NationStates Jolt Archive

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

That's right...being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a man-hating lesbian...it simply means you want the rights of men and women to be equitable. Let's make THAT clear:

Main Entry: eq·ui·ta·ble
Pronunciation: 'e-kw&-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned

Not EQUAL, as in the SAME. We can't make women and men completely the same...it would defeat the whole purpose of being different sexes...but we can treat men and women more equitably. So if I go ahead and call myself a feminist, understand that I do not mean I want women to be placed above men, or that I want man-hole covers to be called people-hole covers and so forth. I just want women to have an equitable, recognised place in our society, as is only fair.

Amen to that.

:D

I agree. I'm a girl myself and I believe that men and women should be treated equally. I make a couple of silly jokes about guys from time to time, but that doesn't mean I hate them.

I just want women to have an equitable, recognised place in our society, as is only fair.

Now THAT is the kinda feminism I like.

The different feminists seem like completely different groups now. The feminists who want equal rights to men and the feminists who hate men and want more rights than them :)

Luckily, I can still buy flowers for my girlfriend without unintentionally insinuating ownership over her and insulting her financial independance. ;)

Craig

Now THAT is the kinda feminism I like.

The different feminists seem like completely different groups now. The feminists who want equal rights to men and the feminists who hate men and want more rights than them :)

Luckily, I can still buy flowers for my girlfriend without unintentionally insinuating ownership over her and insulting her financial independance. ;)

Craig

Of course, the latter group (the man-haters) seem to speak for the rest of them...just like in every group, the extremists try to speak for everyone. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell try to speak for all Christians. al-Qaeda tries to speak for all Muslims. The Bush administration tries to speak for all Americans. Feminists are no different in this regard from any of these groups. Of course, they seem to have ome kind of power they really don't need to have, just like those other groups...damn biased courts and entertainment media...

Hooola Sinuhue, I really don't know how could anyone think something else about this subject, but seeing the post I have seen in other threads, it's good you started this. :)

There are, however, many people, men and women out there who feel threatened by any sort of feminism, not just the extreme kind. Some men believe that women are NOT equal, and do not deserve equitable treatment. There are women who agree. Both of these groups often justify their derision of feminism by pointing to the extremists, but often this simply hides their true distaste of feminine equality. The challenge then is:

To those who oppose feminism, please explain why you DO NOT think women should have equity with men.

I don't oppose it, and I don't see why anyone else should.

Of course, the latter group (the man-haters) seem to speak for the rest of them...just like in every group, the extremists try to speak for everyone. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell try to speak for all Christians. al-Qaeda tries to speak for all Muslims. The Bush administration tries to speak for all Americans. Feminists are no different in this regard from any of these groups. Of course, they seem to have ome kind of power they really don't need to have, just like those other groups...damn biased courts and entertainment media...

You've hit on a very profound thought here. I just noticed that, with all the American hatered circulating around the "Muslim world", that "Muslim World" really stands for "Al-Quaida and their allies". Maybe that goes for Europe too.

"Equal" means completely equal, right? Today, those biased courts you mentioned fairly regularly rule very favorably towards women in divorces. Women aren't behind, they are also ahead.

"Equal" means completely equal, right? Today, those biased courts you mentioned fairly regularly rule very favorably towards women in divorces. Women aren't behind, they are also ahead.

Hear, hear! I never understood why, after the children pass lactancy age, there should be any reason to give the tenency (is that the word?) of them to their mother over their father, they are both equally important. Trying to decide that by default they should stay with one over the other is like trying to prove mathematically that .5 decimals should be rounded up or down. It should be dealt with case by case, period.

"Equal" means completely equal, right? Today, those biased courts you mentioned fairly regularly rule very favorably towards women in divorces. Women aren't behind, they are also ahead.


Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: eq·ui·ta·ble
Pronunciation: 'e-kw&-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned


Not EQUAL, as in the SAME. We can't make women and men completely the same...it would defeat the whole purpose of being different sexes...but we can treat men and women more equitably.

You can't have equality of the sexes without making us the same, a futile project if I ever heard of one!

Courts now may be ruling in favour of the mother in Western society, but it was not always thus. Traditionally, children were chattel, as were women, and they belonged to the father. This is still the case in many countries around the world. To be fair, we must weigh the interests of the children (their wishes, if they are old enough to make a choice), as well as the ability of a certain parent to care for them. Not who makes the most money, because that does not necessarily mean they can care better for the children...compare a doctor working a 90 work-week to a parent on a lower salary, but with more stable hours conducive to child-rearing.

On that note, a pet peeve of mine, and a screaming inequality between the sexes is Maternity Leave. A woman who has a child in Canada has 32 weeks of Maternity leave and 20 weeks of Parental leave. If she chooses to go back to work during her Maternity leave, the man is NOT eligible to use up the rest of that time, and can only take Parental leave. So even if I were to go back to work 2 weeks after having a child, my husband is only eligible for 20 weeks, whereas I would have 52. Utter and complete sexism!

You know, it's funny that when feminism is offered as a topic in a rational manner, no one seems to want to attack it...yet in all these women-bashing threads, feminism is seen as the ultimate evil.

Okay, I'm a little slow...I've been posting to NS for a couple of months now, and I never knew how to put in a poll! Well, here it is! Yay for me! (dummy)

You know, it's funny that when feminism is offered as a topic in a rational manner, no one seems to want to attack it...yet in all these women-bashing threads, feminism is seen as the ultimate evil.

That's because we are talking about the original idea of feminism: equality between men and women. Not many people strongly oppose that.

Craig

Now THAT is the kinda feminism I like.

The different feminists seem like completely different groups now. The feminists who want equal rights to men and the feminists who hate men and want more rights than them :)

Luckily, I can still buy flowers for my girlfriend without unintentionally insinuating ownership over her and insulting her financial independance. ;)

Craig

Hey, don't sweat it. If my man bought me flowers, and he has, I'd melt. I wouldn't look at it as him trying to insinuate ownership or undermine my financial independence. If I cooked him a meal, he wouldn't see it as anything more than making us something to eat, and he'd be as likely to do it as I would, and he'd do it just as well.

Here's the thing... I hear a lot about "extreme" feminists who want women to be considered superior to men, but I've never met one in Women's Studies (Yeah, I'm a man and I take Women's Studies, you wanna fight about it?) I've never heard one speak, and I've never read anything one of them wrote. Where are these extremists people refer to? Can I get a specific example instead of these general references, like "of course, those extreme feminists make all feminists look bad because they hate men". Where are they? What do they say? Links or citations would be nice.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1216blumhorst.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/RightWingWomenAbortion.html

...So even if I were to go back to work 2 weeks after having a child, my husband is only eligible for 20 weeks, whereas I would have 52. Utter and complete sexism!
Not trying to take sides here, but my guess is that would have something to do with recovery time for the mother. Granted, 32 extra weeks may be a bit extreme, but that's the only logical conclusion I can come up with not involving sexism. But then again, I'm a straight white conservative American male, so what do I know about equality?

Somewhere over the years 'feminist' became a slur, something the right hurled as an insult at those they mocked. I marched and campaigned for the ERA, I think somewhere around then is when the right first twisted the word into meaning something it wasn't, with unfounded tales of laws demanding unisex restrooms and eradication of the words 'men' and 'women' from official language. I think it's high time the record was set straight.

with unfounded tales of laws demanding unisex restrooms and eradication of the words 'men' and 'women' from official language. I think it's high time the record was set straight.

Then there are the real tales of wanting to be called "Womyn" so that their gender does not contain "men" and accusing all men of being rapists.

There are two types of feminist. The ones for equal rights and the man-haters

Craig

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1216blumhorst.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/RightWingWomenAbortion.html
Thanks. That was somewhat helpful. The thing is that the first article is just more of the same vague references to militant feminists and laws taking away men's rights. There was not a single specific example of a law that hurts men, and all I'm left to do is to take the writer's word for it that there are such laws and practices.

The second link was more helpful; it showed a definately skewed point of view. I was following it well enough when it was talking about the exploitative nature of "free love", and the beginning of abortion rights (and seeing some validity to it), but once it set out to villify the Male Left as actively seeking to end abortion rights so women will give up and have sex with them... I lost the logic of it all. Even so, there is nothing in there that led me to believe the writer has a desire for women to have "more" rights than men. So, the man-hating part is about square with me, but the part about women being superior... I'm afraid I'm still at a loss.

This is one of those things that I find a touchy issue. As a man I really have no idea what so ever how to react with women who are just my friends. It’s a sad and simple truth. I can horseplay with my female friends but the second they start to say ouch I drop it immediately and get laughed at because they were kidding. What’s worse is that I realize I’m treating them differently than any of my male friends because of the immediate switch from jocularity to intense concern. I’m known as a softy and a lot of my female friends think it’s hilarious that a little bit of a poor me act will get them what they want from me so easily. They’ve actually called me whipped sans pussy. With this in mind they still appreciate me stepping in at clubs to fend of drunks and when I open doors and do other chivalrous things.

Now that’s a bit of background not something to cause a stir. (I have nothing but good intentions and I just wanted you to get an idea of where I was coming from.)

I find that Feminism is one of those ideas that is good in theory but has fallen apart in the practicality of it. The same women who will claim that chivalry is dead in their romance will turn around and call men pigs for something that is not that bad.

Feminism, in my opinion, is a practice that is finding its way in the world. The pendulum is swinging and until it settles and the different factions can agree on the key issues debates like this will be prevalent.

Perhaps my problem with Feminism is the bad things that were/are done in its name. Take the change in regulations on fire fighting. While the fire house is a bastion for bigotry true, it is also a crucial service that requires grueling physical abilities. Examples where women have claimed the physical requirements were too high and sued based on the notion that they should be set reasonably for both sexes infuriate me. A case in Ontario (I use this as I’ve still not made up my mind on the BC on) where some of the physical requirements were based solely on upper body strength was found to be discriminatory because women (generally not as a rule) have less upper body strength and it is not procured as easily with training. So the requirements were reduced. Now, this would be fine should it not be a matter of life or death, but if I’m trapped in a fire and the woman can’t dead lift 185lbs I’m screwed.

Another interesting aspect of the hypocrisy is the social clubs. It’s okay to have women’s gyms and guys gyms but the second the guys’ gym starts to find jobs for people and other connections are made (think old boys club) its now a misogynistic institution that requires government intervention. Would it not be easier if we simply did away with the qualifier of sex? Can we not remove gender from the decision making process totally? How is it that it’s okay for women to have their clubs but not men theirs? Is that not fighting fire with fire when what we need is water?

Now looking back I do sound like a bigot so please be gentle. But the way I see it is if women are looking for the same advantages in life as men but not willing to let go of the advantages of the way things are now does that not merely alienate and confuse people like me?
For the life of me I can’t remember her name but a well spoken feminist author once put forward the idea that women need to come to an agreement as to what it is they want, without male input, and then invite men to sit down. That would be ideal and forcing something on someone is going to create a winner loser situation and that ALWAYS breeds resent. Now you women know what it is like to have a certain expectation forced onto you, why do you want to force an expectation on to someone else? Surely there has to be a co-operative and mutually beneficial system.

Now that said I realize that is the IDEAL of feminism but surely you all can see that that’s not how its playing out.

(Sits back with a beer and hope the flames don’t get too high)

Somewhere over the years 'feminist' became a slur, something the right hurled as an insult at those they mocked. I marched and campaigned for the ERA, I think somewhere around then is when the right first twisted the word into meaning something it wasn't, with unfounded tales of laws demanding unisex restrooms and eradication of the words 'men' and 'women' from official language. I think it's high time the record was set straight.

Two things I have learned about this:

1. The word 'feminist' is a slur used by people who are opposed to them, just as the word 'liberal' is a slur used by conservatives. People on the other side try to turn ther word into something with a negative connotation. In these two cases, it's worked.

2. "Extreme" feminists exist. There wouldn't be this stereotype without those who fit it. Like all stereotypes, there are those who do not fit it, though there are those who do.

Not trying to take sides here, but my guess is that would have something to do with recovery time for the mother. Granted, 32 extra weeks may be a bit extreme, but that's the only logical conclusion I can come up with not involving sexism. But then again, I'm a straight white conservative American male, so what do I know about equality?

First, 32 weeks is extreme, and I'm not sure when they extended it to that. When I took Maternity leave it was 16 weeks (and came with a government "disability" cheque, so I think your conclusion that it's associated with "recovery time" is right on the mark). The Paternal leave portion doesn't have a government cheque attached to it, so it's pretty much only the parent who can afford to take 20 weeks away from a paycheque who can take it. Since, statistically, he's making more money than she is, it's likely going to be her that takes the extra time off.
Second, I'd like you take sides. I really wish every male of any sexual orientation, colour, political stripe and nationality would since the reality is that they're the ones holding on to political and economic power. Women still earn only 75 cents on the dollar their male colleagues take home, occupy fewer than 1 in 5 seats in the Canadian Parliament and probably a similar ration in the U.S. seats of government. Neither the U.S. or Canada has had a woman elected to its highest office. I think there are a lot of "feminist" men out there and I don't think feminism - in the context of this discussion - stands a chance unless they start speaking up.

First, 32 weeks is extreme, and I'm not sure when they extended it to that. When I took Maternity leave it was 16 weeks (and came with a government "disability" cheque, so I think your conclusion that it's associated with "recovery time" is right on the mark). The Paternal leave portion doesn't have a government cheque attached to it, so it's pretty much only the parent who can afford to take 20 weeks away from a paycheque who can take it. Since, statistically, he's making more money than she is, it's likely going to be her that takes the extra time off.
Second, I'd like you take sides. I really wish every male of any sexual orientation, colour, political stripe and nationality would since the reality is that they're the ones holding on to political and economic power. Women still earn only 75 cents on the dollar their male colleagues take home, occupy fewer than 1 in 5 seats in the Canadian Parliament and probably a similar ration in the U.S. seats of government. Neither the U.S. or Canada has had a woman elected to its highest office. I think there are a lot of "feminist" men out there and I don't think feminism - in the context of this discussion - stands a chance unless they start speaking up.


But our economy is driven by the service industry and women spend 60% of all the money spent on goods and/or services. This gives women power.

Perhaps my problem with Feminism is the bad things that were/are done in its name. Take the change in regulations on fire fighting. While the fire house is a bastion for bigotry true, it is also a crucial service that requires grueling physical abilities. Examples where women have claimed the physical requirements were too high and sued based on the notion that they should be set reasonably for both sexes infuriate me. A case in Ontario (I use this as I’ve still not made up my mind on the BC on) where some of the physical requirements were based solely on upper body strength was found to be discriminatory because women (generally not as a rule) have less upper body strength and it is not procured as easily with training. So the requirements were reduced. Now, this would be fine should it not be a matter of life or death, but if I’m trapped in a fire and the woman can’t dead lift 185lbs I’m screwed.

I agree with this objection - on the grounds that it is not setting up equal rights, but is setting up special rights. If someone cannot meet the requirements for a certain job, they should not get that job -- the requirements should not be changed to meet their needs. There *are* women who can meet the requirements to be a fire fighter, just as there are women who can meet the requirements to fight on the front lines in combat.

True, more men will meet the requirements than women, but the requirements in and of themselves are not discriminatory.

Interestingly enough, this doesn't just happen in feminism. Recently, the requirements for beach patrol in a police station in Florida was changed. They no longer require that police officers know how to swim because someone claimed that African-Americans are less likely to know how to swim and thus the requirements were discriminatory. Doe anyone not see flaw in not requiring beach patrol to know how to swim?

But our economy is driven by the service industry and women spend 60% of all the money spent on goods and/or services. This gives women power.
This is a really common misconception, since it includes the goods and services that go along with child care services, running a household (still the "woman's" domain, like it or not), and includes money that comes out of his paycheque, not only hers. And, notably, the service industry is dominated by both minimum-wage jobs and women. So where's the power in that?

Then there are the real tales of wanting to be called "Womyn" so that their gender does not contain "men" and accusing all men of being rapists.
Yes, but that's a classic example of the dirty trick of using the obscure anomally to redefine the majority with a negative conotation.

I agree with this objection - on the grounds that it is not setting up equal rights, but is setting up special rights. If someone cannot meet the requirements for a certain job, they should not get that job -- the requirements should not be changed to meet their needs. There *are* women who can meet the requirements to be a fire fighter, just as there are women who can meet the requirements to fight on the front lines in combat.

True, more men will meet the requirements than women, but the requirements in and of themselves are not discriminatory.

Interestingly enough, this doesn't just happen in feminism. Recently, the requirements for beach patrol in a police station in Florida was changed. They no longer require that police officers know how to swim because someone claimed that African-Americans are less likely to know how to swim and thus the requirements were discriminatory. Doe anyone not see flaw in not requiring beach patrol to know how to swim?

You see this is a perfect example of white middle class guilt. I’m a white male and now that I’m coming to the end of my degree I will never be discriminated on in this country again. While I wish that no one would be the victim of discrimination we don’t need to reverse discriminate to make up for it. Me being lenient to the point of negligent doesn’t make me a better person than if I told that black to learn to swim or that woman to do some push ups.

One the same note I’d laugh at a pimply nerd that applied for a firefighter’s position because he obviously is not qualified. If you can do the job you should get the job at an equal wage. Otherwise you should be told to take a hike regardless.

I wonder how that female firefighter feels knowing that the rules had to be changed for her and that she didn’t achieve it on her own. Does she sleep well at night knowing she’s accomplished a good days work or will she be forever overexerting herself in an attempt to show that she’s one of the team.

Gender/race/religion et cetera are not qualifiers for anything. While you may be more likely or more prone to something that doesn’t override the characteristics of the individual.

Feminism. It is a good thing. Most people autimatically assume that feminists believe that women consider themselfs above men. THat most certianly isn't the case. We only believe that men and woman should be considered equals, and they should also have equal oppertunities. In no way shape or form do feminists consider women better then men, and if anythinks otherwise. . . your very wrong, nad I pity you.

This is one of those things that I find a touchy issue. As a man I really have no idea what so ever how to react with women who are just my friends. It’s a sad and simple truth. I can horseplay with my female friends but the second they start to say ouch I drop it immediately and get laughed at because they were kidding. What’s worse is that I realize I’m treating them differently than any of my male friends because of the immediate switch from jocularity to intense concern. I’m known as a softy and a lot of my female friends think it’s hilarious that a little bit of a poor me act will get them what they want from me so easily. They’ve actually called me whipped sans pussy. With this in mind they still appreciate me stepping in at clubs to fend of drunks and when I open doors and do other chivalrous things.


You made some great points after this, but you've really got a strange mindset here!

I treat my mates the same, male or female.

Sure, it's different with strangers, but once you are friends, can't you get past it?

Craig

under that definition i agree with, but what feminism has become, is so that women will be superior to men and i don't agee with that

This is a really common misconception, since it includes the goods and services that go along with child care services, running a household (still the "woman's" domain, like it or not), and includes money that comes out of his paycheque, not only hers. And, notably, the service industry is dominated by both minimum-wage jobs and women. So where's the power in that?

I am more than willing to contend that the money she spends is not her own, kind of my point. Women are the consumers that drive the economy. Do you realize that the marketing ads for men’s underwear and razors are targeted for women, why? Because they buy them for their spouse or significant other.

Any man worth his salt will listen to the woman when it comes to buying products for the household because chances are she knows more because its been relegated to ‘her domain’ as you put it. The power comes from being the consumer not the cog. Of course cogs have no power but do you really think no one would notice if the consumption of goods and services dropped the 60% that women contribute?

Feminism. It is a good thing. Most people autimatically assume that feminists believe that women consider themselfs above men. THat most certianly isn't the case. We only believe that men and woman should be considered equals, and they should also have equal oppertunities. In no way shape or form do feminists consider women better then men, and if anythinks otherwise. . . your very wrong, nad I pity you.

I have female friends who would hate to be treated equal to men. As I understand it it is about fairness not equality. (The two are vastly different.)

Subway Sandwiches on Main Street here where I live. When a guy closes it is him alone. When a girl closes it’s her and a female co-worker because they are not comfortable being out so late at night and dealing with the drunks.

Fairness vs equality.

It’s the difference between telling someone who has a body mass of 110 kilos and some one who has a body mass of 55 kilos they have to lift the same amount when working on the loading dock.

You made some great points after this, but you've really got a strange mindset here!

I treat my mates the same, male or female.

Sure, it's different with strangers, but once you are friends, can't you get past it?

Craig

No, it’s something that’s been beaten into me since childhood. It’s also not helped by the fact that the girls think it’s hilarious I consider them so fragile.

Not to be sexist or anything but I never heard of a feminist fighting for equality on things that work in thier favor like when you hit a women it is worse than hitting a man. If i missing something please help me to understand how that is equality.

I was at the Arizona Kerry/Edwards rally and there quite a few women with "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" T-Shirts

The power comes from being the consumer not the cog. Of course cogs have no power but do you really think no one would notice if the consumption of goods and services dropped the 60% that women contribute?
Do you really think the money would drop out of circulation if it weren't women spending it? Do you really think he wouldn't buy his own underwear or groceries if she refused? My point that it's not her money she's spending IS exactly the point. The power lies in the boardrooms where the decisions are made on which consumers to target, not in being one of those consumers, and in the legislatures where the laws are made governing hiring practices and payscales.

Not to be sexist or anything but I never heard of a feminist fighting for equality on things that work in thier favor like when you hit a women it is worse than hitting a man. If i missing something please help me to understand how that is equality.??? I've never heard of an assault or battery law that was gender specific. What the hell are you talking about?

Not to be sexist or anything but I never heard of a feminist fighting for equality on things that work in thier favor like when you hit a women it is worse than hitting a man. If i missing something please help me to understand how that is equality.

Don’t ever hit anyone, period. If everyone abided by this the world would be so much better.

That said you’re allowed to defend yourself. Around here it’s called the three hit rule. She gets three freebies and then she’s fair game, just like any guy. Exception being the producing of a weapon.

Do you really think the money would drop out of circulation if it weren't women spending it? Do you really think he wouldn't buy his own underwear or groceries if she refused? My point that it's not her money she's spending IS exactly the point. The power lies in the boardrooms where the decisions are made on which consumers to target, not in being one of those consumers, and in the legislatures where the laws are made governing hiring practices and payscales.

I will agree that there is MORE power there but being given a screw driver and wishing for a drill won’t solve anything.

Realistically it should drop of because you picked you significant other and if you picked a man that won’t respect your opinion and support you in your mini protest then who’s fault is that?

(That sounds crasser than it needs to be but I have no good way to smooth it sorry.)

??? I've never heard of an assault or battery law that was gender specific. What the hell are you talking about?

Yes. In Canada a woman can kill in self defence where if I do it its man slaughter.

Yes. In Canada a woman can kill in self defence where if I do it its man slaughter.
Are you going by anecdotal evidence, such as "Well, when black men are caught with drugs they go to jail, but when white men are caught with drugs they are only fined" or is there an actual law on the books that states what you just said?

No, it’s something that’s been beaten into me since childhood. It’s also not helped by the fact that the girls think it’s hilarious I consider them so fragile.

:( That's a shame, I think the reason I can be good mates with women is that I don't have to put them in a box marked "Female and Fragile"

Craig

Are you going by anecdotal evidence, such as "Well, when black men are caught with drugs they go to jail, but when white men are caught with drugs they are only fined" or is there an actual law on the books that states what you just said?

Gimmie some time I’ll find it. I honestly don’t know and am only going off what the guy who taught the self defence class said.

Now..I suppose I shall add my 2 cents, because I know EVERYONE wants to hear poor ol me, heh.

First, on the part of dropping the standards for firefighters etc, I can completely empathize. I have heard a story where a police dept wanted to get a proper ratio of wmen on the force, right? Noble enough goal to be sure, yet they couldnt find enough women who WANTED to be police officers, no matter the preferential hiring. So what occurs? They lower the standards enough in order to get the proper mix of diversity. Now, call me crazy (go ahead), but is that in any way NOT absurd, given these are people we may be trusting with our lives, here?

I would also like to point out that I am also a big fan of chivalry and such. NOT because it is "sexist" or any other form related to that, but because I believe in the concept of honor, protecting others, holding doors, etc. Now I dont know about the others here, that thouigh I would consider myself a feminist, it makes me infuriated that men (especially white men) must walk on tip toe to avoid being politically incorrect. YES, there are differences, but intent is a LOT more important than what is actually said. Some of us are crude, I will admit that though i dont consider myself one. yes, they make me embarassed, but that doesnt mean ALL men are crude. Stereotypes DO go both ways and its not as if we are consciouslly "holding women down." I dont know many men who wouldnt bend over backward to help a woman in trouble, carry stuff and so on.

Now can we PLEASE move on? Men and women are different. Not every man WANTS to be a tough guy any more than every woman WANTS to be a housewife. The same goes for women and men who might mean well and say something awkward. Joking around goes between the sexes, and I dont consider it any more sexist for a guy to say "Man, all women do is worry about cosmetics and stupid clothing" than a woman to say "Man, all these men are pigs" if both were obviously jesting. Why is it not sexism the OTHER way around as well?

Well, there you go then, there is the point...while I believe we should support feminism...lets not go tip-toeing about the issues because we are afraid to offend someone or another. That only causes people to stress out about very very minor stuff, when they should focus on REAL issues.

El Fin.

:( That's a shame, I think the reason I can be good mates with women is that I don't have to put them in a box marked "Female and Fragile"

Craig

Okay, I have some really good female friends. But for some reason they’re all at least 60-70 lbs lighter than me, like to horse around and enjoy the fact they can easily manipulate me by shedding some crocodile tears.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is because I will still thump a guy that size in all jocularity but the second that ‘person’ has boobs something is different. I hate to blame my upbringing but can you explain why there is a problem when I am rationally aware the problem exists and feel that ‘something’ should be done.

Okay, I have some really good female friends. But for some reason they’re all at least 60-70 lbs lighter than me, like to horse around and enjoy the fact they can easily manipulate me by shedding some crocodile tears.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is because I will still thump a guy that size in all jocularity but the second that ‘person’ has boobs something is different. I hate to blame my upbringing but can you explain why there is a problem when I am rationally aware the problem exists and feel that ‘something’ should be done.

Hmm, no idea! Haven't done any psychology.

Can you recognize them as crocodile tears at the time?

How do you un-learn anything you were brought up with? No idea...

Craig

Now..I suppose I shall add my 2 cents, because I know EVERYONE wants to hear poor ol me, heh.

First, on the part of dropping the standards for firefighters etc, I can completely empathize. I have heard a story where a police dept wanted to get a proper ratio of wmen on the force, right? Noble enough goal to be sure, yet they couldnt find enough women who WANTED to be police officers, no matter the preferential hiring. So what occurs? They lower the standards enough in order to get the proper mix of diversity. Now, call me crazy (go ahead), but is that in any way NOT absurd, given these are people we may be trusting with our lives, here?

I would also like to point out that I am also a big fan of chivalry and such. NOT because it is "sexist" or any other form related to that, but because I believe in the concept of honor, protecting others, holding doors, etc. Now I dont know about the others here, that thouigh I would consider myself a feminist, it makes me infuriated that men (especially white men) must walk on tip toe to avoid being politically incorrect. YES, there are differences, but intent is a LOT more important than what is actually said. Some of us are crude, I will admit that though i dont consider myself one. yes, they make me embarassed, but that doesnt mean ALL men are crude. Stereotypes DO go both ways and its not as if we are consciouslly "holding women down." I dont know many men who wouldnt bend over backward to help a woman in trouble, carry stuff and so on.

Now can we PLEASE move on? Men and women are different. Not every man WANTS to be a tough guy any more than every woman WANTS to be a housewife. The same goes for women and men who might mean well and say something awkward. Joking around goes between the sexes, and I dont consider it any more sexist for a guy to say "Man, all women do is worry about cosmetics and stupid clothing" than a woman to say "Man, all these men are pigs" if both were obviously jesting. Why is it not sexism the OTHER way around as well?

Well, there you go then, there is the point...while I believe we should support feminism...lets not go tip-toeing about the issues because we are afraid to offend someone or another. That only causes people to stress out about very very minor stuff, when they should focus on REAL issues.

El Fin.

Beautiful. I loved the mention of intent because that’s the big thing for me. I’ve offended more people than I care to count in my life (I enjoy debating the side your not on. Playing devils advocate all the time makes people wonder.) but that’s never been my intent.

Of course, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,…”

Somewhere over the years 'feminist' became a slur, something the right hurled as an insult at those they mocked. I marched and campaigned for the ERA, I think somewhere around then is when the right first twisted the word into meaning something it wasn't, with unfounded tales of laws demanding unisex restrooms and eradication of the words 'men' and 'women' from official language. I think it's high time the record was set straight.

Absolutely. Of course, the right didn't have to exaggerate too much to skew the whole idea, and there were some women who took the skewed idea to heart as their ideology.

Me, I figure that I should be able to rise or fall on my own merits. If I can't do a job, fair enough. However, if I CAN do it, and work just as well and just as hard as the man working with me, then I expect to get paid as much as he does.

A lot of women have to support a family without any man to help them. It might be choice, it might just be the way the chips fell. Since a lot of them can't make the money to do it with one full-time job that frowns on overtime, they take three part-time jobs. This makes the statistics show a lot of women working part-time. It's crazy.

Of course, the other side of it is that if I say something serious, I don't want to be patronized, or treated like some kind of parrot that learned how to say something intelligent. I don't think men would like to be treated that way either. Nobody would.

The largest problem facing equality is that men take the hype at its word, and accept feminism as a threat, instead of listening to the complaints that are asking for people to address them, and putting themselves into those shoes for a minute, and thinking about how they'd feel if they were given that treatment.

There IS middle ground here. People just have to put aside their misperceptions and look at the valid claims being put forth.

Hmm, no idea! Haven't done any psychology.

Can you recognize them as crocodile tears at the time?

How do you un-learn anything you were brought up with? No idea...

Craig

I can predict the fact that they are crocodile tears to a degree of reasonable certainty. But tears are a button for me, what if they are real this time? Sometimes I just wonder if they like the attention,…

Okay, I have some really good female friends. But for some reason they’re all at least 60-70 lbs lighter than me, like to horse around and enjoy the fact they can easily manipulate me by shedding some crocodile tears.

I honestly don’t know what the difference is because I will still thump a guy that size in all jocularity but the second that ‘person’ has boobs something is different. I hate to blame my upbringing but can you explain why there is a problem when I am rationally aware the problem exists and feel that ‘something’ should be done.

Ok, you're talking about some very uncool individuals. Not all women would pull a dirty trick like turning on the waterworks to manipulate someone. The truth is, though, I'm a woman, and if I see my man in tears, I fall to pieces. I don't know what to do. He doesn't do it to manipulate, though. Neither do I. If I cry, there's a damned good reason.

I don't horse around like you talk about either. You probably don't outweigh me by 60 or 70 lbs, but that's because I'm tall and I do physical work. I still wouldn't pick a fight I couldn't win. I'm not stupid. I'd make sure I was serious, and I'd get you when you weren't expecting it. Call it a female wile to do that, but there were indian warriors who would turn around and go home once they'd lost the element of surprise.

It sounds like the girls you're talking about aren't very smart, and they're not very serious. Sounds like your typical 13-25 year old female. Sometimes they grow out of it. Some of them sooner than others, some of them not at all. Go figure. There's a lot of men out there like that too.

My apologies, apparently my (admittedly male) self defence teacher was talking out his ass. The law is gender ambiguous. (Which I suppose it would have to be to be in line with the constitution.)

I will agree that there is MORE power there but being given a screw driver and wishing for a drill won’t solve anything.

Realistically it should drop of because you picked you significant other and if you picked a man that won’t respect your opinion and support you in your mini protest then who’s fault is that?


Glad you agree with something, but I have no idea what your tool metaphor means. Must be a guy thing.
Realistically, we all need underwear and groceries, and his touching display of support in her mini-protest would leave the family unclothed and starving - unlikely. Actually, leaving the spending up to him might boost the economy, since she's the one who knows where all the deals are, isn't she? After all, any man "worth his salt" would at least consult her before entering the tricky arena of consumerism.

Ok, you're talking about some very uncool individuals. Not all women would pull a dirty trick like turning on the waterworks to manipulate someone. The truth is, though, I'm a woman, and if I see my man in tears, I fall to pieces. I don't know what to do. He doesn't do it to manipulate, though. Neither do I. If I cry, there's a damned good reason.

I don't horse around like you talk about either. You probably don't outweigh me by 60 or 70 lbs, but that's because I'm tall and I do physical work. I still wouldn't pick a fight I couldn't win. I'm not stupid. I'd make sure I was serious, and I'd get you when you weren't expecting it. Call it a female wile to do that, but there were indian warriors who would turn around and go home once they'd lost the element of surprise.

It sounds like the girls you're talking about aren't very smart, and they're not very serious. Sounds like your typical 13-25 year old female. Sometimes they grow out of it. Some of them sooner than others, some of them not at all. Go figure. There's a lot of men out there like that too.

Oh I realize that the problem isn’t gender specific, my reaction to it is though. I really have no trouble with guys doing it though because (man this is going to sound bad.) I’d call them a pussy and after reassuring myself they were okay I’d belt them in the arm.

As for the girls, yea,… 21. Another difference of men in women? They develop different areas at different speeds.

Perhaps I hyperbolize the situation mildly, it doesn’t actually require tears, merely the threat of tears. The wavering voice, the scrunched up face and there about I react and then they laugh. Meh what can I say I’m a sucker. If they were actually using it to get their way in important matters I might care. But she’s my friend and the worst she used it on me was in public because I didn’t want to leave and she did and I grabbed her arm to get her to stay. Nothing major.

So basically what you're saying is that "this one chick" did that. Maybe you know more than one of them like that. We're not all like that. A lot of women can tell the difference between fair and unfair. It's not gender specific, either. Hell, my ex used to turn on the tears to do the ol' emotional blackmail. He could turn on a dime like that. It's an individual thing.

I don't know if it's even that women and men mature in different things at different speeds. It's really on a person by person basis. It all depends on what you're exposed to. If you're in a lot of serious situations, you don't waste serious pantomimes on silly situations. If you are spoiled and sheltered, you don't learn that. You learn how to manipulate to get your way, and if that turns out to be passive-aggressiveness, well...

(I work in a group home. I see a lot of the same manipulation tactics from boys that you would expect to see in girls. A lot of the girls are little scrappers, too. None of it's good, but the point is that none of it follows the logic of "she's a girl, expect her to behave this way, he's a boy, expect him to do this".)

Glad you agree with something, but I have no idea what your tool metaphor means. Must be a guy thing.
Realistically, we all need underwear and groceries, and his touching display of support in her mini-protest would leave the family unclothed and starving - unlikely. Actually, leaving the spending up to him might boost the economy, since she's the one who knows where all the deals are, isn't she? After all, any man "worth his salt" would at least consult her before entering the tricky arena of consumerism.

Wow no small amount of sarcasm in the last statement eh? ;)

Okay by the metaphor I merely meant that (in construction) anything you can do with a drill you can do with a screwdriver it merely takes more time, patience and effort. Women generally have been given a shitty deal in that they’ve been given the screwdriver. You can do all the same things but at double or triple the effort. So if you have to expend the effort why not expend it towards getting a drill? (I dunno I’m tired and may have confused the issue)

Stopping buying doesn’t necessarily have to be on a product by product basis. It could be on a brand by brand basis. If you all simply agree X Corporation isn’t good to do business with you could all stop shopping at X. Once X caved to your demands all of you would shop at X forsaking all other companies until they complied with the demands you forced on X. (I realize however it’s naïve to think so many people would agree on one thing.)

But as for the consumerism bit, I now have only one good pair of pants and half of my pants have holes in the crotch. I’m not remarkable, or protesting, I’m just hopping that the problem will go away and with my girl friend threatening to do my shopping it would seem I’m correct.

Femininists should wear name tags so I'll know who not to hold doors open for or stand up and let have a seat on the bus, etcetera.

So basically what you're saying is that "this one chick" did that. Maybe you know more than one of them like that. We're not all like that. A lot of women can tell the difference between fair and unfair. It's not gender specific, either. Hell, my ex used to turn on the tears to do the ol' emotional blackmail. He could turn on a dime like that. It's an individual thing.

I don't know if it's even that women and men mature in different things at different speeds. It's really on a person by person basis. It all depends on what you're exposed to. If you're in a lot of serious situations, you don't waste serious pantomimes on silly situations. If you are spoiled and sheltered, you don't learn that. You learn how to manipulate to get your way, and if that turns out to be passive-aggressiveness, well...

(I work in a group home. I see a lot of the same manipulation tactics from boys that you would expect to see in girls. A lot of the girls are little scrappers, too. None of it's good, but the point is that none of it follows the logic of "she's a girl, expect her to behave this way, he's a boy, expect him to do this".)


No actually my girlfriend does it as well, albeit to a lesser extent.

I’m not trying to assign gender behavior here I’m just saying that because of the situations of my life I have been left vulnerable to this particular phenomenon, as common or rare as it may be.

I’ve learned that behavior is not gendered but there are certain probabilities that come into play. The whole reason a stereotype starts is because there are enough people that fit it to perpetrate the image.

And I hate to consider them manipulation tactics because while when you boil it down to it yes your correct in that statement but all I was trying to get across is my personal bias to consider a woman first.

Perhaps the worst example of this was a few years back in high school. (I was a bit rough around the edges then so this may seem crude.) A couple of my mutual friends were dating and they were in a bad relationship. For whatever reason they were simply magnetically repelled from one another, but their dating persisted. One day Erin, the girl, told me that Marc, the guy, was beating her up. Now this has been a life lesson for me because I proceeded to track him down and throw him over a cafeteria table. It wasn’t until later I found out she’d lied. When a woman that is not my friend (as I judge them on a person to person basis) tells me something that’s not immediately apparent I constantly have to ask myself if I’m simply swallowing a load of BS because my personal experience are in direct contrast with the way I’ve been brought up.

(As a side comment I’m kind of hoping that after a few years of having some mature female friends who are my intellectual equals, as I’d like to think I have now, this will clear up on its own.)

Femininists should wear name tags so I'll know who not to hold doors open for or stand up and let have a seat on the bus, etcetera.

Yes because that’s obviously in the best interest of male female EQUALITY. I mean come on I should obviously be wearing a name tag that says leftist libertarian with Marxist leanings.

Femininists should wear name tags so I'll know who not to hold doors open for or stand up and let have a seat on the bus, etcetera.
I'll wear mine if you'll wear yours.

Well no more for me, need sleep. It being 320am and all. Good night, hope I wasn't offensive to anyone.

Perhaps the worst example of this was a few years back in high school. (I was a bit rough around the edges then so this may seem crude.) A couple of my mutual friends were dating and they were in a bad relationship. For whatever reason they were simply magnetically repelled from one another, but their dating persisted. One day Erin, the girl, told me that Marc, the guy, was beating her up. Now this has been a life lesson for me because I proceeded to track him down and throw him over a cafeteria table. It wasn’t until later I found out she’d lied. When a woman that is not my friend (as I judge them on a person to person basis) tells me something that’s not immediately apparent I constantly have to ask myself if I’m simply swallowing a load of BS because my personal experience are in direct contrast with the way I’ve been brought up.

(As a side comment I’m kind of hoping that after a few years of having some mature female friends who are my intellectual equals, as I’d like to think I have now, this will clear up on its own.)

Yeah. I have two brothers who tell stories too. They're two-faced, and make things up to make themselves look better than other people. You get in trouble when you don't take what they say with a pinch of salt, and investigate it before you get sucked into it. I know you're not trying to apply gender labels. I just wish that people would be objective enough to see it in a group for whom it isn't considered typical.

Femininists should wear name tags so I'll know who not to hold doors open for or stand up and let have a seat on the bus, etcetera.

I'd say I am a feminist, but I don't mind a guy doing something nice for me... Standing up on the bus is a little silly.(I'm not going to ge angry though) It's not like I'm elderly or heavily pregnant or something, but opening doors and things like that are fine... even... polite! :eek:

Just getting into this discussion myself--all I know is being a white male in the US is to be the most reviled thing on the face of the earth right now. I'm the bad guy, when I haven't done anything to anyone else.

All this "equal rights" stuff is turning into a retributive strike for things my generation didn't do. And I'm taking the hit for it.

If people want to be equal, there needs to be equality--not unfair rules that maintain quotas for minorities or women, or "reparations" for unjust practices in the past.

The laws don't work as they are written now. The quotas need to be removed. Let the most qualified candidate fill job positions, student slots at universities and colleges, etc.--regardless of skin color, gender, eye color, whatever.

Just getting into this discussion myself--all I know is being a white male in the US is to be the most reviled thing on the face of the earth right now. I'm the bad guy, when I haven't done anything to anyone else.
straight white male. ;)

All this "equal rights" stuff is turning into a retributive strike for things my generation didn't do. And I'm taking the hit for it.

If people want to be equal, there needs to be equality--not unfair rules that maintain quotas for minorities or women, or "reparations" for unjust practices in the past.

The laws don't work as they are written now. The quotas need to be removed. Let the most qualified candidate fill job positions, student slots at universities and colleges, etc.--regardless of skin color, gender, eye color, whatever.
I agree. Equality is equality. Some of the blowhards in the minority groups do want reparations or vengeance or whatnot, but the majority just want to be equal to the straight/white/male society.

I agree. I'm a girl myself and I believe that men and women should be treated equally. I make a couple of silly jokes about guys from time to time, but that doesn't mean I hate them.

Ditto (in reverse).

Why don't women have webbed feet?

Because there's no water between the bedroom and the bathroom.

It's silly, it's complete rubbish and it's very sexist. But it's quite amusing because everybody knows that I don't mean it.

straight white male. ;)


Whoops! Forgot the prefix on that one. :)


I agree. Equality is equality. Some of the blowhards in the minority groups do want reparations or vengeance or whatnot, but the majority just want to be equal to the straight/white/male society.

I would love that--actually being judged by what you can do, rather than what you are.

Whoops! Forgot the prefix on that one. :)



I would love that--actually being judged by what you can do, rather than what you are.

Yeah..wouldnt it be a wonderful world if we all didnt judge one another on stereotypes....

"If you want me to participate more, see my post on Page 4."

One day Erin, the girl, told me that Marc, the guy, was beating her up. Now this has been a life lesson for me because I proceeded to track him down and throw him over a cafeteria table. It wasn’t until later I found out she’d lied. When a woman that is not my friend (as I judge them on a person to person basis) tells me something that’s not immediately apparent I constantly have to ask myself if I’m simply swallowing a load of BS because my personal experience are in direct contrast with the way I’ve been brought up.

Man, I hope you never talked to that bitch again.

As a female, I can't stand it when other girls treat guys like that. I don't care if you hate someone's guts, there is no reason to do something like that. It's almost as bad as the girls who pretend to be pregnant.

Feminism is:
A. Completely out of control! Damn lesbians!
B. Not successful unless men become our slaves!
C. A way for women AND men to work for equity of the sexes.
D. A complete mystery to me.
None of the above, although C is closest.

Feminism not about working for equity, it is about workplace equity: equal opportunities for women in employment, and balancing salary disparity. That's all, really; that's what it's supposed to be. That is it has branched into this huge monster that includes so many other walks of life simply means that I can no longer honestly call myself a "feminist". Pity.

Man, I hope you never talked to that bitch again.

As a female, I can't stand it when other girls treat guys like that. I don't care if you hate someone's guts, there is no reason to do something like that. It's almost as bad as the girls who pretend to be pregnant.

No we don’t speak now.

Actually the one that really gets to me is when women who haven’t been cry rape. It’s a bit of a piss off because that stays on your record even if no charges were filed. Do you realize that all someone has to do to get me fired is cry rape and next year when I have to be recertified they’ll refuse me on those grounds alone? What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? (And this I know for a fact as I've looked it up and the criminal records check I had to go through was quite clear on the matter.)



But comments to earlier, I realize that manipulating people are not confined in a single gender. The problems lies with the fact that I’ve never been taught the social skills to deal with this problem. I can look at a guy and tell him he’s full of shit, but I don’t seem to be able to do the same to a girl (with the exception of one but she herself has told me she’d preferred to been born a guy.) I think the problem is that its assumed that men can instantaneously adapt to new circumstances simply because they were moral. I might realize everything and the proper way to go about doing it but that doesn’t mean much when I get a feeling in the pit of my stomach because I’m doing something contrary to how I was brought up. I’d blame my mother but that’d be offensive :D (That was soooo a joke)

No we don’t speak now.

Good, I've seen too many of my guy friends keep talking to a girl even after she maliciously rips their hearts out or lies through her teeth and I can never understand why.

Actually the one that really gets to me is when women who haven’t been cry rape. It’s a bit of a piss off because that stays on your record even if no charges were filed. Do you realize that all someone has to do to get me fired is cry rape and next year when I have to be recertified they’ll refuse me on those grounds alone? What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? (And this I know for a fact as I've looked it up and the criminal records check I had to go through was quite clear on the matter.)

Yeah, I think those who accuse others of crimes and later admit that they made it all up should be made to serve the term the accused might have gotten.

Apparantly, some have missed the point I made.

If feminists want equality, I'm going to stop doing nice things for them. I don't go out of my way to do nice things for guys, so why should I do it for the ladies? And I don't even do it as a way to pick up chicks. I do it because I feel that women need to be treated with a certain amount of respect...or something. I'm really not sure why I do it, but if feminists want equality, I'd be more than willing to stop doing things like hold open doors and give up my seat on the bus.

Apparantly, some have missed the point I made.

If feminists want equality, I'm going to stop doing nice things for them. I don't go out of my way to do nice things for guys, so why should I do it for the ladies? And I don't even do it as a way to pick up chicks. I do it because I feel that women need to be treated with a certain amount of respect...or something. I'm really not sure why I do it, but if feminists want equality, I'd be more than willing to stop doing things like hold open doors and give up my seat on the bus.

Then do it. *shrug*

Apparantly, some have missed the point I made.

If feminists want equality, I'm going to stop doing nice things for them. I don't go out of my way to do nice things for guys, so why should I do it for the ladies? And I don't even do it as a way to pick up chicks. I do it because I feel that women need to be treated with a certain amount of respect...or something. I'm really not sure why I do it, but if feminists want equality, I'd be more than willing to stop doing things like hold open doors and give up my seat on the bus.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but lots of us women hold the door open for the people behind us. And we even give up our seats on the bus to the old, disabled, heavily pregnant, etc.

It's called polite and shows respect.

You don't do 'nice' things for guys? Are you seriously trying to claim that you deliberately shut the door in the face of a male who is following you? Somehow I don't think so. I rather suspect you would hold it for them too.

I think they are dominant!

i say the horse is right.

Don’t ever hit anyone, period. If everyone abided by this the world would be so much better.

That said you’re allowed to defend yourself. Around here it’s called the three hit rule. She gets three freebies and then she’s fair game, just like any guy. Exception being the producing of a weapon.

So you would let someone hit you three times before fighting back? Thats one of the funniest things I have ever heard. If someone hits you three times in rage its going to hurt. Its not like they are going to stop after three hits anyway. Also you avoided the question of wether that is equality or not.

So you would let someone hit you three times before fighting back? Thats one of the funniest things I have ever heard. If someone hits you three times in rage its going to hurt. Its not like they are going to stop after three hits anyway. Also you avoided the question of wether that is equality or not.


I concur on the absurdity of that. If Im hit in rage, Ill defend myself with calculated force, not overwhelming power. However, I wont hold back to some arbitrary number and call it "correct".

Actually, that kinda sounds like Nicholas Cage in Matchstick Men, having to close the door three times, heh.

I'd like to rant a little. It's because I see something I don't like even in the ideal feminism of the western world.

What do we complain about? We complain about not getting the same wages, or being held back from higher positions, or having sexist comments made to us.

Women in other parts of the world would settle for not getting beaten tonight, or being able to walk out of the house on her own without a male relative to escort her, because she might get executed for it. Women in other places get battery acid thrown in their faces, and they get raped by their future husbands in an act of "courtship". They don't get to have a job outside the home. It isn't even considered a possibility. Nor is an education. They can't read or write. They don't worry about higher wages or people calling them names they don't like. Sure, I consider myself lucky, but not without a twinge of guilt.

Feminists in the first world are really only concerned with making the world a better place for themselves. They don't care that women all over the world are living in the middle ages. They couldn't give a rat's ass about them. As long as they're given the liberty to get that $50k a year job, the subdivision with the two car garage, and the choice of having kids or not having kids at their convenience.

Actually that’s about the sum of it. If I believe I am to be in real danger I’ll do more, as the rule is a guideline and not a doctrine, but I’ve been in situations where I’ve taken hits like that.

Actually the way I see it women are more likely (huge stereotype here but just working from personal experience sorry.) to hit as an outburst of anger. The anger subsides and viola. I’ve been cracked in the knee with a pool cue, my response was to grab wrists, if it was a guy I would’ve hauled off and smoked him one. I’ve also been slapped in the face, I ignored it, and again if it was a guy he would not have gotten the same response. My high school straddled the native reserve here in town. The reserve is a lower income area that has produced a few rougher people. A native girl smoked me in the temple with her elbow and held me into the locker that way, I’ve never touched her.

(Though I wonder if the reason guys don’t do it is because they are socialized to expect a greater reaction, force wise, perhaps if I did smoke one of them back they’d learn to have more self control.)

The question; is it equal? No of course it’s not equal. To be equal it would have to be the same reaction for both genders regardless. Perhaps the better question is; is it fair? Both of these women were smaller than me and quite frankly had little person’s complexes. I KNOW that if I hauled of and hit one of them they’d be on the floor. This is not boastful (well I suppose it is but its not meant to be) I just don’t want to inflict that much damage on ANYONE. For whatever reason I’ve come to associate the feminine form with PHYSICAL fragility, I probably should not do this but c’est la vie.

(If you guys are wondering how I get into these troubles I tell a lot of sexist jokes. As far as I’m concerned they’re too over sensitive because usually when I crack out the sexist jokes is when they’ve already burned me.)

It’s an interesting point to ponder tough’ is there a difference between men and women? I think there is but it’s not a genetic one. Earlier someone mentioned the behaviors of either gender contrary to the stereotype in her halfway house. Perhaps the whole reason for the difference between men and women is because human beings are mutable and we respond to the forces society puts on us. I know guys who have lived very sheltered lives, get all the chicks and act like players. But when is comes to honourable behavior or hard work they’re huge flakes. At the same time I have a friend who defies the stereotype of gay guys, shatters it really. He works harder than me and I’ll never have to wonder if he’ll bail me out when I need help. (Though he does have a lisp, and I don’t have any theories on that.) Perhaps the only reason that women seem softer to me is because from day one they were given a doll house and I was given a trike, and if this is the case should we respect the difference or try to limit by making our parenting even handed?

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but lots of us women hold the door open for the people behind us. And we even give up our seats on the bus to the old, disabled, heavily pregnant, etc.

It's called polite and shows respect.

You don't do 'nice' things for guys? Are you seriously trying to claim that you deliberately shut the door in the face of a male who is following you? Somehow I don't think so. I rather suspect you would hold it for them too.

I don't slam doors in people's faces. However, I don't wait on a guy to make it through a door while I hold it open for them. I go a little bit more out of my way to open doors and whatnot for women. Actually, if it is a female, I stand and hold the door. If it's a guy, I hold it until he can catch it as it pulls shut. If it's a girl, I let her all the way through and then let it pull shut.

I'm all for equal rights - however it has to go both ways. So called feminist organizations like N.O.W. have no interest in equality. Ifeminists.com is much better.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0811roberts.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/1013.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0714.htm

First, 32 weeks is extreme, and I'm not sure when they extended it to that. When I took Maternity leave it was 16 weeks (and came with a government "disability" cheque, so I think your conclusion that it's associated with "recovery time" is right on the mark). The Paternal leave portion doesn't have a government cheque attached to it, so it's pretty much only the parent who can afford to take 20 weeks away from a paycheque who can take it. Since, statistically, he's making more money than she is, it's likely going to be her that takes the extra time off.


I'm not sure how it is in the States, but in Canada, many jobs offer extended benefits for Maternity and Parental leave. In my case, it was 17 Mat leave with 93% of my regular salary, then 15 weeks Parental at the same. My husband's job offered no extra top-up, just general Employment Insurance. That is what coloured our decision for ME to stay home more than anything. However, I had a friend with the opposite situation, but her husband could only take the Parental. It was very frustrating for them, because he WANTED to stay home, and she preferred to work after she recovered.

You can't have equality of the sexes without making us the same, a futile project if I ever heard of one!

Courts now may be ruling in favour of the mother in Western society, but it was not always thus. Traditionally, children were chattel, as were women, and they belonged to the father. This is still the case in many countries around the world. To be fair, we must weigh the interests of the children (their wishes, if they are old enough to make a choice), as well as the ability of a certain parent to care for them. Not who makes the most money, because that does not necessarily mean they can care better for the children...compare a doctor working a 90 work-week to a parent on a lower salary, but with more stable hours conducive to child-rearing.

On that note, a pet peeve of mine, and a screaming inequality between the sexes is Maternity Leave. A woman who has a child in Canada has 32 weeks of Maternity leave and 20 weeks of Parental leave. If she chooses to go back to work during her Maternity leave, the man is NOT eligible to use up the rest of that time, and can only take Parental leave. So even if I were to go back to work 2 weeks after having a child, my husband is only eligible for 20 weeks, whereas I would have 52. Utter and complete sexism!


I want to thank you for seeing beyond your point of view and willing to see the weakness in the “position” you are talking
More I should say seeing the in equality on one side just not the other


Women are still fighting an ongoing battle to become more equal and I find that admirable

Keep it up women! (and make sure you do things right and don’t gain your equality by creating more inequalities in other groups)

(Sorry I really have messed up this post but too tired to make it eloquent)

That's right...being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a man-hating lesbian...it simply means you want the rights of men and women to be equitable. Let's make THAT clear:



Not EQUAL, as in the SAME. We can't make women and men completely the same...it would defeat the whole purpose of being different sexes...but we can treat men and women more equitably. So if I go ahead and call myself a feminist, understand that I do not mean I want women to be placed above men, or that I want man-hole covers to be called people-hole covers and so forth. I just want women to have an equitable, recognised place in our society, as is only fair.
w00t :)
Thank god, a feminist that isn't screaming at me for saying policeman or fireman. I don't see myself as sexist, but the whole "evil men with their evil penises of death" (Carlos!) is enough to make my blood boil. It seems like most feminists (read: girls at my school) want all the good parts of equality (equal pay, same jobs, no discrimintaion, voting) but not the bad parts (equal amount of work (women in the army don't have to do any physical work), equal punishment for crimes, etc.) Ask 90% of the girls at my school, and they'll say that the men of our country are evil sexist gigolos who view women as sexual objects, etc., but when you say something about the army thing, they walk away. Also, if you see a commercial with a man ogling a woman, it's sexist! Aaaah! Put it away! But if it's a woman ogling a man i.e Outback Steakhouse commercial, it's perfectly fine. Well, there's my angry rant, hope you enjoyed it.
P.S., I wrote this during school, which explains some of my fiery hatin' :p

Not to be sexist or anything but I never heard of a feminist fighting for equality on things that work in thier favor like when you hit a women it is worse than hitting a man. If i missing something please help me to understand how that is equality.

Just because you've never heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Those sorts of things rarely get reported on, because it would go against the popular line that feminists are radical man-haters (or only working in their own best interests). Read my posts about Maternity/Parental leave...there is quite a movement by men AND women here to make the benefits fairer for men. There are plenty of women working with men to make divorce judgements regarding children fairer. There are many women working with men who are abused by their spouses. Women rarely have a problem with supporting men's rights...so why should it be different the other way around? No one calls women "masculine" if they promote men's rights, yet men are often put down and called "feminine" if they promote women's rights. Since we're talking about FAIR, not EQUAL, the issue of hitting a woman vs. a man is usally about strength....YES, there are women out there who could give you a fair hiding, but the majority of men are stronger than women, and therefore inflict more damage. To be FAIR...NO ONE should be hitting anyone, period.

w00t :)
Thank god, a feminist that isn't screaming at me for saying policeman or fireman. I don't see myself as sexist, but the whole "evil men with their evil penises of death" (Carlos!) is enough to make my blood boil. It seems like most feminists (read: girls at my school) want all the good parts of equality (equal pay, same jobs, no discrimintaion, voting) but not the bad parts (equal amount of work (women in the army don't have to do any physical work), equal punishment for crimes, etc.) Ask 90% of the girls at my school, and they'll say that the men of our country are evil sexist gigolos who view women as sexual objects, etc., but when you say something about the army thing, they walk away. Also, if you see a commercial with a man ogling a woman, it's sexist! Aaaah! Put it away! But if it's a woman ogling a man i.e Outback Steakhouse commercial, it's perfectly fine. Well, there's my angry rant, hope you enjoyed it.
P.S., I wrote this during school, which explains some of my fiery hatin' :p

I happen to agree
I run across this point of view all the time.

MY personal beef (not the less work in the military) but locally I am trained and a member a volunteer fire squad … all good right? Do all my training and my trials … among them includes lifting a 400 pound dummy down 6 flights of stairs out of a simulated burning building ….
Ya know no big problem I am a burly man and all (not really but …)

Now I had a good friend of mine … (a woman) tough as nails she was a real fighter, but here is the catch. Instead of 400 pounds her dummy was only 250.

Now SHOCK I tell this story off hand to a friend of mine and get lectured for an hr on a half on how it SHOULD be a different limit because otherwise there would be not many girl firefighters because of the physical inequalities.

Now I am going to pose the question to you that I did her …

Should there be a different standard?

Now before you answer think of this … (and this is a very real situation) working there way through a burning building my female friend gets separated from her team members… finds a man that weighs 300 -350 pounds easy …
Smoke inhalation and dangerously hot.

But unlike other trained firefighters she is not qualified or able to lift him nor able to


Now this friend doesn’t see this as a problem I do … I am all for equality but peoples LIVES depend on her being able to do the same job … if she can GO for it but I don’t find the different standards to be right in this situation
What do you think

Femininists should wear name tags so I'll know who not to hold doors open for or stand up and let have a seat on the bus, etcetera.

Don't be silly! Feminists aren't inherently AGAINST those things...holding doors open (and I do it for people behind me, regardless of age or gender), or giving up a seat (for a pregnant women, an elder, a man with a huge bag of groceries) is just good manners! That's NOT what we're talking about as feminists. More important are the social inequalities (of varying degree, depending on the country) between men and women. Have you seriously ever met a women that got OFFENDED at you opening a door for her? If you have, that woman has issues outside of feminism. However, if you opened the door with a leer, leaned over her while she passed through, then patted her on the backside, you deserve some angry "feminist" reaction.

I'd like to rant a little. It's because I see something I don't like even in the ideal feminism of the western world.

What do we complain about? We complain about not getting the same wages, or being held back from higher positions, or having sexist comments made to us.

Women in other parts of the world would settle for not getting beaten tonight, or being able to walk out of the house on her own without a male relative to escort her, because she might get executed for it. Women in other places get battery acid thrown in their faces, and they get raped by their future husbands in an act of "courtship". They don't get to have a job outside the home. It isn't even considered a possibility. Nor is an education. They can't read or write. They don't worry about higher wages or people calling them names they don't like. Sure, I consider myself lucky, but not without a twinge of guilt.

Feminists in the first world are really only concerned with making the world a better place for themselves. They don't care that women all over the world are living in the middle ages. They couldn't give a rat's ass about them. As long as they're given the liberty to get that $50k a year job, the subdivision with the two car garage, and the choice of having kids or not having kids at their convenience.

YES, just YES

is it really feminism if it only pertains to "rich" women?
is it equality if only the women at the top are equal?
are we really promoting women when we forget the other 50% of the women in the world who are in dire circumstances?
(i knocked it down to 50% because of the enforced equality of men and women in china.)
we have fought hard so that the few well placed women of the world can get fancy jobs and live a good life. thats nice but what about the rest of the women of the world?

to paraphrase sojourner truth "ain't they women?"

Just getting into this discussion myself--all I know is being a white male in the US is to be the most reviled thing on the face of the earth right now. I'm the bad guy, when I haven't done anything to anyone else.

All this "equal rights" stuff is turning into a retributive strike for things my generation didn't do. And I'm taking the hit for it.

If people want to be equal, there needs to be equality--not unfair rules that maintain quotas for minorities or women, or "reparations" for unjust practices in the past.

The laws don't work as they are written now. The quotas need to be removed. Let the most qualified candidate fill job positions, student slots at universities and colleges, etc.--regardless of skin color, gender, eye color, whatever.


You're right...if we want equality, there needs to be equality. (A little redundant, but I got your point:)) That means there need to be equitable living conditions, income distribution, educational opportunities, quality of life. You are talking about keeping the system as is, with all it's inequalities, but getting rid of any legislation meant to "even things out". Those quotas you speak of wouldn't be needed if equality existed. Since most societies can not go through the restructuring and change in attitudes needed to create true EQUITY, (doing away with poverty, racism, sexim and so on), they pass laws that try to even out the odds after the fact. Do these laws succeed? Rarely, and they create a lot of resentment. Are they unecessary? Absolutely not. I would prefer to see society restructure itself to be more inclusive, and more equitable, rather than this band-aid solution of legislation promoting the 'underclasses'. That is not likely to happen any time soon, however, so for now, this is going to have to do.

You're right...if we want equality, there needs to be equality. (A little redundant, but I got your point:)) That means there need to be equitable living conditions, income distribution, educational opportunities, quality of life. You are talking about keeping the system as is, with all it's inequalities, but getting rid of any legislation meant to "even things out". Those quotas you speak of wouldn't be needed if equality existed. Since most societies can not go through the restructuring and change in attitudes needed to create true EQUITY, (doing away with poverty, racism, sexim and so on), they pass laws that try to even out the odds after the fact. Do these laws succeed? Rarely, and they create a lot of resentment. Are they unecessary? Absolutely not. I would prefer to see society restructure itself to be more inclusive, and more equitable, rather than this band-aid solution of legislation promoting the 'underclasses'. That is not likely to happen any time soon, however, so for now, this is going to have to do.

Agreed …
I do have a beef with the current implementation of quotas and such but that is the laws fault not the feeling or belief behind it

We just need to find a way to give equality a little boost in a different manner then we are currently doing it

None of the above, although C is closest.

Feminism not about working for equity, it is about workplace equity: equal opportunities for women in employment, and balancing salary disparity. That's all, really; that's what it's supposed to be. That is it has branched into this huge monster that includes so many other walks of life simply means that I can no longer honestly call myself a "feminist". Pity.

Says who? Even if that is how it started, it has evolved to meet the further needs of men and women. If you can no longer call yourself a feminist simply because you ONLY want to talk about work, that is your perogative, but going further does not mean it falls outside the realm of feminism. Work is not the only issue in terms of gender...there are issues of stereotypical gender roles, societal responsibilites, and so on. Equity in the workplace will not guarantee equity in the wider society. Rwanda is actually the country with the most even governmental representation of men and women, and yet women's rights in that country are far from equitable to men's. I'm sorry you've "dropped out" of being Feminist. I don't think that doesn't make you a (little f) feminist though...just not one who follows any particular party line. Who cares if a bunch of extremists are going too far out there...that isn't you.

On that note, a pet peeve of mine, and a screaming inequality between the sexes is Maternity Leave. A woman who has a child in Canada has 32 weeks of Maternity leave and 20 weeks of Parental leave. If she chooses to go back to work during her Maternity leave, the man is NOT eligible to use up the rest of that time, and can only take Parental leave. So even if I were to go back to work 2 weeks after having a child, my husband is only eligible for 20 weeks, whereas I would have 52. Utter and complete sexism!
I think... probably 32 weeks more is excessive. However there is a case for increased leave for new mothers, as there is more of a physical burden on the woman.

I think... probably 32 weeks more is excessive. However there is a case for increased leave for new mothers, as there is more of a physical burden on the woman.


One that requires 32 weeks of extra level (agree excessive) and maybe having a few weeks extra not so bad but they are way more then doubling (61 percent more if I did my math right) yikes

I'd like to rant a little. It's because I see something I don't like even in the ideal feminism of the western world.

What do we complain about? We complain about not getting the same wages, or being held back from higher positions, or having sexist comments made to us.

Women in other parts of the world would settle for not getting beaten tonight, or being able to walk out of the house on her own without a male relative to escort her, because she might get executed for it. Women in other places get battery acid thrown in their faces, and they get raped by their future husbands in an act of "courtship". They don't get to have a job outside the home. It isn't even considered a possibility. Nor is an education. They can't read or write. They don't worry about higher wages or people calling them names they don't like. Sure, I consider myself lucky, but not without a twinge of guilt.

Feminists in the first world are really only concerned with making the world a better place for themselves. They don't care that women all over the world are living in the middle ages. They couldn't give a rat's ass about them. As long as they're given the liberty to get that $50k a year job, the subdivision with the two car garage, and the choice of having kids or not having kids at their convenience.

I completely disagree with your last statement about women in the Minority world (re: rich, western) not caring about women in the Majority world. Granted, there will always be people out there who are only looking out for themselves, but the majority of true feminists work damn hard to stand in solidarity with women (and men) around the world. The fact is however, that we are in no position to say, "Hey, you women in Afghanistan, do this and that, and be like us, and that will make everything better." Women if Afghanistan know what is best for them (though there of course will be division in opinion as some women actively support the status quo), and groups like RAWA work under very dangerous conditions to improve the conditions of women according to their own needs. What women in the Majority world need to do is support their actions, without being patronising, (is there a feminine word for that?:)) or assuming that we know best for ALL women. Support can be in terms of money, action, petitions to our governments to put pressure on regimes that mistreat women etc. I'm very aware that I am lucky to have been born where I was, but I don't think I should just be happy things aren't "as bad" for women here as they are in other places. That's like saying "shut up about bad labour standards, because in SOME countries, there ARE none!" We should be shooting for the best conditions for ALL. So work for equity in your country, and support the efforts of those working for equity in their countries.

I want to thank you for seeing beyond your point of view and willing to see the weakness in the “position” you are talking
More I should say seeing the in equality on one side just not the other


Women are still fighting an ongoing battle to become more equal and I find that admirable

Keep it up women! (and make sure you do things right and don’t gain your equality by creating more inequalities in other groups)

(Sorry I really have messed up this post but too tired to make it eloquent)

Thanks for thanking me...hehehee. However, I'm not seeing beyond my point of view...this IS my point of view...equity of the sexes. I promote women's rights, yes, but I also support men in their struggle to redifine their gender roles. That is what feminism means to me...not just the advancement of women, but the advancement of ALL humans.

I think... probably 32 weeks more is excessive. However there is a case for increased leave for new mothers, as there is more of a physical burden on the woman.

Not for every woman. I was up and around a day after giving birth to my daughters, each time. If I only wanted to take 2 weeks of leave, my husband should be able to use the rest of my time. If I needed more time to heal, I would absolutely use it!

Says who? Even if that is how it started, it has evolved to meet the further needs of men and women. If you can no longer call yourself a feminist simply because you ONLY want to talk about work, that is your perogative, but going further does not mean it falls outside the realm of feminism. Work is not the only issue in terms of gender...there are issues of stereotypical gender roles, societal responsibilites, and so on. Equity in the workplace will not guarantee equity in the wider society. Rwanda is actually the country with the most even governmental representation of men and women, and yet women's rights in that country are far from equitable to men's. I'm sorry you've "dropped out" of being Feminist. I don't think that doesn't make you a (little f) feminist though...just not one who follows any particular party line. Who cares if a bunch of extremists are going too far out there...that isn't you.
Says me. Women's rights issues should not be confused with feminism. Feminism is a women's rights issue; women's rights issues are not feminism. The one is a subset of the other. Yet feminists take up their barking about any women's rights issue as if it was somehow related to feminism. They've made it into a joke. I have not "dropped out" of women's rights issues. I simply no longer label myself "feminist" because common usage of the word has over-reached its scope.

That's right...being a feminist doesn't automatically make you a man-hating lesbian...it simply means you want the rights of men and women to be equitable. Let's make THAT clear:



Not EQUAL, as in the SAME. We can't make women and men completely the same...it would defeat the whole purpose of being different sexes...but we can treat men and women more equitably. So if I go ahead and call myself a feminist, understand that I do not mean I want women to be placed above men, or that I want man-hole covers to be called people-hole covers and so forth. I just want women to have an equitable, recognised place in our society, as is only fair.

actually theres men and women that believe in equal rights for both, men who are called chauvinists and think that men are superior to women, and feminists, most of whom think the opposite, that women are superior to men and deserve more rights, freedoms, priveledges, etc.

Not for every woman. I was up and around a day after giving birth to my daughters, each time. If I only wanted to take 2 weeks of leave, my husband should be able to use the rest of my time. If I needed more time to heal, I would absolutely use it!
I didn't mean that you'd be bedridden, but there are degrees between that and being well enough to work. If its not a problem, fine, I'm just saying that theres a case for need as well as equality.

Says me. Women's rights issues should not be confused with feminism. Feminism is a women's rights issue; women's rights issues are not feminism. The one is a subset of the other. Yet feminists take up their barking about any women's rights issue as if it was somehow related to feminism. They've made it into a joke. I have not "dropped out" of women's rights issues. I simply no longer label myself "feminist" because common usage of the word has over-reached its scope.
That is simply YOUR interpretation of feminism, and you're welcome to it. Call yourself whatever you want. However, if I choose to call myself feminist, and I work for women's rights besides work equity, I don't think I'm "barking" about it, or making a joke out of it. Movements must change and grow, not remain static. I don't put a lot of labels on myself because I don't like the new, common connotations of those labels (liberal etc.), so I understand where you're coming from. I chose to still use the term feminist, because I think it is a good term, and I get pulled into explanations of its meaning when I use it. I would rather redefine feminism than give up on the name all together.

actually theres men and women that believe in equal rights for both, men who are called chauvinists and think that men are superior to women, and feminists, most of whom think the opposite, that women are superior to men and deserve more rights, freedoms, priveledges, etc.

Of course there are. These extremists are not who we are talking about, however.

I didn't mean that you'd be bedridden, but there are degrees between that and being well enough to work. If its not a problem, fine, I'm just saying that theres a case for need as well as equality.

I think we're both talking about the same thing, just in different ways. All I am saying that is if a couple CHOOSES the man to stay home instead of the woman, equal time should be given to the man. If the woman needs that recovery time, she shouldn't be forced to give it up. If she doesn't need it, she shouldn't be forced to use the rest of that time if it makes better sense for the husband to use it (and the agree that that is the way they want it). Are we copasetic? :D

Now I am going to pose the question to you that I did her …

Should there be a different standard?

Absolutely not. The standard is there because, as you said, you may find someone who weighs that much that you have to carry out. Equality in hiring would mean that a man would not get any special consideration over a woman who also met *all* the requirements necessary. Fighting fires is a physical job - with physical requirements. Unless the requirements are unreasonably inflated specifically to keep girls out, girls should have to meet them. Otherwise, people could die.

Absolutely not. The standard is there because, as you said, you may find someone who weighs that much that you have to carry out. Equality in hiring would mean that a man would not get any special consideration over a woman who also met *all* the requirements necessary. Fighting fires is a physical job - with physical requirements. Unless the requirements are unreasonably inflated specifically to keep girls out, girls should have to meet them. Otherwise, people could die.


That is my take on it too :) I mean it is very reasonable to expect it (those rules of 400 pounds have been there sense before there was even a possibility of equal hiring)

Sorry that was my little rant afterafter being chewed up one side and down the other by one of my (and I am sorry all women who are offended but femma-Nazzi) friends (referring to the separate group that go beyond wanting equality more into the penalizing males for strength/speed or any other natural advantage)

That is my take on it too :) I mean it is very reasonable to expect it (those rules of 400 pounds have been there sense before there was even a possibility of equal hiring)

Sorry that was my little rant afterafter being chewed up one side and down the other by one of my (and I am sorry all women who are offended but femma-Nazzi) friends (referring to the separate group that go beyond wanting equality more into the penalizing males for strength/speed or any other natural advantage)

Yeah, I've had arguments with other girls about it too. But I am well aware of the fact that I couldn't meet the physical requirements for many jobs. If I want that job, I'm not going to try and get the requirements changed - I'll work out to get ready to meet them.

My best friend's mother was one of the first female dog trainers in the branch of the armed services she was in. One of the requirements was that you could carry a really large dog across a certain distance and back. On her testing day, the dog had been injured and was unavailable. Instead, she picked up the testing officer and carried him the distance. Needless to say, she got the job. =)

Yeah, I've had arguments with other girls about it too. But I am well aware of the fact that I couldn't meet the physical requirements for many jobs. If I want that job, I'm not going to try and get the requirements changed - I'll work out to get ready to meet them.

My best friend's mother was one of the first female dog trainers in the branch of the armed services she was in. One of the requirements was that you could carry a really large dog across a certain distance and back. On her testing day, the dog had been injured and was unavailable. Instead, she picked up the testing officer and carried him the distance. Needless to say, she got the job. =)

Yup and don’t get me wrong my friend is tough as nails and with a little work I think she could get the 400 pounds … but there are others that I am not sure could make it … (though she is way better then me of flat lifting a person off the ground without having to take steps to get them up … shorter and lower center of gravity) lol and pretty sure if we actually fought about it she would whip me :-D

Anyways sorry if all this ranting made me sound anti women’s rights … that is not the case at all, just pointing out there are cases where we are just … different

I completely disagree with your last statement about women in the Minority world (re: rich, western) not caring about women in the Majority world. Granted, there will always be people out there who are only looking out for themselves, but the majority of true feminists work damn hard to stand in solidarity with women (and men) around the world. The fact is however, that we are in no position to say, "Hey, you women in Afghanistan, do this and that, and be like us, and that will make everything better." Women if Afghanistan know what is best for them (though there of course will be division in opinion as some women actively support the status quo), and groups like RAWA work under very dangerous conditions to improve the conditions of women according to their own needs. What women in the Majority world need to do is support their actions, without being patronising, (is there a feminine word for that?:)) or assuming that we know best for ALL women. Support can be in terms of money, action, petitions to our governments to put pressure on regimes that mistreat women etc. I'm very aware that I am lucky to have been born where I was, but I don't think I should just be happy things aren't "as bad" for women here as they are in other places. That's like saying "shut up about bad labour standards, because in SOME countries, there ARE none!" We should be shooting for the best conditions for ALL. So work for equity in your country, and support the efforts of those working for equity in their countries.

We just look at it differently. Me, I don't want to tell women in other places how to live their lives, or even to take my example as the acme of womanhood. I just think that if I'm horrified at the sight of an acid-burned face, or a woman beaten to death for burning dinner, then maybe she can't look after herself and needs a little help. I don't care where you're from, it's not right any way you slice it. I'm also saying that while we still don't have things the way we want them, there are places where it's a hell of a lot worse, and leaving anyone to simply endure that isn't right. I'm not saying just be happy how good you've got it. I'm saying that we should make it very hard for men to treat women this way in other places. We should send a message that murder and violence for minor infractions is unacceptable.

....
...i knocked it down to 50% because of the enforced equality of men and women in china.......All the World should be just like China...and have that kind of enforced equality...lets do it 100% like China

Oh yes, lets all be like China with the enforced birth control, rampant corruption, govermental crackdowns and rigid political system. A dream come true. True equality there.

Equality goes far, far beyond just gender.