Women Are Not Oppressed.

[chicagoY]

I'm writing a book now, but all of those magazines can be seen in grocery store aisles.

Intimate knowledge? Well, I try, lol. I'm no Jung though but improving.

[chicagoY]

It's a 20 page chapter now. My book will be 200 pages. I have 141 as of tonight. I don't get anything done on Saturdays or much during the week. I hope to be done by May but I'm lazy. Now with the online poker disaster I hope to have more time. I mean, already I have since pulling 1 K out this week from 2 sites. I may play live now.

[chicagoY]

I disagree, I think it's pretty good but i respect your diversity.

Oh, no straw men there. Women being oppressed is a given to many people. Didn't you hear the Pelosi non-sense over the past 2 weeks?

No, women aren't objectified although if you want objectification you can make use of the old evolutionary psych argument that a man is an object of status and women are an object of beauty.

[chicagoY]

I'm none of the above but I appreciate you taking the time to read it anyway.

[chicagoY]

I try not to be too original and footnote whenever I can. The whole chapter has about 80 footnotes but the book isn't as research oriented on the whole. Maybe my next one will be though.

[chicagoY]

1. There's a complete shortage of workplaces that discriminate against women. If they do that and make it known they're dead.
2. There is no statistically significant wage gap. That's there's a difference is due to female choice.
3. Women are not oppressed or objectified in our society. Certainly they are in Saudi Arabia, however.
4. Oh no, that's from C. MacKinnon. She said "women never lie about rape." The phrase caught fire in the eighties sadly. All human beings lie. It's not a sex thing.
5. The images aren't harmful. Women appreciate them on the whole or find them useful otherwise they wouldn't buy them.
6. I don't really think there are too many ad hominem arguments here. What I say is accurate. You also misunderstand argumentation. Describing your opponent negatively is fine PROVIDED you answer their positions which I do quite convincingly.
7.Nope, there are no studies showing I'm wrong, lol.
8. Feminist do say that. Fat has long been a feminist issue. I'm here to enlighten you so don't feel like you have to say thanks but here's a great
article
article on the subject.
9.Actually, oxygen and Lifetime are good examples because they have an agenda to show women in a positive light.
10. I think they're stupid channels and ideas so that's why i am making fun of them. If you like them that's okay.
11. Ann Coulter's a bit thin for me but I'm sure she'd have a hot assistant,lol.

[chicagoY]

They're all about totalitarism and control. They represent women's interests about as much as Marxists represent day traders.

[chicagoY]

I do a lot more than the person I was responding to! That was slam dunk. If the purchasers of Cosmo are happier than those women then where are we? The goal of their theories is to get the rest of society to be as disturbed and depressed as they are. If women write things that women love like Cosmo then there is no argument. There are far more Cosmo buyers than radical feminists.
Nah, that was a fine article. I admit it's incomplete though but the response to Dombrowski I was able to separate out.

[chicagoY]

1. Women aren't victims.
2. Most women get what they want a lot more than feminists or dudes who are neo-chivalry suckers.

[chicagoY]

Cosmo's never been controlled by a he. I think Helen G. Brown was the editor forever. Bills, you sir are a good man. Thanks.