I believe girls should not be educated
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
All women shall be educated by BadzMaro
My rehabilitation centre with full facilities to cater to all kinds of education for women under my supervision.
The world will be a safer place , increase in birthrate , n world peace. And my first decree... Thou Shalt PARTY !
NICE!
-
I see this topic had brought in the attention of several male chauvinists
NS allows men to train up their discipline level and think maturely
Thats why in today's society, most immature and childish people are women.
-crimsontactics
I'm glad national service had benefited you in those areas, but I'm certain there're the men who didn't need an unchosen enlistment to be disciplined and mature.
Given what you said 'bout the women in today's society; it's difficult for me to give you the benefit of doubt that indeed NS helped you think maturely.
Please, no disrespect there, just my 2 cents worth. It should be a free country after all
-
Originally posted by parn:
This benchmarks ONLY applies to guys who have FEAR of Hardships towards NS.
Not every guys are as wussy as some here who are afraid of the hardships in NS.
Thus, people including guys and girls who have a fear of hardships will find it really difficult to live and survive in the working world.
Thank you for your reply, parn.The kind of hardships we experience in NS is different from the kind of hardships in the concrete jungle. As for whatever wussiness, you may argue that NS builds character...
But lets not go there
I'd like to quote something by The Bear, in this particular thread "Wrongful charge: IPPT" In the SAF Forum.
He said
this is the SAF.. which is short for Stupid And F**ked-up
the whole shebang is run by NSFs who would rather not be there, so all the records are horrible at best and FUBAR and SNAFU almost all the time..
I share his sentiment.
-
Originally posted by Detached:
I see this topic had brought in the attention of several male chauvinists
I'm glad national service had benefited you in those areas, but I'm certain there're the men who didn't need an unchosen enlistment to be disciplined and mature.
Given what you said 'bout the women in today's society; it's difficult for me to give you the benefit of doubt that indeed NS helped you think maturely.
Please, no disrespect there, just my 2 cents worth. It should be a free country after all
While, no offense taken, SG is promoting free speech anyway.
I presume this according to what youyayu had said.
According to her, NS helps develop ones maturity.
So from this statement, i can presume that since female are not required to attend NS, they should be considered as "immature".
And also please also do take into consideration the "most" i have set in placed.
Hope this can clear some of your misconceptions.
-
I'd like to present my view on modern social dynamics related to gender issues, slightly deviating from the thread topic. If you have the time, do read through the post.
----
I honestly think, biologically speaking, that the modern conception of gender equality is an anomaly. I'm not saying that girls are inferior, because i do have female friends who are much more capable than i am. But i somehow think that nature has a role in place for each gender, and the modern conception of 'gender equality' is a retardation of nature.
Have you realised, that in every country where gender equality is prominent, birthrates fall dramatically such that populations cannot even sustain themselves ? How can this be evolutionarily proper, that a populus, without outside interference, is wiping itself out?
Sure, there are those who will say that falling birthrates are due to economic development, leading to stress, leading to social changes. But, the root cause of these problems is the upsetting of traditional gender roles.
If women had stayed out of the economy as a whole, leaving the men at work (which has been the case seen the start of humanity), economic growth would be slower, competitiveness will be lower, costs of living would also be lower. This would mean that men can cope as the sole breadwinner, and women can play the traditional role of looking after the family. With this, birthrates will go back to normal levels unlike the current situation where both parents usually have to work.
And I'd like to ask, what is wrong with the traditional female role? Why do females look down on their own noble role as caretakers of the family? Its something that men can hardly cope with, and is a role biologically suited to the female (given that women are more sensitive to emotion and are the natural nurturers of children). In this way, there is also gender equality, albeit different from the modern retarded notion of it. In the ideal concept, each gender plays its suited part. Men, who are physically stronger, go out to support the family, and Women, who are more adapt emotionally, take care of the family.
Therefore, the point i'd like to bring across, is that the modern notion of gender equality, appears to be a retardation of natural process. It could be an undesired manifestation of the 20th century's feminist movements. But whatever it is, there seems to be a long term problem associated.
-
Originally posted by uponAStaR:
who is Arnold??
The former hollywood movie star. Now turns politician. -
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
I'd like to present my view on modern social dynamics related to gender issues, slightly deviating from the thread topic. If you have the time, do read through the post.
----
I honestly think, biologically speaking, that the modern conception of gender equality is an anomaly. I'm not saying that girls are inferior, because i do have female friends who are much more capable than i am. But i somehow think that nature has a role in place for each gender, and the modern conception of 'gender equality' is a retardation of nature.
Have you realised, that in every country where gender equality is prominent, birthrates fall dramatically such that populations cannot even sustain themselves ? How can this be evolutionarily proper, that a populus, without outside interference, is wiping itself out?
Sure, there are those who will say that falling birthrates are due to economic development, leading to stress, leading to social changes. But, the root cause of these problems is the upsetting of traditional gender roles.
If women had stayed out of the economy as a whole, leaving the men at work (which has been the case seen the start of humanity), economic growth would be slower, competitiveness will be lower, costs of living would also be lower. This would mean that men can cope as the sole breadwinner, and women can play the traditional role of looking after the family. With this, birthrates will go back to normal levels unlike the current situation where both parents usually have to work.
And I'd like to ask, what is wrong with the traditional female role? Why do females look down on their own noble role as caretakers of the family? Its something that men can hardly cope with, and is a role biologically suited to the female (given that women are more sensitive to emotion and are the natural nurturers of children). In this way, there is also gender equality, albeit different from the modern retarded notion of it. In the ideal concept, each gender plays its suited part. Men, who are physically stronger, go out to support the family, and Women, who are more adapt emotionally, take care of the family.
Therefore, the point i'd like to bring across, is that the modern notion of gender equality, appears to be a retardation of natural process. It could be an undesired manifestation of the 20th century's feminist movements. But whatever it is, there seems to be a long term problem associated.
life is just more interesting with gender equality... -
Originally posted by youyayu:
gee.. well.. women are created to be helpers of man.. not becoming one themself..
Man getting pregeant is againts nature, or rather in a christian point of view is against God.
God wanted to put women here to "be fruitful and to multiply"
See what you said above will spark any argument from the u c. -
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
Therefore, the point i'd like to bring across, is that the modern notion of gender equality, appears to be a retardation of natural process. It could be an undesired manifestation of the 20th century's feminist movements. But whatever it is, there seems to be a long term problem associated.
Feminism ?This is just the beginning my friend.. its either gonna destroy the human race or bring about world peace.
whats next.. we need views from Homonism and Trannyism ? Lesboism ? lol..
-
Originally posted by youyayu:
not everything science can explain.
Example.. love for one is not explanable.. but for ppl like parn, love = 30k ring
She is a christian leh. In the biblical context, love of money is the root of all evil. Ha ha ha ha. -
Originally posted by skythewood:
life is just more interesting without gender equality... -
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
While, no offense taken, SG is promoting free speech anyway.
I presume this according to what youyayu had said.
According to her, NS helps develop ones maturity.
So from this statement, i can presume that since female are not required to attend NS, they should be considered as "immature".
And also please also do take into consideration the "most" i have set in placed.
Hope this can clear some of your misconceptions.
Thanks for the reply, crimson.
Not to be insolent, but if you've based your presumption on a particular forumer - I'd say you'd have better luck if you place all your money on the casino table.
While I take into consideration the 'most' you've set in place, I still disagree with that particular forumer's statement and your deduction.
To be fair, I admit I'm no patriot. But life, maturity and experiences are more than 2 years of just-for-show conscription. I'm almost certain that particular forumer would object to what I said, but to those idealists whom haven't seen things first hand, I suggest that they should not make a stand too quickly.
Anyway, we've strayed too far from the original topic.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Feminism ?This is just the beginning my friend.. its either gonna destroy the human race or bring about world peace.
whats next.. we need views from Homonism and Trannyism ? Lesboism ? lol..
like i said, the feminist notion of gender equality is systematically wiping out the human race, starting in developed countries.
the other 'views' dont have the critical mass im afraid
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
I'd like to present my view on modern social dynamics related to gender issues, slightly deviating from the thread topic. If you have the time, do read through the post.
----
I honestly think, biologically speaking, that the modern conception of gender equality is an anomaly. I'm not saying that girls are inferior, because i do have female friends who are much more capable than i am. But i somehow think that nature has a role in place for each gender, and the modern conception of 'gender equality' is a retardation of nature.
Have you realised, that in every country where gender equality is prominent, birthrates fall dramatically such that populations cannot even sustain themselves ? How can this be evolutionarily proper, that a populus, without outside interference, is wiping itself out?
Sure, there are those who will say that falling birthrates are due to economic development, leading to stress, leading to social changes. But, the root cause of these problems is the upsetting of traditional gender roles.
If women had stayed out of the economy as a whole, leaving the men at work (which has been the case seen the start of humanity), economic growth would be slower, competitiveness will be lower, costs of living would also be lower. This would mean that men can cope as the sole breadwinner, and women can play the traditional role of looking after the family. With this, birthrates will go back to normal levels unlike the current situation where both parents usually have to work.
And I'd like to ask, what is wrong with the traditional female role? Why do females look down on their own noble role as caretakers of the family? Its something that men can hardly cope with, and is a role biologically suited to the female (given that women are more sensitive to emotion and are the natural nurturers of children). In this way, there is also gender equality, albeit different from the modern retarded notion of it. In the ideal concept, each gender plays its suited part. Men, who are physically stronger, go out to support the family, and Women, who are more adapt emotionally, take care of the family.
Therefore, the point i'd like to bring across, is that the modern notion of gender equality, appears to be a retardation of natural process. It could be an undesired manifestation of the 20th century's feminist movements. But whatever it is, there seems to be a long term problem associated.
The first intellectual post, I've been awaiting.However, time is pressing and I must leave. I shall honor you tonight when I return.
-
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:
like i said, the feminist notion of gender equality is systematically wiping out the human race, starting in developed countries.
the other 'views' dont have the critical mass im afraid
well.. given enough time friend.. its gonna have critical mass. N its coming in a neat package called liberalism.
-
Originally posted by Detached:
Thanks for the reply, crimson.
Not to be insolent, but if you've based your presumption on a particular forumer - I'd say you'd have better luck if you place all your money on the casino table.
While I take into consideration the 'most' you've set in place, I still disagree with that particular forumer's statement and your deduction.
To be fair, I admit I'm no patriot. But life, maturity and experiences are more than 2 years of just-for-show conscription. I'm almost certain that particular forumer would object to what I said, but to those idealists whom haven't seen things first hand, I suggest that they should not make a stand too quickly.
Anyway, we've strayed too far from the original topic.
I meant that post to be a response to what she had said and not to generalise things.
Yeah i agree, we did strayed a little far
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
well.. given enough time friend.. its gonna have critical mass. N its coming in a neat package called liberalism.
ah yes ! good point mate. i forgot all about liberalism.perhaps it will exarcebate the damage that has already been done
-
actually i do agree that woman should be less educated..
-
It would be suicidal to openly agree that women should be less educated with feminists like Parn in existance. Thus, I take a more neutral stand. Forgive me if there is any inaccuracies in my case, I have reviewed the past pages of posts ( skipping pages 1-4 as they involve parn besmirching the name of man and her ultimately getting wtfpwnt!).
I have concluded that at the present stage, it would be impossible to strip women of their rights to education. Judging from the responses of the ladies, the mere notion of connecting them with "not allowed to be educated" has triggered off a scene that would be rightfully associated with the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn".
However, we must consider the outcome of having women not being educated. I fully agree with hyperion's earlier post. The traditional gender roles of women have been upsetted and this is mostly due to rising education rates among the female populace.I also agree fully with him/her stating that there is NOTHING wrong with the female gender role of being a homemaker. Is bringing home a million dollars more satisfying than knowing you have raised and bred three wonderful and productive members of society who love and adore you? Even parn would think twice before abusing this statement.
Now let us fully review the pros and cons of this situation:
Pros
-An increase in childbirth rates
It is a fact that due to women going out to work, married couples have less children as they simply have no time to look after children. With recent government incentives, the notion of having "no money" is a poor excuse for having no children.
-Better bred children
Ever heard of the phrase "your mother never teach you properly isit". Yes, with the watchful eyes of a motherly figure, our society will have less mats,chao ah bengs, pai kias and ah lians. Less people going to ITE too. And less chances of pregnant men, urgh.There might be more benefits to this however i've been unable to think of anymore. However I would like to remind everyone that because of low child birth rates, "foreign talent" has been allowed to do the damage it has done to our society. Other ugly consequences have also been arising, I do not wish to make any mention of them.
-Cons
-A smaller skilled workforce
The most obvious of the problems that will surface, women make up a substancial portion of singapore's workforce, by taking them away we face a possible collapse of our economy.-The rise of femenism
Just look at parn, we don't need more of them around bitching about not being allowed education. "you useless men just don't like capable women like us outperforming you, pussies, pussies PUSSIES!" well you get the idea. We don't need more general rioting in singapore. Dr chee soon juan is entertaining enough.-More human rights abuse.
Possibly the UN is going to have another thing to add in singapore's human rights abuses, pushing our ranking as a facist country even higher up the charts.I regret that as a man there is a grain of chauvinism in my blood, and that involves wanting women to be more passive than men. I believe every men in the world has that small grain of chavinism, the question is wheather we choose to show it or not. Education has disrupted the intricate tradition of women and their roles, that I believe was a mistake. nevertheless the situation is as such, we cannot seek to change this new environment, for us men, the days of the nice girl who would listen to our every command and do our bidding is long past.More women WILL be educated and there is nothing we can do about it like it or not. Time to police up your D***s and adapt boys!
Trivial fact: The Y chromosone is going to die out in 20,000 years time! What does that mean? The end of sexual reproduction! Thus, we can all see this topic will be very pointless in 20,000 years time!
-
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:
It would be suicidal to openly agree that women should be less educated with feminists like Parn in existance. Thus, I take a more neutral stand. Forgive me if there is any inaccuracies in my case, I have reviewed the past pages of posts ( skipping pages 1-4 as they involve parn besmirching the name of man and her ultimately getting wtfpwnt!).
I have concluded that at the present stage, it would be impossible to strip women of their rights to education. Judging from the responses of the ladies, the mere notion of connecting them with "not allowed to be educated" has triggered off a scene that would be rightfully associated with the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn".
However, we must consider the outcome of having women not being educated. I fully agree with hyperion's earlier post. The traditional gender roles of women have been upsetted and this is mostly due to rising education rates among the female populace.I also agree fully with him/her stating that there is NOTHING wrong with the female gender role of being a homemaker. Is bringing home a million dollars more satisfying than knowing you have raised and bred three wonderful and productive members of society who love and adore you? Even parn would think twice before abusing this statement.
Now let us fully review the pros and cons of this situation:
Pros
-An increase in childbirth rates
It is a fact that due to women going out to work, married couples have less children as they simply have no time to look after children. With recent government incentives, the notion of having "no money" is a poor excuse for having no children.
-Better bred children
Ever heard of the phrase "your mother never teach you properly isit". Yes, with the watchful eyes of a motherly figure, our society will have less mats,chao ah bengs, pai kias and ah lians. Less people going to ITE too. And less chances of pregnant men, urgh.There might be more benefits to this however i've been unable to think of anymore. However I would like to remind everyone that because of low child birth rates, "foreign talent" has been allowed to do the damage it has done to our society. Other ugly consequences have also been arising, I do not wish to make any mention of them.
-Cons
-A smaller skilled workforce
The most obvious of the problems that will surface, women make up a substancial portion of singapore's workforce, by taking them away we face a possible collapse of our economy.-The rise of femenism
Just look at parn, we don't need more of them around bitching about not being allowed education. "you useless men just don't like capable women like us outperforming you, pussies, pussies PUSSIES!" well you get the idea. We don't need more general rioting in singapore. Dr chee soon juan is entertaining enough.-More human rights abuse.
Possibly the UN is going to have another thing to add in singapore's human rights abuses, pushing our ranking as a facist country even higher up the charts.I regret that as a man there is a grain of chauvinism in my blood, and that involves wanting women to be more passive than men. I believe every men in the world has that small grain of chavinism, the question is wheather we choose to show it or not. Education has disrupted the intricate tradition of women and their roles, that I believe was a mistake. nevertheless the situation is as such, we cannot seek to change this new environment, for us men, the days of the nice girl who would listen to our every command and do our bidding is long past.More women WILL be educated and there is nothing we can do about it like it or not. Time to police up your D***s and adapt boys!
Trivial fact: The Y chromosone is going to die out in 20,000 years time! What does that mean? The end of sexual reproduction! Thus, we can all see this topic will be very pointless in 20,000 years time!
"you useless men just don't like capable women like us outperforming you, pussies, pussies PUSSIES!"So far, the above sentence is still very true.
Will you guys still whine if you're enlisted in police and not army?
Unfortunately, my post carries a certain truth which is just presented to an insensible audience.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
True.
So does that means girls, who will never get to taste of hardships of NS, are bound to be failures?
Isn't the answer already in your heart?
Why don't you tell us if you really think it is true?
There are girls who are not able to take hardships in life, and very often that is the reason why they are not able to cope and survive in the working world.
Is that explaination simple enough for you to understand?
-
Anyway if girls were not educated, then how on earth are guys going to have an intelligent conversation/argument with?
With other guys is it?
One thing for sure, having an intelligent conversation/argument with a girl DOES arouse and ignite a guy's desire to sleep with her. Hence, birthrate will INCREASE.
Not true?
-
wow. we have sexists in the forum
-
Originally posted by parn:
Anyway if girls were not educated, then how on earth are guys going to have an intelligent conversation/argument with?
r u trying to say u r not educated?
cos i dun see an intelligent arguement coming from u...
-
Originally posted by uponAStaR:
r u trying to say u r not educated?
cos i dun see an intelligent arguement coming from u...
Isn't that because you're less educated than me?No wonder they never flame you.