NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, admit it. A lot of people equate femenism with radicallesbianmanhater. That's not what femenism is about... we don't want to live in a world WITHOUT men (believe me:)). We just want to be on an equal footing with men... that means equal opportunities and equal respect. How far is good enough? I mean, who cares if you call the damn thing a womanhole (which just sounds bad)...and changing all the romance languages so that there are only neutral genders when refering to things is, well...silly I think. I am just wondering at what point do YOU think women and men will be equal. What factors will determine that equality?

The feminist movement has accomplished the following (or something did, anyway, possibly shrewd lobbying on part of interested parties): gaining the right to vote, changing labor practices, gaining women some basic civil rights. Unfortunately, a lot of this has skewed the system to men's disadvantage. Whereas previously, battered women were out of luck, now they have recourse. Battered men are largely out of luck unless they are assaulted with a weapon (though granted, women who assault men with weapons appear to get their due.) The real difficulty appears in civil matters, though, not criminal matters. Men are able to get custody of kids, but it's a hell of a lot harder. Oh, and did I mention women can't be drafted? Ever hear a feminist gripe about that?

The point is this: Women and men will never be truly "equal" until the concept of gender doesn't really cross a person's mind, and that day will never come unless one gender dies out. Some theorists state that men will eventually die off, leaving only women who reproduce with some sort of pill cocktail. That may be true in some part of the world, where female separatists (and don't tell me they don't exist) may break off from society, but men won't go down without a fight, and most of the world won't let them.

Also, if there is a women-only society, it leads me to believe that the technology is possible for a men-only society that is self-supporting, but it would take something like test-tube babies and the male-baby pill cocktail.

Castration!


Okay okay, I'm not willing to go through that type of pain...

The feminist movement has accomplished the following (or something did, anyway, possibly shrewd lobbying on part of interested parties): gaining the right to vote, changing labor practices, gaining women some basic civil rights. Unfortunately, a lot of this has skewed the system to men's disadvantage. Whereas previously, battered women were out of luck, now they have recourse. Battered men are largely out of luck unless they are assaulted with a weapon (though granted, women who assault men with weapons appear to get their due.) The real difficulty appears in civil matters, though, not criminal matters. Men are able to get custody of kids, but it's a hell of a lot harder. Oh, and did I mention women can't be drafted? Ever hear a feminist gripe about that?

The point is this: Women and men will never be truly "equal" until the concept of gender doesn't really cross a person's mind, and that day will never come unless one gender dies out. Some theorists state that men will eventually die off, leaving only women who reproduce with some sort of pill cocktail. That may be true in some part of the world, where female separatists (and don't tell me they don't exist) may break off from society, but men won't go down without a fight, and most of the world won't let them.

Also, if there is a women-only society, it leads me to believe that the technology is possible for a men-only society that is self-supporting, but it would take something like test-tube babies and the male-baby pill cocktail.

You say that these gains in women's rights have somewhat skewed things to men's disadvantage...but before women could vote :), did battered men get all sorts of attention? No, because there either weren't that many, or they didn't speak out for fear of ridicule. I don't think that has changed much with sufferage. Yes, there are battered men, and it's a terrible thing, but there are many more battered women, and many more of those women are murdered by their spouses or boyfriends than the other way around.

Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced 572,032 violent victimizations at the hands of an intimate, compared to 48,983 incidents committed against men. (p. 6)
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

So should resources to support victims of these crimes be equal? Absolutely not. Should our culture of silence surrounding battered men be changed...yes.

As for males or females wishing to live without the other sex.... I say go ahead:) It won't bother me any.

How else do you think the system is skewed in favour of women by the way?

I'm told women receive, on average, significantly lower wages than men.

I'm told women receive, on average, significantly lower wages than men.

We were discussing that in another thread too...it seems that (in the west, not the rest of the world), most women do make equal pay for equal work. If you have stats to refute that, I'd like to see 'em, because I don't really believe it's true (that we make the same:)). Of course, I'm a cynic:).

I think women should be on equal footing with men in all ways.

Whereas previously, battered women were out of luck, now they have recourse. Battered men are largely out of luck unless they are assaulted with a weapon (though granted, women who assault men with weapons appear to get their due.)

This isn't something that occurred because of the women's rights movement, however. Unfortunately, adequate protection has not yet been spread to men.

The real difficulty appears in civil matters, though, not criminal matters. Men are able to get custody of kids, but it's a hell of a lot harder.

I agree that this is a problem. Custody should be based solely on who can take better care of the child, nothing more.

Oh, and did I mention women can't be drafted? Ever hear a feminist gripe about that?

::raises hand:: I've griped about it more than once.

The only acceptable differences between men and women are physical ones.

How far do we want to go in terms of equality between men and women??
All the way.

We were discussing that in another thread too...it seems that (in the west, not the rest of the world), most women do make equal pay for equal work. If you have stats to refute that, I'd like to see 'em, because I don't really believe it's true:). Of course, I'm a cynic:).
http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/research/wm_pay_and_income_2003.pdf

I don't think ANYONE should be drafted. If you WANT to be in the army, go for it. No one should be forced into it. If someone was actually attacking your country (the reason most brought up for conscription), I doubt there would be many people who wouldn't fight to save their land and people. Overseas wars however...not so immediate.

I don't believe many~most women are after equality, per se. I don't doubt they want to be equal in certain respects, but that's not the same as equal. That's just similar. In any event. Just my ramblings, don't pay them any mind.

We were discussing that in another thread too...it seems that (in the west, not the rest of the world), most women do make equal pay for equal work. If you have stats to refute that, I'd like to see 'em, because I don't really believe it's true. Of course, I'm a cynic

Or maybe you've been reading too many Gor novels.

women need to be equal "in public"
in the eyes of the law
in the eyes of the job market
in private im not sure anyone is equal.

Okay, looking at this site http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/research/wm_pay_and_income_2003.pdf
shows kind of what others have been saying about equal pay... that it IS equal, it's just that men are working longer hours (RE: harder :gundge: )...and that accounts for the difference...the base hourly wage is the same. However, I think this quote from the site puts it best:

A key explanation for the wider gender pay gap in the private sector is likely to be the differing representation of women in the three highest paid occupational groups (managers and administrators, professional occupations and associate professional and technical occupations)...in the public sector...women compris[e] 53 per cent of full-time employees....the equivalent figure for the private sector was only 27 per cent. (direct quote)

Meaning that sure, we get equal pay for equal work, but women do not have the same opportunities to get that equal work...we are not represented equally...and you can't say in the positions listed above that it is because of the difference in strength between the genders. The glass ceiling hasn't moved.

Or maybe you've been reading too many Gor novels.

Sorry to show my ignorance...have no idea what Gor novels are...do you mean the fantasy series? Anyway...I edited my comment to clarify that I meant I don't believe we make the same amount.

Okay...so I still feel that women and men do NOT have equal opportunities for work (yes, for equal pay for equal work)...and I agree that many women do not feel capable of doing traditionally male-orientated jobs (engineering, construction etc), and that's something we need to work on. Another inequality I see between men and women is domestic work (which because it is unpaid I don't think should be included in the whole paid work issue).

Why is it that women are still usually the one to stay home with the kids? Usually because they can't make as much money as the man, but we've already talked about it. Okay...how about those women who do work... why are we still expected to rush home after work and do the housekeeping and cook?? Almost every commercial for a cleaning agent you see show women cleaning the home (in fact,if you've seen any that use a man, please let me know which one). We're considered lazy if we DON'T work...or because we don't work overtime (usually because we need to pick the kids up etc), and men are considered "whipped" if it's THEY that are doing any of the above. How can we change this unequal division of labour in the home?

We're considered lazy if we DON'T work...or because we don't work overtime (usually because we need to pick the kids up etc), and men are considered "whipped" if it's THEY that are doing any of the above. How can we change this unequal division of labour in the home?

You can't. Each male will perceive being a 'housewife' differently. My father did dishes, watched the children, did laundry, cooked, and other miscellaneous housework. He was fine with it. I know other men who wouldn't be caught dead doing it.

Your only recourse is to only marry/have children with a male who doesn't mind doing housework or watching the kids.

You can't. Each male will perceive being a 'housewife' differently. My father did dishes, watched the children, did laundry, cooked, and other miscellaneous housework. He was fine with it. I know other men who wouldn't be caught dead doing it.

Your only recourse is to only marry/have children with a male who doesn't mind doing housework or watching the kids.

Sounds good...I hearby pronounce all anti-housework males unmarriageable! :D

Women actually are more in demand and better paid in one industry, which is surprisingly male-sounding. Auto Body. Women's eyes are more discerning between different shades of color, whereas 1 out of 3 men are colorblind in one way or another. Therefore, women are more highly desired (and well paid) in shops and businesses involved in paint. It's not sexist, its science!

My prediction is women will only be equal with men when they both posess equal rights, equal opportunites, equal privileges, and equal RESPONSIBILITIES. If women would really like to be equal, start crossing the gender barriers. Fix a car, build a shed, do something generally associated with masculinity. Males must to the reverse in order to equalize the sexes.

Now, another argument could be made, which is that of societies around the globe. In some societies, it is simply tradition for women to be subservient (Japan) to men. In others, men are more subservient to women (Ancient Amazons, and I'm sure there's others). Either way, some societies are just geared that way, work fine, and will keep on functioning. If you happen to disagree with aspects of your society, create a new one elsewhere... cough-cough-commune-cough-cough.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

I think that if we do exactly the same thing, we should get the same credit.

For example:

I work 40 hours a week at my job. Undoubtably, I am paid less than my male counterparts. On the weekends, I go out to the farm and help dad. I run the farm equipment, and I do a good job. I work from sunrise to sunset, with a couple of short breaks. I do a better job than my brothers do, because I know what I'm doing, and I don't break down as often, and I stay out there, instead of finding excuses to come in. Of course, I'm older than they are, but I stay on task.

On the farm, I think dad is proud of me. I believe that he gives me as much credit for a day's work as he does anyone else who puts in a day's work. He respects that I do the work.

I have this feeling that it's a bit of a communication problem, though. What most women won't say is that they don't want welding jobs or farm jobs or oil well jobs. They generally don't want to drive a truck. Because they give off this vibe, they aren't considered for the jobs. By default, these jobs pay better. A woman in a job driving truck or pouring cement would get paid the same as the men doing it. A woman in a telemarketing job, however, isn't considered to be putting much effort into it, and that man has a wife who might not work...Her husband is expected to be working. I guess it's the whole social tradition which has brought this about.

Of course, women have to come home and pick up after everyone else, too. That's the kicker. It's like a punch in the guts when you get home, and all you want to do is sit down, but everyone expects you to cook and feed them, and then clean up the house.

19% difference is really little. It may be more in other countries. I thought I read some time ago something like between 20-30%. So: obviously the difference is decreasing.
It should also be taken into account that women work on average shorter, have more part time work and are not represented so much in higher positions. Furthernmore - in my country - they have a lot of protection during pregnancy - can´t be sacked - long paid holidays, e.g. That also should be taken into account.
I don´t think that women are generally discriminated today, though in single cases that may be the case. But hey: when somebody applies to be a secretary a female candidate is much more likely to get it than a male. Their are also jobs where women are preferred actually.

So: to speak about a general discrimination of women compared to men can not be concluded from the data in western nations.

Sounds good...I hearby pronounce all anti-housework males unmarriageable! :D
i second that motion!!

[QUOTE=Kybernetia] Furthernmore - in my country - they have a lot of protection during pregnancy - can´t be sacked - long paid holidays, e.g. That also should be taken into account.
QUOTE]

Long paid holidays during pregnancy...nice...but I think you're referring to Maternity or Parental leave, which is not a holdiay... it is the time you are given from the birth (or adoption) of you child to whenever (in Canada it's 52 weeks) to care for that child. If you are sick during your pregnancy, you might be covered for some sick leave...again...not a holiday. I'm not sure about your country, but we've recently revised things so that while a man can not take the full 52 weeks of Maternity/Parental leave, he can take up to 32 weeks on Parental, with the same assurances as a woman. They'll get more time once guys figure out how to get pregnant:). Still, if women are underrepresented in the workforce:


A key explanation for the wider gender pay gap in the private sector is likely to be the differing representation of women in the three highest paid occupational groups (managers and administrators, professional occupations and associate professional and technical occupations)...in the public sector...women compris[e] 53 per cent of full-time employees....the equivalent figure for the private sector was only 27 per cent. (direct quote)http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/research/wm_pay_and_income_2003.pdf

can that all be explained away by pregnancies and low self-esteem? Just because no one can say, "Exactly THIS many women failed to get such and such a job because of their gender," doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist. Blacks and Hispanics can't present that kind of evidence either, yet it is generally accepted that they are not as likely to get higher paying jobs as whites. (We are speaking in generalities here) Do you really think there is no discrimination against women?

Heh. Maybe we'll be equal when we're allowed to be full members of the Masons, or when there's a female president. Not being funny, but I think they're going to run through the gamut of men first.

Yes, there are battered men, and it's a terrible thing, but there are many more battered women, and many more of those women are murdered by their spouses or boyfriends than the other way around.

Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced 572,032 violent victimizations at the hands of an intimate, compared to 48,983 incidents committed against men. (p. 6)
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml


What the!? Do you realize how these statistics are collected? It's usually done by phone or in person and the fact is how many men are going to admit they were beaten by their wife? Whatever the figures are for men they most likely greatly underestimate the true number of "incidents commited against men".

Ok, but here's the point. If a woman is murdered or assaulted, which sex is likely to be the assailant or murderer, 9 times out of 10. (I'm being conservative.)

I think it's a shitty world we live in where women have to be protected by men from men.

Ok, but here's the point. If a woman is murdered or assaulted, which sex is likely to be the assailant or murderer, 9 times out of 10. (I'm being conservative.)

I think it's a shitty world we live in where women have to be protected by men from men.
Also which gender is more likely to be accused of a crime?

Also which gender is more likely to be accused of a crime?

Accused nothing. Which gender is more likely to be responsible for a crime? I'm sorry, but the statistics say that men are almost exclusively responsible for violent crime, and that's anywhere in the world, and they're responsible for a lot of the other crime that goes on.

Women can be criminals too, but they're not nearly as prolific at it.

As for the violent crime, women tend to be at risk from the men in their lives. Hell, they have more to worry about from them than they do from strangers, not that they don't have to worry about that, too.

I think all women should be issued firearms, and trained to use them. Maybe some of them will use them to commit crimes, but I can't think of a better way to make the odds swing in their favor. Maybe we can issue them with tranquilizer darts, instead of bullets.

Also which gender is more likely to be accused of a crime?

Look, I'm not saying that men are NOT beaten...and I'm certain that they are underrepresented in the statistics for the very reasons you've given. However, are you trying to say that just as many men are beaten/killed by their spouses/girlfriends as the other way around? Let's face it...men are usually stronger than women, and when they beat on a women, she is likely to end up in the hospital more often than a man being beaten on by a woman (in both cases, I'm taking weapons out of the picture). I worked for a Distress Line in my city for 5 years... an anonymous one where people KNEW their numbers were not being recorded...and I heard plenty of phonecalls from men with abusive spouses. Most of the abuse however was mental, rather than physical, which is also abhorrant, but not as threatening to life and limb. The amount of women I spoke to who were in fear of their lives or had been physically assaulted by their boyfriend/husband many times before was much higher, and one of the big problems they faced is that the police will not enforce a restraining order until a crime is in progress...or has been committed...which for too many women is too late. This is true for men...and there is a culture of silence around abuse of husbands/lovers. The amount is just not the same as women being abused. Period.

Accused nothing. Which gender is more likely to be responsible for a crime? I'm sorry, but the statistics say that men are almost exclusively responsible for violent crime, and that's anywhere in the world, and they're responsible for a lot of the other crime that goes on.

Women can be criminals too, but they're not nearly as prolific at it.

As for the violent crime, women tend to be at risk from the men in their lives. Hell, they have more to worry about from them than they do from strangers, not that they don't have to worry about that, too.

I think all women should be issued firearms, and trained to use them. Maybe some of them will use them to commit crimes, but I can't think of a better way to make the odds swing in their favor. Maybe we can issue them with tranquilizer darts, instead of bullets.

Thats absurd. Realize that "balancing" the scales is nothing but tipping them in women's favor. Women already are treated special. Drafted? No. How many men were killed in wars and how many women were killed by men? Divorce? The woman is clearly not treated as equal. The woman get the house... gets almost everything and the MAN has to pay her money, even if she is responsible for the divorce.

Any domestic dispute... it's the man who's always guilty.
Boat sinks women and children first.

And thats just to name a few. The balance already favors women.

Look, I'm not saying that men are NOT beaten...and I'm certain that they are underrepresented in the statistics for the very reasons you've given. However, are you trying to say that just as many men are beaten/killed by their spouses/girlfriends as the other way around? Let's face it...men are usually stronger than women, and when they beat on a women, she is likely to end up in the hospital more often than a man being beaten on by a woman (in both cases, I'm taking weapons out of the picture). I worked for a Distress Line in my city for 5 years... an anonymous one where people KNEW their numbers were not being recorded...and I heard plenty of phonecalls from men with abusive spouses. Most of the abuse however was mental, rather than physical, which is also abhorrant, but not as threatening to life and limb. The amount of women I spoke to who were in fear of their lives or had been physically assaulted by their boyfriend/husband many times before was much higher, and one of the big problems they faced is that the police will not enforce a restraining order until a crime is in progress...or has been committed...which for too many women is too late. This is true for men...and there is a culture of silence around abuse of husbands/lovers. The amount is just not the same as women being abused. Period.

Well I didn't say I disagreed with you on this point. However, I just had to point out that said statitistics are underrepresentative.

We're given some privileges, but some of us would give those up in favor of equality. I'd rather be treated with respect for what I can do, and who I am, not by default of sex.

For the record, I was the one working all through my marriage, and I was the one who came out of the divorce with nothing.

Yes, the draft does not include women, but they're thinking about it. Personally, I think it's a kick in the teeth, because we get the short end of the stick anyway. NOW we get to be drafted too.

As for the domestic dispute thing, I think you're wrong. Maybe the police go into it thinking that way, but if it becomes clear that the woman was drunk and crazy, and came at her husband with a butcher knife, they don't accuse him anyway.

Women and children first? Don't make me laugh. When is the last time you were on a sinking ship?

Thats absurd. Realize that "balancing" the scales is nothing but tipping them in women's favor. Women already are treated special. Drafted? No. How many men were killed in wars and how many women were killed by men? Divorce? The woman is clearly not treated as equal. The woman get the house... gets almost everything and the MAN has to pay her money, even if she is responsible for the divorce.

Any domestic dispute... it's the man who's always guilty.
Boat sinks women and children first.

And thats just to name a few. The balance already favors women.

You know what... I'll start agreeing with you when the number of women being abused or killed by their husbands/boyfriends goes down. You say we are being treated special? Obvioulsy not enough to make a difference when so many are murdered each year. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing war to men murdering women? I won't even touch that ridiculous statement. The blatant generalisation that the women gets everything in a divorce is ridiculous....you realise that women have to pay child support if the man takes the kids, don't you? As well, most divorces are 50-50, depending on the divorce law in each area. You think it should be what, 70-40 in favour of the man? I think 50-50 counts as pretty equal...and don't assume that we're talking about women who don't work married to profitable men...plenty of women support men too...not just the other way around.

In the majority of domestic disputes, the man IS guilty...but try to prove that no woman is ever convicted of assault and battery or found the guilty party in a domestic disturbance call. You are getting upset because you think we are attacking you, but that is not the case. What I at least am trying to say is that yes, more resources are allocated to women in terms of protection from abuse because...wait for it...MORE WOMEN ARE ABUSED!!!! Do you think it would be fair to split the resources 50-50 in this case when less men need the help than women??

I recently made a bet with a girl, whoever lost got punched in the arm.

We shook on it, and she lost.

There were 3 other girls who freaked out about it and called me a psycho.

How's that for equality? Apparently women shouldn't have to hold up their end of a bargain.

Well I didn't say I disagreed with you on this point. However, I just had to point out that said statitistics are underrepresentative.

To quote me: and I'm certain that they are underrepresented in the statistics for the very reasons you've given.

I got that, agreed and answered.

We're given some privileges, but some of us would give those up in favor of equality. I'd rather be treated with respect for what I can do, and who I am, not by default of sex.

For the record, I was the one working all through my marriage, and I was the one who came out of the divorce with nothing.

Yes, the draft does not include women, but they're thinking about it. Personally, I think it's a kick in the teeth, because we get the short end of the stick anyway. NOW we get to be drafted too.

As for the domestic dispute thing, I think you're wrong. Maybe the police go into it thinking that way, but if it becomes clear that the woman was drunk and crazy, and came at her husband with a butcher knife, they don't accuse him anyway.

Women and children first? Don't make me laugh. When is the last time you were on a sinking ship?
I bet many other women would not give up the already set priveldges for equality.

Well thats a rare occurance.

And no the police go in thinking that the man was drunk and started slapping the knife around so she grabbed the knife for protection. And never mind that she stabbed him, it was in self defense.

When was the last time I was on a sinking ship? Thats the point if I ever was I'd be dead. A women wouldn't. And its not just a ship its any emergency... women and children first.

I recently made a bet with a girl, whoever lost got punched in the arm.

We shook on it, and she lost.

There were 3 other girls who freaked out about it and called me a psycho.

How's that for equality? Apparently women shouldn't have to hold up their end of a bargain.

Moms (and Dads) should not only be teaching their sons, "Don't hit girls"....they should also be telling their daughters, "Don't use that to your advantage and think you can go around hitting boys, or some day one of them is going to clock you a good one!"

You know what... I'll start agreeing with you when the number of women being abused or killed by their husbands/boyfriends goes down. You say we are being treated special? Obvioulsy not enough to make a difference when so many are murdered each year. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing war to men murdering women? I won't even touch that ridiculous statement. The blatant generalisation that the women gets everything in a divorce is ridiculous....you realise that women have to pay child support if the man takes the kids, don't you? As well, most divorces are 50-50, depending on the divorce law in each area. You think it should be what, 70-40 in favour of the man? I think 50-50 counts as pretty equal...and don't assume that we're talking about women who don't work married to profitable men...plenty of women support men too...not just the other way around.

In the majority of domestic disputes, the man IS guilty...but try to prove that no woman is ever convicted of assault and battery or found the guilty party in a domestic disturbance call. You are getting upset because you think we are attacking you, but that is not the case. What I at least am trying to say is that yes, more resources are allocated to women in terms of protection from abuse because...wait for it...MORE WOMEN ARE ABUSED!!!! Do you think it would be fair to split the resources 50-50 in this case when less men need the help than women??
Oh come not just look... Throughout history... how many men have died, because they were forced to go to war?

So many are murdered? Show me a statistic that says more women are murdered than men each year.

And how many times does the man get the kids? It's always the children need their mother.
How many more women support the man rather than the other way around? Just tell me that.

Hi I'm very new here and was browsing through when I read your post, Amerigo. I feel I need to respond to it.

When I was a child, my parents were going through a nasty divorce. My mom moved out and told my dad that custody of us children (there are four of us) was his. Eventually, it was ruled that way in the court and my mom paid child support to my dad. So yes, it does happen where women do have to pay child support and that custody is given to the father.

I haven't read through all of the posts, but I do think a step in the right direction for equality for both sexes is that men also get a month off work for paternity leave. I don't know if it's enforced everywhere, but I'm glad that it's now happening.

Hi I'm very new here and was browsing through when I read your post, Amerigo. I feel I need to respond to it.

When I was a child, my parents were going through a nasty divorce. My mom moved out and told my dad that custody of us children (there are four of us) was his. Eventually, it was ruled that way in the court and my mom paid child support to my dad. So yes, it does happen where women do have to pay child support and that custody is given to the father.

I haven't read through all of the posts, but I do think a step in the right direction for equality for both sexes is that men also get a month off work for paternity leave. I don't know if it's enforced everywhere, but I'm glad that it's now happening.
Well it is still a rare occurance that the father gets the children.

Oh come not just look... Throughout history... how many men have died, because they were forced to go to war?

So many are murdered? Show me a statistic that says more women are murdered than men each year.

And how many times does the man get the kids? It's always the children need their mother.
How many more women support the man rather than the other way around? Just tell me that.


I'll find you the stats on domestic violence fatalities, Amerigo. As for how many women support men, you really wouldn't believe how many bums there are out there nowadays. More and more it seems to be the case that the woman works her ass off for some lazy, good for nothing man who sits at home and does nothing but make excuses for why he doesn't have a job.

http://www.dccadv.org/statistics.htm

More and more it seems to be the case that the woman works her ass off for some lazy, good for nothing man who sits at home and does nothing but make excuses for why he doesn't have a job.


Still significantly less than how many men support women.

Click on the link. I think you'll find that the stats on domestic violence speak for themselves.

As for my point about men being supported by women, when you're old enough to look around you, I'll think about taking what you say seriously.

Click on the link. I think you'll find that the stats on domestic violence speak for themselves.

As for my point about men being supported by women, when you're old enough to look around you, I'll think about taking what you say seriously.
I was disputing the murder assertion made by Sinhue. She said that "...so many are murdered each year". Now I am quite sure taht there are more men than women murdered each year.

As far as domestic violence I had not made on e attempt to deny that it occurs and that for many cases the male is guilty. However, you can not deny that there is a significant majority of men supporting women rather than vice versa.

I was disputing the murder assertion made by Sinhue. She said that "...so many are murdered each year". Now I am quite sure taht there are more men than women murdered each year.

As far as domestic violence I had not made on e attempt to deny that it occurs and that for many cases the male is guilty. However, you can not deny that there is a significant majority of men supporting women rather than vice versa.

You know, this is not the first time that you have hastily read my post and taken it completely out of context... if you want to have a reasonable debate, behave reasonably and don't take things out of context. Here is the original quote...take the time to actually read it:

"You know what... I'll start agreeing with you when the number of women being abused or killed by their husbands/boyfriends goes down. You say we are being treated special? Obvioulsy not enough to make a difference when so many are murdered each year. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing war to men murdering women?"

We are talking about domestic violence...women murdered by intimates (husbands/boyfriends). We are NOT talking about the overall number of murders per sex. You can not compare deaths in a war to deaths caused by domestic abuse...apples and oranges. That would be like me saying more women die in childbirth than men. Obviously a ridiculously redundant statement. You could not prove than more men are victims of domestic abuse than women, so you started talking about something else. I'm sensing that really nothing any of us say is going to change your rancerous opinion of women, and I'm sorry that you seem to have bad feelings for women as a whole. In any case, you have not proven your point (that women are priveleged and that too many resources are spent on them). If you would like to try again, in a reasonable manner, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 41 years later, women are still paid less than men—even when we have similar education, skills and experience.

In 2002, women were paid 77 cents for every dollar men received. That's $23 less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for every $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of income annually to the wage gap.

It's not like we get charged less for rent or food or utilities. In fact, we pay more for things like haircuts and dry cleaning. These stats are even lower for woman of color.

But, you forgot to add in, that with pregnancy leave, the fact women tend to enter lower paying jobs, then also work less hours most if the time, the pay is acctualy equal, women just work less.

Oh, before someone tells me about my typical male attutude,
<----- WOMAN!

I'd like to see more men become:

Nannies
Nurses
Teachers, Teacher's Aides
Hospice Care workers
Librarians
Midwives
Massage Therapists (REALLY REALLY :D )
Homemakers

I'd like to see more women become:

Tradeswomen
Principals/Superintendents
Administrators (business)
Pilots
Engineers
Chefs
Butchers
(the above two are actually trades too but deserve mentioning)

One more thing I'd really like to even things out.... a 50-50 representation in politics. Is that so crazy??

But, you forgot to add in, that with pregnancy leave, the fact women tend to enter lower paying jobs, then also work less hours most if the time, the pay is acctualy equal, women just work less.

Oh, before someone tells me about my typical male attutude,
<----- WOMAN!

All of this has been discussed before in the equal pay for equal work thread... but I'll post again:

The stats show that hour by hour we are paid equally for equal work...but that men make more overtime, and women lose ground that is hard to make up when they take Maternity leave (I'd like to see some stats on how hard it is to catch up if a man takes Parental leave by the way...). Here's a quote from a page of such stats:
http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/researc...income_2003.pdf

A key explanation for the wider gender pay gap in the private sector is likely to be the differing representation of women in the three highest paid occupational groups (managers and administrators, professional occupations and associate professional and technical occupations)...in the public sector...women compris[e] 53 per cent of full-time employees....the equivalent figure for the private sector was only 27 per cent. (direct quote)

Meaning that sure, we get equal pay for equal work, but women do not have the same opportunities to get that equal work...we are not represented equally...and you can't say in the positions listed above that it is because of the difference in strength between the genders. The glass ceiling hasn't moved.

I think we should be asking for equal representation in the higher paying jobs, not just equal pay.

And before you say it... yes, I DO think that women limit themselves and deliberately go into more "feminine", and lesser-paying, jobs. Well when we still tell our kids... "girls are nurses and boys are doctors"...what do you expect? Moms around the world unite! Stop socially conditioning your kids to enter traditional gendered occupations!!!!

You know, this is not the first time that you have hastily read my post and taken it completely out of context... if you want to have a reasonable debate, behave reasonably and don't take things out of context. Here is the original quote...take the time to actually read it:

"You know what... I'll start agreeing with you when the number of women being abused or killed by their husbands/boyfriends goes down. You say we are being treated special? Obvioulsy not enough to make a difference when so many are murdered each year. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing war to men murdering women?"

We are talking about domestic violence...women murdered by intimates (husbands/boyfriends). We are NOT talking about the overall number of murders per sex. You can not compare deaths in a war to deaths caused by domestic abuse...apples and oranges. That would be like me saying more women die in childbirth than men. Obviously a ridiculously redundant statement. You could not prove than more men are victims of domestic abuse than women, so you started talking about something else. I'm sensing that really nothing any of us say is going to change your rancerous opinion of women, and I'm sorry that you seem to have bad feelings for women as a whole. In any case, you have not proven your point (that women are priveleged and that too many resources are spent on them). If you would like to try again, in a reasonable manner, I'd be happy to discuss it.
I never wanted to prove that more men are victims of domestic violence. I said several times that I merely pointed out that the statistics were underrepresenative of the true number of men being victims of domestic violence. The reason I brought war was for the sheer reason that women are not drafted to war. They are not forced to put their life on the line and that is a GREAT privledge. I am not comparing the two, I am stating the fact that you think women are the overall victims of a men dominated society. Now you tell me what those billions (I'm talking about throught history so yes billions) of men who were forced to fight in a war are?

I have no rancorous opinion of women, but the same thing can not be said for femenists.

The reason I brought war was for the sheer reason that women are not drafted to war. They are not forced to put their life on the line and that is a GREAT privledge.

Which is just another way that men and women are not treated equally, but should be. I'm pretty iffy on the whole "is the draft ok?" thing, but I do believe that if it is in place, both men and women of legal age with no reason they cannot serve should be eligible.

Now, at the risk of making lots of women go out and get pregnant in the case of a war occurring, I do not think that a pregnant woman should be able to be drafted. You may see this as a new "priviledge" but I see it as logical. Women carry babies, therefore there are certain differences that have to be made. I also think that if a couple is raising a child together, only one of them should be able to be drafted in the instance that a draft is called. However, I don't think that it should matter which - just that after the first one is called, the other is no longer eligible.

I am not comparing the two, I am stating the fact that you think women are the overall victims of a men dominated society. Now you tell me what those billions (I'm talking about throught history so yes billions) of men who were forced to fight in a war are?

Considering that societies have usually been run by men, I suppose they are all victims of a (more powerful than them) male dominated society. It still has no bearing on the discussion, except to say that men and women should be drafted equally, if at all.

I have no rancorous opinion of women, but the same thing can not be said for femenists.

Warning: Blatant stereotyping! All feminists are not man-hating bitches. Most of us just want to be treated the same in all of the areas in which we are not physically different, like the workplace, politics, etc.

Warning: Blatant stereotyping! All feminists are not man-hating bitches. Most of us just want to be treated the same in all of the areas in which we are not physically different, like the workplace, politics, etc.

By the very fact that you generalize most feminists, wouldn't that be blatant stereotyping? "Most of us just want to be treated the same in all of the areas in which we are not physically different, like the workplace, politics, etc." A stereotype is little more than a sweeping generalization.

I never wanted to prove that more men are victims of domestic violence. I said several times that I merely pointed out that the statistics were underrepresenative of the true number of men being victims of domestic violence. The reason I brought war was for the sheer reason that women are not drafted to war. They are not forced to put their life on the line and that is a GREAT privledge. I am not comparing the two, I am stating the fact that you think women are the overall victims of a men dominated society. Now you tell me what those billions (I'm talking about throught history so yes billions) of men who were forced to fight in a war are?

I have no rancorous opinion of women, but the same thing can not be said for femenists.

Oooh... I LOVE how you generalise..... I spoke only of your rancor (which you state you don't have, fine...) but you think it's okay to label all feminists the same. Hmmm. Well as for war...guess what...it was MEN (and just to clue you in, I'm generalising, because there are plenty of men against war) who instituted conscription, and MEN who so vehemently tried to keep women OUT of the military. In fact, WOMEN don't have a heck of lot of say in the army (still), and that is one of those little inequalities we are talking about. I think conscription is a crock, and NO ONE should have to be forced into the army. That's why I'm quite happy to live in Canada. If there is conscription, now that women have been allowed (by MEN) to join the army, then it should apply to both men and women, and given that more and more women ARE joining the army, in the interests of equality, that probably will happen. Those who don't want to be conscripted can come live in my country:).

So....what other "priveleges" do you think women unfairly possess?

Warning: Blatant stereotyping! All feminists are not man-hating bitches. Most of us just want to be treated the same in all of the areas in which we are not physically different, like the workplace, politics, etc.

But notice that I say its my opinion and I do not generalize it as a widely accepted fact. I also do not say I a m confident that I am right it si my general opinion of the matter misguided as it may be.

What you just said however is a personal opinion that has been said so it sounds as though its a fact.

Right or wrong I have not asserted that I am completely right nor have I attempted to force my view onto anybody I merely disputed certain points and presented my own opinion of the matter.

By the very fact that you generalize most feminists, wouldn't that be blatant stereotyping? "Most of us just want to be treated the same in all of the areas in which we are not physically different, like the workplace, politics, etc." A stereotype is little more than a sweeping generalization.

Uh-huh...and would you like to offer up a view on what feminists may or may not want? She said MOST...as in most feminists are NOT radicalmanhatinglesbians... there are some that do fall under that title of course. For your edification:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

So if you are not FOR the above, you can't rightly call yourself a feminist. Not a stereotype, a definition.

But notice that I say its my opinion and I do not generalize it as a widely accepted fact. I also do not say I a m confident that I am right it si my general opinion of the matter misguided as it may be.

What you just said however is a personal opinion that has been said so it sounds as though its a fact.

Right or wrong I have not asserted that I am completely right nor have I attempted to force my view onto anybody I merely disputed certain points and presented my own opinion of the matter.

Here's your original quote:

I have no rancorous opinion of women, but the same thing can not be said for femenists.

Hmmm...don't see anywhere you saying that is your OPINION...(actually it doesn't even make sense, because what you're actually saying is that feminists have a rancorous opinion of women), you state it as fact. Whereas the comment about what most feminists want is in keeping with the definition of feminism. It happens to be an opinion that is factual. I think I'm getting snippy because I'm tired...but that's just my opinion.
:p

Uh-huh...and would you like to offer up a view on what feminists may or may not want? She said MOST...as in most feminists are NOT radicalmanhatinglesbians... there are some that do fall under that title of course. For your edification:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

So if you are not FOR the above, you can't rightly call yourself a feminist. Not a stereotype, a definition.

Here's a definition for you.

noun. stereotype
conventional or formulaic conception or image

A stereotype and a definition are not mutually exclusive. A stereotype is simply a generalized way of thinking. In fact, one could claim all definitions are in fact stereotypes.

On a sidenote: "would you like to offer up a view on what feminists may or may not want?" I see no reason why such has any intrinsic value to the matter at hand. I simply stated that all sweeping generalizations and conceptions are stereotypes. Including that one.

Oooh... I LOVE how you generalise..... I spoke only of your rancor (which you state you don't have, fine...) but you think it's okay to label all feminists the same. Hmmm. Well as for war...guess what...it was MEN (and just to clue you in, I'm generalising, because there are plenty of men against war) who instituted conscription, and MEN who so vehemently tried to keep women OUT of the military. In fact, WOMEN don't have a heck of lot of say in the army (still), and that is one of those little inequalities we are talking about. I think conscription is a crock, and NO ONE should have to be forced into the army. That's why I'm quite happy to live in Canada. If there is conscription, now that women have been allowed (by MEN) to join the army, then it should apply to both men and women, and given that more and more women ARE joining the army, in the interests of equality, that probably will happen. Those who don't want to be conscripted can come live in my country:).

So....what other "priveleges" do you think women unfairly possess?

Once again I do not label I state my opinion and that is the current opinion of femenists.

And fine men have instituted the draft... yes okay but what about the men who are opposed it and were forced to go to war? ARe they not victims? ARe they not victims just like the abused women in a relationship?

You tell me that only women are the victims and all I'm trying to say is that men are also the victims. And what you call balancing the scale is only going to further throw it out of wack. The same civil status in a nation... yes thats good. But when you attempt to equalize every aspect of both genders you come to the problem that men and women are inherently different and are not completely equal.

Thats the problem with society today. Activists blattantly want COMPLETE equality and that is an unlikely dream.

Here's your original quote:

I have no rancorous opinion of women, but the same thing can not be said for femenists.

Hmmm...don't see anywhere you saying that is your OPINION...(actually it doesn't even make sense, because what you're actually saying is that feminists have a rancorous opinion of women), you state it as fact. Whereas the comment about what most feminists want is in keeping with the definition of feminism. It happens to be an opinion that is factual. I think I'm getting snippy because I'm tired...but that's just my opinion.
:p
Fine, let me reword that. I have no rancorous opinion of women but I do have a rancorous opinion of femenists. There? Is that clear enough for you?

Also which gender is more likely to be accused of a crime?
face it guys you realy cant rape MOST men unless it is done by another man. if you are trully scared for your life it just wont come up.

Look I'd like to end this arguement or at the very least pause it. It is obvious that neither you nor I will be convinced of either point of view. And the onlookers either don't care or point out technicalities.

Now I have spent WAY too much time here... and specifically on this thread... and I'd like a rest from the computer...

face it guys you realy cant rape MOST men unless it is done by another man. if you are trully scared for your life it just wont come up.
And no it is actually possible for a woman to rape a man... It's just a rare occurance and thus is probably 100 times more humiliating.

Here's a definition for you.

noun. stereotype
conventional or formulaic conception or image

A stereotype and a definition are not mutually exclusive. A stereotype is simply a generalized way of thinking. In fact, one could claim all definitions are in fact stereotypes.

On a sidenote: "would you like to offer up a view on what feminists may or may not want?" I see no reason why such has any intrinsic value to the matter at hand. I simply stated that all sweeping generalizations and conceptions are stereotypes. Including that one.

Okay...this is getting widely off-topic and silly, but I just HAVE to go after this one....it's too funny. You are saying that the definition of feminism is a stereotype, and therefore she is stereotyping by saying feminists believe in equality for women, and working towards it. Alright. You don't see why an alternative (re: Your personal) definition has any intrinsic value to the discussion. Then you start getting all personal and STEREOTYPING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS AND CONCEPTIONS! I mean...are ALL sweeping generalizations stereotypes? What if ONE sweeping generalization doesn't WANT to be stereotyped like that? How dare you oppress that poor little sweeping generalization!

Yeah, it is valuable to the discussion (your idea of feminism), because if you have a different conception of it that the definition, you'd better start calling it something else...like neo-feminism...or radicalmanhating feminism...because, hate to break it to you.....her so called stereotype IS what feminists want, according to the definition. By the way, stereotypes have a negative connotation...and her appraisal of feminism is certainly not negative. So if you want to keep arguing stereotypes and definitions, go ahead. Alone.

Originally Posted by Amerigo
I am not comparing the two, I am stating the fact that you think women are the overall victims of a men dominated society. Now you tell me what those billions (I'm talking about throught history so yes billions) of men who were forced to fight in a war are?

Billions? You're cracked. http://www.prb.org/Content/ContentGroups/PTarticle/0ct-Dec02/How_Many_People_Have_Ever_Lived_on_Earth_.htm

It's statistically impossible that that many people could have been drafted or otherwise forced to fight in wars, let alone die in them. The population couldn't bear that kind of mortality rate. It's always been too small. Even if billions died today, it would have too much of an impact on the population for us not to notice.

Don't make sweeping statements like that without first doing at least a bit of cursory research.

Billions? You're cracked. http://www.prb.org/Content/ContentGroups/PTarticle/0ct-Dec02/How_Many_People_Have_Ever_Lived_on_Earth_.htm

It's statistically impossible that that many people could have been drafted or otherwise forced to fight in wars, let alone die in them. The population couldn't bear that kind of mortality rate. It's always been too small. Even if billions died today, it would have too much of an impact on the population for us not to notice.

Don't make sweeping statements like that without first doing at least a bit of cursory research.
Oh fine... details details.

That is irrelevant in the arguement.

If not billions fine. Millions? Is that such a small figure?

And no it is actually possible for a woman to rape a man... It's just a rare occurance and thus is probably 100 times more humiliating.

Humiliating because rape is about control and domination, and obviously, being dominated by a woman would have to be more humiliating than being dominated by a man, because women are supposed to be the dominated ones...Of course a man dominating you is marginally acceptable, but a woman? Oh the horror. It would be even more awful than being beaten by a girl in a fight.

*sigh*

I give up.

Once again I do not label I state my opinion and that is the current opinion of femenists.

And fine men have instituted the draft... yes okay but what about the men who are opposed it and were forced to go to war? ARe they not victims? ARe they not victims just like the abused women in a relationship?

You tell me that only women are the victims and all I'm trying to say is that men are also the victims. And what you call balancing the scale is only going to further throw it out of wack. The same civil status in a nation... yes thats good. But when you attempt to equalize every aspect of both genders you come to the problem that men and women are inherently different and are not completely equal.

Thats the problem with society today. Activists blattantly want COMPLETE equality and that is an unlikely dream.

*sigh*
Nowhere did I say that women are the only victims. Again, I urge to you actually READ my posts...not just react to them. Men forced to go to war are victims...but not "victims just like the abused women in a relationship". Again, apples and oranges. The army is not your abusive wife. (no matter how much you may want it to be)

You say that men and women are inherently different. True...I don't think anyone would be silly enough to deny it. You state that they are not completely equal. Again, true...but that is not inherently so...that is a social construction. Complete equality is impossbile...it would mean that no one could be smarter, or better looking or nicer than anyone else. What I want, as a woman, is to be given the same opportunities as a man. I don't want to be help back because of my gender. If I can not perform a function, then fine. You can't bear children, and I don't hold that against you. As for equality throwing things out of wack...oh yes...look how desegregation has ruined your nation. I think the only thing it would throw out of wack is your desperate desire to hold on to the last shred of your male domination. The shred is slipping, and I'm pretty sure it won't mean (to quote REM) the end of the world as we know it.

Humiliating because rape is about control and domination, and obviously, being dominated by a woman would have to be more humiliating than being dominated by a man, because women are supposed to be the dominated ones...Of course a man dominating you is marginally acceptable, but a woman? Oh the horror. It would be even more awful than being beaten by a girl in a fight.

*sigh*

I give up.

Yes because of societal standards... How people are brought up. And thus it would in fact be more humiliating.

And no it is actually possible for a woman to rape a man... It's just a rare occurance and thus is probably 100 times more humiliating.

Right...women who've been raped aren't NEARLY as humiliated as men... I guess we've just had more time to get used to it. Don't worry, that doesn't make us unequal...just different. :headbang:

*sigh*
Nowhere did I say that women are the only victims. Again, I urge to you actually READ my posts...not just react to them. Men forced to go to war are victims...but not "victims just like the abused women in a relationship". Again, apples and oranges. The army is not your abusive wife. (no matter how much you may want it to be)

You say that men and women are inherently different. True...I don't think anyone would be silly enough to deny it. You state that they are not completely equal. Again, true...but that is not inherently so...that is a social construction. Complete equality is impossbile...it would mean that no one could be smarter, or better looking or nicer than anyone else. What I want, as a woman, is to be given the same opportunities as a man. I don't want to be help back because of my gender. If I can not perform a function, then fine. You can't bear children, and I don't hold that against you. As for equality throwing things out of wack...oh yes...look how desegregation has ruined your nation. I think the only thing it would throw out of wack is your desperate desire to hold on to the last shred of your male domination. The shred is slipping, and I'm pretty sure it won't mean (to quote REM) the end of the world as we know it.

Look fine okay whatever. I don't care just please do not tempt me to continue this little discussion. I don't want to spend any more time on this forum, but I can never resist defending my point of view.

Amerigo, if you think we get privileges above and beyond what you get, look at the system. For more than three thousand years, at least, it has been created by the men who dominated humanity. If men don't like it the way they made it, it's their own damned fault. Suck it up.

And no it is actually possible for a woman to rape a man... It's just a rare occurance and thus is probably 100 times more humiliating.
lol if you notice i did say MOST MEN not all :)

Yes because of societal standards... How people are brought up. And thus it would in fact be more humiliating.

But let's not DARE to CHANGE societal standards and make rape repugnant no matter who it happens to. If we both get raped, we can get together and compare our levels of humiliation, ok? Until then...

Oh, and the thing about billions of people dying, and you saying that had no bearing on the discussion....

facts have a BIG bearing on the discussion.

What bothers you so much about women gaining equality? I mean, are you going to lose your job/be raped/forced to become a homemaker/raise kids/be shipped off to war...just because we are given the same opportunities as you? I hope you are reborn a woman.

You know what fine I'll admit it. Power is an object not easily relinquished. Did the kings of old peacebly give up power to the people? to the bourgeiosie?

Thats the same for most men I'm betting and I don't want to change it.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

Why do you think the southern plantation owners would not give up their slaves.

Its just power.

Those who have it won't want to give it up.

I'm going to break the quote up in to parts, as it's too long to address as one large batch of text.

Okay...this is getting widely off-topic and silly, but I just HAVE to go after this one....it's too funny. You are saying that the definition of feminism is a stereotype, and therefore she is stereotyping by saying feminists believe in equality for women, and working towards it.

Yes, so far we're in agreement on where I stand. A definition is a generalized opinion/statement, which is the same as what a stereotype is.

Alright. You don't see why an alternative (re: Your personal) definition has any intrinsic value to the discussion. Then you start getting all personal and STEREOTYPING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS AND CONCEPTIONS! I mean...are ALL sweeping generalizations stereotypes?

By "the discussion", I am referring solely to the discussion of stereotypes. Not the discussion on feminism. I apologize if that was unclear. My personal views of what feminism are have no impact on what a stereotype is, hence my comment.

As for "all personal", I have no idea where you get that, and such I'm just going to ignore it and move forward.

Yes, I stereotyped. I don't recall saying stereotypes were bad. We use them in everyday life, and in science. I did find hypocrisy in damning one stereotype while using another. I may stereotype, but I don't have any problem with stereotypes in general.

Last but not least, yes, all sweeping generalizations can be inferred to be a stereotype. A stereotype in its base form is nothing more than a general preconception. Stereotype can infer something used by the majority of people, however that isn't a requirement as I am aware - it is entirely possible to stereotype a segment of society without having others share your stereotype.

What if ONE sweeping generalization doesn't WANT to be stereotyped like that? How dare you oppress that poor little sweeping generalization!

Yeah, it is valuable to the discussion (your idea of feminism), because if you have a different conception of it that the definition, you'd better start calling it something else...like neo-feminism...or radicalmanhating feminism...because, hate to break it to you.....her so called stereotype IS what feminists want, according to the definition. By the way, stereotypes have a negative connotation...and her appraisal of feminism is certainly not negative. So if you want to keep arguing stereotypes and definitions, go ahead. Alone.

The top paragraph is not intended to be part of this discussion as far as I can tell, and I'm sure you'd agree. So I'll ignore that.

Once again, we hit the problem with the definition of "discussion". This is my fault. I had not meant to infer the discussion of feminism, only the discussion of stereotypes.

As for feminism being a definition, I have already explained that a definition is almost always a stereotype - it is a commonly held idea that generalizes a person or subject.

I have no need to argue the matter further, though thank you for the offer. I think I have made my case quite clearly this time, and it stands (for whatever merits a person chooses to grant it) on its own.

Now thank you for the DELIGHTFUL discussion but I'd like to concentrate on playing poker now.

You know what fine I'll admit it. Power is an object not easily relinquished. Did the kings of old peacebly give up power to the people? to the bourgeiosie?

Thats the same for most men I'm betting and I don't want to change it.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

Why do you think the southern plantation owners would not give up their slaves.

Its just power.

Those who have it won't want to give it up.

I don't know if you're just saying what I want to hear (you can whisper sweet nothings like that to me all you want:)), or if you are actually admitting it. You're right, power is hard to give up. I live in a fairly rich country. It would be hard to give up a lot of my privelege so that others could live better. I'm willing to try though, and I think it would be a positive change to society. If women were to give up now, despite all the incredible advances we've made, it would be settling for second best. I want my girls to grow up knowing that not only are they capable of anything they put their minds to, but also that they will be ALLOWED to change those things. If I have sons, they will be raised to love themselves, and to be proud of being men...but not at the expense of women's rights. And visa versa.

Anyway, it's midnight here and I turn into a pumpkin soon...catch you all tomorrow!

most men are stronger than there mate. the problem is the perception of socity( bad spell :P) how most abuse on a man from a women comes in the form of her hitting him and him not doing anything to defend him self. i have been witness to a friend that lived next door. his wife abused him in the manner of belittling him and smaking him in the side of the head from behind. now she is no small women but the frist time he turned around and pushed her down she called the law. when they show up they want to take him to jail and did not because i was witness to it. they must not of filed a report because 3 years latter when it happend again and there was no witness they took him to jail and he was convicted of domestic battery. unless a women does great harm to a man or there are witness to it all most all ways the man gets the short end of the stick. because most happens in the home and the man is the stronger of the 2 that does not happen often.

I don't know if you're just saying what I want to hear (you can whisper sweet nothings like that to me all you want:)), or if you are actually admitting it. You're right, power is hard to give up. I live in a fairly rich country. It would be hard to give up a lot of my privelege so that others could live better. I'm willing to try though, and I think it would be a positive change to society. If women were to give up now, despite all the incredible advances we've made, it would be settling for second best. I want my girls to grow up knowing that not only are they capable of anything they put their minds to, but also that they will be ALLOWED to change those things. If I have sons, they will be raised to love themselves, and to be proud of being men...but not at the expense of women's rights. And visa versa.

Anyway, it's midnight here and I turn into a pumpkin soon...catch you all tomorrow!

Most people will not give up privledges to those who lack it for nothing in return it is the way of the human race. We have risen up to the top of the food chain through dominance. And to picture a wolrd that is sociallly equal is just unreal. Our instincts want control and dominanace.

What most men want is to retain their control and women want some of it. Now all these different groups competing for control will never result in some utopia where everyone is equal in the yes of the law an society teaches tolerance of everyone.

It'll never happen. Look at racism. Despite the tedious meatgrinder of tolerance and acceptance taught in school, there is still racism and there always will be racism. Just like there is sexism and there always will be sexism. To eliminate bias and prdjudice is to eliminate the choice and the individual itself.

There.

Thats my true non-bullshit opinion of it. All these lobbyist hide behind statistics and arguements and I'm just tired of it.

Nobody really wants just a happy place where they can live in peace with everybody... they can convince others and even themselves but the human instinct wants control and every group lobbying for power will find a more sophisticated way to express that desire for power. Why do you think communism didn't work?

Now call that a horrible generalization and stereotype but that is my view of the matter and thats what I will always think.

Most people will not give up privledges to those who lack it for nothing in return it is the way of the human race. We have risen up to the top of the food chain through dominance. And to picture a wolrd that is sociallly equal is just unreal. Our instincts want control and dominanace.

What most men want is to retain their control and women want some of it. Now all these different groups competing for control will never result in some utopia where everyone is equal in the yes of the law an society teaches tolerance of everyone.

It'll never happen. Look at racism. Despite the tedious meatgrinder of tolerance and acceptance taught in school, there is still racism and there always will be racism. Just like there is sexism and there always will be sexism. To eliminate bias and prdjudice is to eliminate the choice and the individual itself.

There.

Thats my true non-bullshit opinion of it. All these lobbyist hide behind statistics and arguements and I'm just tired of it.

Nobody really wants just a happy place where they can live in peace with everybody... they can convince others and even themselves but the human instinct wants control and every group lobbying for power will find a more sophisticated way to express that desire for power. Why do you think communism didn't work?

Now call that a horrible generalization and stereotype but that is my view of the matter and thats what I will always think.

Who ever said that creating equality between the sexes would create a utopia? It couldn't possibly. I don't expect it to. Yes, there is still racism, and it's never going to go away. At least now, racism isn't legally sanctioned (segregation), and it is no longer widely socially acceptable. I'm willing to have the same for women's rights.

As for hiding behind statistics and arguements... would you really take ANYONE seriously who just showed up at your door and says, "Hey this is what I think, and I'm right because I think I am?"? Of course you have to back up your arguements with facts! Otherwise you could make any sort of wild statement and base your whole system of beliefs on it. Anyway, thanks for the discussion, it's been a ball...sorry about evilly sneaking back to get the last word:)

And here is my last word:

Feminists aren't only working for equality for women... we want equality for both the sexes. (ok, I'm generalising, some may not want this, but it is the ideal, according to the definition of feminism) Here is one thing I think is unfair and needs to be changed:

In Canada, a woman gets a 17 weeks for her Maternity leave when she has a child or adopts. Then she can get up to an additional 37 weeks parental leave (which can not exceed in total 52 weeks). Ok, good. If you are a man however, planning on staying home with the kid, biological or adopted, you are not elegible for those Maternity leave weeks. No way, not going to happen...because you aren't a woman. Alright, I know the Maternity leave part is there to let women recover from childbirth...but what if the woman only wants to take a few weeks? Or if they are adopting, there is nothing to recover from! If the man is going to stay home instead of the woman, he should be entitled to the entire 52 weeks! This needs to change. There. Now I'm done...I promise... at least for a few more hours:).

I saw a news special a while back that said boys are being discriminated against in school, because girls are now better at math and science (or so say the test scores...suspect at best) than THEY are....oh no! It was okay when it was assumed that boys were just smarter in math and science than girls...and that girls all loved social and language arts. There is even a big call for boy-only schools that will teach more phys-ed (because girls HATE getting all sweaty), and work harder to boost their self esteem. Has anyone else heard of this? What do you think about it?

And no it is actually possible for a woman to rape a man... It's just a rare occurance and thus is probably 100 times more humiliating.
Astonishing. Humiliation is the principle concern here?

Feminism clearly hasn't had its day because we still live in a society dominated by men. This needs to change.

What ever happened to the woman soldier who was involved in the torture of prisoners in Iraq? I hope she gets punished just as severely as the men involved.

Surely the rule should be that one should be treated as an individual, not as a gender. Yes, there will be exceptions in certain areas pertaining to biological issues. In the case you mention, however, gender ought to be irrelevant.

Surely the rule should be that one should be treated as an individual, not as a gender. Yes, there will be exceptions in certain areas pertaining to biological issues. In the case you mention, however, gender ought to be irrelevant.

I agree. I think it would send a really bad message if she was let off with a lighter punishment than men who committed the same acts. I know there are women criminals and sadists out there...but I have to admit that I am suprised a woman would do such a thing. That is my own personal stereotype about my fellow woman creeping out. Are women equally capable of atrocities? I've heard it argued many times before that if women were in power, there would be no wars....somehow I very much doubt it....

I would treat any woman the same I would treat any guy that I know. That is except when it comes time for being intimate. Guys all get the cold shoulder while the ladies get all the attention.

Women are not equal to men.
Now, let me justify that. IF women were equal to men, there would be no characteristics by which one could identify someone of a differing gender, and no basis upon which to discriminate.
The human genotype makes it more difficult for females to achieve the same muscle mass and body strength. They are carrying around large energy-hungry reproductive organs that require high monthly maintenance. Females, as a whole, are less suited to jobs of heavy labor.
The physical biological differences are the only differences upon which I can accept such discrimination. You don't get a sleek and beautiful cat to be your partner when you hunt ducks, you get a big ugly dog.
This is an inequality we must be able to accept, because it is nothing more than the factual physical difference that exists by the very nature of gender.
If a woman maintains a high level of strength comparable to men of the same strength, I have no objection to them holding labor-intensive jobs.

I also will not force an employer to hire a certain number of women to maintain some mythical ratio. If women were equally suited to that job, women would be equally hired merely as an act of good business practice. It does not pay an employer to discount the talented and hard-working potential employees just because they happen to also be women. Forcing an employer to hire women they would not normally hire is discrimination against men, because now women who do not meet standards are being hired just to meet the ratio. This is bad business, and an insult to women who desire to truley be treated equal. No law should exist governing this in a society of equality. This paragraph is not written to be gender biased, and you may simultaneously switch all instances of "men" and "women" with their alternate gender.

In American society, the balance has long been shifting from equality of the genders to discrimination against men. Not from discrimination of women to gender equality.
There are two systems of equality. In one, there are special priviledges and responsibilities for each gender. In the other, there are no special priviledges, and responsibilities are divided evenly.
Traditionally, women have the privilidge of being able to stay home and not work to earn money. Completely free ride through life attached to their husbands. Their responsibility is to maintain the household and to keep their husband sexually satisfied, not complaining about timing or quantity. The system is reversable. A woman may solely accept the responsibility of earning income, and it is the male who must become the modest caretaker and not pester her for sex when she doesn't wish it.
Modernly, both partners pay their own full 50% through life, both earn incomes, and both work together to raise their children, and reach their own mutual conclusions about when sex is to occur.
The problem occurs most often in American society when women decide they want only the best aspects of both systems, without accepting the burdens of either. They demand the lavish gifts to earn their respect and affection, the same rights and equal access to work and education. But often refuse to pull their own full 50% finacially, and when the men return home and desire intercourse, they are met with complaints about 'how hard' it was today to stay home and clean and cook and not have to get up and go to work every day to pay for the extra person living in your house. This problem cannot be reversed, because this set of actions is performed much more regularly by women in America.
If men tried the same trick to claim both good halves of the two society models, demanding that the women cook, clean, AND earn an income, keep them sexually satisfied, and never talked back... why, that would be slavery.
Men, don't let yourselves be sold into slavery at the price of half your stuff. We started equal, and have now moved far beyond it.
The women's rights movement should be praised for changing society away from a Traditional society to a Modern one, but they have utterly failed in their goal, removing the gender specific domination of social-structure. They had the chance for equality, and instead they became what they abhorred.

This can be corrected, though. Choose a society model and stick with it. If you choose Modern society and equal rights and priviledges, do not marry. If you choose Traditional society, do not divorce. Choose once, and do not stray from it. Either system is acceptable, and both are equal, but you can't take from both sides.

I also will not force an employer to hire a certain number of women to maintain some mythical ratio.

I don't think that anyone was arguing *for* this.

The problem occurs most often in American society when women decide they want only the best aspects of both systems, without accepting the burdens of either.

I've actually seen more men do this. They don't cook, clean, or take care of the kids because that's "women's work," but they do expect their wives to hold full time jobs and "pull their weight."

They demand the lavish gifts to earn their respect and affection, the same rights and equal access to work and education.

I only know (maybe) one or two women like this, and the rest of us that I know pretty much hate them.

If men tried the same trick to claim both good halves of the two society models, demanding that the women cook, clean, AND earn an income, keep them sexually satisfied, and never talked back... why, that would be slavery.

And yet, it happens all the time (except for maybe the never talk back part).

The women's rights movement should be praised for changing society away from a Traditional society to a Modern one, but they have utterly failed in their goal, removing the gender specific domination of social-structure. They had the chance for equality, and instead they became what they abhorred.

If you said "some of them" instead of They, I would agree with you here. But it is a small amount, not the majority.

This can be corrected, though. Choose a society model and stick with it. If you choose Modern society and equal rights and priviledges, do not marry.

What a goofy thing to say. I can't marry my boyfriend just because I want to have the same treatment in the workplace? What planet are you on?

If you choose Traditional society, do not divorce. Choose once, and do not stray from it. Either system is acceptable, and both are equal, but you can't take from both sides.

And by Traditional, you mean the woman sits at home and shuts up and never has any say in anything? Yeah, that's really acceptable.

Ok, Iantha, I'll bite.

Apples and oranges? Of course. Different, but equal. Nobody said that women and men were exactly the same, but for the human race, they are equally important. Actually, not being funny, but if the world had just one man, and a million women, the race would survive, or rather, we'd only need a handful of men. The rest would be surplus to requirements. On the other hand, if there were a million men and just one woman, or even just a handful of us, the race would die out. Women and men need each other, don't get me wrong, but we don't need as many men as all that.

As for women only being suited to certain kinds of work, let me tell you. We are still psychologically reeling from the results of a con that was pulled on us during WWII. Before WWII, women were in the home. That was their work and their job, according to victorian standards. Some exceptions were made, like jobs that were extensions of the skills they had at home. Clothing factories, canning factories, libraries...

THEN the war came. Suddenly, saying it was women's work didn't cut it. No woman could use that excuse anymore. The government told us that to be patriotic, we should get our asses to the shipyards and munitions factories, on the fire trucks and mail routes. The majority of battleships built then were built almost entirely by women. They could do the work, believe me. In some cases, we did it better.

THEN the war ended. The government scratched its collective head. Then they told us...ummmm...girls? The men are coming back. It would be terrible if they didn't have jobs to come back to. Why don't you do your patriotic duty and go home. Spoil the guy. Don't stress him too much at home. Settle down and raise a family.

The point I'm trying to make is that when we're needed to work, the old excuse of women's work/men's work doesn't cut it. We're put to work.

As for the thing about not getting married to make our chances of advancement better in a job, I don't get it. If I didn't get married or have kids, they'd still think of me as a woman, and until I hit menopause, and became less profitable for my job, I'd be suspect. They'd expect that any minute now I'm gonna get married and squirt out a baby. The discrimination would still be there.

My reproductive organs don't suck up that much of my energy.

Alright! A coherent argument! Yay! Now I'll pick it apart:).

Women are not equal to men.
Now, let me justify that. IF women were equal to men, there would be no characteristics by which one could identify someone of a differing gender, and no basis upon which to discriminate.
The human genotype makes it more difficult for females to achieve the same muscle mass and body strength. They are carrying around large energy-hungry reproductive organs that require high monthly maintenance. Females, as a whole, are less suited to jobs of heavy labor.
The physical biological differences are the only differences upon which I can accept such discrimination. You don't get a sleek and beautiful cat to be your partner when you hunt ducks, you get a big ugly dog.
This is an inequality we must be able to accept, because it is nothing more than the factual physical difference that exists by the very nature of gender.
If a woman maintains a high level of strength comparable to men of the same strength, I have no objection to them holding labor-intensive jobs.

No sane person would argue for complete equality in terms of our physicality...re: forcing men and women to become physcially similar. Nor do many people deny the differences that ARE inherent.
I bolded the statement above, because I agree that physical differences are the only ones which should prevent a woman from getting a job...but I'll add the condition that it had better only be strength that being considered, not physical beauty or our ability to bear children.

I also will not force an employer to hire a certain number of women to maintain some mythical ratio.

You mean the mythical ratio that says that women make up 51% of the world's population, yet are nowhere near represented to that extent in politics and managerial positions?

If women were equally suited to that job, women would be equally hired merely as an act of good business practice. It does not pay an employer to discount the talented and hard-working potential employees just because they happen to also be women. Forcing an employer to hire women they would not normally hire is discrimination against men, because now women who do not meet standards are being hired just to meet the ratio.This is bad business, and an insult to women who desire to truley be treated equal.

This is the same arguement used when blacks began wanting a better representation in careers besides menial labour. "Forcing businesses to hire blacks discriminates against whites". What the "invisible hand" theory fails to take into account is that people will hold on to their biases even if it flies in the face of "good business sense". I someone thinks women have no place being mechanics, they simply won't hire her, no matter her qualifications.
No one is saying, (at least none of the feminists I know) that an underqualified woman should be hired instead of a fully qualified man. I'll refer, yet again to the following stat:

A key explanation for the wider gender pay gap in the private sector is likely to be the differing representation of women in the three highest paid occupational groups (managers and administrators, professional occupations and associate professional and technical occupations)...in the public sector...women comprisd 53 per cent of full-time employees....the equivalent figure for the private sector was only 27 per cent. http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/researc...income_2003.pdf

None of the professions listed above can say the discrimination is due to lack of physical strength...it isn't a requirement. So why the gap in the private sector? Am I saying, for example, that in a all male engineering firm, a woman should be hired instead of a man the next time a position comes up? Yes, as long as she is equally qualified as the male candidate. That is not discriminating against men, it is trying to even out the already blatant discrimination against women. If no woman APPLIES for the job, the firm should not have to take out a full page ad...and they should not be punished for not hiring women IF no woman was qualified enough to get the position.


No law should exist governing this in a society of equality.

Hate to break it to you, but we aren't living in a society of equality. That's why we're fighting for equality between the sexes. (re: men AND women, not women in favour of men)

In American society, the balance has long been shifting from equality of the genders to discrimination against men. Not from discrimination of women to gender equality.

I've heard this so many times.... give me some examples here. In what way are men discriminated against? Oh yes, there are plenty of examples...but if we're goin to discuss them, I need to know what in particular you are talking about.. Also, you'll be happy to know that many feminists work to make sure men aren't being discriminated against either...read my post on Maternity Leave....my union is in the middle of trying to change that particular benefit to include men more fairly.

There are two systems of equality. In one, there are special priviledges and responsibilities for each gender. In the other, there are no special priviledges, and responsibilities are divided evenly.
Traditionally, women have the privilidge of being able to stay home and not work to earn money. Completely free ride through life attached to their husbands.

I dispute this statement on many levels:

First, saying that women had the PRIVELEGE to stay home is ridiculous. Women had no choice. They were told that the house was their realm, whether it suited them or not. Their was enormous social pressure to keep her there. For some, it DID suit them, but not for all...and when they did venture out to get a job it was to go into a traditionally "female" career like being a secretary etc. Women of my grandmother's generation would not have been ALLOWED to be a mechanic. Period.

As for it being a free ride... you are falling into the trap of discounting domestic work because it is unpaid. A homekeeper is expected to do just that...keep the home in good condition, cooking, cleaning, and raising the children. If you were to pay a maid, and a babysitter, it would cost you a pretty penny. Man or woman, whichever stays at home, it is a tough job. Making all men stay at home while the woman goes out and works would be just as unfair. Let the one who WANTS to do it, stay home. And give them their due.

Modernly, both partners pay their own full 50% through life, both earn incomes, and both work together to raise their children, and reach their own mutual conclusions about when sex is to occur.

This is a good option, and works well for me.

The problem occurs most often in American society when women decide they want only the best aspects of both systems, without accepting the burdens of either. They demand the lavish gifts to earn their respect and affection, the same rights and equal access to work and education. But often refuse to pull their own full 50% finacially, and when the men return home and desire intercourse, they are met with complaints about 'how hard' it was today to stay home and clean and cook and not have to get up and go to work every day to pay for the extra person living in your house. This problem cannot be reversed, because this set of actions is performed much more regularly by women in America.
If men tried the same trick to claim both good halves of the two society models, demanding that the women cook, clean, AND earn an income, keep them sexually satisfied, and never talked back... why, that would be slavery..

This problem should NOT be reversed...it should be gotten rid of all together. If there are gifts involved, the woman should be giving them too. Not all women even want those "lavish gifts" you were talking about. You go to again discount the importance of housework..and let's not even bring sex into this because everyone likes theirs a little differently:). Anyway, feminism does not mean turning men into "slaves" so we can get all the good jobs and force men to have sex whenever we want. THIS is what we want:

Modernly, both partners pay their own full 50% through life, both earn incomes, and both work together to raise their children, and reach their own mutual conclusions about when sex is to occur.

Of course it doesn't always happen that way...there are lazy men and lazy women...but I think this is becoming more the norm in a relationship.

Men, don't let yourselves be sold into slavery at the price of half your stuff. We started equal, and have now moved far beyond it.

We started off equal? When was that exactly? It must not have been long, because it has only been in the last century that women were even allowed to VOTE! We did not start off equally, but we are working to create equality. Don't try to tell me that society has moved so far to the other side that men are societally pressured into staying home and not working while women go out and earn the money....or that we're campaigning to take the vote away from men.

The women's rights movement should be praised for changing society away from a Traditional society to a Modern one, but they have utterly failed in their goal, removing the gender specific domination of social-structure. They had the chance for equality, and instead they became what they abhorred.

First you say they SUCCEEDED in changing society from a traditional model to a modern one, then in the same breath you say they failed...which is it? Like I said, women are not currently the top dogs in the social structure, and that isn't what most are working for. We are working to be on equal footing. They became what they abhorred? Please. A true feminist acts in the interests of both sexes...not one over the other. It happens that we have to work harder to help women because we have more ground to make up. Tell me how society has swung to a female-dominated social structure.

This can be corrected, though. Choose a society model and stick with it. If you choose Modern society and equal rights and priviledges, do not marry. If you choose Traditional society, do not divorce. Choose once, and do not stray from it. Either system is acceptable, and both are equal, but you can't take from both sides.

No each system is NOT acceptable, because your blessed traditional society takes the rights away from women (or men if you reversed it). Marriage has nothing to do with equality unless you take seriously the phrase "to love and obey thy husband". Obey...hah. Marriage does not mean one person is sworn into servitude while the other earns the money...marriage can and should be a loving partnership.

*Applauds Sinuhue*