Hello IDF

[ladder]

You can sound coherent only if you make some logical point. You were trying to steal someone else's thunder and you failed to provide me with a satisfactory reply about anything. Did you reply to my point wise post in blue? Kindly do so first.

Because I haven't made any point of my own. I was just pointing out that there is no logic in your 'points'. You couldn't rebut single of them.

It looks in coherent as your original points are so. Just the 'mirror', showing you the quality of your 'points'. I can add a few more adjectives to describe your points, should I?

Is it what is called stealing else's thunder?

I could have checked that myself but, I don't have English-to- feminist dictionary.

 

[Mad Indian]

Men and women are both objectified in the society. Men are objectified as working donkeys who earn and provide, defined by the job they have, earning they get and the value they bring to their family. Women are objectified for their beauty as a sign of her good/healthy genes. That is the way it worked in the past . It has nothing to do with misogyny. I might agree that that is not needed nowadays considering that the role of the earner can be done by women in modern days and so there is no need for the men's objectification as sole bread winners or the women's objectification as the beauty queens. But that is the way the system worked in the past and you will see the continuation of them in our society - women showing off their beauty and men showing of their wealth. Both are objectification of sorts and neither is misandry or misogyny. The problem with feminist is that they will view everything with the prism of women under oppression. Dint I say the same before ?

1. Most brides/bride's father are not going to see a man for his humanity - they would search a man on the basis of his worth as a working member of the society - his status, power, wealth etc. It signifies the ability of the man to provide for the future offspring the couple might have.

2. Most men/men's family are not going to see a woman for her humanity - they usually search them for their beauty(which signifies good genetic material) for their future offspring.

Basically it boils down to basic mating preferences.

1. is not misandry nor is 2. a case of misogyny. And funnily enough I came across the same argument from the feminists ---> how objectification of women is misogyny


Anyway as usual, Karen made an awesome video on this subject. If you have time, watch it. It will definitely open you up to a new perspective on this issue

 

[Mad Indian]

First of all let me tell you talking to anyone is never a waste of time, unless of course the person has decided not to change his or her perspective on things. The point that i now need to make on a serious note is that i have absolutely no objection or take on Rowdy's stance or statement. My only objection is to his advice doled out to me based on a presumption he made about my gender. The only reason for me to take this on is, i did not judge you for your avatar why do you judge me before you even know who i am or what i stand for? If he had not made this statement i have no issue with his opinion because each person is free to have their own take on things, its a free world. But do not tell me what to speak, that right i reserve for myself.
Objectification is definitely a serious problem, and rowdy's statement is a prime e.g. of that.

Oh oh oh. Hold on.

1. I have not judged anything based on gender or any avatar- I judged you based on your argument. I showed your argument to be false and yet you were continuosly harping on to it with strawmans and non sequitors. As I said early, I dont like arguing for argument's sake. If it is not going to change anybody's opinion on something because they are stuck to it on an ideological level of obscession, there is no point to arguing that - it only wastes time.

2. I dint say what you should or should not talk. I would simply choose to ignore rhetoric as it is my right to do so if only thing you are going to offer as an argument is rhetoric .

3. Objectification of women is not a serious problem. Society WILL objectify women and men , based on their roles they play ----> If tomorrow men become house dads and women become bread winners, objectification will happen along this line -> Men will be objectified for their appearance and women would be objectified for their wealth and then there would be nothing wrong with objectification of men in that particular case. That is how society works. It is a result of peacocking of the genders. Anyway, if you are interested in getting to know a new perspective on this issue, see the video I posted . If you want to debate anything on it, bring it up. Again, no strawmans or non sequitors.

 

[Mad Indian]

Have you guys heard of the term Hypergamy?So tell me if we follow the feminist reasoning, is not hypergamy misandry as it objectifies men for their wealth?

Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rashna]

What you have described below are roles defined for men and women in society. Some or most of them come from our religions. Objectification might have its roots deep in our culture and subsequent upheavals which have rendered it impossible for a woman to be treated equal. Other than the libidinous root of objectification everything else described in the video may or may not fit indian society.

Men and women are both objectified in the society. Men are objectified as working donkeys who earn and provide, defined by the job they have, earning they get and the value they bring to their family. Women are objectified for their beauty as a sign of her good/healthy genes. That is the way it worked in the past . It has nothing to do with misogyny. I might agree that that is not needed nowadays considering that the role of the earner can be done by women in modern days and so there is no need for the men's objectification as sole bread winners or the women's objectification as the beauty queens. But that is the way the system worked in the past and you will see the continuation of them in our society - women showing off their beauty and men showing of their wealth. Both are objectification of sorts and neither is misandry or misogyny. The problem with feminist is that they will view everything with the prism of women under oppression. Dint I say the same before ?

1. Most brides/bride's father are not going to see a man for his humanity - they would search a man on the basis of his worth as a working member of the society - his status, power, wealth etc. It signifies the ability of the man to provide for the future offspring the couple might have.

2. Most men/men's family are not going to see a woman for her humanity - they usually search them for their beauty(which signifies good genetic material) for their future offspring.

Basically it boils down to basic mating preferences.

1. is not misandry nor is 2. a case of misogyny. And funnily enough I came across the same argument from the feminists ---> how objectification of women is misogyny


Anyway as usual, Karen made an awesome video on this subject. If you have time, watch it. It will definitely open you up to a new perspective on this issue

 

[Rashna]

Silly man, I am not talking about you. I was describing my interaction with Rowdy which began with him judging me as a feminist even before i had uttered a single word. He told me "No feminist talk".

Oh oh oh. Hold on.

1. I have not judged anything based on gender or any avatar- I judged you based on your argument. I showed your argument to be false and yet you were continuosly harping on to it with strawmans and non sequitors. As I said early, I dont like arguing for argument's sake. If it is not going to change anybody's opinion on something because they are stuck to it on an ideological level of obscession, there is no point to arguing that - it only wastes time.

2. I dint say what you should or should not talk. I would simply choose to ignore rhetoric as it is my right to do so if only thing you are going to offer as an argument is rhetoric .

3. Objectification of women is not a serious problem. Society WILL objectify women and men , based on their roles they play ----> If tomorrow men become house dads and women become bread winners, objectification will happen along this line -> Men will be objectified for their appearance and women would be objectified for their wealth and then there would be nothing wrong with objectification of men in that particular case. That is how society works. It is a result of peacocking of the genders. Anyway, if you are interested in getting to know a new perspective on this issue, see the video I posted . If you want to debate anything on it, bring it up. Again, no strawmans or non sequitors.

 

[Rashna]

The logic in my points unravels slowly. You have to learn patience to understand it. :thumb:

Because I haven't made any point of my own. I was just pointing out that there is no logic in your 'points'. You couldn't rebut single of them.

It looks in coherent as your original points are so. Just the 'mirror', showing you the quality of your 'points'. I can add a few more adjectives to describe your points, should I?

Is it what is called stealing else's thunder?

I could have checked that myself but, I don't have English-to- feminist dictionary.

 

[ladder]

The logic in my points unravels slowly. You have to learn patience to understand it. :thumb:

Hopefully, it unwinds itself to the revelatory mode by the time 'judgement day' of feminism comes, hopefully. Keeping my fingers crossed.


Kindergarten argument? Sadly having read your previous posts can't even say to you that, you can do better #genuinely.

 

[Rashna]

You are trying to equate societal practices with feminist reasoning? This is what has been prescribed in our shastras. Always marry your daughter in a family richer than yours.

Have you guys heard of the term Hypergamy?So tell me if we follow the feminist reasoning, is not hypergamy misandry as it objectifies men for their wealth?

Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rashna]

I can say that you lack the reasoning to understand my logic. lol. Try not to get carried away by your presumption and wait for the deeper meaning to present itself. Its not that obscure but it means shaking aside the cobwebs. If you fail to get enlightened you can blame yourself. lolz.

Hopefully, it unwinds itself to the revelatory mode by the time of 'judgement day' of feminism comes, hopefully. Keeping my fingers crossed.


Kindergarten argument? Sadly having read your previous posts can't even say to you that, you can do better #genuinely.

 

[ladder]

I can say that you lack the reasoning to understand my logic. lol. Try not to get carried away by your presumption and wait for the deeper meaning to present itself. Its not that obscure but it means shaking aside the cobwebs. If you fail to get enlightened you can blame yourself. lolz.

Oh ho, every mad man (human, specifically mentioned for feminists) says so.

If you can't makes points which resonates with the receiver, you have failed. Great man ( and woman and X, again for the feminists and third sex activists ) always modulate their response according to audience.

But then you aren't a great man but then again are any feminist?

Hopefully, you didn't ask your professor to keep your answer sheet pickled for 14 years for your answer to slowly unravel and make sense to him. :shocked:

Next................Try again.

 

[Rashna]

Did you by any chance graduate from Bihar?

Oh ho, every mad man (human, specifically mentioned for feminists) says so.

If you can't makes points which resonates with the receiver, you have failed. Great man ( and woman and X, again for the feminists and third sex activists ) always modulate their response according to audience.

But then you aren't a great man but then again are any feminist?

Hopefully, you didn't ask your professor to keep your answer sheet pickled for 14 years for your answer to slowly unravel and make sense to him. :shocked:

Next................Try again.

 

[ladder]

Did you by any chance graduate from Bihar?

Is Bihar a backward and misogynist state in feminist geography?

Someone was advising me not to be carried away by presumption. Don't worry all feminists have difficulty in following their own advice. This being a recent bug in you, you might feel a little awkward. Later it will be like second nature to you.

 

[Rashna]

Looks like u don't follow news.

Is Bihar a backward and misogynist state in feminist geography?

Someone was advising me not to be carried away by presumption. Don't worry all feminists have difficulty in following their own advice. This being a recent bug in you, you might feel a little awkward. Later it will be like second nature to you.

 

[ladder]

Looks like u don't follow news.

I have Tata-Sky connection. The subscription for Feminist-Sky connection was out of stock. So, I don't get the news channel Fem-24/7

Next point please..............

 

[Rashna]

Your alma mater?

I have Tata-Sky connection. The subscription for Feminist-Sky connection was out of stock. So, I don't get the news channel Fem-24/7

Next point please..............

 

[ladder]

Your alma mater?

You were there? Doing what? Waiting for the chits to arrive?

By the way for how many year did they suspend you from re-writing the examination?

Next points please...............

 

[Rashna]

See again trying to steal someone else's thunder. I guessed that its yours and how do you know the modus operandi? Looks like you been there and done that.

You were there? Doing what? Waiting for the chits to arrive?

By the way for how many year did they suspend you from re-writing the examination?

Next points please...............

 

[ladder]

See again trying to steal someone else's thunder. I guessed that its yours and how do you know the modus operandi? Looks like you been there and done that.

Running out of argument? Is that why falling back to older ones.

Well I said I have Tata-Sky connection. Is it difficulty in connecting dots or you have a problem of short term memory loss?

Again, is it a feminist style reasoning that to know 'modulus operandi' one must have first hand experience? In your words, 'been there and done that'?

If it is the way feminist reason, then I very well can presume who the Chief Justice and Police chief in feminist land would be.

Next argument.....................

 

[Rashna]

I haven't even begun arguing yet. lolz. Did u spend 100rs on Watching "baby" on showcase? Is that why you are acting so weird?

Running out of argument? Is that why falling back to older ones.

Well I said I have Tata-Sky connection. Is it difficulty in connecting dots or you have a problem of short term memory loss?

Again, is it a feminist style reasoning that to know 'modulus operandi' one must have first hand experience? In your words, 'been there and done that'?

If it is the way feminist reason, then I very well can presume who the Chief Justice and Police chief in feminist land would be.

Next argument.....................