# Tradional or modern family ?



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> _*WARNING*_​*[ Women are our equals, deserve respect, are in no way inferior than men, they're even maybe superior than us, men, and we all love them ]​*


There is no way that you believe women are equal to men. Your posts have proven that time and time again.



> Do men prefer the modern woman that seek money and career success
> or the traditional woman, as a housewife, that seek love and happiness in the house ?


Different men are attracted to different women, but nowadays I'm fairly certain that more men are attracted to modern women than traditional women.



> A lot of men are ashamed to say it these days, but I kinda prefer the traditional housewife.


How come it's because they're ashamed? Can you not understand that such a preference might not be as common as you thought it was, or would like it to be?

According to this article, women are happier with this lifestyle :

We discussed that "article" in the INTP thread that got closed yesterday, remember?



> A majority of my female friends in their late 20s and early 30s think of quitting their jobs to raise their kids, because it is "impossible" for them.


Because society is prejudiced against women. It's a simple concept called gender roles that should really have been eliminated from society a long time ago.



> Personally my both parents were working, making a ton of money. Me and my brothers had all the money, the food(pizzas), entertainment (nes, genesis) we could dream of. But my dad and mom were working from 5am to 7 or10pm, during vacation and Christmas too, I was barely seeing them, they were both extremely exhausted when I could see them. We raised ourselves basically.
> But my mom stopped working, and then I realized that I barely know her (which changed now). She was happier, healthier, making food, laundry and all, and I clearly saw the difference. Now that I'm a big boy, I sure want my wife to a housewife.


I'm sure that all happened, truily.

If it did actually happen, and she was happier in that role, good for her. That, however, does not mean that all women should be housewives and it certainly does not justify much of the crap you've posted about women.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yeah, but as an INTP I wanted to know how my intp brothas think. Apparently there's not so much intp conservative...


Generally, INTPs aren't very traditional, and most INTPs are probably liberals or libertarians (not necessarily supporters of the US Libertarian Party).


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Thanks, sometimes when I see reactions from this website, I have the impression that people don't live in the same world than mine.


She wasn't really agreeing with you, more disagreeing with the person who replied to you. Also, you're not on some caveman site, your extremely traditional views aren't exactly going to be well received here.



> Yeah we like being super-hero we always does,


Not all men, and stop trying to speak for all men. I told you that unless you have met all three billion men on the planet who are alive, you cannot speak for all men.



> and most women kinda always liked it until feminists said guys and women are the same thing.


Because women must be dumb robots who will just go along with what the latest social movement says, right?

Women and men have some obvious differences, yes, but these are largely biological/reproductive, some genetic differences and some superficial generalisations such as men tend to be taller. You can't use these differences to justify your very conservative views on society.



> And even women that want be be modern and all, quickly realize that her husband won't do the cleaning, laundring, as we guys don't care living the extreme dirty life.


You're generalising again. Also, women are often brought up with some idea of how to clean up, whilst men are usually not. A responsible man would do his fair share of the housework regardless of this.



> Have you ever seen a guy's room ? It's generally a war battlefield.


Yeah, if they're 12. You're also yet again generalising - not all men are messy and not all women are tidy.



> Women don't like cleaning, laundring too, but they are less pissed off to do it in general, so we let 'em do it :happy:


Some women do, some women do not. They're not "less pissed off", they are just following the gender roles that they've been exposed to all their lives.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Exactly. People don't realize that raising kids is a full time job.


Most people with children do realise that. 



> You can pay someone to do it, or let the kids on their own, and be grown-ups before the age.
> Or let one parent do it.


So, if you were a father, you would be one of those lazy overgrown children who the mother of your children will have to treat as just another kid? Of course you would, because your views on parenting are idiotic.



> As it is women that give birth and give breast milk to them, I think it's logic that the woman do it.


Why? What if the mother doesn't become attached to the child? What if she suffers post natal depression? What if, for some reason, she can't breastfeed?

Say in the future you have a partner who dies in childbirth. What are you going to do then? Act like a big child and give it away as soon as you can, or would you actually grow up and be a father?



> Yeah me too, I don't want my wife to see it as a routine.


She'll probably see it as a reason to divorce you and go find a grown up.



> Generally housewives read books, do some sports, associations, decoration, create jewleries, talk with friends and stuff. And with the internet, there's a lot of opportunities that opened for housewives. They can watch movies, tv shows, take online courses on a subject that interest them, even run an home-based internet business etc. It's kinda impossible to be really "bored" now compared to the 50s housewife. :happy:


So you just want the woman to be kept locked up in the house?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> That's what most women try to do (both lifestyles). Because they want to be seen as modern and work, but in the same time, there's the kids that want their moms and not a nanny. I think they should be housewives until the (last) kid is at least 14 or 16. It's a lot of time and commitment.


So when the last kid leaves, what then? Can she have a job then, or will she have to remain as a housewife whether she likes it or not? 



> Mordern is a single mother with her child struggling to survive or the wife that is money-minded and work to bring money to her kids.


No, it's not. You're both generalising and simplifying in order to make your preference for traditional women look better. Modern women are a hugely diverse group who actually also include women who have chosen to be housewives rather than be forced into the role.



> Traditional is a wife that works (maybe more than the husband) but not in the capitalist world, but for her kids and her family. Which is even more honorable work than the husband's.


How much are you going to be paying your wife for the work she does, then? If she is working for you, surely you pay her wages?



Yeah, but men in history have been honorable and have sacrified the joy of being with their kids to give it to the mother. We have accepted to be treated like pieces of shit in crappy jobs all day long to support our wives and kids, just to see them happy. That's what real men do. Sacrifice and Honor.[/QUOTE]


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Well your husband stayed at home with your kids, so he took the "mom"s job.


It's not solely the mother's job. Raising children is the job of both parents, and many others play an important part as well.



> It is possible. But nobody can't replace the natural softness and kindness of a mother, or her the breast milk.


Some mothers are abusive or negligent. Some mothers are drug addicts and alcoholics. Some mothers aren't soft and kind. You're stereotyping.



> And I realize that you can't be a housewife your whole life, when the kids are growing up, she can do a part time job, and when they're out of the house (in college or got a job), she can do a full time job and get back to the "couple with no kid" lifestyle until retirement and peaceful death.


Why do I think that you would never allow that? You would never want her to have a full-time job because that would mean she wasn't there to look after you like the big child that you are.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> But my mom stopped working, and then I realized that I barely know her (which changed now). She was happier, healthier, making food, laundry and all, and I clearly saw the difference. Now that I'm a big boy, I sure want my wife to a housewife.


Somehow, I doubt her increased level of happiness was related to her making food and doing laundry.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yes I understand but I think women do naturally greater when dealing with kids, because of their emotional side, their kindness, and their sweet voice :happy:


Some women aren't emotional, and some men are just as or even more emotional than many women. We all have emotional sides, regardless of biological sex. Same goes for kindness.As for sweet voice, that depends on the person. Not all women have sweet voices, and some men have sweet voices. Women don't get pregnant because they have sweet voices or are kind or have a developed emotional side that's a million times greater than her partner's.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Ah great news.


Stop patronising her.




> Well, if women would stop to work, that would "free the jobs", and higher up salaries for men


No, it wouldn't and I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Especially as women are paid far less than men for doing the same job.



> and if we're buying less iPads, and plasmas Tv, I'm sure one salary could feed many mouths.


Even if you don't buy all that stuff, it won't necessarily mean that one salary could feed many mouths. You're overlooking so many real financial obligations such as bills, taxes, house repairs, fuel etc.



> I have a friend that a low salary job (he sweeps the street in paris), his wife is a housewife, they've got 4 kids, and they're happy, are not struggling and have a decent apartment.


Really? In Paris, France? One of the most expensive cities in the world, and a street sweeper with four children can afford a comfortable life and a decent apartment?

As of January 1st of this year, the minimum wage in France is E8.86. According to working hours per week and working weeks per annum, that's a minimum wage of around E14,000 per annum. If he has a decent sized apartment in Paris, he would be spending more than the minimum wage per annum on his apartment alone. If you're going to make up stupid anecdotes, learn to research.



> 2 outta 3 times, it's women who ask divorce, because marriage have been banalized by feminists.


Actually, feminists don't tend to have a united policy on marriage, and you know what the main causes of women asking for divorce are?

The following is from this site - Why women seek divorce: AboutDivorce.org

Adultery: The Betrayal
Statistically, the American husband is more prone to having extra marital violations in comparison to the American wife. No amount of love can ever compensate the pain and anguish the wife has suffered in order to accept the betrayal. No mother likes to see her child grow up and be parented by just one partner. Most mothers swallow their agony and move on with the marriage, only to be deceived once too often and find themselves in the same predicament. Many succumb to the first adventure but don’t afterwards. Divorce solves the problem of the extra marital adventures of the spouse and adultery becomes the ground for divorce.

Non Functioning Relationships
Most American couples are unable to resolve their issues due the break down of communications. We live fairly fast and highly active lives, which are quite demanding and pressure oriented. Many couples don’t have the time to sit together and understand each other. This also makes it hard for one spouse to compromise with an issue that the other spouse has a problem with. The lack of time means that we can’t devote as much time to marriage as we should. As the norm of the day and age we live in we accept this but, when a serious issue arises couples are unable to communicate and brush away the problem.

Domestic Violence and Cruel Treatment
Pressure taken at work finds an outlet at home. Many husbands abuse their wives with cruel treatment. Habitual alcoholism could be attributed to be as a cause or the main reason behind domestic violence. A number of wives also find themselves forced to perform acts in bed that they don’t really desire or appreciate. All these flaws affect the relationship of the couple as a consequence the wife seeks a divorce.

Root Cause
There are many grounds for divorce such as desertion, adultery, cruel treatment, imprisonment, habitual alcoholism. The root cause behind women seeking divorce is victimization, alienation and the lack of respect from their husbands. The accommodating and respectful husband wouldn’t give his wife the chance to seek a divorce.



> If you find a serious (traditional) man who understands that marriage is only one time in a life, and that divorce is wrong, everything should go fine.


Divorce is only wrong if you are part of a religion that believes that divorce is wrong, and even then many religious people still get divorced. The world isn't some magical fantasy world where the husband and wife always live happily ever after - many marriages should be ending in divorce because they don't work.



> Most men were like that before, because feminists said women are "free", now women have to work in crappy jobs like us. We were protecting you, but feminists sold you to neo-liberalism.


No, men weren't protecting women at all. They were forcing women to be nothing more than domestic slaves and baby making machines, whilst men enjoyed much more freedom socially.

Also, neo-liberalism is a fairly modern concept which has developed in the last three or four decades. Feminism has been around for centuries, and possibly even millennia in some form. Not to mention the feminists who aren't neo-liberals probably vastly outnumber the ones who are.



> It is messed up but we and society have admit that the kids need more their mothers than their dads,


No, they don't. If they did, I wonder how all those single fathers cope. I wonder what happened to all the children whose mothers died in childbirth.



> and the jobs available in the past where too physical for women too.


Maybe back then, when such jobs required physical strength, but with today's technology women can do most physical jobs.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I understand that we're not all the same,


No, you don't. You're still dribbling out the generalisations and stereotypes, and it's obvious that you have little idea of what you;re talking about.



> that there is women that hate kids, men that are awesome with kids, men that are more emotional etc...


I'm surprised that you could actually stand to post that. It must have been torture on the part of you that believes men can't be as emotional or caring as men.



> but you have to admit that it is "mostly" true that women have generally a "sweeter voice" that sound nicer than men (it is factual),


So because someone has a sweeter voice, they must be better at looking after children? That's idiotic.



> have breast milk (it is also factual) etc...


So do some men. There have been reports of men able to lactate, which isn't surprising as we do have some breast tissue ourselves.



> And generally women have a greater love for kids.


That's a stereotype based on the social and archaic gender roles. You're assuming that, even in general, women must have a greater love for children because that's what you've seen in society. There's people who will see fathers at the park with their children, and think how nice it is that's he helping out, as if the concept of him actually being a father to his children was alien to them. There's people who think that men can't look after babies or small children, that men won't be interested in looking after children because society has told you that it's a feminine activity.



> Why would we found _"mostly"_ women in kindergarten, babysitting etc... ?


Same reason that builders and doctors are mostly men. Gender roles. There is nothing stopping a man from looking after children, he does have the capability regardless of what society thinks of him.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Is Rule #1 a non-issue when talking to male chauvinists?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Is Rule #1 a non-issue when talking to male chauvinists?


_1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame users annihilate the quality of discussion. Do not make personal attacks. You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves. Do not troll or purposefully attempt to disrupt discussion in threads._

I can see your point there.


----------



## BeeInTheBonnet (Sep 15, 2010)

redScorpion,
we got it the first time. You're into shy, submissive and not very smart. I personally don't give a flying fuck. Find some brainless piece of ass, make her pregnant, live happily ever after and let others live. Seriously, this compulsive need to tell other people how happy they would be if they just lived the way you want them to, implies that your own life lacks something.

Here is a brave idea. People are different. And women are people. Ergo women are different. Yes, some women enjoy staying at home and catering to the needs of their families. Some do not. 

I fall into the second category. I don't give a fuck about cleaning. I live in a fuckin' pigsty. I'm not submissive (nor am I dominant). I don't like children. I have problems bringing up my cat, so I'm not irresponsible enough to raise a kid. I'm pretty much an academic type and I will probably pursue an academic career. I like cars and rough sex. I'm no shrinking violet, nor helpless, little bird. Despite these terrible, terrible qualities, I somehow managed to land a fantastic relationship. I greatly appreciate the fact that my partner doesn't need to heal his insecurities by considering me his inferior. 

I'm a happy and fulfilled person. And I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm crazy, not feminine, damaged and corrupted, just because my way of being happy doesn't fit their neat and organised vision of happy. 
Now, can we please move on?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Exactly. People don't realize that raising kids is a full time job. You can pay someone to do it, or let the kids on their own, and be grown-ups before the age.
> Or let one parent do it.
> As it is women that give birth and give breast milk to them, I think it's logic that the woman do it.


Well, that's not what I was saying. IMO, children need both a father & a mother in their life; mothers are not more important than fathers. Babies are not usually breastfed past 2 years of age (max), and with things like breast pumps & bottles, there isn't that much reason for the woman to be the one to stay home if one parent does stay home full-time. Even if the wife stays home for the first 2 years, that's no argument for her to be the one to stay home during all the child rearing years. It's not like an arrangement is set in stone, or that responsibilities have to be divided neatly & cannot be shared.

I've seen _flexibility_ in couples make for happier families. Example: I know an xNTJ man & ISFP woman who switched roles sometime in their kids' pre-teen years. His business was running itself & he stayed home with the kids while she went to work. She was happy to pursue some of her potential outside of the home & he discovered he loved being home. He cooked, cleaned, disciplined and managed the kids & home way better than the ISFP mom. He is no sweet, emotional man either. I'm not sure what their situation was prior to that; I think she worked part-time, and he was home part-time, as having his own business made his hours flexible. 

Anyhow, the point is, what is best for the couple, the kids, the family as a whole, is not necessarily mom at home full-time and dad working full-time. I think being a "modern" wife or husband means being open to these alternative arrangements which could suit everyone better. 



> Yeah me too, I don't want my wife to see it as a routine. Generally housewives read books, do some sports, associations, decoration, create jewleries, talk with friends and stuff. And with the internet, there's a lot of opportunities that opened for housewives. They can watch movies, tv shows, take online courses on a subject that interest them, even run an home-based internet business etc. It's kinda impossible to be really "bored" now compared to the 50s housewife. :happy:


It sounds like she'd be under some kind of house arrest.... 
Are you going to put an ankle monitor on her too? :crazy:


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

I'm going to say modern family. Only because it's what I grew up with, and the people I knew that grew up in more traditional homes didn't seem to care for it.


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

Modern, if thats what you want to call it. 

I don't particularly want kids, so staying home to raise them isn't much of a concern. But i can see how that would cause the happiness stats of "modern" women to be lower. I wouldn't be happy trying to raise kids and work at the same time, especially if the husband thinks its the mother's job to keep the house and deal with kids. If I was in that situation, he'd better be doing just as much laundry and dishes as I am.


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Well your husband stayed at home with your kids, so he took the "mom"s job. It is possible. But nobody can't replace the natural softness and kindness of a mother, or her the breast milk.
> 
> And I realize that you can't be a housewife your whole life, when the kids are growing up, she can do a part time job, and when they're out of the house (in college or got a job), she can do a full time job and get back to the "couple with no kid" lifestyle until retirement and peaceful death.


You're opinion is severely lacking in logic.

Just thought I'd let you know.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> There is no way that you believe women are equal to men. Your posts have proven that time and time again.


I believe that truly, and if you don't believe me, just get outta here.



> Generally, INTPs aren't very traditional, and most INTPs are probably liberals or libertarians (not necessarily supporters of the US Libertarian Party).


I'm liberal (for the economy), libertarian but with some morals (conservative).



> So, if you were a father, you would be one of those lazy overgrown children who the mother of your children will have to treat as just another kid? Of course you would, because your views on parenting are idiotic.


No, I already said the dad sacrifice to get the monet, and the mom sacrifice to raise the kids, there's your share of work.



> So you just want the woman to be kept locked up in the house?


sports, associations, friends is outside the house.



> How much are you going to be paying your wife for the work she does, then? If she is working for you, surely you pay her wages?


There's some political parties that want to pay a salary for housewives, I think it's a good idea.



> Some mothers are abusive or negligent. Some mothers are drug addicts and alcoholics. Some mothers aren't soft and kind. You're stereotyping.


Well for your examples the woman is clearly distrubed, or marginal.




> You would never want her to have a full-time job because that would mean she wasn't there to look after you like the big child that you are.


You're becoming crazy man, that's what I would do.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

vivacissimamente said:


> Somehow, I doubt her increased level of happiness was related to her making food and doing laundry.


No, i have'nt say that but the capitalist working environement would of kil her slowly. In the house, she was more relaxed.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Stop patronising her.


I was not, I'm just happy to see a woman saying this, and I will be happy every time say this.



> No, it wouldn't and I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. Especially as women are paid far less than men for doing the same job.


It's basic economics. The more unemployed people there is, the more the employers can lower a maximum the salaries. If women stop to work, there'll be no more unemployed people, and the men could deal their salary easierwith employers



> Even if you don't buy all that stuff, it won't necessarily mean that one salary could feed many mouths. You're overlooking so many real financial obligations such as bills, taxes, house repairs, fuel etc.
> .


Also, but a normal human being don't need a lot to survive normally.



> Really? In Paris, France? One of the most expensive cities in the world, and a street sweeper with four children can afford a comfortable life and a decent apartment?


It was in a mostly safe, not too expensive paris suburb (Champigny-sur-Marne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)




> Many marriages should be ending in divorce because they don't work.


Well marriage aint magic too, both partner have to be serious about this engagement.




> Feminism has been around for centuries, and possibly even millennia in some form.


Am I reading this pack of shit ?



> No, they don't. If they did, I wonder how all those single fathers cope. I wonder what happened to all the children whose mothers died in childbirth.


Marriage, family, and connections were protecting that in the past.



> So because someone has a sweeter voice, they must be better at looking after children? That's idiotic.


The dad's voice is more like an authority voice, and the mom's voice is more like the caring or love voice. Even nature is approving my way of thinking, don't you see ?




> So do some men. There have been reports of men able to lactate, which isn't surprising as we do have some breast tissue ourselves.


Yeah it does exist, but people outta freak shows are not the standard I will say.



> Same reason that builders and doctors are mostly men. Gender roles. There is nothing stopping a man from looking after children, he does have the capability regardless of what society thinks of him.


There's mostly men in doctors because we love power (so money).
There's mostly men in builders because it is more physical, and men are generally stronger than women.
There's mostly women in nurses, because of their emotional/caring side.

I have hundreds more examples that confirm what most _normal_ people think.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Revy2Hand said:


> I'm gonna take over for skycloud since he seems to be awol at the moment:
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning? Coincidentally that also is part of male-dominated society's pushing on women by forcing them to be baby making machines and not having any say whatsoever especially when some asshole impregnates them who had no intention of sticking around or was doing so to make sure she didn't leave him. That's only a bit of the issue but I'm not getting into that in this thread.


Well men shoould be responsible also, but I can't accept 46 million deaths every year without blinking an eye you know.



> Just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it or that it's right.


I want it because it's the best solution from my point of you. A lot of women agrees.





> It's not so much a need for salary as the need to have a LIFE. So you would expect the government to pay for something you insist on but you wouldn't pay yourself? Oh wait, I forgot, paying for one single, solitary meal is a pain to you so I guess I see how that's gonna go...


I'm not an employer, I'm her husband. What she does has no price. But the government can stimulate (modern) women to be housewives with salaries. Because a lot of women don't want to do it just because of the money, you understand ?




> If you're in the minority and obiosly this forum is intended for those with at least a little intelligence and common sense, you'd think you'd realize that you're the one with the faulty reasoning, but I guess your intuition is crappier than mine, which isn't saying much for you at all.


I am very smart and have common sense. People here are really original butterflies, but it is interesting to see what they think.




> Keep it up because you're getting closer and closer to that ideology every minute.


No I'm not, I`'m open minded enough to be interested in the economic program of an evil governement. We can blame the genocides an all, but the economic success of nazi germany is really impressive, and there's no equal in history.



> I thought you said earlier you wouldn't because it's "wimin's wurk"? So which is it?


If employers would pay 150k per year for any _woman job_, most men would do it.




> Because I've had more than a few boyfriends with sweet voices and I was actually the dominant one?


Yeah so sweet voices does correlate with "submissive" right ?



> Well you need to explore some more and actually talk to some females who would more than likely slap you across the face, or my preferred method, a good swift kick in the nuts for suggesting such ideals.


Women too agrees, mostly modern women who realize that the "ideal" life that feminists promised to them was just bullshit.



> Then why are you here if you don't like it that much?


It's special-*good*. Interesting and unusual people.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Dupree said:


> Mad props to redScorpion for mad trolling skills.


I'm no trolling boy.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Well if every woman would think like you, humanity would no longer exist. So I have no problem with your way of thinking, but I just pray God to make the less possible women to think like this.
> 
> 
> Well most men share my views, so be prepared to hate most guys on this planet.
> ...


Firstly, don't pray to your God for me. That is twice you have highly offended me. Once by your bullshit ideal of women, and twice now by bringing your other bullshit ideal of a God into it. If you want to argue religion with me now which I feel you will, I will only say this. * Prove that a God exists before you even utter a word of it to me. *

Secondly, you are wrong, humanity would exist just fine. 

Thirdly, again with the false generalization of most men thinking like you. You are wrong. Not sure where you are from, but there are plenty of men in America that would rival your bullshit assumption that "most men" prefer a submissive, subservient, brainless twat of a woman, who only values herself and can find happiness in taking care of her lazy ass husband and bratty children.

Fourthly, you saying you are smart huh. By who's ideals. Wait, I know the answer.... YOURS! And no, sadly you are not. If you were, you would be more open to women playing a pivotal role in modern society, and wouldn't be sobbing over it. You'd learn to accept it, and pick up your laundry off the damn floor, and wash it yourself without throwing a little bitch fit. * If I can do it, so can you, so get off your ass and do it!*

And people like you will lead the world tomorrow huh? *WRONG.* People like you led the world 100 years ago. Times have changed dude. It's time for you to smell the roses. Time moves forward, not in reverse, so if types like you were going to lead the world tomorrow, why is it that your ideal only gets further and further from the reality of how a modern society works? If we were getting* closer* to this ideal, you wouldn't be hung up on the subject.

*Women have rights now, we don't have to kiss a man's ass anymore. I for one refuse. We work, we support ourselves, we do it all, without any help. Deal with it.*

**And sorry I lied, I said I was done, I obviously was wrong. I can't keep my voice silent on this matter.**


----------



## Dupree (Feb 21, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> I'm no trolling boy.


Wow, I never expected that response!


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> Firstly, don't pray to your God for me. That is twice you have highly offended me. Once by your bullshit ideal of women, and twice now by bringing your other bullshit ideal of a God into it. If you want to argue religion with me now which I feel you will, I will only say this. * Prove that a God exists before you even utter a word of it to me. *


Prove me that God doesn't exist. I've lived things in my life that can assure me there's at least (good) supernatural forces that can't be explain with basic physics.



> Secondly, you are wrong, humanity would exist just fine.


No, if women don't want kids anymore, humanity is dead.



> Thirdly, again with the false generalization of most men thinking like you. You are wrong. Not sure where you are from, but there are plenty of men in America that would rival your bullshit assumption that "most men" prefer a submissive, subservient, brainless twat of a woman, who only values herself and can find happiness in taking care of her lazy ass husband and bratty children.


I come from the beautiful and amazing country of France. And most people are conservative there. But like I've already said, men and women in other countries agrees me too.



> Fourthly, you saying you are smart huh. By who's ideals. Wait, I know the answer.... YOURS! And no, sadly you are not. If you were, you would be more open to women playing a pivotal role in modern society, and wouldn't be sobbing over it. You'd learn to accept it, and pick up your laundry off the damn floor, and wash it yourself without throwing a little bitch fit. * If I can do it, so can you, so get off your ass and do it!*


The pivotal role of women is to make kids and raise them. They can also do other stuffs but this is essential. If women don't do it anymore, human dynasty is over.



> And people like you will lead the world tomorrow huh? *WRONG.* People like you led the world 100 years ago. Times have changed dude. It's time for you to smell the roses. Time moves forward, not in reverse, so if types like you were going to lead the world tomorrow, why is it that your ideal only gets further and further from the reality of how a modern society works?


Go see how the chinese, the indians, brazilians, africans, russians deal with their families : Traditional ! 
Western europeans are dying because (modern) women don't do enough kids anymore, did you know it ?




> *Women have rights now, we don't have to kiss a man's ass anymore. I for one refuse. We work, we support ourselves, we do it all, without any help. Deal with it.*


You still need us to have kids haha. And women always had rights, don't let the feminists fool you.


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Maybe because you want to still act like a kid, and play world of warcraft all day, but real men do this sacrifice for the good of society in general.


lolwut? I answer your question and you respond by trying to attack me?

So a woman can make this decision and it can be a noble and pure thing to do but when man wants to do it it's because he wants to "play world of warcraft"?

And are you really trying to say that I'm not a "real man" because I would want to be a stay at home dad? Really?! I'm just...I'm flabbergasted.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Ormazd said:


> lolwut? I answer your question and you respond by trying to attack me?
> 
> So a woman can make this decision and it can be a noble and pure thing to do but when man wants to do it it's because he wants to "play world of warcraft"?
> 
> And are you really trying to say that I'm not a "real man" because I would want to be a stay at home dad? Really?! I'm just...I'm flabbergasted.


If you can breast milk, it's cool. But most men can't do it. You can play the "mom", it's possible but you can't replace the mother's affection and all. All men normally knows that.


----------



## feefafo (Jul 20, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Yeah we like being super-hero we always does, and most women kinda always liked it until feminists said guys and women are the same thing. And even women that want be be modern and all, quickly realize that her husband won't do the cleaning, laundring, *as we guys don't care living the extreme dirty life. *
> 
> *Have you ever seen a guy's room* ? It's generally a war battlefield.
> 
> Women don't like cleaning, laundring too, *but they are less pissed off to do it in general*, so we let 'em do it :happy:


LOLWUT

Have you seen _my_ room?


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> If you can breast milk, it's cool. But most men can't do it. You can play the "mom", it's possible but you can't replace the mother's affection and all. All men normally knows that.


And most mothers typically breastfeed for 18+ years?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Ormazd said:


> And most mothers typically breastfeed for 18+ years?


No but that put the dad out for at least the first 2 years then how your male friends gonna react, are they gonna be interested in diapers or the kids day ? And how the kids are gonna react when they'll their friends that their dad is a stay-at home daddy ? etc..

And I still the mother is more caring, emotional and that fits better with kid education. The man is there to lead the authority in the house etc.

But you're free to think how you want.

Why a stay-home dad can be bad for boys (but not girls)


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

feefafo said:


> LOLWUT
> 
> Have you seen _my_ room?


It's marginal for women in general, but there is for sure women completly disorganized.


----------



## feefafo (Jul 20, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> No but that put the dad out for at least the first 2 years then how your male friends gonna react, are they gonna be interested in diapers or the kids day ? And how the kids are gonna react when they'll their friends that their dad is a stay-at home daddy ? etc..
> 
> And I still the mother is more caring, emotional and that fits better with kid education. The man is there to lead the authority in the house etc.
> 
> But you're free to think how you want.


I...I think I'm going to throw up.


----------



## feefafo (Jul 20, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> It's marginal for women in general, but there is for sure women completly disorganized.


So, you agree that NOT ALL FEMALES are the same? You agree that gender doesn't always dictate a person? You agree that people can choose to do whatever the hell they want to do?


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers - life - 08 June 2010 - New Scientist

Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

*According to statistics, children should only be raised by lesbian parents.*

LemonSqueeze approves this message.

yes I'm being obviously fallacious.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Prove me that God doesn't exist. I've lived things in my life that can assure me there's at least (good) supernatural forces that can't be explain with basic physics.


Everything can be explained with physics, perhaps not now, but it will eventually be explained. Those "supernatural forces" that you speak of can also all be explained. Just because you fail to understand the explanation, does not make it a "supernatural force". People have a tendency to say things like that when dealing with matters they cannot comprehend in a scientific way. It's easier for their brain to just let it go with that, rather then researching it to find fact. It's just more laziness. Oh! We've covered that already haven't we? Seems to not only be a case of physical laziness, but of mental laziness as well!




redScorpion said:


> The pivotal role of women is to make kids and raise them. They can also do other stuffs but this is essential. If women don't do it anymore, human dynasty is over.


I didn't ask to be a woman, and how dare you assume me the role of being your reproductive prototype. You can grow your children in a petri dish as far as I'm concerned, and raise them yourself.

Do you even see how belittling to women you are?! Do you at all realize how fucking twisted your view of this situation is. That your view a woman's worth is birthing children, and keeping house? Where would great literary works of art come from if it weren't for women? Or basic designs that have set the foundation for our civilization? Female scientists, and physicists, women who have played a part in the very development of the computer you used to create this thread perhaps. Jane Austen, Barbara McClintock, Marie Sklodowska Curie, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Elinor Ostrom, Amelia Earhart, Hilary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Harriet Tubman, and I could go on and on, and on. What would civilization as we know it be like if those women believed in this submissive ideal you support so fiercely? Huh?




redScorpion said:


> You still need us to have kids haha. And women always had rights, don't let the feminists fool you.


Again, I don't need a man for shit. Petri dishes and sperm banks baby. And as for me specifically it doesn't even matter, because I *never* want children.


----------



## neptunesky (Dec 26, 2009)

I don't think this guy is worth getting angry over. He's just a fool, yo.

As Mr T once said "No, I don't hate Balboa, I just pity the fool." 

:laughing:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Well, I just want a particular kind of wife, I never said they were inferior.


But to someone of your world view, wouldn't submissive equal inferior? It certainly doesn't equal dominant or equal, surely?



> Conservatives are one of the few against abortions, it is moral for me.


Not all conservatives are against abortion, and not all progressives, liberals, libertarians and other non-conservatives are for it. In fact, I know of some people on the far left who are against abortion.



> She can, but I want her to be family oriented.


And if she doesn't want to be family oriented, would you do the decent thing and break up with her or would you try and force her into being more family oriented?



> Well as long as she can eat, and sleep warm at night she doesn't need a salary, I'm not her employer. But if the government would pay salaries to housewives, that would encourage women to be housewives I think.


You believe in capitalism, from what I can tell. She works directly for you and not for the government, so it is your responsibility to pay her wages, surely? Unless the government nationalises houseworkers, that is.



> No a lot of women agrees with me, but this forum is kinda particular with particular people, so it's kinda rare to see normal common sense.


So those who disagree with you are abnormal and have no common sense? That's a very unbiased point of view, I must say. Just because the women you know might be somewhat similar to you in their vewis doesn't mean that all, or even most, women are.



> No actually it did work in Nazi germany (I don't not approve their politics or beliefs, but their economic program is interesting), that the reason they got rich so fast, to the poorer european country to the richest in like 5 years. Neo liberals know that, that's why they want immigration, to lower a maximum the salaries.


You don't even seem to have the slightest idea why women were encouraged to abide by Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church) do you? It was so that more Germans would be born, more Germans would mean more of the supposed master race and more members of the master race could fill up the land that Nazi Germany was invading. It had nothing to do with being conservative and traditional, it had everything to do with creating a subservient and large population.



> Well the salaries would go up, and men would do this _female-jobs _for money for sure.


But men aren't suited to these jobs, according to you. They aren't women, and so can't do female jobs, according to you.



> 1500 euros per month, classic salary in France. And it is a governement funded job too, so he can't be fire.


That doesn't answer the question, but never mind.



> Most men gave deeper voice, and women sweeter voices, why is so hard to admit what everybody knows lol ?


I didn't deny that men tend to have deeper voices and women tend to have higher (sweeter is subjective, not to mention patronising towards women) voices, I said that people's voices are different and some people don't even have the ability to speak.



> Well the majority if you want.


So we're back to the hive minds of "most men" and "most women", are we? You apparently seem to have such a good idea about what the majority wants, yet you hold views that could easily be considered very conservative, not exactly the mainstream.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> You people are so original that is hard to have a normal debate. Me I'm just standard, that's why I assume (and I'm convinced) most men think like me.


We're original, so it's hard to have a debate with us? So for your entire life, you've never met or known anyone who didn't have very similar views to your own?

You can't assume most men think like you because you believe yourself to be "standard" (as if you were some sort of machine and not an individual human being), because people don't work that way. There are few things on which the majority agrees, and those things are usually at the extremes.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yeah *she is intelligent* that is why she is thinking this way, and I'll always be happy to see a woman thinking this way. God bless them.


No, she's intelligent because she can think for herself. Unlike you, because you seem to be far too attached to gender roles and sex stereotypes.



> Lol I love this show, that's all. It was a methaphor for a crazy day.


I like the programme myself, although I would say calling the days on that show "crazy" would be an understatement.



> Are you sure not _insane in the brain_ in reality ?


Are you calling yourself insane? I wouldn't call you insane, just stubbornly out of date.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Maybe because you want to still act like a kid,


Says the guy who wants to be looked after by his wife like he was one of the children.



> and play world of warcraft all day,


So men who don't work must be playing games all day?



> but real men


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How the hell do you know what a real man is? Your idea of a man is some plastic stereotype that abides by gender roles and acts like it's 1910.



> do this sacrifice for the good of society in general.


No, the majority of people who work (and here is something I can actually generalise about, because to sane people it's obvious) go out to work to earn a living, to put food on the table, to have money to pay the bills. Do you think people stuck in rush hour are happily thinking of how great it is to make such a noble sacrifice for the good of society? No, they're stuck there in a huge traffic jam, pissed off and wondering what the point of it all is.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> So, you must hate war, then? Poverty? Hunger? AIDS? Murder? Terrorism? Cancer? Malaria? Flu? heart disease?


Yeah I hate all of these.



> Oh no, sorry, those aren't important to conservatives because it's got nothing to do with controlling a woman's body.


Lol First conservatives aint like that
and second,how can a man defend this much passionately women ? I'm very impressed.



> Then go and date those women, and leave the rest alone. Why do you care if the rest of society doesn't follow tradition?


Because it's ruining society, MINE too.




> So all that cooking and cleaning and probably doing far more work in the house than many men do at the workplace all day every day doesn't deserve a wage. You really are a nasty little boy, aren't you?


 I woud give millions bucks per day If I could, but the work of caring for the kids, is too moral and good, to be seen as a_ job_.



> I'm beginning to think that you must really hate spending your money on other people.


I don't like spending money too much you're right.





> Many women don't want to do it at all, and they don't care what you think or want. Go and find a woman who shares your beliefs and stop trying to force your hypocritical, misogynistic tradition onto women who don't want it.


Yeah "many women", but a whole lotta women won't do it because of the money. And it aint "misogynistic" what the hell? 




> No equal? I guess the British Empire, the United States at the peak of it's power, modern China, the European Union et al must be nothing compared to the greatness of Nazi Germany.


I was talking about the fact that a completely ruined country can pass from the poorer country of a continent to the richest in just 5 years. That has no equal in history. 




> The feminists don't want a matriarchy or some other form of female-dominated society


So i guess : oops, this exactly what happened the last 30-40 years.



> You're the most unusual person on this forum by far. Not too interesting, though.


I'm completely usual, but this forum is so unusual, that I finally look unusual to this forum, you follow me ?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

wonderfert said:


> And ye gods, why are you under the impression that women only wear "tight jeans"? Or that the intention of their clothing choices must always be to sexually excite a man? Right..because you generalize at the drop of a hat.


In most western countries, the tight jeans had become the norm the last 15 years.

So _most_ women don't put tight jeans for guys to watch em, I don't believe you...


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> In most western countries, the tight jeans had become the norm the last 15 years.
> 
> So _most_ women don't put tight jeans for guys to watch em, I don't believe you...


And guys wear tight shirts, clothing that accentuates height and wear fragrances to attract women.

welcome to mate-selection.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Well the woman will normally know that I'm kinda conservative from the first minutes (and that I expect her to family orientated later) so I would eventually break up with her if she's not willing to be a great mother.


That's reassuring to know.



> She's not working for me but for *her* family. She's a woman that want to put her kids as a priority, that's all.


Then who should pay her wage?



> If a lot, lot of women in different cities says kinda the same thing, I would assume that's what most women want.


Noone has ever met the majority of women or men on the planet. You may have met hundreds of people, you may have met hundreds of thousands of people, but you cannot assume that most women or most men want or think something just because you've found many people who do. For example, if you found that a lot of people believed that a red ball was orbiting the Earth, would you also believe in that ball?



> Ok, but the fact that women stopped to work, this have created a great economic revolution. And this is interesting to see that.


The removal of women from the workplace was a tiny reason for the economic success of Nazi Germany. The main reasons were plenty of resources from occupied countries as well as cheap and slave labour. If you have millions working for nothing, of course you're going to be economically successful.



> Men aren't suited to these jobs _naturally_, but they still can do it.


We aren't suited to sitting on a computer all day, but we can still do it. What's your point?



> With 1500euros per month, you can have a great apartment in a paris suburb, that's all.


Even when there's only one salary and six people to feed and clothe?



> The mainstream is conservative, because conservatives = morals, honor and respect.


I would say the mainstream society in the West is moderate with liberal leanings in some places, conservative leanings in other places.

Conservatives do not equal morals, honour and respect, they equal conservative values. You do not need to be conservative in order to be moral, honourable or respectful.



> And I assume most people have that.


Stop making assumptions about most people, and even if most people happened to be moral, honourable and respectful, it doesn't mean that they are conservatives.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> In a normal debate, most people would agree what I say, and some will tell what you said.


Firstly, define what you mean by "normal debate".

Secondly, how can you be so sure that the majority would agree with you?



> And I'm standard in a way that I'm sure and I've seen that most men think like me.


You've not seen that most men think like you, as you can neither know or find out how most men think.



> It's not too elaborated, it's just the simple way most guys think.


I thought you were meant to be very smart, anyway? Surely a very smart person would have quite elaborate thoughts?


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> In most western countries, the tight jeans had become the norm the last 15 years.
> 
> So _most_ women don't put tight jeans for guys to watch em, I don't believe you...


There you go with your generalizations. And big shocker, I disagree with you and you immediately reject the notion that you could be wrong. 

But, the great thing is that I don't care if you believe me. Because you're dogmatic in your pursuit of saying that you're right, and that most men/women/babies/amoebas /and inanimate objects would agree with you in a *normal* debate. Which, by the by, this entire thread is. Though I understand why you wouldn't feel that it's normal as you hold the minority view and no one is rushing to support your ideals. It's not the debate that's the problem, its the venue. If it were a few of us, and an overabundance of your best pals, it would be more to your liking, no doubt. Because then, you might actually stand a chance of sounding like you're not just repeating blind rhetoric.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No, I'm independant, and I've come to my conclusions indepedantly of anything or any "sex stereotypes",


You're kidding, right? You cannot seriously be claiming that your traditional, gender role based views of men and women are not based on sex stereotypes, or that you came to your conclusions independently? How you apparently came to your conclusions independently when you think that most men agree with you I have no idea.



> I'm an INTP remember.


You are certainly the most unINTPish INTP I've seen.



> Ah ah :laughing: you're funny.


I try to be.



> No I'm just a modern guy that have morals.


[

How can you be both modern and traditional?



> It's becoming rare these days but guys like me are still out there.


You mean traditionalists who don't care about women?


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm going to try to bridge the gap here.

If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mum, do the dishes, cook the food, take care of the children. I have nothing at all against that, actually I think it's an admirable occupation 

If a woman wants to be a working mum, earn the money, provide for the family and work a paying job for their children. I have nothing at all against that either. Again, another admirable occupation.

It's all the matter of choice. Did they freely choose their path? Or were they "pressured" into that path?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No I just want to be the breadwinner.


Then find a woman to be with who doesn't mind you being the sole breadwinner, because not all women want to be in such a situation.



> And I don't care If she's not doing my laundry, or cleaning my plate, I want her to be_ with the kids_ and to do it for them.


So you wouldn't mind if she did nothing for you, and you did everything for yourself like cooking and cleaning, so long as she did everything for the children?



> I don't even want her to care for me but just the kids, me I'm just out there to get the money, pay the rent, clothes and the food. I'm not looking for a servant or anything.


And who will do the cleaning?



> Not men but kids like him maybe.


Why do you think he is a kid?



> Yeah I know what a real man is and do. It does sacrifices for his family and he is honorable.


It? I wasn't aware that a real man was an inanimate object.

What about men who don't have families, or can't make sacrifices? Is the elderly, disabled man down the street not a real man? Is the young man trying to find a job and a place to live not a real man?

As for honourable, anyone can be honourable, whether they are a "real" man or not.



> The man who let his wife working all day while he aint doing anything is not a _real man_.
> 
> Even if he is doing all the cooking and cleaning all day, even if he is looking after children? What make's the man who does that sort of work any different from the man who works in an office or other more traditional workplace? Can you, without replying that it's a womans job or that women are better at that kind of job explain why he is not a real man or not working?
> 
> ...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> So you are lesbian and hate men too ?


Where did she say she was a lesbian or hated men?



> Why do you hate men ?


Stop accusing her of things you know full well she hasn't said.



> This word is not used in french since the 16th century but I guess it means false or something like that.


Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Well this is true.


Good.



> I didn't say _all_ women would be happier, that's normal there aint robots but i think is the best way for society to work great.


Shouldn't society be aiming to make everyone happier? I'm sure it would have more success if it didn't try and force people into gender roles and stereotypes.



> Yeah they are feminine clother, and that make them sexier, nicer etc..


You might find a woman in a dress or skirt sexier, but women don't necessarily feel sexier wearing them.



> Why women would want to wear trousers except to say "we are like men now".


Because it's more practical than a skirt or a dress? Because they want to have the freedom to wear whatever clothes they want?



> And it's not society that want extra tight jeans for women, its because men can appreciate their curves better.


OK, so even though they're wearing them to be more like men, you apparently also think it makes them look more feminine. Interesting juxtaposition there.

Because men can appreciate their curves better? That is society - the pressure of gender roles on men and women.



> Women have realized that normal trousers don't attract us at all, so they put these gymnastic tight pants now.


No, they haven't, that's the designers and manufacturers trying to sexualise women.



> Yeah, classic. Men are peeeeervs.... God....


They must be, from your sentences earlier in the post. Note that I didn't mention men at all, I mentioned perverts, who are only some men (and some women).



> Women want us to look at them, at their sexy curves because it's what we like, and they like to been seen as desirable, it's normal.


Not every woman does, and even if they do it doesn't mean they want to be looked at all of the time. You're also ignoring lesbian women, women in relationships and women who just aren't interested in being treated like a sex object.



> It'S being a wife and a mother.


No, a wife is meant to be a woman married to someone else, not a person who does all the cooking and cleaning. A mother is meant to be a woman who brings up children.



> And the "whenever sex" was a little exagerated (the husband should not rape his wife) but for a stable environement, the husband must be satisfied a maximum.


So he should be satisfied as much as possible, but not just whenever he wants? What if a man can't be satisfied unless he gets sex whenever he wants? Is it acceptable to you if he makes his wife have sex with him whenever he wants?



> I remember you saying that the first cause of divorce is cheating no ?


That doesn't mean that those men or women aren't getting as much sex as they want with their partner. There are many different reasons why people cheat.



> We are diverse but not so different on the same time.


Yes, but the differences are not those found in gender roles. Those are not natural differences, they are societal constructs.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Ah ah, yeah there's women like her, a lot, lot , lot :happy: and this is great


Of course there are women like her. Your idea that men and women are like two hive minds is incorrect.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Most children probably wouldn't care, they're children. Do you really think that househusbands and SAHDs are so rare and bad that their children will be made fun of at school?


Yeah totally lol, are you in the real life bro ?:crazy:




> Being male doesn't automatically make you a good leader nor a good authority figure and in a proper household, the couple should be a team. I know insecure little boys like you need to have power and control over others, but a co-operate and equal couple working together and sharing the burdens of house and work will fare very well.


Kids understands laws and authority in life by their fathers generally. Do you think the teachers or the police women are gonna teach the kids that ?




> One study that agrees with you, and it doesn't even fully agree with you? At least get a few more sources before you use sources to back up your argument.


It's just the top of the iceberg,.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Who is we and why is there a need? Does humanity have a need to survive past the current generation? Why would humanity survive past the current generation?


Because I'm not selfish and I want other human beings to experience what I live and life is.




> You seem to have no concept of a father, do you?


Yes I do sir : Being Honorable, brave, able to make sacrifices for his family like going to work and being able to be the authority in the house. That is not easy too.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> It's maybe too complicated for you to understand.


Not if you can understand it, that's for sure.



> Yeah but it is the best environment and then people can be horrible, it's human nature.


It cannot be the best environment then, can it?



> To wanting your kids to be raised by you is a strong moral to a lot of people I think.


But you wouldn't raise them, their mother would.



> I want em to be happy first.


Even if happy means dominating you? Even if happy means she has a full time job?



> Really look how feminized the society is, women is the way of thinking now, any male perspective is wrong.


Society is not feminised, that's just the delusion of a few men who hate the idea of women actually having some equality in society for once.

Any male perspective is wrong? Tell me, if that is true, why are women agreeing with me - a male - in this very thread? Or does your definition of male only refer to men who don't hold feminist or modern views?



> Because any men that exposes this truth is looked down


What truth? Just because you believe it, does not make it the truth. 



> and is seen as sexist, as a pig, a pervert or any of these feminist words.


How are those words feminist, and how can a word be feminist?



> So men are afraid.


No, some men are afraid of losing their comfortable male dominance in society. It's usually the more religious, conservative men such as yourself.



> Modern women are scary....


Why? Because they aren't timid, docile little servants eager to please you?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Nooo, because you know I'm right but you want to defend your pro-feminist theories.


Wow, you really are deluded. You actually think all men are just like you, think like you and act like you.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> That was a bit of an over-reaction wasn't it?


Yeah the classic feminist talk is annoying me


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Perhaps it will, but I can tell you now that it won't prove the god of the bible, the quran or any other religious scripture. If physics proves that a god exists, it won't be one with human characteristics.


Maybe, but the religious Gods are differrent names put on something bigger than us and we all know that.



> Not all women want to be mothers, though, and what if a woman can't have children?


She can adopt, but I'm not forcing her.




> Don't be crude.


Sorrry



> She doesn't hate men at all, she simply stated that she didn't need men.


What that's suppose to mean ? That we are useless ? That no men can inspire her ? This is hate for me.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> She doesn't have a problem with men, she just has a problem with you. I know you like to think of yourself as the representative of all men, but you certainly are not. Her view of men is not all-encompassing, she obviously has far more intelligence than you could ever hope for, because she doesn't assume that all the members of a biological sex must be this way or the other, and nor does she assume that all men think or act the same way.


I didnt tell women to be a certain kinda way, I'm just saying that I (and, I'm not afraid to say it, _most men_) would prefer a certain type of woman thats all.




> You have no evidence at all to make the assumption that she is not kind, or that more men would love her than they do now if she became kinder.


Why does she say she doesnt need men anymore ? And I'm sure that if she's talking to men as she's done with me, men are scared.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Being smart and conservative is evil these days


Evil? Since when have intelligence and conservatism been evil? They aren't sentient beings, they cannot be evil, and that's without getting into the whole debate about whether good and evil even really exist.



> you were too brainwashed by the tv.


Actually, I'm not much of a television watcher.



> Not all of the problems, but some like the roles of the modern man and modern woman in Western society.


Why do you need to fit roles onto men and women? What good does it do to assume that all men are better suited to one role and all women are better suited to another?



> It would sove some of em,


Did it solve these problems before modern society?



> and haven't seen all these "housewives" shows on TV.


I don't watch much television, and I certainly wouldn't watch crap like that.



> Women dream of this lifestyle these days : being sexy, a good wife and a good mother. Lots of ratings I'm sure.


Some women do, yes, but not all women and most likely not most women either.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Go pretend to kids that you are a housedad that does the cleaning, laundring, cooking, and then tell me what they did answer to you. I'm sure it won't be nice.


Why would or wouldn't it?



> Yeah it is exactly what fathers have been and should be.


And what of fathers who haven't been and aren't?



> I didnt say that but it is the parents role (mostly the dad).


You could still answer the question.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No because life is also love, happiness, laugh, nature wonders etc. Like our personal lives this aint happiness everyday but we still stand for the postive side of it, I guess. And _war, poverty, hunger, bigotry and fundamentalism_ can disappear one day, who knows.


How could they disappear if your preferred traditional society came back? Those things used to be even worse in historical times.



> Yeah I know, but it's still worth. I have ancestors that were slaves, and their lives may have been horrible from start to finish, but now me, a descendant, have a great and peaceful life. I know they must be proud from where they are now, and that they must think that it was finally worth. Life is not about joy, but experiences, good and bad.


Yes, because society progressed, society moved forwards. What if your preferred traditional society came back, and your descendants were slaves?



> Whatever he is, where he lives on this planet, every dad should be like this. It's universal for humans.


I didn't describe any qualities, so what do you mean?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You're not playing devil's advocate or anything, are you? You've seemed pretty serious about your beliefs thus so, so I don't think you are.


No I'm not, I'm just INTP smarter that other naive INTPs that haven't seen already the disaster of feminism, feminized society, Islam and hundreds other problems.



> This is strange, coming from the "most men" and "most women" guy.


I do live in a modern society,I have to be modern at some point.





> Firstly, what morals are you referring to? Secondly, how do you know that such men are rare?


We always had been corrupted by sex and money but marriage were the only "reasoning" stuff possible for men back in the day and now that feminist have broke it, we're out in the jungle again.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> To say I _don't need_ is very mean and disrespectful.


So, if you had no need for a psychiatrist and you said, "I have no need for a psychiatrist", that would be mean and disrespectful? Would it be mean and disrespectful if you said "I have no need for a woman"? 



> She should say, _for the moment_, i don't need...


For a conservative, you really do have a certain political correctness about you. Just for men, of course, but it's there.

What if she doesn't mean "for the moment"? What if you said "For the moment, I don't need a woman"?. Would that be better than you saying "I don't need a woman"?.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Do you have any sources to back this up, because I don't believe this for one second.


Men want women to be more traditional - and women 'are HAPPY to be the housewife' | Mail Online

The media are not talking about it a lot, but you can see it when you talk to people. They want a traditional life now.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> You approve what she say so we can't include you.


You really are a child, aren't you? "You like girls, so we can't let you into the boy's clubhouse nya nya!". It's pathetic and I really do feel sorry for you. I'm a man whenever you like it or not, and whether you put some silly little claim that most men think like you, in some petty attempt to make your views look something more than the eccentric and outdated views that they are.



> But a woman saying (shouting) I dont need men,


Why is this such a problem to you? You're most likely never going to meet her in real life, so why does it matter to you so much?



> I don' want children,


Again, why is this such a problem? Some women don't want children, some can't have children. It's not exactly a scary concept, surely.



> I wanna be alone,


For an Introvert, you really don't like the idea of people being by themselves, do you?



> I let my dirty clothes on the floor to piss off men etc...,


If she does that and it pisses her partner off, he can pick them up if he wants or he can just leave them. I don't see why that has anything to do with you or why it would piss men off. I thought we were supposed to be rational?



> this is kinda scary.


And you're kind of pathetic.



> [And Conservatives are honorable people and do not insult people with no valid reasons unlike you.


I do have a valid reason - you're a moron and quite probably a troll. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you, and I could never consider you to be either intelligent or mature.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> People in it are very original, not the kind you'll meet on the streets.


How do you know? Have you met everyone who has ever walked down a street?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No I'm not, I'm just INTP smarter


What is INTP smarter?



> that other naive INTPs that haven't seen already the disaster of feminism, feminized society, Islam and hundreds other problems.


I'm not naive, you're hysterical and over-emotional. You need to look at modern society rationally and with a clear mind, not as some religious conservative who has already made his mind up that the old days must have been better and that modern society cannot possibly be good.



> I do live in a modern society,I have to be modern at some point.


Then you must be able to see that men and women aren't two giant groups?



> We always had been corrupted by sex and money but marriage were the only "reasoning" stuff possible for men back in the day and now that feminist have broke it, we're out in the jungle again.


I have no idea what you are talking about, and feminists did not break marriage at all, marriage rates are falling because religion as a whole is becoming less popular.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Men want women to be more traditional - and women 'are HAPPY to be the housewife' | Mail Online
> 
> The media are not talking about it a lot, but you can see it when you talk to people. They want a traditional life now.


Some people want a traditional life and that's fine if they want to make such a choice. It shouldn't be forced onto people.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> And if she died or left? You would raise the children yourself?


I'll find another wife.



> You don't like it, so you would force it onto the children? Not much of an adult are you, and not to mention hypocritical - you apparently would make sacrifices, but when it comes to cleaning you don't like it and turn into a whining child who needs hi mother to do it for him?


It's not I dont want to do it, I just don't care. I'll do it when I'll have to, but mosty I don't care if the stuffs are dirty.



> What if a man can't be courageous? Is he not a real man?


Exactly.




> No, it isn't. You seem to think that we have to act like our ancestors who lived in caves did. Should we also not have schools, hospitals and churches because they didn't either?


Its not like caves time, it is acting manly. Something you should try sometimes.



> What if he isn't, but can't work?


He is useless to society, so he is a man, but he is dead on the inside.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I'll find another wife.


You wouldn't even try and be a single father?



> It's not I dont want to do it, I just don't care. I'll do it when I'll have to, but mosty I don't care if the stuffs are dirty.


So why make your wife or children do it then if you don't care?



> Exactly.


So if he's disabled or ill, he can't be a real man?



> Its not like caves time, it is acting manly. Something you should try sometimes.


You don't know what acting manly is. It sounds like your idea of manliness has come out of some text book from the 1950s.



> He is useless to society, so he is a man, but he is dead on the inside.


I really don't want to Godwin the thread, but I believe you may have sort of done that when you mentioned Nazi Germany.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> What is this difference?


The feminist one is dudy, the women's one is sexy.



> I didn't mean the attraction to a woman's body, I meant women being treated like sex objects.


Nobody is treating them as sex "objects". We just like em sexy.




> So what's the problem with them wearing pants then? They should be able to wear any pants they wish.


They can do it, but most men are not attracteed by these pants, so women prefer to wear the sexy tight jeans.




> Before the inevitable cheating? Your view of men is just as bad as your view of women in some ways, isn't it? Are you actually saying that if you were married and your wife did not satisfy you enough sexually, that you would cheat on her?


I probably would.



> Of course, so at least you have some idea of what consent is then.


Yeah, because I don't want to force or impose anything on women.




> That's no justification for cheating at all.


So the man stay frustated and what ? You can't blame him.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> The feminist one is dudy, the women's one is sexy.


Of course, I should have guessed that you only the one that you like would be sexy, and the other one not.



> Nobody is treating them as sex "objects". We just like em sexy.


So, gawking at women in public even when they don't want you to isn't treating them like sex objects?



> They can do it, but most men are not attracteed by these pants, so women prefer to wear the sexy tight jeans.


You really are deluded, aren't you? You actually think that women do things like that solely for male attention? Some women do, but even then it isn't the only reason.



> I probably would.


Lovely. An apparently moral, honourable Christian male with conservative values - who would cheat on his wife if she didn't give him as much sex as he wanted.



> Yeah, because I don't want to force or impose anything on women.


But if they don't give you enough sex, you'll cheat on them?



> So the man stay frustated and what ? You can't blame him.


If he gets so frustrated by lack of sex in a marriage or long term relationship, he should stay single and not get into a relationship. You say you don't want to force or impose anything on women, yet you would pressure her to have sex or else you would cheat?


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

*..*



redScorpion said:


> Men want women to be more traditional - and women 'are HAPPY to be the housewife' | Mail Online
> 
> The media are not talking about it a lot, but you can see it when you talk to people. They want a traditional life now.


Don't act like your speaking for Men here red.I think you forgot to take your Haldol today..Do not mention "Canadian" again in reference to the real ones....Just go away.....


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You can both be happy, as long as that happiness doesn't go against the relationship that you want?


Yes.




> So apart from your delusions, do you actually have any sources which back up your claim?


Feminization of men - AskMen.com Canada
The feminization of man | Change your thoughts
The Crisis of Manhood - Feminization of Men - Emergence Of Feminism The Crisis of Manhood
Boys Are Lagging in Schools: Has Feminization Gone Too Far? | Our Kids Blog
The Feminization of Western Culture Practical Pick Up
Skinny Jeans, John Wayne, And The Feminization Of America - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

Etc...




> What about men? Should they also be family oriented?


Also, but the emotional women are more adequate for this duty.




> Women aren't trying to act like men, they're just not acting like stereotypical or traditional women anymore, and how can you be disturbed by such changes in such little time? Are you even that old, because I pictured you to be in your twenties or teens.


Well I'm 20 and was born in this weird transition that feminists would want to impose us. Some men like me have resisted, some like you have been brainwashed.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> That's just pathetic. You're actually going to just throw out some percentages and expect us to accept that that percentage of western men are like you? I would have believed 25% at the most in the west, if it actually meant something other than trying to make yourself and your views look more popular.


I'm just honest, I'm not trying anything.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Then why are so many conservative governments in power? Why are there so many well-known conservatives? Why does there appear to be a large and vocal conservative population in most countries?


The only conservatism that is left is their name, they are mostly right-wing neo-liberals.




> Yes, but they don't need to have stiff roles that don't account for individuality.


Housewives can have their individuality, take classes, do part time jobs, make thousand others stuffs.




> And how would you define great? What advantages did the society of 1950 or 1910 have over us?


Morals ?





> If women are choosing such a lifestyle, good for them. The important thing is that they have a choice and are not forced into a role.


Nobody talked about forcing women to be in that position or any kind of roles, only you.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yes.


So your own personal happiness is the most important part of the relationship?



> Feminization of men - AskMen.com Canada


When I asked for sources, I meant other than idiotic websites that appeal to the insecure steroid junkie losers. Not to mention that the linked article is full of stereotypes, and basically sounds like a whining jock who isn't getting any sex.



> The feminization of man | Change your thoughts


He sounds like he wants to be outright sexist but doesn't have the guts to come out and actually say what he wants to say. Probably because he knows he is wrong.



> The Crisis of Manhood - Feminization of Men - Emergence Of Feminism The Crisis of Manhood


This one seems to be in between our opinions, but leaning more towards mine. Whilst it does whinge about the imaginary feminisation of society, it does say that people should be encouraged to be themselves.



> Boys Are Lagging in Schools: Has Feminization Gone Too Far? | Our Kids Blog


Do you know why it looks like boys are lagging in schools? Because boys used to be educated far more and far better than girls in the West and with education standards slipping and girls getting more education than they used to, it appears as if boys are lagging when in fact there's likely to be no real sex divide.



> The Feminization of Western Culture Practical Pick Up


This is just another sexist douchebag whining that women actually have rights now, and that he can't get a girlfriend.



> Skinny Jeans, John Wayne, And The Feminization Of America - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives
> 
> Etc...


Another self-hating conservative woman begging at the feet of traditional men like a trained dog.



> Also, but the emotional women are more adequate for this duty.


Not all women are emotional, and not all women are more emotional than men. Not all men are unemotional, and not all men are less emotional than women. I've told you this before.



> Well I'm 20 and was born in this weird transition that feminists would want to impose us. Some men like me have resisted, some like you have been brainwashed.


You haven't resisted anything, you are just annoyed that you were born too late and now you actually have to grow up and be an adult rather than getting an easy life.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I'm just honest, I'm not trying anything.


At least stop trying to say that you speak for all or most men when you cannot prove that.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> The only conservatism that is left is their name, they are mostly right-wing neo-liberals.


Oh, of course, and you're one of the few true conservatives left. You're not exactly lacking in arrogance are you?



> Housewives can have their individuality, take classes, do part time jobs, make thousand others stuffs.


So? Do you really think that just because the men are kind enough to let women do that, that women are going to all rush to become housewives?



> Morals ?


The 1950s were no more or less moral than modern times. 



> Nobody talked about forcing women to be in that position or any kind of roles, only you.


You're the one who would only be in a relationship with a woman if she was submissive, didn't show her intelligence and made sure you were happy.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> As long as they're not in a relationship with you, then they have to be careful not to make you unhappy.


 Why that ?





> What does anarchism have to do with it?


I don't know either :laughing:. I've messed up something.




> Who is we? Is it that hive mind "most men" again?


Yup I have to generalise you know.




> How do you define large? Is it a large minority? Most women?


Large majority.





> Your posts in this thread have hardly disproven the idea that you are.


I'm not sexist or mysogynistic, that's it.




> So you have such little respect for women that in order to have sex with them you don't tell them your views, which if they did hear they wouldn't want to have sex with you?


I respect women but you know nobody's perfect, and you perfectly know that sometimes we have to lie to women because some of em think like you that most men are into their" intellect" and all that crap, so we have to find a way to make them hear what they wanna hear.




> Also, for such a religious person who doesn't believe in abortion or divorce, surely you shouldn't be having sex before marriage?


I'm inspired by religions (christian and others) but I don't belong to any religion particulary. I don't follow any rules, only mines, and those that I've estimated valuable (like most INTPs I think). Abortion and divorce is common sense outside of anything religious. Me, I dont want restrain my sex life for a religion. But If my future wife is virgin that would be better, as I she would be kinda purer and respectable. But i can accept non-virgin woman too.



> I would advise you to get to know her before it gets to that point then, because a lot of women find your views offensive, as you've seen in this thread.


Well, when I told them, they tend to approve that the mother should be with the kids and all, and none ever got angry.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> That's *just a picture of what might be an aborted foetus*. Do you have proof that it is a foetus, or have you fallen for emotional blackmail?


You have just no heart. *You* are the monster.




> So you would be OK with women having back alley abortions or even trying to self-abort?


No I'm for safe abortions only in the cases cited. But if women do it illegaly they should be jailed for killing a human being.



> What's your view on contraceptives?


I'm for them, as it will maybe stop women to kill babies with abortions.




> They can be if they want to be and choose to be.


Of course, but in a relationship I would except her to have the goal of being a great mother and great wife.



> Love is intangible, work is tangible. Why are you so against paying housewives for doing far more work then their partners do?


Because I think it is not moral to pay your wife to care of your kids. You are money obsessed.



> Are you agreeing with me or saying that you are kind of usual?


I AM USUAL.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Why would or wouldn't it?


Kids are cruel, and live with stereotypes.



> And what of fathers who haven't been and aren't?


I hope their kids turned out great.



> You could still answer the question.


Yes they would recognize them as authority but to learn authority the dad have to do his job.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> How could they disappear if your preferred traditional society came back? Those things used to be even worse in historical times.


You can have a traditional society without war, poverty etc... You just have to have the right kind of society.





> Yes, because society progressed, society moved forwards. What if your preferred traditional society came back, and your descendants were slaves?


Conservatives believes in liberty, and morals. There were and are nothing in slavery that approach liberty or moral. Traditional doesnt mean to get back in time with Doc, It means to take the best of the past, to make a better future.




> I didn't describe any qualities, so what do you mean?


The authority in the house.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> What if you said "For the moment, I don't need a woman"?. Would that be better than you saying "I don't need a woman"?.


Yeah that would be more respectful for women.

Or you have to be at least more precise about your "not need".


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I do have a valid reason - you're a moron and quite probably a troll. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you, and I could never consider you to be either intelligent or mature.


I'm not a troll, moron, kid whatever silly names. And I'm probably smarter than you, because I see the problems while you can't see em.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about, and feminists did not break marriage at all, marriage rates are falling because religion as a whole is becoming less popular.


Yeah feminism and neo-liberalism broke all that.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You wouldn't even try and be a single father?






> So why make your wife or children do it then if you don't care?


My wife will probably do it.




> I really don't want to Godwin the thread, but I believe you may have sort of done that when you mentioned Nazi Germany.


I do not support nazi programs or so ever. I said that he is useless, which is true. I didn't say that we or the society should kill him because he is useless.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You really are deluded, aren't you? You actually think that women do things like that solely for male attention? Some women do, but even then it isn't the only reason.


Most are.



> Lovely. An apparently moral, honourable Christian male with conservative values - who would cheat on his wife if she didn't give him as much sex as he wanted.


I'm not religious, i'm inspired by the texts and the morals.


Y


> ou say you don't want to force or impose anything on women, yet you would pressure her to have sex or else you would cheat?


I would not pressure her to have sex, but If she can give me what I was used like, I'll probably see elsewhere like m*** men.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Why that ?


Because then you'll dump them or cheat on them if you don't get enough sex.



> I don't know either :laughing:. I've messed up something.


Fair enough.



> Yup I have to generalise you know.


No, you don't because most men do not necessarily think the same way and you cannot know for sure if you think the same as most men. How many times do I have to tell you that before it sinks in?



> Large majority.


So no hive mind there then.



> I'm not sexist or mysogynistic, that's it.


I doubt the woman who have posted in this thread would agree.



> I respect women but you know nobody's perfect, and you perfectly know that sometimes we have to lie to women because some of em think like you that most men are into their" intellect" and all that crap, so we have to find a way to make them hear what they wanna hear.


Firstly, men do not have to lie to women at all. Secondly, it's you who believe that men aren't attracted to intelligent women and that intelligent women should dumb themselves down.



> I'm inspired by religions (christian and others) but I don't belong to any religion particulary. I don't follow any rules, only mines, and those that I've estimated valuable (like most INTPs I think). Abortion and divorce is common sense outside of anything religious. Me, I dont want restrain my sex life for a religion. But If my future wife is virgin that would be better, as I she would be kinda purer and respectable. But i can accept non-virgin woman too.


You like to cherry pick, I see.



> Well, when I told them, they tend to approve that the mother should be with the kids and all, and none ever got angry.


Have you told them how you really think, or just gave them some flowery belief?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Kevin INFJ said:


> Don't act like your speaking for Men here red.I think you forgot to take your Haldol today..Do not mention "Canadian" again in reference to the real ones....Just go away.....


I'm not speaking for all of them but I know what most normal dudes would think.

What the hell is that canadian thing ?

You come in my thread and tell me to go away ? Why dont you f*ck in your fronzen lands.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> You have just no heart. *You* are the monster.


Your opinion of me is worthless, personally. Do you really think I care if some insecure, immature little brat on the Internet calls me a monster for believing that women should have control over their bodies?



> No I'm for safe abortions only in the cases cited. But if women do it illegaly they should be jailed for killing a human being.


But what about the picture of the aborted foetus you posted? What kind of abortion did he get, because I'm sure he can't tell the difference.



> I'm for them, as it will maybe stop women to kill babies with abortions.


At least you're consistent.



> Of course, but in a relationship I would except her to have the goal of being a great mother and great wife.


Like I've said, make sure she knows that before you get into a serious relationship. 



> Because I think it is not moral to pay your wife to care of your kids. You are money obsessed.


OK, so what makes your job moral and hers not? As for being money-obsessed, that's just stupid seeing as money is related to wages. You know, wages tend to come in money form and all.



> I AM USUAL.


You keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day it'll come true.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> So your own personal happiness is the most important part of the relationship? No but I want my happiness to be great as well as my wife.





> Another self-hating conservative woman begging at the feet of traditional men like a trained dog.


that is almost sexist, and the woman is not self-hating, she's saying the whle truth, and you can't accept it.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Kids are cruel, and live with stereotypes.


Not all kids, and why would I listen to a kid? It's not like they can actually comprehend the adult world, you know.



> I hope their kids turned out great.


Even though their fathers weren't what you think they were supposed to be?



> Yes they would recognize them as authority but to learn authority the dad have to do his job.


And what about you? Would you recognise the authority of a female teacher or a female police officer?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Oh, of course, and you're one of the few true conservatives left. You're not exactly lacking in arrogance are you?


 No not only me the people in general. The politicians are no real conservatives anymore.




> So? Do you really think that just because the men are kind enough to let women do that, that women are going to all rush to become housewives?


There's no real difference with their current life except that they have to work like crazy anymore. Plus they get to see their kids a lot more.



> The 1950s were no more or less moral than modern times.


Yes more moral, and more inclined to obey authority.


> > You're the one who would only be in a relationship with a woman if she was submissive, didn't show her intelligence and made sure you were happy.
> 
> 
> I didnt say dont show their intelligence, and that doesnt make them slaves.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> You can have a traditional society without war, poverty etc... You just have to have the right kind of society.


Yes, one that isn't hung up on what role men should have and what role women should have and instead actually allow people to be individuals and use their strengths and talents to their advantage.



> Conservatives believes in liberty, and morals.


Not any more than any other political group. Conservatives do not have the monopoly on liberty and morals, especially as some many rail against things like gay marriage and gay rights then get caught in a public toilet with a male prostitute.



> There were and are nothing in slavery that approach liberty or moral. Traditional doesnt mean to get back in time with Doc, It means to take the best of the past, to make a better future.


The only things we should be taking from the past are lessons, to make sure we never make the mistakes that older generations made.



> The authority in the house.


I don't know what that had to do with the original statement of mine.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yeah that would be more respectful for women.


You do realise how petty you sound? Adding a few unnecessary words to the start makes it more respectful? I don't think there's anything disrespectful in a simple statement like "I don't need a man/woman right now".



> Or you have to be at least more precise about your "not need".


This from the "most men" guy? Wow.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I'm not a troll, moron, kid whatever silly names. And I'm probably smarter than you, because I see the problems while you can't see em.


You're not smarter than me at all, because you are the idiot focussing on fictional problems instead of tackling the real ones. Which is just typical of a conservative.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yeah feminism and neo-liberalism broke all that.


Actually, religion is falling because people are now better educated, science has progressed and people are arguably less gullible than they used to be.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> My wife will probably do it.


Because you only want to have relationships with submissive women who only care about your happiness.



> I do not support nazi programs or so ever. I said that he is useless, which is true. I didn't say that we or the society should kill him because he is useless.


How do you know he is useless?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> There aren't too many Muslim immigrants coming to the West at all, that's just conservative fearmongering.


In your own country :

Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry


This should be enough to wake you up.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Because someone can kill him for no reason.


But how can you kill a very early foetus? You might as well say you could kill a fertilised egg at that point. I think it's silly if you're going to try and argue that foetuses that are only hours, days, or a few weeks old could be murdered in the same way a child or adult could be, because it's just ridiculous.



> No, we should protect these future human beings.


What does that have to do with the number of pregnancies ending in miscarriages?



> Yes so they are not insulting me sexist and all crazy names I've heard.


You do realise that them calling you sexist may be because you have sexist views? Have you ever considered that to some people your views might be seen as sexist?



> Heartless people have estimated what can be priced for a dad or mom's heart. It's like your kid first step, or words, it has no price.


Housework is not exactly the same as a child's first step or words, that's just stupid.



> Not outdated and not stereotypes.


Yes, they are. Modern people are beginning to ignore gender roles and hopefully within a few decades the whole gender role concept will vanish from society.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Since Promethea the Global moderator talked to me , I looked at the definition again I know exactly what this is, and didn't make any sexist or mysogynistic remarks in this thread.


Does she agree?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> In your own country :
> 
> Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry
> 
> ...


Firstly, enough to wake me up? Wow, if such little evidence can convince you of something, you must be very gullible.

Secondly, it was 12 variations of the same name, not one version of the name itself.

Thirdly, whilst white and black English boys often have a lot of different names, boys with Muslim parents do not. There are few Muslim-specific boys names.

Fourthly, a name does not make someone part of a religion. My first name is of Greek origin but I have no recent Greek ancestry or any links to the country. My middle name is Hebrew, but it's my dad's first name and my dad's family are Catholics.

I think this comment was well made and well said - 



> Its not actually true though, is it?
> 
> 'Mohammed' actually appears at number 16 on the list (the same position as last year), but the Mail has added up 12 variations of the name in order to claim it's now the most popular and create a bit of anti-Muslim scaremongering.
> 
> ...


You see, this is what is called fearmongering. The nasty Muslim in the shadows is the current scapegoat of Western society, and newspapers love to use scapegoats to sell papers.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You implied that women should have certain roles,


I said that i want them to be great WIFE and MOTHER, it's sexist to say this now ? You're becoming paranoids.




> that women should be subservient to men


, 

No no no, I said that I and most men, like the little submissive type of woman, I don't discriminate, hate, or say that they are inferior than men !!



> you implied that women are there for the pleasure of men etc.


You are completly making that up bro :crazy: wtf the pleasure of men ? Did I even say pleasure in the whole thread ? I just said that the more sex there is, the less conflicts or possible cheatings there is. It's just common sense.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Look after children or elderly people in the home, housework, art, music etc.


If the guy can look after children and do housework, he can probably work.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I said that i want them to be great WIFE and MOTHER, it's sexist to say this now ? You're becoming paranoids.


Yes, and your idea of what constitutes a ngreat wife and mother is sexist.



> No no no, I said that I and most men, like the little submissive type of woman, I don't discriminate, hate, or say that they are inferior than men !!


Stop speaking for most men, because you cannot. If you actually stop saying that, I might actually consider seeing you as someone with actual intelligence.



> You are completly making that up bro :crazy: wtf the pleasure of men ? Did I even say pleasure in the whole thread ? I just said that the more sex there is, the less conflicts or possible cheatings there is. It's just common sense.


Exactly, you want to pressure the woman to have sex whenever the man wants.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> If the guy can look after children and do housework, he can probably work.


So then so can women, and there's no reason for them not to work.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Why should that make it any more relaxing? Does the boss of a company find it more relaxing because he or she can't be fired?


His business can fall apart, so it's the same. The housewife , her work is like assured.



> Then you should probably make sure she meets your specific criteria before starting a serious relationship with her.


I know the last one, it lasted like five months and she was perfect, everything I wanted (attractive, submissive but still has her personality etc.) but I had to leave in Montreal, and the "relationship with no kid" for me has no point and his kinda boring at some point.





> You are a sexist, though. The proof is in your posts.


No* I'M NOT SEXIST*, I love women, I see them as my equals, and I don't hate them or want them to be my slaves, or want them to have less rights than men, I just want them to be great WIVES and MOTHERs, so I except them to be housewife to fulfill that.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> 2012 is a while off yet, I wouldn't predict the winners and losers of that election too early. Even a week is a long time in politics.


Well you'll see. French people are pissed of the musllim immigration, it is sad but true. The National Front is like their (our) only hope to save France from destruction.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> No no no, I said that I and most men, like the little submissive type of woman, I don't discriminate, hate, or say that they are inferior than men !!
> .


I'd really like to see your definition of 'discriminate' and 'inferior' then. You say women are weaker than men, that 'most men' only want a submissive wife, that all society's ills can be blamed on feminism, etc etc and you can't see how these ideas are either discriminatory or implying that women are inferior? You are very clearly dismissive of every woman's opinion that doesn't agree with yours. It's obvious you think we are inferior. Newsflash: you can show very clearly how little you value women without actually specifically saying it. 

At the start of this thread you were making an attempt to say that working in the home is 'honourable' that it's a sacrifice to work outside it etc etc, trying to pump up the women's role, but now that you are obviously increasingly feeling threatened and set-upon your rhetoric is becoming more and more belligerant and your sexism is only becoming more and more apparent.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> His business can fall apart, so it's the same. The housewife , her work is like assured.


Only because the husband is often too lazy and/or childish to do his fair share.



> I know the last one, it lasted like five months and she was perfect, everything I wanted (attractive, submissive but still has her personality etc.) but I had to leave in Montreal, and the "relationship with no kid" for me has no point and his kinda boring at some point.


You really want to have a child don't you? You do realise that you're only 20 and don't need to be so worried about having a kid, right? You're too young to be worrying about that.



> No* I'M NOT SEXIST*, I love women, I see them as my equals, and I don't hate them or want them to be my slaves, or want them to have less rights than men, I just want them to be great WIVES and MOTHERs, so I except them to be housewife to fulfill that.


So you aren't sexist, yet you want them to fulfil a role of housewife simply because they are female?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Well you'll see. French people are pissed of the musllim immigration, it is sad but true. The National Front is like their (our) only hope to save France from destruction.


You think the NF will save France? The NF will drive France into the ground, just like their fellow jackbooted morons the Nazis.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> I don't ... want them to have less rights than men, I except them to be housewife to fulfill that.


So you *expect* women to be housewives but that isn't giving them less rights? How about the right to freedom you claim to support?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

tuna said:


> _sexist_ - You believe that women are fragile


I say more fragile than men and it is some kinda true.



> , that they are happier when doing housework,


No i didn't say that either, it's the women themselves that say that in this article 



> that they are more naturally suited to doing housework,


No I said that they're less pissed of doing it so that why we were lettin em doing it.



> that they are more naturally suited to raising children,


Women are more naturally emotional, more caring, more loving, I don't know how can this be news to you or sexist wtf.



> that women should not be paid for doing housework,


I say the governement should do it, not the husband because I have to much respect for her, to pay her like she has a domestic servant.



> that you should be "the authority voice,"


We men have a deeper voice that tends to lead to a natural authoritirian attitude.



> that "you perfectly know that sometimes we have to lie to women because some of em think like you that most men are into their" intellect" and all that crap,"


Well this is true, some women think that guys are into their "intellect" first, I mean, are you serious :crazy: ?



> that in a relationship with you a woman's main goal in life should be to be a good mother and wife,


No The main goal in a relationship, women do whatever they want of their lives.




> that a woman who cannot or will not bear children is somehow deficient,


Deficient :crazy: where doest that come from ? I just said if all women would choose to not have children anymore, human people would disappear, it's just science aand maths.




> that women who don't need or want men are somehow deficient,


First I never said deficient.
Second, I just said that woman shouting at me that she somehow hating men, was scary that's all.



> that a woman who cannot satisfy you sexually should expect that you will cheat on her,


Well, this is moslty why guys cheat on their wifes, it's because something sexual is missing in the wife, or the guy just want something else sexually. I don't see how this is sexist.



> and that intelligent women are not desirable.


Men are not looking for it, we have to be honest. But that doesnt mean they're not desirable, I've dated smart women, I've just said that mostly men are not lookiing for it and that it was not generally on the "hotness" rating of guys.




> If you "love women," as you claim, you would be _unselfishly loyal and concerned for their welfare_.


Is it selfish to want a wife to be happy ?



> Instead, you are selfish (you expect any woman who is in a relationship with you to adhere to _your_ beliefs of what a woman should act/think/believe/feel/etc.),


Well some women like smart blond guys, nobody will tell her that she is misandric because she has preferencces, am I RIGHT ?



> you are disloyal (you would cheat on your girlfriend or wife if you didn't feel sexually satisfied, which is not only amoral and directly in conflict with nearly every major world religion [I mention this because _you_ mentioned that major world religions are against homosexuality in an answer to another question],


I don't care about religion, and don't belong to one. I have my own morals. And Jewish and Muslims can have several wives so I guess that that would solve the problem if one wife is not sexually satisfying me.



> it is _physically dangerous_ to your wife/girlfriend because there's the possibility of you transmitting an STD to her after the affair),


If I wear condoms there's no problem normally.




> and you are concerned only with _your own view_ of what is "right" for women, rather than with _their own knowledge_ of what is right for them.


No no no, I have my preferences for women, or some kinda women. And I'm not only concerned with own view, I can talk with you about the lifestyle you would choose.



> This leads me to the conclusion that what you feel for women is the opposite of love; namely, hatred.


No no no and NO, I love and I want them to be happy. I just have a vision of my own marriage, is it wrong to do this, it is mysogynistic to do this now ?



> _backwards_ - You want women to follow the stereotypical 1950s social roles solely because they are female. This is backwards - _towards the past_. This is also harmful to women - therefore the additional definition of _towards a worse state_.


No I want my wife to be a housewife because that would be great for my kids. That is all. 





> Do you understand my previous statement now?


No I still don't. You're stereotyping me, because I have some traditional beliefs. I do not approve how women were abused sometimes by men in 1950s. We are in 2010, I know that, and I just want my family, my wife and my kids to have the best environment possible. that's all I'm saying.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

sts06 said:


> At the start of this thread you were making an attempt to say that working in the home is 'honourable' that it's a sacrifice to work outside it etc etc, trying to pump up the women's role,


What ? I still think that : the men sacrifice outside and the women inside, and because the women work is familiy oriented, I found this more honourable, I still think it is.



> but now that you are obviously increasingly feeling threatened and set-upon your rhetoric is becoming more and more belligerant and your sexism is only becoming more and more apparent.


What sexism ? 
I don't like being called sexist because it is exactly what I'm not. I love women.
How can someone hate women ? They're generally cute, nice, kind, sexy, smell good etc... I don't even know how can someone hate them seriously. What can you reproach to them ? They're alsmot perfect.


----------



## feefafo (Jul 20, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> You are not all the same but we still need you to make babies and take care of em.


Men and women need each other to make babies. That's just how it works. However, men don't need women to look after their babies. Both parents can look after the baby, or just the mother, or just the father. Or someone can adopt the baby. Hell, a robot could look after the baby.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> I just want my family, my wife and my kids to have the best environment possible. that's all I'm saying.


You are directly contradicting the post you made just up thread where you said you expect women to be housewives. That is not just your family, your wife etc etc; that is saying that all women should be like this. Sure, have your own preferences but don't expect that everyone else will follow along and don't try to impose your idea of the 'best environment' onto every family please. I'll stick with my environment which is one of mutual respect with neither partner submissive to the other, thanks. My kids are growing up respecting that both genders are equal and both genders have equal share in all aspects of our daily lives.


----------



## feefafo (Jul 20, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> What sexism ?
> I don't like being called sexist because it is exactly what I'm not. I love women.
> How can someone hate women ? They're generally cute, nice, kind, sexy, smell good etc... I don't even know how can someone hate them seriously. What can you reproach to them ? They're alsmot perfect.


Are you even...how can you..._why?_


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 28, 2010)

Someone is a gender essentialist.

Luckily for you, there are a lot of women who want just what you want. I wouldn't go so far as to say that your desires are the norm, though.

Also, quite a few of your views are genuinely sexist and not just arising from your specific preferences, but I'm not entirely sure I feel inclined to correct you on any of them.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You really want to have a child don't you? You do realise that you're only 20 and don't need to be so worried about having a kid, right? You're too young to be worrying about that.


I know but a _serious relationship_ has no point for me at 20, because I want to have fun mostly. So I want to settle down and have a _serious relationship_ only when I'll get married and have my family, and kids. I'm not into to kids that much (not at all actually), it's just that for me, becoming a man is having a family.




> So you aren't sexist, yet you want them to fulfil a role of housewife simply because they are female?


i just want one parent to be at home, and this that betwen the mom or the dad, the mom's is more appropriate. It's not gender stereotypes, there's lot of reflexion to arrive at this conclusion.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> You think the NF will save France? The NF will drive France into the ground, just like their fellow jackbooted morons the Nazis.


The NF is not a nazi pary or even far-right. It's more like a populist, conservative party. It's like your nigel farage in the uk.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> What ? I still think that : the men sacrifice outside and the women inside, and because the women work is familiy oriented, I found this more honourable, I still think it is.


If you seriously thought it was more honourable you would do it.



> What sexism ?
> I don't like being called sexist because it is exactly what I'm not. I love women.


You can 'love' women and still be sexist.



> How can someone hate women ? They're generally cute, nice, kind, sexy, smell good etc... I don't even know how can someone hate them seriously. What can you reproach to them ? They're alsmot perfect.


I am appalled by this comment. It is incredibly offensive to reduce women to this vomit-inducing list of stereotyped characteristics. Putting women on this sort of revolting pedestal is just as disempowering as any other form of sexism.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

sts06 said:


> So you *expect* women to be housewives but that isn't giving them less rights? How about the right to freedom you claim to support?


This is a personal preference.* I except my wife to be a housewife, not all women*. *Women are free to do what they want.

*


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> This is a personal preference.* I except my wife to be a housewife, not all women*. *Women are free to do what they want.
> 
> *


Then please be more precise in your wording and stop contradicting yourself. Your clearly said in the post I quoted that you expect *them* to be housewives. That is NOT just your own wife, that is a belief you hold for society. You have gone back and forth on this all thread. Sometimes you say it's just your own family; other times you say society will fall to the evils of feminism if women don't stop being so 'modern' all the time. Choose a line and stick with it.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Of course they aren't all the same way - there's only sixteen types for billions of people - but you seem to be a very unconventional INTP and don't really show any sign of being an INTP.


No he doesn't. To me he seems more like a hardcore* ISTJ.*


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I say more fragile than men and it is some kinda true.


Sometimes kind of true? What, are you 10 or something? Yes, some women probably are quite fragile bodied, but so are some men. It doesn't mean that all women or even most women are fragile bodied.



> No i didn't say that either, it's the women themselves that say that in this article


A couple of women out of billions. Wow, that's conclusive.



> No I said that they're less pissed of doing it so that why we were lettin em doing it.


They're not less pissed off than men are, but women often feel pressured by society to do the cleaning and cooking. They've been brought up all their lives like that - taught that women should do the cleaning and the cooking. Men aren't letting them do it, they are just not socially expected to do the cleaning and cooking.



> Women are more naturally emotional, more caring, more loving, I don't know how can this be news to you or sexist wtf.


No, they are not. Women are generally more emotional, more caring and more loving, but a lot of this is gender roles and social pressure. There are many men who are just as emotional, caring and loving as any woman, and many women who are less emotional, less caring and less loving than most women.



> I say the governement should do it, not the husband because I have to much respect for her, to pay her like she has a domestic servant.


But she practically is a domestic servant if she is doing all of the cooking and cleaning, that is what a domestic servant is. Just because you rename them housewives doesn't change the job.



> We men have a deeper voice that tends to lead to a natural authoritirian attitude.


Not necessarily, and your view that a deeper voice leads to a more authoritarian attitude is both Western-centric, and a generalisation.



> Well this is true, some women think that guys are into their "intellect" first, I mean, are you serious :crazy: ?


Do you really have such a negative view of men that you can't comprehend that some men may be into a woman's intelligence before her appearance?



> No The main goal in a relationship, women do whatever they want of their lives.


But you want them to be a good mother and wife regardless of whether that is what they want to do with their lives.



> Deficient :crazy: where doest that come from ? I just said if all women would choose to not have children anymore, human people would disappear, it's just science aand maths.


Why would all women choose not to have children anymore? Do you think there's some sort of button that controls their want for a child or something. Not to mention that even if half the women in the world chose not to have children, the human population would still be in the billions in a few hundred years time, because of the sheer size of the human species, the fact that there's still children being born until the "choosing" can come into effect (pregnant mothers and everything would probably wait until they gave birth) and the fact that even if that half did choose, it's not necessary going to occur again in the next generation or the generation after that or the generation after that and so on.



> First I never said deficient.


You may as well implied it, the way you reacted.



> Second, I just said that woman shouting at me that she somehow hating men, was scary that's all.


Why? Were you afraid she was going to come through the monitor and grab your balls?



> Well, this is moslty why guys cheat on their wifes, it's because something sexual is missing in the wife, or the guy just want something else sexually. I don't see how this is sexist.


You were claiming that if a woman doesn't give a man as much sex as he wants, then he's justified in cheating on her. It's certainly sexist because you are assuming that women can be emotionally blackmailed into having sex or their partner will cheat on them.



> Men are not looking for it, we have to be honest.


Some men are, some men aren't. Stop acting like you can speak for all men.



> But that doesnt mean they're not desirable, I've dated smart women, I've just said that mostly men are not lookiing for it and that it was not generally on the "hotness" rating of guys.


You can't say that men are mostly not looking for anything, because you can't know what most men find attractive. Also, you claim to not be sexist, yet have a "hotness rating" for women as if they were reviewable items on Amazon?



> Is it selfish to want a wife to be happy ?


You would dump her if she didn't want children, would want her to think more about your happiness than hers, want her to do all of the housework, want her to stay at home rather than have a full time job, want her to give you as much sex as you want or you'll cheat on her etc. You obviously don't and wouldn't care about your wife's happiness.



> Well some women like smart blond guys, nobody will tell her that she is misandric because she has preferencces, am I RIGHT ?


Noone is saying that you can't have preferences, and that's obvious from posts replying to yours.



> I don't care about religion, and don't belong to one.


Yet you are inspired by religion and would convert if a future wife was religious?



> I have my own morals. And Jewish and Muslims can have several wives so I guess that that would solve the problem if one wife is not sexually satisfying me.


And yet you claim not to be sexist. You're a vile little misogynist.



> If I wear condoms there's no problem normally.


What if the condom splits? What if you forget to wear a condom? And what if you have anal or oral sex, do you use a condom then?



> No no no, I have my preferences for women, or some kinda women. And I'm not only concerned with own view, I can talk with you about the lifestyle you would choose.


You have your own preferences, but you seem annoyed that not all women match your preferences.

N


> o no no and NO, I love and I want them to be happy. I just have a vision of my own marriage, is it wrong to do this, it is mysogynistic to do this now ?


Your marriage sounds like hell for any intelligent woman. Why they would go near a big child like you who is looking for a second mother I don't know.



> No I want my wife to be a housewife because that would be great for my kids. That is all.


And what if she's rubbish at being a housewife, or doesn't want to be a housewife, or decides at some point not to be a housewife anymore?



> No I still don't. You're stereotyping me, because I have some traditional beliefs. I do not approve how women were abused sometimes by men in 1950s. We are in 2010, I know that, and I just want my family, my wife and my kids to have the best environment possible. that's all I'm saying.


She's not stereotyping you, she's actually described you quite well.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Well maybe later physics will explain why God exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't hate men. I have known great men, that I love and respect dearly. I don't hate men all day either, I just hate your ignorant ideal, and men like you who support it.

Why can't you be a great father? Why can't you be around the kids? Why can't you be the one to practice this ideal you preach and expect? Why the fuck does a woman need to do it when she may not want it? You are the one who wants it, so you do it! I'm sorry but to be brutally honest, I don't even like children. They are annoying. Kind of like you.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> What ? I still think that : the men sacrifice outside and the women inside,


Men and women are not necessarily all the same. What if a man wants to work in the house and a woman wants to go out to work? 



> and because the women work is familiy oriented,


No, it's not, you think that women's work is just housework and that's all women can do in regards to a career.



> I found this more honourable, I still think it is.


You can dress it up any way you like, but we all know you're just being sexist.



> What sexism ?
> I don't like being called sexist because it is exactly what I'm not. I love women.


You love women, yet you have some horribly outdated and stereotypical views of women?



> How can someone hate women ? They're generally cute, nice, kind, sexy, smell good etc...


Are you serious? You just described only their appearance, and not all women are cute, nice, kind, sexy or smell good. Women are human beings, not a pretty little painting and there's far more to them than just their looks.



> I don't even know how can someone hate them seriously. What can you reproach to them ? They're alsmot perfect.


They're almost perfect? Why, what would make them perfect? If they were all housewives or something?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Infrared said:


> No he doesn't. To me he seems more like a hardcore* ISTJ.*


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he is an INTP at all, because he isn't. I was just saying that if he believes himself to be an INTP, he's not exactly the epitome of one.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> She's angry because she has a problem with men, she can't stand them or anything. This is sad because I'm sure a lot of men would love her if she would be more kind.


I am one of the nicest people you will ever meet. You will never get to see that side of me, because you are a fool. You have struck a nerve with me and therefore have forced the bitch in me out. I have a back bone, and and a voice, and opinions, and I'm going to voice myself on this matter, deal with. Doing so doesn't make me less kind. You simply have a biased view of me for not kissing your ass and supporting your bullshit ideal. You don't deserve the kindness of a woman.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I know but a _serious relationship_ has no point for me at 20, because I want to have fun mostly. So I want to settle down and have a _serious relationship_ only when I'll get married and have my family, and kids. I'm not into to kids that much (not at all actually), it's just that for me, becoming a man is having a family.


So, you don't even want kids, it's because you have some strange notion that having children makes you a man?



> i just want one parent to be at home, and this that betwen the mom or the dad, the mom's is more appropriate. It's not gender stereotypes, there's lot of reflexion to arrive at this conclusion.


Reflection? What sort of reflection, because in reality couples decide for themselves what their arrangement will be, because couples are different.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

What we've seen so far:
1. "All men / most men / men believe _*x*(chauvinist idea)_" - which hasn't been corroborated even once by actual evidence, and moreover would not contribute to proving the idea is 'better.'
2. "Women have breasts and soft voices; therefore, they must be stay-at-home moms." I'm missing the logical pathway.
3. Demonstrably false statements like "women always had rights."

Is this really worth 31 pages of arguing? :bored:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> The NF is not a nazi pary or even far-right. It's more like a populist, conservative party. It's like your nigel farage in the uk.


Our National Front is a neo-Nazi organisation, so I thought yours might be too. Farage isn't much better, though.


----------



## The Unseen (Oct 26, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he is an INTP at all, because he isn't. I was just saying that if he believes himself to be an INTP, he's not exactly the epitome of one.


I think he should re-take some tests and do some serious reading and research on MBTI types, and cognitive functions. I doubt he will, and if he does, I'm sure he'll find a way to twist the theory, and fit himself into being an INTP. We may never know.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

sts06 said:


> If you seriously thought it was more honourable you would do it.


 No because as I've alreasy said in my first posts, we (men) have chosen to sacrifice and let the kids with their mothers because we admitted that the kids would need more their motheirs than their dads.





> You can 'love' women and still be sexist.


Sexist ? We can't say or think now any kind of role for a dad, a mother, a son, a sister or a brother that are in a family because that would be "sexist" ? Can I still say that women should put bras because they generally have breasts, or would that be sexist too ?




> I am appalled by this comment. It is incredibly offensive to reduce women to this vomit-inducing list of stereotyped characteristics. Putting women on this sort of revolting pedestal is just as disempowering as any other form of sexism.


When I say women are nice, I'm sexist.
When I say women are cute, I'm sexist.
When I say women are kind, I'm sexist.
When I say women are sexy, I'm sexist.
When I say women smell good, I'm sexist.
Whatever reasons that I explain why I love women, would be sexist, no ?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No because as I've alreasy said in my first posts, we (men) have chosen to sacrifice and let the kids with their mothers because we admitted that the kids would need more their motheirs than their dads.


Stop acting like you can speak for all men, or assuming that all men have done some sort of planned and discussed sacrifice, like all men can communicate directly with all other men at once?

Men didn't admit anything like that,k because men number billions of individuals.



> Sexist ? We can't say or think now any kind of role for a dad, a mother, a son, a sister or a brother that are in a family because that would be "sexist" ?


Why do they need roles, and why would someone's sex be a reason for giving them a role?



> Can I still say that women should put bras because they generally have breasts, or would that be sexist too ?


That's just stupid.



> When I say women are nice, I'm sexist.
> When I say women are cute, I'm sexist.
> When I say women are kind, I'm sexist.
> When I say women are sexy, I'm sexist.
> ...


That list is a list of qualities which are either superficial or qualities that are stereotypically associated with women.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he is an INTP at all, because he isn't. I was just saying that if he believes himself to be an INTP, he's not exactly the epitome of one.


I am an INTP every descrption would describe me very well. I just happened to be conservative.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I am an INTP every descrption would describe me very well. I just happened to be conservative.


INTPs can be conservative, but you certainly could not be an INTP. There is nothing INTP about you. I think you just like the idea of being seen as smart because of the stereotypes of personality types, just like you like stereotypes regarding sex and gender.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> Whatever reasons that I explain why I love women, would be sexist, no ?


If they are based on outmoded stereotypes, superficial characteristics and are designed to put women into their 'proper' submissive places, then yes all your reasons for loving women are probably sexist.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> No I don't like to blackmail people, but If the wife had chosen this lifestyle it is because she knows that is a big commitment and that this is not a job, and that you can't just quit like this.


She can't just quit, but if you feel like it you could cheat on her? 



> My wife will have great morals, and I know a lot of women have that.


Do you mean morals that match your own?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

sts06 said:


> You don't have to say the words for it to be true. I used to teach English and we had a saying for our students when writing: show don't tell. What you show is more powerful than what you say, and what you are showing is clearly misogyny.
> 
> Also -- see that word, 'insane'? That's a name you're calling him.


I'Ve showed that I hate women ? you are getting crazy, or maybe you are seeing things that weren't written.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I'Ve showed that I hate women ? you are getting crazy, or maybe you are seeing things that weren't written.


Yes, you have and I thought you were going to stop with the name calling after Promethea spoke to you?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

wonderfert said:


> Some women have stated that they will stay at home, or would prefer it. Which is fine for them, it's what they want, and they came to the decision themselves. They have not been rushing to support your ideas that most men believe as you do. Nor have they been rushing to support your idea that women dress as they do purely to sexually arouse men and get married and/or impregnated. You deal purely in the hypothetical. You do nothing but make generalizations. You've talked to lots of men and women that agree with you? You're in the majority? Brilliant. Let's back it up with data.
> 
> For each of these men and women that you've talked to I want the following:
> Location (City, Country)
> ...



that the ethnicity have to do with all that ? Are some kinda ******* that think only some "kind of people" act like me ? This getting very silly...


----------



## tuna (Jun 10, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> I'Ve showed that I hate women ? you are getting crazy, *or maybe you are seeing things that weren't written*.


...that's _exactly what she said_ -- your misogyny isn't typed out in neat little letters, but it's still painfully apparent. You're SHOWING your misogyny all over the place.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> No I don't like to blackmail people, but If the wife had chosen this lifestyle it is because she knows that is a big commitment and that this is not a job, and that you can't just quit like this. My wife will have great morals, and I know a lot of women have that.


Sorry, but whatever way you try to swing what you're saying, saying 'I'll find out how much she loves her kids' if she wants to stop being a housewife is emotional blackmail. You are using her love for her kids as a way to keep her right where you want her to be. You will be literally manipulating her emotions just to have someone fulfilling your ideal of family life. It clearly doesn't matter how happy she is.

Also, stop saying that all housewives have these wonderful morals and will be just how you want them to be. I'm currently a housewife, and I don't share your idea of morality (because I find your ideas immoral). We are not all the same.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

I really don't think "misogyny" is an accurate term to describe redScorpion's attitude toward women. I think "male chauvinism" or "sexism" describe it much better.


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

redScorpion said:


> that the ethnicity have to do with all that ? Are some kinda ******* that think only some "kind of people" act like me ? This getting very silly...


What does ethnicity have to do with it? You mentioned that your sister in law was Chinese. Ethnicity would relate to cultural background. Different cultural backgrounds will have different ideas about what is and is not acceptable.

And to resort to calling me a *******? Keep it up. If you want to go with personal attacks I won't hesitate to report you, which would just add to the list that you're already building up.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> There's plenty of men who would be attracted to a woman's intelligence first.



Define plenty.




> Yes, you did. You said that you would dump them if they didn't want to be a housewife and have kids.


I would not even considere to date her seriously if she doesnt want both.




> Don't be pathetic, there was some anger and possibly some hate, but nowhere near enough for you to be scared of her. I thought you were supposed to be a big, courageous manly man?


 Understand scary as disgusting in my mouth.



> No, I'm not and people can easily check my posts to see.


They'll you crazy accusations and my sane answers.





> HOW IS THIS NOT EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL?
> 
> You are saying that a man and a woman must have to do as much sex as possible in a relationship, because according to you it can lead to men cheating if they don't get enough sex. That is going to give her quite a simple message - Have as much sex with me as I want to have, and I won't cheat. That is emotional blackmail, that is sexist and I find it very hard to believe that you can't see the obvious.


When I'm thinking cheating Imm not talking only about the husband but both.




> Why would the details have been talked about before just because she was a conservative?


Because we would share our beliefs and all.




> No, I'm not. In fact, I've said many times in this thread that if women choose to, they have the choice and the right to be housewives.


Well I more remember you talking about baby machines and toilet cleaner than the " right to be housewives "


I didn't insinuate that at all, and you know I didn't.




> you said that you had no interest in religion.


try to read better next time, I said that i'm interested in all religions and I do take more morals outta their texts.





> But if she doesn't give you enough sex, what then?


I guess I were married that would theres a least a sexual attraction. It's not all about the men, women aint animals or slaves, they want sex as much as men I assume.



> And yet you deny that you are a sexist. You really can't comprehend your own views, can you?



If a woman ask her husband if she can ruin the kids lives what the guy should do ? I honestly don'T know.




> You're only denying it because you know it makes you look bad.


I dont give a shit how I look, I'm saying that's I'm not sexist, mysoginistic etc.... but apparently you look to know me better than I do, so let you write your none sense.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> How would you know unless you talked to her extensively as a friend?
> 
> This is what I would do first
> 
> ...


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> So we are all insane because we don't agree with your misogynist beliefs?! Isn't that how a person exhibiting Psychosis would react? And with the delusions you hold as fact, I'd say that is most likely true.


I was just pointing out the fact I've never said anything misogynist or sexist in this thread or wherever.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Define plenty.


A numerous amount that may or may not constitute a large minority. Inspired by me, were you?



> I would not even considere to date her seriously if she doesnt want both.


That's fair enough, but why do you want society to be so that she wouldn't have a choice?



> Understand scary as disgusting in my mouth.


Disgusting is still a huge overreaction.



> They'll you crazy accusations and my sane answers.


You're actually calling your posts sane? Really? 



> When I'm thinking cheating Imm not talking only about the husband but both.


First time you've mentioned that the wife could cheat if she wasn't get enough sex from her husband. I don't see why6 she would cheat, though - according to you, women are kind, caring and emotional, so surely they wouldn't want to cheat?



> Because we would share our beliefs and all.


But if she was a conservative, wouldn't she be likely to have the same or similar beliefs as you?



> Well I more remember you talking about baby machines and toilet cleaner than the " right to be housewives


"

I was talking about your views, not mine. I have no problem with women making their own choices.



> I didn't insinuate that at all, and you know I didn't.


Do you really think I need to fabricate anything about you? Your posts speak for themselves, they don't need anyone's help making you look bad.



> try to read better next time, I said that i'm interested in all religions and I do take more morals outta their texts.


Then I would say that you wouldn't be happy in just one religion. You seem more spiritual than religious, and it wouldn't be right for you, I don't think.



> I guess I were married that would theres a least a sexual attraction. It's not all about the men, women aint animals or slaves, they want sex as much as men I assume.


Just because there's a sexual attraction doesn't mean that you or her or both of you will want sex all of the time. You will be individuals, as well as humans.



> If a woman ask her husband if she can ruin the kids lives what the guy should do ? I honestly don'T know.


How would she be ruining their lives?



> I dont give a shit how I look, I'm saying that's I'm not sexist, mysoginistic etc...


You don'[t care how you look, yet you seem to quite vigorously defend yourself against accusations of being a sexist. Strange.



> but apparently you look to know me better than I do, so let you write your none sense.


I don't know you better than you know yourself, and I've never claimed that I do. It's just easy for me to see right through your transparent posts.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> I'm not comparing you to anything. There is nothing so worthless as to compare you by. My ex-husband is a Saint in comparison.
> 
> You have a very black and white view of the world, and a woman and a man's place therein. Life is full of grey. You should open your eyes, and your mind, to the reality of that.
> 
> You said elsewhere that women are more kind and affectionate then men. You are wrong. That depends on the person. If you take MBTI types into that, such as myself I am both INTJ, and INTP, I am retarded in displaying outward emotion, especially to children. It's the most uncomfortable feeling in the world for me. Keep your children away from me, I'm likely to eat them. :dry:


You said in earlier posts that you hate people like the ex and I that was sharing this same thinking. But now is a Saint, why ?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> skycloud86 said:
> 
> 
> > How would you know unless you talked to her extensively as a friend?
> ...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> I was just pointing out the fact I've never said anything misogynist or sexist in this thread or wherever.


You don't really believe that, surely? Even when women have said that you have said sexist things?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> You said in earlier posts that you hate people like the ex and I that was sharing this same thinking. But now is a Saint, why ?


He isn't, but compared to you he is.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> He? It's a website, but you did call men "it" earlier so I'm assuming this is due to your not-so-great English.


Exactly, I'll be interested to see how you can handle writing in a foreign langage, with people attacking you on every front.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Exactly, I'll be interested to see how you can handle writing in a foreign langage, with people attacking you on every front.


Your English is actually very good. Far better than my French, which is extremely basic.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

Infrared said:


> Perhaps you have a hard time in reading *and* comprehending English, as well as writing it?


 Yes I do, I've never said that I was a God in English, let's see what foreign langage you can write down as I write down English, probably none...



> But I'm biting tongue so hard on this, it's about to bleed.


It correlates with the pathetic idea I had of you.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> Yes I do, I've never said that I was a God in English, let's see what foreign langage you can write down as I write down English, probably none...


And how did you come to that conclusion?



> It correlates with the pathetic idea I had of you.


Why? She's trying not to insult you, trying to be the bigger and better person, and you're calling her pathetic?


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> How am I? Because I criticise your opinions and call you out on your obvious stereotyping and sexism?


because any manly point of views on any subject is seen as wrong. My classic point of view is cleary seen as almost eviul in here, thank God there's some women that left some common sense posts.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Are you aware of your cognitive functions and which ones you use the most?


No I dont remember


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

redScorpion said:


> because any manly point of views on any subject is seen as wrong.


Then I and every other man except you must not be manly, right? Because we've not agreed with you at all.



> My classic point of view is cleary seen as almost eviul in here,


No, it's not, it's seen as offensive and sexist.



> thank God there's some women that left some common sense posts.


You are only considering them to be common sense because they agreed with you. People might respect you more if you stopped being so obviously biased.


----------



## redScorpion (Oct 13, 2010)

tuna said:


> My original statement: "You are the most sexist, misogynistic, backwards human being I have ever come across in my lifetime."
> 
> Your response: "What did I tell that is sexist, misogynistic and backward ?"
> 
> ...


So every men *must* love the modern woman now and anyone that is opposed to this kind of women is sexist, misogynist etc... ? What is it, China ? i'm not in a communist country, and I have the right to say and tell what I think. And I think that a very large group of westerners are disgusted or afraid of the modern woman. She is not making the guy dream anymore. And the modern man is basically the same thing to women.

I personnally am not afraid or angry at women. For the moment I'm enjoying my single days with them, but later, I just want a traditional wife. There's not hate, anger or fear. This is just what it is.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Sorry guys, but this is just going nowhere, and its the same two different sides rehashing the same arguments over and over. You are all beating a dead horse here and its become pretty absurd.


----------

