Well if someone's life is being protected, even for a certain purpose, then their lives do mean more in regards to who gets to make those calls on who lives and dies.
It does take more than money to raise a child but it takes money to keep a child alive, especially in past times. Teaching an infant good manners without food will result in the child dying.
Is a child more likely to survive with a mother that loves the child but can't feed the child or a father than can feed the child and love the child but not be around as much, however could pay for nannies?
Who started the war? Women aren't known to start wars. And you are still painting only a partial picture of how community works. Yes, woman are valued. Why is that offensive and shocking and wrong? Women are more capable of providing a loving and nurturing environment for children. It is okay to place value on that role. While men are nore prone to protect through force and bring about war.
Bringing in money, or bread, has been distorted through the economics of business and made to confuse our value system. And you are so guikty of that. Not at one point did you mention love and kindness as a value and positive thing for community. That is sad and dangerous as it only petpetuates this idea that men are better. Congratulations, its true. Men are better at destruction. Even the destruction of a loving community?
This is one sided logic. It never takes true happiness into consideration. Just having food does not make for life. Sharing that meal, bo matter how meager, with family.
But what really gets me, is this idea that one is better than the other. Men rarely have their value undermined. And in this example of war, their value is just that, a symbol of loss in a war. War. Some people value war. War is power. To be a part of that power, even in death, is an honor millions of men take up willingly. So dont give me this bullshit that casualities of war arent valued. Because the men who started that war banked on those men. And expected the women to pick up the pieces of home and carry on.
Why is it relevant who started the war? The vast majority of men didn't. Are you implying that because people that generally cause war are male that therefor the small majority that do so represent the rest of the male population? That's some guilty by association thinking there. Hasn't worked too well in history, ask the jews.
Women are valued, I have no problem with that. It's that their lives hold more value than men's which is irritating and wrong because it's clearly sexism, and if you're going to say that it's good to view women's lives as more valuable then you're just being sexist with that line of reasoning.
You're essentially saying women have a caring role that men don't while men's primary value is conflict, which is a happy-faced insult if anything. You could of said men's roles are to create safety with the things they build for humans to survive with shelter, how men are the majority of those that bring in the foods we purchase, and so on but you went with conflict...Why? Our whole world runs due to the work men primarily do from maintaining civilization from fuels to the food we eat and the water we drink, of which are far more essential for long time survival. There have also been studies that claim men's involvement with children help a child's mental development equally, if not more, than mothers involvement does.
I'm all fine with saying we're both equally important but when that kindness is thrown in to peoples faces to say women are better for children and men are only or primarily good for conflict then I just have to point what I just did out.
Yes, I didn't bring in love and kindness as a value because unlike you I think both men and women love and are kind equally. You're bringing that up under the belief that women are better at those things and that men lack those things to the same capacity as women, which is ridiculous given how man men have sacrificed their very lives for people.
Jesus Christ. Now you're saying what gets to you is this idea that one is better than the other? All you've said about men in this post is that they cause wars, their primary food to society is conflict, and that they're destructive...Now you're going to say you dislike this idea that one is better than the other? You don't get to imply that women are more human than men and then claim you don't like it when people do such things without it being brought up.
"Men rarely have their value undermined."
- Unless you consider lives as value.
- Unless you disregard all the media that constantly bash men as bumbling idiots.
- Unless you JUST done it...As I explained above.
"Willingly".
That's the key word. Not all of them were "willing". Some would of much rather have been given the option women had and could have in the future, to be able to stay out of war, to avoid bloodshed and the horrors of war, and to avoid death.
Those soldiers are valued as weapons of violence, not human beings. They're not being sent to war due to their humanity, they're being forced to war because it is expected of them.
Holy crap. Am l suposed to read that and reply to all of that with my little phone? I don't have the energy...
You have completely misunderstood everything I said and quite frankly, I am a little insulted that you don't know me better than that and would try to twist my words to make me sound like the sexist here. But silly me, I should know better.
It's really quite simple. If you don't want to be seen as an undervalued tool, don't act like one.
Well you're on your phone and you said I've misunderstood you but there's a lot to talk about and I get how irritating it could be replying on a phone so we'll just leave this as a misunderstanding.
Men go to war, women get the benefits
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well if someone's life is being protected, even for a certain purpose, then their lives do mean more in regards to who gets to make those calls on who lives and dies.
It does take more than money to raise a child but it takes money to keep a child alive, especially in past times. Teaching an infant good manners without food will result in the child dying.
Is a child more likely to survive with a mother that loves the child but can't feed the child or a father than can feed the child and love the child but not be around as much, however could pay for nannies?
My arguments aren't lacking logic here...
--
howaminotmyself
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Who started the war? Women aren't known to start wars. And you are still painting only a partial picture of how community works. Yes, woman are valued. Why is that offensive and shocking and wrong? Women are more capable of providing a loving and nurturing environment for children. It is okay to place value on that role. While men are nore prone to protect through force and bring about war.
Bringing in money, or bread, has been distorted through the economics of business and made to confuse our value system. And you are so guikty of that. Not at one point did you mention love and kindness as a value and positive thing for community. That is sad and dangerous as it only petpetuates this idea that men are better. Congratulations, its true. Men are better at destruction. Even the destruction of a loving community?
This is one sided logic. It never takes true happiness into consideration. Just having food does not make for life. Sharing that meal, bo matter how meager, with family.
But what really gets me, is this idea that one is better than the other. Men rarely have their value undermined. And in this example of war, their value is just that, a symbol of loss in a war. War. Some people value war. War is power. To be a part of that power, even in death, is an honor millions of men take up willingly. So dont give me this bullshit that casualities of war arent valued. Because the men who started that war banked on those men. And expected the women to pick up the pieces of home and carry on.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why is it relevant who started the war? The vast majority of men didn't. Are you implying that because people that generally cause war are male that therefor the small majority that do so represent the rest of the male population? That's some guilty by association thinking there. Hasn't worked too well in history, ask the jews.
Women are valued, I have no problem with that. It's that their lives hold more value than men's which is irritating and wrong because it's clearly sexism, and if you're going to say that it's good to view women's lives as more valuable then you're just being sexist with that line of reasoning.
You're essentially saying women have a caring role that men don't while men's primary value is conflict, which is a happy-faced insult if anything. You could of said men's roles are to create safety with the things they build for humans to survive with shelter, how men are the majority of those that bring in the foods we purchase, and so on but you went with conflict...Why? Our whole world runs due to the work men primarily do from maintaining civilization from fuels to the food we eat and the water we drink, of which are far more essential for long time survival. There have also been studies that claim men's involvement with children help a child's mental development equally, if not more, than mothers involvement does.
I'm all fine with saying we're both equally important but when that kindness is thrown in to peoples faces to say women are better for children and men are only or primarily good for conflict then I just have to point what I just did out.
Yes, I didn't bring in love and kindness as a value because unlike you I think both men and women love and are kind equally. You're bringing that up under the belief that women are better at those things and that men lack those things to the same capacity as women, which is ridiculous given how man men have sacrificed their very lives for people.
Jesus Christ. Now you're saying what gets to you is this idea that one is better than the other? All you've said about men in this post is that they cause wars, their primary food to society is conflict, and that they're destructive...Now you're going to say you dislike this idea that one is better than the other? You don't get to imply that women are more human than men and then claim you don't like it when people do such things without it being brought up.
"Men rarely have their value undermined."
- Unless you consider lives as value.
- Unless you disregard all the media that constantly bash men as bumbling idiots.
- Unless you JUST done it...As I explained above.
"Willingly".
That's the key word. Not all of them were "willing". Some would of much rather have been given the option women had and could have in the future, to be able to stay out of war, to avoid bloodshed and the horrors of war, and to avoid death.
Those soldiers are valued as weapons of violence, not human beings. They're not being sent to war due to their humanity, they're being forced to war because it is expected of them.
--
howaminotmyself
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Holy crap. Am l suposed to read that and reply to all of that with my little phone? I don't have the energy...
You have completely misunderstood everything I said and quite frankly, I am a little insulted that you don't know me better than that and would try to twist my words to make me sound like the sexist here. But silly me, I should know better.
It's really quite simple. If you don't want to be seen as an undervalued tool, don't act like one.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well you're on your phone and you said I've misunderstood you but there's a lot to talk about and I get how irritating it could be replying on a phone so we'll just leave this as a misunderstanding.