Feminists

[LadyinRed]

<p>
[quote]
The other way that a person can submit is voluntary. This can come from love, devotion to a passion, a communal spirit, or recognizing one's own limits.

[/quote]

^ this is what you said.
this means that "submission" i.e. giving in to the authority/will of another person, if interpreted according to your second definition means that an individual will submit to another's will out of love for that person, some feeling of communal spirit, devotion etc. Since women are apparently inherently more "submissive" in this sense, then women are more likely to give in to the authority of another person they love/ are devoted to/ feel spiritually connected with, etc - voluntarily of course.</p>

<p>That assumption is dangerous and open to abuse especially by men, the allegedly less submissive sex. It's logical reasoning for domestic abuse - "if she loves me, she will accept the fact that I beat her and therefore submit to my authority as man of the house"
I would argue it's not true in the first place. Most divorces are initiated by women. That means, women will NOT submit to a man's authority to determine the "rules of the house" ("rules" such as affairs are ok or economic troubles are manageable or the kids will be raised in a certain way) just out of love or devotion.</p>

<p>unless you mean that women are more likely to submit to a passion or communal spirit or love rather than to the person out of love, compassion etc - in which case, you're using the word "submissive" in a strange context.</p>

<p>believe me, I understood what you were saying.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I never suggested any of this, you think that I am saying something that I am very clearly not saying.

[/quote]

you used the word "submissive"...it's inherent in the definition.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They absolutely did not. Malcolm saw the white man as the devil (literally). MLK saw hatred as the devil. Very different problems indeed, as Malcolm's basis IS (or was) hatred.

[/quote]

they both wanted freedom and justice for Blacks. They both recognized Blacks were not treated equally, that Whites in general were racist and saw them as inferior. Malcolm X and the Black Power movement was a reaction to MLK and peaceful methods of protest. They felt his methods weren't working - not that they disagreed with the problems he recognized. MLK chose to approach the issue by seeking to gain civil rights for Blacks and to integrate them into American society. Malcolm X chose the opposite path - to isolate Blacks and "wage war" against whites. Malcolm X thought it would be impossible to gain freedom within the white-dominated and racist American society because he believed racism was inherent whereas MLK believed it was taught. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You really need to read more. I clearly used it as an analogy, in terms of political philosophies, not as any direct inspiration. Your argument is bogus.

[/quote]

obviously not directly inspired - it was a loose interpretation of the word.
Even if you're right - that Malcolm X and MLK recognized entirely different problems. Comparing all feminists to Malcolm X (as one who hates whites/ sees them as the devil) is saying that ALL feminists are bra-burning man-hating nutcases. This is the VERY issue we were talking about at the beginning of this thread. It is a complete overgeneralization of feminists and a misunderstanding of a complex set of philosophies (not a single philosophy). In my opinion, it's beyond ignorant. And yes, I am more than slightly irked at being compared to Malcolm X - I believe I have the right to be. My belief that women are not treated equally in modern-day America and that something needs to be done about it does NOT make me a man-hater nor does it mean I have a belligerent philosophy.
Just as Malcolm X and MLK existed at the same time - feminists of all types of convictions can exist at the same time. Why do you feel the need to stereotype?</p>

<p>
[quote]
How can you expect to change people through insults? Feminists approach things the same way, through force.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You implied that A: I misunderstood everything you wrote, B: I don't read the very post I'm replying to and C:that I don't approach issues with an open mind - those totally don't count as insults, right? That's slightly hypocritical.... </p>

<p>feminists approach issues through force? have you been violently attacked by feminists lately? </p>

<p>
[quote]

Yes, and slavery I would consider a VERY major problem, while the minor problems of contemporary women deserve a different approach.

[/quote]

you're addressing the analogy from a modern-day standpoint. 150 years ago, slavery was not considered a "VERY major problem" especially in the moral sense.The Free Soilers (later absorbed by the Republicans) wanted to stop the extension of slavery only because it took away jobs for poor whites, not because it was morally repugnant. Recognition of slavery as a moral issue only came through the "outcries" of people like William Lloyd Garrison (who was considered pretty radical in his time - possibly as radical as the stereotypical feminist). yes, we know slavery was a major problem, but only in the eyes of today. Back then it was a minor moral incongruency (just like the "minor" problems of women today) and a significant economic inconvenience for whites who wanted lowpaying jobs. While the modern-day American woman has far less severe issues to deal with - it might be worth considering that these "minor" issues may very well be less minor than you currently believe. Surely domestic abuse, rape, and sexual abuse in the workplace aren't all that minor.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, I am not suggesting nothing, but rather I am referring to indirect reconciliation.

[/quote]

.....what does that mean?? indirect reconciliation - to me it sounds like "ignore the issues that we face and get on with life". That would be doing nothing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Rather than focus on feminist issues, which is a backwards approach, our time is far better spent educating people and spreading messages of compassion (compassion is inherently submissive, and similar to MLK's values).

[/quote]

educating people about what? you mean the problems women face in today's America? That's what most feminists are trying to do - but are being told to shut up.
messages of compassion are inherently submissive? MLK was anything but submissive and he did NOT approach Black issues indirectly. He did lead marches and protests - similar to what feminists do at times. MLK was inspired by Gandhi (and in this case, I mean directly inspired) whose method of passive resistance was anything but passive. Gandhi encouraged the >active< breaking of the law (in a nonviolent manner) in order to get a point across.
Blacks would never be considered equal if spreading messages of compassion were the sole means by which they saught their rights. MLK was an activist - he couldnt have been submissive.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Generally, you will find two motivations for feminists (or most fringe activism). Either they have some inadequacy that leads them to scapegoating men, or they simply lust for power and attempt to bring themselves up by bringing an entire class down based on an arbitrary value.

[/quote]

feminism isn't fringe activism. It's only stereotyped that way. Not all feminists scapegoat men (and there are many who want change to come from women themselves - for example, I believe that a major contributor to things like date rape is a result of women giving in to the male desire for them to wear tiny skirts and tube tops. it adds to objectification - but the problem doesn't entirely come from men, the problem comes from the women who choose to dress "slutty" just to "please" guys). Sure - feminists "lust" for power...mainly because they have very little in comparison to men. The way I see it, nearly everything can be interpreted as a power game anyway.</p>

<p>
[quote]
REAL change is not through laws and court cases, it is through societal values.

[/quote]

I agree. So why do you have problems with feminists discussing the issues so that society can come to know about them?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, feminists are mean

[/quote]

what?</p>

[videogamerx2]

<p>
[QUOTE]
^ this is what you said.
this means that "submission" i.e. giving in to the authority/will of another person, if interpreted according to your second definition means that an individual will submit to another's will out of love for that person, some feeling of communal spirit, devotion etc. Since women are apparently inherently more "submissive" in this sense, then women are more likely to give in to the authority of another person they love/ are devoted to/ feel spiritually connected with, etc - voluntarily of course.</p>

<p>That assumption is dangerous and open to abuse especially by men, the allegedly less submissive sex. It's logical reasoning for domestic abuse - "if she loves me, she will accept the fact that I beat her and therefore submit to my authority as man of the house"

[/QUOTE]

AH. I was not talking about women submitting, or anyone submitting to another person. I was talking about submission in the universal sense. It is not the case of an individual submitting to a person's love, for example, but simply to love. Submitting to a person's love, communal spirit, etc fits more with the first definition.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I would argue it's not true in the first place. Most divorces are initiated by women. That means, women will NOT submit to a man's authority to determine the "rules of the house" ("rules" such as affairs are ok or economic troubles are manageable or the kids will be raised in a certain way) just out of love or devotion.

[/QUOTE]

I somewhat agree with you on this and the above stuff, but it arose from a misunderstanding of my writing, I should perhaps have been more explicit.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
unless you mean that women are more likely to submit to a passion or communal spirit or love rather than to the person out of love, compassion etc - in which case, you're using the word "submissive" in a strange context.

[/QUOTE]

Hehe yes well I'm responding to this post as I read it so maybe my strange context was apparent after all. I'm a strange person.

[QUOTE]

believe me, I understood what you were saying.

[/QUOTE]

Well, yes you did but you responded to the first context lol, which I don't really disagree with you on.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
I never suggested any of this, you think that I am saying something that I am very clearly not saying.</p>

<p>you used the word "submissive"...it's inherent in the definition.

[/QUOTE]

This is now moot because of the misinterpretation.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
They absolutely did not. Malcolm saw the white man as the devil (literally). MLK saw hatred as the devil. Very different problems indeed, as Malcolm's basis IS (or was) hatred.</p>

<p>they both wanted freedom and justice for Blacks.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, although Malcolm actually wanted a brand of justice beyond that of equality, as black power.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
They both recognized Blacks were not treated equally, that Whites in general were racist and saw them as inferior.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, they say blacks as treated unequally, but MLK did not think that whites in their hearts of hearts were racists, and he tried to appeal to the GOODNESS of whites (through Christianity) to create equality. In this sense, a similar approach for feminists would be better in my opinion. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Malcolm X and the Black Power movement was a reaction to MLK and peaceful methods of protest. They felt his methods weren't working - not that they disagreed with the problems he recognized.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, his methods were working. They just didn't give that instant gratification. Malcolm saw different problems, he ONLY was aligned with MLK in his disdain for white racism, but not even with racism in general!</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
MLK chose to approach the issue by seeking to gain civil rights for Blacks and to integrate them into American society. Malcolm X chose the opposite path - to isolate Blacks and "wage war" against whites. Malcolm X thought it would be impossible to gain freedom within the white-dominated and racist American society because he believed racism was inherent whereas MLK believed it was taught.

[/QUOTE]

I agree, and I feel the same as MLK in regards to sexism, but I really don't like to take this path because I see racism and sexism in very different lights. While races have only negligible biological differences, the sexes have enormous differences, and that makes them an apples to oranges comparison. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
You really need to read more. I clearly used it as an analogy, in terms of political philosophies, not as any direct inspiration. Your argument is bogus.</p>

<p>obviously not directly inspired - it was a loose interpretation of the word.
Even if you're right - that Malcolm X and MLK recognized entirely different problems. Comparing all feminists to Malcolm X (as one who hates whites/ sees them as the devil) is saying that ALL feminists are bra-burning man-hating nutcases. This is the VERY issue we were talking about at the beginning of this thread. It is a complete overgeneralization of feminists and a misunderstanding of a complex set of philosophies (not a single philosophy).

[/QUOTE]

Any complex set of philosophies is also a single philosophy.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
In my opinion, it's beyond ignorant. And yes, I am more than slightly irked at being compared to Malcolm X - I believe I have the right to be. My belief that women are not treated equally in modern-day America and that something needs to be done about it does NOT make me a man-hater nor does it mean I have a belligerent philosophy.

[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. However, it is not that belief that inequality exists among women that defines a feminist, it is the belief that they SHOULD BE EQUAL. I believe that women and men are NOT equal, as you do, and I do not advocate total equality, as I do not see them as the same thing. I do believe that there are certain things that men and women should have by their common tie as humans, but beyond that they are different things. You see, you don't have to burn things or kill people to be in the same direction as Malcolm. I object to Malcolm because of his forced approach, one common to feminists as moderate as those who try to impose laws requiring equal compensation for women. Yes, MLK did a bit of relatively very moderate activism, but the important thing is that he placed himself in a respectful position, appealing to the positve potential of his "opposition." Malcolm did nothing of the sort, and neither do feminists. Those who advocate for more rights for women are NOT feminists. Feminists by definition advocate for equality, not a shift towards equality (except of course as a means to an end).

[QUOTE]
Just as Malcolm X and MLK existed at the same time - feminists of all types of convictions can exist at the same time. Why do you feel the need to stereotype?

[/QUOTE]

I'm not stereotyping, and I sincerely hope that my explanation clarifies this.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
How can you expect to change people through insults? Feminists approach things the same way, through force.</p>

<p>You implied that A: I misunderstood everything you wrote, B: I don't read the very post I'm replying to and C:that I don't approach issues with an open mind - those totally don't count as insults, right? That's slightly hypocritical....

[/QUOTE]

Well, you did misunderstand what I wrote. I misunderstood what you wrote. However, I was more brainstorming explanations for the puzzling response than trying to demean or insult, I hope I did not come across as such, for I did not intend to.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
feminists approach issues through force? have you been violently attacked by feminists lately?

[/QUOTE]

Explained above.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Yes, and slavery I would consider a VERY major problem, while the minor problems of contemporary women deserve a different approach.</p>

<p>you're addressing the analogy from a modern-day standpoint. 150 years ago, slavery was not considered a "VERY major problem" especially in the moral sense.The Free Soilers (later absorbed by the Republicans) wanted to stop the extension of slavery only because it took away jobs for poor whites, not because it was morally repugnant. Recognition of slavery as a moral issue only came through the "outcries" of people like William Lloyd Garrison (who was considered pretty radical in his time - possibly as radical as the stereotypical feminist). yes, we know slavery was a major problem, but only in the eyes of today. Back then it was a minor moral incongruency (just like the "minor" problems of women today) and a significant economic inconvenience for whites who wanted lowpaying jobs.

[/QUOTE]

I know, and I feel that we have reached a point in history where social issues have been resolved, in America at least, to the point where we should shift our focus. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
While the modern-day American woman has far less severe issues to deal with - it might be worth considering that these "minor" issues may very well be less minor than you currently believe. Surely domestic abuse, rape, and sexual abuse in the workplace aren't all that minor.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are tragic events. Every day, innocent children die, rich steal from the poor, people get raped, countless crimes occur. While these events may be in the thousands of people, they are relatively rare. We can offer our support, but there are many other equally worthwhile causes, and the overemphasis of this particular issue by feminists is what irks me.</p>

[videogamerx2]

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Yes, I am not suggesting nothing, but rather I am referring to indirect reconciliation.</p>

<p>.....what does that mean?? indirect reconciliation - to me it sounds like "ignore the issues that we face and get on with life". That would be doing nothing.

[/QUOTE]

Don't ignore them, but don't completely focus on them, rather focus on the source of the problem. Ignorance and selfishness leads to unjust treatment of women. Any strides taken against those will do more for the feminist movement and the country as a whole than activism. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Rather than focus on feminist issues, which is a backwards approach, our time is far better spent educating people and spreading messages of compassion (compassion is inherently submissive, and similar to MLK's values).</p>

<p>educating people about what? you mean the problems women face in today's America? That's what most feminists are trying to do - but are being told to shut up.

[/QUOTE]

Nope, see previous paragraph.

[QUOTE}messages of compassion are inherently submissive? MLK was anything but submissive and he did NOT approach Black issues indirectly. He did lead marches and protests - similar to what feminists do at times. MLK was inspired by Gandhi (and in this case, I mean directly inspired) whose method of passive resistance was anything but passive. Gandhi encouraged the >active< breaking of the law (in a nonviolent manner) in order to get a point across.
[/QUOTE]

MLK was a bit more active but it was for more pressing issues such as segregation. In the issues relevant to women today, he was more submissive.

[QUOTE]
Blacks would never be considered equal if spreading messages of compassion were the sole means by which they saught their rights. MLK was an activist - he couldnt have been submissive.

[/QUOTE]

Submissive is not an exclusive term, see my "strange sense." Power gained through submission is stronger than power gained through force. Of course, if you submit with the intent for power, you are not submitting. It is a complicated use of the word, but I think you get it, so let's not twist it around and backtrack.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Generally, you will find two motivations for feminists (or most fringe activism). Either they have some inadequacy that leads them to scapegoating men, or they simply lust for power and attempt to bring themselves up by bringing an entire class down based on an arbitrary value.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
feminism isn't fringe activism. It's only stereotyped that way.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree, see above for my comments on its definition.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Not all feminists scapegoat men (and there are many who want change to come from women themselves - for example, I believe that a major contributor to things like date rape is a result of women giving in to the male desire for them to wear tiny skirts and tube tops. it adds to objectification - but the problem doesn't entirely come from men, the problem comes from the women who choose to dress "slutty" just to "please" guys). Sure - feminists "lust" for power...mainly because they have very little in comparison to men.

[/QUOTE]

So you refute my assessment of feminism by approaching part one, and conclude by accepting part two. I didn't say that all feminists were both, but rather one OR both.

[QUOTE]
The way I see it, nearly everything can be interpreted as a power game anyway.

[/QUOTE]

Which categorically explains why you are a feminist.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
REAL change is not through laws and court cases, it is through societal values.</p>

<p>I agree. So why do you have problems with feminists discussing the issues so that society can come to know about them?

[/QUOTE]

I think that their efforts are better directed towards the values that cause oppression of women, instead of only the oppression of women. That is, in part, why I see them as a "fringe" group.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Yes, feminists are mean</p>

<p>what?

[/QUOTE]

A silly reply to the post before my last one.</p>

[man_on_fire]

<p>LadyinRed, as an Indian girl(I think???) I presume you are well aware that it was customary for women in India to treat their husbands like God. Women then would never dare to say "I'm tired of cooking food for you, you lazy *******, go do it yourself!!!" The men commanded respect and yet the women then never complained about their inequality. Still, divorces then in India were almost never heard of because there was immense patience and determination in both sexes at that time. In the US, women are treated more as equals to men and thus the divorce rate here is staggering.</p>

<p>I just provided that for reference but clearly things since then in terms of womens' rights, even in places like Asia. Still, women here have the freedom to do ANYTHING that a man can do in the US at this time. There is no reason to even be a FEMINST at this point. Sure, there are still sporadic reports of social inequities and what not but these minor issues will quickly be fixed with the progression of time. As I am sure you are well-aware, you can't change the mindset of a society overnight. Women in the US are pretty close to reaching the zenith of total equality as it is compared to men. However, there will sytill be some stereotypes and those will only disappear with patience on the part of females.</p>

<p>However, what worries me are these crazy women running around screaming about the mistreatment of females by men and how men are trying ro dominate them. This is complete ********. Their lack of tolerance and a work ethic is the reason these women are unemployed, not because they are being segregated by male employers. Hell, some male employers, if faced between a choice between an attractive young woman and a middle-aged man, would choose the woman just based on aesthetics despite inferior aesthetics and qualifications.</p>

[LadyinRed]

<p>
[quote]
Still, divorces then in India were almost never heard of because there was immense patience and determination in both sexes at that time.

[/quote]

There was patience only because society shunned divorce. America is different because divorce is so easily accepted. Even in recent history, marriages worked such that the woman was sent to the husband's family and assimilated into that household. A divorce would mean, the woman would have nowhere to go but back to her family, who may very well not accept her after the fact.
But I think the major reason divorce has historically been rare in India is because of the emphasis on family values. Individuals in India are willing to sacrifice FAR more for the sake of their family whereas American society is founded on self-interest. People here are not willing to inconvenience themselves after a certain point. It has very little to do with whether or not the husband and wife are considered equals. In fact, the divorce rate in India (though it has risen) is still significantly lower than America's despite the fact that men and women are (relatively speaking, because there are still regions where they are not) considered equal. But if you're right that equality is the reason for the high divorce rate in America, I really do think it's a small price to pay.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I just provided that for reference but clearly things since then in terms of womens' rights, even in places like Asia.

[/quote]

issues of women's rights around the world are still troublesome. Only until recently, Afghani women were treated like third class citizens. Iranian women are not at all well-off. Actually most of the middle east pretty much sucks. Large pockets of India are very similar. You're right that American women have it great in comparison - anyone who doesn't admit that would be kind of a nutjob in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that it's pointless to attempt to correct even the 'minor' wrongs done to women in America. We consider ourselves the beacon of light for the world, the bastion of democracy and social equality - we ought at least be consistent with our alleged values.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, there are still sporadic reports of social inequities and what not but these minor issues will quickly be fixed with the progression of time. As I am sure you are well-aware, you can't change the mindset of a society overnight.

[/quote]

no...you can't change society's mindset overnight....but we differ in that I don't believe it'll change by itself. I for one don't yell and scream about the "rampant" mistreatment of females or unjust male domination - but I do take deep offense at sexist comments and ignorant assumptions about the female sex. I consider myself a feminist only because I do recognize incongruencies in American values and when I see that it's relevant, I feel the need to educate people about the issues that do exist. I do agree that the legal issues have been solved - what we need is a change in mindset and that'll happen one step at a time. But we do need people to recognize that a shift in thought is indeed needed before anything can actually change.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hell, some male employers, if faced between a choice between an attractive young woman and a middle-aged man, would choose the woman just based on aesthetics despite inferior aesthetics and qualifications.

[/quote]

There's a section of Nancy Etcoff's Survival of the Prettiest that addresses this. The result of the study she mentioned basically said that a young attractive woman is more likely to get a secretarial position or a nursing position than a young attractive man. On the other hand, the young attractive woman is less likely to be offered an executive or managerial position than that same young man. The reasoning was that because feminine beauty is less harsh, strong or to state the obvious, masculine, the subconscious mindset is that a pretty woman doesn't have the brains or more likely the boss-like conviction to take on a position that requires quick decision making and ordering people around. That subconscious assumption needs to be changed. The scenario you presented shouldn't occur either.</p>

[LadyinRed]

<p>
[quote]
Those who advocate for more rights for women are NOT feminists. Feminists by definition advocate for equality, not a shift towards equality (except of course as a means to an end).

[/quote]

yes feminists are united in the sense that they advocate equality - but they may take different approaches. rational people know that equality doesn't come in one swoop....most feminists would say it needs to come in steps - does that make them no longer advocates of feminism? I think not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So you refute my assessment of feminism by approaching part one, and conclude by accepting part two. I didn't say that all feminists were both, but rather one OR both.

[/quote]

I did reject the first part, but I didn't fully agree with the second part. I put lust in quotes to mean that feminists do crave power, though not all crave power >over< the opposite sex. So it's not really a lust for power. In fact, those who do would no longer be considered feminists - right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Which categorically explains why you are a feminist.

[/quote]

no...it explains why I'd make a good politician ;)</p>

<p>(actually...I hate politics; it's all hypocrisy)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, they are tragic events. Every day, innocent children die, rich steal from the poor, people get raped, countless crimes occur. While these events may be in the thousands of people, they are relatively rare. We can offer our support, but there are many other equally worthwhile causes, and the overemphasis of this particular issue by feminists is what irks me.

[/quote]

if we think globally...these issues are no longer rare.
feminism in general is no "fringe" effort.
I suppose if we limit ourselves to the US, you'd be right. But then again, there are still people who speak out against crime. Some absorb their entire lives in changing society. Does that make them crazy/radical?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that their efforts are better directed towards the values that cause oppression of women, instead of only the oppression of women. That is, in part, why I see them as a "fringe" group.

[/quote]

I agree.</p>

[el_padrino]

<p>Obviously I overestimated you, videogamer. Sorry, it won't happen again. I meant when I said "I got through to you" in the sense that someone finally got the point of how wrong my statement was to "perpetuates the same type of ignorance that led to the oppression of women" and the type of ignorance you continue to show. I was using sarcasm. - -;</p>

<p>Now as a Christian, I understand you are saying that submission goes hand in hand with humility. Um, that's concerning God (not men, sorry) and being a good Christian. As Christians, we are all 'servants to God' and all his 'children'. So with this type of humility, we are supposed to have the same outlook on the inequalities of our society--a patriarchal society at that? </p>

<p>I'm not hungry for power. I'm trying to prove a point, as you are, hopefully. I don't equate my ideals to MLK. But, then again, you equated feminism (even modern feminism) to Malcolm X so I think it rather clear who doesn't have an "understanding [of] an analogy".</p>

<p>Yes, I casually pass around the word obliterate when speaking about destroying inequalities. Shame on me. I forgot striving toward a more equal society was wrong. <--sarcasm</p>

[videogamerx2]

<p>I would show you the countless Biblical passages that shatter your limited perceptions, but I fear that you would again mistake your own ignorance as coming from me. </p>

<p>I never equated feminists to Malcolm X, you're taking an extreme interpretation of what I said. Be open-minded. Assume that I am right, and see how you might support my arguments yourself. Then, and only then, take the other side. </p>

<p>Pardon my inability to decipher sarcasm from ambiguous internet text. Although, I do like how you used the word 'sarcasm' sarcastically. I'm done with this debate, I learned a bit from some of you, cheers.</p>