i doubt so. you are just an ugly bean flicking carpet muncher that no man wants.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
AWARE Sex Guide Suspended
- Thread starter Boliao
- Start date
i doubt so. you are just an ugly bean flicking carpet muncher that no man wants.
What will Singapore degenerate into, with men who don't even have the brains to master grammar and syntax being given charge of children.
By the way, in case you don't know, there is a crucial link between grammar and logic.
You seem to say that man's being the provider also makes him the leader of the family. Don't you know that many men work hard for a living and then dump all the earnings dutifully into their wife's hands? Who's the leader then?
The reason is obvious, you say. Unfortunately, what is not so obvious is whether your subject here is men being leaders or women having to take over leadership when the guy is unable to fulfill those obligations.
Of course, with such thinking, children will be confused. Not only will they be unable to submit to authority, they won't be able to tell their brains from their arse.
hey bellepepper...curious to know whether there is such a thing as a feminine feminist...oh and can you still be pro-family and a feminist at the same time?
this grammer correct meh???
should be 'man being the provider ....' right..
KNN full of crap lao zhar bor..:oIo:
this grammer correct meh???
should be 'man being the provider ....' right..
KNN full of crap lao zhar bor..:oIo:
So, you want to reconstruct my sentence as “Man being the provider also makes him the leader of the family”?
In your sentence, “man” is the subject, whereas “being the provider” is an adjective phrase. The nature of adjective phrases is that their removal from a sentence should still allow the rest of the construction to function grammatically as a sentence.
Do you think “Man makes him the leader of the family” is a grammatical sentence?
By using the possessive case, I constructed “Man’s being the provider” as a noun phrase that links together the subject “man” with his acts of providing for the family. The entire noun phrase can then function as the subject of the sentence. As subject, it can grammatically take on a verb and its object, as in “also makes him the leader of the family.”
It should be the acts of a man providing for his family that make him a leader of the family, not simply his state of being a provider. That’s why the gerund “man’s being” was essential to the sentence’s logic.
I will concede though that I could have constructed a more elegant sentence thus: “A man’s being the provider also makes him the leader of the family.”
this grammer correct meh???
should be 'man being the provider ....' right..
KNN full of crap lao zhar bor..:oIo:
I think you are wrong. As an analogy, the sentence could mean:
"Man's strength makes him the leader of the family" [i.e. strength= "being the provider"]; your construction would have worked if phrased thus: "Man, being the provider, IS the leader of the family".
Nonetheless, I would phrase it differently and less ambiguously as "Man's role as the provider makes him the leader of the family"
I reckon you're being ironic, but anyway I will proceed as if you are not.
It would depend on what it means to be a "feminine feminist". To many men, femininity means being submissive, coy, pretty/attractive, gentle. To others "feminine" means being frivolous, stupid, incapable. Femininity has also been linked to meanings of being maternal, caring, compassionate, etc. So you'll have to specify what you mean.
Feminists believe in gender/sexual equality. Some may choose the style of being gentle and pretty/attractive in fighting for that equality. Others may not. Feminists also think that women should define "femininity" and "woman's nature" for themselves and not allow patriarchal culture and men to define them.
In the first and second waves of feminism, it was important to women to identify themselves as feminists through rebelling against patriarchal norms of womanhood. Today, however, given that some of the struggle has been successfully won, we are more at ease with ourselves. For some of us, it is fun to be attractive, to wear nice clothes, to exercise our creativity in our dressing. Having fun, being sensual is part of feminist definition of being a woman. (Remember that in patriarchal culture, women are the objects of desire rather than the subjects). We are subjects of desire.
We also take on roles of care and compassion because WE think that society needs to be reformed in that direction.
I would say that, for a dominant school of feminism today, feminism is about 'feminising' the world--to fight to give women's values such as mothering, kindness, nurturing, sensuality, respect for equality and difference more of a central place in society and governance. Feminism thus opposes stressful, hierarchy-obsessed, ego-driven, repressive patriarchal values and culture. That's why some of the most seemingly 'feminine' women today are also the most hard-core feminists.
As for being pro-family, many feminists are married and are mothers. But they don't have any truck with the patriarchal family that is promoted in much religious dogma and folk culture (all those fixed gender and hierarchical rules for husbands, wives, sons, daughters, first brother, second brother, etc).
We need to recognise that the term "pro-family" has a specific Christian meaning these days. It was a term that was popularised by Focus on the Family in USA. The Church fundies who turned up for the AWARE EGM wearing t-shirts that said "Pro Women, Pro Family, Pro Singapore" meant by "pro family" that they were for the conventional family unit that is bound by religious dogma concerning gender roles. Also, "pro family" in this instance meant anti-homosexuality and anti-choice.
So, if pro-family means denying existence to other social units, like gay couples and singles, saying no to abortion and women having control over their lives and bodies, then 'no', feminists can't agree to something as profoundly anti-democratic as that. They won't say yes to removing other people's civil liberties.
I think Michelle Obama is a fine example of a feminist who is also a family woman.
Grammar rules are there for a reason--to ensure that meaning is clear and that logic is being engaged. Why don't you return to the original statement johnspg1 made and determine whether you understand what he is saying, and whether it is logical. That was my problem with it. I won't let fundies come around and spread their hateful messages and pretend they are making bona fide logical claims.
KNN.. why u you go and suck that ah-neh-stink's cum..:oIo::oIo:
u are getting fucking boring.
It is directed at you for obvious reason. He was being diplomatic.
i think u are wrong to direct this to me
appreciate your detailed reply...afew minor comments if i may...
to me a "feminine feminist" is one who is comfortable displaying her womanliness in all its tasteful, elegant and chic glory while at the same time drawing attention to gender equality...
as for "pro family"...i was speaking from a purely secular conventional heterosexual pov...father/mother/children/grandpa/grandma
interesting that you chose Michelle Obama over Hilary Clinton...how would you rate say the late Jackie Onassis and Princess Diana?
to me a "feminine feminist" is one who is comfortable displaying her womanliness in all its tasteful, elegant and chic glory while at the same time drawing attention to gender equality...
as for "pro family"...i was speaking from a purely secular conventional heterosexual pov...father/mother/children/grandpa/grandma
interesting that you chose Michelle Obama over Hilary Clinton...how would you rate say the late Jackie Onassis and Princess Diana?
It's a given that for effective communication, good, language shd also stick to KISS principle. KISS = "keep it simple, stupid" or "keep it straight, simple". :pSneeringTree said:
Re-phrasing was easier understood. Rest was getting too pedantic on grammar, bordering on diatribe. Maybe I'm less diplomatic:o
I think your definition of feminine feminists does fit the bill of many, if not most, local feminists. It's part of mainstream liberal feminism to be in touch with one's womanliness, which is defined in terms of one's sexuality and other aspects of personality. Ever seen Gloria Steinem? She's in her 70s, and turned up for an Oprah show in a sheer pants outfit with a see-through back panel. She looked hot, ok!
Pro-family in secular sense, yes, lots of feminists are married and have children. But they don't see these as absolutely necessary for women, but rather as options. One decides for oneself. And also, feminists are open to others making different choices of social units and lifestyles.
I think Hillary Clinton is more of a second-wave feminist. She identifies with male arena of politics and male goals, and she was pro-Iraq war. Feminists believe in pacificism. Michelle Obama is more of a contemporary feminist, and her politics is feminist. Feminists also care about the environment, and she's involved in that cause. And she has fun with fashion! Pleases herself entirely in that respect--which is very feminist.
Jackie O--no, I would not classify her as feminist. Quite needy with regard to men, and somewhat exploitative of them. She's a patriarchal woman. Princess Di is not feminist in many respects. But her expose of and rebellion against the British royal family and her ex-husband, their patriarchal nature, and her commitment to the landmine-removal cause and to AIDS was, I think, feminist. She stood for women's values of being anti-violence and anti-discrimination.
But going for a billionaire son of an arms dealer--hmmm, there I have my doubts.
The issue was not simple or profound. Whether that sentence was right or wrong. SIFU thought it was wrong. The use of such language was tactical - to pull the rug out from under the person that one is debating with. Usually seen when things start to heat up.
The trick is not to follow but to stick to power of reasoning and logic and continously ask for clarification on language used until the party starts getting exasperated and either comes down or gives up.
When power and logic are absent, then its a lost cause. Best applied when profanities emerge and desire is not to follow suit down the gutter.
KISS is really good when logic or knowledge is absent. Kills them everytime.
The trick is not to follow but to stick to power of reasoning and logic and continously ask for clarification on language used until the party starts getting exasperated and either comes down or gives up.
When power and logic are absent, then its a lost cause. Best applied when profanities emerge and desire is not to follow suit down the gutter.
KISS is really good when logic or knowledge is absent. Kills them everytime.
I am getting confused. Reading what you have cited below, it describes a liberal more than a feminist
- pacifist, fashionable, alternative, environment friendly, non-violence, anti-establishment etc
I am sure there are overlaps but they occur with most sane people.
- pacifist, fashionable, alternative, environment friendly, non-violence, anti-establishment etc
I am sure there are overlaps but they occur with most sane people.
Sorry, Scroobal, I didn't visit this site for some days and missed your response.
I was describing mainstream liberal feminism, hence the overlaps. But it needs to be said that feminism has changed what it means to be liberal. In the past, being a liberal just meant believing in equal rights and independence but for men. Women weren't seen as individuals having a selfhood. But today, you can't be a liberal man without also believing in feminism and gender equality and rights. So feminism has become part of liberal culture.
Pacifism and environment conservation were also not traditionally part of liberal philosophy. Feminists focussed on these as part of women's values. They argued against violence and the illegitimacy of war, and these gained acceptance in liberal culture.
I suppose my description of feminism makes it seem like it's just part of sane thinking today. That's because I'm not getting into the theory behind the feminist philosophy. If a patriarchal man marries a feminist woman, he will see the ground cut from under him, never mind that his wife is straight and loves men and children. He will not be able to conduct his family like his father did before him.
If you had been at the AWARE EGM, you would have seen more clearly how subversive feminism is to traditional norms of family and gender ideologies. For eg, yes, the women were largely straight, and many were married and were mothers. They were also fashionistas. But they didn't behave like traditional women. They don't accept conventional norms of femininity being imposed on them. They had no qualms about raising their voice when they had to, about trying to dominate the other side when the situation required it. It was the 'abnormality' of their ways that made the church women tell us to "Shut up and sit down" and the FM to say, "What is happening to Singapore today? There's all this shouting, no respect for elders." And one Church guy went up and complained that the woman seated next to him wasn't maternal at all but "hissing at him like a cat"! Patriarchal men and women find feminists quite unbearable because we don't speak only when spoken to, we have views on everything and believe intensely in them. So married or not, the feminist will not be found inside a patriarchal marriage. And even if she's straight, she will not allow homosexuality to be deemed as abnormal because she remembers that, for the longest time in history, women having a sexuality at all was deemed by men to be perverse and horrible!
But I guess in the end, you can only really understand what feminism entails by hanging out with feminists!
from a personal pov i find what you say abit sad and troubling...because to me the core family unit is key to any society's existence and sustainablity...it is not about a power game between the male and female...i say yes to gender equality but with the core family unit still very much intact...did you watch The Cosby Show in the 80s?...that is what i am talking about...another interesting example would be the dynamics within the late Dennis & Magaret Thatcher's marriage...or for that matter Tony & Cherie Blair's marriage as a more current example...heck i might as well throw in Harry & Choo's interesting marriage as well
btw i did not know that mohamed al fayed is an "arms dealer"?
btw i did not know that mohamed al fayed is an "arms dealer"?
Ok I see where you are coming from. I am not sure if it helps the feminist cause as it becomes intertwined with the bigger picture of liberalism and overall pircture of progress and the march to an egalitarian society.
One thing I liked about AWARE was their focus on female gender rights over the years and thats probably what gave them success in terms of legislative input, profile and such tangible things as NMP seats. I actually did not see them engage in the wide world of liberalism.
My sense is that 99% of world prefer non-violence, peace, equality, pacificism etc. It matters little gender wise. Thus associating these things with the feminist cause tends to water down the message or highlight the cause of pacificism.
I cite an example. Yonks ago, I was in a university canteen and a student approached and asked me to sign a petition to save the whales. I asked her why and she replied that they were beautiful animals and were harmless to humans. I then suggested if it were sharks than she would not be pushing the petition. She said yes. I pushed her for a stronger reason but she went for slaughter, causing harm and such. I signed the petition. She had no clue that the aim was to save a vulnerable species and to hand over the species bank that we got, intact to the next generation.
There are too many fad fashionistas of both gender, running around aimlessly and certainly clueless. These are the guys that will spout the tags of liberalism and give liberalism a bad name and anything else that overlaps or hangs on the ideals of liberalism.
The same lot are now into conservation and environmental causes. Then we have the the latest fad - "social entrepreneurs". Suddenly all those who are running a business are anti-social, do not contribute to society, the taxes given by businesses seem to evaporate.
My preference would be to cut thru all these distractions and aim for solid causes like removing clear discriminatory practices and push for genuine support mechanisms for the unfortunate and the disabled.
The danger is when well educated and serious people get caught using tags that dilute the message. The same tags that airheads and fad fashionistas live on.
One thing I liked about AWARE was their focus on female gender rights over the years and thats probably what gave them success in terms of legislative input, profile and such tangible things as NMP seats. I actually did not see them engage in the wide world of liberalism.
My sense is that 99% of world prefer non-violence, peace, equality, pacificism etc. It matters little gender wise. Thus associating these things with the feminist cause tends to water down the message or highlight the cause of pacificism.
I cite an example. Yonks ago, I was in a university canteen and a student approached and asked me to sign a petition to save the whales. I asked her why and she replied that they were beautiful animals and were harmless to humans. I then suggested if it were sharks than she would not be pushing the petition. She said yes. I pushed her for a stronger reason but she went for slaughter, causing harm and such. I signed the petition. She had no clue that the aim was to save a vulnerable species and to hand over the species bank that we got, intact to the next generation.
There are too many fad fashionistas of both gender, running around aimlessly and certainly clueless. These are the guys that will spout the tags of liberalism and give liberalism a bad name and anything else that overlaps or hangs on the ideals of liberalism.
The same lot are now into conservation and environmental causes. Then we have the the latest fad - "social entrepreneurs". Suddenly all those who are running a business are anti-social, do not contribute to society, the taxes given by businesses seem to evaporate.
My preference would be to cut thru all these distractions and aim for solid causes like removing clear discriminatory practices and push for genuine support mechanisms for the unfortunate and the disabled.
The danger is when well educated and serious people get caught using tags that dilute the message. The same tags that airheads and fad fashionistas live on.
Similar threads
