just a UK thing, the rot spreads! IP: Logged |
proxieme
unregistered
|
posted February 25, 2005 05:40 PM
My last post was mostly jest, dude.I mean, I get the impression that you're either
a) persuing this line of thought in order to get a rise outta dem damn fe-males
or
b) if serious, won't be swayed regardless of whatever's said by any other. Either way, attempting honest discussion on this matter with you'll just prove too fruitless an investment of my time. But, really - Kiwi and Yank ladies, Kiwis and Yanks Backtracking a bit - yeah, I've heard just about the same thing re: anti-terrorism tactics (just adding the Israelis into the mix). If nothing else, US intel's probably considered the UK's experience in dealing with the IRA useful.
And there's always that "special relationship". IP: Logged |
lotusheartone
unregistered
|
posted December 23, 2005 11:53 AM
The story about Abraham sacrificing his Son
is a lie, a CHurch Lie, for Fear.
and Obviously God stopped him in time
because he never asked him to do so...Women, can not rule alone just as Man can't
it takes Both female and male
for perfect Balance Love and Light to ALL IP: Logged |
lalalinda
Moderator Posts: 1120
From: nevada
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 23, 2005 02:23 PM
Something creepy going on here too,
giving ultimate power to those who are abusing it.  this doesn't seem to be a gender issue as much as a power trip. nobody needs to comment on this, I'm out of here IP: Logged |
Cardinalgal
unregistered
|
posted December 23, 2005 06:39 PM
I think the problem is more due to the fact we have a Prime Minister who refuses to listen to the opinions of either his electorate or his party more often than not! He's one of the most stubborn Taureans ever! IP: Logged |
SecretGardenAgain
unregistered
|
posted December 23, 2005 10:32 PM
maklhouf are u suggesting that the women in the UK represent the world's women as a whole? If they are incapable of making intelligent decisions then that shows absolutely NOTHING about the women around the rest of the world. Queen Nour of Jordan: the woman who modernized the middle east. Benazir Bhutto: her husband Asif Zardari was evil, but the female prime minister of Pakistan who modernized and supported a woman's rights movement, increasing literacy rates by up to 20% in the cities, and creating thousands of jobs. Queen Elizabeth...are you wishing she never happened, and Britain was still an insignificant raisin on the world map? Eleanor Roosevelt: fulfilled all the duties of her husband when he had a stroke in the end of his term. If it were not for her and the farce they played the government could have fallen apart. I don't feel the need to defend women from your illogical points any longer. If Saddam Hussein and Hitler are representative of men, then sure Condoleeza and those UK women might be representative of women. Are you willing to accept that? If not, then let women rule, GLOBALLY, before you reach a conclusion. Sadly there are still places where girls are buried alive upon birth, rather than encouraged to advance to the levels of intellectual and political advancement that is only naturally conducive to their highly developed brains (btw, if you have studied any neurology whatsoever you would know that not only do women mature before men do, but they also have a more developed logic and mathematics lobe than men). Lets also not forget that some of the most influential women have been mistresses and women from harems....from the earliest Sumerian civilizations to now, women working behind the scenes have often been one of the biggest influences on your supposedly 'independent, intelligent' Presidents, Kings, and Prime Ministers. BR, your statement is so true that I could give you a bj right now. All bow to BR. Love
SG IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
