(Dec 29, 2017 06:56 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You certainly only seem to like (agree with) the sex differences that imply negative traits in men, but none that imply any in women.
That's hilarious. Over your head, eh? (pun intended)
Syne Wrote:Pfft! You've yet to give me ONE example of a loaded question, even though I've asked you for one several times now.
There's so many even in this last reply of yours. You don't see them(?)
(Dec 29, 2017 07:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 29, 2017 06:56 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You certainly only seem to like (agree with) the sex differences that imply negative traits in men, but none that imply any in women.
That's hilarious. Over your head, eh? (pun intended)
Syne Wrote:Pfft! You've yet to give me ONE example of a loaded question, even though I've asked you for one several times now.
There's so many even in this last reply of yours. You don't see them(?)
More of the same tired deflections when you can't manipulate someone and can't support your claims either.
(Dec 20, 2017 11:22 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Dance?
1-2-3-cut-1-2-3-trip-1-2-3-hack
One of my old drinking buddies was a priest (yes he was) - one of his (many) objections to the ordination of women was their tendency to dance. For a bloke wearing a dress - absolutely the last thing you want to do is join a bunch of dancing women.
Dancing is how women traditionally choose a fit mate who is co-ordinated and a good hunter and likely to not drop dead of some illness.
it is no surprise that a patriarchy would object to this as it conflicts with their dogma power structures.