1st September 2008, 1:32 PM
I hope in the name of all that is good and just that you were doing a parody there ASM. That was some concentrated illogical stupid right there. Oh dear, what if she "gets pregnant", as though that just sort of happens. Something like this...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSg4eW3AiIM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSg4eW3AiIM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
On reading that again, it seems like you are actually serious. The entire point of femenism, outside the "militant" angle that an extremely small subset get into (and which doesn't really apply to the movement at large) is to say that females are just fine in any position that doesn't require testicles. Very few jobs have such a technical requirement.
Are you honestly saying that you think that if she were vice president, you truly fear she would be "controlled" by her husband into doing what he wanted? Seriously? That's about as legitimate as fears that a married man would be controlled by the wife. How do you justify that? Your history doesn't apply either. That applies to backwards civilizations and frickin' kingships where oppression of the minority was the rule anyway.
You seem to be suggesting that because women CAN be abused and oppressed, we shouldn't vote for one because it "could happen" here, in spite of the fact that that's just a circular cycle you're talking about. It's an invented issue, not a real one.
If she actually had to have "maternity leave" for whatever reason (and your argument has much to be desired), then our consitution already sets up who replaces someone in the event they can't perform their duties. No, it would not be the husband. That's just stupid. Who's been taking over for Bush whenever he takes off on one of his many vacations? Read the consitution.
Seriously, that actually is the EXACT thing that defines mysoginistic, so don't even try to pretend it's not.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSg4eW3AiIM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSg4eW3AiIM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
On reading that again, it seems like you are actually serious. The entire point of femenism, outside the "militant" angle that an extremely small subset get into (and which doesn't really apply to the movement at large) is to say that females are just fine in any position that doesn't require testicles. Very few jobs have such a technical requirement.
Are you honestly saying that you think that if she were vice president, you truly fear she would be "controlled" by her husband into doing what he wanted? Seriously? That's about as legitimate as fears that a married man would be controlled by the wife. How do you justify that? Your history doesn't apply either. That applies to backwards civilizations and frickin' kingships where oppression of the minority was the rule anyway.
You seem to be suggesting that because women CAN be abused and oppressed, we shouldn't vote for one because it "could happen" here, in spite of the fact that that's just a circular cycle you're talking about. It's an invented issue, not a real one.
If she actually had to have "maternity leave" for whatever reason (and your argument has much to be desired), then our consitution already sets up who replaces someone in the event they can't perform their duties. No, it would not be the husband. That's just stupid. Who's been taking over for Bush whenever he takes off on one of his many vacations? Read the consitution.
Seriously, that actually is the EXACT thing that defines mysoginistic, so don't even try to pretend it's not.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)