PDA

View Full Version : Islam in Europe



Mota Boy
11-08-2004, 04:30 PM
Today a Muslim school was bombed in the Netherlands in an apparent retaliation of the murder of Theo van Gogh, in an apparent retaliation for his movie about the oppression of women under Islam.

And, of course, France recently implemented a policy banning religious symbols from schools, a policy directly aimed at combatting the rising presence of Islam. We also see many nationalist parties gaining ground across the continent.

So you think that this is just a difficult period of integration comparable to violence in the American south during our civil rights movement, or do you think that this is just the beginning of a larger conflict?

HornyPope
11-08-2004, 05:07 PM
A huge topic. Too many questions. Try breaking it down in parts -- maybe i'll bite then.

SicN Twisted
11-08-2004, 11:19 PM
The problems with Arabs in Europe have existed for over a hundred years, and on a much greater scale then racism in the American south because it happens throughout Europe and is still reletively state sanctioned.

I'll add that France's banning of religious imagery has nothing to do with Islam - Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses either. This is because the current French republic was established to reaciton to the oppressive Catholic church, and the government wants to take a stand against public religion, which they believe includes religious displays in public schools.

HornyPope
11-09-2004, 01:13 AM
When I mean the topic is huge i'm not saying "lol wtvr tihs to long 4 me", I mean the issues you brought up are each too broad and could be debated for long pages unless shaped into more specifics. So i'll follow up on Sic's post:

Islam has a very long history in Europe. Many smallish ethic communities, more than half of which I can't claim to know by name, have lived in those lands for centuries. Many have mingled--and merged--with the Euro Caucasians. They are entierly different from the post-WW2 immigrant wave.

As for the French law, it is aimed at all religions in the nation. That a lot of Islamists have taken it as a personal injure offers no support to your assertion of "a combat against Islam". One's studying of the French history and culture will prove that this is a predictable and imminent curve. Whether this decree transcends one's personal freedoms is an entire debate on it's own.

Mota Boy
11-09-2004, 01:43 AM
I'm aware that you thought the post was too broad. Quite simply though, I don't know that much about the issue, so I was hoping to get a general assessment of European race relations. My idea of the situation is that it's an escalating problem that could be one of the big issues in Europe's next century.

Also, while the French ban on religious symbols is directed at all symbols, every characterization of the law I've heard suggests that it was created largely to enforce secularism on France's Muslim community. True, it's universal, but it was created in part as a response to the rise in women in traditional Islamic guard visible in French schools, hospitals etc.

OK, my brain is feeling far too fried to continue.

JoY
11-09-2004, 07:40 AM
intolerance is a bitch.
I don't understand why so many still follow the Koran & worship their religion like it's sugar 'n fat, if it simply goes against human rights. it breeds intolerance not only against other cultures & religions, but even against their own women. *shakes head*
why believe in the book that's mean? just fucking switch, man.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 09:45 AM
There are Christians every bit as bad as the most intolerant muslim. Especially in America for example, so don't believe that it's unique to Islam.

Now one should also and always remember that the position of Muslims in Europe is a precarious one. The immigrants are and will not be able to integrate into society. This would be due to the apprehension we "natives" have. Immigrants from the middle East cannot use their university degrees for anything, they cannot get any job that they are qualified for in whatever country they chose. In Denmark this means many of them open pizzarias, kiosks and drive taxis to make whatever little money they can.

This creates an element of society divided along race and class lines. The class that the muslim immigrants usually fall into is what is usually called the lumpenproletar. They get the shittiest jobs, generally live in ghetto-like conditions and are pretty much isolated from "normal" society. Crime is higher in these conditions because well obviously this is a step down for them. I mean they live in society that won't accept them, and no matter how hard they work they can't change that. Not only that, but instead of looking at the problem with it's true roots, nationalists of each European country say that it is due to their culture and skin color, that's why they commit more crimes, that's why they do whatever. Anything bad they ever do, that's why, there can't possibly be an explanation. They can't possibly be representing a class that has always existed in society. According to European historians, welfare has solved all problems. Now immigrants have come and messed everything up, actually what really happened is that immigrants are now the ones doing the shit-jobs and the former lumpenproletar is pushed up, been re-educated for a new shiney job.

So the situation in Europe now has several problems. But I am merely trying to outline what I know from my experience in Denmark. What we have is people travelling from countries which have relatively poor conditions for their citizens, whose cultures are generally backwards and slightly intolerant to change. That's seen from European eyes, however European culture is hardly the epitome of progress, but we'll never admit that.

Anyways as far as banning the religious symbols in France, that makes sense. As far as banning the hijab in Europe (specifically in France at the moment), that makes sense as well, it's a remnant and reminder of a strong patriarchic society. However what we are doing is trying to force feminism on a people who perhaps aren't ready for it yet. Who have a hard time accepting it and who will rebel against it, a very hard way to solve contradictions among the people.

Oh and on the banning of religious symbols, it was strongly supported by Le Front, who are fiercely nationalist, and thus fiercely anti-muslim. That's where the misconception comes from.

Anyways these are my thoughts.

Nina
11-09-2004, 10:14 AM
my opinion is that ALL religious symbols should be
banned from school, not just the islamic ones. i had
no idea that in france they actually had such rules.
well, i appriciate and support it.
call me closed minded, but i absolutely believe that
"religion class" should not be taught at school but
somewhere parents can send their children to if they
really must.

Vera
11-09-2004, 12:17 PM
Slightly unrelated, but this girl in my school has Christian rock lyrics all over her locker door and beneath them there is a picture of her that says "Still in love with Jesus" and a picture of a golden fish in a pack of gray fish and under it it says: Different in just the right way.

This totally pisses me off. Christian rock lyrics? Dude, whatever. If you want to like crap music, go ahead. You love Jesus? Okay, I'm cool with that as well.

But different in just the right way? WTF BITCH, that is just like saying "I'm cooler than everyone else because I BELIEVE". What arrogant bullshit. As a person of no faith and no religion, I find that sort of offensive.

Despite all this (plus the other annoying true believers at our school who look at my friend funny, because she listens to metal music & wears black), I don't support the thing they're carrying out in France. Were I religious, I'd wish to carry some sort of sign of my faith with me, I'm sure. What's the use of having freedom of religion if you can't show "wear your religion", show others around you what your faith is?

And to Joy - I believe that many muslims believe their religion to be a very peaceful one. As for Koran, I have not read it, but if you haven't either, I'd suggest you wouldn't judge it. After all, people interpret the Bible in the most twisted ways, as well.

Vera
11-09-2004, 12:21 PM
And as for religion classes, well, I think I might've said everything I had to say about that in an argument with Mota Boy not so long ago, but in summary, I think religion classes are a good thing. As long as they don't teach faith but rather, religion in itself. And other religions, as well.

I mean, they teach theology in universities, don't they?

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 12:35 PM
Vera- well if the only point of a religion is to show others what your religion is, then I think it's perfectly justifiable to ban it. In reality this "showing off your religion" is just a divisory thing, much like the "different in just the right way" is.

Personally, I follow the James Connolly view that religion is something that, as long as done in private, is no one's business. However it really doesn't have much place in public institutes, anything run by the state should be run in objectivity and logic.

Islam is a very peaceful religion. I've never met a hostile muslim. However the extremist elements, such as Wahhabism for example, are backwards. Incredibly patriarchic and detrimental, however you can find equally bad cases of Christian male-chauvinism back in the US. Violent Islam, terrorism if you must name it that, stems in areas of the world that oppression against muslims happens. Iraq and Israel are the most obvious reasons. They see this as a war against oppression. And I do think they are right. However personal terrorism will never set them free, it's always been a failed strategy. But that's another case.

NOAMR
11-09-2004, 12:38 PM
Yeah. I mean, if u wonna let the other people know what your religion/ideology is, that's your right. It's who they are for them. U maybe also put something from The Offspring, or an anarchist sign or whatever on your bag or something. That's just saying, that's my opinion, and their's nothing wrong with that. Girls who wear a hijab, are often searching an identidy. Off course, if they have to, it's not good too, but that's no reason to say that they can't do that.

Vera
11-09-2004, 12:47 PM
Of course I didn't mean that's the only point of religion (otherwise I wouldn't said so), but I meant that for a lot of people their faith is a part of who they are. They want to show they love God because they feel their faith is a part of their personality, their being, so hiding this from the rest of the world would be like a teenager not being allowed to wear a t-shirt of their ultimate favourite band, only much worse.

I've never been a religious person or had faith, but I've always figured that if I was, I would feel like it was an important part of my life, something I hold dear to myself and definitely something I wouldn't feel free to share with everyone.

And wearing religious symbols would just be one way to say, "hello, this is my faith, it's a part of who I am and I'm not ashamed of it".

Whether it's divisory or not is trivial to me, because in schools there are bound to be different crowds. School uniforms, banning religious symbols, nothing can remove that from the environment of school, limiting it would just be limiting personal freedom in my opinion.

Izie
11-09-2004, 01:31 PM
I am a religious person. I agree with both Vera and wcm, on some accounts.

I wouldn't like it if I wasn't allowed to wear symbols of faith. Yet again, I like it even less when people try to force it by wearing a cross 10cm long. I think that's vulgar, needless and maybe even against the religion (religion teaches modesty last time I checked). Although, I have to limit myself to speaking generaly of orthodox christians, since I don't know enough about other religions (I know the basics of every religion, but of course I know mine best).

I find it ridiculous how people are able to twist religion, and I dislike it. Almost every religion has fanatics who will say that that is the only right religion, mainly because they could interpret the written records of the religion this way.

I want to keep my religion personal. I don't flash it, I don't talk about it unless people ask me, I don't think my religion is better than others, I don't think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I also tend to think that how someone takes his/her religion depends on the personality of that person, and their upbringing, since religion is quite connected with tradition (with orthodox people anyway).

And I dislike the fact that religion in general has completely gone down the drain the moment they started invoving it with money. The Franciscan Order was probably the last christian order/movement I admire. Even though they were catholics.

Sorry if I was incoherent, not my night tonight.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 01:45 PM
NOAMR- Muslim girls don't wear the hijab because they want to. Well some do, but then there were also women who were against women's rights to vote as well. It's obviously a sign of patriarchy and is not necessary. However banning it will not remove the patriarchic parts of any culture. It will just make it less visible.

Vera, that's true that's what a religious symbol does. But it also attaches several stereotypes to a person as well, generalizes and stereotypes them.

Izie, I agree with you about the decline of religion. Religions tend to be much more respectable when they have not been influenced by whatever ruling powers who need to use religion to affirm their influence.

Vera
11-09-2004, 01:51 PM
That's true, but then again, what you wear, whatever it is, makes people make assumptions about you. The symbol itself doesn't make the stereotypes, it's the people who see it. So change should happen in the people, change in attitudes, more acceptance etc. Getting rid of the symbols would just be, like I said, limiting personal freedom in my opinion. If someone chooses to wear a religious symbol, it is their personal choice and one that should be respected.

Izie
11-09-2004, 02:02 PM
That's true, but then again, what you wear, whatever it is, makes people make assumptions about you. The symbol itself doesn't make the stereotypes, it's the people who see it. So change should happen in the people, change in attitudes, more acceptance etc. Getting rid of the symbols would just be, like I said, limiting personal freedom in my opinion. If someone chooses to wear a religious symbol, it is their personal choice and one that should be respected.

I sincerely doubt that the day will come when people won't make religious stereotypes. Too much history, too many steretypes, and they just keep growing.

99%of the organized religions need serious changes in organization.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 02:09 PM
Hmm but the French government didn't ban the religious wearings everywhere. Just in publicly owned places (schools, and like people who worked in hospitals for instance.) Which makes sense, the public sector should be secular. If people don't like that they can go to a private school if it means so much to them.

Izie you might find Liberation Theology interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology
There are some links at the bottom.

SicN Twisted
11-09-2004, 07:31 PM
It's the same logic as disallowing imagery of the swastika in Germany. As I said before, the current French government exists as an alternative to the religious nobility. It was created by secularists who liberated the country from centuries of tyranical religious rule. Religion to the French is what oppressed their people, so they're trying to forget it and progres sinto the future.

Izie
11-10-2004, 01:01 AM
Izie you might find Liberation Theology interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology
There are some links at the bottom.

Eh, I'm late for school, but I just took a look and it seems very interesting, will tell more when I read more :)

lousyskater
11-10-2004, 02:04 AM
It's the same logic as disallowing imagery of the swastika in Germany. As I said before, the current French government exists as an alternative to the religious nobility. It was created by secularists who liberated the country from centuries of tyranical religious rule. Religion to the French is what oppressed their people, so they're trying to forget it and progres sinto the future.

i wish the US could be more like france then. i highly doubt that it was meant just for the islamic religion. if it was truly specifically for islam, they would have made loopholes for the favored religion.


intolerance is a bitch.
I don't understand why so many still follow the Koran & worship their religion like it's sugar 'n fat, if it simply goes against human rights. it breeds intolerance not only against other cultures & religions, but even against their own women. *shakes head*
why believe in the book that's mean? just fucking switch, man.

it's not just the koran. if i remember correctly, the bible is no different. defieling women and supporting the destruction of other beliefs. like i said, not much different.
________
APARTMENT FOR SALE PATTAYA (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:41 AM
There are Christians every bit as bad as the most intolerant muslim. Especially in America for example, so don't believe that it's unique to Islam.



I defy you to say that after you've visted parts of London esp. where some extreme mosques are. I've never seen any religion as intolerant as Islam. Islam itself may not be intolerent but the people who practice it in their own fucked up way are.

But then again you could counter with the KKK in the US.

But even in schools. Muslims are the most intolerent. You wouldn't get it unless you were here.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 03:31 AM
No I honestly don't know how it is in London. But there are very bad examples of religious intolerance schools in America as well. Hell even on TV when the 700 Club started praying "that something may happen to the liberal judges".

RXP
11-10-2004, 05:27 AM
IMHO and experience of my schooling and area no religon forces itself upon others as much as Islam. In the London universities it's esp. bad. There were a couple of guys from my old school who were pretty smart (I never knew them) that went to LSE and were involved in the 9/11 plot.

There's a lot of shit going down that most people don't see. But if you keep your eyes and ears open it's all going on. People need to stop being blinded by pluristic goals and follow the French method. But I don't really get how the French ban got past Article 9 of the ECHR. I gotta look that up. Cause it doesn't make any sense.

Betty
11-10-2004, 07:46 AM
I appreciate RXP's personal experience in this, because in reality, stereotypes exist for a reason. This does not mean that they are true in every case, but if the stereotype exists that muslim religions are most oppressive, there is a reason for it, even though not all muslims would be that way.

Unrelated to the banning of symbols in France, because I don't know all the reasons behind it... I would say I agree with Vera on the point:

"Whether it's divisory or not is trivial to me, because in schools there are bound to be different crowds. School uniforms, banning religious symbols, nothing can remove that from the environment of school, limiting it would just be limiting personal freedom in my opinion."

I don't believe that society should teach people to all be the same so that less conflict will result due to their differences, but that they should be teaching people to embrace and accept the differences that do exist. Yes, this is a difficult task, but banning religious symbols is just a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem, and limits, as Vera said, personal freedom. Now, I definitely support the fact that one's personal freedom should not impede on another's personal freedom, but some people take this way too far. Like, people are offended by everything. I for one, would not be offended by this girl with the "different in just the right way" thing because really, who cares. I've heard of cases in the US where CHRISTMAS TREES were banned because they were a symbol of religious expression. And that's absolutely ridiculous. I guess it's difficult to determine where to draw the line though... but I think that so long as an expression is fairly passive (e.g. wearing or displaying a symbol) and not too pushy (e.g. taking a microphone and preaching in a public place for an extended period when people dont' want you there) it should be okay, and people who are offended should get over it.

Now, if somebody's expression is somehow resulting in danger, for example a (dangerous) gang at a school who wear a specific colour, there would be a reason to ban that colour even though it's not really a complete solution to the problem. So, this might be the case in France? I don't know...

Also, something that bothered me about WCM's comment WAY back regarding Muslim's integration in Europe. I agree that you can attribute some of their behaviour like increased violence in ghettos and whatnot to the class differences resulting from their failed integration into the culture. And, I don't know if you see this as an EXCUSE for the behaviour or not, but I don't think it should be taken that way. LIke, although there may be underlying social reasons for increased violence etc, there still has to be blame associated with it, I think. It's like taking a murder case of a husband who killed their wife because he had issues with him mother as a child resulting in psychological trauma. Sure there is a reason for his actions, but are they then justified? Is this a valid excuse? I don't think so. I don't know if you agree with this, but that's what bothers me about the whole class-based explanation for everything that people do wrong in society.

RXP
11-10-2004, 08:14 AM
Betty you always make good, well argued posts. Post more often.

Vera
11-10-2004, 09:11 AM
I sincerely doubt that the day will come when people won't make religious stereotypes. Too much history, too many steretypes, and they just keep growing.
That is true, but what I basically meant is that people stereotype you anyway as long as they only know you superficially, know you by your looks. The stereotypes of subcultures are almost as negative as those of religion.


I for one, would not be offended by this girl with the "different in just the right way" thing because really, who cares.
Never said I was offended, I'm just really annoyed by it. The whole "holier-than-thou" attitude and everything. Would I want a law that bans those kinds of things? No, of course not. It's her right to do that, I'm not saying it should be removed, but if she were to remove it, I'd be glad.

And just a random point of irritation: RXP & WCM, do use more commas.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 11:11 AM
Also, something that bothered me about WCM's comment WAY back regarding Muslim's integration in Europe. I agree that you can attribute some of their behaviour like increased violence in ghettos and whatnot to the class differences resulting from their failed integration into the culture. And, I don't know if you see this as an EXCUSE for the behaviour or not, but I don't think it should be taken that way. LIke, although there may be underlying social reasons for increased violence etc, there still has to be blame associated with it, I think. It's like taking a murder case of a husband who killed their wife because he had issues with him mother as a child resulting in psychological trauma. Sure there is a reason for his actions, but are they then justified? Is this a valid excuse? I don't think so. I don't know if you agree with this, but that's what bothers me about the whole class-based explanation for everything that people do wrong in society.

Nor am I trying to excuse it. It's not directed to the "judicial system." But more to the policy makers. Because all that happens is we get tougher on crime, while crime tends to rise. Social conditions are the cause of these problems and if we focused on fixing these, these crimes would eventually diminish more and more. However no one tends to do this and that's why crime rises and rises.

Vera, I don't know how to use commas very well. Just learn to deal with it and you'll be a much happier person.

Betty
11-10-2004, 04:01 PM
RXP - Thanks for the comment, I always thought nobody cared (Betty? Who's that?)

Vera - Yeah, I agree it would be annoying. But a LOT of things are annoying... and I guess I've gotten to the point that if I really let them annoy me I think I'd go crazy.

WCM - As long as it's not an excuse, that's cool. Although, I think that the class problem is very difficult to solve and I mostly don't like the way that some of the well... I guess... people with your ideology... would go about solving it. But I would be interested in realistic solutions that aren't socialism/welfare oriented. And I'm sure there must be some... But there will always be "classes", I think.

And I've never noticed a problem with commas. I DO love them, but haven't noticed a lack thereof.

JoY
11-11-2004, 05:45 AM
it's not just the koran. if i remember correctly, the bible is no different. defieling women and supporting the destruction of other beliefs. like i said, not much different.
to convert is not the same. & you can be anti-femenistic, or just plain anti-women. it seems for the Islam all women are nothing more than mistakes, which come in handy for breeding-machines.

really, I've read the bible. I don't think it's all that mean. & doesn't the religion itself somewhat prove it? right, there have been many wars justified by Christians with a bible in their right hand, but if overal you look around you at who has the most peaceful religion...... it's definitely not the Islam.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 08:24 AM
really, I've read the bible. I don't think it's all that mean. & doesn't the religion itself somewhat prove it? right, there have been many wars justified by Christians with a bible in their right hand, but if overal you look around you at who has the most peaceful religion...... it's definitely not the Islam.

Actually it has nothing to do with the religion. There is not a single word in the Holy Qu'ran about abusing women nor has Mohammed ever said that. It's far more a cultural thing and this is propagated by the local sheikhs etc.

Furthermore there is a lot of sexism in the bible. The story of Adam and Eve for example is meant to show that women came from men, and that women cannot be equal to men.

Betty
11-11-2004, 08:33 AM
I think the catholic religion is terribly sexist...

A woman can't be a priest. Still, in this day and age. How ridiculous is that?

sKratch
11-11-2004, 08:44 AM
And dammit men still can't be nuns.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:09 AM
I think the catholic religion is terribly sexist...

A woman can't be a priest. Still, in this day and age. How ridiculous is that?
I agree completely. However the foundation of all religions is in conservatism (social not economic) and against change. That's why this sexism seems so strange to us. However Liberation Theology for instance, is something radically different and something I find cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology

RXP
11-11-2004, 09:40 AM
women cannot be equal to men.

They can't. They're weaker. The whole sexual equality is fucking stupid.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:42 AM
Sexual inequality stems from culture and upbringing. There are tribes where women play the dominant role because they are stronger. Studies now show that women do better here in Denmark at school than boys do. Your opinion is based on social-prejudice and traditionalism.

RXP
11-11-2004, 09:48 AM
Women do better in school cause they mature quicker (is that school as in school or uni?).

I'm stating facts. Men are stronger, faster etc. women aren't. Men and women have equal brain power say, but men still have the physical edge.

Of course there's female power lifters that can bench 300lbs and I can do fuckin 105. But I'm talking about holistically.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:53 AM
School not Uni. However 20 years ago it was guys who were generally better.

Sports in our society is generally a more guy oriented thing, this is why in this field guys dominate. However it could just as easily be vice-versa.

RXP
11-11-2004, 10:11 AM
No it couldn't.

Men are genetically stronger and faster. A lot of it has to do with muscle growth and testostorone. That's why testostorne is such an effective steriod for women and older men.

There is no way in hell that a women will ever be better than a man in any sport that requires strength and speed. Obviously in like Snooker, Darts or something but not a physical sport esp contact sports.

Vera
11-11-2004, 10:12 AM
I'm stating facts. Men are stronger, faster etc. women aren't. Men and women have equal brain power say, but men still have the physical edge.

Why do I feel like I've gone through this with you before?

Different, but equal. Let me repeat that. Different, but equal. Equal means equal pay, equal rights. It does not mean women should be physically as strong as men.

And to the Bible-thing, the Old Testament has blood, violence, porn and just a lot of women-hating. Basically, women always fucked everything up and got their husbands killed/banished from paradise/killed.

With some things, turns out the sequel really IS better.

RXP
11-11-2004, 10:16 AM
You have, that's why.

Despite my women hating posts I love you lot. And in many ways women are far better than men, esp. emotionally. Easier to open up to, easier to get along with etc. And no matter what way you look at it a good set of breasts is a lot more attractive than cock.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 10:23 AM
Men are genetically stronger and faster. A lot of it has to do with muscle growth and testostorone. That's why testostorne is such an effective steriod for women and older men.

There is no way in hell that a women will ever be better than a man in any sport that requires strength and speed. Obviously in like Snooker, Darts or something but not a physical sport esp contact sports.
Well if we're going into genetics, that is a highly debatable point. The difference is so small in the DNA between man and woman that it really couldn't amount to such a large general difference. And as I've said before, there are those female dominated tribes.

Vera
11-11-2004, 10:33 AM
Then why haven't you gotten it through to your head that the two genders are different, but equal. It isn't a question of which gender is better than the other, it's a question of, yes, you guessed it, equality.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 10:37 AM
Then why haven't you gotten it through to your head that the two genders are different, but equal. It isn't a question of which gender is better than the other, it's a question of, yes, you guessed it, equality.
Excuse me, I'm very tired right now, so I have a very stupid question. But who are you referring to?

Vera
11-11-2004, 10:51 AM
The misogynist extraordinaire, RXP himself.

Though he needs to realize that being a fag doesn't mean you have to hate women. Being a fag means you have to love men.

RXP
11-11-2004, 10:52 AM
Me.

Dude the DNA difference that makes men 'stronger' is the testostorone which enables muscle growth and a wealth of other things. Women can inject it into themselvs but they soon turn into men (body building women have fucked up sexual organs).

There is no question that men are stronger. And always will be.

There is, however, in the animal kingdom I forgot what animal it is but a species where the woman is the more aggressive. She gives birth though, but she's got a set of balls too and a penis. No joke. I can't remember what animal it was.

And if we're gonna talk about equality, talk about farthers rights in courts. Takl about how rape victims get to stay anonymous but those they accuse even on a whim don't. I coudl go on and on and on but won't.

RXP
11-11-2004, 10:54 AM
Though he needs to realize that being a fag doesn't mean you have to hate women. Being a fag means you have to love men.

You want me so bad. Shoulda hooked up that time you were in England but you went to fucking Ireland!

Vera
11-11-2004, 11:38 AM
We're not going to talk about equality, bitch, because your idea of equality seems to be "bitches wanting more power to kick us in the balls" when equality means what it means, equality for both men and women. I know about fathers in courts and I know about girls getting away with shit just because of a little flirtation.

I don't want you. Stop being dilusional, you Indian homo.

RXP
11-11-2004, 01:05 PM
I don't want you. Stop being dilusional, you Indian homo.

Admit it I turn you on so bad. You watch those bollywood films so you could imagine you in the heroines place kissing the hero don't you?

Awww, we can be friends ok?

Betty
11-11-2004, 04:58 PM
Gah! Men and women are different! Especially in strength. (I think with science we could manipulate that though eventually...) But they are still equal. But equal in different ways. Women traditionally take on nurturing roles because they're naturally that way. Men take on strength-related roles because they're naturally that way.

For all the things that are sexist against women, there are tons against men as well. It's just tricky because I know that it has been worse off for women in the past in a lot of societies and I'd like to think that we're at the point where we're equal, but I can't say for sure if the disadvantages for each sex even out.

SicN Twisted
11-11-2004, 09:26 PM
RXP, do me a favor and stop being such a moron. It's chauvenistic, macho assholes like you that make all of us look bad.