The Cellar
Page 5 of 11 1234 5 67891011
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   oh! youre a feminist? how cute! (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=12840)

Phil 01-01-2007 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I doubt this is provable, especially the "pre-Paleolithic" part. I think whoever told you that can't prove it either, and was talking... stuff.

Really, this language sounds like that burgher in Cabaret who said to Michael York's character, "It iss an established fact that zere iss a conspiracy of Jews..." I'd stay suspicious as hell of this, and of much of the rest of the paragraph I took this from.

the quote you quote was taken from the site i linked it to: not my words, although i do agree with what was said.
proof is dodgy ground whether one is a believer or not: you cant prove a negative such as "God does not exist", but there is no evidence whatsoever that he does.

Clodfobble 01-01-2007 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
proof is dodgy ground whether one is a believer or not: you cant prove a negative such as "God does not exist", but there is no evidence whatsoever that he does.
Well fortunately for you, the argument that 'scholastic men have historically feared women and their power' (X-ray vision, perhaps?) is not in fact a negative, and you should be able to show evidence if there is any. If there is not any, it does not mean "you can't prove a negative," it means your premise is bullshit.

Phil 01-01-2007 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Well fortunately for you, the argument that 'scholastic men have historically feared women and their power' (X-ray vision, perhaps?) is not in fact a negative, and you should be able to show evidence if there is any. If there is not any, it does not mean "you can't prove a negative," it means your premise is bullshit.

prove it.

DanaC 01-01-2007 01:05 PM
I wonder if these were the same scholastic men that came up with the idea that women reading too much would burn out their brains? Or that it simply wasn't sensible to allow women to be involved in politics, medicine or science, because their natural temperament precluded reason?

Phil 01-01-2007 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
I wonder if these were the same scholastic men that came up with the idea that women reading too much would burn out their brains? Or that it simply wasn't sensible to allow women to be involved in politics, medicine or science, because their natural temperament precluded reason?
hmm ... we could let you rule everything every 3 weeks or so with a week off?! :p

DanaC 01-01-2007 01:26 PM
*grins*

richlevy 01-01-2007 04:38 PM
I just watched "The DaVinci Code" last night. It was peppered with some interesting historical tidbits, especially the "war on women" in the 2nd millenium. It even includes a discussion of the Malleus Maleficarum, a sort of "Idiots Guide to Witch Hunting".

From Wikipedia

Quote:
Part of this section explains why women, by their weaker nature and inferior intellect, were supposedly naturally more prone to the lure of Satan than men. The book title itself contains the word maleficarum, the female form of the noun, and the writers (incorrectly) declare that the word femina (woman) is a derivation of fe+minus, faithless.

Urbane Guerrilla 01-02-2007 01:48 AM
Since the surviving evidence for even early Paleolithic, let alone any preceding hominid time, is a few rough cobble tools not far removed from natural rock fracture anyway, and that there is no trace of such complex, 20th-century social thought or theory -- id est, nothing to read -- I suspect the conclusion about their social mores is drawn from the air, not the science.

DanaC 01-02-2007 05:50 AM
Umm.....2nd millenium isn't paleolithic. Plenty of written sources from the 2nd millenium. Or are you talking about something else?

xoxoxoBruce 01-02-2007 11:41 AM
When you have two distinct groups, there will be competition for power.
When the difference between the two is, one has weapons and the other has boobs, the weapons rule.
Fortunately the boobs have enough power to keep the weapons from getting completely out of hand.
And so it goes. :cool:

DanaC 01-02-2007 11:46 AM
What if one group has weapons and boobs?

Phil 01-02-2007 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
What if one group has weapons and boobs?
masturbation! ;)

xoxoxoBruce 01-02-2007 12:45 PM
Naw, Pink Pistols. :D

DanaC 01-02-2007 06:09 PM
lol

JayMcGee 01-02-2007 06:13 PM
*bites tongue*


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.
Page 5 of 11 1234 5 67891011
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.