100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Please educate me ladies | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Poetry in that era was considered an art for women and not becoming of a man, I might add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some how I find that hard to believe.. I'll give you that it was "more becoming for a woman" but there were plenty of male poets.. Alas, we digress, that is not what this was about...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you can do it bean's .....
 i once seen a women pee into a beer bottle and she never touched it !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can do anything a man can do except piss my name in the snow. However, give me enough time to practise an I'm sure I could  LMAO!! Let me sum it up for you...women got the shotty end of the deal...we always have....maybe it is thought we didn't by the whole "being able to stay at home and raise kids thing" but many women don't have men who will go and work for them and bring in the money so they can stay at home... So that makes a woman have to get out and do the same work as a man...and yet women are still expected to look hot and be beautiful and perfect to gain a man's attention in this world...so there you have it...women got the crappy end of the deal and always have.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. You didn't read that book very well did you? SOME women could/were allowed.. MOST were not... Just b/c a couple of women were allowed to and could, does not mean all the others didn't b/c they weren't capable.. THAT is closed minded and only says that you do/did not empathize with the plight of women.. You just think it's wrong that guys couldn't stay home...  I'm not saying that. But Mark Twain wasn't well educated and that didn't stop him. Nowdays he's considered the quintessential American author. And while I sympathize with anyone born into a role they didn't want, man or woman, I have to admit that the stuff I read in those classes, the texts that the teacher claimed were looked over because it was written by a woman, honestly wasn't that great. I'm not being sexist, but, what is called literature today is called that not because it was written by a man, but because it stood the test of time. Frakenstien is considered a classic, and it doesn't matter whether it was written by a woman or not, it's just that good. You're now making this about writing and it's not... You did not address the strength, testosterone or the fact that MEN decided these roles for themselves not women for them... And it's much better to empathize than sympathize.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You want to know about women....here you go...treat us with respet, speak to us as you would have others speak to your mother, don't get down on us when we call you on your screw ups, don't put us in a box and expect us all to be the same, and don't make generalizations about us; we are unique individuals and should be treaeted as such. Enough said here I think.... Hi Prncs!  The only generalization I made was when I was asked for a generalization, and that was only suppossed to be in good fun. I haven't done any of that other stuff. I go out of my way to treat women with respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You want to know about women....here you go...treat us with respet, speak to us as you would have others speak to your mother, don't get down on us when we call you on your screw ups, don't put us in a box and expect us all to be the same, and don't make generalizations about us; we are unique individuals and should be treaeted as such. Enough said here I think.... Hi Prncs! The only generalization I made was when I was asked for a generalization, and that was only suppossed to be in good fun. I haven't done any of that other stuff. I go out of my way to treat women with respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay...I just have to.
The "essence" thread, which I suppose started this whole thing, not that anyone can remember back that far now..the question was "what is the essence of a man, what is the essence of a woman?" There shouldn't be a generalization about that question because the answer is not general. The essence of each of us is very different. What essence means is the thing that makes a person/object unique. The trait that makes up woman A's essence could be vastly different than what makes up woman B's essence. Same with the men. That was why generalizations wouldn't apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at the history of writers, the women who were successful were so because their fathers felt it was important to educate them, and supported their writing.
Without a man, that wouldn't have been possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at the history of writers, the women who were successful were so because their fathers felt it was important to educate them, and supported their writing. Without a man, that wouldn't have been possible. Snarky elaborate a little bit I'm not getting your point.. I get what you're saying but the point to the argument has me a little lost sweetpea...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you ladies !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. You didn't read that book very well did you? SOME women could/were allowed.. MOST were not... Just b/c a couple of women were allowed to and could, does not mean all the others didn't b/c they weren't capable.. THAT is closed minded and only says that you do/did not empathize with the plight of women.. You just think it's wrong that guys couldn't stay home... I'm not saying that. But Mark Twain wasn't well educated and that didn't stop him. Nowdays he's considered the quintessential American author. And while I sympathize with anyone born into a role they didn't want, man or woman, I have to admit that the stuff I read in those classes, the texts that the teacher claimed were looked over because it was written by a woman, honestly wasn't that great. I'm not being sexist, but, what is called literature today is called that not because it was written by a man, but because it stood the test of time. Frakenstien is considered a classic, and it doesn't matter whether it was written by a woman or not, it's just that good. You're now making this about writing and it's not... You did not address the strength, testosterone or the fact that MEN decided these roles for themselves not women for them... And it's much better to empathize than sympathize.... I only got into the writing because that's what my class primarily dealt with. But it's a little simplistic to believe that each man woke up one morning and said "Today I think I'm going to oppress women." Everyone was born into the society they were born into. No single man or woman could have changed it by himself, just like no single man or woman created it. It took generations of men and women working together, and we still aren't there yet. It's unfair to assume that just because I realize that all men back then weren't tyrants, that I don't care about the injustices suffered by women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at the history of writers, the women who were successful were so because their fathers felt it was important to educate them, and supported their writing. Without a man, that wouldn't have been possible. Snarky elaborate a little bit I'm not getting your point.. I get what you're saying but the point to the argument has me a little lost sweetpea... Just adding my two cents to the discussion on women vs. men through history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at the history of writers, the women who were successful were so because their fathers felt it was important to educate them, and supported their writing. Without a man, that wouldn't have been possible. Snarky elaborate a little bit I'm not getting your point.. I get what you're saying but the point to the argument has me a little lost sweetpea... Just adding my two cents to the discussion on women vs. men through history. I know hun, it that pro men got a raw deal or pro women got a raw deal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at the history of writers, the women who were successful were so because their fathers felt it was important to educate them, and supported their writing. Without a man, that wouldn't have been possible. Touche' point taken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. You didn't read that book very well did you? SOME women could/were allowed.. MOST were not... Just b/c a couple of women were allowed to and could, does not mean all the others didn't b/c they weren't capable.. THAT is closed minded and only says that you do/did not empathize with the plight of women.. You just think it's wrong that guys couldn't stay home... I'm not saying that. But Mark Twain wasn't well educated and that didn't stop him. Nowdays he's considered the quintessential American author. And while I sympathize with anyone born into a role they didn't want, man or woman, I have to admit that the stuff I read in those classes, the texts that the teacher claimed were looked over because it was written by a woman, honestly wasn't that great. I'm not being sexist, but, what is called literature today is called that not because it was written by a man, but because it stood the test of time. Frakenstien is considered a classic, and it doesn't matter whether it was written by a woman or not, it's just that good. You're now making this about writing and it's not... You did not address the strength, testosterone or the fact that MEN decided these roles for themselves not women for them... And it's much better to empathize than sympathize.... I only got into the writing because that's what my class primarily dealt with. But it's a little simplistic to believe that each man woke up one morning and said "Today I think I'm going to oppress women." Everyone was born into the society they were born into. No single man or woman could have changed it by himself, just like no single man or woman created it. It took generations of men and women working together, and we still aren't there yet. It's unfair to assume that just because I realize that all men back then weren't tyrants, that I don't care about the injustices suffered by women. I never said they were all tyrants.. I was it was setup the way it was by MEN that men chose those roles you said they were forced into.. WOMEN didn't get choices very often and what they went through to finally get us where we are now is HUGE!! Not all me said "I will oppress a woman today" b/c they didn't have to WOMEN WERE ALREADY OPPRESSED!!! What is it that I'm not stating clearly b/c I will reword it however I need to so that you address WHAT I'm saying.. And if you didn't learn anything from your books, please get some new one's and read some more to really get an idea... I have one I can suggest... I will look for it and email the title to you... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know hun, it that pro men got a raw deal or pro women got a raw deal? My whole point is that everybody gets a raw deal when we have to live our lives according to societies standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stops by to marvel at higher education!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know hun, it that pro men got a raw deal or pro women got a raw deal? My whole point is that everybody gets a raw deal when we have to live our lives according to societies standards. And I will repeat my original statement, there are two sides to every coin |
|
|
|
|
