I fixed this for you.
Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children.
Liberal societies produce nothing but children!
Alternatively, manchildren? Kidults? Lots of fun names for them. Also, I don't feel like quoting everything from your post, istaros, so allow me to address your points here.
"So do you wish to treat them fairly or unfairly? You accept that they are different, yet also say that it's not fair to treat them as if they are. "Fair" doesn't mean "the same."
So what does fair mean? Treated as lessers? Equals? Superiors? I wish to treat women with respect and reverence, but I do not think of them as lower than I. Is that fair?
"Of course, no feminist ACTUALLY wants this - they want men and women to be treated the same, but once they find out how men actually interact with each other, it offends them, and so they must change men's behavior to fall in line with how they actually want to be treated, which is "as women."
Truth, however you are making a blanket statement again. There are plenty of women who consort with men as friends instead of women. Think tomboys, they're not uncommon. Not all women are 'ladylike'; not all wish to be treated as such - and this is not just a modern phenomenon. (Though it is far more common now)
"This is not how you run a society. You claim membership to an ideology that CLAIMS to seek maximization of everyone's (i.e., women's) potential; and yet drop something like this, showing that you care little for what is purportedly the driving motivation behind all sorts of -isms, including feminism. "
No, I said that because - unlike the implications in your statement above - I don't think women are helpless. Additionally I never said I support feminism outright - that's just something you've tacked on to my statements. I happen to support some things which fall in line with feminism, but not really the movement as a whole, especially considering what happened to it.
"It doesn't, and yet it does? Although I did read the rest of your paragraph, its inclusion seems completely unnecessary when you start off contradicting your own argument."
Blame my exhaustion and lack of proofreading on that flub. Glad you looked over the info I gave though.
"They have tremendous energy, actually. I doubt you have actual experience living among such people, because if you did you would not be saying something so visibly false."
I have no experience living in Africa, true. I have no doubt that many in Africa live happy, healthy lives. But what I was getting at is that we on this board seem to idealize these more 'traditional' societies, and sometimes lack objectivity when discussing them. The kids in Ethiopia may have energy, but I can bet a lot of them would love to read. (literacy rate is around 30%)
"Like I said: interact with people who actually live these lives. Get as far away from Western influence as you can. Based on your positions in this thread, I assure you that you will be shocked at the levels of contentment you discover. Don't rely on emotional movie plots or political gambits to guide your view of worlds different from our own."
I'm not shocked, man. You're projecting. I've interacted with a great many people from non-Western countries, and most of them were incredibly pleasant. Many interesting discussions were had on aspects of their country and day-to-day lives. I don't rely on movies or political gambits for my opinions, I read, discuss and listen. Again, I don't doubt that many are content living this way (and that it holds advantages over Western society) - but I still hold to what I have said. There are significant disadvantages, and they shouldn't be swept under the rug without discussion.
"If this were true, and it were also true that women were owed this "right," howcome it took tens of thousands of years to achieve this state? Are you saying that women were too dumb to convince their men in the past? Are you saying that they were so trodden-upon that they were literally incapable of standing up for themselves? Or are you saying that they understood the concept of a division in responsibilities among men and women?"
I'm saying it's probably a combination of the three, if anything. There have been a lot of dumb women, a lot of dumb laws that have restricted women, and a lot of women who played their role alongside the man. At some point, the dumb women got mad at the laws and the women playing their roles, and now you have modern feminism. Besides, the concept of rights didn't come along til we were more evolved, why use the example of tens of thousands of years when humans back then couldn't even comprehend that shit?
"But women act essentially the same everywhere you go - there are varying degrees to which they reinforce their own varying traits, but the primary essence of womanhood I have never seen changed."
I've seen those who defy this. It's a shame we are limited by our own experiences.
"Ultimately, though, it is still men who set the field on which women play. And this will always be the case. And it is good."
You forget the disclaimer: AS LONG AS THE MEN ARE GOOD, IT IS GOOD. There have been too many shitheads in the past who have forgotten that just because a woman may be the caregiver, she does not deserve to be spit upon. We have to solve men, before we solve women.