Rape Arousal

[aswokei]

Because it's precisely the sort of characterization misogynists use as a justification for why women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Because that myth (yes, myth) has been around for centuries, and has always been used to denigrate, trivialize and discriminate against women.

Perhaps some misogynists do do that. Doesn't give you the right to lump me into their category. That's like using this logic: KKK members are typically white. Aswokei is white, and therefore he must be a KKK member. Outstanding work, detective.

 

Your statement is as much misogynist as saying "all blacks are criminals" is racist.

No. No, it's not. First off, I never said all women are docile. Second, is criminality ever considered by people as whole as desirable? No. Criminals are bad. Conformity rather, is quite different. People, as a whole, very highly value conformity. Therefore, your comparison is, well, I'm afraid to say, dumb. What?! It's true.

 

See above. You use the same tactics used by men for centuries to legitimacize making women second-class citizens, and wonder why we see that as misogynist?

What "tactics"? Once again, I do not hate women, nor do I think they are weaker than men (Obviously they're weaker physically, but you know what I mean.) I do not think of women as untrustworthy. Actually, I love women and I think they're great. I just happen to think they're a bit more conformist than men. And they tend to thrive better in man-made artificial systems than men. That doesn't make me woman-hating. It's really not that complicated. I don't understand your problem. Just because men in the past may have said "Women are meek, and are therefore useless!" doesn't mean that's what I'm doing.

 

You trot out a discriminatory idea that's known to be false, and don't expect to be called a misogynist?

Really? It's absolutely known to be false? I'd like to read some scientific literature about that. Do you know where I can start read some studies that prove that women absolutely are not more conformist than men?

 

The 'weaker sex' crap is misogynist, period.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. Even if it were true, however, I never implied that I think of women as the "weaker sex." You chose to see it as such. It's less complicated for some people to just lump others who see things differently into a category they already have internal labels for.

Because all discrimination is not equal. Men are not, and have never been, an oppressed group, as women have.

So therefore, we should allow and encourage double-standards? Just because whites have enslaved blacks in the past, does that mean we should give them extra rights? Personally I think they should have the same rights as whites. No more, no less. I think it should be the same for women. Same rights. No more, no less. Do you think women should have more rights than men because they have been mistreated and exploited in the past?

 

This coming from the guy who makes a baseless, discriminatory statement without investing the trivial amount of thought needed to see how it's obviously false.

How is it obviously false?... oh. I guess I would know if I got out and went socializing, huh.

 

Seriously, turn off the computer, and go socialize. You'll find out just how wrong you are in short order.

 

Mokele

Okay, fine.

[Mokele]

Perhaps some misogynists do do that. Doesn't give you the right to lump me into their category. That's like using this logic: KKK members are typically white. Aswokei is white, and therefore he must be a KKK member. Outstanding work, detective.

 

Wrong, it's like saying "Bill told a lie, therefore he is a liar". You didn't just present a trait that *correlates* with a category, you presented a trait that *defines* a category.

 

No. No, it's not. First off, I never said all women are docile. Second, is criminality ever considered by people as whole as desirable? No. Criminals are bad. Conformity rather, is quite different. People, as a whole, very highly value conformity. Therefore, your comparison is, well, I'm afraid to say, dumb. What?! It's true.

 

Really, you didn't say, and I quote: "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men"? Funny, because it's right up there at the top of the page. You didn't even attempt to qualify the statement with "some women" or "women *tend to be*", no, you just flat-out stated that women are docile, especially when men are around.

 

As for whether it's a bad trait or not, that doesn't matter. Saying all blacks are good at basketball is still racist, even though it's a positive trait. What makes it racist is lumping an entire group of people under a single rubric, period.

 

Once again, I do not hate women, nor do I think they are weaker than men (Obviously they're weaker physically, but you know what I mean.) I do not think of women as untrustworthy. Actually, I love women and I think they're great.

 

Yeah, I'm sure you say you love your wife right after you beat her.

 

And they tend to thrive better in man-made artificial systems than men.

 

Oh, isn't that a lovely view of women! "Hi dear, don't get upitty or express yourself, just be nice and docile in this box we've made for you."

 

That doesn't make me woman-hating. It's really not that complicated. I don't understand your problem.

 

Let me fill you in: whether on not you *think* you hate women, your assertions about them reveals your deeper feelings. Whether or not you consciously realize it, you harbor a number of misogynist feelings and delusions.

 

Just because men in the past may have said "Women are meek, and are therefore useless!" doesn't mean that's what I'm doing.

 

No, you're just laying the groundwork so that those assertions are more easily accepted.

 

Really? It's absolutely known to be false? I'd like to read some scientific literature about that. Do you know where I can start read some studies that prove that women absolutely are not more conformist than men?

 

Except you never said "conformist". You said "docile", which is *not* the same thing, and you only started trotting out the word 'conformist' when we called you on your misogynist bullshit.

 

You want proof, fine: You claim is, and I quote, "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men." Since you are including *all* women, like a good little misogynist, I can disprove it by pointing to a single exception, such as my fiancee or my friend Em.

 

Care to contest? Sorry, no dice. You *never* specified that you meant only in general or on average or for some women. Your quote said "Women are very docile...". That's an all inclusive statement, and if you don't think so, you need to learn to read.

 

Even if it were true, however, I never implied that I think of women as the "weaker sex." You chose to see it as such. It's less complicated for some people to just lump others who see things differently into a category they already have internal labels for.

 

Funny, but when you label an entire group as "docile, especially when in the presence of Group B", you are saying that group is the 'weaker' one, the more subservient and 'docile'. I didn't choose anything; you said it in a very unambiguous manner.

 

As for internal labels, I already had you labeled as "emotionally maladjusted asshole" from your prior intelligence thread. This has merely confirmed that and added "misogynist" as an adjective.

 

So therefore, we should allow and encourage double-standards? Just because whites have enslaved blacks in the past, does that mean we should give them extra rights? Personally I think they should have the same rights as whites. No more, no less. I think it should be the same for women. Same rights. No more, no less. Do you think women should have more rights than men because they have been mistreated and exploited in the past?

 

Strawman.

 

The point is that women do not have equality in our society yet, nor do minority races, and there are segments of our society actively and prominently working to keep them from equality. When you spread propaganda about a group that's still struggling to reach equality, you make their efforts harder, while insults to a dominant group don't really do anything other than maybe make someone feel bad for a moment or two.

 

In an ideal world, when everyone has true equality and no force is trying to take that away, yes, discrimination will be equal too. But that world is a long way away. And people like you make it farther.

 

Mokele

[Dak]

How does my characterization of women as docile qualify judging me as misogynist? Now that's a bit hasty.

 

can you support your claim?

 

if not, then i think you'd be forced to admit that you have an innacurate view of women.

 

it shouldn't be too large a mental jump from this to 'sexist' and/or 'mysogynist'.

 

now, this probably isn't as bad, at least overtly, as, say, thinking all black people are criminals... however, if it leads you to treat women as if they should be docile, then... well... 'docile' is more commonly applied to well-behaved farm animals, so you shouldn't have trouble seeing how its not a nice way to treat people, nor a nice oppinion of people to spread across the interwebs.

 

Yeah, I'm sure you say you love your wife right after you beat her.

 

i think inferring that he beats his wife from the fact that he stated that 'women are docile' is a bit of a stretch...

[aswokei]

Wrong, it's like saying "Bill told a lie, therefore he is a liar". You didn't just present a trait that *correlates* with a category, you presented a trait that *defines* a category.

 

That's just plain bad logic, altogether. "Bill told a lie, therefore he's a liar"? I've lied before. But I don't think of myself as a liar. Certainly you've lied before. Do you consider yourself a liar?

 

Furthermore, who decided that docility defines women? I only said that women are more docile than men. Not all women are more docile than all men. It's just a tendency.

 

Really, you didn't say, and I quote: "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men"? Funny, because it's right up there at the top of the page. You didn't even attempt to qualify the statement with "some women" or "women *tend to be*", no, you just flat-out stated that women are docile, especially when men are around.

 

Do you want to know why I didn't explicitly qualify it? It's because it's implied. Let me elucidate how absurd your qualms with this are. Say some person makes the declaration "Women are physically weaker than men." Assuming we're talking to a sane individual, he means "Women are generally weaker than men." But let's say he used the first instance. Do you think simply because he didn't explicitly qualify it, it means that he thinks the weakest man on this planet is stronger than the strongest woman on the planet? Do you think he means that a man in an ICU with an IV plugged in, who is dying of cancer is stronger than strongest female body building champion? Do you think he believes that when he says "Men are physically stronger than women."? He doesn't qualify it because it's assumed.

 

I don't think you're stupid and I think you're fully capable of figuring these things out on your own. So what the deuce?

 

As for whether it's a bad trait or not, that doesn't matter. Saying all blacks are good at basketball is still racist, even though it's a positive trait. What makes it racist is lumping an entire group of people under a single rubric, period

 

The thing is, I didn't do that. I made a generalization. I could also generalize that women have clitorises and men have penises. Those are hardly sexist comments.

 

Yeah, I'm sure you say you love your wife right after you beat her.

Yes, release your anger, Luke! Also don't forget non-sequiturs.

 

Oh, isn't that a lovely view of women! "Hi dear, don't get upitty or express yourself, just be nice and docile in this box we've made for you."

Now you're imposing your own personal prejudices on me once again, imagining how I must treat women, given that I think they're a bit more conformist/docile than men.

 

Let me fill you in: whether on not you *think* you hate women, your assertions about them reveals your deeper feelings. Whether or not you consciously realize it, you harbor a number of misogynist feelings and delusions.

Thanks, Dr. Phil. I can now finally see how much I bitterly despise women.

 

No, you're just laying the groundwork so that those assertions are more easily accepted.

Slippery slope?

 

Except you never said "conformist". You said "docile", which is *not* the same thing, and you only started trotting out the word 'conformist' when we called you on your misogynist bullshit.

How are docile and conformable intrinsically different? Maybe you could expound on that for me. If the words are so different as you say, I should find it curious to learn that docile is a synonym for conformable.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/conformable

 

You want proof, fine: You claim is, and I quote, "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men." Since you are including *all* women, like a good little misogynist, I can disprove it by pointing to a single exception, such as my fiancee or my friend Em.

Once again, I wasn't including all women. Do you really think I mean that the most docile and conformist man is less docile/conformist than the least docile/conformist woman? So...

 

Care to contest? Sorry, no dice. You *never* specified that you meant only in general or on average or for some women. Your quote said "Women are very docile...". That's an all inclusive statement, and if you don't think so, you need to learn to read.

Already went over this. I didn't qualify it because it should be obvious enough that I didn't mean it as all-inclusive. Think about it.

 

Funny, but when you label an entire group as "docile, especially when in the presence of Group B", you are saying that group is the 'weaker' one, the more subservient and 'docile'. I didn't choose anything; you said it in a very unambiguous manner.

Once again, it should be obvious it wasn't meant as an all-inclusive statement. And second, I still think you're wrong for associating conformity with weakness. Sure, in some instances, docility is not desirable, but in many instances it is highly desirable. Without conformity, there certainly could not be groups and organizations. And certainly we could not have strong and powerful organizations and groups if conformity is not demanded of its participants.

 

As for internal labels, I already had you labeled as "emotionally maladjusted asshole" from your prior intelligence thread. This has merely confirmed that and added "misogynist" as an adjective.

Yikes! Quite a compassionate liberal you are. I'm just a pathetic "emotionally maladjusted asshole." Is that how you treat people who are in dire emotional need? Do you pick on bums hanging out outside of 711s? "Get a job! You're pathetic!"

 

Strawman.

I really don't see it as such. You made it plain that double standards don't bother you. It only bothered you that I made a generalization about women--even though I did the same with men. I think we ought to do away with double standards because there is always that arbitrariness factor. Who decides what kind of discrimination is acceptable and what is not? I don't like double standards and I don't like it when people condone them.

 

The point is that women do not have equality in our society yet, nor do minority races, and there are segments of our society actively and prominently working to keep them from equality. When you spread propaganda about a group that's still struggling to reach equality, you make their efforts harder, while insults to a dominant group don't really do anything other than maybe make someone feel bad for a moment or two.

 

How do we decide what discrimination is okay and what is not? Who gets to make that judgment call? Wouldn't it be better to just do away with discrimination and double standards altogether?

 

In an ideal world, when everyone has true equality and no force is trying to take that away, yes, discrimination will be equal too. But that world is a long way away. And people like you make it farther.

 

Mokele

 

I'm against discrimination. You're the one condoning double standards--not me. You think it's permissible to discriminate against men, but not against women. I think neither is permissible.

 

And people like you make it farther.

Makes this statement a bit ironic, don't ya think?

 

Let's briefly recap why I am a woman hater, according to you.

1. I said women are generally more docile/conformist than men. (Even though explication of qualification isn't necessary, when you think about it.)

2. Some men who think women are inferior also think think they are docile.

3. Therefore, I hate women, very bitterly. I am also an asshole and I beat women, apparently.

[Eris]

Furthermore, who decided that docility defines women? I only said that women are more docile than men. Not all women are more docile than all men. It's just a tendency.

 

It is just a rather tasteless point to bring into a rape thread. Several inferences could be made from that statement (women are more docile than men), none of which are positive.

Then there is always the question of your beginning premise's validity, which I doubt. Have you any evidence?

 

P.S. Synonyms aren't all interchanged in speech at random.

[Mokele]

You know, I'm tired of arguing with you. It's abundantly clear to me and everyone else in this thread what you said and what you meant, no matter how much backpedaling and whining you do, and it's clear you think that an unwillingness to actually consider points makes you a good debater.

 

I've made my point, and nothing I can say will make it any clearer. I have better things to do than waste time on your sorry ass.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

I characterize women in general as docile and hence I hate, dislike, or mistrust women? Wow... such cutting, incisive use of logic! I am in awe.

Hopefully you've learned that if you *mean* in general you should *say* in general. Some mistakes can't be left unchallenged or it lends them tacit support.

 

You've tapdanced around this issue to support yourself but in the end you made one mistake and your refusal to acknowledge it has led to a really stupid argument and time has been wasted. Nothing is "implied" when you try to make a controversial blanket statement about half the world's population.

 

Everyone on this board has made these same mistakes. Admit it and move on.

[aswokei]

In retrospect, I should have specified it, yes. But I mean, how hard is it to figure out that I didn't mean all women? Indeed, is there anything I could say that would be true about all women?

 

I could say "Women have clitorises." But I would be wrong... Because not all women have clitorises.

 

I could say "Women have two X chromosomes." But I would be wrong. There is a weird genetic abnormality in which some women (perfectly normal women, mind you) have an XY chromosomal configuration. It's rare, but I'd still have people like Mokele saying, "You shouldn't make blanket statements! Not all women have two X chromosomes!" And he'd technically be right... Not all women have two X chromosomes.

 

But you see what I'm saying? Explication is really not needed. But in retrospect, if I had known some people would be so rigid and literal in their interpretations, I should have specified. Whoops. But I mean, honestly, it's ridiculous. Thing is, he probably really thinks I hate women and think they're inferior and I also beat women. It's ridiculous.

 

Does anybody here besides me think Mokele is the teensiest bit out of line when he first gave me an infraction, then implied that I beat women, and then called me a woman-hater, as well as an "emotionally maladjusted asshole"? ... just because I implied that women are a bit more docile than men? Does anyone besides me think that's a bit much?

[SkepticLance]

aswokei

 

I think the problem is a poor choice of words. The word 'docile' carries all sorts of emotional baggage.

 

May I suggest you take it back, and replace it with a phrase such as :

 

"In general, women are less aggressive than men."

 

I don't think too many would argue with that, and it might take away the emotional bulldust surrounding this argument.

[Phi for All]

In retrospect, I should have specified it, yes.

Good call.

But I mean, how hard is it to figure out that I didn't mean all women? Indeed, is there anything I could say that would be true about all women?

 

I could say "Women have clitorises." But I would be wrong... Because not all women have clitorises.

 

I could say "Women have two X chromosomes." But I would be wrong. There is a weird genetic abnormality in which some women (perfectly normal women, mind you) have an XY chromosomal configuration. It's rare, but I'd still have people like Mokele saying, "You shouldn't make blanket statements! Not all women have two X chromosomes!" And he'd technically be right... Not all women have two X chromosomes.

 

But you see what I'm saying? Explication is really not needed. But in retrospect, if I had known some people would be so rigid and literal in their interpretations, I should have specified. Whoops. But I mean, honestly, it's ridiculous. Thing is, he probably really thinks I hate women and think they're inferior and I also beat women. It's ridiculous.

Doh!

 

Does anybody here besides me think Mokele is the teensiest bit out of line when he first gave me an infraction, then implied that I beat women, and then called me a woman-hater, as well as an "emotionally maladjusted asshole"? ... just because I implied that women are a bit more docile than men? Does anyone besides me think that's a bit much?

I think you're both headstrong and unrelenting. I think you're both passionate in your views. I think you're belaboring the point and you're lucky Mokele hasn't shown up in Georgetown to knock over all your buildings. I think Mokele feels that stomping hard on a fire keeps it from spreading. And I think he has big feet.

 

And I think any arousal I might have felt about this thread has been diminished to the point of non-existance.

[aswokei]

 

I think you're both headstrong and unrelenting. I think you're both passionate in your views. I think you're belaboring the point and you're lucky Mokele hasn't shown up in Georgetown to knock over all your buildings. I think Mokele feels that stomping hard on a fire keeps it from spreading. And I think he has big feet.

I take it that you think there's nothing wrong with moderators who do not listen to the arguments of others and base their decisions on emotions. As long as it comes from well-meaning emotionality, it's perfectly acceptable for moderators to name-call, to flame and abuse members. You know. Kind of reminds me of those extreme Christians who bomb abortion clinics. They attack and murder doctors with families. And they're convinced that they are fighting on the right side. But are they right? Is Mokele right?

 

All I want is an apology. For Mokele to admit he is wrong for abusing me. And also for my infraction to be reversed. Thanks for listening.

[Phi for All]

I take it that you think there's nothing wrong with moderators who do not listen to the arguments of others and base their decisions on emotions. As long as it comes from well-meaning emotionality, it's perfectly acceptable for moderators to name-call, to flame and abuse members. You know. Kind of reminds me of those extreme Christians who bomb abortion clinics. They attack and murder doctors with families. And they're convinced that they are fighting on the right side. But are they right? Is Mokele right?

I think every Moderator has a crap threshhold. Mine may be higher than Mokele's but it's not unlimited.

 

You have trolled this thread enough and it started before Mokele gave you a warning. Bringing up Christians and abortion clinics is a clear strawman. I don't remember this kind of posting from you before, aswokei. Please reread the thread and remember that this is a science forum where people are held to a very rigorous standard when it comes to blanket assertions and fallacious arguments.

[aswokei]

So he was right to call me "maladjusted asshole" and a woman-hater and a wife-beater, etc.? That stuff is permitted here? Is that what you're telling me?

[aswokei]

The worst I can be accused of is perceived boorishness. However, I never attacked anyone. I don't have any enemies on these forums. I don't have any problems with anyone. However, I have to say that the way I have been treated here is plain wrong. I am sorry if I am perceived by you guys as being boorish, or rude, or whatever. I still don't think that is reason or justification for me being abused.

[Bettina]

The worst I can be accused of is perceived boorishness. However, I never attacked anyone. I don't have any enemies on these forums. I don't have any problems with anyone. However, I have to say that the way I have been treated here is plain wrong. I am sorry if I am perceived by you guys as being boorish, or rude, or whatever. I still don't think that is reason or justification for me being abused.

 

Its not, your fine.

 

What I think is funny is how KU can start a thread and then sit back and watch the action without further comment. I sometimes wonder if he's more than one person. I think I would like to sit with him sometimes and eat popcorn.

 

Bee

[Phi for All]

What I think is funny is how KU can start a thread and then sit back and watch the action without further comment.

"A" thread? All his threads are like this. While this one didn't require his attention there have been several where people asked for clarification and never got it. 191 posts, 93 were thread starters. He/she is a voyeur.

[aswokei]

So he was right to call me "maladjusted asshole" and a woman-hater and a wife-beater, etc.? That stuff is permitted here? Is that what you're telling me?

 

I suppose I'm not getting an answer. Abuse from moderators who should be models for all other posters is acceptable apparently.

[Mokele]

Abuse from moderators who should be models for all other posters is acceptable apparently.

 

Actually, my willingness to kick the intellectual crap out of those making bullshit claims is one of the reasons I was *made* a moderator.

 

Mokele

[aswokei]

But you didn't "kick the intellectual crap" out of me. In fact, as I remember it as you being the one who forfeited the argument. You not only lost the intellectual battle, but you also abused a member of the forum. You think you "made your point," but I clearly rebutted it on all counts. Maybe you could give me a small example of you "kicking the intellectual crap out of me"? I should surely get some amusement from this. I'm actually really interested in how you think you won that argument as it's clear you're the one who quit.

 

Furthermore, even if you personally think I was making bullshit claims, is that an excuse to abuse members?

[Phi for All]

But you didn't "kick the intellectual crap" out of me. In fact, as I remember it as you being the one who forfeited the argument. You not only lost the intellectual battle, but you also abused a member of the forum. You think you "made your point," but I clearly rebutted it on all counts. Maybe you could give me a small example of you "kicking the intellectual crap out of me"? I should surely get some amusement from this. I'm actually really interested in how you think you won that argument as it's clear you're the one who quit.

 

Furthermore, even if you personally think I was making bullshit claims, is that an excuse to abuse members?

Enough. I count seven members, including two Mods, who thought your comments on feminine docility were too general to be considered acceptable. The rest of the argument has been you trying to unsuccessfully defend those statements. You chose not to provide any studies to back up your claims. You have no supporters and you've now turned this into a scuffle over Mod abuse. You're acting like a little kid who keeps annoying a bigger kid and then cries "bully" when he gets swatted.

 

No one has any more time for this. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt when someone objected provocatively to your provocative statements. If you can't take the heat....

 

If there is no more interest in the thread subject then we don't need this thread open anymore.

[aswokei]

Enough. I count seven members, including two Mods, who thought your comments on feminine docility were too general to be considered acceptable. The rest of the argument has been you trying to unsuccessfully defend those statements. You chose not to provide any studies to back up your claims. You have no supporters and you've now turned this into a scuffle over Mod abuse. You're acting like a little kid who keeps annoying a bigger kid and then cries "bully" when he gets swatted.

 

No one has any more time for this. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt when someone objected provocatively to your provocative statements. If you can't take the heat....

 

If there is no more interest in the thread subject then we don't need this thread open anymore.

 

If my arguments are bad, why has nobody rebutted them? Sure, many people may disagree. But nobody has been able to explain why. It's just emotive nonsense. And honestly, I'm not offended. I just want rectification. It's only right. I never attacked anyone on these forums ever. I only attack arguments. I wish the same were only true of Mokele.

 

And by the way, you never answered my question. Even if what I said was bullshit--which, by the way, I don't believe is true for a second--is that still excuse for moderators to abuse members?

[Mokele]

Maybe you could give me a small example of you "kicking the intellectual crap out of me"?

 

See the entire thread prior to this.

 

I stopped the arguement because I was sick of dealing with you and it was clearly going nowhere. You're like a creationist; you're wrong, but you've got your head so far up your self-righteous ass that you can't or won't comprehend perfectly valid arguments against your views.

 

 

 

 

 

Since he can't seem the voluntarily let an issue go, aswokei is going to be taking a little two-week "time-out" now.

 

Thread locked to discourage further trolling.

[Phi for All]

If my arguments are bad, why has nobody rebutted them?

That's good for another warning. I can't believe you're ignoring all the posts where you are being called out for fallacious logic. Appeal to Tradition, Hasty Generalizations, Strawmen, when people point these out they are rebutting your arguments.

Sure, many people may disagree. But nobody has been able to explain why.

If I could give you a second warning for this post I would. Go back and reread.

It's just emotive nonsense. And honestly' date=' I'm not offended.[/quote']That makes one of you.

I just want rectification. It's only right. I never attacked anyone[/i'] on these forums ever. I only attack arguments.

Cheggitau:

Phi... you're thinking too civilized. Humans haven't been civilized for a terribly long time. You know that' date=' right?[/quote']Condescending crap.

I wouldn't doubt that rape has crossed your mind at some point in your life' date=' whether you're willing to admit it or not.[/quote']Condescending *and* a veiled ad hominem.

However' date=' it doesn't make our instincts irrelevant as you seem to think.[/quote']Misrepresentation, which I pointed out already.

Wow... such cutting' date=' incisive use of logic! I am in awe.[/quote']Condescending crap II.

Yes, women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men.

In retrospect' date=' I should have specified it, yes. But I mean, how hard is it to figure out that I didn't mean all women?[/quote']

I said women are generally more docile/conformist than men.

This backpedaling from "docile" to "conformist" was a hoot. As Mokele and others pointed out, there is an aspect of enslavement in the word docile that is non-existent in the word conformist. I think you realized it too but were too stubborn to admit it and JUST LET IT DROP.

 

Well, in the middle of writing this I got notification that Mokele has closed the thread and suspended you for a couple of weeks. I had come to the same conclusion myself. No doubt it will do no good. You'll seethe for a while and themn come back to whine some more.

 

I am really disappointed in you, aswokei.