Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 443453" data-attributes="member: 8">What the evidence shows&nbsp; doesn&#039;t necessarily indicate what the intentions and sensibilities of these extreme feminists are.&nbsp; Contradictions can co-exist otherwise there wouldn&#039;t be any use for the word &quot;contradiction&quot;.Anyone who abuses his/her power is a bad person imo, but that doesn&#039;t automatically make every person who suffers abuse a good person. For example, bad stuff also happens to serial killers (we just don&#039;t know how truly evil they really are).But what does equality actually mean, and does it always serve exactly the same purpose?So, let&#039;s say, from today on, all top CEOs are men and&nbsp; women in a perfect 50/50 ratio. How does that make the world a better place? Why should that achievement make us feel happier? Why is imbalance per definition considered a bad thing? We keep saying it but I&#039;m not sure if we know why&nbsp; we&#039;re saying it.To me, equality means that both genders deserve the chance to become a successful this or that. However, the vibe in overcorrection is to put the cart before the horse just to show &quot;we&#039;ve done it!&quot; - and then maybe justify that achievement in a backwards way.I think what I mean to say is that equality for the sake of equality seems a bit meaningless to me, a fake victory.It&#039;s like when a painter paints a painting and he wants the theme to be &quot;red&quot;. And then someone else says &quot;that&#039;s great, but make sure there&#039;s enough blue in it&quot;.Come to think of it, a tiny blue dot would make it a perfect artistic statement, but I digress.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 443453, member: 8"] What the evidence [I]shows[/I] doesn't necessarily indicate what the intentions and sensibilities of these extreme feminists [I]are[/I]. Contradictions can co-exist otherwise there wouldn't be any use for the word "contradiction". Anyone who abuses his/her power is a bad person imo, but that doesn't automatically make every person who suffers abuse a good person. For example, bad stuff also happens to serial killers (we just don't know how truly evil they really are). But what does equality actually mean, and does it always serve exactly the same purpose? So, let's say, from today on, all top CEOs are men [I]and[/I] women in a perfect 50/50 ratio. How does that make the world a better place? Why should that achievement make us feel happier? Why is imbalance per definition considered a bad thing? We keep saying it but I'm not sure if we know [I]why[/I] we're saying it. To me, equality means that both genders deserve the chance to become a successful this or that. However, the vibe in overcorrection is to put the cart before the horse just to show "we've done it!" - and then maybe justify that achievement in a backwards way. I think what I mean to say is that equality for the sake of equality seems a bit meaningless to me, a fake victory. It's like when a painter paints a painting and he wants the theme to be "red". And then someone else says "that's great, but make sure there's enough blue in it". Come to think of it, a tiny blue dot would make it a perfect artistic statement, but I digress. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?