Posted on 05/10/2012 1:11:45 PM PDT by servo1969
Maybe you’re just a crappy history student. Educate yourself a little. savagesusie is exactly right.
What you said sounds like what my daddy taught us. He threatened to kill my brothers if they ever laid a hand on a girl. He also taught us girls that if we hit a man or stepped into the ring with a man, we need to expect to get hit back. That’s the real world.
Like that’s the point.
without looking this thread will cull the what culture war? moderates out
btw...there is yet another anti freeper site for you guys out there in the succession of klowns and wideawakes and pachyderms and all that
already with teeming with moderates and psuedos
if they can take their minds off applauding Obama’s gay crap they would welcome FR’s disgruntled gender equalizer crowd I’d reckon
The point? That you think it is important for girls to play on a boys team. That’s just funny.
I wasn’t referring to the girl she is also a victim of the feminist notion that men and women should be treated the same.
I’m not a dupe for pseudohistory, as you are. Any time you troglodytes want to provide evidence that Karl Marx invented co-ed league and intramural sports, I’m willing to listen, but we’ll see no evidence as their is none.
It's good to see you in full backtrack mode here. So now co-ed leagues are fun and not an invention of Marx; you even admit that your own children play in them.
Thanks for proving my point.
Well, we weren't talking about them, we're we? The same goes for them, too.
As well as it does compared to you. There's a greater than 99.91% chance I outclass you.
?
You really are a stupid individual, as if your previous posts hadn't already indicated this.
So, in your mind, it is "gender bigotry" to point out that women are on average not as strong or fast as men are physically (something which nature and the evidence of sports statistics consistently show), thereby denying, on a physical level, "gender equality" - a concept which you yourself were whining about me attacking, suggesting that you yourself hold to the same "gender inequality" beliefs.
Good grief, you can't even maintain a logical thought process across four posts.
As for you being more intelligent than every female you meet? Bwahahahahahhah!!!!
Oops - I said the women I work with, not every woman I meet. There are a huge number of women that I meet, but with whom I do not work. I can make a reasonable guage of the intelligence of people I work with (who, since we work in the sciences, are not themselves dummies by any means) by observing them daily. That is not the case with every single woman that I would happen to meet or interact with in the course of daily living. Statistically, the odds are that I'm more intelligent than most of them, too, simply because of my position on the bell curve. That doesn't, however, mean that I am sure that I would be more intelligent than ALL of them - simply because I do not know the position on the bell curve of each and every one of them.
All that tells us is that you work with morons and I work with brilliant women. What does that say about you and me??
Well, no, what it more likely says is that I am more intelligent than you are - which is pretty obvious from our conversation anywise.
Actually, it has quite a lot of relevance, because the tenor of several of the arguments on here have been that, because you once knew some woman who could spike on the guys playing social league volleyball, that this somehow extends to women in general being physically equal or able to compete with men in general, something which is simply NOT the case. Even relatively "tough" women are fairly easily beaten by "normal" guys in the vast number of cases - which the examples provided by myself and others are intended to illustrate.
Flightdeck - you are a scary individual. An engineer and pilot who doesn't seem to understand even simple Gaussian distribution statistics. I hope you don't design things that people's lives depend upon.
No, no, and no.
My points were directed at the two people who said:
A) Co-ed sports were a creation of Karl Marx and a tool of Communism;
B)Women are too weak to ever compete and/or participate in co-ed athletics, even in an intramural or social league.
The fact that you beat up a girl one time is totally irrelevant not only to the two points I was referring to, but also to the article at hand which deals with a 15 year old female 2nd baseman.
Go tell your lame war stories elsewhere, because nobody gives a shit.
No.
Excluding psychology of “play” vs. organized teams for real competition and trophys which could lead to college scholarships like my daughter had or to professional sports like many boys desire——you have to play on non-coed teams to develop the correct intensity. True, girls get much better playing against boys (if they don’t get injured)—because boys by nature are superior in desire by nature to be dominant—the strongest where girls have to learn it. Exceptions—yes-—but many boys have their desires and maleness demeaned or disparaged when they are in the formative years. “Competing” against girls disparages their maleness and is trying to get boys to identify with women-—to mold their nature—into what he is not. They are giving the boy a “worldview” (partial—yes—but if he is taught he is no different from girls, he will have that worldview. Differentiation is essential in young boys and harder for boys than girls, but is necessary for natural male sexual development). Breaking away from “mother” to become other is only the step girls have in common with boys-—boys must then (unlike girls) identify with the male role model-Father. Boys natures are more complicated because of this and if no father at home or extended male relatives, it becomes nearly impossible.
If no male role model (why Marx wants family unit destroyed)—then his nature is perverted and he ends up like the Tyler lesbian’s boy who by four was trying to cut off his penis) or he becomes a “gang” member to prove his maleness which he never had modeled to him or he just models himself after women role models and has a hard time fitting into society. Kids copy what they see and their reality can become extremely bizarre if they are not in a normal family structure which loves both maleness and femaleness and models that love and teaches them the differences in nature.
Hatred for self—because there is no “other” to identify is caused in early childhood. It can happen with an abusive father like Hitler’s, boys will refuse to identify with the male in these cases.
Boys like playing with boys-—it is for identification of self—to learn what male is. Girls need to play with girls—to learn what female is, to understand self and reality. True—radical segregation creates irrational societies also. Boys and girls have to learn about their differences by being exposed to the opposite sex in normal situations.
BUT in the Romantic period, (Christian society), we developed chivalry which other non-western societies don’t have. Attitudes are always learned. Respect and dignity came from Christianity—offshoot from Judaism which adopted marriage between one man and one woman—(equality in marriage).This respect of women was learned in family structure—which become the child’s worldview—his reality of the world—what is normal.
Parents who confuse young children into thinking (biologically lies)—that there is no difference between male and female is teaching Marxist lies. It denies nature—denies God’s design. You need to differentiate the sexes.
Marxism has forced women into dominate male roles—like firefighter, where it confuses young boys. Women have no place in a fire department. Less than one percent of women even have the strength to do what the average man can do. Look at children’s books-—firefighters are always female. Policemen are always “female”. In the fifties, there was no gender confusion. It is to make men and women interchangeable==for Marx’s utopian society.
Homosexual marriage forces this gender confusion and WILL solidify it. It is why the push for “marriage” and not just civil unions by Marxists—to force the worldview in all little children when they see constant pictures of men kissing, etc. Sexual behavior and attitudes are learned by environment. Societies used to condone pederasty which Judeo/Christian societies eliminated—but Afghanistan still has pederasty is good worldview—and so it is promoted to children who “love” it and can’t wait to be adults and have their own harems.
People want to think that homosexuality is genetic. No. Desire can be directed towards any objects in young childhood by parental interaction. Early childhood determines what qualities children will look for in long term relationships. Indeed, their early childhood determines whether they can trust or not and if they “can” have long term relationships. The object of desire is set in early childhood unless trauma or sexual development interference occurs—such as not letting boys identify and be friends with other boys. They need peer acceptance for healthy development.
Boys are NOT improved by playing with girls-—they do better and improve by playing with boys. Only some girls can compete with boys at a decent level and that is ALWAYS before age 12 or so—until the boys hit puberty. Lots of girls have no desire to be superior in sports, by nature. I knew many girls who could care less about sports. Most boys love sports—and it is nature.
My daughter BTW was superior to other girls and got all MVP awards in high school girl teams because she played with her older brothers who taught her to play like a “boy”. She loved her brothers and copied what she saw-—always playing sports....from her youngest age. It was natural for her to compete like her brothers, but she loved dresses, dance, and her close girlfriends. She always had all-girl things she did also.
Christian ethics only is what created coed teams where males are reviled for hurting women on coed teams. I played as a young girl with the boys in the street and loved the nature of boys....very different from me and my sister. They used to be very respectful although very competitive. I played paper dolls with my sister and loved my baby dolls which my brothers had no interest in. Learned—absolutely, modeled, absolutely, but with glorifying the maleness and femaleness of human beings and acknowledging that there is a difference and that God’s Design is brilliant. Indeed—my Catholic culture made me love God, motherhood and my body, and love men. Then God gave me four boys and a daughter-—whose natures I and my husband could nurture and affirm as was designed by God—not Marx.
Get a load of this guy! He says I’m stupid because I don’t realize men are stronger than women! NO...SHIT... Read slowly and carefully, Mr. Brilliant: not a single person here has ever claimed women are physically equal to men. Now read that sentence again, because your entire narcisstic (but hysterical) argument is apparently hinging on that.
In the mean time, please tell us again how smart you are. It’s unclear from your posts whether you are the smartest person on the continent or the whole planet. I can’t wait to tell all my colleagues I spoke to Mr. Yashcheritsiy, the most intelligent person on the planet, who also once beat up a girl.
As for your “hope”, well I design tactical aircraft. So yes, you could say lives depend on it. Better yet, I teach engineering students how to do it, so after my death, my ignorance of Gaussian distribution statistics will spread through the country like a plague. Jets will fall out of the sky, beware!
Too bad you didn't make that distinction earlier; it would have saved a lot of time.
I played as a young girl with the boys in the street and loved the nature of boys.
Remember, when you're playing with boys, you're playing with COMMUNISM.
You never read the part where I said complete segregation of boys and girls is also abnormal as is forcing boys to include girls in all things. Both are extremes. Girls need to have exclusive things during childhood -—and boys need things like sports teams and Boy Scouts where girls are excluded.
It is what has made Christian societies so fun and exciting for human beings, particularly childhood. Excitement and Awe and Mystery of the opposite sex was embedded into Christian society and the structure of Christian Western Civilization—particularly after the Romantic period and in America.
Eliminating God (Marx) removes the Awe and Mystery and Excitement that should build up in childhood for the optimal most fun relationships.
Marxism’s vulgarism, sex ed which removes mystery and awe and makes sex into an animal urge with no meaning—destroys the Christian worldview of man and woman—removes the dignity and awe.
It is what homosexual marriage does-—removes all meaning and logic from the sex act. Changes the worldview of children who view men and women as interchangeable—no meaning to sex except “feelings” and “urges”. No reponsibility to actions.....Evil becomes Good. Throws God and Christianity out the window and destroys the normal environment which forms emotionally healthy children.
Marx wants weak, non thinking drones.
Congrats, you get this month's non sequitur award.
Marxism aims at a total transformation of the nature of men and women. It is all connected. The removal of Natural Law Theory which is the foundation of American law—is what Marxism needs to destroy to take down all the institutions that made America.
Homosexual “marriage” destroys everything-—God, Laws of Nature, logic, reason, science, The Constitution......it twists and promotes the Big Lie better than everything-—for it will corrupt the worldview of all the children like all homosexual cultures did where women are always treated as cattle and breeders. We will allow law to force segregation of the sexes and promote hatred for the very nature of mankind and God and allow children to be pawns and denied their biological parents—by force of law. A truly Frankenstein unnatural world.
We will be in a Brave New World.
Again, there are plenty of women who have the smarts and muscle to keep up with men.
And there are absolutely girls who can keep up on the high school playing fields.
Schools can do what they want. Folks can practice their faith how they want.
But if you think the women who rode in the Covered wagons in the 1850’s we little weak creatures who sat at the feet of their men...well, you have been watching too much 1950’s TV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.