Letters to the Editor
-
Citation, please.
And btw, people who get married before 25 have a higher chance of getting divorced than those afterwards. So if you want to reduce divorce, later marriage is better.
-- LeCastor
Too bad they don't teach science or statistics at law school. Cause and effect isn't your strong suit.
-
oh, and by the way ... Huh?
GEORGIA O'KEEFE shaped canopy of ballons???
I mean, I get it, but... well... that's a bizarre thing to write...
Is Georgia O'Keefe now a synonym for vagina?
I hope you're embarrassed by that. I would be.
-
LeCastor - you are wrong ;-)
But we forgive you. At least you seem to be trying...
There are three main points to understand:
~
The first point is that BS assumes all men are the same and evil.
Our rejoinder is that all men are NOT the same NOR evil.
Thus, all men are NOT likely to be gang rapists. Etc.
That is point one. Fair?
~
Now, point two, is that BS assumes women can safely behave like men.
Our rejoinder is that men and women are NOT the same.
Thus, a woman can benefit from the protection of a man when another EVIL man is around.
That is point two. Fair?
~
Along to point three, which is that BS says girls can own their sexuality.
Our rejoinder is that neither girls NOR boys can own their sexuality.
Thus, both can benefit from strong fathers who lay down the law.
That is point three. Fair?
~
So, to conclude, BS assumes that (1) all men are evil, (2) women can safely behave like men, and (3) children can manage their own sexuality. All three points are disputed by this particular schizophrenic male poster on BS anti-feminist patrol.
And since I am not the same as all the other males on patrol here -- and there are a lot of them -- I won't speak for them.
~
P.S. If you can agree with these three points I do believe it will help you much in your future career negotiating contracts, not to mention your reputation here. My experience is that if you contest everything you end up with nothing but contempt.
-
King James Bible
"Where in the King James Version of the Bible is it reported that Sarah slept with men to the financial benefit of Abraham or that Joseph solicited a prostitute? Please provide the specific scripture."
First, KJV has no more validity than any other English translation.
Second, it's very very clear in Genesis 12.
12:14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she [was] very fair.
12:15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
12:16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
12:17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What [is] this [that] thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she [was] thy wife?
12:19 Why saidst thou, She [is] my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take [her], and go thy way.
---------------------------
"Jesus is referred to as a high priest in the new testiment book of Hebrews."
That's a misunderstanding on your part. Paul is not saying that Jesus was a Jewish High Priest, as he certainly wasn't. Paul is saying Jesus is a High Priest of the New Covenant.
"Heb 8:4 For if he [Jesus Christ] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are [already] [Levitical priesthood] priests that offer gifts according to the law [the old covenant]:
Heb 8:6 But now hath he [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he [Jesus Christ] is the mediator of a better covenant [the new covenant], which was established upon better promises. "
A Christian calling himself a High Priest is the same as calling himself the Christ.
"Fornication, or sex outside of marriage, is condemned in the Bible. If not, why was a woman brought to Jesus to be stoned for fornication?"
That was aduletry, not fornication.
-
333, pay attention
Look, you make a few interesting points, but sometimes it's best to stfu and not offer proof of one's ignorance.
Some of G.O.'s wonderful art featured large renderings of specific flowers. The depiction was not at all unlike the natural beauty of a woman's genitalia. It was an inside (sorry) reference for those who understand and appreciate both that artist and natural beauty. Sorry you didn't get it.
-
It was an inside (sorry) reference for
you should check out a XXX flick called Zazel re this specific point, it's really cool.
-
The older you are, the less likely you will get divorced
“First marriages by wife’s age at marriage—If the wife was a teenager
at first marriage, the marriage is much more likely to dissolve than
if the wife was at least 20 years of age at marriage. The first
marriages of brides under age 18 years are the most likely to dissolve
at all marital durations, followed by the marriages of women 18–19
years of age at marriage. Marriages of women at least age 20 years at
marriage are much less likely to dissolve (table 3 and figure 1).
After 10 years of marriage, 48 percent of marriages of women under age
18 years at marriage have disrupted compared with 40 percent of
marriages of women who were 18–19 years of age at marriage, 29 percent
of marriages of women who were 20–24 years of age at marriage, and 24
percent of marriages of women at least 25 years of age at marriage.”
See Table 3 on page 5 and Figure 1 on page 6 for detailed data
Download publication here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf
-
No, i think your points are quite flawed.
The first point is that BS assumes all men are the same and evil.
Okay, are you taling abouth BS staff or or the posters like me? Because i know i certainly don't think so, and what about the 3 men the broadsheet staff just lauded? seems to refute your "all" claim. If you want to set up strawmen, okay, but at least admit it.
Now, point two, is that BS assumes women can safely behave like men.
Our rejoinder is that men and women are NOT the same.
Call me dumb, but I don't see why one negates the other. Just because men and women aren't "the same" doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to behave in the same ways. Or is this just a questio of physical strength? Because you know, pretty girls and ugly girls are not the same, but no one says that pretty girls shouldn't behave like ugly girls and vise versa. Please explain. And just a sidenote, even the most extreme point probably would not advocate that all women SHOULD behave like, just that they should BE ABLE TO. Like, you know, a choice.
Thus, a woman can benefit from the protection of a man when another EVIL man is around.
Again, this doesn't follow from the two points above. Please explain, i'm a dumb woman. ;) What if there is another EVIL woman around? Or a man is being beaten up? Isn't it less about gender and more about "help if you can" as applied to all of humanity?
Along to point three, which is that BS says girls can own their sexuality.
Our rejoinder is that neither girls NOR boys can own their sexuality.
Thus, both can benefit from strong fathers who lay down the law.
That is point three. Fair?
Well, i guess my first question is what is "girls". 11 and 17 are very different. I would definitely say that 17-year-old "boys" and "girls" own their sexuality. SEcondly, the problem as i see it is exactly the fact that there is a HUGE double standard here for boys and girls. boys don't get purity parties, don't get stern lectures on pregnancy and STD's etc. I've already covered this. Third, why shouldn't the responsibility also lie with the mother? Is the mother less capable of laying down the law? If you think so, come visit my mother and my boyfriend's mother heheh :)
So, to conclude, BS assumes that (1) all men are evil, (2) women can safely behave like men, and (3) children can manage their own sexuality. All three points are disputed by this particular schizophrenic male poster on BS anti-feminist patrol.
And since I am not the same as all the other males on patrol here -- and there are a lot of them -- I won't speak for them.
Yet you have no hesitation speaking for all of broadsheet's staff and possibly all the feminist posters here. Do you see what i'm getting at here?
P.S. If you can agree with these three points I do believe it will help you much in your future career negotiating contracts, not to mention your reputation here. My experience is that if you contest everything you end up with nothing but contempt.
that's sweet, but my lowly womanly brain has gotten me this far, in spite of all my crazy ideas. thanks though. :)