One way it does so is through encouraging scepticism: the good historian is a professional sceptic both of his sources and of her own ideas. You learn through history to distrust what the sources tells you (who, whom is a great historical question from Lenin) and also to distrust your own temptation to overarching explanation. The second thing that you learn that is crucial to writing and thinking about good history is some sort of sympathy or empathy with those that you are writing about.
What don’t you lousy motherfuckers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families? Oh, and I see on your shitbag website that “Hate Crimes Bills” are one of your priorities.
No it's not a monster - it's a fuck off big grey cloud. But hey ho. The wind and rain make the sea look more picturesque and wild 'n all that crap.
It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our "rights" and our dignity as persons.
Like countless others, I was seriously misled.
In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men's most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.
There can be no doubt that women's situation has demanded improvement -- and continues to do so throughout much of the world. But the emphasis upon individual rights at the expense of mutual responsibility and service is not the way to secure it.
Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well. As Danielle Crittenden has noted, the family "has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them -- by both the man and the woman".
I, for one, will always treat a lady (be she young, old, ugly, whatever) with the respect I think she deserves until such time as she makes me take it away. If that is by holding the door, looking out for her, helping her, whatever, that is what I will do. I have never tried to control any females' sexuality, I have tried to get them to expand it a few times (successfully a lot heh) but control? That's more smoke than Britain has banned.
We don't want to be discriminated against for our gender nor paid less than our male colleagues or less for equivalent work. I'm not going to touch the sexuality issue except to say that if women allow themselves to be oppressed sexually it is often because they have low self esteem, possibly given to them by men. Why do you so seldom see men with low self esteem? By the way if you open the door for me that doesn't mean that you show respect for me nor defer to my opinion. It just means your mother brought you up well and you paid attention.
No. Wrong. What most women, i.e. feminists, want is equality of outcome, no matter how much you must disadvantage men to do it. Men and women are biologically different - gender is NOT a social construct. Honestly, that's among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard - gender being a social construct. We evolved differently because that was the most efficient way to survive.
It amuses me that feminists say we're the same when it benefits women, and say we're different when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, ladies. Men naturally want to protect and care for us. And we naturally want to be cherished and needed, and, believe it or not, we want to make them happy. Do you ever wonder why women are so freaking unhappy these days? Because we're supposed to not be women.
That's just sick.
Bryan Ferry is more likely to redecorate a hotel room than trash it. [Nicky Haslam]
Bl--dy hell. In Britain, it would be: "A small coastal village was evacuated when a storm slammed the shoreline. Some damage was sustained." 
.jpg)