Hilary said:
That was badly written.
Regarding my earlier post. In the section that is in quotes, the largest paragraph my response. In the section not in quotes, the very last paragraph is my repsonse.

Who cares about your earlier posts. No one. That’s the point.

*D3C*

The action that would cause ramifications was contraditing this website.

A contradiction is a fact which disproves another fact. Thus far from your statements I haven’t seen any facts which seek to disprove what we feel is truth. Only conjecture as to what you believe to be true.

To correct my sentence: Contradicting this websites chauvinistic thoughts will cause ramifications.

Hilary, I can see what you are trying to say. However, I believe “contradiction” is not the proper term.

You should have said:

“Speaking out” against this websites chauvinistic thoughts will cause “backlash.”

Contradiction and ramification denote a certain finality of fact, neither which apply to what is going on in these forums. However, you are certainly “speaking out” and receiving “backlash”. Those terms directly apply. Contradiction and ramification do not.

Now, there are “ramifications”, denoting finality, for the “back lash.”

One is that you could loose any chance of being taken seriously here, and be completely ignored.

Another is that if you succumb to your anger, you could further serve to prove our points about women.

Our freedom of speech prevents any “ramification” of hindering this sites ability to function.

As it stands, for you to have any real impact on the way we think, you must seek to cause as little backlash with your statements as possible. Notice I say “as little” as opposed to “none”, as given the nature of this site, and you being a woman, you will not be able to post here without having some backlash against you. But by antagonizing us, you loose any foothold you had at influencing us. If you remain calm and collected at all times, provide reasonable arguments and ask unloaded questions, you will be taken more seriously. To an extent…

Dick Masterson said:

Hilary said:

As for my earlier post, I made some mistakes in my posting.
The very last paragraph is mine, and in the post in the quotes, the large paragraph is my response.

Thank God no one cares what you have to say. Otherwise, it would have been confusing.

-Dick

That was badly written.
Regarding my earlier post. In the section that is in quotes, the largest paragraph my response. In the section not in quotes, the very last paragraph is my repsonse.

Hilary said:

As for my earlier post, I made some mistakes in my posting.
The very last paragraph is mine, and in the post in the quotes, the large paragraph is my response.

Thank God no one cares what you have to say. Otherwise, it would have been confusing.

-Dick

As for my earlier post, I made some mistakes in my posting.
The very last paragraph is mine, and in the post in the quotes, the large paragraph is my response.

BrokenJohnny said:

Okay, here is your response.
I admit and apologize, I worded my post badly and did not make my point correctly. We were given a proper education, but were led to believe that we weren’t able to amount up to anything other than a housewife.

Wow. That’s incredibly respectful of you to admit you were wrong. I tip my hat to you. However, I must address the last piece of your post:

but were led to believe that we weren’t able to amount up to anything other than a housewife.

Are there any social trends you can describe which fostered that belief? Are there any media influences which could amount to that? Do you have any evidence to support the fact the women wanted to be anything more than a house wife?

Very well then. An example I can think of off the top of my head is the television shows around 1950. This showed perfect families depicted as the man being the head of the household and earning the money, the woman taking care of the children full-time and taking on the responsibilities of the household. Those were the golden days, and shows such as Leave it to Beaver depicted that example, while many young children watched that and looked up to those characters. Now, I was not alive in those days, so I can’t make too many judgments, and I also don’t want to insult one of Americas classic television shows, but that is one example that I can think of. Now, I realize that does not constitute for womenkind, but for some it may of.

Well, we are expressing our opinions that we are equal on a chauvinist website, so those are the ramifications.

ramification: A development or consequence growing out of and sometimes complicating a problem

Can you explain how the word “ramifications” grammatically fits in your sentence? Ramifications would refer to the outcome or result of an action, but you listed none. You simply state that you expressing your opinion is a ramification. A ramification to what?

.

The action that would cause ramifications was contraditing this website.
To correct my sentence: Contradicting this websites chauvinistic thoughts will cause ramifications.
If that is still incorrect then I apologize once again.

Okay, here is your response.
I admit and apologize, I worded my post badly and did not make my point correctly. We were given a proper education, but were led to believe that we weren’t able to amount up to anything other than a housewife.

Wow. That’s incredibly respectful of you to admit you were wrong. I tip my hat to you. However, I must address the last piece of your post:

but were led to believe that we weren’t able to amount up to anything other than a housewife.

Are there any social trends you can describe which fostered that belief? Are there any media influences which could amount to that? Do you have any evidence to support the fact the women wanted to be anything more than a house wife?

don’t listen to them, they don’t know shit and are just trying to feel important. Isn’t a penis enough

I’m trying to have a frank discussion with Hilary. I’m listening to her. Why should she be exempt from listening to me? I’m not trying to offend her in anyway, I’m just trying to exchange information with her.

KL said:

Women are people too. We have just as much of a right to express our opinions as you do.

Of course you do. Everyone should have the right to free speech, no matter what they are saying, wouldn’t you agree?

That said, do you still have any problem with what WE are saying on this website?

You need to practice how to serve a woman.

Why should a man serve a woman? Why should a woman serve a man? In a loving relationship, the ideal function is for both parties to live for the benefit of the other, wouldn’t you agree? It is simply natures role that the males are dominant, protecting the herd and providing for it, as the females bear and raise young. What is so wrong with what nature intended? To raise children, both parents are needed, and they both need to play specific roles. If they both try to play the same role, or reverse them, they are defying the natural interaction between genders which is apparent in all higher lifeforms.

Hilary said:

KL said:

Women are people too. We have just as much of a right to express our opinions as you do. You need to practice how to serve a woman.

Well, we are expressing our opinions that we are equal on a chauvinist website, so those are the ramifications.

ramification: A development or consequence growing out of and sometimes complicating a problem

Can you explain how the word “ramifications” grammatically fits in your sentence? Ramifications would refer to the outcome or result of an action, but you listed none. You simply state that you expressing your opinion is a ramification. A ramification to what?

KL said:

Well Hillary.. I think they know deep down inside they are wrong. I assume they just want attention and to bond.

Well KL, I think deep down inside you want us to THINK we are wrong.

Tell you what, you pick out a point made by this website that you feel is wrong, and I will do my best to explain to you why we feel it is right.
And I promise not to swear at you or insult you.

Well Hillary.. I think they know deep down inside they are wrong. I assume they just want attention and to bond.

Well said Hilary!

KL said:

Women are people too. We have just as much of a right to express our opinions as you do. You need to practice how to serve a woman.

Well, we are expressing our opinions that we are equal on a chauvinist website, so those are the ramifications.

Women are people too. We have just as much of a right to express our opinions as you do. You need to practice how to serve a woman.

Providing some foundation for her claims isn’t really her strong point. KL would do best to just make like a good meal - hot and quiet - seeing as how talking or doing anything other than shutting up and taking my meat isn’t her strong point. Christ, at least NORMAL women - the ones from less… suburban places like Brazil and China, know that I want something to fuck, not a diatribe on the evils of man. I know all about the laws of the jungle, and I know that people like KL would be skull-fucked in a second if it weren’t for the men keeping the safety net over her and all of the other ungrateful teenage sluts.

What do we get in return? False rape claims and bullshit about genetic inferiority. We went through that phase back during WWII, and it did not work out - you may want to break out those history books you talk about so often so you could realize that more often than not, female leaders did not fail to disappoint. I’ll be adding my responses to the forum post later on, so you don’t have to worry about them getting pushed off the board as you broadcast the nature of your period to your bored, disinterested, booing, jeering audience.

don’t listen to them, they don’t know shit and are just trying to feel important. Isn’t a penis enough

johnny said:

Hilary said:

Excuse me?
Which one haven’t I resopnded to because I gladly will

Please address my post above which starts like this:

“Can you list schools which would not allow women to be educated? Can you list instances where women were discriminated against through their education?”

It’s about halfway up the page.

Okay, here is your response.
I admit and apologize, I worded my post badly and did not make my point correctly. We were given a proper education, but were led to believe that we weren’t able to amount up to anything other than a housewife.

so insecure they had to make a big conspiracy that men were superior to women to keep women down. How pathetic. From the beginning of time, a big lie. A big conspiracy invented by the insecure man.

Hilary said:

Excuse me?
Which one haven’t I resopnded to because I gladly will

Please address my post above which starts like this:

“Can you list schools which would not allow women to be educated? Can you list instances where women were discriminated against through their education?”

It’s about halfway up the page.

No, it’s still 2 for 2. I count it as ã victory because I was able to get ã respone from you that was logical, rational, AND clearly expressed you views. I only seek to shut women down if there is no hope of reasoning with them.

I’d be mad too if I had people automatically judging me.

However, the point still stands that men are naturally more inclined to potentially be better drivers, simply based on their average starting levels of mechanical aptitude.

BrokenJohnny said:

Spatially speaking, men GENERALLY have a more astute sense than women. This has been proven through various different methods.

This does not mean women cannot LEARN to become more mechanically inclined, however, it does mean that they generally start off at a disadvantage to men.

For example, there are some successful female race car drivers which would kick my ass around a track any day. I’m sure they were naturally talented and drawn to the sport to begin with. And I’m sure they practice their ass off.

But I think one of the reasons there are not as many females in the sport is because most females are not naturally inclined to have the spatial relations necessary to competitively drive a car.

Females are certainly agile and light, as is proven in any gymnastics competition, where often females will out number the males. However, in this case, it may be that males are not drawn to the sport because it lacks a certain “masculinity” of direct contact competition.

I submit to you, that if we took one male and one female, of the same age, in the same car, and with the same amount of years driving under their belts, that the male would perform better in your average autocross event.

And it’s precisely because of what Dick said: Males are more inclined to test the limits of their technology. Do males get more speeding tickets? Maybe. Do males get in more accidents? The insurance companies think so. Does this mean males are worse drivers? No.

Statistics Canada has shown that drivers are “statistically” safer when traveling at 74kph than at the posted speed limit of 50-60kph. And StatCan themselves believe that is it because people who tend to drive a little faster are often more experienced, more competent drivers, who are more comfortable and more capable at said speeds.

To further contrast, so no one thinks I’m endorsing speeding, you are four times more likely to die in a crash at 120kph than at 100kph. This doesn’t mean that you are 4 times more likely to HAVE a crash, just four times more likely to die if you do.

I’ve driven with some very, very bad male drivers in my day. Truly frightening to be with. But the amount of females for which I can say the same far outweighs the males.

Very well then, that is your personal experience, I can’t contrdict you on that.
Also I understand that you point out the exceptions. The only thing that I find annoying (for lack of a better word) is stating that women automatically make bad drivers, whether it is meant generally or not, is making automatic judgements.
So now you have your response, so it’s 1 for 2

BrokenJohnny said:

Spatially speaking, men GENERALLY have a more astute sense than women. This has been proven through various different methods.

This does not mean women cannot LEARN to become more mechanically inclined, however, it does mean that they generally start off at a disadvantage to men.

For example, there are some successful female race car drivers which would kick my ass around a track any day. I’m sure they were naturally talented and drawn to the sport to begin with. And I’m sure they practice their ass off.

But I think one of the reasons there are not as many females in the sport is because most females are not naturally inclined to have the spatial relations necessary to competitively drive a car.

Females are certainly agile and light, as is proven in any gymnastics competition, where often females will out number the males. However, in this case, it may be that males are not drawn to the sport because it lacks a certain “masculinity” of direct contact competition.

I submit to you, that if we took one male and one female, of the same age, in the same car, and with the same amount of years driving under their belts, that the male would perform better in your average autocross event.

And it’s precisely because of what Dick said: Males are more inclined to test the limits of their technology. Do males get more speeding tickets? Maybe. Do males get in more accidents? The insurance companies think so. Does this mean males are worse drivers? No.

Statistics Canada has shown that drivers are “statistically” safer when traveling at 74kph than at the posted speed limit of 50-60kph. And StatCan themselves believe that is it because people who tend to drive a little faster are often more experienced, more competent drivers, who are more comfortable and more capable at said speeds.

To further contrast, so no one thinks I’m endorsing speeding, you are four times more likely to die in a crash at 120kph than at 100kph. This doesn’t mean that you are 4 times more likely to HAVE a crash, just four times more likely to die if you do.

I’ve driven with some very, very bad male drivers in my day. Truly frightening to be with. But the amount of females for which I can say the same far outweighs the males.

Very well then, that is your personal experience, I can’t contrdict you on that.
Also I understand that you point out the exceptions. The only thing that I find annoying (for lack of a better word) is stating that women automatically make bad drivers, whether it is meant generally or not, is making automatic judgements.

BrokenJohnny said:

Yet again, no response from Hilary addressing my posts.

Another one shut down.

I’m 2 for 2!!

Excuse me?
Which one haven’t I resopnded to because I gladly will