FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Has feminism ruined dating
Has feminism ruined dating
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 . Think I’ll pass on this one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" . Think I’ll pass on this one "come oooooon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "God no. People are still people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" . Think I’ll pass on this one come oooooon "Nope. I’m in a good mood today. Don’t want to spoil it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"come on, you’re better than this " i wouldnt know never dated in my life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "You have a friend  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend?
You have a friend "I know surprised me too i thought i only had victims | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On First Dates the other night, it ruined a couples first date. He felt it was too serious to discuss when just met. " Yeah I watched that. He couldn’t say right for saying wrong! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "Why on earth would it have? Tea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Questions to hard OP " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We are all feminists these days. Well, you have to be if you want to get a shag. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? " Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame? "Hahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame? "That's a very odd view of what feminism is. It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind? "Odd is my middle name  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name "In other words, you have no idea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name
In other words, you have no idea "shhhh u will give the game away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think its nice when people have manners and etiquette with respect " Sadly respect for another person seems to be a little thin on the ground recently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name "So your name is; Blake The Odd Snake... Yeah, I'd keep that to yourself. Tea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name "On here ‘of’ is your middle name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name
On here ‘of’ is your middle name "i got too many middle names damn parents | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name
So your name is; Blake The Odd Snake...
Yeah, I'd keep that to yourself.
Tea"Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In what way would it be likely to ruin dating? Racing eachother to open the door and getting stuck in the frame?
That's a very odd view of what feminism is.
It's difficult to answer the question without further explanation from the OP. In what way could feminism ruin dating? What sort of cause and effect do you have in mind?
Odd is my middle name
So your name is; Blake The Odd Snake...
Yeah, I'd keep that to yourself.
Tea"blake the snake is my willys name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
)but i was curious to see whether that was just online bravado... it wasn't... he was brash and obnoxious in person too, opened the door and walked through first and didn't even hold it for me to walk through.. also told me an awful story regarding another woman he met... was genuinely surprised when i said i didn't want to meet him again  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say!" So women who have 3 kids by the time they’re 21 aren’t feminists?
I had been trying for kids since I was 18, I probably would have happily had at least two by now lols | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say!" I’m a confident independent woman with a successful business and 2 children who has never had to rely on a man. I’m not chained to the kitchen sink I have a dishwasher and a cleaner. I just got on with it. I don’t feel need the need to shout the word feminist about. FYI you can be independent and interesting without being a feminist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say!" Our only purpose in life is to reproduce and raise our spawn.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! So women who have 3 kids by the time they’re 21 aren’t feminists?
I had been trying for kids since I was 18, I probably would have happily had at least two by now lols "I don’t think you understand feminism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! Our only purpose in life is to reproduce and raise our spawn.." nobody calls my kids spawn grrrrrrr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! I’m a confident independent woman with a successful business and 2 children who has never had to rely on a man. I’m not chained to the kitchen sink I have a dishwasher and a cleaner. I just got on with it. I don’t feel need the need to shout the word feminist about. FYI you can be independent and interesting without being a feminist. " shhhh get back in ya box | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! I’m a confident independent woman with a successful business and 2 children who has never had to rely on a man. I’m not chained to the kitchen sink I have a dishwasher and a cleaner. I just got on with it. I don’t feel need the need to shout the word feminist about. FYI you can be independent and interesting without being a feminist. shhhh get back in ya box " never | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! Our only purpose in life is to reproduce and raise our spawn..nobody calls my kids spawn grrrrrrr" Haha! Bloody feminists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread is hilarious. If anything it's improved dating, the more confident, independent interesting women out there who aren't chained to a kitchen sink with 3 kids by the time they are 21 the better I say! Our only purpose in life is to reproduce and raise our spawn..nobody calls my kids spawn grrrrrrr Haha! Bloody feminists " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
No but they have made things a little more complicated I reckon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG YES THEY'VE RUINED EVERYTHING! ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT! OH NO! .........
No but they have made things a little more complicated I reckon. "sick em boy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG YES THEY'VE RUINED EVERYTHING! ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT! OH NO! .........
No but they have made things a little more complicated I reckon. "I think things have always been complicated. Just now there are more options and recourse for more people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" . Think I’ll pass on this one "I know what you mean lol  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My dating life has improved, if anything, since I’ve identified as a feminist." taking it for the team | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you don’t date, OP. Was it due to feminism?" asking for a friend i dont date | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you don’t date, OP. Was it due to feminism?asking for a friend i dont date " Do *you* not date because of feminism? Wondering what your opinion is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "How, in what way, you need to clarify ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you don’t date, OP. Was it due to feminism?asking for a friend i dont date Do *you* not date because of feminism? Wondering what your opinion is." i dont date cos i never have never been a priority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you don’t date, OP. Was it due to feminism?asking for a friend i dont date Do *you* not date because of feminism? Wondering what your opinion is.i dont date cos i never have never been a priority"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear. "Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other "Past or on different playing fields? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields? "Different continents sometimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields?
Different continents sometimes. "buy a vowel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields?
Different continents sometimes. "I’m sitting with a copy currently of “Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2018” by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. It’s worth a read. Education is a powerful thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields?
Different continents sometimes.
I’m sitting with a copy currently of “Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2018” by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. It’s worth a read. Education is a powerful thing. "il stick to the sun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields?
Different continents sometimes.
I’m sitting with a copy currently of “Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2018” by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. It’s worth a read. Education is a powerful thing. "I bet. I might have a look. (good god I'm a nerd!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, OP might be useful for you (or your friend) to define what you (or your friend) understand feminism to be so we can answer your (or your friend’s) specific query. The premise needs to be clear.
Things are much more fun when everyone is talking past each other
Past or on different playing fields?
Different continents sometimes.
I’m sitting with a copy currently of “Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2018” by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. It’s worth a read. Education is a powerful thing. il stick to the sun "Obviously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a sense it has ruined monogamy. Women work around more men, thus: meet/spend more time with men that are not their partner. It’s inevitable that they’ll form a bond, inevitably leading to sex. Which is the same as it was with men and their receptionists, way back when it was the only place a women would be found working. Then there’s seeing each other’s parents splitting up as children/teenagers. Dating too young and getting “heart broken” which leads to a fear of emotional connection. The narcissism that surrounds social media and desiring the base ego boosts opposed to a lasting bond. Though, dating is different from monogamy. Dating is seen as old fashioned I feel now. Unless it’s a coffee or pizza, before going back to screw. " There's little about feminism described here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a sense it has ruined monogamy. Women work around more men, thus: meet/spend more time with men that are not their partner. It’s inevitable that they’ll form a bond, inevitably leading to sex. Which is the same as it was with men and their receptionists, way back when it was the only place a women would be found working. Then there’s seeing each other’s parents splitting up as children/teenagers. Dating too young and getting “heart broken” which leads to a fear of emotional connection. The narcissism that surrounds social media and desiring the base ego boosts opposed to a lasting bond. Though, dating is different from monogamy. Dating is seen as old fashioned I feel now. Unless it’s a coffee or pizza, before going back to screw. There's little about feminism described here" Women in the work place and rise in divorces are nothing to do with feminism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a sense it has ruined monogamy. Women work around more men, thus: meet/spend more time with men that are not their partner. It’s inevitable that they’ll form a bond, inevitably leading to sex. Which is the same as it was with men and their receptionists, way back when it was the only place a women would be found working. Then there’s seeing each other’s parents splitting up as children/teenagers. Dating too young and getting “heart broken” which leads to a fear of emotional connection. The narcissism that surrounds social media and desiring the base ego boosts opposed to a lasting bond. Though, dating is different from monogamy. Dating is seen as old fashioned I feel now. Unless it’s a coffee or pizza, before going back to screw. There's little about feminism described here Women in the work place and rise in divorces are nothing to do with feminism?" The topics could be per se, but not what you've described! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Male chauvinism has been really amazing for dating. "Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In a sense it has ruined monogamy. Women work around more men, thus: meet/spend more time with men that are not their partner. It’s inevitable that they’ll form a bond, inevitably leading to sex. Which is the same as it was with men and their receptionists, way back when it was the only place a women would be found working. Then there’s seeing each other’s parents splitting up as children/teenagers. Dating too young and getting “heart broken” which leads to a fear of emotional connection. The narcissism that surrounds social media and desiring the base ego boosts opposed to a lasting bond. Though, dating is different from monogamy. Dating is seen as old fashioned I feel now. Unless it’s a coffee or pizza, before going back to screw. There's little about feminism described here Women in the work place and rise in divorces are nothing to do with feminism? The topics could be per se, but not what you've described!" You just contradicted yourself.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As other members have stated, I think there's a diverse interpretation of "Feminism". My understanding of feminism is rooted in equality of opportunity, treatment and expectation. " Well said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As other members have stated, I think there's a diverse interpretation of "Feminism". My understanding of feminism is rooted in equality of opportunity, treatment and expectation. " I’m sure that everyone is aware of this. It has nothing to do with the op though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As other members have stated, I think there's a diverse interpretation of "Feminism". My understanding of feminism is rooted in equality of opportunity, treatment and expectation. I’m sure that everyone is aware of this. It has nothing to do with the op though?" The answer to the OP is a firm "no". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. " No, I agree with that, of course that’s not feminism. I always insist on paying half of everything if I meet someone. Why should a man pay for everything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. " I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As other members have stated, I think there's a diverse interpretation of "Feminism". My understanding of feminism is rooted in equality of opportunity, treatment and expectation. " 
Hence why I wouldn’t date anyone who isn’t a feminist. I don’t understand folk who don’t want equality for all, but ah well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. No, I agree with that, of course that’s not feminism. I always insist on paying half of everything if I meet someone. Why should a man pay for everything? " halfs ok i take issue if im being kept tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
). But it's contextual. Sometimes it's good grace, old fashioned manners, and comes from a place of respect. Sometimes it isn't. And I like the power and freedom to react differently to different intentions where I predict different outcomes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. No, I agree with that, of course that’s not feminism. I always insist on paying half of everything if I meet someone. Why should a man pay for everything? halfs ok i take issue if im being kept tho "My issues with feminism isn’t the money side of it anyway. Nobody can expect someone else to pay for dinner etc. He can still bloody hold the door open for me and pull my chair out for me to sit down though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... " I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well!" Feminism gives me more choices when someone's being technically correct in their etiquette but it's obvious it's a charade! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on ya chickens "It'd help if you could elaborate a little | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well!" Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook." Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook." But that’s exactly why feminism doesn’t ruin dating as the OP said. It’s more than possible to be a feminist and date very successfully! Feminism doesn’t prevent you from dating in the slightest! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same. "It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It proper pisses on my bonfire all these women growing in confidence and self worth. They ask for way to much these days like being treated with respect, ownership of their own body and not settling for a bloke just because its expected of them. It really does make things a nightmare for us men. " IKR? We’re so mean and man-hating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It proper pisses on my bonfire all these women growing in confidence and self worth. They ask for way to much these days like being treated with respect, ownership of their own body and not settling for a bloke just because its expected of them. It really does make things a nightmare for us men. " bloody ridiculous isn’t it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It proper pisses on my bonfire all these women growing in confidence and self worth. They ask for way to much these days like being treated with respect, ownership of their own body and not settling for a bloke just because its expected of them. It really does make things a nightmare for us men. bloody ridiculous isn’t it" Grr! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism. "Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car. People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment. Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It proper pisses on my bonfire all these women growing in confidence and self worth." I can't agree. I think it's great! With all women being (it's practically by definition now) man-hating feminists, it's brought much-needed clarity to dating. Gone is that frustrating "does she, doesn't she?" uncertainty. We know exactly where we stand. Oh, wait, is it the feminists who are all man-hating, or is that just lesbians? I get my stereotypes mixed up sometimes. But regardless, with all those bras being burned, well, that's nothing but positives! (Do I need to add a sarcasm tag? I really don't understand the question. Perhaps I don't understand dating. But how does feminism affect it at all?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep." It's quite amusing that you have a pop at others for not being original whilst two sentences prior repeating the 'oh well I identify as an attack helicopter' thing that has been the 'funny' comment on transgender issues used by right wing dullards for years. You couldn't even come up with a different noun. Sad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. It's quite amusing that you have a pop at others for not being original whilst two sentences prior repeating the 'oh well I identify as an attack helicopter' thing that has been the 'funny' comment on transgender issues used by right wing dullards for years. You couldn't even come up with a different noun. Sad. " I never said that I identify as an attack helicopter. Intelligence= negative. I think that you’ll find there are people within our floating globe identifying as cats and dogs. It’s not aimed at the trans community at all. Go start an argument with a wall. It may not outsmart you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. It's quite amusing that you have a pop at others for not being original whilst two sentences prior repeating the 'oh well I identify as an attack helicopter' thing that has been the 'funny' comment on transgender issues used by right wing dullards for years. You couldn't even come up with a different noun. Sad. I never said that I identify as an attack helicopter. Intelligence= negative. I think that you’ll find there are people within our floating globe identifying as cats and dogs. It’s not aimed at the trans community at all. Go start an argument with a wall. It may not outsmart you. " are you implying that you outsmarted him ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. It's quite amusing that you have a pop at others for not being original whilst two sentences prior repeating the 'oh well I identify as an attack helicopter' thing that has been the 'funny' comment on transgender issues used by right wing dullards for years. You couldn't even come up with a different noun. Sad. I never said that I identify as an attack helicopter. Intelligence= negative. I think that you’ll find there are people within our floating globe identifying as cats and dogs. It’s not aimed at the trans community at all. Go start an argument with a wall. It may not outsmart you. are you implying that you outsmarted him ?" I’m making it blatantly obvious that, he may be able to argue his point to a wall. Be a nice feminist and run along now.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender..... People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. It's quite amusing that you have a pop at others for not being original whilst two sentences prior repeating the 'oh well I identify as an attack helicopter' thing that has been the 'funny' comment on transgender issues used by right wing dullards for years. You couldn't even come up with a different noun. Sad. I never said that I identify as an attack helicopter. Intelligence= negative. I think that you’ll find there are people within our floating globe identifying as cats and dogs. It’s not aimed at the trans community at all. Go start an argument with a wall. It may not outsmart you. are you implying that you outsmarted him ? I’m making it blatantly obvious that, he may be able to argue his point to a wall. Be a nice feminist and run along now...." ooer youre a scary guy  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are. "You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car. People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object. The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind."It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though...."People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship. Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships. You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad. Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships? I believe in commitment without ownership too. I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships. If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though...." I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea" The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. " You are aware that feminism doesn’t discourage happy, committed relationships? You may be laboring under a false assumption here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. " How does that equate failure? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)"The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children. I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”. It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself. As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong "Me neither! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? " Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)
The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children.
I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”.
It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself.
As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership.
"Father’s literally give away their daughters...that was the whole point in walking them down the aisle (yes my dad did walk me down, he couldn’t wait to be shot of me ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. " I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)
The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children.
I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”.
It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself.
As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership.
Father’s literally give away their daughters...that was the whole point in walking them down the aisle (yes my dad did walk me down, he couldn’t wait to be shot of me )"You misunderstand the meaning entirely. Your father is your male role model and career. Though, he will die and not be with you all of your life. He then accepts your husband to be, as a worthy man to care for you and be a worthy suitor. Some people only see negatives. ‘We’re all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!"It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... " I never mentioned the 60’s as having anything to do with feminism. If you can’t see how the free love crowd ending up in committed relationships, equates to its failure; that’s on you and not for me to explain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we slice the requoting? "I’m enjoying reading but getting scroll RSI | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... I never mentioned the 60’s as having anything to do with feminism. If you can’t see how the free love crowd ending up in committed relationships, equates to its failure; that’s on you and not for me to explain. " Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)
The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children.
I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”.
It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself.
As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership.
"I believe we have entered into the world of alternative history here. Because women were definitely referred to as property/chattel in marriage contracts historically. The men weren't though. That's because women were considered their fathers property until they were married, and then they became their husbands property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. " I think you’ll find that I already had. The fact that you continue asking the same question after a valid answer, makes it clear that you’re not worth debating with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)
The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children.
I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”.
It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself.
As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership.
I believe we have entered into the world of alternative history here.
Because women were definitely referred to as property/chattel in marriage contracts historically. The men weren't though. That's because women were considered their fathers property until they were married, and then they became their husbands property."I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years. The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair..... Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. I think you’ll find that I already had. The fact that you continue asking the same question after a valid answer, makes it clear that you’re not worth debating with. " Please point out your answer where you do more than just state your view without actually backing it up. At the moment you're not debating, you're stating your view as fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a woman paying half the bill is the be all and end all of feminism is sadly mistaken. I'm not sure anyone has said that it is... I was referring to the OP asking if feminism is ruining dating and using a flippant example of something people nearly always use when talking about the rise of feminism. Feminism has nothing to do with dating. Ultimately people date those they are compatible with. If they aren’t compatible, well I imagine it won’t go particularly well! Feminism has everything to do with dating. Not least because lots of women are understanding that they no longer have to be treated as a possession or a sex object by men. They can, instead, choose to date people with a much kinder outlook. Surely the leading outcome to dating is to become an equal possession to one another? Of course, unless you’re dating in the hopes of merely becoming “fb” or having an open relationship, which is essentially one in the same.
It's kinder not to see people as possessions. Which is a central tenet of feminism.
Which is why dating and monogamy is dead. It’s not about being a ‘strong, independent woman’ it’s about a fear of commitment, as something better might come along. Which means that there’s never a contentment for what one has. It’s the same thing with those that always want a bigger/better house/car.
People can do as they wish, though possession is the new buzzword that’s been attached to commitment.
Demonise a committed relationship as abnormal yet, tell us that a helicopter is now an identifiable gender.....
People do as they’re told nowadays, not an original thought in their body. Sheep. I like a strong woman with her own mind. Those that identify as such, rarely ever are.
You can have a committed relationship without believing that you own another person as if they were nothing more than a chair or a car.
People are not possessions. You should not own them as if they were an object.
The problem in the past is that some people treat others like objects to own and do as they please. And that isn’t really very kind.
It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships.
It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though....
People used to believe that the man owned the woman when in a relationship.
Times changed. Feminism was a big movement that helped to change the way people thought about ownership of women in relationships.
You don’t appear to believe in ownerships in relationships. Which is good. Because people owning other people is bad.
Perhaps you are a feminist if you believe in commitment without ownership of women in relationships?
I believe in commitment without ownership too.
I’m not sure where fuckbuddies comes into anything. That would seem entirely separate to the ideas of feminism and how feminists new commitment and equality in relationships.
If people want to shag without commitment then they should get on with it. (Feminism fought for women to be able to do that too without being looked down on.)
The ownership of a wife through marriage has never really existed. The man was just as much owned by the wife, as the woman was by the man. They both, after all, supported one another until death, just in differing ways. The man has never been able (at least in our culture) to divorce and cut the financial chains to a woman. Marriage was a lifelong bond, to the woman it’s financially and commitment, the woman to the man was commitment and raising of children.
I believe that if people fall out of “love” and can’t work on it, they move on. That way both can find what they’re looking for. Though, now, even in marriage it seems that both are still not committed, and always looking for “better”.
It’s dysfunctional as, perfection does not exist. Though, it’s also dysfunctional to settle with one that is not compatible with yourself.
As you can see, commitment is a team effort that both willingly participate in. On paper, if done correctly: it should work, and is far from ownership.
I believe we have entered into the world of alternative history here.
Because women were definitely referred to as property/chattel in marriage contracts historically. The men weren't though. That's because women were considered their fathers property until they were married, and then they became their husbands property.
I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years.
The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair.....
Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread. "See if you can debate your points without belittling others, give it try, see if it works out for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all. "Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all.
Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it "Can I do the slapping? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all.
Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it
Can I do the slapping? "Always | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. I think you’ll find that I already had. The fact that you continue asking the same question after a valid answer, makes it clear that you’re not worth debating with. Please point out your answer where you do more than just state your view without actually backing it up. At the moment you're not debating, you're stating your view as fact. " Your question to one of my previous posts was my answer. It was a fact, one in which you seemed to agree to before, asking the same question about my answer. You’re evidently not very good at deciphering information, thus, there’s no reason to respond further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It proper pisses on my bonfire all these women growing in confidence and self worth. They ask for way to much these days like being treated with respect, ownership of their own body and not settling for a bloke just because its expected of them. It really does make things a nightmare for us men. " You're joking but that's the reason some men get pissed off if a woman doesn't want to fuck them, they think they're entitled to get whathever they want and women are there Just to please them. So I guess there's not enough feminism yet. We Need more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all.
Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it "why is that not allowed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years. The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair..... Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread. "This was as recently as about a hundred years ago. And women had approximately the same amounts of rights as a chair when it came to being controlled by their father and then their husband. Literally treated like property in a legal sense as well as a social one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "Nah, especially if she's buying the drinks and nosh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On First Dates the other night, it ruined a couples first date. He felt it was too serious to discuss when just met. " It was a bit heavy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all.
Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it why is that not allowed "There’s only one way to find out. Try it and see!! Go on go on go on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... I never mentioned the 60’s as having anything to do with feminism. If you can’t see how the free love crowd ending up in committed relationships, equates to its failure; that’s on you and not for me to explain. Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. " I can't answer on his behalf but it seems pretty simple (to me). If committed relationships were the result of free love, then free loved failed. To succeed, free love would have continued, and committed relationships would not have been a result. I could also be completely wrong with regard to what he was inferring | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years. The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair..... Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread.
This was as recently as about a hundred years ago. And women had approximately the same amounts of rights as a chair when it came to being controlled by their father and then their husband. Literally treated like property in a legal sense as well as a social one."In that case I guess Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Ada Lovelace, Agatha Christie, Florence nightingale etc all never existed. Ok bro. I’m pretty sure that many women would prefer to go back to simply looking after the kids at home than working a 9-5. As for voting, there’s not much point in voting when it doesn’t have any effect on your life. It hardly means that they have the same rights as a chair. You should look at the rights of the boys forced into manual labour as children. It’s not a gender issue and more of a CLASS issue, that causes the world’s problems and, always has: and still does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... I never mentioned the 60’s as having anything to do with feminism. If you can’t see how the free love crowd ending up in committed relationships, equates to its failure; that’s on you and not for me to explain. Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. I can't answer on his behalf but it seems pretty simple (to me). If committed relationships were the result of free love, then free loved failed. To succeed, free love would have continued, and committed relationships would not have been a result. I could also be completely wrong with regard to what he was inferring "You are correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. I think you’ll find that I already had. The fact that you continue asking the same question after a valid answer, makes it clear that you’re not worth debating with. Please point out your answer where you do more than just state your view without actually backing it up. At the moment you're not debating, you're stating your view as fact. Your question to one of my previous posts was my answer. It was a fact, one in which you seemed to agree to before, asking the same question about my answer. You’re evidently not very good at deciphering information, thus, there’s no reason to respond further. " I've not agreed with anything that you've stated thus far, I've asked you to explain your reasoning as your answer wasn't anything other than your opinion. Twisting the argument and trying to slip out of explaining yourself might work with some people but not with me. I'm assuming, given your level of discourse with other people on this thread and with me, that you don't actually know what you're talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll continue being what i believe to be right by myself and others and happily accept other peoples ability to do the same, the problem with throwing stones about is someone may just throw one back and get you square between the goggles. Our modern search for individuality seems to be driving us further and further into the age of "one speak" " Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im feminist in parts but could still put up with a bit of old fashioned courting thankyou. Just pick a feminist man to be courted by "I’m just looking at those ‘parts’ now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years. The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair..... Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread.
This was as recently as about a hundred years ago. And women had approximately the same amounts of rights as a chair when it came to being controlled by their father and then their husband. Literally treated like property in a legal sense as well as a social one.
In that case I guess Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Ada Lovelace, Agatha Christie, Florence nightingale etc all never existed. Ok bro. I’m pretty sure that many women would prefer to go back to simply looking after the kids at home than working a 9-5.
As for voting, there’s not much point in voting when it doesn’t have any effect on your life. It hardly means that they have the same rights as a chair.
You should look at the rights of the boys forced into manual labour as children. It’s not a gender issue and more of a CLASS issue, that causes the world’s problems and, always has: and still does. "I mean... I think you do not understand basic history. Being your husbands property didn’t exclude upper class women from getting an education. In relationships during this period women has as many legal rights as a piece of furniture. I don’t understand how you are struggling to comprehend historical fact. This might be why you don’t understand a lot of the other points raised on this thread either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im feminist in parts but could still put up with a bit of old fashioned courting thankyou. Just pick a feminist man to be courted by
I’m just looking at those ‘parts’ now "I'll just slip the iron undies down a bit further | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im feminist in parts but could still put up with a bit of old fashioned courting thankyou. Just pick a feminist man to be courted by
I’m just looking at those ‘parts’ now
I'll just slip the iron undies down a bit further "Much obliged ma’am | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I don’t think it has but I do know I wouldn’t want to be a man in this day and age. You can’t do right for doing wrong
Me neither!
It’s a minefield. I’m quite surprised by it all.
Certainly is. Although not sure anything surprises me anymore! I’ll stick to the way I am. I’m quite happy and content and don’t feel the need to prove myself in anyway or shout about what I may or not believe in. I’ll plod on with my happy boring life and gladly accept men opening doors for me with a smile ??. As long as they slap my arse when I’ve walked through it why is that not allowed
There’s only one way to find out. Try it and see!! Go on go on go on "is that only on a date or anytime cos i dont date I do ask hot gots to give me a wiggle if they pass gho not had a slap yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s not ownership though, it’s commitment to one another. I’ve already explained all of this. It was popular in the 60’s, it failed, might I add. So no, it’s not a new shiny liberal view on relationships. It’s no different to being fwb, though that is also a rather demeaning way of looking at it, no? That’s exactly what it is though.... I'm interested to know how it failed in your view? Tea The majority ended up in happy committed relationships. How does that equate failure? Are you even aware of the 60’s and the free love era? It failed then and, failed in 1816. I'm fully aware and I've read quite a few books. I'm interested as to how any of what you're stating equates as failure. Where in the aims and intents of feminism has the movement failed and how does marriage equate to that? Please explain... I never mentioned the 60’s as having anything to do with feminism. If you can’t see how the free love crowd ending up in committed relationships, equates to its failure; that’s on you and not for me to explain. Interesting response... An 'I don't know how to answer your question' would've been a more honest response but hey ho. You do understand how discussion and debate works don't you? It's up to you to back up your argument, not for others to ratify yours. I can't answer on his behalf but it seems pretty simple (to me). If committed relationships were the result of free love, then free loved failed. To succeed, free love would have continued, and committed relationships would not have been a result. I could also be completely wrong with regard to what he was inferring
You are correct " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll continue being what i believe to be right by myself and others and happily accept other peoples ability to do the same, the problem with throwing stones about is someone may just throw one back and get you square between the goggles. Our modern search for individuality seems to be driving us further and further into the age of "one speak" Absolutely "I like you that's twice in two days i believe we have agreed upon something.. Perhaps you should be worried, i am rather odd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll continue being what i believe to be right by myself and others and happily accept other peoples ability to do the same, the problem with throwing stones about is someone may just throw one back and get you square between the goggles. Our modern search for individuality seems to be driving us further and further into the age of "one speak" Absolutely
I like you that's twice in two days i believe we have agreed upon something.. Perhaps you should be worried, i am rather odd. "Is it? . I prefer the word unique rather than odd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'll continue being what i believe to be right by myself and others and happily accept other peoples ability to do the same, the problem with throwing stones about is someone may just throw one back and get you square between the goggles. Our modern search for individuality seems to be driving us further and further into the age of "one speak" Absolutely
I like you that's twice in two days i believe we have agreed upon something.. Perhaps you should be worried, i am rather odd.
Is it? . I prefer the word unique rather than odd. "We're not allowed to be "unique" anymore, didn't you get the memo it's being phased out along with flirting and holding doors for each other. Oh to be young today is to be miserable i imagine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
LJ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a really good feminism dvd I really love it when they started tribbing and having a threesome!! But i guess they wouldn’t be interested in dating if i was still on the market as i am not their type. So yes feminism has spoiled dating for guys anyway.
LJ" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m sorry that I originally did not pick up on your arguing point being based upon 4,500 years ago. Myself, using logic, was speaking upon a more modern society, which is in itself not even being “modern” fits for a society going back more than 500 years. The term ownership for a daughter = responsibility. You’re all so black and white that, you deem the word to mean the same as ownership of a chair..... Brb I’m going to marry a chair, it has more use than half of those that have posted in this thread.
This was as recently as about a hundred years ago. And women had approximately the same amounts of rights as a chair when it came to being controlled by their father and then their husband. Literally treated like property in a legal sense as well as a social one.
In that case I guess Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Ada Lovelace, Agatha Christie, Florence nightingale etc all never existed. Ok bro. I’m pretty sure that many women would prefer to go back to simply looking after the kids at home than working a 9-5.
As for voting, there’s not much point in voting when it doesn’t have any effect on your life. It hardly means that they have the same rights as a chair.
You should look at the rights of the boys forced into manual labour as children. It’s not a gender issue and more of a CLASS issue, that causes the world’s problems and, always has: and still does.
I mean... I think you do not understand basic history.
Being your husbands property didn’t exclude upper class women from getting an education.
In relationships during this period women has as many legal rights as a piece of furniture. I don’t understand how you are struggling to comprehend historical fact. This might be why you don’t understand a lot of the other points raised on this thread either."You truly think that women had it harder than men? Yes, men love being forced to war as children to be blown up. They also love having to marry who they’re told and pay for them and the children that they tend to not even want. Let’s all celebrate how wonderful coal mines and cotton houses were. You do realize that the women’s liberation movement done nothing but raise the prices for EVERYTHING. Now that both partners are expected to work, everyone is expected to pay more for simple human needs; I.e. housing for a start. I think that you should read up on Wollstonecraft, she was happily living the swinging 60’s lifestyle whilst married. She wasn’t upper class neither. She also proceeds your “100 years ago” by an extra two. Those who scream the loudest etc. Good luck fighting for others rights whilst neglecting your own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend? "Feminism has ruined society in general. I actually had to make my own sandwich about 3 weeks back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking for a friend?
Feminism has ruined society in general. I actually had to make my own sandwich about 3 weeks back. "That’s terrible
How are you?
Are you in therapy for the shock and humiliation of it all?
LJ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You truly think that women had it harder than men? " Wow. For one so young, you have extremely outdated views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You truly think that women had it harder than men? Wow. For one so young, you have extremely outdated views. " I have to agree with you Sappy. Blimey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You truly think that women had it harder than men? Yes, men love being forced to war as children to be blown up. They also love having to marry who they’re told and pay for them and the children that they tend to not even want. " Yanno... if men don't want children, all they have to do is not put their willy into a woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You truly think that women had it harder than men? Yes, men love being forced to war as children to be blown up. They also love having to marry who they’re told and pay for them and the children that they tend to not even want. Yanno... if men don't want children, all they have to do is not put their willy into a woman." Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
