Alright fair enough. First things first, please do get the
definitions "elite" and "good" school striaght. Only shallow people
fail to make the distinction between a "good" school and "elite"
school. So please, before you associate me with elitism, get your
definitions straight.
You’re mistaken. No one inferred elitism with students from
elite schools. Elitism in education is a topic that belongs to
another thread for another day. Road sweepers may be elitists;
graduates from elite schools may also qualify themselves for road
sweeping. Elitism is a belief, an attitude ingrained in the social
psyche through nasty experience. These beliefs direct your conduct
in this society. No one is associating you with elitism here but
since you insist, it helps to define it.
Elitism refer to situations in which an elite individual assumes
special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this
arrangement will benefit humanity.
About the conventional part, there is no basis for the
comparison. In no part of my argument did i include conventional or
radical societies. I merely included singapore being a conventional
society so as to irritate a certain femenist being rather
unfriendly in her posts.
Thanks for clarifying this. Like I said earlier, people who
think that gender directly determines the value/worth of a person's
potential in the workforce are incapable of negotiating beyond
conventional ideas. These ideas are outdated and invalid in
modern society.
In respond, you said that Singapore is a conventional society,
then you went on about nudist beaches and sex with minors. What
were you suggesting?
"It's sexist to assume that
all indivuduals clearly fit into the category of male or female
roles in our society - women have characteristics fit for home
making, therefore they should be home makers"
-What is sexist about saying a gun is designed to kill, therefore
you should use it instead of the stone as it is more effective.
The principle here in mind is cigars are just cigars. Boys and
girls, men and women are simply people. Rights, responsibilities
and chances should not be affected by things like gender. A
full-blown investigation into this is foolish.
Already there are extreme examples of such discrimination seen
in existing societies, say India, China. Forumers have quoted
decent examples, so I won’t discuss at length. These events should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated. Pursuing equal chances
for both genders is not about who has the bigger cigar. Not about
who’s getting the cigar. It’s about making new cigars and embracing
the process of lighting up.
Men have characteristics fit for combat, therefore all of them
should serve NS is also a form of sexism. Simply because guns are
designed to kill, therefore they MUST kill. If they don't kill,
they are not living up to the sole purpose of their design and
existence?
Imho, we have varied roles and these roles are ever changing,
there is beauty in this change because it is fluid and it
represents possibilities.
Now let us review, why is it that
our dear femenists are so unhappy about being homemakers? Is it
because they find that they do not get enough recognition, or is it
because they get paid nothing ? If that is the case, perhaps they
should be complaining to the government about it and not calling us
"unevolved oppressive extremists" to sum up their, ah,
case.
I like the new tone you are taking but it smells familiar to an
old one you made.
You said, “Women and men will never be equal. But that doesnt
mean one is superior and one is inferior. However if the
situation does require women to go out and work then by all
means. However now, the situation
requires women to be home-makers that is all. And
that is the gyst of why women should not require
education.
There is nothing chauvinist about this, it is however fairly gender
steorotypical.”
In other words, you are saying, that unless the situation requires
women to go out and work, it should remain exclusively male? Please
clarify, which situation. Our current situation? World situation?
Singapore’s situation? Evolutionary situation? Your situation? For
example, as long as the University of Bigotry have enough
lecturers, female educators should be denied access to interviews
and teaching positions, simply because they are not required?
Now let us review, why is it that
our dear femenists are so unhappy about being homemakers? Is it
because they find that they do not get enough recognition, or is it
because they get paid nothing ? If that is the case, perhaps they
should be complaining to the government about it and not calling us
"unevolved oppressive extremists" to sum up their, ah,
case.
Don’t get lippy. You know this bit is irrelevant.
I’ll reserve the rest for another day.
Later Danielhuang88.
