Almost always when I talk about how things “should” be I am describing a kind of ideal model of how society should work and I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past. My proposed model of how “things should be done” is always based on the assumption of how a society that is already healthy and high functioning would work.
So I am not saying that women should not have the right to vote today right now; I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.
As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.
As far as punishing women. I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for a husband to “punish” his wife to enforce his rules regarding the wife’s relationship with him or the wife’s responsibilities and behavior regarding the family. Likewise it is legitimate for the male community to punish the husband for the husband’s misdeeds regarding his wife or his family.
As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.
I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.
50 comments
"In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. "
Also a woman can punish a man by witholding sex.
Didn't see that coming didja?
This is the guy who thought he wanted to live in the 1950's. Women not only voted in the 1950's, if husbands acted the way this guy wants to act, their wives often divorced them and got lifelong alimony, the house, and custody of the children.
In the past, contrary to what you think, if a man punished a woman that way, he was arrested. AMD women votes. So?
In fairness to Jesse, he obviously has thought long and hard about punishing women, but you need to put up a brolly when reading it. The spittle and drool and other airborne projections are so far reaching, they're intercontinental.
All healthy and high functioning societies on Earth has human rights for women. All societies that refuse human rights for women are un-healthy and low-functioning. In Afghanistan, a non-healthy and low-functioning society, they treat women even worse than you want to treat them.
How the f**k would robbing women of their hard-earned human rights "maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes"? Would you feel positive about being oppressed and/or enslaved?
In principle, it is legitimate for women to punish you to enforce their rules regarding your relationship with them or your responsibility and behavior regarding society, as your behavior is actually harmful to society.
I would say that you're insanely stupid and misogynistic. Ever hear about or read Lysistrata? Women withdraw the possibility of s-e-x from you, to correct your harmful behavior, ya know. Will that make you motivated to obey? Or is it making you angry with them, and wanting to rebel or punish them? The latter, I’d guess. That is exactly why women DO have human rights now; they did rebel in the past and fought for the same rights that men had. We are not going to willingly rescind those rights, just cause you're too immature to handle treating people as equal human beings. The problem is YOURS, not ours, you silly little boy.
I have a better idea. How about you not voting? I am pretty sure that insane, 50s loving, filthy, retarded mysogynist like you not voting would CERTAINLY help to ´´maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.´´
Ohhhhh. So you want to PUNISH WOMEN? You think you have a RIGHT TO DO IT? Well, I have a better idea once again. How about we punish you? With a roundhouse kick RIGHT TO YOUR FACE? To use your words, I am saying that in principle it is legitimate for anyone to punish you to enforce rules of healthy society upon you and to protect innocent people from you, using whatever they think is the best approach to it.
But of course, it should be as damaging to you as possible, because mysogynistic arseholes like you don´t understand anything else than excessive force and neither do they deserve anything else.
I am furthermore trying to recreate how society actually did work in the past
You know what else they did in the past? Slavery, genocide, and giving only white property owners the right to vote. And that's just America's past. Western history is full of tyranny. I realize you might actually like that, except you aren't likely to be the one on top.
I am saying that in the distant future when things are “good” women not having the right to vote would help to maintain a positive social order and good relations between the sexes.
One group completely dominating another and not giving them even a voice to object with is positive social order? How about we take away men's right to vote? Would you consider it positive then? Or what if we turned you into a woman? Would you willingly follow your own orders?
As far as Afghanistan? I don’t know about Afghanistan. I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about.
Clearly you don't know much about Afghanistan because then you'd see how stupid and destructive what you're pushing is. I guess it's true: those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
I would say the basic rule should be that a punishment against the wife should be minimally harmful to the relationship in itself while still accomplishing the goal of correcting the woman’s harmful behavior. In addition punishment based on the withdrawal of a reward is better than punishment based on the infliction of a harm as punishing through the withdrawal of a reward is less prone to abuse and requires that a man be providing a benefit to the woman before he would be in a position to punish the woman. In this way the woman’s obedience would be motivated by her desire to continue to benefit from the man rather than her fear of being harmed by the man. Obedience motivated by continued access to rewards is clearly more ethical than obedience motivated by avoiding harm.
What is she, a fucking dog? It sounds like you want a pet, not a relationship.
As for how exactly a husband should punish his wife? I would say how he chooses to or according to what the husband thinks is the best approach assuming the husband is following community standards of what types of “punishment” are preferred and what types of “punishment” are considered too dangerous or too prone to abuse or too damaging to be acceptable.
The community used to think that killing native Americans was a good punishment for the crime of living on their own land. Certain communities thought lynching was a good punishment for the crime of being uppity while black. The community isn't always right.
Your idea of how things "should" work does not take into account how things do work, did work, or could possibly work.
In the rose tinted past you reference while it was far more socially acceptable to belittle or backhand your wife doing so systematically as a matter of course did constitute enough of an offense to successfully file for divorce. If a wife lives in constant fear of harm by their husband that's abuse by anyone's societal standards.
In today's society both men and women need to work to survive and that's not likely to change any time soon. Treating women as brainless cattle doesn't do much to foster valuable skills nor does it inspire any particular loyalty to an employer or a husband. Nobody with an ounce of self-respect would long stand for being marginalized when facing and living up to the same responsibilities as someone given preferrential status. Having to work for a living during WWII to support the war effort and their families (again in your rosy view of the good old days) is what kicked off the equality movement for women. If women never stepped up and started working in factories men would be trying to fight the war unarmed and would have returned to the shambles of a destitute home if they returned at all.
Attempting to reinstate this attitude - even if you somehow managed to surmount the financial hurdles and opposition by less demented men - would likely result in full blown revolution in short order, if not immediately. It would be like trying to take the vote away from anyone who didn't own a certain acreage of land. That is to say everyone directly affected and a fairly large number of those who aren't would immediately recognize it as a pointless stripping of their rights with no justifiable reasoning or benefit and flip their shit. Attempting to regress to an even worse attitude like the one you're suggesting would quite predictably end up even worse and rather than attempting to return things to what is normal by current standards or equitable it would end in overcompensational vengeance that shapes future politics for generations just like any other revolution against a callous, disconnected, tyrannical upper class. You'd be hitting the reset button on the last hundred years of socio-political development and relive the growing pains that come with them.
So tell me how taking the right to vote away from women and having them submit to a man's discipline is promoting good will between the sexes?
I wish idiots like this would have a Twilight Zone-esque experience where they wake up as a women in the world they created in their mind.
So, basically treat women like they're toddlers. That's nice. Forget the 1950s, we'd have to go way back past the 1920s. Sure the ladies would love to return to a time when they were at the mercy of menfolk and couldn't even vote or own property or get an education or have a career or file for divorce or report abuse, rape, and sexual harassment. Just looove it to bits.
Here's a tip: If you disenfranchise and oppress half the population... You're gonna have a bad time.
I just can't think of a scenario in which it would be a good idea to take the vote away from women as a group.
Also, any physical or psychological punishing of one's wife or husband should disqualify one from remaining married.
Please die soon and horribly.
I'm no fan of patriarchal societies, but the last bit is a step in the right direction.
For MRAs, that is. It's still horrible, but not as bad as the average regimen advocated by Return of Kings.
Funny that you mentioned Afghanistan, since you are basically supporting Sharia law in the west. And, just like Islam's sets of laws, your laws are easily disproven, ineffective, immoral, and time wasting. Society has moved on, and you may continue to cling to the battered remnants of times long past, but don't expect the rest of us to pay attention.
I don't know, I think I'd rather have the West stay as it is, treat women like they are actual people, and not live in an utter shit hole.
I'm just kind of funny that way
I... get hit, go away, get hit again.
I hope that, when all is said and done, you are the one treated like a dog. Less than a dog in fact, more like a smudge of dead slug on a rock.
Also, how funny is it that while you share the name of my best friend for life (And I do mean for life) in all but one letter, he'd never treat his wife as disrespectfully, disgustingly, and downright degrading as you want to treat yours.
Hey yo, Anon-e-Moose! Do you happen to have any anime chicks capable of beating this guy's ass? All I can come up with are Hungary, Ryoko, A-ko, and Cutey Honey. Also, Lady Oscar Jarjeyes. Actually, scratch that, just some ladies to kick his ass in general. Preferably with baseball bats, buts knives work too.
@Doubting Thomas
Oh man! That would be awesome! Like that segment in the Twilight Zone movie that Vic Murrow starred (and died in a horrible accident) in.
Same concept only with misogynists. Have two of them, a "Men's Privledge Meathead/MRM" version & an "Ann Coulter/Michelle Bachmann/Stepford Bimbo" version.
@Reynardine
"I don't even treat my dog like that."
I was going to use this thought on the next David J. Stewart quote, but as I read such at the library today, your comment makes such relevant.
What I read was one of the "Requiem " series of graphic novels by "2000 AD" writer Pat Mills. One of Hell's horde therein is Torquemada (no, not him in Mills' previous series "Nemesis the Warlock "!). Portrayed as a werewolf who decries sexual depravity, whilst indulging in sexual depravities.
Also against gender equality. All the while requiring a strong woman to indulge his hypocritical lusts upon (and even dominating him ; manipulating the dial that controls his arousal levels).
Jessie's just as two-faced as this character: a dog .
@Moving Out of Stereo
"Fate/Stay Night"'s Rider? Sabre? "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS"' Nanoha (with Raging Heart at full Starlight Breaker)? Fate in full Sonic Form & Bardiche in Zamber Mode? "Xenosaga"'s KOS-MOS (upon detecting Jessie as a Gnosis [/Nietzsche])? "BlazBlue: Alter Memory"'s Noel Vermillion wielding her Nox Nyctores 'Bolverk' (basically the god Odin in twin gun form)? "Rosario + Vampire"'s Inner Moka, when the 'Rosario' is removed from/by (Outer) Moka, and transforms into her ultra-powerful vampire alter-ego...?
There's so many to choose from!
...but then, Haruhi Suzumiya can just erase him with a thought ...! >:D
@Anon-e-Moose
Ah! Thanks. I forgot about them, didn't I?
(Oh, and the Sailor Senshi. As well as Mikasa Ackerman... And these are just from shows I actually watch, there are countless more that we probably don't know about.)
" I live in the United States and more broadly the Western World. I am advocating for what would work and what would be good in reference to the environment that I actually live in and know something about."
Obviously you don't know anything at all about the society in which you live. Plainly women are not going to give up the vote under any circumstances. You are simply fantasizing about things that will never ever happen.
BTW. Another American misogynist. They appear to be really flourishing over there.
@Anon-e-moose :
I'm surprised you didn't mention Major Kusanagi of GitS, Tifa from FF: Advent Children, or Okami-san (from "Okami-san and her Seven Companions").
...Is my geekery showing?
@Moving Out of Stereo
There's the Daniel Craig "James Bond"/JJ Abrams "Star Trek"-esque reboot, "Sailor Moon Crystal" airing in Japan right now; the 2nd episode out just yesterday. From the looks of things, certainly charater design-wise, it may be more faithful to the original Naoko Takeuchi manga (Compared to the original; mostly using designs by Ikuko "Mahou Tsukai Tai"/"Princess Tutu" Itoh*, but we'll see what Toei does with this, eh?!). But just as kickass, Senshi-wise, though. [/Rei Hino/Sailor Mars]
@NonProphets
Hey, just giving a fellow geek the chance to contribute with other & very worthy examples.
...well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! XP X3
*- Ikuko Itoh . One of my all-time favourite character designers/animators, next to Keiji Gotoh .
Okay, you've made your point. You're not a foaming-at-the-mouth, murderously psychotic fanatic; you're just an ignorant misogynist douche.
I hope you're proud of that distinction. Frankly, I just think it proves you're too mentally stable to have any excuse for what you say beyond just being a huge asshole.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.