Letters to the Editor
-
The issue of dictators taking out opponents
was never addressed, but certainly it is not even closely related to the contents of the article, which talked about who has more influence over a culture, men or women.
Leaders are charged with keeping the peace. How did what Mao say violate this?
You can say, it is because he is wrong in what women can be to a nation.
I challenged this and explained that men with guns CAN take a country down, but women, merely by being Britney like, can bring down the whole basis of a nation in temrs of stability, family, decency.
Certainly, you feminists do not hesitate to wave your vaginas around proudly, implying that they indeed ARE the basis of revolutions in countries.
So why would you now contradict yourself and claim women are just weak and wimpy and inconsequential?
Mao recognized this about the women. That means he was observant and smart. Granted, I do not agree with much of what he did, I am merely pointing to this one trait or comment he made and why he may have thought it valid to make.
Claim your power, women. I realize some of women's power lies in throwing others off the scent and in hiding your assets and pretending you are powerless, but that only justifies my claim.
-
more wrongness
"Those rulers who attack other nations do not destroy their own nation typically but other nations. It is an asset grab." Tell that to Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Cabilla's Congo, Hussein's Iraq, Pohl Pott's Cambodia, Milosevich's Bosnia, Lenin's Russia, er Soviet Republic, Pinochet's Chile ....
"Men low in the power structure, the bubba on the corner standing outside the 7-11, have near ZERO influence comparatively speaking."
Tell that to the men and women who organized against unfair labor practices in the 19th and 20th century; tell that to the men and women who overturned Jim Crow laws in the South.( See: I can recognize all the *good* that men are capable of doing); tell that to the (all-male) "army" that turned the British out of America. Many, many, many of these people were "low in the power structure."
"WOMEN, on the other hand, when in the company of power, (the Bush wives say), have a big say in what goes on."
Are you saying that Laura Bush is directing US policy? Because I don't buy it. Besides, HRC has been pilloried for the mere *appearance* of her being more than a presidential decoration during Bill's tenure in the White House. Certainly, the elite of either sex want to hold on to their status, no matter where they are on the totem pole. That's human nature. Don't pretend all men are altruistic saints and all women are gold-digging dogs in the manger.
"The issue of dictators taking out opponents was never addressed, but certainly it is not even closely related to the contents of the article, which talked about who has more influence over a culture, men or women."
Well, I am not responding to the article any more. I am responding to your idiotic misunderstanding of history, and your general wrongity-wrongness. At any rate, culture is ultimately shaped by both sexes, and it's probably about even-stephen as to who influences culture more.
"Certainly, you feminists do not hesitate to wave your vaginas around proudly, implying that they indeed ARE the basis of revolutions in countries."
I'm curious about how I could possibly wave my vagina around, given that the birth canal is inside my body. A minor wrongness point, but still .... wrong visual image.
And yes, women have been known to start revolutions great and small. Not all revolutions: men have started plenty. And not all revolutions by either sex have been good (see my first response to you.)
"So why would you now contradict yourself and claim women are just weak and wimpy and inconsequential?"
Never did. But *you* said "Typically men can cause some small scale trouble, but only women can eviscerate a nation from within." And I have shown, quite clearly, that this statement by you is astonishingly inaccurate.
"The ONLY comparable power men low on the totem pole have in a nation is if they unite and collectively engage in a grass roots rebellion using high powered weaponry."
Aside from being, again,factually wrong, this statement shows how sick you are, mentally. I don't mean "sick" as an insult, but medically. Seriously. You need medication and therapy, post-haste.
Now, you've been moving the goal-posts all afternoon, and I've still managed to keep up with you. But I've got 2 kids to feed, bathe and read to, and then I intend to play kissy-face with my husband. I've little doubt that any more sputtering for you will be equally misinformed, and, well, *wrong.* Good night.
-
I forgot Gandhi
who managed to overthrow the British Raj without using explosives.
-
Gandhi's legacy misused
Gandhi was facing an opponent usually unwilling to use deadly force. He didn't have any good advice for the Nazis' victims. Sometime in the 1930s, Hitler suggested to Churchill (or somebody else in the British government, yes, I know Churchill wasn't PM yet) that they should kill Gandhi, and then ten of his friends, and then a hundred, and then...
***
China's sex imbalance is one way to bring down the population, though it's not the best way.
-
@BadReligion
Who misused what?
Are you suggesting that Gandhi wasn't non-violent?
Are you really suggesting that Britain couldn't (and hasn't) used force to quell unrest? ('Cause I have a few dead ancestors from the late 1700s who would disagree with you on that point).
Are you suggesting that I was incorrect in my post to brightstar, in answering his claim that the *only* way men (as opposed to women) could change a society is to use high-powered weaponry?
Or are you simply saying that Gandhi's legacy is often oversimplified by people who don't take the time to truly learn about him, or India's struggle for independence? (I'd agree with that).
-
JB
how else can men harm a society? average men, not leaders..