Quote:
|
So yes I would say women like women more than men on all levels accept they need a man to make sperm for them and they can get men to pay for them and die to protect them and stuff, things they probably couldn't get a woman to do for them.
|
It's a fairly reasoned argument but the fallacy of this argument is this:
1) it assumes that women want or need "sperm"
2) it assumes that sex is the only way to get it.
Both assumptions are flawed. It is obvious that some women do not wish to have children and further, some women can't get pregnant -- do you propose that these women have lost 50% desire for men on that count.
There exist any number of ways to get pregnant that do not involve sex with a man. This is the 21st century -- there are options to sex. That then dispells the idea that a man as "sperm donor" is terminally faulted.
On the other debate -- the later part of the 20th century and this first part of the 21st clearly give us examples of women willing to "die for" what they believe in. History gives us numerous examples of women willing to die for both their husband and children. Unless you want me to provide examples from history, then your argument on that count is terminally faulted to. Remember that St. Joan d'Arc was a woman willing to fight and die for what she believed in and that the casualty list of our recent war with Iraq includes women as well as men. Women are clearly prepared to
pay the price
Further: there are far too many recent examples of same-sex comiited relationships to argue that a women wouldn't be willing to
bring home the bacon -- even without our recent change in social acceptance of FF coupled families -- there are historical examples of women that provided all subsitence for their family without the aid of a man. Men then are not needed for breadwinning as much as some men would like to believe.
So, I think we can say with some rationality that the reason some couples don't invite men is not:
1) because men are only good as sperm donors - there are alternatives.
2) because women won't serve a protector role - they clearly will.
3) because women won't play the provider role - they do it every day.
Then what we have done here is establish a few reasons that are not why some couples don't invite single men but, we've yet to determine the original point of question -- why do some couples not invite single men? We can't debate the topic if we bring into the debate an annonymous authority.
While I concede that I have used an appeal to popularity motive and a style over substance argument (in this post) in some posts here -- the appeal to pity is not a valid introduction into this discussion.
If I didn't know better -- I'd think that you had gotten a list of logical fallacies and are attempting to present one of each into this debate. We're not going to take on attacks on the presenter next are we? That's be sad....
Let's explore this idea ad nauseum -- "why do some couple not invite single men to play?" -- the real why -- not the self agrandizing why.
Or has it been covered in the other posts to completion?