Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Page 9 of 20 [ 312 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 20  Next

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,120
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Jun 2013, 2:50 pm

Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

06 Jun 2013, 3:10 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.


Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? In other words isn't avoiding unjust discrimination against politically protected groups a matter of choosing between right and wrong? If this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?

Or is your position like the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception--things that decent people don't question?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,120
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Jun 2013, 3:14 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.


Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?



I dunno, ask oxford! LOL


Quote:
Or is your position like the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception--things that decent people don't question?


I am atheist who was raised in the Middle East by a fairly religious Muslim family, how about that.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

06 Jun 2013, 3:25 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.


Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?



I dunno, ask oxford! LOL


Quote:
Or is your position like the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception--things that decent people don't question?


I am atheist who was raised in the Middle East by a fairly religious Muslim family, how about that.


I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's transcendant religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,120
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Jun 2013, 3:51 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.


Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?



I dunno, ask oxford! LOL


Quote:
Or is your position like the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception--things that decent people don't question?


I am atheist who was raised in the Middle East by a fairly religious Muslim family, how about that.


I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's transcendant religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions.


I don't like militant atheists too, they make me sick.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

06 Jun 2013, 3:55 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?

-------

I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions, which I have seen too little of in this thread.


So in other words, your argument is based on a definition of discrimination that doesn't really apply. You know that sometimes words can have multiple meanings right? Political arguments about "discrimination" tend to be based on the first definition.

I suspect that your overall point essentially amounts to "morality is relative" which I would agree with. Unfortunately for you, the majority of people (in the United States at least) now agree that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientaion, disability, etc is morally wrong (whether or not the practice what they preach.) By taking the unpopular stance on the issue, you kinda have to accept this and realize that your "political correctness is out of control" viewpoint isn't going to be viewed favorably all the time.

You think this makes you brave. I think it makes you ignorant. Neither of us is truly right..........



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

06 Jun 2013, 4:03 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Definition of discrimination
noun
[mass noun]
1-the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination

discrimination against homosexuals
2-recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:
discrimination between right and wrong
[count noun]:
young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations
the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste:
those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination
Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli:
[as modifier]:
discrimination learning

3- Electronics the selection of a signal having a required characteristic, such as frequency or amplitude, by means of a discriminator.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/

The primary definition of discrimination is something bad.


Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?



I dunno, ask oxford! LOL


Quote:
Or is your position like the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception--things that decent people don't question?


I am atheist who was raised in the Middle East by a fairly religious Muslim family, how about that.


I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's transcendant religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions.


I don't like militant atheists too, they make me sick.


It's nice to be able to agree on something. I'm much too literal to believe in something like God. I will speak just of Christianity because it is what I know best: Bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, and liberals just love to catalog them, whether they are true or not. But Christianity has done far more good than harm. Just one example: Up until Germany began the modern welfare state around the year 1900, Christian charity is all that stood between a lot of poor people and starvation. Christianity also set immutable standards for what is right and wrong. Even when those standards were frequently disregarded, they still stood as a reproachment to those who did wrong.

With secular religions, such as PC or communism, the elites decide what is right and wrong, even when it involves mass murder or rule by terror.

I've never made a serious study of the Islamic world, but I would guess the same is true of Islam in that region--i.e., it set immutable moral standards, and took care of the poor and weak.



Last edited by Thelibrarian on 06 Jun 2013, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

06 Jun 2013, 4:10 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?

-------

I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions, which I have seen too little of in this thread.


So in other words, your argument is based on a definition of discrimination that doesn't really apply. You know that sometimes words can have multiple meanings right? Political arguments about "discrimination" tend to be based on the first definition.

I suspect that your overall point essentially amounts to "morality is relative" which I would agree with. Unfortunately for you, the majority of people (in the United States at least) now agree that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientaion, disability, etc is morally wrong (whether or not the practice what they preach.) By taking the unpopular stance on the issue, you kinda have to accept this and realize that your "political correctness is out of control" viewpoint isn't going to be viewed favorably all the time.

You think this makes you brave. I think it makes you ignorant. Neither of us is truly right..........


We can't have an intelligent discussion unless we communicate. And the only way we can communicate is to understand each others' viewpoints. Your words above indicate to me that you either didn't read my remarks, or are unable to understand them.

Don't you think it's a good idea for you to understand my point of view before you call it ignorant? Is it not prejudice to judge before understanding all the facts? Is that not what the "primary definition" was referring to? Why do you think it shouldn't apply to me?



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

06 Jun 2013, 4:49 pm

Seriously, dude..........You're intelligent and I'm sure your arguments are solid based on your logic. I just disagree with them. I've read through several pages of this thread and your points (the ones that aren't standard Libertarian ideas) aren't overall as clear as you would think. I'm sure they make sense from your vantage point but it's kinda like asking a cat to understand the viewpoint of a dog. We're different beasts. Like I said "morality is relative" so you can believe what you want.

Frankly I actually like you despite disagreeing on some fundamental things (you're far better than a few others I wont name.) I hope you stick around. I will try to keep a more open mind but you need to understand that I'm a blunt and opinionated person too. Right now my opinion is that continuing down this line of discussion won't get us anywhere.


Personally, I think you and Boo should just kick that athiest s**t to the curb and join the Agnostitrain. It's quite cushy and pragmatic. :wink:



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

06 Jun 2013, 7:21 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
Seriously, dude..........You're intelligent and I'm sure your arguments are solid based on your logic. I just disagree with them. I've read through several pages of this thread and your points (the ones that aren't standard Libertarian ideas) aren't overall as clear as you would think. I'm sure they make sense from your vantage point but it's kinda like asking a cat to understand the viewpoint of a dog. We're different beasts. Like I said "morality is relative" so you can believe what you want.

Frankly I actually like you despite disagreeing on some fundamental things (you're far better than a few others I wont name.) I hope you stick around. I will try to keep a more open mind but you need to understand that I'm a blunt and opinionated person too. Right now my opinion is that continuing down this line of discussion won't get us anywhere.


Personally, I think you and Boo should just kick that athiest sh** to the curb and join the Agnostitrain. It's quite cushy and pragmatic. :wink:


I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. To me, that is the true essence of tolerance.

As far as me being a libertarian, I am anything but. The libertarian is the purest strain of liberalism--something I personally abhor. I consider myself a true conservative, which is defined as one who wishes to conserve a particular people and their traditions, in a particular place and a particular time. As such, my thinking moves more along the lines of a Pat Buchanan than a Rush Limbaugh.

As far as being an atheist, I would not call myself that. Because my concern is with things I can know--things I will never run out of--I don't concern myself at all with that which can't be known. I put God in that category. It simply does not interest me in any way, and so I take no direct position on that issue.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

07 Jun 2013, 8:41 pm

I'm actually pretty liberal if you believe my mother's and husband's opinion. I'm conservative on a few things too. I don't think anybody should just buy into one side completely, across the board, writing off everything that the other side says as wrong, because both sides have good things to say on different topics.

I think that if something doesn't actually harm someone else then it should be allowed. By actually harm I mean something that you can actually see and document. The conservatives that scream that gay marriage will hurt society and traditional marriage don't know what they are talking about because it wont effect traditional marriage or society. The result of gay marriage being legalized is that gay people will be able to get married - that's all that it will do. While abortion does kill the fetus (which is, yes, an unborn baby) there is no other way yet to remove it from the mother's body without doing so and because it's her body that it is inside, and she was there first, she gets to make that decision no matter who does or doesn't like it. The conservatives who are against it and want it to be criminalized should work on developing some sort of mechanical incubator that they can remove the fetus from the mother and put it in there to grow and then the adoptive family can pay for the medical costs and then adopt the baby when it's old enough to be born. Those are the two major issues I agree with liberals on (I'm sure there are more, those are just off the top of my head and in the news the most.

For the conservative side, I don't think that we should legislate what people say (except for stuff about not yelling fire in a movie theater because it can cause a riot and physical injury, etc) so I'm against the whole "hate speech" thing. I think that people should actually be encouraged to say what they feel because it would make it a whole lot easier to know who is an as*hole that I don't want to be around. I also think that except for really big corporations, business owners should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want based on whatever crazy criteria they want. I feel that because 1. they own the business and 2. if they refuse to hire certain groups then word will get out and people will know before long that they are as*holes and not to buy from them.

But, not to derail the thread here - I just posted those things to give examples of things I agree with on two very different sides. If you want to discuss them further, start a thread in PPR and invite me please. I'll be happy to discuss.

Back to chivalry - I'm for it. If a lady wants to say "Don't you dare hold that door open for me! You are oppressing me by doing so and I want your name so I can get some crazy, way out there organization to sue you for violating my rights as a womyn!" then she should certainly do so but I also hope that the rest of the guys out there understand that she is not speaking for her whole sex. Nor am I speaking for our whole sex, just those of us who were raised with manners and who really understand the meaning behind them and don't see some nefarious conspiracy for them.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

07 Jun 2013, 8:48 pm

I don't know about some of these recent posts, but back to chivalry:

I'm kind of envious of being able to live in an age of chivalry. Think about it: instead of having to decode a bunch of complex signals indicating what you are supposed to do, there is a code instead that you can follow! That seems much simpler to follow.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Jun 2013, 8:48 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
I'm actually pretty liberal if you believe my mother's and husband's opinion. I'm conservative on a few things too. I don't think anybody should just buy into one side completely, across the board, writing off everything that the other side says as wrong, because both sides have good things to say on different topics.

I think that if something doesn't actually harm someone else then it should be allowed. By actually harm I mean something that you can actually see and document. The conservatives that scream that gay marriage will hurt society and traditional marriage don't know what they are talking about because it wont effect traditional marriage or society. The result of gay marriage being legalized is that gay people will be able to get married - that's all that it will do. While abortion does kill the fetus (which is, yes, an unborn baby) there is no other way yet to remove it from the mother's body without doing so and because it's her body that it is inside, and she was there first, she gets to make that decision no matter who does or doesn't like it. The conservatives who are against it and want it to be criminalized should work on developing some sort of mechanical incubator that they can remove the fetus from the mother and put it in there to grow and then the adoptive family can pay for the medical costs and then adopt the baby when it's old enough to be born. Those are the two major issues I agree with liberals on (I'm sure there are more, those are just off the top of my head and in the news the most.

For the conservative side, I don't think that we should legislate what people say (except for stuff about not yelling fire in a movie theater because it can cause a riot and physical injury, etc) so I'm against the whole "hate speech" thing. I think that people should actually be encouraged to say what they feel because it would make it a whole lot easier to know who is an as*hole that I don't want to be around. I also think that except for really big corporations, business owners should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want based on whatever crazy criteria they want. I feel that because 1. they own the business and 2. if they refuse to hire certain groups then word will get out and people will know before long that they are as*holes and not to buy from them.

But, not to derail the thread here - I just posted those things to give examples of things I agree with on two very different sides. If you want to discuss them further, start a thread in PPR and invite me please. I'll be happy to discuss.

Back to chivalry - I'm for it. If a lady wants to say "Don't you dare hold that door open for me! You are oppressing me by doing so and I want your name so I can get some crazy, way out there organization to sue you for violating my rights as a womyn!" then she should certainly do so but I also hope that the rest of the guys out there understand that she is not speaking for her whole sex. Nor am I speaking for our whole sex, just those of us who were raised with manners and who really understand the meaning behind them and don't see some nefarious conspiracy for them.


Frances, the reason this thread went political is because of the detractors of chivalry. Back in the sixties the radicals took the "long march through the institutions", made the "personal political", and we are witnessing the result.

As far as womyn suing over a man behaving chivalrously, that is the true nature of the tolerance and diversity crowd. They are Orwellian.

As far as John Stuart Mill's notorious dictum that we should be able to do anything we want, including harm to ourselves, as long as we don't directly harm an innocent, is one of the most insidious things I know of, but that's a topic for another day. Actually, not even Mill believed it; it is just one more example of the left's Orwellian tendencies.

Have a great evening.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

08 Jun 2013, 12:25 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Does not the secondary definition subsume the primary definition, as in the "discrimination between right and wrong"? And if this is the case, should not the secondary definition actually be the primary definition?

-------

I'm not trying to pass judgment on anybody else's religion, or lack thereof. My point now is to show that people treat Political Correctness as a kind of secular religion that is to be uncritically accepted, and never questioned. You may have noticed that my critics regard my dissent from their positions on chivalry as being indecent or morally deficient. And just as I wouldn't want anybody force-feeding me Christianity, atheism, or Islam, I don't want to be force-fed Political Correctness either.

I also expect the tolerance and diversity crowd to live up to their own values by being tolerant of differing opinions, which I have seen too little of in this thread.


So in other words, your argument is based on a definition of discrimination that doesn't really apply. You know that sometimes words can have multiple meanings right? Political arguments about "discrimination" tend to be based on the first definition.

I suspect that your overall point essentially amounts to "morality is relative" which I would agree with. Unfortunately for you, the majority of people (in the United States at least) now agree that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientaion, disability, etc is morally wrong (whether or not the practice what they preach.) By taking the unpopular stance on the issue, you kinda have to accept this and realize that your "political correctness is out of control" viewpoint isn't going to be viewed favorably all the time.

You think this makes you brave. I think it makes you ignorant. Neither of us is truly right..........


Isn't racial discrimination the definition of racism, not discrimination?
Racial discrimination is not the definition of discrimination, just call it racism, it is just as annoying when falsely accusing anyone who isn't racist at all. Stupid to even give a base word the definition of another concept, like saying dinosaur meant t-rex every time you said it, it would be completely ridiculous.


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

08 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm

Librarian, why the heck did you bring it up anyways? I want to get back to chivalry as well. For the most part, I thought to treat ladies how they would want to be treated, although we are already supposed to do that anyways, I guess just do that instead.


_________________
comedic burp


billiscool
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,989

08 Jun 2013, 1:35 pm

Tyri0n wrote:

2. Have-your-Cake-and-Eat-it-Too-Chivalry: Some modern women want all the privileges brought by feminism and full equality for good things. But they want to still force men to take on traditional provider/caretaker roles where it suits the women. This is primarily sexism against men.

/


Yes, I can't stand them type of women either.