NationStates Jolt Archive

Feminism was a movement, originating in the 1800's, that strived to get women the same rights as men, including suffrage and work opportunities. It was a very noble cause, and fought against bias.


FEMINISM TODAY IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. Modern Feminsts, or Feminazis, as i will call them from now on, do not want equality for women, they have it for the most part. Yes, I know that women get less money, but that gap is narrowing. Feminazis want superiority over the male gender.

First off, they killed of chivalry. Chivalry was one of the few things in this world that was pure and good, and they just slaughtered it. Of course it was fairly easy for them, if a guy gets yelled at for holding a door for a girl, he won't do it again.

Second, they make up a lot of lies to desecrate males' reputation. One of the most outrageous lies i've heard, is that the reason our medicine is far behind what it could be, is because men slow it down, because men are sexually attracted to death. I mean it should be obvious to any person with half a brain that this is complete bs, but a Feminazi magazine printed it.

There is a newspaper in California, that was praised by Feminazi's magazine for their default gender placement. In usual life, when we speak of someone whose gender we don't know, we usually say "they" or "he". It's not a big deal, really. It is not a shackle on the ankles of all females in the world. However, they praised this newspaper, because in all default genders, they referred to the person as "she", EXCEPT when talking about a convict, where they use "he". Nice, ain't it? Now tell me this isn't sexism.

Feminazis take every little thing to be this evil shit that men put upon them to keep all women in slavery behind the stove. They oppose sports teams being all male, they oppose cheerleaders being all female. They claim that cheerleaders are only supplementary to sports players, the way men want women to be only supplementary to men. Of course, that is not the reasoning behind it, the reasoning is men are physically much stronger then women, thus making them more fit for sports, and women are more attractive to the largely male audience then men, thus they are chosen to cheer.

I will add to this later, but for now, i'll give you a chance to add/counter my post.

i hate Feminists especially Germaine Greer, i think we Australians should launch civil action against her for defamation, she really has no idea about Australia today but still insists she does.

What is with everyone being an interest group. What i hate is that all our Uni's are (as they tend to be) Left-Wing and have special women's clubs and the like. Don't they realise that pushing one gender over the other is exactly what men were doing before. I regard feminazis in the same light as the KKK and other racist groups.

i hate Feminists especially Germaine Greer, i think we Australians should launch civil action against her for defamation, she really has no idea about Australia today but still insists she does.

What is with everyone being an interest group. What i hate is that all our Uni's are (as they tend to be) Left-Wing and have special women's clubs and the like. Don't they realise that pushing one gender over the other is exactly what men were doing before. I regard feminazis in the same light as the KKK and other racist groups.
I do not live in Australia, and sadly, know very little about it, but I agree with you about grouping feminazis with racist groups.

Oh god- feminists, they used to have a place but now i think there just a pain in the arse.

Why aren't there any masculinists or sumthing thats what i wanna know?

Also feminists seem to discriminate against men surely this is wrong and in our overly PC world we should correct it but no

But... there's a saying i like to use Woman can't be sexists and blacks can't be racists

I've not met any feminist dedicated to elevating women above men. I think the vast majority of feminists want equality. It is unfair to judge a group by its extremest members.

That's the way to generalize an entire group by a few of its members.

I've not met any feminist dedicated to elevating women above men. I think the vast majority of feminists want equality. It is unfair to judge a group by its extremest members.
If what yuo said is true, it is the extremest members that make themself loudest.


Also, why don't we rise up and stop putting up with this bullshit? Because if yuo ask any physchologist, most feminazis really want male attention/sex, and because they are starved for both, they think its the mens fault for not wanting them and start hating them.

in Australia, women have equality. Social equality is there from most atheists, but some of the Bible-totin' crew are trying to push the traditional view of women back on society. Women have as many opportunities to succeed as men.

Feminism was a movement, originating in the 1800's, that strived to get women the same rights as men, including suffrage and work opportunities. It was a very noble cause, and fought against bias.


FEMINISM TODAY IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. Modern Feminsts, or Feminazis, as i will call them from now on, do not want equality for women, they have it for the most part.

Gender Equality is far far far from a reality in this partiarchial system. If you think that Feminism has outlived its necessity, then you need to think again. I live in a nation where government healthcare covers Viagra but not Birth Control... The average woman employee makes 25% less than her male counter part... I could go on and on, but you'ld do better yourself to take a serious look at the gender divide and prejeduces you have.

Also, why don't we rise up and stop putting up with this bullshit? Because if yuo ask any physchologist, most feminazis really want male attention/sex, and because they are starved for both, they think its the mens fault for not wanting them and start hating them.

If I may offer some advice, the next time a feminist says something that you interpret as wanting to put women in a higher position than men, don't tell her that all she wants is to get laid by you. You will be assaulted, and will further convince her that men retain antiquated, unfair notions of the nature of femininity.

Gender Equality is far far far from a reality in this partiarchial system. If you think that Feminism has outlived its necessity, then you need to think again. I live in a nation where government healthcare covers Viagra but not Birth Control... The average woman employee makes 25% less than her male counter part... I could go on and on, but you'ld do better yourself to take a serious look at the gender divide and prejeduces you have.
Yes, as i said in the next sentence, which you conviniently left out in yuor quote, the wage gap although still pretty high, is decreasing, and will be gone in a matter of decades.
And birth control affects both men and women, for example, a woman wouldn't buy a condom.

If I may offer some advice, the next time a feminist says something that you interpret as wanting to put women in a higher position than men, don't tell her that all she wants is to get laid by you. You will be assaulted, and will further convince her that men retain antiquated, unfair notions of the nature of femininity.

why are you assuming that all feminist are women? I'm a member of a University Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance which is almost 40% male.

If I may offer some advice, the next time a feminist says something that you interpret as wanting to put women in a higher position than men, don't tell her that all she wants is to get laid by you. You will be assaulted, and will further convince her that men retain antiquated, unfair notions of the nature of femininity.
I am not stupid, lol. Their desire is subconsious. Besides, for most feminists, its already too late.

Yes, as i said in the next sentence, which you conviniently left out in yuor quote, the wage gap although still pretty high, is decreasing, and will be gone in a matter of decades.
And birth control affects both men and women, for example, a woman wouldn't buy a condom.


And what do you think is responsible for decreasing the wage gap, the free market? Give me a break -- the wage gap is huge and if all of us feminist took your advice and called it a 'day,' we'd be back to pre-civil rights era economics in a matter of weeks.

Yes, birth control does effect both men and women, but it effects them differently -- if women don't have control over their own bodies, then men will dominate them. This is why the nation is balking at the Emergency Contraceptive pill and the FDA is dragging their feet on making it over-the-counter.

and why wouldn't a woman buy a condom?

well im setting up the Masochist club at Sydney Uni. its ironic, because im always attracted to moderate feminists. our education system over here in NSW, Australia is highly biased towards girls, esp tertiary where i think females on average outperform males by 30% - no, this isn't reflected in prominent corporate roles, but thats more the private school old boys club at work then your typical male with a brain.

I regard feminazis in the same light as the KKK and other racist groups.

what the hell is a feminazi?

what the hell is a feminazi?
Read my first post.

what the hell is a feminazi?

It would appear it is a deroggatory term for feminists.

Lets go back to the ages whre men dominated virtually everything like say the 1800's

In a tough era like that where everyone had to serve some time in the army, there was huge industrial growth (and its principally men that work in heavy industry), and empires were being forged is it hardly suprising that men, which are (i'm gonna get slammed for this) physically better than woman at least in strength. Anyway is it hardly suprising that men dominated, would woman have a place as leaders in a society like that.

St Heliers

And what do you think is responsible for decreasing the wage gap, the free market? Give me a break -- the wage gap is huge and if all of us feminist took your advice and called it a 'day,' we'd be back to pre-civil rights era economics in a matter of weeks.

Yes, birth control does effect both men and women, but it effects them differently -- if women don't have control over their own bodies, then men will dominate them. This is why the nation is balking at the Emergency Contraceptive pill and the FDA is dragging their feet on making it over-the-counter.

and why wouldn't a woman buy a condom?
Feminazis are not responsible for that. Even if all Feminazis stop their activity, the gap will still come to a close, becuase we are a society that is almost done evolving beyond bias.

2)That makes no sense at all. "If women don't have control over their own bodies, men will dominate them." A guy wearing a condom is not dominating a woman.... neither is a guy not wearing a condom. As for the morning after pill, the problem with that is that people will become more reckless with sex, depending on using the pill in the morning, while it should only be used as EMERGENCY contraception.

And a woman wouldn't use a condom.

Lets go back to the ages whre men dominated virtually everything like say the 1800's

In a tough era like that where everyone had to serve some time in the army, there was huge industrial growth (and its principally men that work in heavy industry), and empires were being forged is it hardly suprising that men, which are (i'm gonna get slammed for this) physically better than woman at least in strength. Anyway is it hardly suprising that men dominated, would woman have a place as leaders in a society like that.

St Heliers
actually, i think it was Bismarck that first institutionalized draft, in the late 1800s

Oh i agree with most of what's been said.

I'd like to point out a something even most "moderate" feminists in Australia support.

In the Australian workforce, companies are rewarded for having the same number of female employee as male employees - basically equality through equalization rather than merit. I'll also throw myself into the debate by saying the women who face "glass ceilings" in the workplace probably complain more about there harsh treatment than doing good work.
And another thing, inequality in pay should be the last form of discrimmination we address. Well, perhaps before we start worrying about using "they" instead of "he" in conversation.

actually, i think it was Bismarck that first institutionalized draft, in the late 1800s

well u get my drift, a nation was measured largely by its armed forces

i hate Feminists especially Germaine Greer, i think we Australians should launch civil action against her for defamation, she really has no idea about Australia today but still insists she does.

What is with everyone being an interest group. What i hate is that all our Uni's are (as they tend to be) Left-Wing and have special women's clubs and the like. Don't they realise that pushing one gender over the other is exactly what men were doing before. I regard feminazis in the same light as the KKK and other racist groups.

I never thought of Germaine Greer that way. I've actually read a book she wrote, and although some of it was stuff I didn't really like looking at her way, I had to admit that she had a point. You know, like the fact that the western world really doesn't seem to like children or pregnancy, and does everything they can to hide or separate both to the extent that they are able.

I honestly don't think that I counld define "feminism" properly if you put a .45 to my head and threatend to splatter my brains on the wall in front of my young children, (which, as it happens, is how many women in "developing nations" are persuaded to hand their 10-year-olds over to whatever army faction is rolling through town, sell their daughter(s) to a brothel, or agree to work manufacturing junk for Wal-Mart in order to sustain their livlihoods).
Listen, I saw first-hand how the salary gap works. I was hired a few weeks ahead of a guy in my department at some stupid publishing job. I had far more responsibility and workload that he did and found out years later (because my stupid male bosses were, well, stupid) that I was making less than he. Yeah, I could have been a bitch about it, but in retrospect, it was the least of my worries at the time.
The point is, it's not so much one little instance over that, but a culmanation of aggrevious instances over time, that really gets the blood boiling.
Honestly, if you think about it, does it really make you feel more superior as a human being, just for the fact you have some kind of appendage sticking out from between your legs?
And as for all these patriarchal religions and sects and whatnot that are around: You say that women serve no purpose but for the means to propogate your populations. That's great. Thanks for the smidgen of respect, but don't you think that propogating your species is a REALLY IMPORTANT function of your life and mission? Idiots!
If women are so insignificant that you really don't need them, then why don't you just banish tham all, let them go? We'll see how long can you can carry out your godly mission without women to bear your children. It'll only take about 50 years for the freaks who think like that are wiped out, after they have no child-bearing women and have to "spill their seed" into a bunch of goats butts, to no avail.

for example, a woman wouldn't buy a condom.

what the hell are you talking about?

why are you assuming that all feminist are women? I'm a member of a University Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance which is almost 40% male.

**laughs** And 40% of those were just joining because they thought they might score.

Actually, I joined up with the Feminist Majority in my college as well, the group really needed direction 5 years ago when I helped start up the chapter. I daresay they found it after title 9 got threatened, and all the latest reproductive rights issues came up again.

As to the extremists and moderates in the group I can personally attest that in my group there were about 3 people who were extremely skeptical of the men in the group, but later they warmed to the idea as the men showed increasingly that they weren't in it for a quick score.

Indeed, tolerance works both ways quite nicely when the "sides" don't feel entrenched. The main reason I have found all this "feminazism" exists is because of the extreme situations that the women found themselves in before adopting their radical position. You see the same thing in all political movements, the more extreme the situation, typically the more extreme the reaction.

And in those extremities, certain people grow used to being entrenched, and even after the vast majority of the movement grows satisfied with their gains, they continue to rail and fight because the movment becomes wrapped up in their personal identity.

So I don't hate them by any means, they sure as hell make me uncomfortable, but no more so than any other extremist.

what the hell is a feminazi?

i believe its a rush limbaugh term of general abuse.

I honestly don't think that I counld define "feminism" properly if you put a .45 to my head and threatend to splatter my brains on the wall in front of my young children, (which, as it happens, is how many women in "developing nations" are persuaded to hand their 10-year-olds over to whatever army faction is rolling through town, sell their daughter(s) to a brothel, or agree to work manufacturing junk for Wal-Mart in order to sustain their livlihoods).
Listen, I saw first-hand how the salary gap works. I was hired a few weeks ahead of a guy in my department at some stupid publishing job. I had far more responsibility and workload that he did and found out years later (because my stupid male bosses were, well, stupid) that I was making less than he. Yeah, I could have been a bitch about it, but in retrospect, it was the least of my worries at the time.
The point is, it's not so much one little instance over that, but a culmanation of aggrevious instances over time, that really gets the blood boiling.
Honestly, if you think about it, does it really make you feel more superior as a human being, just for the fact you have some kind of appendage sticking out from between your legs?
And as for all these patriarchal religions and sects and whatnot that are around: You say that women serve no purpose but for the means to propogate your populations. That's great. Thanks for the smidgen of respect, but don't you think that propogating your species is a REALLY IMPORTANT function of your life and mission? Idiots!
If women are so insignificant that you really don't need them, then why don't you just banish tham all, let them go? We'll see how long can you can carry out your godly mission without women to bear your children. It'll only take about 50 years for the freaks who think like that are wiped out, after they have no child-bearing women and have to "spill their seed" into a bunch of goats butts, to no avail.
WE're not opposed to women being equal to us, or even getting the same pay. We are opposed to women trying to be superior to men, and finding patriarchal notions, where those notions never existes.

I think feminism has swung too far in one direction, though. I think it's become too concentrated on the career/competitive salary thing, (without solving the wage gap, I might add.) and it belittles women who would like to have their motherhood or domestic function recognised as valid. They'd like to have a choice, instead of being told that in order to be a self-respecting woman, they have to go out and get a career.

I think you are missing the point: we are talking about western countries - i can only speak for Australia. WE DONT HAVE IT OUT TO GET WOMEN. Name every bloody third world country you want. Im also very anti-religion. Stop placing all men in the same category - i realise i have a penis, and i realise women dont have one. I seriously believe women are equal to men. I am not in the minority here.

Also, Bismarck was a champ. He created the welfare state - not bad for a Right-Wing boy. (note: im semi -joking, Bismarck was a tool, but he knew it and i admire him for that).

You know, like the fact that the western world really doesn't seem to like children or pregnancy, and does everything they can to hide or separate both to the extent that they are able.

Won't someone please think of the children! The children!
We idolise children too much.

What's the big deal with pregnancy? It ain't a spectular achievement. There are too many fucking people in this world anyway...fact.
Seriously, i don't know how you can say that western society doesn't like pregnancy. What justification do you bring forward?

Won't someone please think of the children! The children!
We idolise children too much.

What's the big deal with pregnancy? It ain't a spectular achievement. There are too many fucking people in this world anyway...fact.
Seriously, i don't know how you can say that western society doesn't like pregnancy. What justification do you bring forward?
Yea, i mean when a woman says shes pregnant, everyone around her gets so excited, and for 9 months, she gets very good treating from those around her.

And as for all these patriarchal religions and sects and whatnot that are around: You say that women serve no purpose but for the means to propogate your populations. That's great. Thanks for the smidgen of respect, but don't you think that propogating your species is a REALLY IMPORTANT function of your life and mission? Idiots!
If women are so insignificant that you really don't need them, then why don't you just banish tham all, let them go? We'll see how long can you can carry out your godly mission without women to bear your children. It'll only take about 50 years for the freaks who think like that are wiped out, after they have no child-bearing women and have to "spill their seed" into a bunch of goats butts, to no avail.

Your'e not talking to anybody posting in this forum thread i hope.

Here is another fact:

In a poll taken, 9/100 women polled would vote for a law to make sex with men illegal.

WE're not opposed to women being equal to us, or even getting the same pay. We are opposed to women trying to be superior to men, and finding patriarchal notions, where those notions never existes.
First of all, if you are using a term like "feminazi" you are devotee of Rush Limbaugh, because he invented the word. If you are not a devotee of Rush Limbaugh, you shouldn't be using the term "Feminazi" because Limbaugh's definition of "feminazi" is somewhat thusly put:
"1: a woman who is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, bowing before her husband, 2: a blonde with nice legs {see Ann Coulter} who perpetuates our notion that men are right and need to rule the world by threatening to blow things up."

Won't someone please think of the children! The children!
We idolise children too much.

What's the big deal with pregnancy? It ain't a spectular achievement. There are too many fucking people in this world anyway...fact.
Seriously, i don't know how you can say that western society doesn't like pregnancy. What justification do you bring forward?

Ok, how about this. Just about every country in the rest of the world has clothing for women that are adjustable to pregnancy. Her regular clothes, whether it be her ao dai, her sari, her salwar kameez. All of them needed no alteration for pregnancy. All of the maternity clothes you buy now try to hide pregnancy insofar as it can be hidden. When you're a working woman and you get pregnant, you might as well have learned to read minds, because you hear all around you the thought, "oh brother. Why did we hire someone who was going to get pregnant and have kids. Now we have to train someone else to fill the position."

We don't like kids much either. When people come to your house to visit, you put your kids to bed, or get someone to watch them in another room, so that your guests don't have to deal with them or even see them. Maybe we think that since our children annoy or bore us, they will do that to our friends too. We have a whole culture that is full of places where children aren't welcome. We don't let them share our world. Their world is separate from ours. Other places aren't like that. Kids can go pretty much anywhere that their parents do.

Actually the wage gap is at about 95-98 cents on the dollar if you actually break it down by job type instead of only wage proportion. To MissDefied, that wasn't necessarily because you were female. If all the females who worked for that company or that particular boss could claim a lower wage than their male counterparts you could attribute that to such, however advancement is based much more on charisma than ability in many jobs.

Here is another fact:

In a poll taken, 9/100 women polled would vote for a law to make sex with men illegal.

So 9% is indicitive of the entire populace? No. It means you're grasping for straws.

First of all, if you are using a term like "feminazi" you are devotee of Rush Limbaugh, because he invented the word.
No. STFU.

can someone answer my question- could woman in a society like that of say the Romans be considered as leaders?- I don't think empire building would be regarded as something woman can/would do. Isn't it generally regarded that men are best in the armed forces?

First of all, if you are using a term like "feminazi" you are devotee of Rush Limbaugh, because he invented the word. If you are not a devotee of Rush Limbaugh, you shouldn't be using the term "Feminazi" because Limbaugh's definition of "feminazi" is somewhat thusly put:
"1: a woman who is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, bowing before her husband, 2: a blonde with nice legs {see Ann Coulter} who perpetuates our notion that men are right and need to rule the world by threatening to blow things up."
Feminazi is a woman who believes that men are inferior to women.

Feminazi is a woman who believes that men are inferior to women.

Got a dictionary to back you up there?

So 9% is indicitive of the entire populace? No. It means you're grasping for straws.
9% of the women in the united states.

so 4.5% of entire populace, in united states.

Got a dictionary to back you up there?
No, i have the topic post i wrote, where i defined the term feminazi.

9% of the women in the united states.

so 4.5% of entire populace, in united states.

Right. Which means that 95.5% of the populace does not believe that, and you're again trying to use a small brush to paint a large canvas.

Your'e not talking to anybody posting in this forum thread i hope.
Only thouse who espouse such facist beliefs. Prior to Abraham and the whole "God of our FATHERS" cult{s}, the divine feminine was equally venerated by ancient civilizations. It has been widely documented that the "Father god" aspect of theology was created as a reaction to supress female equality. People need to get over it and understand that a human is a human whether male or female.

oh dear. Kids arent welcome into places like STRIPCLUBS. how cruel. gee men really have it out for women. yeah kids arent allowed into places with fragile items or into formal restaraunts. thats because most kids cant be behaved and quite frankly insurance claims are a big deal these days.

also, that comment about pregnancy is absolutely NOT TRUE. most workplaces are absolutely supportive in granting maternity leave - hell, they grant paternity leave too (3-4 weeks, guess thats all the government thinks us men need to cope with a child, since obviously we arent allowed to take equal care of a child).

for modern workplaces, they are expected to grant maternity leave, or they wont get female employees - simple as that. in fact i think Howard passed a law - might be workplaces have to give a minimum of 2 months maternity leave.

No, i have the topic post i wrote, where i defined the term feminazi.

So it is, in fact, not a valid term.

Ok, how about this. Just about every country in the rest of the world has clothing for women that are adjustable to pregnancy. Her regular clothes, whether it be her ao dai, her sari, her salwar kameez. All of them needed no alteration for pregnancy. All of the maternity clothes you buy now try to hide pregnancy insofar as it can be hidden. When you're a working woman and you get pregnant, you might as well have learned to read minds, because you hear all around you the thought, "oh brother. Why did we hire someone who was going to get pregnant and have kids. Now we have to train someone else to fill the position."

We don't like kids much either. When people come to your house to visit, you put your kids to bed, or get someone to watch them in another room, so that your guests don't have to deal with them or even see them. Maybe we think that since our children annoy or bore us, they will do that to our friends too. We have a whole culture that is full of places where children aren't welcome. We don't let them share our world. Their world is separate from ours. Other places aren't like that. Kids can go pretty much anywhere that their parents do.

The maternty issue in Australia is evidence that feminism has gone too far the other way. Too lazy to find government policies, but maternaty payments are generous, to say the least.

We don't let kids share our world? Where do you want the kids...sharing your bedsheets? Kids shouldn't always be with adults.

Look, this argument on whether western countries pay children enough attention is going nowhere fast. I'll say this...we give children too much of the wrong attention. We (in australia) give TV time to kids being obnoxious but do not encourage them to actually do constructive activities.

So it is, in fact, not a valid term.
It is on this thread.

Here is another fact:

In a poll taken, 9/100 women polled would vote for a law to make sex with men illegal.
Source please. You almost make me laugh. Were all the women lesbians or something?

Here is another fact:

In a poll taken, 9/100 women polled would vote for a law to make sex with men illegal.

source?

Since no one answered my questions should we all assume that woman have no place as leaders in a society such as that of Rome or the 18th Century?

Or will someone challenege that

It is on this thread.

No. It is not. It is an insult you have generated, or more likely, stole from someone far more creative than you, to use against a group of people you have a distaste for.

oh dear. Kids arent welcome into places like STRIPCLUBS. how cruel. gee men really have it out for women. yeah kids arent allowed into places with fragile items or into formal restaraunts. thats because most kids cant be behaved and quite frankly insurance claims are a big deal these days.

also, that comment about pregnancy is absolutely NOT TRUE. most workplaces are absolutely supportive in granting maternity leave - hell, they grant paternity leave too (3-4 weeks, guess thats all the government thinks us men need to cope with a child, since obviously we arent allowed to take equal care of a child).

for modern workplaces, they are expected to grant maternity leave, or they wont get female employees - simple as that. in fact i think Howard passed a law - might be workplaces have to give a minimum of 2 months maternity leave.

Now, aren't you kind of picking and choosing what to respond to? I mentioned the workplace after the overall comment about clothing and culture being more geared for accepting pregnancy.

As for kids, why aren't they allowed into formal restaurants or bars? It seems like you're making an assumption about kids that's rather general. Some of them can behave, especially if their parents actually give parenting a shot, instead of handing them over to daycare and school at the earliest opportunity. Of course, in this culture of ours, and this economy, most of us have no choice but to hand them over.

Since no one answered my questions should we all assume that woman have no place as leaders in a society such as that of Rome or the 18th Century?

Or will someone challenege that

Like Catherine the Great? Nefirtiti? Livia? Elizabeth I? Dido? Cleopatra?

Since no one answered my questions should we all assume that woman have no place as leaders in a society such as that of Rome or the 18th Century?

Or will someone challenege that

women HAD no place. we are not dumb, we all realise women were discriminated again. stop falling into the trap of thinking that we still think like men of the 18th century. all it does is make me question your intelligence.

Now, aren't you kind of picking and choosing what to respond to? I mentioned the workplace after the overall comment about clothing and culture being more geared for accepting pregnancy.

As for kids, why aren't they allowed into formal restaurants or bars? It seems like you're making an assumption about kids that's rather general. Some of them can behave, especially if their parents actually give parenting a shot, instead of handing them over to daycare and school at the earliest opportunity. Of course, in this culture of ours, and this economy, most of us have no choice but to hand them over.
Because they have no manners. Because they break stuff. Because people go to restaurants to relax, not have 10 kids run around them yelling and shooting their toy guns.
The chidlren that can behave wouldn't get kicked out.

We idolise children too much.

Hey genius, when you are old and decrepit and pissing in your pants, said children will be the ones making your life decisions for you. THAT'S why they are so important!

First of all, if you are using a term like "feminazi" you are devotee of Rush Limbaugh, because he invented the word. If you are not a devotee of Rush Limbaugh, you shouldn't be using the term "Feminazi" because Limbaugh's definition of "feminazi" is somewhat thusly put:
"1: a woman who is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, bowing before her husband, 2: a blonde with nice legs {see Ann Coulter} who perpetuates our notion that men are right and need to rule the world by threatening to blow things up."
Or 3. A purported feminist who is actually extremely authoritarian.

Since no one answered my questions should we all assume that woman have no place as leaders in a society such as that of Rome or the 18th Century?

Or will someone challenege that

What has that got to do with modern gender equality? But as a side note, female pharoah's anyone?

women HAD no place. we are not dumb, we all realise women were discriminated again. stop falling into the trap of thinking that we still think like men of the 18th century. all it does is make me question your intelligence.

obviously you didn't read my first two questions

basically could woman (on the whole) dominate in a society such as that of Romans or the British Empire. Without changing the entire society to a peace loving place. Could they or should they? and if yes then why?

But at least someones responding now

Hey genius, when you are old and decrepit and pissing in your pants, said children will be the ones making your life decisions for you. THAT'S why they are so important!
Same was true last generation, and the generation before that, but they didn't treat kids like people do today.

Yea, i mean when a woman says shes pregnant, everyone around her gets so excited, and for 9 months, she gets very good treating from those around her.
Honestly, piss off. It wasn't like that for me, either time. You must be a child of priveledge. You need to realize that reality encompasses much more than your tiny sphere of existance.

Because they have no manners. Because they break stuff. Because people go to restaurants to relax, not have 10 kids run around them yelling and shooting their toy guns.
The chidlren that can behave wouldn't get kicked out.

Of course. You can't relax with children. They bore and annoy you.

Are you going by the children you allow near you, or are you going by what you were like when you were a kid? Toy guns? WTF? Not all of them have toy guns. Not even most of them. I actually enjoy having meals and holidays with my family, all of them, including the kids. As it happens, all of the kids in my family are pretty well behaved, and they're just typical kids.

Hey genius, when you are old and decrepit and pissing in your pants, said children will be the ones making your life decisions for you. THAT'S why they are so important!
Same was true last generation, and the generation before that, but they didn't treat kids like people do today.

Here is a satirical article which conveys a similar message.
http://maddox.xmission.com/beat.html

Now, aren't you kind of picking and choosing what to respond to? I mentioned the workplace after the overall comment about clothing and culture being more geared for accepting pregnancy.

As for kids, why aren't they allowed into formal restaurants or bars? It seems like you're making an assumption about kids that's rather general. Some of them can behave, especially if their parents actually give parenting a shot, instead of handing them over to daycare and school at the earliest opportunity. Of course, in this culture of ours, and this economy, most of us have no choice but to hand them over.

Im actually well mannered, i know kids who are very well mannered. My mother works 90 hour weeks, and i dont regret it at all. ive turned out fine(well, you may disagree) basically being raised by my grandparents. I attended formal restaraunts - i had a baby tux :). Parents giving parenting a shot sounds good, what do you suggest? a mother staying home - my aunty does that, and her kids are the devil incarnate. and then SHE had the balls to tell my mother that she was not a good mother because she didnt stay home. educational levels of parents tend to have the greatest impact on how well a kid is raised, not how much you sacrifice for them. i also agree that kids are regarded as pests - i actually prefer kids to adults, since most adults have lost the opportunity to avoid being morons.

Yes while there were some female leaders they were few and far between, female leaders are generally known because they were female.

Such as Cleopatra who was basically made famous because of an asp and movie but really had little control over egypt.

Yes while there were some female leaders they were few and far between, female leaders are generally known because they were female.

Such as Cleopatra who was basically made famous because of an asp and movie but really had little control over egypt.

Excellent of you to focus on the weakest of my examples to prove your point instead of the strongest.

What has that got to do with modern gender equality? But as a side note, female pharoah's anyone?

Hatshepsut?

I've heard that Nefertiti also took over after the death of Ahkenaten and Tutankhamun.

Hey genius, when you are old and decrepit and pissing in your pants, said children will be the ones making your life decisions for you. THAT'S why they are so important!

Like anyone respects the elderly enough now!

What does that have to do with feminism btw?
BTW, i was a child ok? having a loving family that valued me is more important them parents keeping their children with them and treating them equally when they dont know anything.

Feminism was a movement, originating in the 1800's, that strived to get women the same rights as men, including suffrage and work opportunities. It was a very noble cause, and fought against bias.


FEMINISM TODAY IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. Modern Feminsts, or Feminazis, as i will call them from now on, do not want equality for women, they have it for the most part. Yes, I know that women get less money, but that gap is narrowing. Feminazis want superiority over the male gender.

First off, they killed of chivalry. Chivalry was one of the few things in this world that was pure and good, and they just slaughtered it. Of course it was fairly easy for them, if a guy gets yelled at for holding a door for a girl, he won't do it again.

Second, they make up a lot of lies to desecrate males' reputation. One of the most outrageous lies i've heard, is that the reason our medicine is far behind what it could be, is because men slow it down, because men are sexually attracted to death. I mean it should be obvious to any person with half a brain that this is complete bs, but a Feminazi magazine printed it.

There is a newspaper in California, that was praised by Feminazi's magazine for their default gender placement. In usual life, when we speak of someone whose gender we don't know, we usually say "they" or "he". It's not a big deal, really. It is not a shackle on the ankles of all females in the world. However, they praised this newspaper, because in all default genders, they referred to the person as "she", EXCEPT when talking about a convict, where they use "he". Nice, ain't it? Now tell me this isn't sexism.

Feminazis take every little thing to be this evil shit that men put upon them to keep all women in slavery behind the stove. They oppose sports teams being all male, they oppose cheerleaders being all female. They claim that cheerleaders are only supplementary to sports players, the way men want women to be only supplementary to men. Of course, that is not the reasoning behind it, the reasoning is men are physically much stronger then women, thus making them more fit for sports, and women are more attractive to the largely male audience then men, thus they are chosen to cheer.

I will add to this later, but for now, i'll give you a chance to add/counter my post.

i didnt read the rest of the posts but i would like 2 add that i can understand MOST of what u are saying. Feminazis ARE being sexist but so is u talkin bout the cheerleaders... that was the only part of this that i disagreed with...

obviously you didn't read my first two questions

basically could woman (on the whole) dominate in a society such as that of Romans or the British Empire. Without changing the entire society to a peace loving place. Could they or should they? and if yes then why?

But at least someones responding now

oh right i get you, sorry i tend to avoid reading what i perceive is crap on first glance.

War is stupid. I dont think peace and war have anything to do with gender equality. Could women have dominated then? no..why? because men didnt believe AT THAT TIME in equality. should women have dominated? no! thats just the reverse of the problem. Women start wars too, and in some countries fight them. do you view men as hunter-gatherers? because thats the feeling i get.

Of course. You can't relax with children. They bore and annoy you.

Are you going by the children you allow near you, or are you going by what you were like when you were a kid? Toy guns? WTF? Not all of them have toy guns. Not even most of them. I actually enjoy having meals and holidays with my family, all of them, including the kids. As it happens, all of the kids in my family are pretty well behaved, and they're just typical kids.
You can't relax with anyone running around screaming off the top of their lungs. And that's what children will do.
But well mannered children wouldnt' be kicked out.

Excellent of you to focus on the weakest of my examples to prove your point instead of the strongest.

lol- i admit that's very true

but

You can't deny there were very few female leaders and also that most of them are known because they were female. Had Joan d' Arc been a man it would have been a completely different matter after all- u lead a few people into battle you say god inspired you is a fairly normal story.

Honestly, piss off. It wasn't like that for me, either time. You must be a child of priveledge. You need to realize that reality encompasses much more than your tiny sphere of existance.

Or anyone's sphere of existance. Listen to what you say.

Like anyone respects the elderly enough now!

What does that have to do with feminism btw?
BTW, i was a child ok? having a loving family that valued me is more important them parents keeping their children with them and treating them equally when they dont know anything.
And the thing is, today's kids are so spoiled, they might not respect the elderly.

Im actually well mannered, i know kids who are very well mannered. My mother works 90 hour weeks, and i dont regret it at all. ive turned out fine(well, you may disagree) basically being raised by my grandparents. I attended formal restaraunts - i had a baby tux :). Parents giving parenting a shot sounds good, what do you suggest? a mother staying home - my aunty does that, and her kids are the devil incarnate. and then SHE had the balls to tell my mother that she was not a good mother because she didnt stay home. educational levels of parents tend to have the greatest impact on how well a kid is raised, not how much you sacrifice for them. i also agree that kids are regarded as pests - i actually prefer kids to adults, since most adults have lost the opportunity to avoid being morons.

Urgh. I have a brother whose girlfriend seems to think that spending all of her time with the kids is parenting. Of course, they're not allowed to leave the TV, where she's at, and she doesn't say "no" at all. She resents it when any of us do. No. By parenting I mean actively trying to raise children to be considerate and good citizens.

You can't deny there were very few female leaders and also that most of them are known because they were female

darling (i dont know your gender, but i use this with anyone im talking to, so dont accuse me of sexism) stop living in the past please.

no one is denying it. it doesnt prove anything about society today though.

however advancement is based much more on charisma than ability in many jobs.
Sweet. So what you're saying is, that regardless of the fact that I produced ten times this guy's workload on any given day, he could crack a joke better than I and therefore get paid more? Makes a lot of sense. Now I can understand all the corruption in the workplace. And why our economy is shit. Thanks.

By parenting I mean actively trying to raise children to be considerate and good citizens.

Or children that obey and follow the status quo?

You can't relax with anyone running around screaming off the top of their lungs. And that's what children will do.
But well mannered children wouldnt' be kicked out.

If they run around screaming, usually I'll just gather them up and sit them down somewhere until they calm down. It doesn't bother me, and I don't think of it as an inconvenience. I don't tell anyone how to raise their child, but my little neices and cousins and nephews all know exactly how far they can go around me.

Sweet. So what you're saying is, that regardless of the fact that I produced ten times this guy's workload on any given day, he could crack a joke better than I and therefore get paid more? Makes a lot of sense. Now I can understand all the corruption in the workplace. And why our economy is shit. Thanks.
that's how the world works.

If they run around screaming, usually I'll just gather them up and sit them down somewhere until they calm down. It doesn't bother me, and I don't think of it as an inconvenience. I don't tell anyone how to raise their child, but my little neices and cousins and nephews all know exactly how far they can go around me.
But if you went somewhere to relax, and paid a lot of money for it, woudl you even want people running around screaming their lungs off? I doubt it.

why cant you crack better jokes than he does?

Sweet. So what you're saying is, that regardless of the fact that I produced ten times this guy's workload on any given day, he could crack a joke better than I and therefore get paid more? Makes a lot of sense. Now I can understand all the corruption in the workplace. And why our economy is shit. Thanks.

I'm sure you produced ten times this guy's workload.
How about workplace harmony? You know, getting along with people.
What about having opinions with sense?
The economy is shit because right-wing macroeconomic wizardry doesn't work. And the facts its all bullshit.

Since no one answered my questions should we all assume that woman have no place as leaders in a society such as that of Rome or the 18th Century?

Or will someone challenege that
Rome? 18th Century?
Infantile civilizations in my opinion. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just trying to change MY world. And I'm doing quite well, thanks.

Or children that obey and follow the status quo?

Ok, how about this. Most children under the age of 25 are sociopaths. They would remain sociopaths unless someone with the benefit of maturity gave them a little direction and civilized them. It's not about obedience or status quo.

But if you went somewhere to relax, and paid a lot of money for it, woudl you even want people running around screaming their lungs off? I doubt it.

Maybe I'm just not as stuck-up or picky as you are.

Rome? 18th Century?
Infantile civilizations in my opinion. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just trying to change MY world. And I'm doing quite well, thanks.

And youv'e got an infantile mind in my opinion.

So i think were all agreed that woman couldn't dominate in a moderately warlike society- at least thats the vibes i'm getting. In which case in the MODERN world why do feminists always argue using situations of how terrible things in Africa? This is why i was using the past as an example

Rome? 18th Century?
Infantile civilizations in my opinion. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just trying to change MY world. And I'm doing quite well, thanks.
And getting a smaller salary than the guy is "doing it quite well"?

i agree. kids can be taught to be polite.

im polite -hmm..well..i can get a bit dominant and aggressive in pushing my views, that puts off people. but nonetheless i think myself better mannered than most - i dont push people to get on trains, give up seats for the elderly, smile when im buying something etc.

Im not a slave to society though, i have my own (radical) opinions.

Or 3. A purported feminist who is actually extremely authoritarian.
I'll take that. Agreed.

Guys, girls, let's try to keep it from descending into flames, hmm?

Look, I am not saying that women sometimes get a smaller salary then men. I am not saying that it is right. However, i am saying that women who believe that men are inferior, are also very wrong, and must be stopped.

So i think were all agreed that woman couldn't dominate in a moderately warlike society- at least thats the vibes i'm getting. In which case in the MODERN world why do feminists always argue using situations of how terrible things in Africa? This is why i was using the past as an example

its not the warlike nature that is the issue, its societal expectations as influenced by religion and culture. same thing in africa - women are not expected to be dominant, and with the spread of islam and christianity in africa most likely will not be.

P.S - why does one sex have to be dominant? thats sexist garbage.

well im setting up the Masochist club at Sydney Uni. its ironic, because im always attracted to moderate feminists.

Um. Do you perhaps mean a 'Masculinist?'

Masochist - The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

But hey. Whatever you Sydney Uni types go for..

That's the way to generalize an entire group by a few of its members.
Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeat what anyone else has said but I agree with the above quote - the original poster is talking about (some) radical feminists, not feminists overall. I am actually currently studying the subject as part of a post-graduate course; before doing so I would have agreed with every word from the original poster. But the course has taught me that the type of person (s)he's referring to is per se a small number within a large group of people.

Ok, how about this. Most children under the age of 25 are sociopaths. They would remain sociopaths unless someone with the benefit of maturity gave them a little direction and civilized them. It's not about obedience or status quo.

What's inherently wrong with antisocial behaviour? Especially in the real-world situation. I like the idea of being "civilized" or domesticated. Cool.

Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeat what anyone else has said but I agree with the above quote - the original poster is talking about radical feminists, not feminists overall. I am actually currently studying the subject as part of a post-graduate course; before doing so I would have agreed with every word from the original poster. But the course has taught me that the type of person (s)he's referring to is per se a small number within a large group of people.

Initially, yes.

i agree. kids can be taught to be polite.

im polite -hmm..well..i can get a bit dominant and aggressive in pushing my views, that puts off people. but nonetheless i think myself better mannered than most - i dont push people to get on trains, give up seats for the elderly, smile when im buying something etc.

Im not a slave to society though, i have my own (radical) opinions.
Well, I think it's important for kids to not be constantly polite at an early (<10)age. They need time to "go crazy" for their own development, so they get bored of it, and mature naturally.

Um. Do you perhaps mean a 'Masculinist?'

Masochist - The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

But hey. Whatever you Sydney Uni types go for..

sorry, freudian slip :D

yeah im serious, that was a freudian slip.

i think the bdsm club already exists, so i can just sign up.

its not the warlike nature that is the issue, its societal expectations as influenced by religion and culture. same thing in africa - women are not expected to be dominant, and with the spread of islam and christianity in africa most likely will not be.

So in some societies it is fair that woman should be of lower status than men such as very religious, and vice versa but i can't think of an example.

Although i don't condone this i'm just interested to use it next time i argue with a feminist.

its not the warlike nature that is the issue, its societal expectations as influenced by religion and culture. same thing in africa - women are not expected to be dominant, and with the spread of islam and christianity in africa most likely will not be.

P.S - why does one sex have to be dominant? thats sexist garbage.
EXACTLY. Neither men, nor women have to be dominant.

Um. Do you perhaps mean a 'Masculinist?'

Masochist - The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

But hey. Whatever you Sydney Uni types go for..

He's being IRONIC...he's wants to be beaten by the feminists

Same was true last generation, and the generation before that, but they didn't treat kids like people do today.
Yeah, but at least those generations had the sense to realize that children are the future, although the latter ones somewhat blindly hurled this generation into an almost catastrophic milieu.

So in some societies it is fair that woman should be of lower status than men such as very religious, and vice versa but i can't think of an example.

Although i don't condone this i'm just interested to use it next time i argue with a feminist.

if you havent picked it up, i hate religion. i hate anything that challenges the equality of every single human being on the planet. no its not fair, it sucks. religion sucks.

EXACTLY. Neither men, nor women have to be dominant.

this is what i'm arguing against- that in some societies it is necessary that one sex be dominant.

Well, I think it's important for kids to not be constantly polite at an early (<10)age. They need time to "go crazy" for their own development, so they get bored of it, and mature naturally.

I guess I must just speak their language, because for the most part, the kids in my family are allowed to be themselves, and they are simply expected to exercise a basic level of good manners and self-control. The ones we have are just normal kids, and they seem to like me well enough to give me a hug when they see me, even if I say "no" sometimes.

if you havent picked it up, i hate religion. i hate anything that challenges the equality of every single human being on the planet. no its not fair, it sucks. religion sucks.

but despite this many countries are still very religious, we can't change that.

this is what i'm arguing against- that in some societies it is necessary that one sex be dominant.

well i dont think the ideal, which we are striving for, requires that. modern civilised society doesnt require that. oh wait, that sentence is badly phrased. do you mean that you think one sex needs to be dominant sometimes? or is that what you are arguing against?

this is what i'm arguing against- that in some societies it is necessary that one sex be dominant.

Then i guess we're agreeing from different perspectives.

Same was true last generation, and the generation before that, but they didn't treat kids like people do today.

Here is a satirical article which conveys a similar message.
http://maddox.xmission.com/beat.html
I'm a big fan of Maddox. He hasn't really been keeping up these days with post frequency. He's a busy gut though.
By the way, do you know what a satirist is?

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control?

well i dont think the ideal, which we are striving for, requires that. modern civilised society doesnt require that. oh wait, that sentence is badly phrased. do you mean that you think one sex needs to be dominant sometimes? or is that what you are arguing against?

woops- yeah, that in some societies it is necessary that one sex should be dominant

but despite this many countries are still very religious, we can't change that.

seperation of church and state is a good starting point.

i fight for equality for everyone. so my issue with feminists is they ignore men's equality. note: what i constitute as a feminist is probably what others regard as a hardline feminist. i mean, hell, im a moderate feminist in that i believe in total equality for women.

Honestly, piss off. It wasn't like that for me, either time. You must be a child of priveledge. You need to realize that reality encompasses much more than your tiny sphere of existance.
Oh, really! I know someone has already said something similar, but you should take your own advice and look outside of your own experience. Oh, and not make unjustified assumptions about, and be rude to, other people.

Sweet. So what you're saying is, that regardless of the fact that I produced ten times this guy's workload on any given day, he could crack a joke better than I and therefore get paid more? Makes a lot of sense. Now I can understand all the corruption in the workplace. And why our economy is shit. Thanks.
:D Glad to be of service. I don't mean to imply that that is always the case, but I'd assume about 50% of such advancement at least can be attributed to that.

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control?

castration, or so freud thinks. i really hate women who think they are inferior, or men who treat women like shit. Im not afraid of women who arent on a leash, although i do like leashes :D

Like anyone respects the elderly enough now!

What does that have to do with feminism btw?
BTW, i was a child ok? having a loving family that valued me is more important them parents keeping their children with them and treating them equally when they dont know anything.
Well if you read the post I was replying to, hell you may have even written it! Mine was a reaction to a seemingly anti-child statement that we are somehow focusing too much on the nurturing of the next generation. Which is something I personally hold high value to, that's all.

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control?

Yeah, that gets me too. The idea, that being against certain extereme feminist philosophy equates me to being a right-wing fear-mongering etc etc. A Rush Limbaugh basically.
I'm all for equality...don't get me wrong.

seperation of church and state is a good starting point.

i fight for equality for everyone. so my issue with feminists is they ignore men's equality. note: what i constitute as a feminist is probably what others regard as a hardline feminist. i mean, hell, im a moderate feminist in that i believe in total equality for women.

yes i whole heartedly agree

but do you agree or disagree that in some societies it is necessary/natural that one sex be dominant?

Islamic countries may be a good one, woman there where things such as those- watever u call them over their heads, wouldn't many feminists view that has oppression however it is natural in an islamic society

ok i see what you mean. no, i dont think its natural, men IMPOSE themselves on women in those societies. Although islam allowing wives to castrate their husbands if they are caught cheating on them is pretty cool - doesnt make up for the whole "cover your face and if you show a bit of it we will stone you to death".

And the thing is, today's kids are so spoiled, they might not respect the elderly.
Today's ADULTS don't respect the elderly. We can't expect the next generation to either.

castration, or so freud thinks. i really hate women who think they are inferior, or men who treat women like shit. Im not afraid of women who arent on a leash, although i do like leashes :D

I guess. It's weird. As I said, my family is one that lets its members be themselves, and nobody's ever told or taught me that I had to know a certain place or role. Without anybody but me controlling me, I don't actually get up to much mischief. That's why I wondered what exactly they thought we'd do if we didn't have someone cracking the whip, or making us subordinate.

Well if you read the post I was replying to, hell you may have even written it! Mine was a reaction to a seemingly anti-child statement that we are somehow focusing too much on the nurturing of the next generation. Which is something I personally hold high value to, that's all.

Mmm, no. I never said that we spend too much time nurturing kids. I said that we idolise kids and make them cult objects without giving them the real respect they deserve.

Bascially, we're agreeing with other except that i'm saying that give children too much of the wrong sort of attention and not enough of the right sort.

However many woman such as those in Europe choose to wear those head scarves out of choice- are u against this or do you see it as oppression?

I'm sure that many woman in these countries view their 'oppressed' lives as natural and can't see it any other way. I think this is because their countries are not yet ready to be liberalized just like if you were to suggest these things during the 18th century to the british e.g. giving woman the vote, they would consider it rediculous

yes i whole heartedly agree

but do you agree or disagree that in some societies it is necessary/natural that one sex be dominant?

Islamic countries may be a good one, woman there where things such as those- watever u call them over their heads, wouldn't many feminists view that has oppression however it is natural in an islamic society
Here you seem to be assuming that just because something is "natural" in a society that that automatically gives it carte blanche. According to that stoning people to death for prostitution is "natural" and "right".

I'm sure that many woman in these countries view their 'oppressed' lives as natural and can't see it any other way. I think this is because their countries are not yet ready to be liberalized just like if you were to suggest these things during the 18th century to the british e.g. giving woman the vote, they would consider it rediculous

That's one of the most sensible things I've seen on this forum. We so often fail to recognise that other countries are at a different stage of their development to our own. While it's right that we should try to influence them in certain instances, often we go too far.

However many woman such as those in Europe choose to wear those head scarves out of choice- are u against this or do you see it as oppression?

I'm sure that many woman in these countries view their 'oppressed' lives as natural and can't see it any other way. I think this is because their countries are not yet ready to be liberalized just like if you were to suggest these things during the 18th century to the british e.g. giving woman the vote, they would consider it rediculous

WTF???

However many woman such as those in Europe choose to wear those head scarves out of choice- are u against this or do you see it as oppression?

I'm sure that many woman in these countries view their 'oppressed' lives as natural and can't see it any other way. I think this is because their countries are not yet ready to be liberalized just like if you were to suggest these things during the 18th century to the british e.g. giving woman the vote, they would consider it rediculous

No, I don't think that if a woman chooses to wear a headscarf that it's oppression. It's when she doesn't have the choice, and might be killed for not wearing it that it's oppression. I think you miss that point, that women all over the world might face death if they don't do as they're told. How would you like it, if you were told that you'd be killed if you didn't wear a purple bowtie every time you left the house? It might not seem like a big deal, but it's a symbol of your being inferior, of someone having that much control over you.

That's one of the most sensible things I've seen on this forum. We so often fail to recognise that other countries are at a different stage of their development to our own. While it's right that we should try to influence them in certain instances, often we go too far.
But it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Yes, let peoples take control of their destiny, but we're arguing about equality in western society.

However many woman such as those in Europe choose to wear those head scarves out of choice- are u against this or do you see it as oppression?

I'm sure that many woman in these countries view their 'oppressed' lives as natural and can't see it any other way. I think this is because their countries are not yet ready to be liberalized just like if you were to suggest these things during the 18th century to the british e.g. giving woman the vote, they would consider it rediculous
Many of the young women in Britain doing this are educated westernised Muslims who are rejecting western values (or lack of values) and choosing a more orthodox version of their religion.

im just sad that war and religion wont be abolished in my lifetime.

to me , religion breeds ignorance and harks back to the Dark Ages.

Here you seem to be assuming that just because something is "natural" in a society that that automatically gives it carte blanche. According to that stoning people to death for prostitution is "natural" and "right".

No- my personal belief but...

Were looking at it from a westerners point of view. From the point of view of Muslims maybe they see this as the right way to act.

Practices which we view as barbaric such as stoning to death of prostitutes can be considered normal to those people particularly if thats the law in their country. Besides wouldn't you be stupid to break a law if you knew you could get stoned to death for it?

But it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Yes, let peoples take control of their destiny, but we're arguing about equality in western society.

Sorry, but I haven't read the whole thread, and just picked that particular point out. Still a very good point though.

No, I don't think that if a woman chooses to wear a headscarf that it's oppression. It's when she doesn't have the choice, and might be killed for not wearing it that it's oppression. I think you miss that point, that women all over the world might face death if they don't do as they're told. How would you like it, if you were told that you'd be killed if you didn't wear a purple bowtie every time you left the house? It might not seem like a big deal, but it's a symbol of your being inferior, of someone having that much control over you.

Exactly! And we should tell these people that this is wrong, not by actively imposing our "freedom" on them.

why cant you crack better jokes than he does?
I suppose I was too busy getting a job done and didn't have time for witticisms. Turns out I should have been slacking off like a moron instead of making money for my company. But I guess "that's how the world works" these days. You're rewarded for being an idiot and punished for trying to do your job. No wonder stuff costs so much these days, the corporations have to give six figure salaries to dumb-asses.

No- my personal belief but...

Were looking at it from a westerners point of view. From the point of view of Muslims maybe they see this as the right way to act.

Practices which we view as barbaric such as stoning to death of prostitutes can be considered normal to those people particularly if thats the law in their country. Besides wouldn't you be stupid to break a law if you knew you could get stoned to death for it?

freedom fighters do it all the time. homosexuals had to do it for many centuries, and still have to in some countries. you have to stand up for freedom wherever you are. sorry to sound like a marxist revolutionary.

Yeah, but how do you tell them that it's wrong without it sounding like you're trying to impose your own ideas of freedom on them? And how exactly are the women in these countries supposed to get out from under this threat of death for insubordination? By being insubordinate and dying trying? We can hardly ask them all to become martyrs for the benefit of the next generation, to commit suicide until the men realise that they'll run out of women at this rate.

I suppose I was too busy getting a job done and didn't have time for witticisms. Turns out I should have been slacking off like a moron instead of making money for my company. But I guess "that's how the world works" these days. You're rewarded for being an idiot and punished for trying to do your job. No wonder stuff costs so much these days, the corporations have to give six figure salaries to dumb-asses.

i know, see it all the time. except its the private school boys who are working for daddy's friends and simply cant be fired.

And youv'e got an infantile mind in my opinion.
Good for you!
:)
Fortunately for me, your opinion has yet to make any kind of significant impact on my thinking. Maybe in the future, you will write something that has some meaning to it and not just be some kind of reactionary statement.
You seem like a good kid though, I have hope for you.
{See, you've done it already! You said something that has a significant impact on my thinking. I'm just about three pages behind with this thread and it's growing exponentially.}

Yeah, but how do you tell them that it's wrong without it sounding like you're trying to impose your own ideas of freedom on them? And how exactly are the women in these countries supposed to get out from under this threat of death for insubordination? By being insubordinate and dying trying? We can hardly ask them all to become martyrs for the benefit of the next generation, to commit suicide until the men realise that they'll run out of women at this rate.

well, thats the thing. i personally, and i know its wrong, believe we should start banning religion and persecuting religious people in the same way we persecute smokers (although i dont agree with banning smoking). a necessary evil?

gradual change takes too long.

Yeah, but how do you tell them that it's wrong without it sounding like you're trying to impose your own ideas of freedom on them? And how exactly are the women in these countries supposed to get out from under this threat of death for insubordination? By being insubordinate and dying trying? We can hardly ask them all to become martyrs for the benefit of the next generation, to commit suicide until the men realise that they'll run out of women at this rate.

You can't really argue that allowing people to do what they want is at all fascist.

"freedom fighters do it all the time. homosexuals had to do it for many centuries, and still have to in some countries. you have to stand up for freedom wherever you are. sorry to sound like a marxist revolutionary."

This is another westerners point of view, many country's are in different stages of development and this is why how woman are viewed is different.

Who knows in 100 years time men might be treated like crap as our society "develops" however many in these times would view that as a step backwards. How we view things in our own countries maybe different in others. If a country overwhelmingly hates gay people how can you go to those people and stand up for freedom?

It would be a no win situation either gays get screwed or everyone else would get screwed- so in that case you would have to let the country be.

well, thats the thing. i personally, and i know its wrong, believe we should start banning religion and persecuting religious people in the same way we persecute smokers (although i dont agree with banning smoking). a necessary evil?

gradual change takes too long.
so what's the difference between that and forcing someone to wear a headscarf?

So i think were all agreed that woman couldn't dominate in a moderately warlike society
Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.

well, thats the thing. i personally, and i know its wrong, believe we should start banning religion and persecuting religious people in the same way we persecute smokers (although i dont agree with banning smoking). a necessary evil?

gradual change takes too long.

Again, we have a problem. Say you ban religion. Then you're trying to tell them what to do. You'll just end up making them more stubborn. It's like when the british banned the caste system in India. Did it work? Maybe it worked for making it less visible, but it didn't make it go away. I think if we actually got some normal, competent woman in a position of power that would impress the world, maybe it would make a difference. I think you can't just hand down a dictate to them like the word of god, though. You have to do it by example, hint, recommendation, etc.

Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.

that was only to build up to the current arguement- countries are in different stages of development and this is why woman are treated crap in some countries and that this is normal development

Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.
Yeah, especially Hitler and World War II. That war was totally unnecesary. I don't support and wars of the last fifty...four years i guess, but there isn't always a better solution than war.
I'm a boy and I don't support the whole military-industrial-complex going on, it's an elite few who own everything.

And getting a smaller salary than the guy is "doing it quite well"?
Well yeah, I'm way beyond that. It was ten years ago. The poor guy I speak of is deceased and I love him and miss him. It was never his fault that his superiors paid him more than me. I never held it against HIM!
I'm a grown-up. I get over the little things.

Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.
Apart from Boudicca.

Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.

oh please. sorry darl, the thought of war doesnt make me orgasm in delight. ill assume you were joking with that comment because thats just the kind of thing that upsets me.

and about the banning religion, i think its for the greater good. i also said it was an evil act did i not. i know its not a good solution, but its one way to get it done. and my perspective is my own, not the whole of the West's. I believe the world is better off without religion, because religion challenges equality and is based on thousands of years-old societal thought. we have progressed beyond that, and we will progress beyond religion.

Yeah, especially Hitler and World War II. That war was totally unnecesary. I don't support and wars of the last fifty...four years i guess, but there isn't always a better solution than war.
I'm a boy and I don't support the whole military-industrial-complex going on, it's an elite few who own everything.

unfortunately there are always going to be war-mongerers out there and if Hitler hadn't been stopped then people like me (Jews) wouldn't be alive so im certainly grateful he was stopped. I wouldn't say world war 2 was unnecessary

Again, we have a problem. Say you ban religion. Then you're trying to tell them what to do. You'll just end up making them more stubborn. It's like when the british banned the caste system in India. Did it work? Maybe it worked for making it less visible, but it didn't make it go away. I think if we actually got some normal, competent woman in a position of power that would impress the world, maybe it would make a difference. I think you can't just hand down a dictate to them like the word of god, though. You have to do it by example, hint, recommendation, etc.

go the Queen of Jordan, ive always admired her.

plus, Jordan is my name, so thats cool too. yeah i know, you do it slowly..

i just think about all the people who will suffer before religion disappears.

I think if we actually got some normal, competent woman in a position of power that would impress the world, maybe it would make a difference.
Like Thacter hey?
Ok, yeah, actually, i'll go along with a competent leader fullstop in a position of power though. Man, woman, alien, whatever!

ok i see what you mean. no, i dont think its natural, men IMPOSE themselves on women in those societies. Although islam allowing wives to castrate their husbands if they are caught cheating on them is pretty cool - doesnt make up for the whole "cover your face and if you show a bit of it we will stone you to death".

The majority of muslem women in those countries want the head covering ect. They wear it because it makes them feel safe and proper. This majority then imposes their belief on others in the society. I'm not saying that the majority is right, but you could say the same about our society, people in my neighborhood are supressing my right to run naked down to the shops, I would get a punishment for that, the muslem countries just have larger penalties.

Apart from Boudicca.

Yeah, but Boudicea was flogged in public, and her daughters were raped in public, in front of their mother, to make an example of the family wanting home rule. I think maybe that she was justified.

You know, something like Clytemnestra being justified in beheading Agamemnon for sacrificing their daughter to the gods. Mothers tend to take it personal when you kill their kids, for some odd reason.

i just think about all the people who will suffer before religion disappears.

and what about all the people who will be inspired into acts of heroism and charity for their religion?

What's inherently wrong with antisocial behaviour? Especially in the real-world situation. I like the idea of being "civilized" or domesticated. Cool.
:confused:
I'm going with the second sentence rather than the first. You like the idea of being civilized but don't see what's wrong with antisocial behaviour? Sounds like a contradiction to me. Unless of course your notion of "civilized" isn't the same as the notion of the same for society-at-large.

oh please. sorry darl, the thought of war doesnt make me orgasm in delight. ill assume you were joking with that comment because thats just the kind of thing that upsets me.

and about the banning religion, i think its for the greater good. i also said it was an evil act did i not. i know its not a good solution, but its one way to get it done. and my perspective is my own, not the whole of the West's. I believe the world is better off without religion, because religion challenges equality and is based on thousands of years-old societal thought. we have progressed beyond that, and we will progress beyond religion.

It's an interesting ideological debate. To ban a form of expression (religion) to allow, i guess, more (true) expression.
I think we shouldn't ban religion, and i think people should be able to preach their beliefs. But not to the extent they are all-encompassing and influences all areas of society.
I happen to think organised religion is archaic and wonder why we need God to love and respect each other.

What women want now (so far as I understand it) is equality of culture rather than legal rights. They got those rights ages ago now they are trying to turn culture around. However they are going the wrong way about it by still claiming that the institutions are at fault. What they want is removal of the culture of male supirority and that is far harder to target and remove.

i would say that religion is inherently part of civilization.

While religion inspires many people to do stupid things (like this guy who walked into a pride of lions believing god would protect him- he didn't)

Religion also inspires many great things such as heroism, courage and even simple charity like feeding the homeless. Many charities are based on religious beliefs

and what about all the people who will be inspired into acts of heroism and charity for their religion?

like Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, the constant invasion of Jerusalem and the murdering of its jewish inhabitants? the Spanish conquering of South America? The Crusades?

yeah, real heroes.

as for charity, im not going to give my views on that because on other forums it has started long and hard flame wars...lets just say that you dont need to be religious to be a nice person.

oh please. sorry darl, the thought of war doesnt make me orgasm in delight. ill assume you were joking with that comment because thats just the kind of thing that upsets me.

and about the banning religion, i think its for the greater good. i also said it was an evil act did i not. i know its not a good solution, but its one way to get it done. and my perspective is my own, not the whole of the West's. I believe the world is better off without religion, because religion challenges equality and is based on thousands of years-old societal thought. we have progressed beyond that, and we will progress beyond religion.

I dont like religion either (atheist) but banning it isnt the option. I'm sure the people in power in the muslem countries think the clothing is for the "greater good". Best thing you can do is leave each other alone, let other people do what the hell they want.

I happen to think organised religion is archaic and wonder why we need God to love and respect each other.
We don't seem to be able to manage it with or without up to now.

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control?
Not cook supper. That's my guess.
:(

The majority of muslem women in those countries want the head covering ect. They wear it because it makes them feel safe and proper. This majority then imposes their belief on others in the society. I'm not saying that the majority is right, but you could say the same about our society, people in my neighborhood are supressing my right to run naked down to the shops, I would get a punishment for that, the muslem countries just have larger penalties.

That's some crazy logic. Ok, so the majority determine behaviour in a society? How come smoking is legal? In particular reference to muslim headwear, what's the difference between female and male hair?

Not cook supper. That's my guess.
:(

HAHAHHA thats funny, because mum couldnt cook if her life depended on it.

We don't seem to be able to manage it with or without up to now.
I'm a firm believer in the evolution of ideas.

like Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, the constant invasion of Jerusalem and the murdering of its jewish inhabitants? the Spanish conquering of South America? The Crusades?

yeah, real heroes.

as for charity, im not going to give my views on that because on other forums it has started long and hard flame wars...lets just say that you dont need to be religious to be a nice person.

No you don't need religion to be a nice person but... many people do great things in the name of their god.

Also people without religion can be just as bad, i would hardly say hitler was a christian either. Infact- Communism attempted to eradicate religion and that resulted in millions dead.

Communism tried to be a state religion though.

so anyway, back to womens rights. the real issue has finally emerged. womens societal rights vs legal rights. legally they have equality. culturally they dont. i blame poor education and religion.

Not cook supper. That's my guess.
:(

:D Yeah, and here in the western world, all you have to do is piss a woman off good enough, and she won't cook supper.

The truth is, though, I'm stubborn enough that I don't think I'd last five minutes in a muslim household. I'd let my fingers get broken before taking orders to cook supper. Ask me nice, and I'd make you a six course meal. Order me, and there's no fucking way I'm going to cook for you.

Infact- Communism attempted to eradicate religion and that resulted in millions dead.

I don't believe it? The facts please.

i'd love to stay and talk but i really should go to sleep

bye everyone

That's some crazy logic. Ok, so the majority determine behaviour in a society? How come smoking is legal? In particular reference to muslim headwear, what's the difference between female and male hair?

I dont know, I quite like female hair ;) , but its what the people in those countries think that matters. I'm not saying that the majority decides everything just that the muslim dress is enforced as strongly (if not more so) by the females of the society than the males. Interestingly enough where I come from (New Zealand) we are currently implementing a law which bans smoking in public places (bars ect), I think its the solution, they can kill themselves off without hurting us.

I don't believe it? The facts please.

ok my last statement- Stalin attempted to replace the orthodox church because he saw it as a focus of alternative loyalty to him. Consequently he closed down churches, killed priests and sent many christians to labour camps.

To be slightly serious for a moment, it mistyfies me personally why anyone would want to be in a relationship with someone who they did not feel was their equal. To me the love and support between a couple is based on mutual respect and understanding. I would no more expect my girlfriend to do what I told (as opposed to asked) her than she would me. How a relationship can be truely close and loving without respect is beyond me.

Oh, really! I know someone has already said something similar, but you should take your own advice and look outside of your own experience. Oh, and not make unjustified assumptions about, and be rude to, other people.
You know, I would have thought that more people would have responded to my misspelling of "priviledge" but there you go.
I honestly don't get it. Someone made a statement that basically said they believe pregnant women are coddled and pampered for 9 months. All I thought I did was point out the fact that it was not the case. And for thice I've been attacked? Twice? I understand it's a big deal to a lot of people, but just because I point out that it isn't that way for everyone, I'm being rude?
Pardon me, but I think it's rude for someone to discount my experience. And to assume that I can't see beyond it. That was kind of the point of the post.

I dont know, I quite like female hair ;) , but its what the people in those countries think that matters. I'm not saying that the majority decides everything just that the muslim dress is enforced as strongly (if not more so) by the females of the society than the males. Interestingly enough where I come from (New Zealand) we are currently implementing a law which bans smoking in public places (bars ect), I think its the solution, they can kill themselves off without hurting us.

Man, my father's the most vehement anti-smoker i know. So in resturants in Australia now, it is illegal to smoke inside resturants and legal to smoke outside. Problem is though, that you can still smell the smoke blowing in. So my father gets up to compain, and as he start complaining about this heckler, a diesel truck comes by and spews smoke all over all the food.
We're all gonna die, there's no need for an external life fantasy.

I dont know, I quite like female hair ;) , but its what the people in those countries think that matters. I'm not saying that the majority decides everything just that the muslim dress is enforced as strongly (if not more so) by the females of the society than the males. Interestingly enough where I come from (New Zealand) we are currently implementing a law which bans smoking in public places (bars ect), I think its the solution, they can kill themselves off without hurting us.

Ill have to be the traditional Australian pig, and laugh at you for coming from Australia's seventh state in all but name.

nah jk..ill probably move to NZ, since Howard is crazee. im pretty sure australia has that right now - the smoking law that is.

Communism tried to be a state religion though.

so anyway, back to womens rights. the real issue has finally emerged. womens societal rights vs legal rights. legally they have equality. culturally they dont. i blame poor education and religion.
Did the ERA pass when I wasn't looking? Alright, I'm out, Captain Planet just came on which means it's waaay too late.

Ill have to be the traditional Australian pig, and laugh at you for coming from Australia's seventh state in all but name.

nah jk..ill probably move to NZ, since Howard is crazee. im pretty sure australia has that right now - the smoking law that is.

Haha a bit off topic but hey. NZ has its problems but its a nice place to live. Good thing we have Australia there, its a perfect continent sized shield (lucky because we really cant defend ourselves, why did we dismantle our airforce???).

lol, i cant believe we bombed NZ by accident once...

hey NZ has a female PM..well is she female, she does talk like a man.

how does that work out?

Mmm, no. I never said that we spend too much time nurturing kids. I said that we idolise kids and make them cult objects without giving them the real respect they deserve.
I guess I just took it the wrong way.
Bascially, we're agreeing with other except that i'm saying that give children too much of the wrong sort of attention and not enough of the right sort.
No "except" here. I totally agree that kids get the wrong kind if attention.
Cheers!

lol, i cant believe we bombed NZ by accident once...

hey NZ has a female PM..well is she female, she does talk like a man.

how does that work out?

I'm moderatly sure she is female. Pretty much the same as most politicians , hehe she got snapped speeding to a sporting event in a government vehicle using police escorts. Alright im going to sleep.
Fight the oppression, not the equality.

I guess I just took it the wrong way.

No "except" here. I totally agree that kids get the wrong kind if attention.
Cheers!

Whoops, my bad.

Though I agree with most of what you say in your post, I do not think you properly stated your opinion to maximize good feedback.

I agree that "feminism" as a whole has accomplished its goals, and that yes, the gaps are decreasing in terms of economic equality, the fact of the matter is that there isn't COMPLETE equality.

I have met some extreme feminists, and yes, some were even men. However, I challenge you to rethink your writing.

Try to avoid using a generalized term/group name to define everyone in the group. I would have said "because of the increased publicity that feminism is being converted into a superiority platform, from its more noble cause as an organization fighting for equality between the sexes, I would inquire as to the reason the feminist movement continues to be a political fighting force. Yes, there are still inequalities, however to say that there is a need for a massive movement, as opposed to low-level political debate and comprimise, seems to be to belabor the point. Feminism began to provide equality. Yet, to not trust the system to understand and work to change this, would completely undermine the efforts already made. I believe that feminism is no longer required as it was in the 1800s. Women can now vote, for example, and because of this right, it is fair to assume that issues in the future, especially laws ensuring equality, are no longer going to be without equal view and poll."

In argument to the posts stating that not all feminists are extremists, however, I state only this:

Remember that you are an individual who IDENTIFIES one's self as a member of a group, and because of that, you must understand that the generalization of all members of a group is simply a challenge to the non-extremists to police themselves and conduct themselves in a more professional manner. I agree, generalizations are wrong. But I also understand that I am not always a member of the "extreme" of an organization I belong, and I do not have to be defensive. I'd ramble further, but I have too much to do ATM.

Yeah, especially Hitler and World War II. That war was totally unnecesary. I don't support and wars of the last fifty...four years i guess, but there isn't always a better solution than war.
I'm a boy and I don't support the whole military-industrial-complex going on, it's an elite few who own everything.
Hitler was a boy and he started it! I'm sorry.
I'm being ... is it ... reactionary? Crap!
And emotional too! *chokes*
i want it to be known that I am not some crazy, man-hating femina-
Can't say it!
Three of my favorite people in the world are boys: dad, husband and son.
So there.
Headscarves? I refuse to go there. Headscarves are just a symptom of the problem. That's all I can say about it.

Apart from Boudicca.
Well yeah, okay. But could one say she was just reacting to patriarchal Roman oppression? i.e. "equalizing" her place in the world? Yeah, maybe I don't think so either. But then ... nevermind ...

You know, I would have thought that more people would have responded to my misspelling of "priviledge" but there you go.
I honestly don't get it. Someone made a statement that basically said they believe pregnant women are coddled and pampered for 9 months. All I thought I did was point out the fact that it was not the case. And for thice I've been attacked? Twice? I understand it's a big deal to a lot of people, but just because I point out that it isn't that way for everyone, I'm being rude?
Pardon me, but I think it's rude for someone to discount my experience. And to assume that I can't see beyond it. That was kind of the point of the post.
Privelege was tempting, but I'm paranoid usually about pointing out spelling mistakes, in case I make one...

The point is precisely that you made a statement that this is not the case (that pregnant women are not coddled...). Now that you have qualified it and said that it is simply not the case for everyone, I am quite happy. You must admit the irony of your original post, though: "you can't say it's that way, just becasue that's what happened to you - it's this way, because this is what happened to me!" Which was what you said, even if you have now shown that it wasn't quite what you meant.

And you weren't rude for disagreeing, you were rude for saying "Honestly, piss off", or whatever it was. Not the height of good manners!!

oh please. sorry darl, the thought of war doesnt make me orgasm in delight. ill assume you were joking with that comment because thats just the kind of thing that upsets me.
Sorry, I have to starting using smileys when I'm only being half to totally serious. Which is most of the time.


and about the banning religion, i think its for the greater good. i also said it was an evil act did i not. i know its not a good solution, but its one way to get it done. and my perspective is my own, not the whole of the West's. I believe the world is better off without religion, because religion challenges equality and is based on thousands of years-old societal thought. we have progressed beyond that, and we will progress beyond religion.
For the record, I never, ever said anything about not banning religion. I may or may not think it's great idea.

I agree that "feminism" as a whole has accomplished its goals, and that yes, the gaps are decreasing in terms of economic equality, the fact of the matter is that there isn't COMPLETE equality.

There will never be COMPLETE equality as long as 2 sexes exist. Heck, even among us guys, there is biasness (like jocks and nerds, etc.etc.)

IMO, extremist in all forms scares me.

There will never be COMPLETE equality as long as 2 sexes exist. Heck, even among us guys, there is biasness (like jocks and nerds, etc.etc.)

IMO, extremist in all forms scares me.
Thats something that I don't really get, we don't go in for labelling in quite that way, we have the ideas here but you're not stuck in one group, e.g you can be a cool nerd, or an unfashionable jock or the other ways around. From our point of view all that seems quite mean - to catagorise and stereotype someone so early in life - and not just to boys but girls to. This looks like a way also of reinforcing gender stereotypes as well as others. I may be wrong about that, its how it seems from here...

Thats something that I don't really get, we don't go in for labelling in quite that way, we have the ideas here but you're not stuck in one group, e.g you can be a cool nerd, or an unfashionable jock or the other ways around. From our point of view all that seems quite mean - to catagorise and stereotype someone so early in life - and not just to boys but girls to. This looks like a way also of reinforcing gender stereotypes as well as others. I may be wrong about that, its how it seems from here...

I think it's human nature to categorize everything, from fruits, animals, to humans (race, skin colour) etc.

And to categorize, is to some extent to generalize. Because a banana is a banana, but there's green banana's and yellow banana's.. Then there's different types of species of banana's. For us to start calling every banana out there by their scientific name, we'll go crazy.

And because of that, we would always be biased to things that are different. But it takes a educated and strong willed person to look beyond the differences and accept people as they are.

IMO, i've met a few extreme feminist in my life (Smelly, don't bathe, don't shave, wear all types of funny colourful clothes). And Their really nasty to guys, I don't know why. And have their own sisterhood and stuff.

Not to generalise all feminist are bad. But to me, those who do that and call themselves proudly as feminist gives me a bad impression. To totally stand out and be noticed in that way can really turn people off. Rather than coming down to earth and tell us that their real people too, and deserve every single respect as human beings.

I've not met any feminist dedicated to elevating women above men. I think the vast majority of feminists want equality. It is unfair to judge a group by its extremest members.

Precisely. Portraying all feminists as extremist is a very sexist tactic, and unfortunately, a successful one. People of the generation younger than I am tend to hold a much more unequal view of the sexes. Women can no longer speak out against actual inequalities without being accused of being lesbians who want to castrate all males or some other equally silly nonsense.

I think feminism has swung too far in one direction, though. I think it's become too concentrated on the career/competitive salary thing, (without solving the wage gap, I might add.) and it belittles women who would like to have their motherhood or domestic function recognised as valid. They'd like to have a choice, instead of being told that in order to be a self-respecting woman, they have to go out and get a career.

A lot of modern feminist thinking is that an "economic value" or such should be assigned to all work. Taking care of a house and children is actual work whether done by a male or female, and has been belittled for far too long (largely because it was seen as solely a female duty in the past). The idea that a career has more value than family is a patriarchal concept.

lol- i admit that's very true

but

You can't deny there were very few female leaders and also that most of them are known because they were female. Had Joan d' Arc been a man it would have been a completely different matter after all- u lead a few people into battle you say god inspired you is a fairly normal story.

On the other hand, a man would not have gotten burned at the stake as a witch for having god lead him into battle.

If what yuo said is true, it is the extremest members that make themself loudest.


Also, why don't we rise up and stop putting up with this bullshit? Because if yuo ask any physchologist, most feminazis really want male attention/sex, and because they are starved for both, they think its the mens fault for not wanting them and start hating them.

So, you complain that feminists are racist, then state that they are feminists because they can't get sex, which they desperately need. It is because of opinions such as that that the feminist movement has so many and so extreme members, because even as a male I find that statement extremely offensive and degrading.

Women make less money then males. Women hold fewer positions of power than males. There is no real reason why the world (or US) should operate this way; look at Meg Whitman or Geraldine Ferraro or Margaret Thatcher. Obviously women are fully capable of doing anything a man can. Because society prevents this from happening, thanks to gentlemen like yourself, the movement gets more desperate and more extreme.

Let go of your assumed white male superiority. Just because white men ran the world for 2000 years does not mean we're better than anybody else.

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control?

Now, who knows for sure other than it is a carry over of old thought patterns that have yet to be fully purged. Historically the fear was that a woman would mate outside of her "tribe" or otherwise mate without societal approval. Seriously. Look at marriage customs which may seem quaint relics now, but at one time were serious. A man asks a woman's father for her hand in marriage then the father gives her away... direct transfer of control from one male to another.

Also note that the religions and nations which are the most sexually repressive are also the most sexists. Even in today's society, culture dictates that a woman be more sexually pure than a man least she face ridicule, and birth control is constantly coming under attack. At its heart sexism about limiting a woman's choice to mate when and with whom she pleases.

The opening post referred to the "opening the door thing." The history of that is a kinder, gentler version of the ancient practice of Chinese foot binding. Both restricted the ability of a woman to come and go freely, and thus limited who she was able to come into contact with without being watched over. The modern day version of this is the silly notion that if a woman ventures out at night without male protection that she is more likely to become a victim of violent crime (even though most crime happens during the daytime. But night is associated with sex and secrecy for some odd reason). What this does is place a woman in a position where she needs male accompaniment - thus male permission - to wander about. Yet over 70% of all physical and sexual assaults committed against women are perpetrated by a person that the woman is well acquainted with - women are actually safer around "strange" males. As for the rest of the cases, with the amount of gun crime, does being with a male (as opposed to any two people not being out along regardless of gender) even make anyone safer? The last time I checked the penis had multiple functions but projecting a bullet-proof shield was not among them.

So, you complain that feminists are racist, then state that they are feminists because they can't get sex, which they desperately need. It is because of opinions such as that that the feminist movement has so many and so extreme members, because even as a male I find that statement extremely offensive and degrading.

Women make less money then males. Women hold fewer positions of power than males. There is no real reason why the world (or US) should operate this way; look at Meg Whitman or Geraldine Ferraro or Margaret Thatcher. Obviously women are fully capable of doing anything a man can. Because society prevents this from happening, thanks to gentlemen like yourself, the movement gets more desperate and more extreme.

Let go of your assumed white male superiority. Just because white men ran the world for 2000 years does not mean we're better than anybody else.
Why single out white men, might one enquire? What possible relevence could this have? Is it not, in fact, completely unfair? It is the western i.e. mostly white countries that have, in general, progressed the furthest in terms of sexual equality. Perhaps you should "let go of" your racist bigotry.

The last time I checked the penis had multiple functions but projecting a bullet-proof shield was not among them.

That just made me laugh. Sorry. It's not the bullet-proof shield, it is fearlessness and no fear of death which some scientists say is the chemical testosterone to deaden the fact that I have no fear of death and fearlessness. But I guess men don't have to worry about a woman raping him either. It's good to have no fear. I guess if you can handle walking into the darkest most dangerous areas of the street without an escort, then by all means go at it. I'll have a hard time winning a mate that was as fearless as I was though because then, she doesn't need me. Is that what this is all about? No desire for a man?

That just made me laugh. Sorry. It's not the bullet-proof shield, it is fearlessness and no fear of death which some scientists say is the chemical testosterone to deaden the fact that I have no fear of death and fearlessness. But I guess men don't have to worry about a woman raping him either. It's good to have no fear. I guess if you can handle walking into the darkest most dangerous areas of the street without an escort, then by all means go at it. I'll have a hard time winning a mate that was as fearless as I was though because then, she doesn't need me. Is that what this is all about? No desire for a man?

I guess you've never been chased down a dark street at night by a naked woman wearing only a strap-on and wielding a butcher knife...

LOL Is that what happened to you? I had a girl chase me around with a butcher knife before because I knocked down her pink pony on my swingset. Was quite weird how crazy mad she got. She grew up to be a nice person though. It's funny because I never told my parents and forgot about what happened the next hour. When you said that, it just reminded me of my crazy childhood.

Why single out white men, might one enquire? What possible relevence could this have? Is it not, in fact, completely unfair? It is the western i.e. mostly white countries that have, in general, progressed the furthest in terms of sexual equality. Perhaps you should "let go of" your racist bigotry.

Perhaps because white males enjoy the most rights, or enjoy privileges and rights to the fullest extent of any socio-ecnomic group, as well as make far and away the most money (on average). In the Western world, white men are the dominant group in every measureable category, even if those same countries have made the most progress. Until, especially in the United States, white men accept that the world has changed and that society no longer revolves 100% around them, our drive to equality will be severely hampered.

How stating that white men are the dominant socioeconomic group and that many need to adjust their views of the world is "racist bigotry" I have no idea.

And I am saying this, of course, as a white male myself.

The opening post referred to the "opening the door thing." The history of that is a kinder, gentler version of the ancient practice of Chinese foot binding. Both restricted the ability of a woman to come and go freely, and thus limited who she was able to come into contact with without being watched over. The modern day version of this is the silly notion that if a woman ventures out at night without male protection that she is more likely to become a victim of violent crime (even though most crime happens during the daytime. But night is associated with sex and secrecy for some odd reason). What this does is place a woman in a position where she needs male accompaniment - thus male permission - to wander about.

So what, we shouldn't try and be protective of people we care about? It is exactly this attitude that has killed off chivalry. I sometimes feel that in this day and age, women no longer want someone who respects them, cares for them, and holds them up on a pedastal. There are men out there who consider certain women to be more important than themselves, I know, I'm one of them. Does that mean I'm going to rape her? No. It means I care about her, and don't want her to get hurt.

It has nothing to doo with male 'permission', and you know it. If the woman wanted to go out, she would, regardless, and most men I know would go out too, just to keep her company. Open your eyes, and look beyond the "all men are control freaks or rapists, or both" attitude you seem to have. They aren't.

So what, we shouldn't try and be protective of people we care about? It is exactly this attitude that has killed off chivalry. I sometimes feel that in this day and age, women no longer want someone who respects them, cares for them, and holds them up on a pedastal. There are men out there who consider certain women to be more important than themselves, I know, I'm one of them. Does that mean I'm going to rape her? No. It means I care about her, and don't want her to get hurt.

It has nothing to doo with male 'permission', and you know it. If the woman wanted to go out, she would, regardless, and most men I know would go out too, just to keep her company. Open your eyes, and look beyond the "all men are control freaks or rapists, or both" attitude you seem to have. They aren't.

My, you are defensive. I never said that you were a rapist. Most men are not. I just said that over 70% of all rapes are committed by men that women know. 21-25% of women have been raped. That does not make all men rapist. As for control freaks... they come in both genders. And most of the control freaks I have met do not realize that they are control freaks. They think they are being "nice" by taking care of everything. I have seen men as well as women feel they were being patronized and treated like children. There are partnerships where both can be control freaks, yet "control" different things.

I was more talking about the general attitudes, the constant news reports telling women not to go out alone, and the fact that first things asked when a woman does get attacked is "what were you wearing?" and "why were you alone?" Freedom and equality cannot be gained in an atmosphere that fosters fear. Whether these reports think they are being helpful or not they are misrepresenting actual facts and spreading fear. And my eyes are open. It is a FACT that most female victims are not violently attacked by strangers, but rather by someone close to them. Look at the DOJ crime statistics. Please tell me then, if spreading this false fear isn't about control, then what is the reason?

Fact - a male has a much greater chance of being a victim of violent crime when strangers are involved. Where is all the scare about men not going out alone?

Continuing in the "women are weak and need to be protected" train of thought is not showing respect, however.

"Chivalry" isn't respect. Its an way of making oppression look pretty. There is no way to hold someone on a pedastal and to consider them your equal. Hell, even consider the metaphor. Think about what sorts of things are usually placed on actual pedastals. Precious maybe. But also things that are delicate and ornamental that must be cared for and guarded jealously.

I don't feel that women are "weak and need to be protected". I feel that all people, male and female, are entitled to protect themselves, since the government (at least here in the US) is not required to protect you (Supreme Court, Wilson vs. District of Columbia) - ever.

That's why my wife bought her gun, and carries it nearly all the time.
That's why I bought mine, and carry it nearly all the time.

Call for a pizza, an ambulance, and a policeman. See which one shows up first.

Don't put your wife on a pedestal - it gets really heavy after a while. Better to find someone who is good at holding herself up.

That just made me laugh. Sorry. It's not the bullet-proof shield, it is fearlessness and no fear of death which some scientists say is the chemical testosterone to deaden the fact that I have no fear of death and fearlessness. But I guess men don't have to worry about a woman raping him either. It's good to have no fear. I guess if you can handle walking into the darkest most dangerous areas of the street without an escort, then by all means go at it. I'll have a hard time winning a mate that was as fearless as I was though because then, she doesn't need me. Is that what this is all about? No desire for a man?

What a silly suppostion. Last time I checked fear didn't cause sexual arousal (well, except in certain kinky situations). Really, which would you rather - a woman who needed you to walk her around the streets and then turned you away at her door or a woman confident enough to navigate the streets by herself but who decided she ,uhm, needed you in private ways?

The opening post referred to the "opening the door thing." The history of that is a kinder, gentler version of the ancient practice of Chinese foot binding. Both restricted the ability of a woman to come and go freely, and thus limited who she was able to come into contact with without being watched over. The modern day version of this is the silly notion that if a woman ventures out at night without male protection that she is more likely to become a victim of violent crime (even though most crime happens during the daytime. But night is associated with sex and secrecy for some odd reason). What this does is place a woman in a position where she needs male accompaniment - thus male permission - to wander about. Yet over 70% of all physical and sexual assaults committed against women are perpetrated by a person that the woman is well acquainted with - women are actually safer around "strange" males. As for the rest of the cases, with the amount of gun crime, does being with a male (as opposed to any two people not being out along regardless of gender) even make anyone safer? The last time I checked the penis had multiple functions but projecting a bullet-proof shield was not among them.

It's interesting you should say that. I've never thought of the opening of doors to be a power and control thing. Of course, I open doors for men, if they happen to be right behind me. I guess I've never been afraid to go about at night either. I just make sure I look like I know where I'm going, and I'm tall enough and big enough that I don't look like I'd go down without a fight.

I've always wondered why it is that women need men to protect them from....well...men. It's kind of like asking the fox to watch the henhouse, in a way. Not that I think men are protective out of the wrong motives. I think the majority do it because they care. It's the whole concept of it being needed that bugs me.

That just made me laugh. Sorry. It's not the bullet-proof shield, it is fearlessness and no fear of death which some scientists say is the chemical testosterone to deaden the fact that I have no fear of death and fearlessness. But I guess men don't have to worry about a woman raping him either. It's good to have no fear. I guess if you can handle walking into the darkest most dangerous areas of the street without an escort, then by all means go at it. I'll have a hard time winning a mate that was as fearless as I was though because then, she doesn't need me. Is that what this is all about? No desire for a man?

The point is, women shouldn't need men or men need women. We do, in the most basic biological sense, but we shouldn't need one for protection, or one for housework, etc. I don't need my man, but I want him. I love him. I think of him as my friend and my equal, and he thinks of me the same way. We need each other for understanding and companionship and friendship. I think when one person needs the other, it becomes a dependent relationship, and hence unequal.

So what, we shouldn't try and be protective of people we care about? It is exactly this attitude that has killed off chivalry. I sometimes feel that in this day and age, women no longer want someone who respects them, cares for them, and holds them up on a pedastal. There are men out there who consider certain women to be more important than themselves, I know, I'm one of them. Does that mean I'm going to rape her? No. It means I care about her, and don't want her to get hurt.

It has nothing to do with male 'permission', and you know it. If the woman wanted to go out, she would, regardless, and most men I know would go out too, just to keep her company. Open your eyes, and look beyond the "all men are control freaks or rapists, or both" attitude you seem to have. They aren't.

Chivalry is fine, but it's a middle-eastern concept, and born of islam and the need to control women. You might not do it out of those motives, any more than you'd carry your bride over the threshold to re-enact the rape of the sabines, but that's how it started. Not that I mind someone being polite, even if they are misguided in it. I take it in the spirit in which it is offerred.

I get no sexual arousal from fearlessness. I guess all I get is adrenaline. I must of wrote that wrong. I guess I was just trying to relate to the penis not a bullet proof shield thing. I don't know. The last thing I would ever thought of when I eliminated 7 people in under 45 seconds in paintball, when I stood on the edge of a 500 foot cliff with my end of my feet over the edge, walking on the safety rail on a bridge, is sex. I couldn't say that was the last thing I would think of protecting a women in a dangerous ally until there was some action of some sort. Part of escorting a woman and protecting her from danger, is also protecting her from myself. Then all I would care about is protecting my girlfriend at the cost of my life or the bad guy. Some scientist would describe fearlessness as a chemical reaction in my brain to dull out the feeling of being human. But whatever, I never ask a woman if I would escort her down a dark area, they ask me.

Okay . . .

First off, I'm completely in favor of sexual equality and equal advantages and opportunities which do not regard gender as being (in and of itself) a determining factor in capability, blah, blah, blah.

Secondly, allow me to provide mild support for the theory that feminism comes from a desire for male attention - to say that this was and is behind the entire feminist movement, however, would be insane. There is, speaking in psychological terms (terms that should be accepted in any case), a desire to have attention from members of the opposite sex. I do not refer only to a mere natural desire for sexual intercourse or any physical arousal, but an innate desire to be appreciated by a member of the opposite sex - it simply exists, due to the facts of nature.

I agree entirely with Doom777's picture of the modern feminist movement, and I am very displeased, but sometimes amused when I see magazine articles that read "True Equality Decades Away?" For the love of God, can't they just shut up already? The fight's over! They've got equality! Now they should just shut up about it - that might make more people take them seriously.

*snip*
WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH FEMINISM?

not TOO full of yourself!

i hate to tell you, doom, but you can do NOTHING about feminism. that ship has sailed. you have no power over women. you cant force them to change their way of thinking.

those "feminazis" will continue with their own agenda no matter how much you dislike it. they will even *gasp* continue to wear clothing that gives no thought to whether or not men will find them attractive.

i dont know why it should bother you that some small percent of women cross the line from feminism to man-hating. so what? i know that some small percentage of men hate women; i dont lose sleep over it.

if you want to press some man-centered agenda, go ahead. thats your right as a human being. dont expect WOMEN to do it for you. we have enough trouble getting our own rights respected.

AND

you dont know JACK about cheerleading. BOYS are cheerleaders too. our very own president of the united states was a cheerleader for god's sake. these days you have to be VERY atheletic to be a cheerleader. its not just standing on the sidelines with pompons shouting out clever rhymes. its strength, grace, athletics AND the ability to get a crowd going. it takes way more than a pretty face to be a cheerleader today.

I've got a solution to the feminist problem. Scrap the constitution and institute sharia law.

Perhaps because white males enjoy the most rights, or enjoy privileges and rights to the fullest extent of any socio-ecnomic group, as well as make far and away the most money (on average). In the Western world, white men are the dominant group in every measureable category, even if those same countries have made the most progress. Until, especially in the United States, white men accept that the world has changed and that society no longer revolves 100% around them, our drive to equality will be severely hampered.

How stating that white men are the dominant socioeconomic group and that many need to adjust their views of the world is "racist bigotry" I have no idea.

And I am saying this, of course, as a white male myself.

Because: firstly, race is largely irrelevent, inequality being a problem all over the world; and secondly, as you have concurred, the western (largely, generally white) nations have made by far the most progress in combatting it. There would seem to be no need to pick out any race for particular criticism - and it seems absolutely absurd, if you do wish to single a group out, to pick out the group of men which has made the most progress, and are the most likely to believe in equality, rather than the least! I am not going to provide examples of who you should be debunking, as I feel it to be unhelpful in the extreme to bring race into this debate.

Because: firstly, race is largely irrelevent, inequality being a problem all over the world; and secondly, as you have concurred, the western (largely, generally white) nations have made by far the most progress in combatting it. There would seem to be no need to pick out any race for particular criticism - and it seems absolutely absurd, if you do wish to single a group out, to pick out the group of men which has made the most progress, and are the most likely to believe in equality, rather than the least! I am not going to provide examples of who you should be debunking, as I feel it to be unhelpful in the extreme to bring race into this debate.
Hey, you gotta remember, if it's any race but white, it's racism.

Ignore it. Treat the women I know as the individuals I know they are.

Hey, you gotta remember, if it's any race but white, it's racism.
But of course!! How very silly of me! ;)

But in all seriousness, it does make me sad.

Just remember...

Sexism hurts everybody. Especially broads.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH FEMINISM?

i dont know why it should bother you that some small percent of women cross the line from feminism to man-hating. so what? i know that some small percentage of men hate women; i dont lose sleep over it.

.


Based on some of the replies in this thread, I don't think the percentage of men who hate women is all that small...

Based on some of the replies in this thread, I don't think the percentage of men who hate women is all that small...
Hating women isn't the same as hating sexist, militant women. I've met a lot of women, and even the more "liberated" ones I know have issues with people who identify themselves as feminists. I hear women using the term feminazi. It's not an unfair term, and it has nothing to do with her being barefoot and/or pregnant in the kitchen. (or anywhere else)

It's about the militant, clearly anti-male regimists, spreading hate under the guise of enlightenment. You know, like religions do. The only people who appear to cry about equality are those who feel they are superior, and are upset you aren't conforming to their viewpoint. Much like people who cry about the "sinful abomination" that gay marriage would produce.. but are content to continue ignoring all their own very clear "sinful" acts as well.

Women, atleast in the US, will have my 100% full support for equality.. as soon as they force the Selective Service to require all women of the nation to be signed up at age 18 as well, just like all the men.

Equal risk, equal reward. Nothing less is satisfactory.

Someone commented that much of the people who "Get ahead" are because they are more charismatic. This is semi-true. I've worked in a great deal of offices over the years, and there are clear layers of progression, regardless of gender.

Your friendliness/general attitude is #1, above all other things, with cowkers in almost every office. Some places are very cutthroat, so nice to the neighborworker isn't a big deal, so long as you know how to properly smooch your superior's ass. This is a job position thing, not a gender thing. Next (#2) is the level of "groove". You either fit, or you stand out. If you fit, its ok. If you stand out, it depends on the manner of standing out. Some good, some bad, purely a judgement made by those above you. Lastly, #3 - quality of work.

Now, granted, if your quality is outright crap, it often wont matter how well you do with 1 or 2, but if you do passable work, or even great work, the primary two points are major factors. One of the best jobs I've had, there were several orders "from above" to terminate my employment. I didn't "fit in", I didnt kiss ass, and I wasn't there to be 'nice'. I did my job. I was on time, did good work, and was damn reliable. My immediate managers told their bosses to screw off because of this (went through a few managers). I did, however, discover that I was regularly being paid less as well, and when I made an issue of how I was being paid less to do more work than half the other people around - they threatened to terminate my job.

Clearly, if job performance were the defining factor, that would not occur.

Roll it up and smoke it.

Roll it up and smoke it.
thats some of the best advice ever given!!!

Precisely. Portraying all feminists as extremist is a very sexist tactic, and unfortunately, a successful one. People of the generation younger than I am tend to hold a much more unequal view of the sexes. Women can no longer speak out against actual inequalities without being accused of being lesbians who want to castrate all males or some other equally silly nonsense.
Feminism as defined by the grossly partisan National Organization for Women has become agressive in their anti-male agenda. I won't call it extreme since the NOW is considered mainstream by many and extremists are, by definition, not mainstream.

By defining the critisism of the more radical elements of the NOW platform as an attack on 'feminist extremism' deflects the fact that these radical ideas are supported by the mainstream feminists of NOW. Pointing out that mainstream feminists are promoting an agenda that discriminates against the sexes (male) is not sexists - turning a blind eye to the injustice they promote is.

If I may offer some advice, the next time a feminist says something that you interpret as wanting to put women in a higher position than men, don't tell her that all she wants is to get laid by you. You will be assaulted, and will further convince her that men retain antiquated, unfair notions of the nature of femininity.

yeah I don't wanna get assaulted by some crazy lesbian or whatever.
I usually shut up when I'm around people like that. Since they view all men as the spawn of satan and They are doing the work of god, herself. J/K I know most of them arn't that religious. I think We need crazy feminists to balance out Crazy misognyists people. Even though both sides are completely fucking nuts, I gotta say it's entertaining..

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH FEMINISM?

not TOO full of yourself!

i hate to tell you, doom, but you can do NOTHING about feminism. that ship has sailed. you have no power over women. you cant force them to change their way of thinking.

those "feminazis" will continue with their own agenda no matter how much you dislike it. they will even *gasp* continue to wear clothing that gives no thought to whether or not men will find them attractive.

i dont know why it should bother you that some small percent of women cross the line from feminism to man-hating. so what? i know that some small percentage of men hate women; i dont lose sleep over it.

if you want to press some man-centered agenda, go ahead. thats your right as a human being. dont expect WOMEN to do it for you. we have enough trouble getting our own rights respected.

AND

you dont know JACK about cheerleading. BOYS are cheerleaders too. our very own president of the united states was a cheerleader for god's sake. these days you have to be VERY atheletic to be a cheerleader. its not just standing on the sidelines with pompons shouting out clever rhymes. its strength, grace, athletics AND the ability to get a crowd going. it takes way more than a pretty face to be a cheerleader today.

You know what? It DOES bother me that I am being hated for no reason. It SHOULD bother everyone. The fact that these sexist women are calling themselves feminists is ironic. This man hating is the same as being racist, and as I said THIS DOES BOTHER ME. In fact I would even go as far as to say its worse than all the guys out there trying to be nice by opening doors for PEOPLE they love.

You know what? It DOES bother me that I am being hated for no reason. It SHOULD bother everyone. The fact that these sexist women are calling themselves feminists is ironic. This man hating is the same as being racist, and as I said THIS DOES BOTHER ME. In fact I would even go as far as to say its worse than all the guys out there trying to be nice by opening doors for PEOPLE they love.
Hear hear!

why are you assuming that all feminist are women? I'm a member of a University Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance which is almost 40% male.


What are you joking?

What are you joking?
Naah, he's probably one of the many who think the key to getting into their pants is to pretend to care. ;)

Naah, he's probably one of the many who think the key to getting into their pants is to pretend to care. ;)


ahh got ya, why not shark around after last call? :cool:

When it comes to feminsim, I believe women should have equal rights which most people in the modern world have now, but the idea of women ruling men is an idea far from ever happening and laughable.

When it comes to feminsim, I believe women should have equal rights which most people in the modern world have now, but the idea of women ruling men is an idea far from ever happening and laughable.

specially since I could kick your dickless ass

Not all feminism is bad. But the "feminazis" as you call them drive me crazy. I just want to roll my eyes and say, "You have GOT to be kidding me!" sometimes. Even as a girl I'm annoyed by them.

You know what gets me, though? It's the whole idea that men have to be in control of their women. You know, the whole traditional christian/islamic/asian/african idea. My real question is, what are men afraid of? What are they afraid we'll do if we're not always under tight control? No, what we're afriad of now, is that the feminazis might get their way, and be claimed the superior gender. Noone in this thread is arguing that today, women should be under men's control, or inferior to men.

Yeah, that gets me too. The idea, that being against certain extereme feminist philosophy equates me to being a right-wing fear-mongering etc etc. A Rush Limbaugh basically.
I'm all for equality...don't get me wrong. That's basically part of what I am saying.

Another thing, head scarves are usually religion. If a woman wants to be part of a religion, where women have different roles from men, only the feminazis will be against it. In fact, many feminazis criticize Muslim women for their religion, which is of course absurd.

Yeah, but how do you tell them that it's wrong without it sounding like you're trying to impose your own ideas of freedom on them? And how exactly are the women in these countries supposed to get out from under this threat of death for insubordination? By being insubordinate and dying trying? We can hardly ask them all to become martyrs for the benefit of the next generation, to commit suicide until the men realise that they'll run out of women at this rate. What about the women who wear head scarves in United States, or England, or France?

Noone in this thread is arguing that today, women should be under men's control, or inferior to men.



Before I reply to this, did I read that wrong or misunderstand what you were trying to say, or are actually saying that women should be inferior to men? I don't want to reply to this if I just misunderstood, I certainly hope that isn't what you meant.

Before I reply to this, did I read that wrong or misunderstand what you were trying to say, or are actually saying that women should be inferior to men? I don't want to reply to this if I just misunderstood, I certainly hope that isn't what you meant.

No, I think he means that no one here is arguing the case that they think they should.

No, I think he means that no one here is arguing the case that they think they should.

Oh, okay, I just wasn't positive what he meant.

Ok listen up boys. Feminism won't be around forever....just like the dominant male phase didn't last in the bygone days of yor. Women didn't have rights and independence so we took it and made a real 'species' out of ourselves. Some of us are more extreme than others but let us lap it up. For sooner or later all shall be equal.For many of you seem to forget, these "extreme" ways were once viewed in opposite roles....but that soon phased itself out, as will this. However, we will never loose what we have gained, we will just put things into perspective. One thing is to be sure though. As long as males and females live on the one earth we shall never fully understand the other and will constantly have issues with the other....as it should be :fluffle:

You know what? It DOES bother me that I am being hated for no reason. It SHOULD bother everyone. The fact that these sexist women are calling themselves feminists is ironic. This man hating is the same as being racist, and as I said THIS DOES BOTHER ME. In fact I would even go as far as to say its worse than all the guys out there trying to be nice by opening doors for PEOPLE they love.

Damn straight. Lucky there are a small group of intelligent individuals like this guy who protect men and their rights from these feminazis who would steal it for themselves. I'm not saying that woman don't have equal rights and i'm not saying they do although maybe they should. I'm saying that although womans rights are increasing and will be equal with men in the near future, feminazis would take rights belonging to men and give them to woman thus making both woman and men have less rights.

Damn straight. Lucky there are a small group of intelligent individuals like this guy who protect men and their rights from these feminazis who would steal it for themselves. I'm not saying that woman don't have equal rights and i'm not saying they do although maybe they should. I'm saying that although womans rights are increasing and will be equal with men in the near future, feminazis would take rights belonging to men and give them to woman thus making both woman and men have less rights.

Haha thank you. Some feminists (not all of course) are just men haters, I supose the best word for what they want is ......revenge? But revenge creates a cycle, personaly I do not believe I have ever oppressed someone, male or female. If I open a door for someone they are free to not walk through it if they really want to. Same for paying for meals ect ect, they are a gift I try to give but it doesn't have to be accepted.

Haha thank you. Some feminists (not all of course) are just men haters, I supose the best word for what they want is ......revenge? But revenge creates a cycle, personaly I do not believe I have ever oppressed someone, male or female. If I open a door for someone they are free to not walk through it if they really want to. Same for paying for meals ect ect, they are a gift I try to give but it doesn't have to be accepted.

Yeah exactly. Just because a man tries to do something nice for a woman doesn't mean he thinks he is superior. Feminazis try to use this as an excuse to hate men and turn other woman against men. I agree that some men will have strong anti-female beliefs but personally I dont care, they can believe what they want. Woman shouldn't be taking it out on the majority of men who support woman getting more rights.

What shall we do with Feminism?

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

How about growing up and dealing with it?

Gee im impressed to see there are actually so many nice guys out there....and there's me thinkin u were all assholes :p

Ok listen up boys. Feminism won't be around forever....just like the dominant male phase didn't last in the bygone days of yor. Women didn't have rights and independence so we took it and made a real 'species' out of ourselves. Some of us are more extreme than others but let us lap it up. For sooner or later all shall be equal.For many of you seem to forget, these "extreme" ways were once viewed in opposite roles....but that soon phased itself out, as will this. However, we will never loose what we have gained, we will just put things into perspective. One thing is to be sure though. As long as males and females live on the one earth we shall never fully understand the other and will constantly have issues with the other....as it should be :fluffle:

I think neo-feminazi's wanna starve men through attrition by not fucking them.Only having female partners and reproducing by artificial insemination or whatever. It's too old-school to think they want to DOMINATE men physically. Nah, they simply want to wipe us out of existence..Aw hell that would make a great book. TY whoever started this thread!! :)

Here-here!
It speaks volumes to the fact that boys always have to have a good war going on. Because women are more rational, they always have a better solution than war.
Bwahahahhahaha. Read some history, sometimes war is necessary.
So what you are saying is that if women controlled US during the 1940's, they wouldn't go to war with Germany, thus allowing many people to be killed in concentration camps? Doesn't sound like the government for me.

By the way, the problem with women promotion, is not too many men would feel right having a woman as their boss. I know I wouldn't. This insecurity has to be dealt with first, before the actual removal of the glass ceiling.

"Infact- Communism attempted to eradicate religion and that resulted in millions dead."
It's true.
"Religion is the opium for the people"
-- Vladimir Lenin



You know, I would have thought that more people would have responded to my misspelling of "priviledge" but there you go.
I honestly don't get it. Someone made a statement that basically said they believe pregnant women are coddled and pampered for 9 months. All I thought I did was point out the fact that it was not the case. And for thice I've been attacked? Twice? I understand it's a big deal to a lot of people, but just because I point out that it isn't that way for everyone, I'm being rude?
Pardon me, but I think it's rude for someone to discount my experience. And to assume that I can't see beyond it. That was kind of the point of the post.
Yea, so pregnant women don't always get a seat in a bus/car? Husbands of pregnant women don't put up with the bitchiness?

Hitler was a boy and he started it!
So you are saying that all men are inferior, because Hitler was a man? Now what is wrong with THAT statement..


So, you complain that feminists are racist, then state that they are feminists because they can't get sex, which they desperately need. It is because of opinions such as that that the feminist movement has so many and so extreme members, because even as a male I find that statement extremely offensive and degrading.

Women make less money then males. Women hold fewer positions of power than males. There is no real reason why the world (or US) should operate this way; look at Meg Whitman or Geraldine Ferraro or Margaret Thatcher. Obviously women are fully capable of doing anything a man can. Because society prevents this from happening, thanks to gentlemen like yourself, the movement gets more desperate and more extreme.

Let go of your assumed white male superiority. Just because white men ran the world for 2000 years does not mean we're better than anybody else.
I know that women today are still a little behind men, but guess what? THat gap is soon going to dissapear. That's good. If feminazis get their way, men will start getting paid less, and be considered inferior. That's bad AND racist.

Also where in all of my threads on NationStates forums, did you get that I am a white male superiorist?? Did you just pull it out of your ass?


Now, who knows for sure other than it is a carry over of old thought patterns that have yet to be fully purged. Historically the fear was that a woman would mate outside of her "tribe" or otherwise mate without societal approval. Seriously. Look at marriage customs which may seem quaint relics now, but at one time were serious. A man asks a woman's father for her hand in marriage then the father gives her away... direct transfer of control from one male to another.

Also note that the religions and nations which are the most sexually repressive are also the most sexists. Even in today's society, culture dictates that a woman be more sexually pure than a man least she face ridicule, and birth control is constantly coming under attack. At its heart sexism about limiting a woman's choice to mate when and with whom she pleases.

The opening post referred to the "opening the door thing." The history of that is a kinder, gentler version of the ancient practice of Chinese foot binding. Both restricted the ability of a woman to come and go freely, and thus limited who she was able to come into contact with without being watched over. The modern day version of this is the silly notion that if a woman ventures out at night without male protection that she is more likely to become a victim of violent crime (even though most crime happens during the daytime. But night is associated with sex and secrecy for some odd reason). What this does is place a woman in a position where she needs male accompaniment - thus male permission - to wander about. Yet over 70% of all physical and sexual assaults committed against women are perpetrated by a person that the woman is well acquainted with - women are actually safer around "strange" males. As for the rest of the cases, with the amount of gun crime, does being with a male (as opposed to any two people not being out along regardless of gender) even make anyone safer? The last time I checked the penis had multiple functions but projecting a bullet-proof shield was not among them.
1) yes, its true. 1500 years ago, women were considered property, and could be transfered from the father to the new husband. 1500 YEARS AGO! Not anymore, so this useless in this debate.
2) birth control is a male issue too, just think of the most popular contraception -- a condom. And yes, in today's culture women are supposed to be more pure. It's actually a compliment for the women, saying they can be stronger against the animal instincts then men. Of course feminazi's repeat my last statement, but add that men ARE animals, and should be kept in cages, or other sort of crap like that.
3) opening the door for a woman is not allowing her to go out, it's symbolism that he is doing little things for her to show he cares. Like helping her in/out of the car, and so forth. Saying it's symbolic to control the woman of where she can go, is just another obviously feminazi lie.


White men do not believe that the world revolves around us 100%. We may have done so a century ago, but the world has changed enough to show that this is no longer the case. I go to a science high school, it's a public school that requires to take a competitive test to get in. A big privelage to go there. I am a white male, but in that school, i am a minorty. The largest group there is asian men. In fact, there are more white women then white men in the school. And i have yet to see a single white male complaining.


What a silly suppostion. Last time I checked fear didn't cause sexual arousal (well, except in certain kinky situations). Really, which would you rather - a woman who needed you to walk her around the streets and then turned you away at her door or a woman confident enough to navigate the streets by herself but who decided she ,uhm, needed you in private ways? Fear doesn't cause sexual arousal. But testostorone hormone, the stuff that makes us feel invincible and all powerful, is produced mostly in the testicles.


i hate to tell you, doom, but you can do NOTHING about feminism. that ship has sailed. you have no power over women. you cant force them to change their way of thinking.
Did you even read my thread? I don't want to have power over women. I just don't want the feminazi notion to continue to grow, and demand that men are inferior.

I've got a solution to the feminist problem. Scrap the constitution and institute sharia law. Pardon my ignorance, but what is sharia law?

Hey, you gotta remember, if it's any race but white, it's racism. Roflmao, exactly.

No, I think he means that no one here is arguing the case that they think they should.
Yes, thank you. I meant that noone on this thread is saying or implying that women should be inferior to men.