I believe girls should not be educated
-
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:
I don't believe in half this things, not that I understand what they truly are though. So maybe you're right. Got another topic?
Haha. I don't think many people will. I came from a psychic forum.
Well, I don't really have other topics.
-
Fair enough. This topic is as good as closed. I'll go look other things over. Goodbye and have fun!
-
Originally posted by parn:
Look who's angry now?
Well, don't quote XxYaNxX if you cannot answer his post lor.
He wasn't even asking you in the first place anyway, so don't act silly and go diverting to me all the things that you don't understand.
I'll reply him if he asked me, but then he would probably not be happy with my answers.
Cos unlike you, he's more capable of tracing the post and find out for himself.
you brought up the point that the people here are unhappy with the use of religion. Which is true as I proved by quoting xxYanxx.And I'm telling them that you started it.
So that load of nonsense you just typed, makes absolutely no sense at all.
It doesnt matter whether i answer xxYanxx's question, or whether the question was directed to me. The point is xxYanxx was unhappy with the USE of religion in the discussion, which you started.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
you brought up the point that the people here are unhappy with the use of religion. Which is true as I proved by quoting xxYanxx.And I'm telling them that you started it.
So that load of nonsense you just typed, makes absolutely no sense at all.
It doesnt matter whether i answer xxYanxx's question, or whether the question was directed to me. The point is xxYanxx was unhappy with the USE of religion in the discussion, which you started.
What makes you think I will entertain your request?
-
I for one, is against gender bias.
The issue of gender equality has been resonating through society for decades now, no doubt this world that we live in has been shaped by historically by males. But we are past that era; this is the era of equal rights, opportunities and meritocracy.
If women should be deprived of their birthrights, just to increase birth rate. I must say that is the most inane and male chauvinistic solution I've ever heard. While something so obtuse might be able to increase birth rate, there're better options and governmental policies we've yet to explore.
Lets not forget the other ugly face of gender bias. In many other countries, women generally, suffer a higher mortality rate than men because of gender bias. Remember China's one child policy? Accounts of farmers burying alive their newborn daughters. And more notably, the more recent gang-raped victim from middle East whom went to jail? I do not think I need to expound further.
As for the old testament that bashes women's rights, oh give me a break already. BTW, to the MCPs whom based their attacks on women's rights on Bible, EPIC FAIL! You guys don't even read the bible right.
The modern woman whom is a working professional and also a mother, is lugging a double burden, juggling work and her family - That is respectable, 'nuff said.
-
Originally posted by parn:
What makes you think I will entertain your request?
can you point out the 'request' i supposedly made ? -
Originally posted by parn:
What makes you think I will entertain your request?
Nothing i suppose -
Seriously, both sides have just pawned themselves.
-
Originally posted by rainee:
Seriously, both sides have just pawned themselves.
Huh
-
Originally posted by rainee:
Seriously, both sides have just pawned themselves.
who belongs to which side? -
one side is the feminist side.
Another side is the male chauvinists side.
-
Originally posted by rainee:
one side is the feminist side.
Another side is the male chauvinists side.
so... who is winning? -
Originally posted by Detached:
I for one, is against gender bias.
The issue of gender equality has been resonating through society for decades now, no doubt this world that we live in has been shaped by historically by males. But we are past that era; this is the era of equal rights, opportunities and meritocracy.
If women should be deprived of their birthrights, just to increase birth rate. I must say that is the most inane and male chauvinistic solution I've ever heard. While something so obtuse might be able to increase birth rate, there're better options and governmental policies we've yet to explore.
Lets not forget the other ugly face of gender bias. In many other countries, women generally, suffer a higher mortality rate than men because of gender bias. Remember China's one child policy? Accounts of farmers burying alive their newborn daughters. And more notably, the more recent gang-raped victim from middle East whom went to jail? I do not think I need to expound further.
As for the old testament that bashes women's rights, oh give me a break already. BTW, to the MCPs whom based their attacks on women's rights on Bible, EPIC FAIL! You guys don't even read the bible right.
The modern woman whom is a working professional and also a mother, is lugging a double burden, juggling work and her family - That is respectable, 'nuff said.
"If women should be deprived of their birthrights, just to increase birth rate." - I dont see how educated is a 'birthright'. If anything, a woman is created, naturally, biologically to nurture a baby.
"there're better options and governmental policies we've yet to explore." - The issue at hand is not policy, its the cause of the problem we are in.
"ugly face of gender bias" - this is nothing to do with gender bias, more of natural process. I dont know why people assume that housework and caregiving is inferior. Those people are the real chauvinists who look down on the noble female role.
"The modern woman whom is a working professional and also a mother, is lugging a double burden, juggling work and her family " - that is a retardation of natural process, putting incredible (and unfair) workloads on women, and leading to the undeniable plummeting birthrates.
-
Originally posted by rainee:
one side is the feminist side.
Another side is the male chauvinists side.
I'm neither a feminist nor a male chauvinist
-
Originally posted by Detached:
I'm neither a feminist nor a male chauvinist
in modern concept, feminist means support equal rights for woman. female chauvinist means thinking woman is superior than men. -
Originally posted by skythewood:
so... who is winning?I already said, both sides are pawning themselves.
I won't say that women are more superior compared to men, nor are men more superior than women in all aspects. There are areas which men thrive in, and there are areas which require the women's intuition and touch.
I read that someone said women shouldn't be educated because their best job is to be at home to look after kids. Sure, we would like to do that, but are men able to provide enough for us to not have us working out there? Do you know that most women would like to spend more time with their kids if they could rather than to work? But what drives them to take on a job? It is because they are needed to contribute to the household's expenses.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
can you point out the 'request' i supposedly made ?What makes you think I will entertain your request?
(tamade ambiguious post again)
-
Originally posted by Detached:
I'm neither a feminist nor a male chauvinistThen you have no need to worry then...it is usually the extremists who will end up kicking up a fuss for nothing and making a fool out of themselves.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
in modern concept, feminist means support equal rights for woman. female chauvinist means thinking woman is superior than men.Okie, thank u for pointing that out, so I will change it to: One side is female chauvinist, the other side is male chauvinist
-
Originally posted by rainee:
I already said, both sides are pawning themselves.
I won't say that women are more superior compared to men, nor are men more superior than women in all aspects. There are areas which men thrive in, and there are areas which require the women's intuition and touch.
I read that someone said women shouldn't be educated because their best job is to be at home to look after kids. Sure, we would like to do that, but are men able to provide enough for us to not have us working out there? Do you know that most women would like to spend more time with their kids if they could rather than to work? But what drives them to take on a job? It is because they are needed to contribute to the household's expenses.
rainee, you make very good points. but you forgot one thing. one of the reasons why household expenses are so high is because women joined the workforce and boosted economic growth leading to higher costs of living.
You look at countries where women play their traditional role. The costs of living are so much lower than in Singapore. and the men can provide enough
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
rainee, you make very good points. but you forgot one thing. one of the reasons why household expenses are so high is because women joined the workforce and boosted economic growth leading to higher costs of living.
You look at countries where women play their traditional role. The costs of living are so much lower than in Singapore. and the men can provide enough
I don't think the women can be blamed for that
-
Originally posted by parn:
What makes you think I will entertain your request?
(tamade ambiguious post again)
the point is .. i didnt make any request in the first place.i dont know why you love indulging in these childish tricks
and please try to learn what the word 'ambiguous' means (and spell it properly too), before using it and making a fool of yourself.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
rainee, you make very good points. but you forgot one thing. one of the reasons why household expenses are so high is because women joined the workforce and boosted economic growth leading to higher costs of living.
You look at countries where women play their traditional role. The costs of living are so much lower than in Singapore. and the men can provide enough
wooo, reasons behind rising cost of living... this could be fun... -
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
rainee, you make very good points. but you forgot one thing. one of the reasons why household expenses are so high is because women joined the workforce and boosted economic growth leading to higher costs of living.
You look at countries where women play their traditional role. The costs of living are so much lower than in Singapore. and the men can provide enough
Eh, sorry but I disagree. The cost of living has nothing to do with women joining in the workforce. If women did not come in, the men would still be able to do something among themselves to boost the economic growth...unless you are saying they are not capable of doing that.
It is more like the more civilised we are, the more things come up in life, the more we need to spend to accomodate those needs...those countries have lower living cost because they are not so advanced yet and they do not have so many needs compared to us. Not because the women are not at work.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
1) I dont see how educated is a 'birthright'. If anything, a woman is created, naturally, biologically to nurture a baby.
2)The issue at hand is not policy, its the cause of the problem we are in.
3) this is nothing to do with gender bias, more of natural process. I dont know why people assume that housework and caregiving is inferior. Those people are the real chauvinists who look down on the noble female role.
4) that is a retardation of natural process, putting incredible (and unfair) workloads on women, and leading to the undeniable plummeting birthrates.
I don't think you share the same understanding of the word 'birthright'. Birthright is the basic entitlement that someone is entited to from birth. If you refuse to acknowledge that the right to education that everyone, female or not deserves from birth, wouldn't that make you a barbaric pig?
The issue at hand has exactly to do with policies. You complained that by 'putting incredible (and unfair) workloads on women, leads to the undeniable plummeting birth rate", so shouldn't this government implements policies to help increase the birth rate? A little self-contradictory there, chum.
I didn't say that the role of a caregiver is inferior, and in my previous post, I honor the role of a modern woman - juggling work and family.
If the solution to the 'undeniable plummeting birth rate' is to take women out of school and ban them from society, I'd like to ask, what difference are you from Hitler, who saw the jews as a problem?