NationStates Jolt Archive

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

How about growing up and dealing with it?

Silly man. Somewhere along the line his ego has been sorely bruised by a woman to have a comment like that. You're just being pety now

Yeah dont call a feminist a femnazi there is a big difference. For instance i once saw an episode of phil maher with two femnazi's and micheal moore. Sandra burnhardt said oh no woman has ever been violent and all the worst people in history are men and women are more spiritually evolved. Micheal more was a little lapdog to her on that phil maher and this other woman kept getting shouted down. Though this may be a little known fact the single worst human beings and rulers in all history were woman. The blood countess was a serial killer who over the course of her time killed and bathed in the blood of 600 young women. Catherine the great, and Elizibeth the first were monsters, CAtherine had up to a million people killed and equalled stalin in the ratio. Also many many wars in the feudal periods were started by jealous wives of nobles. Fact is men and women are totally equal on all terms. Through evil and good. But dont group feminists with femnazi's. Feminists dont call themselves Womyn, Femnazi's do.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

How about growing up and dealing with it?
You almost got it right. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, but men are not.

Come to think of it, Bloody Mary WAS a woman.

Yeah dont call a feminist a femnazi there is a big difference. For instance i once saw an episode of phil maher with two femnazi's and micheal moore. Sandra burnhardt said oh no woman has ever been violent and all the worst people in history are men and women are more spiritually evolved. Micheal more was a little lapdog to her on that phil maher and this other woman kept getting shouted down. Though this may be a little known fact the single worst human beings and rulers in all history were woman. The blood countess was a serial killer who over the course of her time killed and bathed in the blood of 600 young women. Catherine the great, and Elizibeth the first were monsters, CAtherine had up to a million people killed and equalled stalin in the ratio. Also many many wars in the feudal periods were started by jealous wives of nobles. Fact is men and women are totally equal on all terms. Through evil and good. But dont group feminists with femnazi's. Feminists dont call themselves Womyn, Femnazi's do.


sorry to interrupt, signora but you mean BILL Maher, right?

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!! :)
I tihnk you're almost right. I think they want to put us into farms and just use men for sperm collection.

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.

These groups are a *very* small minority of those who call themselves feminists. Most of us truly want equality.

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.

*Anyone* holding a door open for *anyone* is polite. I sometimes hold the door open for my boyfriend (if I get there first) and vice versa. If it is done in good faith, there is nothing wrong with it.

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.

I've never heard this, but it certainly isn't a mainstream view.

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.

The proper way to do it, accepted in most literary circles these days, is to trade off. If, in one point you refer to an unknown gender with "he," you use "she" in the next one, and vice versa. Again, most feminists would not argue that what you describe would be correct.

They oppose sports teams being all male, they oppose cheerleaders being all female.

Nothing wrong with this. If a woman can hold her own on a sports team (granted, there would be less women who could do so in a predominantly male sport, but it is possible), she should be able to. If a male would prefer to cheerlead, he should be able to. *That is the definition of equality.*

I tihnk you're almost right. I think they want to put us into farms and just use men for sperm collection.

someone should write a (sci-fi) book about it. It would be awesome. Gender wars and all that. Hell I'd read it.

someone should write a (sci-fi) book about it. It would be awesome. Gender wars and all that. Hell I'd read it.
I was actually planning to, but then I realised that I cannot write very well.

Firstly, the battle of female rights is still far from over. What you must avoid doing though is mistaking feminists with radical feminists. One group is quite sane, the other has yet to be sent back to the planet they were born on.

I tihnk you're almost right. I think they want to put us into farms and just use men for sperm collection.


Nah, you're wrong, the Female Supremacists do not even want to use men for sperm...they want to use science to create babies, all female babies that is.

Can I just point out men who worry or take this seriously are just as pathetic as these radical feminists - signed A.Man

Nah, you're wrong, the Female Supremacists do not even want to use men for sperm...they want to use science to create babies, all female babies that is.
Do you remember the thread in International Incidents, where Feminazi banned all men from the country, and used science to create all female babies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom777
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.



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

I don't understand why people are arguing about this. If you wish to go somewhere where children can go wild, go to Chucky Cheese. If you are with well-behaved children most "nice" restaurants will allow them in, but plan to be removed if the children you are with cannot behave in the same manner expected of other patrons. It doesn't mean you hate children if you want to go places where you don't have to deal with other people's children. It's not stuck-up or picky to wish to go to someplace quiet to have dinner. You'd have a hard time convincing most people otherwise.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

How about growing up and dealing with it?

You almost got it right. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, but men are not.

It is only weak men who see this as a zero sum game - 'women gain, so men must lose.' Stop whining and crying about the big bad feminists and just be a man.

Can I just point out men who worry or take this seriously are just as pathetic as these radical feminists - signed A.Man
I agree! This thread is ridiculous, and it's obvious that most of the people posting in support of it have little idea of what feminism is, and have never read any feminist literature. I shave my legs, I'm not a lesbian, I love men and I don't give two hoots if one of them decides to hold a door open for me; and I'm still proud to call myself a feminist.

It is only weak men who see this as a zero sum game - 'women gain, so men must lose.' Stop whining and crying about the big bad feminists and just be a man.
no no no, you don't understand. It is very possible for women to gain and men not to lose. That is what I want, that is what I am arguing for. However, my problem is that feminazis WANT women to gain AND men to lose. And we can't have this sexism.

Do you remember the thread in International Incidents, where Feminazi banned all men from the country, and used science to create all female babies.


I don't even look at the International Incidents forum so no. I was reffering to actual websites advocating that.

I agree! This thread is ridiculous, and it's obvious that most of the people posting in support of it have little idea of what feminism is, and have never read any feminist literature. I shave my legs, I'm not a lesbian, I love men and I don't give two hoots if one of them decides to hold a door open for me; and I'm still proud to call myself a feminist.
In this case you're not one of the people I am attacking in this thread.

I agree! This thread is ridiculous, and it's obvious that most of the people posting in support of it have little idea of what feminism is, and have never read any feminist literature. I shave my legs, I'm not a lesbian, I love men and I don't give two hoots if one of them decides to hold a door open for me; and I'm still proud to call myself a feminist.

Except for not shaving my legs, not loving men (except as brothers), being the one to hold doors (and in 25 adult years of doing so have never had a woman take offense), I too am proud to call myself a feminist.

In this case you're not one of the people I am attacking in this thread.
Thanks for that! However, I think you'll find that most feminists are not anti-men, and just because a lunatic fringe few might be, there's no reason to demonise a whole movement.
For example, I assume that you'd probably support groups that push for more rights for fathers after divorces; I do too. Here in Melbourne, there's an extremist group of men who don balaclavas and stalk and publicly harass single mothers, many of whom have left abusive relationships. I think that's abhorrent, and I hope you do too, however I would never extrapolate and say that all men's rights groups are like that, and therefore should be stopped.

I agree! This thread is ridiculous, and it's obvious that most of the people posting in support of it have little idea of what feminism is, and have never read any feminist literature. I shave my legs, I'm not a lesbian, I love men and I don't give two hoots if one of them decides to hold a door open for me; and I'm still proud to call myself a feminist.

Good for you, fight the good fight, the only people I have a problem with are the extremists who killed chivalry.

Feminism?
Burn it.

no no no, you don't understand. It is very possible for women to gain and men not to lose. That is what I want, that is what I am arguing for. However, my problem is that feminazis WANT women to gain AND men to lose. And we can't have this sexism.

There are no feminazis! This is just Rush Limbaugh crap. You find one outrageous instance or a fringe group doing something wacky and from that extrapolate that 45 years of feminist accomplishments (which I think is probably one of the two or three greatest accomplishments of the past century) have led to a tyranny of women over men.

Feminism?
Burn it.
*lights a match*

I refuse to read through 19 pages of this so I will share my thoughts here. Femenism has outlived its usefullness. Women have equal rights and to my knowledge there are no laws that favor men above women. Femenazis are no different then any other group that irrationaly hates half the population of the world for the actions of the few.

As for the women making 25% less than the man, when experience, education and that sort of stuff is factored in, it's more like 10%.

I refuse to read through 19 pages of this so I will share my thoughts here. Femenism has outlived its usefullness. Women have equal rights and to my knowledge there are no laws that favor men above women. Femenazis are no different then any other group that irrationaly hates half the population of the world for the actions of the few.

"...any other group that irrationaly hates half the population of the world for the actions of the few."


Pretty much the definition of many of the anti-women people posting on this thread.

You guys so clearly have a distorted view of feminism. When I call myself a feminist, what I mean is that I'm a humanitarian and beleive in equal rights for EVERYONE. I beleive that woman should be treated as individuals, judged on merit, and treated with respect, just as I beleive that men should be. Sure, there are people who hate men and hide under the lable "feminist", but there are also people who hate women and hide under other lables. There are people, like the klu klux klan, that hate blacks and hide under the lable of christianity.
To "burn femminism" is a close-minded, fear-driven approach. To research it might be a better idea.

You guys so clearly have a distorted view of feminism. When I call myself a feminist, what I mean is that I'm a humanitarian and beleive in equal rights for EVERYONE. I beleive that woman should be treated as individuals, judged on merit, and treated with respect, just as I beleive that men should be. Sure, there are people who hate men and hide under the lable "feminist", but there are also people who hate women and hide under other lables. There are people, like the klu klux klan, that hate blacks and hide under the lable of christianity.
To "burn femminism" is a close-minded, fear-driven approach. To research it might be a better idea.


Well said.

I would also add that those of you blathering on about "feminazis" have woefully misidentified the problem. There is far more hatred of women by men, with all the violent repercussions that suggests, than there is hatred of men by women. In fact there is a term in the English language for hatred of women - misogynist. Yet, as far as I know there is not even a term for hatred of men.

Ogiek, I have nothing but respect for the feminists of early-mid century. It is the modern day feminazis that I believe are irrational racists.

Furthermore, neither me, nor any man who posted here hates women. We hate the few feminazis that belive that women are superior to men.

Ogiek, I have nothing but respect for the feminists of early-mid century. It is the modern day feminazis that I believe are irrational racists.

Furthermore, neither me, nor any man who posted here hates women. We hate the few feminazis that belive that women are superior to men.

Indeed, It's like saying I hate the germans if I bash Nazis. Yes Nazis were generaly german but it doesnt mean I dont like germans, just not nazis. I like women, just not sexist ones.

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?

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.


"A little"? Try again, friend. Women make up 50% of the population and hold, let's see, a whopping 14% of Congress. The average woman makes $9,863 less than the average man. You want to call that equality, then complain about women hurting you somehow? You are so attached to the fact that, now, white men are so superior to all other groups in socioeconomic status, you refuse to see that women are far from "taking over" men; rather you assume that any loss of status for men is bad, period. Of course, if you looked at a history book you would realize that your "feminaziism" has decreased substantially since the height of the womens' rights movement. But, hey, any loss of the American male's massive overinflated importance is bad, period, cause, uh, some feminists are crazy. You're absolutely right.


And by the way, men are inferior in many fields, including science and mathematical aptitude, common sense, and ability to get along with one another.

Ogiek, I have nothing but respect for the feminists of early-mid century. It is the modern day feminazis that I believe are irrational racists.

Furthermore, neither me, nor any man who posted here hates women. We hate the few feminazis that belive that women are superior to men.

Okay, but have a little perspective, will you. Every year there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault.

Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime. Look around the women you know - that is about one-in-seven.

And you think the main problem between the sexes is a tiny fraction of the feminist population spouting men-hating Womyn Power slogans?

Oh god- feminists, they used to have a place but now i think there just a pain in the arse.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=feminazi
this man speaks our thoughts, hail maddox

Why aren't there any masculinists or sumthing thats what i wanna know?
no, thats called chauvinism, and chauvinism is wrong :sniper:

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
truer words were never uttered

Ogiek, I have nothing but respect for the feminists of early-mid century. It is the modern day feminazis that I believe are irrational racists.

Furthermore, neither me, nor any man who posted here hates women. We hate the few feminazis that belive that women are superior to men.

Okay, but have a little perspective, will you. Every year there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault.

Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime. Look around the women you know - that is about one-in-seven.

And you think the main problem between the sexes is a tiny fraction of the feminist population spouting men-hating Womyn Power slogans?

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.
I have not seen anyone in this thread saying such a thing. subdivision of feminazi: paranoid feminazi

There are no feminazis! This is just Rush Limbaugh crap. You find one outrageous instance or a fringe group doing something wacky and from that extrapolate that 45 years of feminist accomplishments (which I think is probably one of the two or three greatest accomplishments of the past century) have led to a tyranny of women over men.

1: please, for the love of god, do not imply that a term originally invented by maddox ( patron saint of free speeh, and my god) is a "Rush Limbaugh term"

2:The reason that there have been no strides towards putting women in a status superior to men, is simply that the the "Feminazis" are a minority among feminists, yet they have hijacked the term

Okay, but have a little perspective, will you. Every year there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault.

Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime. Look around the women you know - that is about one-in-seven.

And you think the main problem between the sexes is a tiny fraction of the feminist population spouting men-hating Womyn Power slogans?

Thank you! Someone who uses, God forbid, statistics, to make a logical argument. Consider, male supremists: more women have been raped than hold with this supposed "women uber alles" concept that scares you so damn much. Being female should not be an inherent disadvantage in our society.

I was actually planning to, but then I realised that I cannot write very well.

you should man!! just have a central character that is not involved in the nonsense ( a criminal, perhaps) and have his experiences of the war. I was gonna..but, I need a pen-name..And people tell me that Dirk Diggler is not a very good one, so until I can think of something better you're more than welcome to write it.

oh and if you go criminal..think Snake Plissken with a touch of chivalry.
And a woman who is not a lesbian and has doubts about the war, but is just as tough as the..aw hell I'll write you'll see..just look for Dirk. :)

Thank you! Someone who uses, God forbid, statistics, to make a logical argument. Consider, male supremists: more women have been raped than hold with this supposed "women uber alles" concept that scares you so damn much. Being female should not be an inherent disadvantage in our society.
Who are you talking to? I have yet to see any male supremists on this thread.

Who are you talking to? I have yet to see any male supremists on this thread.

You are afraid that women want to unjustly steal your "manly rights," with no evidence to justify that such a thing is happening, while insisting that women "really are" equal in society despite obvious evidence that they are not. Call that what you will, I'm calling it male supremecy.

"A little"? Try again, friend. Women make up 50% of the population and hold, let's see, a whopping 14% of Congress. The average woman makes $9,863 less than the average man. You want to call that equality, then complain about women hurting you somehow? You are so attached to the fact that, now, white men are so superior to all other groups in socioeconomic status, you refuse to see that women are far from "taking over" men; rather you assume that any loss of status for men is bad, period. Of course, if you looked at a history book you would realize that your "feminaziism" has decreased substantially since the height of the womens' rights movement. But, hey, any loss of the American male's massive overinflated importance is bad, period, cause, uh, some feminists are crazy. You're absolutely right.


And by the way, men are inferior in many fields, including science and mathematical aptitude, common sense, and ability to get along with one another.
1st paragraph -- again, i never said that we are completely equal. However, we will be in a matter of decades, and feminists are not required for this process to continue.

2nd paragraph -- a pure example of sexism, and feminazism.

You are afraid that women want to unjustly steal your "manly rights," with no evidence to justify that such a thing is happening, while insisting that women "really are" equal in society despite obvious evidence that they are not. Call that what you will, I'm calling it male supremecy.


I luv sensational accusations. They're so totally devoid of fact :)

You are afraid that women want to unjustly steal your "manly rights," with no evidence to justify that such a thing is happening, while insisting that women "really are" equal in society despite obvious evidence that they are not. Call that what you will, I'm calling it male supremecy.
DID YOU EVEN READ MY FUCKING POSTS? DO YOU EVER THINK BEFORE YOU POST? FOR FUCKS SAKE I POSTED BASICALLY THE SAME THING FOR LIKE 30 POSTS ON THIS THREAD, AND STILL YOU GET IT EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Here is the 31st time:
I am not afraid that women want to unjustly steal my "manly rights". I am afraid that extremist feminists, or feminazis, will abolish my rights, treating men as the inferior gender. I said that women are not equal, but that they will be soon enough. And I am all for equality, it is female superiority that boils my blood (and male superiority, too).

you should man!! just have a central character that is not involved in the nonsense ( a criminal, perhaps) and have his experiences of the war. I was gonna..but, I need a pen-name..And people tell me that Dirk Diggler is not a very good one, so until I can think of something better you're more than welcome to write it.

oh and if you go criminal..think Snake Plissken with a touch of chivalry.
And a woman who is not a lesbian and has doubts about the war, but is just as tough as the..aw hell I'll write you'll see..just look for Dirk. :)
Nah man, I am not a writer. Would be very cool though.

You are afraid that women want to unjustly steal your "manly rights," with no evidence to justify that such a thing is happening, while insisting that women "really are" equal in society despite obvious evidence that they are not. Call that what you will, I'm calling it male supremecy.

The only "manly right" I believe we have is the right to piss standing up. You cant argue that society is unequal because women are more likely to get raped. What if I wanted to get pregnant? women would have a massive advantage over me. Women are more likely to get raped because of a phsical difference, we cannot change this. Laws involving custody of children actualy favor women. Compensating for something phsical by having extra rights somewhere else is wrong.

DID YOU EVEN READ MY FUCKING POSTS? DO YOU EVER THINK BEFORE YOU POST? FOR FUCKS SAKE I POSTED BASICALLY THE SAME THING FOR LIKE 30 POSTS ON THIS THREAD, AND STILL YOU GET IT EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Here is the 31st time:
I am not afraid that women want to unjustly steal my "manly rights". I am afraid that extremist feminists, or feminazis, will abolish my rights, treating men as the inferior gender. I said that women are not equal, but that they will be soon enough. And I am all for equality, it is female superiority that boils my blood (and male superiority, too).

Excuse me sir, but you just directly contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentances. Let's see, "no I'm not afraid I will lose rights," "yes I am afraid women will steal my rights." Why do you keep on harping that the extremist ideals of a very small number of women is something the entire world should look to and take warning of? That tiny minority is not going to do anything to you. In fact, even if what you fear did happen, women would still have, and do still have, several severe inherent disadvantages compared to men, in American society, which you seem unwilling to heed.

Saying you are for equality, then acting as though the only people with crazy gender ideas are the tiny number of your so-called "feminazis" is self-defeating. There are far more men who wish to reduce the rights of women, and our current administration has rolled back womens' progess in several fields (maternity leave, abortion, fair conpensation). The threat you fear is insignificant and irrelevant compared to its opposite, and I find your refusal to believe that a male supremist outlook. "Some women are crazy and want to take my rights away, because I think so. After all us men did to help them be equal too." That doesn't sound a bit sexist to you?

My previous posts:
I would also add that those of you blathering on about "feminazis" have woefully misidentified the problem. There is far more hatred of women by men, with all the violent repercussions that suggests, than there is hatred of men by women. In fact there is a term in the English language for hatred of women - misogynist. Yet, as far as I know there is not even a term for hatred of men.
Every year there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault.

Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime. Look around the women you know - that is about one-in-seven.

And you think the main problem between the sexes is a tiny fraction of the feminist population spouting men-hating Womyn Power slogans?
Your previous post:
I am afraid that extremist feminists, or feminazis, will abolish my rights, treating men as the inferior gender.

Don't you think you have blown this "problem" way out of proportion to what actually exists in the real world?

.

The only "manly right" I believe we have is the right to piss standing up. You cant argue that society is unequal because women are more likely to get raped. What if I wanted to get pregnant? women would have a massive advantage over me. Women are more likely to get raped because of a phsical difference, we cannot change this. Laws involving custody of children actualy favor women. Compensating for something phsical by having extra rights somewhere else is wrong.
Another thing that men have deviously devised to keep women in slavery near the stove, is menstruation. You see, men invented menstruation, so that women would prefer staying pregnant over having cramps, and thus be enslaved by the pregnancy.
(sarcasm)

I think we should try to teach everyone that no one is better that anyone else.

Nah man, I am not a writer. Would be very cool though.

98% of the acclaimed writers base stuff off of personal experience. I generally tend to demote myself to simply a shithead. So yes, even you, if you thought about it, could write better than me. Just base it off of what you know and you'll be fine.

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.

Reaaaaalllly?

Funny..... then I have no idea what these little foil-wrapped squares are that came in this box marked Trojans......

Another thing that men have deviously devised to keep women in slavery near the stove, is menstruation. You see, men invented menstruation, so that women would prefer staying pregnant over having cramps, and thus be enslaved by the pregnancy.
(sarcasm)

stupid sarcasm

What's the matter? Run out of ideas?

Excuse me sir, but you just directly contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentances. Let's see, "no I'm not afraid I will lose rights," "yes I am afraid women will steal my rights." Why do you keep on harping that the extremist ideals of a very small number of women is something the entire world should look to and take warning of? That tiny minority is not going to do anything to you. In fact, even if what you fear did happen, women would still have, and do still have, several severe inherent disadvantages compared to men, in American society, which you seem unwilling to heed.

Saying you are for equality, then acting as though the only people with crazy gender ideas are the tiny number of your so-called "feminazis" is self-defeating. There are far more men who wish to reduce the rights of women, and our current administration has rolled back womens' progess in several fields (maternity leave, abortion, fair conpensation). The threat you fear is insignificant and irrelevant compared to its opposite, and I find your refusal to believe that a male supremist outlook. "Some women are crazy and want to take my rights away, because I think so. After all us men did to help them be equal too." That doesn't sound a bit sexist to you?
Oy you self centered women. Abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to do with her body, abortion has to do with an unborn baby's right to live. I am obviously opposed to those who believe that women should be inferior. And you cannot say that I am the only one who thinks that feminazis exist; dozens of websites, and organizations prove themselves. So does the magazine i mentioned in the beginning on this thread.

Reaaaaalllly?

Funny..... then I have no idea what these little foil-wrapped squares are that came in this box marked Trojans......
read posts after it. i corrected that mistake.

stupid sarcasm

What's the matter? Run out of ideas?
Stupid retort. What's the matter? Run out of ideas?

And you cannot say that I am the only one who thinks that feminazis exist; dozens of websites, and organizations prove themselves. So does the magazine i mentioned in the beginning on this thread.

Why, lots of other misogynists think feminazis exist. Sure, I can find lots of woman-hating, feminist-bashing sites to prove it.

And Santa Claus, too. And people are being abducted by aliens are given anal probs all the time. And Tupac is really living in South America with Jim Morrison and Elvis.

Stupid retort. What's the matter? Run out of ideas?

No, but you don't respond to my ideas. I have asked you point blank several times, considering the statistics I cited backing up overwhelming violence against women by men, don't you think you have blown this silly "feminazi" stuff out of proportion?

Oy you self centered women. Abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to do with her body, abortion has to do with an unborn baby's right to live. I am obviously opposed to those who believe that women should be inferior. And you cannot say that I am the only one who thinks that feminazis exist; dozens of websites, and organizations prove themselves. So does the magazine i mentioned in the beginning on this thread.

Congratulations.

1. I am not a woman.
2. You ignore virtually everything I say to harp about abortion.
3. While there are a number of people agreeing with you, I am not. I am asking you to explain why you think extremists are going to steal your rights. I am asking you which rights you think will be stolen. I am asking why you thought this an important enough topic to merrit warning the world about it, too. I am asking are women more likely to take mens' rights, or vice-versa.

Ogiek, I have nothing but respect for the feminists of early-mid century. It is the modern day feminazis that I believe are irrational racists.

Furthermore, neither me, nor any man who posted here hates women. We hate the few feminazis that belive that women are superior to men.
well doom, since you seem to have such expertise on feminazis (a term you NEVER EVER got from rush limbaugh) how 'bout you NAME a few and tell us just exactly what they said that makes you think they are irrational racists?

i think we need to know exactly what women you are speaking about so we can judge whether or not we agree with you and so we can have an honest debate about these women.

name names please.

Lol this threads been going on a long time- i was on it last night (in NZ)

Since i'm bored why don't we start up the argument again that in some societies they are simply not ready to have equality of sexes or that the people in them consider it natural that one sex is inferior to the other, such as it is in Islamic countries.

yes, women are often subject to violent crimes. However can all men be responsible for the actions of a few? BTW, i am not being hypocritical, as I am not saying that all women are responsible for feminazis.

And the reason feminazis would abolish men's rights... is because they belive that men are animals, and do not deserve the same rights as women. Rights is not stuff that there is a limited amount off. Women can gain rights, without men losing them. I am not opposing this. I am opposing women gaining rights, and at the same time men losing them. Although some conservative men want women to lose their rights, I seriously doubt they'll be any way successful.

So what, ogiek, feminazis don't exist? A portioin of modern feminists don't want superiority over men? they don't belive men are inferior gender? And violence against women does not mean that feminazis are weak, these two things are completely unrelated.

Lol this threads been going on a long time- i was on it last night (in NZ)

Since i'm bored why don't we start up the argument again that in some societies they are simply not ready to have equality of sexes or that the people in them consider it natural that one sex is inferior to the other, such as it is in Islamic countries.

I'd rather wait for Doom777 to post a coherent response to myself and Ogiek's questions.

Lol this threads been going on a long time- i was on it last night (in NZ)

Since i'm bored why don't we start up the argument again that in some societies they are simply not ready to have equality of sexes or that the people in them consider it natural that one sex is inferior to the other, such as it is in Islamic countries.

Yay fellow NZer. It's pretty nasty at the moment, the feminists are beating on the starter pretty bad. No-one really replies to what I say.

"no one really replies to what i say"

what are u arguing i'll see if i can come up with a response

Lol this threads been going on a long time- i was on it last night (in NZ)

Since i'm bored why don't we start up the argument again that in some societies they are simply not ready to have equality of sexes or that the people in them consider it natural that one sex is inferior to the other, such as it is in Islamic countries.
OK lets play that game for a while

its MY contention that we mistake clothing for liberation. so we see islamic women utterly covered and we assume that means they are utterly oppressed. does liberation mean dressing in skimpy clothing? will WE not be truly free until we all go around naked?

the other important point is that women need to be recognized as PEOPLE in every country of the world. abuse, rape and murder of women should be considered a CRIME even if it is done by her husband. personal safety would be a huge step forward in many countries of the world.

yes, women are often subject to violent crimes. However can all men be responsible for the actions of a few? BTW, i am not being hypocritical, as I am not saying that all women are responsible for feminazis.

And the reason feminazis would abolish men's rights... is because they belive that men are animals, and do not deserve the same rights as women. Rights is not stuff that there is a limited amount off. Women can gain rights, without men losing them. I am not opposing this. I am opposing women gaining rights, and at the same time men losing them. Although some conservative men want women to lose their rights, I seriously doubt they'll be any way successful.

So what, ogiek, feminazis don't exist? A portioin of modern feminists don't want superiority over men? they don't belive men are inferior gender? And violence against women does not mean that feminazis are weak, these two things are completely unrelated.

You have not yet answered the question. Yes, there exist feminazis. However, given that there are fewer in this country than, say, the number of women raped in the past two years, we argue that you are devoting too much worry to something that will never happen, and you have yet to even acknowledge the fact that the opposite of what you fear so very much is exponentially more likely to happen!

A handful of extremists believe as you say. Substantially more men believe exactly the opposite. So you do the obvious thing, and start this entire ridiculous argument that the former threat is the one we ought to worry about.

I'd rather wait for Doom777 to post a coherent response to myself and Ogiek's questions.
ok SKEP, you are going to have to wait a LONG time i think. it may not be possible eh?

or maybe he is just making a nice list of feminazis BY NAME, as i asked him to.

too bad we can't make wagers here.

The end is near.

You have not yet answered the question. Yes, there exist feminazis. However, given that there are fewer in this country than, say, the number of women raped in the past two years, we argue that you are devoting too much worry to something that will never happen, and you have yet to even acknowledge the fact that the opposite of what you fear so very much is exponentially more likely to happen!

A handful of extremists believe as you say. Substantially more men believe exactly the opposite. So you do the obvious thing, and start this entire ridiculous argument that the former threat is the one we ought to worry about.

I, personally, dont think that feminzis are any type of threat...they just piss me off.

ok SKEP, you are going to have to wait a LONG time i think. it may not be possible eh?

or maybe he is just making a nice list of feminazis BY NAME, as i asked him to.

too bad we can't make wagers here.
Yes, i will now go looking through all of the internet searching for names of leading feminazis, while i stil have to do an essay, and finish my database. There is only so much i'll do for a debate.

Alright I shall attempt to fill the gap.

Where I come from (New Zealand)

1) Women have equal rights
2) Womens rights aren't going away any time soon. Men now know women are equal, fighting every step of the way is no-longer necissary.
3) We have a female Prime Minister
4) When I was growing up my parents both worked, my Mother earned more than my Father
5) Yes women are raped by men, No its not right and the police are there to try and stop it.

I fully realise that this is just my personal experience.

St just look back a bit, post #296 is a decent example.

Yes, i will now go looking through all of the internet searching for names of leading feminazis, while i stil have to do an essay, and finish my database. There is only so much i'll do for a debate.

Hey, no pressure or anything. I just want to know why you think the feminazis are such a threat that you need to warn us about it. If you just hate them on principle, say so, and I'll gladly leave you alone. But why the hell they are so dangerous to society I don't know.

Yes, i will now go looking through all of the internet searching for names of leading feminazis, while i stil have to do an essay, and finish my database. There is only so much i'll do for a debate.
its not a particularily sophisticated debate when you set up a strawman then knock it down.

so you have NO idea whether or not any such women even exist and if they do just WHAT they have said

*shaking my head*

OK lets play that game for a while

the other important point is that women need to be recognized as PEOPLE in every country of the world. abuse, rape and murder of women should be considered a CRIME even if it is done by her husband. personal safety would be a huge step forward in many countries of the world.


yes i certainly agree but many feminists view a countries culture and ways of doing things as a sign of oppression. The headscarves worn by muslim woman are a good example.

Also in many religions such as Islam the male is meant to be dominant in the household, either way, if u uphold religion ur denying people equality but if u uphold equality ur denying people the right ot religion

either way its a lose lose situation

yes i certainly agree but many feminists view a countries culture and ways of doing things as a sign of oppression. The headscarves worn by muslim woman are a good example.

Also in many religions such as Islam the male is meant to be dominant in the household, either way, if u uphold religion ur denying people equality but if u uphold equality ur denying people the right ot religion

either way its a lose lose situation

I dont understand why "we" have to sort out anything. Why cant we just leave them alone to do as they wish.

I dont understand why "we" have to sort out anything. Why cant we just leave them alone to do as they wish.

because i'm bored and feel like arguing- i'm waiting for someone to take a side so i can go on about how there denying peoples rights

because i'm bored and feel like arguing- i'm waiting for someone to take a side so i can go on about how there denying peoples rights

Ahh devils advocate. Alright say we did decide to try and change things in muslim countries. This would require force, would the force required outweigh the gains? Also who are we to make that decision? That goes for all government ect, what gives them the right to come and tell me not to run around on my lawn naked?

Ahh devils advocate. Alright say we did decide to try and change things in muslim countries. This would require force, would the force required outweigh the gains? Also who are we to make that decision? That goes for all government ect, what gives them the right to come and tell me not to run around on my lawn naked?


So i take it you hate woman?- i just felt like saying that

And no one wants to see you naked its against what the majority wants

So i take it you hate woman?- i just felt like saying that

And no one wants to see you naked its against what the majority wants

Well then say there were 51% of people in a country that were male and they all wanted to opress the females in that country, would that make it right? No I love women, I hate sexist women.

Well then say there were 51% of people in a country that were male and they all wanted to opress the females in that country, would that make it right? No I love women, I hate sexist women.

Ignore my last comment i felt like being an idiot i think i snapped outta that now :cool:

I'm arguing that in some situations countries are not ready for equality between men and woman. For example if you had asked 18th century brits if they thought woman should have the vote it would be considered ridiculous. Many woman themselves didn't even want the vote. This could be very similar to how it is in Islamic countries, if they are not ready for equality between sexes i don't think we should pressure them to do so.

Alright I shall attempt to fill the gap.

Where I come from (New Zealand)

1) Women have equal rights
2) Womens rights aren't going away any time soon. Men now know women are equal, fighting every step of the way is no-longer necissary.
3) We have a female Prime Minister
4) When I was growing up my parents both worked, my Mother earned more than my Father
5) Yes women are raped by men, No its not right and the police are there to try and stop it.

I fully realise that this is just my personal experience.

St just look back a bit, post #296 is a decent example.
is someone suggesting that equal rights havent come a long way? they certainly have.

when i was in highschool there were ads in the paper "help wanted MEN, and help wanted WOMEN" and if you were a woman dont be bothered to try applying for a MAN'S job! you got to be a teacher, a nurse, a waitress or a secretary.

when i was in college, there were men in the medical school admissions who wouldnt consider giving a WOMAN a spot that could reasonably be taken by a man. it was just a waste of an education in their minds


men as well as women fought to get women equal legal rights with men. most modern men WANT a woman who is equal. which is good because few women are willing to give up all their aspirations in order to be some man's doormat.

but there needs to be people watching to make sure the laws are enforced. (for men as well as women, we all know horror stories of men getting treated unfairly by courts) we are NOT all the way there and its a mistake to pretend that we are. as we move along in equality, things that seemed FINE in the past are now recognized as wrong. (for example the assumption that the mother is the superior parent or that a man cannot rape his wife)

yes there are some people who take it too far or who try to clothe their loathing for men as feminism. they are rare and most people have no problem seeing them for the extremists they are.

i dont see any reason to worry that nutcase feminazis are going to take over the world and eliminate men. ain't gonna happen. the REST of feminism is a done deal. it will end up, through the diligence of men and women working today, that women all over the world will be naturally considered the equal of men. if that bothers you, (and by you i dont mean YOU, itfa) tough luck.

Ignore my last comment i felt like being an idiot i think i snapped outta that now :cool:

I'm arguing that in some situations countries are not ready for equality between men and woman. For example if you had asked 18th century brits if they thought woman should have the vote it would be considered ridiculous. Many woman themselves didn't even want the vote. This could be very similar to how it is in Islamic countries, if they are not ready for equality between sexes i don't think we should pressure them to do so.

I completely agree, they will just wind up hating you for it.

I dont understand why "we" have to sort out anything. Why cant we just leave them alone to do as they wish.
for ME its not the clothing. its not the "the man is the head of the family" its not even prohibition on women driving.

its women being stoned to death for going out of the house without a burka on. (something the talilban used to do)

its brides being burned to death because her parents cant afford more dowry and her new in-laws are insistant.

its rapes being blamed on the victim because she made a bad judgement of a mans character.

its girls being mutilated because if she doesnt have her external genitalia cut up she'll never find a good husband.

the basic human right to LIVE is important.

Just a little info for you all since many don't seem to have a solid philosophy background...

There are many different kinds of feminist philosophy because it's a postmodern-based philosophy.

Therefore not all feminists are "feminazis" as have been defined in this thread and not all feminists just want "equality"...

The movement that is refered to in the original post in the 1800s (I assume you mean in the US) is actually the sufferage movement where feminist philosophies gained a lot of prominance politically and changed the way a country conducted itself. Today that movement is considered the Liberal feminist movement, which still functions through groups, most notably the National Organization for Women (aka NOW).

The section of feminist philosophy that doesn't like men at all and thinks women are far superior would be the radical cultural feminists. (or as some people like to call them feminazis). Groups in this catagory would be the Redstockings of the 1970s and so forth.

Don't knock it 'till you understand it.

for ME its not the clothing. its not the "the man is the head of the family" its not even prohibition on women driving.

its women being stoned to death for going out of the house without a burka on. (something the talilban used to do)

its brides being burned to death because her parents cant afford more dowry and her new in-laws are insistant.

its rapes being blamed on the victim because she made a bad judgement of a mans character.

its girls being mutilated because if she doesnt have her external genitalia cut up she'll never find a good husband.

the basic human right to LIVE is important.


Some bad things happen in those countries. But its not fair for you to judge. People have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong, I agree that the examples you have highlighted are wrong, people in those countries do not. They will probably think you are wrong for thinking women are equal. You have no right to force your beleif system onto them and they have no right to force it onto you.

Don't think that problems with feminazis don't exist today.
In United States, you could, and some men did, get arrested for sexual harassment for telling a woman she has a nice dress, or kissing a coworker on the cheek. Hell, some even got arrested for staring at a woman.

Some bad things happen in those countries. But its not fair for you to judge. People have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong, I agree that the examples you have highlighted are wrong, people in those countries do not. They will probably think you are wrong for thinking women are equal. You have no right to force your beleif system onto them and they have no right to force it onto you.
im not saying we need to INVADE other countries or boycott their goods.

but i have no problem if activists want to go to these countries and help out women. we do like to support basic human rights. the right to LIVE is a basic human right. i like it alot better than trying to convert them to christianity.

Feminisim has become quite extreme. I think there's a fine line there...

I'm female and I would very much like to see women receiving equal pay and, in some cases, equally high positions in the buisness world. I believe that women are sometimes discriminated against by men who are stuck in the past, that is, a couple decades ago...of course,this also works both ways.

I, however, for some reason I've never been able to figure out, have nothing against the concept of chivalry. In fact, I quite like it. I think many women do, and it is the minority who yell at the man who opens the door.

As far as generic people being called "he," aren't things, like boats and cars, called "she"? Maybe that is degrading because one is human and one is an object, but, honestly, who cares...

There are still some people in this world who are racist. There are still some people in this world who are against women's rights. That won't ever change-people will never completely agree. But I think it's safe to say the majority of the male population sees women as their equals, and the majority of the female population appreciates it when a male holds the door open for her.

Just a little info for you all since many don't seem to have a solid philosophy background...

There are many different kinds of feminist philosophy because it's a postmodern-based philosophy.

Therefore not all feminists are "feminazis" as have been defined in this thread and not all feminists just want "equality"...

The movement that is refered to in the original post in the 1800s (I assume you mean in the US) is actually the sufferage movement where feminist philosophies gained a lot of prominance politically and changed the way a country conducted itself. Today that movement is considered the Liberal feminist movement, which still functions through groups, most notably the National Organization for Women (aka NOW).

The section of feminist philosophy that doesn't like men at all and thinks women are far superior would be the radical cultural feminists. (or as some people like to call them feminazis). Groups in this catagory would be the Redstockings of the 1970s and so forth.

Don't knock it 'till you understand it.

Bingo. Feminists good, feminazis bad. Same thing goes for minority races. Equality good, special rights bad.

From Webster's Dictionary:

"One entry found for chivalrous.

Main Entry: chiv·al·rous
Pronunciation: 'shi-v&l-r&s
Function: adjective
1 : VALIANT
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of chivalry and knight-errantry
3 a : marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy b : marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women"

It's completely possible to be honorable, generous and courteous of a woman without being rude or insulting her strength, independence or intelligence... (you might have to be a little more creative in some situations though...)

-Proud to be a Chivalry-Loving Feminist

From Webster's Dictionary:

"One entry found for chivalrous.

Main Entry: chiv·al·rous
Pronunciation: 'shi-v&l-r&s
Function: adjective
1 : VALIANT
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of chivalry and knight-errantry
3 a : marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy b : marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women"

It's completely possible to be honorable, generous and courteous of a woman without being rude or insulting her strength, independence or intelligence... (you might have to be a little more creative in some situations though...)

-Proud to be a Chivalry-Loving Feminist

feminazi's WILL kil the CALVERY since they are so isolationists.

Bingo. Feminists good, feminazis bad. Same thing goes for minority races. Equality good, special rights bad.

Thanks very much! I guess my college education was good for something ;)

From Webster's Dictionary:

"One entry found for chivalrous.

Main Entry: chiv·al·rous
Pronunciation: 'shi-v&l-r&s
Function: adjective
1 : VALIANT
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of chivalry and knight-errantry
3 a : marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy b : marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women"

It's completely possible to be honorable, generous and courteous of a woman without being rude or insulting her strength, independence or intelligence... (you might have to be a little more creative in some situations though...)

-Proud to be a Chivalry-Loving Feminist


The problem is though that if a guy ever gets shouted at for holding open a door ect ect he is likely to NEVER do anything of the sort again. So it only takes one woman hating that sort of thing to ruin chivalry. Anyone ever noticed that chivalry and chauvinist sound kinda similar?

Thanks very much! I guess my college education was good for something ;)


affirmative action is reverse racism and well pretty much useless..another social construct

affirmative action is reverse racism and well pretty much useless..another social construct

Wait...what does affirmative action have to do with feminisism?

affirmative action is reverse racism and well pretty much useless..another social construct
Affirmative action had a purpose during the days of active racial exclusion of minorities. It was never supposed to completely equalize the racial quotas.

Nowadays, affirmative action is no longer needed, since universities do not actively turn away minorities. But it was necessary for awhile. Just not anymore.

If anything, the focus should be shifted to income, not race.

feminazi's WILL kil the CALVERY since they are so isolationists.

Do you really think radical cultural feminists* are really that powerful?

Have you been rejected by a feminist recently, maybe told to not open a door for a lady?

I don't understand the hate or the fear that your perspective seems to be coming from.

If you want to rail on feminists understand some postmodern philosophy before you do it, so you sound more intelligent.

Because I'm sure you're not as ignorant in general as you sound on this particular topic.

*I refuse to call them Feminazis because it's uneducated and breeds bad stereotypes about all feminist philosophies.

good night.

The problem is though that if a guy ever gets shouted at for holding open a door ect ect he is likely to NEVER do anything of the sort again. So it only takes one woman hating that sort of thing to ruin chivalry. Anyone ever noticed that chivalry and chauvinist sound kinda similar?

Babe, They are called root words, language is built on themCh. Those words where not made up by feminists to be defined as they are just to spite you.

Again I go to the dictionary for this one:

"One entry found for chauvinism.

Main Entry: chau·vin·ism
Pronunciation: 'shO-v&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare JINGOISM
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
- chau·vin·ist /-v&-nist/ noun or adjective
- chau·vin·is·tic /"shO-v&-'nis-tik/ adjective
- chau·vin·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb"


You can be generious, honorable, etc. without "an attitude of superiority."

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.
OK so why is it ok for Christians to all be labled due to the extremists in their midst...?

Babe, They are called root words, language is built on themCh. Those words where not made up by feminists to be defined as they are just to spite you.

Again I go to the dictionary for this one:

"One entry found for chauvinism.

Main Entry: chau·vin·ism
Pronunciation: 'shO-v&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare JINGOISM
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3 : an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
- chau·vin·ist /-v&-nist/ noun or adjective
- chau·vin·is·tic /"shO-v&-'nis-tik/ adjective
- chau·vin·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb"


You can be generious, honorable, etc. without "an attitude of superiority."

I know you can, what I'm saying is the "radical cultural feminists" dont see it for what it is, a kind gesture. And when a woman you like freaks when you try to do something nice, you dont do it again. Starting an argument about feminism with the word babe is just funny. I know about root words but what word could chauvinist and chivalry come from?

Wait...what does affirmative action have to do with feminisism?


some and I should emphasize SOME people think it's the only way...Just like people shouting for feminine equality...

unfortunateley it's a bit gray in this area..fuckit woman you think I'm wrong then tell me it's black/white just like you've said.


(and I'll get 20 females in the process to tell me you are full of shit)

I know you can, what I'm saying is the "radical cultural feminists" dont see it for what it is, a kind gesture. And when a woman you like freaks when you try to do something nice, you dont do it again. Starting an argument about feminism with the word babe is just funny. I know about root words but what word could chauvinist and chivalry come from?

I would suspect something Latin because they seem to both have French roots, but I don't know... you brought that up.

I probably should not have started with babe... I guess I was just trying to be a bit friendly and not come off as being combative because I don't mean it that way...

If a woman you like starts freaking out when you do something nice, you probably don't know her too well and...

Don't take it as an attack on your masculinity or an insult to you by "womankind" or "feminist-kind." I hope your confidence around women comes from more than your ability to open doors.

If you really do like the girl find out which she thinks is "nice" by getting to know her and then do it for her....

(My favorite recently has been a guy with a high tolerance finding out didn't want more to drink and taking my "Lady's Night" shots for me and then complmenting me all night... we call it "Shot Chivalry")

if she's a hater (to men and herself) and won't let anyone be nice to her no matter what, maybe she's not worth your time. (I've been one of those once upon a time too)

Don't lose heart. Don't take ignorant hate personally.

I would suspect something Latin because they seem to both have French roots, but I don't know... you brought that up.

I probably should not have started with babe... I guess I was just trying to be a bit friendly and not come off as being combative because I don't mean it that way...

If a woman you like starts freaking out when you do something nice, you probably don't know her too well and...

Don't take it as an attack on your masculinity or an insult to you by "womankind" or "feminist-kind." I hope your confidence around women comes from more than your ability to open doors.

If you really do like the girl find out which she thinks is "nice" by getting to know her and then do it for her....

(My favorite recently has been a guy with a high tolerance finding out didn't want more to drink and taking my "Lady's Night" shots for me and then complmenting me all night... we call it "Shot Chivalry")

if she's a hater (to men and herself) and won't let anyone be nice to her no matter what, maybe she's not worth your time. (I've been one of those once upon a time too)

Don't lose heart. Don't take ignorant hate personally.


if people view it as a relationship and not as a fuckfest then it becomes clear, of course, I never really said that.

I am not here
I never was

if people view it as a relationship and not as a fuckfest then it becomes clear, of course, I never really said that.

I am not here
I never was

My example could have turned himself into a one night stand very easily... I wouldn't have minded in the least.
As it is that's not what happened but it easily could have...

Respectful fuck fests are possible, all parties involved just have to be cool with it being just that.

I would suspect something Latin because they seem to both have French roots, but I don't know... you brought that up.

I probably should not have started with babe... I guess I was just trying to be a bit friendly and not come off as being combative because I don't mean it that way...

If a woman you like starts freaking out when you do something nice, you probably don't know her too well and...

Don't take it as an attack on your masculinity or an insult to you by "womankind" or "feminist-kind." I hope your confidence around women comes from more than your ability to open doors.

If you really do like the girl find out which she thinks is "nice" by getting to know her and then do it for her....

(My favorite recently has been a guy with a high tolerance finding out didn't want more to drink and taking my "Lady's Night" shots for me and then complmenting me all night... we call it "Shot Chivalry")

if she's a hater (to men and herself) and won't let anyone be nice to her no matter what, maybe she's not worth your time. (I've been one of those once upon a time too)

Don't lose heart. Don't take ignorant hate personally.

Oh dont think im offended by being called babe, I dont mind :) . I try to avoid male ego issues (they are there with all males I can face that) as much as I can. I was only using doors as an example of a friendly gesture often mistaken for something else. Not that im not the best door opener this side of the missisipi ;) . Unfortunatly I always take ignorant hate personally, I just cant help it. I dont mind people hating me if I did something diserving (everyone makes mistakes) but people who hate me for no cause are just an itch under my skin.

Oh dont think im offended by being called babe, I dont mind :) . I try to avoid male ego issues (they are there with all males I can face that) as much as I can. I was only using doors as an example of a friendly gesture often mistaken for something else. Not that im not the best door opener this side of the missisipi ;) . Unfortunatly I always take ignorant hate personally, I just cant help it. I dont mind people hating me if I did something diserving (everyone makes mistakes) but people who hate me for no cause are just an itch under my skin.

I totally agree with the "people who hate me for no cause are just an itch under my skin" part. Those people piss me off too, which is why I can't help but try to clear up confusion about feminism time and time again. I just try to do it in the most respectful way possible so it can actually be a conversation like the one we've had.
Thanks for hearing me out. :)

I hope there are some lucky ladies on your side of the mississippi. ;)

I know about root words but what word could chauvinist and chivalry come from?
I just looked them up on dictionary.com (I have too much time on my hands today!).
"Chauvinist" comes from "Nicolas Chauvin, a legendary French soldier famous for his devotion to Napoleon".
"Chivalry" comes from "Middle English chivalrie, from Old French chevalerie, from chevalier, knight".

I totally agree with the "people who hate me for no cause are just an itch under my skin" part. Those people piss me off too, which is why I can't help but try to clear up confusion about feminism time and time again. I just try to do it in the most respectful way possible so it can actually be a conversation like the one we've had.
Thanks for hearing me out. :)

I hope there are some lucky ladies on your side of the mississippi. ;)


Hmmm which side of the mississippi is New Zealand on?

and good night... on this side of the mississippi it's too late to be talking when you have to work tomorrow morning.

My example could have turned himself into a one night stand very easily... I wouldn't have minded in the least.
As it is that's not what happened but it easily could have...

Respectful fuck fests are possible, all parties involved just have to be cool with it being just that.

the internal instincts of humankind..ruled by a class..are you a communists?..

the only thing..
that protects us..
male/female..

anywhere in the world..

is a interpretation of morals..

and a strong one at that.

otherwise someone would'have raped you already

woman deserve respect
but neither gender has SUPERIORIORITY over the other

we are all...

despite all are faults

one

Hmmm which side of the mississippi is New Zealand on?

I think that's solidly on the other side of the world.... and I'm not going to consult a globe for that... Which makes you solidly too far away for more that good conversation.

Good luck reeling in the New Zealand Ladies! ;)

You've got one feminist in your corner. Don't let the haters get you down.

the internal instincts of humankind..ruled by a class..are you a communists?..

the only thing..
that protects us..
male/female..

anywhere in the world..

is a interpretation of morals..

and a strong one at that.

otherwise someone would'have raped you already

woman deserve respect
but neither gender has SUPERIORIORITY over the other

we are all...

despite all are faults

one

Well then I must have a strong set of morals because, unlike many other women, I've not been raped. And to how not to be raped... I would add that a good set of instincts and not drinking very often at all aid my track record very much. No, I'm not a communist, we all deserve respect. You seem to be getting a little Taoist with the "we are all one" poetry.

Again... and I mean it now, sleep for me.

I think that's solidly on the other side of the world.... and I'm not going to consult a globe for that... Which makes you solidly too far away for more that good conversation.

Good luck reeling in the New Zealand Ladies! ;)

You've got one feminist in your corner. Don't let the haters get you down.


what???!
r u nutz??!!


everyoneone helps

females are just as powerfull as men (BTW I'm a guy)

no one wants to hear the truth I suppose..

It's a tyranny under men...

or other woman..


WHY NOT TOGHTHER!!!

anyways noone will respond..

sensational ridicoulous politics will be the norm until some male/femsle/ANYBODY makes it a issue..

oh well nobody gives a shit...
a tyrannical dictatorship is fine..well not for me..if only...

the internal instincts of humankind..ruled by a class..are you a communists?..

the only thing..
that protects us..
male/female..

anywhere in the world..

is a interpretation of morals..

and a strong one at that.

otherwise someone would'have raped you already

woman deserve respect
but neither gender has SUPERIORIORITY over the other

we are all...

despite all are faults

one

Was that supposed to be a compliment or a back-handed insult? I'm too tired to figure it out and it pisses me off a lot either way.

Because no one should be raped. No one.

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.

Have you ever tried to have friends over with a 4 year old on a shugar high running around, it makes you want to stab the lil mother fucker in the neck and leave him bleeding in the moonlight. So to put them to bed is common sence for the childs saftey and the prison population. And as for the whole femanazi thing, there just like the religious nazis or Rosie O'Donnel, so blinded by what they want they no longer have a connection to the real world.

:headbang:

Was that supposed to be a compliment or a back-handed insult? I'm too tired to figure it out and it pisses me off a lot either way.

Because no one should be raped. No one.


did u read my other stuff..

neither

nobody should experience rape

what???!
r u nutz??!!


everyoneone helps

females are just as powerfull as men (BTW I'm a guy)

no one wants to hear the truth I suppose..

It's a tyranny under men...

or other woman..


WHY NOT TOGHTHER!!!

anyways noone will respond..

sensational ridicoulous politics will be the norm until some male/femsle/ANYBODY makes it a issue..

oh well nobody gives a shit...
a tyrannical dictatorship is fine..well not for me..if only...

I figured you were a guy.

Working together is the key.

I was just trying to encourage someone to not stop talking to women just because one lashed out at him because he opened a door for her. People can't work together if they won't talk to one another.

I don't know how tyranical dictatorships got into this. I fear for your sanity.

I fear for your sanity.

Ok, I take that back. We seem to be on the same page for the most part, I'm just too tired to still be typing and thinking.

what???!
r u nutz??!!

Starting things like that tends to put people on the defensive. At least it does to me.

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.

You are overlooking the fact that the derogatory, dismissive term has become applied to all feminist regardless of whether their stance is moderate or extreme.

What you are saying is the equivalent of saying Neo-con ideals are held by many in the the grossly partisan RNC, and they have become aggressive in their divisive and irresponsible financial agenda. I won't call it extremism, since the Republicans are considered mainsteam by many, and extremism, by definition, is not extreme.

By defining the criticsim of the Neo-con platform as an attack on radical conservatism, deflects the fact that these radical ideas are supported by the mainstream organization, the Republican Party. Pointing out that mainstream Republicans are supporting an agenda that promotes divisive hatred and unsound fiscal ideas is not an unfair assesment of the entire Republican party- turning a blind eye to the fact that the Republican party harbors such ideals is.

Face it - not all feminists, not even all members of NOW are radicals, just as not all Republicans are neo-cons. The fact that a group contains extremists in no way invalidates the entire group.

I figured you were a guy.

Working together is the key.

I was just trying to encourage someone to not stop talking to women just because one lashed out at him because he opened a door for her. People can't work together if they won't talk to one another.

I don't know how tyranical dictatorships got into this. I fear for your sanity.


you must understand..


why did this thread get started...

why is this a campaign issue..

will this succeed as a campaign issue..

and..(naturally)

can you..

ever find a place to argue with your conservative brethren

(since most of your brothers are mostly like you)

(HOLY SHIT!!! the world is not MOSTLY MADE OF WOMAN)

(NO IT'S ACTUALLY ROUGLY 50-50 and so is the the strength ratio:
meaning you could still kick my ass, beautiful..what means anything.)

what is your goal?

what do you want?

IF YOU WANT ANYTHING

it's clarification of your own goals

get that straightened out and..

well, the perfect alpha male will tell you step by step..wait wait..

I'm just a..
figmant..

I think that's solidly on the other side of the world.... and I'm not going to consult a globe for that... Which makes you solidly too far away for more that good conversation.

Good luck reeling in the New Zealand Ladies! ;)

You've got one feminist in your corner. Don't let the haters get you down.

and maybe "reeling in" wasn't the best choice of words, because I'm well aware women are not fish. By haters I meant people who hate men (and/or themselves) shut someone out for trying to open a door for them. You caught me comparing women to fish and men to fishermen... Yes, women can reiforce patriarchy too. Guilty as charged.

Thanks for the call out.

(If you meant something else I don't get it... and I don't think you're reading anymore so I'm definetly going to bed.)

you must understand..


why did this thread get started...

why is this a campaign issue..

will this succeed as a campaign issue..

and..(naturally)

can you..

ever find a place to argue with your conservative brethren

(since most of your brothers are mostly like you)

(HOLY SHIT!!! the world is not MOSTLY MADE OF WOMAN)

(NO IT'S ACTUALLY ROUGLY 50-50 and so is the the strength ratio:
meaning you could still kick my ass, beautiful..what means anything.)

what is your goal?

what do you want?

IF YOU WANT ANYTHING

it's clarification of your own goals

get that straightened out and..

well, the perfect alpha male will tell you step by step..wait wait..

I'm just a..
figmant..


If you would write in complete sentences instead of poetry we could have a conversation, but at this point trying to figure out what are saying is much more time than it's worth. Once you learn to write in complete sentances and put forth coherant thoughts would welcome talking to you. But at this point you are wasting my time so I'm going to sign off.

It's hard to work together if the other person can't express complete and understandable thoughts. Sorry, bud.

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.

I wasn't saying it was valid today. Someone had asked why men had ever wanted to 'control' women in the first place. The marriage thing was a fact a used in support of my theory of the _origins_ of patriarchal dominance. I did not say it was a sign of sexism today.


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.


Birth control is more important for women because they by biology, are forced to live a slightly larger percentage of a certain occasional biological consequence. And, no, it is not a fucking compliment to say that women should be more pure. Equality would mean that both genders have equal right to acknowledge and act on their sexual urges and not be called "slut" or "animals that should be kept in cages." EQUALITY - GET IT? It has nothing about being stronger or whatnot. Women have sexual urges too. There was research done that measured biological arousal - only a much greater percentage of women than men are so sexually repressed that they didn't even _recognize_ the fact that they were physically aroused.


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

At the present time it may be symbolism of doing something to show you cae. You are again choosing to totally ignore the fact that I presented as a matter of control in relation to its historic origins. There is no way to change the fact that historically it was a matter of control, so NO , I did not present a lie, 'feminazi' or other.

and maybe "reeling in" wasn't the best choice of words, because I'm well aware women are not fish. By haters I meant people who hate men (and/or themselves) shut someone out for trying to open a door for them. You caught me comparing women to fish and men to fishermen... Yes, women can reiforce patriarchy too. Guilty as charged.

Thanks for the call out.

(If you meant something else I don't get it... and I don't think you're reading anymore so I'm definetly going to bed.)


oh jeZUZ KRISt

ure 2 INtresting

I really hope the aussie's feds take my recommedation ( never happen cuz u like sacks too much) and give me a certain cancer with your comrades...


oh well..

FEMINISIM won't survive the century (do you really think so?)
genders ARE the same, pal.. Commando woman/men??!!!


will define a certain nation.

what nation is it?

oh jeZUZ KRISt

ure 2 INtresting

I really hope the aussie's feds take my recommedation ( never happen cuz u like sacks too much) and give me a certain cancer with your comrades...


oh well..

FEMINISIM won't survive the century (do you really think so?)
genders ARE the same, pal.. Commando woman/men??!!!


will define a certain nation.

what nation is it?


BTW I luv Australians.



my great-uncle was a bishop of brisbane

BTW I luv Australians.



my great-uncle was a bishop of brisbane



James..

that's all
(and also I'm pretty fucking drunk)

The only "manly right" I believe we have is the right to piss standing up. You cant argue that society is unequal because women are more likely to get raped. What if I wanted to get pregnant? women would have a massive advantage over me. Women are more likely to get raped because of a phsical difference, we cannot change this. Laws involving custody of children actualy favor women. Compensating for something phsical by having extra rights somewhere else is wrong.

Rape does not have to just involve parts biologically attached to the body, you know. Considering that rape is about hatred and power, if there so many of these man-hating feminazis running around it would be safe to assume that many more males would be forced to submit to having a dildo shoved up them at gun point.

The laws involving custody of children tend to favor whichever parent who a)wants custody and b) has the most money.

Rape does not have to just involve parts biologically attached to the body, you know. Considering that rape is about hatred and power, if there so many of these man-hating feminazis running around it would be safe to assume that many more males would be forced to submit to having a dildo shoved up them at gun point.

The laws involving custody of children tend to favor whichever parent who a)wants custody and b) has the most money.

I would've thought that rape was about desperate men getting sex. In custody of children the advantage is always with the mother. My friends parents weren't together. His mother and father were both lovely people and neither were poor. His father got to see him 3 weekends a month. There are pleanty of good fathers out there perfectly able to take care of their children but are barely able to see them due to court rulings.

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.

I think that with all due respects you two are talking about completely different countries. I live in a country where government healthcare covers birth control but NOT Viagra.

Actually, I can't even IMAGINE paying a woman less for doing the same job. I find it hard to believe that is actually happening - so much so that I suspect it's not due to discrimination, and more due to some sort of difference in the way men and women treat or choose their careers.

Situations are different in different countries. Some have a larger number of non-extremist feminists. Some have a smaller number. In any case, the discussion is about the extremist ones.

I would've thought that rape was about desperate men getting sex. In custody of children the advantage is always with the mother. My friends parents weren't together. His mother and father were both lovely people and neither were poor. His father got to see him 3 weekends a month. There are pleanty of good fathers out there perfectly able to take care of their children but are barely able to see them due to court rulings.

I have seen plenty of court cases go the other way. Maybe it is a matter of time and place. For a while things were slightly more equal than they are today. And I live in a notariously corrupt area where money talks more than anything else.

If mothers are given preferential treatment, however, that is just one example of how sexism effects everyone. It is based on the false assumption that women are supposed to be the primary caretaker of children and the equally false assumption that they are therefore better parents. In this case it was a reprocussion of sexist attitudes toward women. Which doesn't make it right. If we were to stop assuming certain characteristics are somehow bestowed by gender then courts might be better able to judge which parent is actually more fit.

As for rape, it is a false assumption that is primarily about sex. It's mechanisms are sexual but its motivations are violent.

I have seen plenty of court cases go the other way. Maybe it is a matter of time and place. For a while things were slightly more equal than they are today. And I live in a notariously corrupt area where money talks more than anything else.

If mothers are given preferential treatment, however, that is just one example of how sexism effects everyone. It is based on the false assumption that women are supposed to be the primary caretaker of children and the equally false assumption that they are therefore better parents. In this case it was a reprocussion of sexist attitudes toward women. Which doesn't make it right. If we were to stop assuming certain characteristics are somehow bestowed by gender then courts might be better able to judge which parent is actually more fit.

As for rape, it is a false assumption that is primarily about sex. It's mechanisms are sexual but its motivations are violent.

YOU ARE INFESATED WITH SYPHLYIS,..



YOU FUCKING BITCH!!!!!!!!! :mp5:

Thank you! Someone who uses, God forbid, statistics, to make a logical argument. Consider, male supremists: more women have been raped than hold with this supposed "women uber alles" concept that scares you so damn much. Being female should not be an inherent disadvantage in our society.
Interestingly enough, one is less likely to be raped in concealed carry areas than in an area that bans the carrying of guns.

YOU ARE INFESATED WITH SYPHLYIS,..



YOU FUCKING BITCH!!!!!!!!! :mp5:

SONIC YOUTH RULES BTW


and so does kim deal!!!!!!!!!!

*cough*

Boy do we dredge up a lot of hate on these boards. What a mess.

Alright, while the topic of the post isn't too bad, the original poster's attitude is pretty heinious and utterly destroys the spirit I think he was striving for. Or at least I think it's a he. Though I've met a number of women with the bass-ackward belief that men are unilaterally physically superior to women before. I've also met some women that think that men are intellectually superior to women as well. And a lot of this kind of garbage is indeed perpetuated by women as well as men in how they raise their children to think, how they treat those of their own gender and how they treat those of the opposite gender in day to day situations.

I am a female who does not at all like radical feminism, or as most people call it these days, Feminatism. I DO however appreciate having the CHOICE to either work outside of the home. I would LOVE to say that we had the option to do this at the same payrate an equally skilled and qualified male recieves in the same workplace for the same job -- which I probably don't need to tell you is not yet something that we females recieve in real life. Of course, I do not only blame males for the inequity, as I have seen on many occasions that women will often actively both hinder the advancement of other females in the workplace and assign other females under them pay noticably lower than their male peers' recieve for the same or lesser performance.

I find it extremely sad that at this point in time we no longer (save for in very rare instances) have the choice to stay in the home to take care of the various and sundry domestic duties that running a household entails (and in many instances, raising children). I find it even more saddening that those women who are fortunate enough to be able to do so and choose to do this recieve NO respect from either men OR women, being treated as slackers, inferiors and parasites.

I find it outright TRAGIC that my gender has few, if any positive role models who can be at once strong, intelligent, feminine, independant and confident without being branded as traitors to our gender if they do not blame everything on males by bitter, vicious, dried-up old sticks who brand men as the Great Evil while doing everything in their power to be just like them. What is the point of feminism if it denies the merits and virtues of being female?

And what makes crushing the other gender in retaliation for millenia of inequality any more right and desirable than the original gender-based oppression? I defy anyone to argue how THAT makes any sense whatsoever. I find these traditional gender-defined roles to be ridiculous and they are made no less unpalatable by simply reversing them so that there is STILL one gender being treated inequitably.

*cough*

Boy do we dredge up a lot of hate on these boards. What a mess.

Alright, while the topic of the post isn't too bad, the original poster's attitude is pretty heinious and utterly destroys the spirit I think he was striving for. Or at least I think it's a he. Though I've met a number of women with the bass-ackward belief that men are unilaterally physically superior to women before. I've also met some women that think that men are intellectually superior to women as well. And a lot of this kind of garbage is indeed perpetuated by women as well as men in how they raise their children to think, how they treat those of their own gender and how they treat those of the opposite gender in day to day situations.

I am a female who does not at all like radical feminism, or as most people call it these days, Feminatism. I DO however appreciate having the CHOICE to either work outside of the home. I would LOVE to say that we had the option to do this at the same payrate an equally skilled and qualified male recieves in the same workplace for the same job -- which I probably don't need to tell you is not yet something that we females recieve in real life. Of course, I do not only blame males for the inequity, as I have seen on many occasions that women will often actively both hinder the advancement of other females in the workplace and assign other females under them pay noticably lower than their male peers' recieve for the same or lesser performance.

I find it extremely sad that at this point in time we no longer (save for in very rare instances) have the choice to stay in the home to take care of the various and sundry domestic duties that running a household entails (and in many instances, raising children). I find it even more saddening that those women who are fortunate enough to be able to do so and choose to do this recieve NO respect from either men OR women, being treated as slackers, inferiors and parasites.

I find it outright TRAGIC that my gender has few, if any positive role models who can be at once strong, intelligent, feminine, independant and confident without being branded as traitors to our gender if they do not blame everything on males by bitter, vicious, dried-up old sticks who brand men as the Great Evil while doing everything in their power to be just like them. What is the point of feminism if it denies the merits and virtues of being
.
.......................

female?

And what makes crushing the other gender in retaliation for millenia of inequality any more right and desirable than the original gender-based oppression? I defy anyone to argue how THAT makes any sense whatsoever. I find these traditional gender-defined roles to be ridiculous and they are made no less unpalatable by simply reversing them so that there is STILL one gender being treated inequitably.


wait I have to listen to the 4th song on murry, street, bitch!!

wait I have to listen to the 4th song on murry, street, bitch!!

What are you, like 12 years old? I'm SO glad we have the ignore option. Consider yourself gagged... worm.

Well, I was impressed with your post in any event Booslandia.

What are you, like 12 years old? I'm SO glad we have the ignore option. Consider yourself gagged... worm.


consider yourself a f*cking bitch!!!
yea

you heard me..
I'm over here with a dog sick and tired of ac/dc

so really FUCK YOU..


(bitchess not included)

consider yourself

*snipped*



~yawn~

~yawn~

does anybody care about anything??

Nah, I doubt that you fucking misognyist

yes, women are often subject to violent crimes. However can all men be responsible for the actions of a few? BTW, i am not being hypocritical, as I am not saying that all women are responsible for feminazis.

And the reason feminazis would abolish men's rights... is because they belive that men are animals, and do not deserve the same rights as women. Rights is not stuff that there is a limited amount off. Women can gain rights, without men losing them. I am not opposing this. I am opposing women gaining rights, and at the same time men losing them. Although some conservative men want women to lose their rights, I seriously doubt they'll be any way successful.

So what, ogiek, feminazis don't exist? A portioin of modern feminists don't want superiority over men? they don't belive men are inferior gender? And violence against women does not mean that feminazis are weak, these two things are completely unrelated.
There are more men who believe that women should not have equal rights, than there are women who believe men should not have equal rights, and currently world wide men have greater overall economic status, social status, power and authority and rights, yet you claim that you seriously doubt men who wish to treat women unequally will have their way (despite the current facts and thousands of years of history proving otherwise) whilst claiming to be frightened that this minority of women you refer to will (despite the current world wide status quo and thousands of years of history proving the unlikliehood of this) get their way and make men inferior class citizens. That's just silly... The group wanting to keep women inferior is larger, has more economic, social and authoritive power, yet they cant prevent women from becoming equal, however this smaller group of less economically and soically powerful people can render men inferior.... :rolleyes:

does anybody care about anything??

Nah, I doubt that you fucking misognyist

Out of intrest do you actualy still have a point to make on this forum or are you just here out of spite?

And by the way, men are inferior in many fields, including science and mathematical aptitude, common sense, and ability to get along with one another.
Let's address these in reverse shall we? You've obviously never gone to high school, because while we males tend to torment people with more physical force, the females are much, much nastier when it comes to psychological injury. As for common sense, I have yet to see that any gender has a monopoly on stupidity. As for the science and mathematical aptitude, I haven't heard of any female Hawkings, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins. I will admit, however that it has been proven that on average women are better at learning in environments which are calm and tranquil and have long periods of sitting still, ie most science/math environments

Thanks Dobbs.

It's a subject that has really bothered me for most of my adult life. I grew up in the late 60s and 70s, while things were still VERY bad for women and a lot of social changes were taking place, so I got to see the tail end of what our so-called modern feminists are so ticked off about... along with the tail end of many other social issues such as race and sexual orientation. It made a lasting impression on me. And it has allowed me to see how many steps both forward AND backwards we in America have taken in handling these issues... and I wonder, often, if there isn't some more reasonable way to react to this kind of issue that doesn't simply transfer the wrong from one set of people to another.

But then, what do I know? I'm only one strange Gothic chick facing impending middle age and wondering if maybe all the big and beautiful things I remember from my childhood aren't just some shined-up, exaggerated distortions of memory.

A freind of mine once told me that "The past is another country dear. People do things differently there." I think this is one of the truest, and possibly wisest things anyone has ever said to me. Even if it does strongly imply that I can never go back "home" and should stop pining for it.

/shrug


Either way, until both sides stop trying to screw each other over or the majority of both genders just decides that those members of their respective sexes who are boing complete morons are simply morons by personal proclivity rather than as a result of one silly chomosome... we all seem to be quite stuck with the stupidity. And that's something that even a silly, dorky old goth knows with certainty.

Let's address these in reverse shall we? You've obviously never gone to high school, because while we males tend to torment people with more physical force, the females are much, much nastier when it comes to psychological injury. As for common sense, I have yet to see that any gender has a monopoly on stupidity. As for the science and mathematical aptitude, I haven't heard of any female Hawkings, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins. I will admit, however that it has been proven that on average women are better at learning in environments which are calm and tranquil and have long periods of sitting still, ie most science/math environments

Finally someone is making some decent points here again. Some people obviously got bored of reading and just posted some useless rubbish but finally someone has said something of intrest. It is true about "I haven't heard of any female Hawkings, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins." but possibly that is because their female equivilants (if there are any) get less acknowledgement and credit than ther male conterparts. Society is more willing to accept male acheivements than female. Something to think about.

Hrmmm... anyone have any statistics on rudeness and reading comprehension difficulties in relation to the genders?

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.

You're walking on slippery ground, here. I'm assuming from reading your posts that you are male. But either way, your sex is irrelevant to my reply. I will agree with you to an extent and take that even further. I am opposed to ANY group that tries to be superior to ANY group. Patriarchal notions are more or less, a matter or perception. You might have never noticed it before either because you are male, or a woman and never thought too hard about it or have been effected by it. But people coming from different circumstances than you, (notice, it's spelled y-o-u, not yuo. Sorry, I'm a journalism major, I can't stand spelling errors) will perceive things differently.

Finally someone is making some decent points here again. Some people obviously got bored of reading and just posted some useless rubbish but finally someone has said something of intrest. It is true about "I haven't heard of any female Hawkings, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins." but possibly that is because their female equivilants (if there are any) get less acknowledgement and credit than ther male conterparts. Society is more willing to accept male acheivements than female. Something to think about.
There have been plenty of female scientists who have been valuable contributors but there haven't been nearly as many geniuses on the level of the three I named. One of the greats would be Rosalind Franklin, a co-discover of the DNA double helix structure. http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=24119&article_id=218391936&cat=1_2

Wow this thread is really getting angry, lets turn up the temperature

All woman hate men for no good reason

Wow this thread is really getting angry, lets turn up the temperature

All woman hate men for no good reason

now now there is no need to add excess flame baiting.

now now there is no need to add excess flame baiting.

i thinks its quite fun

:)

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 totally agree - except for the cheeleader thing, i think the feminazis have a point there.
this point may have been made already, but the thing i particularily hate is the open sexism (against men by the feminazis) in those jokes sent around via email, depicting men as compeletely stupid, etc... (eg here (http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/jkmen.html) - first hit in google! Actually these are quite tame compared to some of the emailed ones ive heard, but you get the picture)
If a man made similar jokes (apart from Blondes ones) he would be yelled at non-stop for being totally sexist to women.
When I question some of the women I know about this, they just say its "a bit of fun". Personally i find it quite offensive.
You are quite right - feminists have nearly achieved equality, and now feminazis strive for female superiority.

As a number of you seem hellbound to use the supposedly male technique of silencing female posters to this thread, shall we examine the behavior as it is detailed in an article from an instructor of the University of Phoenix?

Communication patterns were different online where male domination seemed to be stronger than FTF communication because it was more tolerated. Similar to FTF communication, when males dominated the conversation, females were silenced. For example, the Women's International Network [77] found that girls participate in class discussions at only an eighth the rate that boys do. However, the difference between the CMC environment at OU and FTF learning environments was that male domination often lasted for days. Female students also tolerated male domination. It was also ignored by the distance education institution (OU). For example, males posted a surprising number of sexual jokes. This often created a time period of days where only males posted messages. This was very effective in "silencing females," who reacted by not posting messages for days and failed to complain about sexual jokes. These findings support King's [78] study which found that rude behavior is often tolerated online, even to the point of certain groups which have no purpose other than to send rude comments and sexual jokes to each other.

Fortunately for SOME of us, not all males behave this way and not all females will allow this kind of behavior to silence us when we feel we have a valid point to make.

MY point, for those of you who are comprehensively impaired, is that while a number of you think that you can cow a female into submission and silence by being rude, insulting or just simply really freaking loud, it isn't always going to work the way you intended. SOME of us are quite used to holding our own in male-dominated social areas, and will only find your behavior cause to keep communicating.

Hey Boo, why are you even giving them any attention?

Hey Boo, why are you even giving them any attention?
She's not giving them attention - she's analysing them. They hate that.

As a number of you seem hellbound to use the supposedly male technique of silencing female posters to this thread, shall we examine the behavior as it is detailed in an article from an instructor of the University of Phoenix?

Communication patterns were different online where male domination seemed to be stronger than FTF communication because it was more tolerated. Similar to FTF communication, when males dominated the conversation, females were silenced. For example, the Women's International Network [77] found that girls participate in class discussions at only an eighth the rate that boys do. However, the difference between the CMC environment at OU and FTF learning environments was that male domination often lasted for days. Female students also tolerated male domination. It was also ignored by the distance education institution (OU). For example, males posted a surprising number of sexual jokes. This often created a time period of days where only males posted messages. This was very effective in "silencing females," who reacted by not posting messages for days and failed to complain about sexual jokes. These findings support King's [78] study which found that rude behavior is often tolerated online, even to the point of certain groups which have no purpose other than to send rude comments and sexual jokes to each other.

Fortunately for SOME of us, not all males behave this way and not all females will allow this kind of behavior to silence us when we feel we have a valid point to make.

MY point, for those of you who are comprehensively impaired, is that while a number of you think that you can cow a female into submission and silence by being rude, insulting or just simply really freaking loud, it isn't always going to work the way you intended. SOME of us are quite used to holding our own in male-dominated social areas, and will only find your behavior cause to keep communicating.

I would say its in our nature

i totally agree - except for the cheeleader thing, i think the feminazis have a point there.
this point may have been made already, but the thing i particularily hate is the open sexism (against men by the feminazis) in those jokes sent around via email, depicting men as compeletely stupid, etc... (eg here (http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/jkmen.html) - first hit in google! Actually these are quite tame compared to some of the emailed ones ive heard, but you get the picture)
If a man made similar jokes (apart from Blondes ones) he would be yelled at non-stop for being totally sexist to women.
When I question some of the women I know about this, they just say its "a bit of fun". Personally i find it quite offensive.
You are quite right - feminists have nearly achieved equality, and now feminazis strive for female superiority.

Men do make such jokes, often worse, implying violence towards women who aren't happy doing household chores. Do these jokes also offend you?

Between feminists having nearly achieved equality and feminazis striving for female superiority you left out feminists who are still working for actual (rather than near) equility. Why?

There are pleanty of females posting here. You are being prejudice by saying "men do this" and "men do that", hell yeah im rude sometimes, havent u ever had a bad day? I have NEVER been rude with the intent of offending women into silence. Thats just plain damn stupid, I like arguing with people it gets you a better veiwpoint on the world.

- i just read those jokes about men being stupid in goodle and i find them quite funny (i'm a male)

I find jokes about woman equally funny- here's a good one i like

Why don't woman need to wear watches

Because there's a perfectly good clock on the oven


Someone's probably gonna criticize me for this but why not just laugh at these jokes and not take them seriously. I don't see why some people get so offended.

- i just read those jokes about men being stupid in goodle and i find them quite funny (i'm a male)

I find jokes about woman equally funny- here's a good one i like

Why don't woman need to wear watches

Because there's a perfectly good clock on the oven


Someone's probably gonna criticize me for this but why not just laugh at these jokes and not take them seriously. I don't see why some people get so offended.

Similarly...

What's the difference between a woman and a shopping trolley?
A shopping trolley has a mind of its own.

Why haven't women got webbed feet?
Because there's no water between the bedroom and the kitchen.

Daft? Yes. Sexist? Deliciously so. As long as you tell them in a playful way then people know you don't really think like that - you just find those attitudes funny. However, it's not always obvious on an Internet forum, whether you're being serious or not.

Similarly...

What's the difference between a woman and a shopping trolley?
A shopping trolley has a mind of its own.

Why haven't women got webbed feet?
Because there's no water between the bedroom and the kitchen.

Daft? Yes. Sexist? Deliciously so. As long as you tell them in a playful way then people know you don't really think like that - you just find those attitudes funny. However, it's not always obvious on an Internet forum, whether you're being serious or not.

lol- i quite like those ones

if were lucky someone will get really annoyed about them

Men do make such jokes, often worse, implying violence towards women who aren't happy doing household chores. Do these jokes also offend you?

Between feminists having nearly achieved equality and feminazis striving for female superiority you left out feminists who are still working for actual (rather than near) equility. Why?
Yes, but then I'm also a male that's for castrating repeat rapists so my opinion may not mean much.

The problem is that the line is extremely thin when trying to achieve actual equality. Dealing with humans means that actual equality one way or the other is unlikely to happen except on a personal basis. As actual equality gets closer and closer it will become harder and harder to increase it any more. Unless you cross the line and go the authoritarian femnazi route which is extremely likely to push inequality in the other direction.

Do you think there's more men who hate woman or more woman who hate men? i'm inclined to go with the latter.

Some feminists seem to lay at mens feet hundreds of years of woman's suffering. Despite the fact they themselves didn't go through it and we didn't cause it.

Men do make such jokes, often worse, implying violence towards women who aren't happy doing household chores. Do these jokes also offend you?

Between feminists having nearly achieved equality and feminazis striving for female superiority you left out feminists who are still working for actual (rather than near) equility. Why?
i can honestly say that i have never heard truly anti-women jokes - apart from the 'Blondes' ones - that belittle women in the same way as the anti-men jokes i was talking about.
perhaps this is because my mum is/was a devout feminist, and as such i never heard the sexist-against-women jokes, and only the anti-men jokes?

anyway what i mean by near equality is that it is only a small number individuals now that stand in the way of real equality. equality has been, imo, embraced by society as a whole. the work of the in-between feminists you describe is thus almost done, and i left them out. sorry - it wasnt intentional.

Do you think there's more men who hate woman or more woman who hate men? i'm inclined to go with the latter.

Some feminists seem to lay at mens feet hundreds of years of woman's suffering. Despite the fact they themselves didn't go through it and we didn't cause it....hence the feminazis
thats also my point. why arent i more eloquent?

...hence the feminazis
thats also my point. why arent i more eloquent?

well i have never heard of a masculinist group so i assume that there are more woman who dislike us than us disliking them.

feminazi is probably not the right word to use though.
Nazi- well we all know what they did

To all feminists, you have equal rights so dont shout like you dont. Culture however is harder to define and explian. Culture may or may not be opposing to you. Thats harder to define, but you certianly wont change it by complaining about it.

To all feminists, you have equal rights so dont shout like you dont. Culture however is harder to define and explian. Culture may or may not be opposing to you. Thats harder to define, but you certianly wont change it by complaining about it.
Well, no they don't quite have equal rights in every case, just as the law has been pushed too far in other cases.

They still don't get anything like equal pay for the same job, for a start.

There are pleanty of females posting here. You are being prejudice by saying "men do this" and "men do that", hell yeah im rude sometimes, havent u ever had a bad day? I have NEVER been rude with the intent of offending women into silence. Thats just plain damn stupid, I like arguing with people it gets you a better veiwpoint on the world.

There is a difference between "men do" and "all men do"...

If I say "men do make the world a better place" is that prejudiced or true? If I were to put an "all" on front of that sentence it would be a lie. If I were to put a "no" on front of the sentence it would equally be a lie. The unspoken implied is "some."

Some attitudes and actions picked up from the larger culture are so ingrained that they seem normal. For example, if a couple has a child and one parent decides to become a stay at home parent, it is often assumed that it will be the female parent. Many people do not even realize the inherent sexism (in this case sexism against both males and females) in this attitude. Not all sexist acts and statements are intended to be such. Lack of intent, however, does not change the fact that they are indeed sexist.

To all feminists, you have equal rights so dont shout like you dont. Culture however is harder to define and explian. Culture may or may not be opposing to you. Thats harder to define, but you certianly wont change it by complaining about it.

Right... because if you just ignore thing they will go away :rolleyes:

Besides, women do not have equal rights. There are clauses and amendments in the constitution that cover all races and all creeds... there is no constitutional protection based on gender. Women don't even have equal pay.

To all feminists, you have equal rights so dont shout like you dont. Culture however is harder to define and explian. Culture may or may not be opposing to you. Thats harder to define, but you certianly wont change it by complaining about it.
Actually, that is one of the few things you can do about it, that and give them an alternative.

To be fair Chivalry never existed
King Harold got hacked to pieces by Normans
Henry the 5th* killed off French Nobility at Agincourt(Good reason though)
Lancelot betrays king Arthur
French Templars(or St Johns)Betrayed Malta to Napoleon

Im pro Chivalry and will gladly open a door for a woman
But University chicks can be quite uppity about it :confused:

Right... because if you just ignore thing they will go away :rolleyes:

Besides, women do not have equal rights. There are clauses and amendments in the constitution that cover all races and all creeds... there is no constitutional protection based on gender. Women don't even have equal pay.
thats the trouble with a written constitution for you. I believe in the UK (no written constitution) there is legal protection for women in the Equal Pay Act of 1979 and the Sex Discrimination Act of some other time (not sure of dates)
Plus, in the new European Constitution there is protection of equal rights for women.
Im not saying you're wrong, just that perhaps things are different outside the USA.

Im pro Chivalry and will gladly open a door for a woman
But University chicks can be quite uppity about it :confused:
ditto, but no chicks ever give me any grief about it. :confused:
or maybe im just too dozy to notice :p

Right... because if you just ignore thing they will go away :rolleyes:

Besides, women do not have equal rights. There are clauses and amendments in the constitution that cover all races and all creeds... there is no constitutional protection based on gender. Women don't even have equal pay.
Hmmm, one of the heavily Democratic states that didn't bring up the vote for the ERA-Equal Rights Amendment, Illinois.

*cough*

I find it outright TRAGIC that my gender has few, if any positive role models who can be at once strong, intelligent, feminine, independant and confident without being branded as traitors to our gender if they do not blame everything on males by bitter, vicious, dried-up old sticks who brand men as the Great Evil while doing everything in their power to be just like them. What is the point of feminism if it denies the merits and virtues of being female?


Thats the best statment I have read on this tread :fluffle:

Hmmm, one of the heavily Democratic states that didn't bring up the vote for the ERA-Equal Rights Amendment, Illinois.

What I find ironic is that the ERA would have help white males more than anyone else. Why? because it would have made affermative action unconstitutional.

Right... because if you just ignore thing they will go away :rolleyes:


We can make things go away by ignoring them!?! lol
Holly crap, and all this time we have been trying to solve problems when all we needed to do was ignore them :D

What I find ironic is that the ERA would have help white males more than anyone else. Why? because it would have made affermative action unconstitutional.
*snorts*Why yes, acting condecending to minorities and suggesting, softly, that they can't make it on their own is certainly a good thing to do.

*snorts*Why yes, acting condecending to minorities and suggesting, softly, that they can't make it on their own is certainly a good thing to do.

well maybe that is the real reason it got voted down. :p

Feminism is a belief that is bent upon the destruction of the male species as we know it. The goal they are acheiving is not what they say, the striving for equal rights of all women and men, but rather it is centered on bringing down men to a low standing comparitively, almost as if we are to be punished because of the way things used to be, which, in my opinion, was not a bad way of running things. The way things used to be was the man worked and the woman was the homemaker. Not to say women couldn't work, but socities have existed for thousands of years on this principle of them staying home. Am I against men and women being equal? Of course not. But I do believe they play different roles in society. Their roles are no less important than the other's just it's is just the way of the world.

Here in Iceland feminist are every where you can´t turn on the tv or radio with out hearing a feminist talking about how useless men are and how bad men are to women. they seam to forget that iceland has perhabs the most equallity between the sexis in the world we´v had a female presidant and almost 100% of Icelands women work. And the diffrens between men and women pays are perhabs the lowest in the world here, yet they keep claiming that men here think of women as nothing but mere sextoys and that a woman can´t get a important job.And also they seam to be very pist about boys playing alot more sports than girls they have preposed an idea to give all girls that practis sports higer grades in school and that they dont have to take some exams if they play sports.They also keep on talking about how women are deenied education yet there are more women than men in University ? they resently went around puting stikers saying "real women don´t do this" on a paper that had a picture of a girl in bikini (not a porn paper), If any one els would go around town putting stikers on papers they would have been arrested for destruction of property.
They have also pruposed that women don´t have to have as good grades as men when inroling in the University to put more women in the job market WTF!!! but when the female students heard about this they starterd a protest against this saying that they worked hard to be where they are and they think that a student should not get any spesial treatment just becouse she is a girl, he or she sould have to pass the mendatory test just like everyone else.


P.s don´t you know gods punishment to femenist ? they only have sons
(just a joke)

well maybe that is the real reason it got voted down. :p
Actually, a big part of it was the fact that it would make women eligible for the draft/SelectiveService shit. But my point of the matter is that while Democrats give the appearance of being for equality they have not tried to bring this one back up.

This thread degenerated into childish drivel pretty quickly. To be expected, I suppose, given the topic of discussion and the 14 year old boys who seem to be keeping it alive (it cannot be grown men making some of these posts).

I imagine to male adolescents ALL women seem pretty intimidating.

This thread degenerated into childish drivel pretty quickly.

At the risk of flaming the original poster that started the thread, I think it degenerated into childish drivel within the first 40 or 50 words - at the point where the term 'feminazi' was introduced.

At the risk of flaming the original poster that started the thread, I think it degenerated into childish drivel within the first 40 or 50 words - at the point where the term 'feminazi' was introduced.
That has to be the most bizarre word I've ever been introduced to by the internet.

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.

Elizabeth the First, Catherine the Great, Boudicca (slaughter of London anyone?), Queen Victoria, Cleopatra, every female Pharaoh (do you want the nubian campaigns with that). Thoroughly rational women, everyone one of them.

And thats if you're just talking about wars of aggression and not frontline fighting.

Sorry if this is off topic at this point, but little statements like that make me want to crawl up the wall.

I am definitely for gender equality. I believe that the role that the current 'male' stereotype that both men and women are driven to strive for in our society is completely artificial and nothing at all like either genders natural inclinations, should such things exist. And sure, women got a raw deal for the last couple of hundred years, and the whole thing still hasn't corrected itself.

Its just when I see a 19 year old wearing a t-shirt saying "Boys Stink! Throw Rocks at them!" I get slightly angry. :sniper:

And on a partially related note:

The male gender role in the early stages of our evolution fulfilled a singular purpose - expendability. It was the job of young male monkeys to stand between the most important parts of the clan - the females and children - and hopefully scare of predators or at the last resort sate their hunger. This extremely early behaviour development still persists in our social consciousness - why do you think young men march to war and young boys play aggressive games?

Gradually, as humans began getting better at this, it evolved into a capacity for hunting. Soon, we were much less concerned with predation - we could kick its ass. Still, the females are seen as most important, hence the primal goddess religions of the pregnant mother.

Problem was the males were too good at protection. Soon they had progressed to the point where the value of the act of protection outweighed the value of the protectee. And thus was created the patriarchal society. The concept of protecting females from predators or other tribes became the concept of possession. Not nice, we can all agree?

Anyway, we've evolved to the point where we've started correcting that imbalance. Women are now seen as equals as our society was always meant to be.

So no-one chuck rocks at me, just because I'm a stinking boy, hmm?

At the risk of flaming the original poster that started the thread, I think it degenerated into childish drivel within the first 40 or 50 words - at the point where the term 'feminazi' was introduced.
While I don’t agree with the term … the person exists (as with every group at least there is a differentiation from the mainstream of feminism … extremists are sometimes the strongest detractors of a cause)

I know a few girls that fall in that (sense the term is not liked) Feminism fundamentalist. It is hard to deal with sometimes … we would go up to the lunch line … if I happened to get up there first I was “oppressing her by walking fast and making her subservient” if I let her go first “I was pitying her for being female” (ahhh highschool) I mean it is hard to know how to act when you are male around people like that

You cant be yourself … you cant be nice … you cant do anything for them or before them or after them intentionally (at least with her )

Makes people be insecure about being themselves … which leads to some people lashing out at it … understandable (even if I don’t care for it)

Though strange how quiet she got when the female draft topic was brought up

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.

Before you turn into a viking berserker - I think he was referring to extreme feminists. Hence: feminazis. Of COURSE all women look intimidating. So do all men, when you're 5 feet tall. Ahem. Anyway. What was I going to say? Oh yes - I believe that I will form a Male Chauvinist club at my school. It is only fair. No really it is only fair.

While I don’t agree with the term … the person exists (as with every group at least there is a differentiation from the mainstream of feminism … extremists are sometimes the strongest detractors of a cause)


I would respect thoe people flinging the term 'feminazi' around a great deal more if they actually did some research and read their Dworkin or their Solanas for themselves, and engaged with an actual piece of text setting out ideas, rather than jsut railing at vague "extremists".

I know a few girls that fall in that (sense the term is not liked) Feminism fundamentalist. It is hard to deal with sometimes … we would go up to the lunch line … if I happened to get up there first I was “oppressing her by walking fast and making her subservient” if I let her go first “I was pitying her for being female” (ahhh highschool) I mean it is hard to know how to act when you are male around people like that

You cant be yourself … you cant be nice … you cant do anything for them or before them or after them intentionally (at least with her )

Makes people be insecure about being themselves … which leads to some people lashing out at it … understandable (even if I don’t care for it)

Though strange how quiet she got when the female draft topic was brought up

UpwardThrust, I do believe that the girls you are describing are less feminists and more <looks around and whispers> -bitches-. I can see how it might be confusing as they use feminism as a tool and an excuse to put you off your balance so that they can bully you and belittle you, but that ISN'T the point of feminism.

Your post makes you sound like a person who cares about how you make the people around you feel by your words and actions regardless of gender, which I have to say is commendable. It also sounds as if you have some selfrespect and wish to keep it, but not at the expense of those around you, which is both healthy and a good attitude. I have to say it's not easy to figure out how best to respond to people like that no matter what your sex is. A bully is a bully, which is to say they are a person who is seeking to compensate for some inadequacy and feeling of uncertainty or unworthiness by forcing others around them to display fear and subservience on demand. The best recourse is to simply deny them what they are trying to force you to give up to them without becoming a bully yourself. In other words, ignore them.

Thank you for reminding me that not all school-aged people are immature asshats who can't think about anything but themselves and can't be bothered to formulate a complete and coherent thought. I needed that.


So no-one chuck rocks at me, just because I'm a stinking boy, hmm?

Nope, no rocks. Though if you are indeed stinking, I might chuck a bar of soap in your direction. Boy OR girl. LOL

As for earlier posts citing that the posters believed that women should be "pure"... get a grip, kids. That's an antiquated notion that only reflects the need of a group of weaker male types to control a woman's sexuality and their inherent fear of females who are their equals not only out in the workplace, but in the realm of the bedroom as well. It also speaks volumes about how some sad, frightened males see all prostpective mates as their mothers, fit only to take care of them even into adulthood. It furthermore reflects deep feelings of inadequacy in that a "pure" or not to put too fine a point on it sexually repressed or inexperienced female is less likely to be dissatisfied with a guy's performance in bed, having had little or no basis for comparison. How pathetic that is. Strong men don't need to marry a mommy figure and aren't at all threatened by women who are sexually empowered, as they don't need to be mothered by their mates and are not renderred impotent by the idea that they might not be the best lay their partner has ever had in her life.

UpwardThrust, I do believe that the girls you are describing are less feminists and more <looks around and whispers> -bitches-. I can see how it might be confusing as they use feminism as a tool and an excuse to put you off your balance so that they can bully you and belittle you, but that ISN'T the point of feminism.

Your post makes you sound like a person who cares about how you make the people around you feel by your words and actions regardless of gender, which I have to say is commendable. It also sounds as if you have some selfrespect and wish to keep it, but not at the expense of those around you, which is both healthy and a good attitude. I have to say it's not easy to figure out how best to respond to people like that no matter what your sex is. A bully is a bully, which is to say they are a person who is seeking to compensate for some inadequacy and feeling of uncertainty or unworthiness by forcing others around them to display fear and subservience on demand. The best recourse is to simply deny them what they are trying to force you to give up to them without becoming a bully yourself. In other words, ignore them.

Thank you for reminding me that not all school-aged people are immature asshats who can't think about anything but themselves and can't be bothered to formulate a complete and coherent thought. I needed that.



Well thank you ... (though if you mean school aged people hope you are including collage ... 22 in jan) lol not old but ;) not a highschooler either


And yeah I hate stereotyping … that’s why I made sure to point them out that’s why (though I don’t like the term) at least femanazi is differentiating between he feminist movements and the extremists … we just got to think up something catchier (and not associated with an emotionally loaded word like Nazi)

Well thank you ... (though if you mean school aged people hope you are including collage ... 22 in jan) lol not old but ;) not a highschooler either


And yeah I hate stereotyping … that’s why I made sure to point them out that’s why (though I don’t like the term) at least femanazi is differentiating between he feminist movements and the extremists … we just got to think up something catchier (and not associated with an emotionally loaded word like Nazi)

Yeah, UT, by school-aged I pretty much refer to those 25 and younger. Ugh that makes me sound so... old. Young people this and kids that... when did THAT happen..? Next thing you know I'll hole up in an old house at the end of some lane with an abundance of cats and start ranting at people who cut across my lawn. LOL

Stereotyping sucks most heiniously. But it's so difficult to avoid when both society and experience both put tremendous pressure on a person to lump things into huge generalities rather than to examine each on its own merits. It's probably pretty obvious that I consider myself to be a feminist, though I really can't stand the attitudes a lot of other women hold about superiority. I agree that "Feminazi" is indeed a very emotionally charged term, though I often use it myself when describing women who would like nothing better than to see men put through the same degrading crap women have endured throughout history. In my eyes they are even lower than the minority of men who still believe that women are inferior and are pretty much household pets who do laundry, make food and spread their legs when their man gets a little antsey. Having been in that role for centuries on end, you'd think we'd know better than to seek to put anyone else in it once we managed to escape it ourselves. No one deserves to be looked at or treated in such a way... unless that's their particular sexual kink. In which case I say, "Hey, have fun, knock yourselves out."

*cough*

I find it outright TRAGIC that my gender has few, if any positive role models who can be at once strong, intelligent, feminine, independant and confident without being branded as traitors to our gender if they do not blame everything on males by bitter, vicious, dried-up old sticks who brand men as the Great Evil while doing everything in their power to be just like them. What is the point of feminism if it denies the merits and virtues of being female?


Totally Agree. I find it almost appalling the way a lot of the females are acting (especially in collage). It is getting to the point that in order to prove their "Feminist Pride" they are being more vulgar, hateful, rude, and in some cases down right disgusting than most guys out there. It seems to me that feminism’s spirit has slowly had the logic and good intentions of its origin replaced with hate and spite. To the point of they are so very eager to get some where that half of them don’t know where that is other than to be the same if not better (aka worse) than the thing they are trying to be against.

point one: feminism is not a monolith. it is a diverse grouping of often divergent opinions under a single banner for political convienence, the convienence, as proved here, is equal for those on both sides of the word.

point two: feminazi is a derogatory term used to undermine the feminist movemet(s) and has been made popular by people unable or unwilling to use the correct term, misandry. which, is the opposite of misogyny and, if no political motives are to be assumed, the correct term for hatred of men.

point three: it is uncomfortable learning ugly truths which will ultimately, though morally just, will diminish one's power within society. for those of you who are willing to try, think of a society which devalued you and rendered the semantic value of your gender (race, ethnicity, etc) to object rather than actor.

point four: i am so happy that the internet is keeping alive the fruitful and thoughtful discourse which has advanced society so far.

I am not going to visit this thread anymore, as it depresses me, but anyone with an intelligent point to inquire upon or discuss is welcome to telegramme me.


In closing, to those of you who see women as equal, I commend you. They are, however, not there yet. Not until the rates of one in every four women (in Canada) suffering a sexual assault is reducaed to it's male equivilant (essentially zero for of age hetrosexual men)

-a pro-feminist male.

There are more men who believe that women should not have equal rights, than there are women who believe men should not have equal rights, and currently world wide men have greater overall economic status, social status, power and authority and rights, yet you claim that you seriously doubt men who wish to treat women unequally will have their way (despite the current facts and thousands of years of history proving otherwise) whilst claiming to be frightened that this minority of women you refer to will (despite the current world wide status quo and thousands of years of history proving the unlikliehood of this) get their way and make men inferior class citizens. That's just silly... The group wanting to keep women inferior is larger, has more economic, social and authoritive power, yet they cant prevent women from becoming equal, however this smaller group of less economically and soically powerful people can render men inferior.... :rolleyes:
I am not ignoring history, but the 20th century has taught that standards never stay the same. Women are gainining up on men in everything, in all kinds of standards. there are numerious relationships where the woman earns more than the men, and in some cases, men even are the "housewifes".


Women can excel at science, an example is Marie Curie, a famous 20th century chemist.



i totally agree - except for the cheeleader thing, i think the feminazis have a point there.
this point may have been made already, but the thing i particularily hate is the open sexism (against men by the feminazis) in those jokes sent around via email, depicting men as compeletely stupid, etc... (eg here - first hit in google! Actually these are quite tame compared to some of the emailed ones ive heard, but you get the picture)
If a man made similar jokes (apart from Blondes ones) he would be yelled at non-stop for being totally sexist to women.
When I question some of the women I know about this, they just say its "a bit of fun". Personally i find it quite offensive.
You are quite right - feminists have nearly achieved equality, and now feminazis strive for female superiority.
There are some jokes poking fun at females :)

Besides, women do not have equal rights. There are clauses and amendments in the constitution that cover all races and all creeds... there is no constitutional protection based on gender. Women don't even have equal pay.
Ever heard of the Civil Rights act of 1965?? ANd we already covered equal pay, move on.

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.
I think female supremacists (as I call them) are a loud minority in feminism. There is still a huge aount of work to be done to achieve gender equality. Not so much in the USA and Europe, but in the east and third world.

most feminazis really want male attention/sex,
Most women want male attention/sex, and there's nothing unconscious about it.

Ever heard of the Civil Rights act of 1965?? ANd we already covered equal pay, move on.
The Civil Rights act did not concern itself with gender at all.

Most women want male attention/sex, and there's nothing unconscious about it.and viceversa :D :D :eek: :D

While I don’t agree with the term … the person exists (as with every group at least there is a differentiation from the mainstream of feminism … extremists are sometimes the strongest detractors of a cause)

I know a few girls that fall in that (sense the term is not liked) Feminism fundamentalist. It is hard to deal with sometimes … we would go up to the lunch line … if I happened to get up there first I was “oppressing her by walking fast and making her subservient” if I let her go first “I was pitying her for being female” (ahhh highschool) I mean it is hard to know how to act when you are male around people like that

You cant be yourself … you cant be nice … you cant do anything for them or before them or after them intentionally (at least with her )

Makes people be insecure about being themselves … which leads to some people lashing out at it … understandable (even if I don’t care for it)

Though strange how quiet she got when the female draft topic was brought up

Dude, what you are describing with those girls are just that fact that some people are assholes. Happens with certain guys too. If you speak your mind, then you are being "rude or too pushy." If you don't speak your mind then you are "purposely making it hard on them and expecting them to be mindreaders." There are some people of both genders that just can't be dealt with.

As for the draft, I personally believe in equality. I am pacifist, so I don't think anyone should be drafted short of possible invasion (and certainly not to go police the world) but if a draft has to occur, then everyone should be equally eligible - female, male, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

I am not ignoring history, but the 20th century has taught that standards never stay the same. Women are gainining up on men in everything, in all kinds of standards. there are numerious relationships where the woman earns more than the men, and in some cases, men even are the "housewifes".


Women can excel at science, an example is Marie Curie, a famous 20th century chemist.

Well done on proving my point. You see the exception is for a female to earn more than a male, whilst (as is made clear within the context of your comments) the norm is for males to earn more, females (as is made clear in your comments) are more likely to end up as home makers. Read your own comments, there is a clear assumption that men should earn more than women, because you are not concerned that the gap has not yet been eliminated, but are freaked out that some men earn less than women. If the gap were eliminated many women would earn more than many men just as many men would continue to earn more than many women. Why should not half of all homemakers be men? You are complaining that things have switched around not because more men are expected to be homemakers than are women, and not because men earn less, nor even because it is equal, but because women though still discriminated against economically and socially, are not as discriminated against as once they were. It is possible for some women to earn more than some men, and occasionally men stay home instead of women, yet this is still the exception (as is clear from your own comments) and to you this is a matter of concern.....dress it up however you like, it is not discrimination against men that concerns you, but rather equality for women. Your comments make it clear that if equal numbers of men were homemakers as are women, that this would be an example of men being discriminated against, and that if women's earning potential were across the board equivalent to mens, that this would be discrimination against men, suck it up, if you are good at your job and willing to contribute fairly to household chores you have nothing to fear, if you expect to be paid twice as much as a female underling who happens to be twice as competent as you, before coming home to a cooked meal, kids all in bed while wifie heads off to 'slip into something more comfortable' before performing your evening 'floor show' and complementary lap dance, you'll probably be disappointed.... :rolleyes:

Feminism is a belief that is bent upon the destruction of the male species as we know it. The goal they are acheiving is not what they say, the striving for equal rights of all women and men, but rather it is centered on bringing down men to a low standing comparitively, almost as if we are to be punished because of the way things used to be, which, in my opinion, was not a bad way of running things. The way things used to be was the man worked and the woman was the homemaker. Not to say women couldn't work, but socities have existed for thousands of years on this principle of them staying home. Am I against men and women being equal? Of course not. But I do believe they play different roles in society. Their roles are no less important than the other's just it's is just the way of the world.

At least you admit to being sexist. If you believe actual equality would "bring men down" then you are admitting to holding men up to a higher place. That is not equality. Saying that the role of a subordinate is just as important as the role of a manager is not saying that you believe the positions are or should be equal. Male "species" indeed. Humans are humans. Getting rid of gender based priviledge is not the same as "destroying" men. In fact, it is removing constraints that have been placed on male behavior and expected roles as well.

All economic and societal roles should be equally open to all people capable of doing such role and no societal role should be thought of as "lesser" because it has been traditionally associated with a certain group. Neither women nor men should be expected to stay at home (which is what you are doing when you say 'that is just the way of the world') and neither women nor men should be looked down on for choosing any career - including homemaker. That is the essence of gender equality.

My previous posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogiek
I would also add that those of you blathering on about "feminazis" have woefully misidentified the problem. There is far more hatred of women by men, with all the violent repercussions that suggests, than there is hatred of men by women. In fact there is a term in the English language for hatred of women - misogynist. Yet, as far as I know there is not even a term for hatred of men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogiek
Every year there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault.

Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime. Look around the women you know - that is about one-in-seven.

And you think the main problem between the sexes is a tiny fraction of the feminist population spouting men-hating Womyn Power slogans?

Your previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom777
I am afraid that extremist feminists, or feminazis, will abolish my rights, treating men as the inferior gender.


Don't you think you have blown this "problem" way out of proportion to what actually exists in the real world?

My previous posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogiek
I would also add that those of you blathering on about "feminazis" have woefully misidentified the problem. There is far more hatred of women by men, with all the violent repercussions that suggests, than there is hatred of men by women. In fact there is a term in the English language for hatred of women - misogynist. Yet, as far as I know there is not even a term for hatred of men.


Well, there is a term. It is:

Misandry: hatred of men

Well, there is a term. It is:

Misandry: hatred of men

Thank you. That is a new one to me.

At least you admit to being sexist. If you believe actual equality would "bring men down" then you are admitting to holding men up to a higher place. That is not equality. Saying that the role of a subordinate is just as important as the role of a manager is not saying that you believe the positions are or should be equal. Male "species" indeed. Humans are humans. Getting rid of gender based priviledge is not the same as "destroying" men. In fact, it is removing constraints that have been placed on male behavior and expected roles as well.

All economic and societal roles should be equally open to all people capable of doing such role and no societal role should be thought of as "lesser" because it has been traditionally associated with a certain group. Neither women nor men should be expected to stay at home (which is what you are doing when you say 'that is just the way of the world') and neither women nor men should be looked down on for choosing any career - including homemaker. That is the essence of gender equality.


YAY!!!
And we have seen how well this has worked in society. Look at all the positive effects!
The destruction of the family, childen raised by television because both parents work, kids who grow up fat on McDonald's because both parents are too lazy to cook a decent meal, etc. You see, it makes sense for women to remain at home because it works! It's nothing against them, and I don't see it as being a bad thing. After all, a popular country song called "Mr. Mom" details all the work a man has to do when he loses his job and has to stay at home and watch the kids while his wife goes to work. So you see, women actually accomplish more by raising the kids. After all, until recently the "Tender Years" Doctrine held that in divorce cases, young children needed to be with their mother. Now, why would we want to go and upset a balance that has worked for years, especially when any half-intelligent man knows exactly how hard his wife works at home.

Thank you. That is a new one to me.
No problem.

Feminism, like any movement, has its extremists. For the most part, however, it's about equality (It would be dubbed "Gender Egalitarianism" or something, perhaps, but its almost solely women who have to suffer the problems). I myself am a feminist. I'm also a hairy, strong male from 'the country' (Just short of being a bloody farm boy; the farm was next door). From a financial view, I'd gain nothing for women gaining any degree of power. However, my moral sense screams at me that women aren't being treated fairly or considered fairly. Women are the majority of the species, for crying out loud, but can't get fair treatment in a -democracy-. Much of this stems from those outdated gender roles that religious groups try to enforce. While its true that women, as the birthers and sucklers, have a special position in the family, the male shouldn't be considered simply the bread-winner, nor should the wife be the house maid. Men need to spend time with their children, and need to do their own bloody house chores. Children should spend roughly equal time with their parents, not just be exposed to one most of the time, with sporadic 'visits' from the other.

That said, being a house wife isn't a bad thing. I, personally, find it a waste of potential ability, but if a house wife (or a house husband) loves their work, more power to them. I just hope their counterpart doesn't end up spending all of their time working and leaving the kids to the other parent.

Unfortunately, part of the over-capitalization of the culture tends to lead to specializing (ala Ford-style assembly lines). Sure, its a very efficient way to do things. You can make more money, faster. But once you get to a certain economic level, its important to look inward to -happiness-, rather than just financial success. Assuming both parents are good, caring people, a child will most likely gain greater real benefit from having lots of love instead of extra X-Box titles.

a woman wouldn't buy a condom.

Why the hell not? That statement implies one of three mentalities:
1) Male sexist who believes that control over sexual protection is exclusively his responsibility.
2) Screwed-up feminazi who loves equal-or-more rights but doesn't want the responsibilities.
3) You're just supremely ignorant - which seems the most likely.

On modern feminism: It's still a necessary movement, but the "feminazis" piss me off too. It's sexism in reverse, just as affirmative action is racism in reverse. I think that the essence of worthy feminism can be summed up in my 200 pound, 6-foot-1, cyclist stepdad calling himself a feminist. It's a collaborative effort toward gender equality, not us against them with each gender trying to prevent the other from gaining ground.

Feminists have the right to free speech.

Feminazis are assholes.

31 pages is too much for me to read.

That is all.

The Civil Rights act did not concern itself with gender at all.

Actually I think Doom77 is refering to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII of which prohibits gender discrimination. Interestingly enough gender was added to kill the civl rights bill. It was though no one would vote for a bill that was silly enough to call for equal rights for women.

However, women's groups joined with labor and civil rights groups to lobby for its passage.

Actually I think Doom77 is refering to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII of which prohibits gender discrimination. Interestingly enough gender was added to kill the civl rights bill. It was though no one would vote for a bill that was silly enough to call for equal rights for women.

However, women's groups joined with labor and civil rights groups to lobby for its passage.
No, all that did was guarantee equal rights in the workplace.

That said, being a house wife isn't a bad thing. I, personally, find it a waste of potential ability,

How condescending of you. I suppose you'd consider people who pay strangers to raise their children fully actualized.

Feminism? I said it before, and I'll say it again...

Burn it.




I'm a female and even I cringe when they have Women's Week or their damn feminist rallies.

the crappy thing is there probably always will be sexism simply because humanity is to stupid to be able to justify it's self without some one/thing to look down on. And yes i am aware that in saying that i am in myself looking down on most of humanity oh well self fullfilling prophecy

it should be illegal ;)

If the gap were eliminated many women would earn more than many men just as many men would continue to earn more than many women. :


Why should not half of all homemakers be men?


The answer to both of these is quite simple if you understand one of the basic laws of nature: Men don't get pregnant nor do they nurse (breastfeed). A woman must take time off during pregnancy and immediately afterword. If the household is not financially dependant on her income then she will often choose to stay home and nurture her child instead of return to work and pay a stranger to nurture her child.

In the higher income brackets, about the only place your so called 'wage gap' is found, the woman's income is less likely to be necessary and therefore she is less likely to delegate her child's nurturing. The man is able to continue to work and climb the ladder of success. Once the children are old enough to attend school the woman will have been out of the workforce for at least 5 years - longer if she had more children. It would be ridiculous to expect her to re-enter the workforce at a rate of pay or a position equal to that held by others who have never left the workforce.

Over time it is also quite possible that she may reject a promotion that would lead to higher pay because it could require a geographic move which would end her higher-earning, higher seniority, spouse's job.

The 'wage gap' disappears when seniority (time on the job) are considered. What the N.O.W. is asking for isn't the end of a wage gap, but instant seniority for women - a discriminatory idea.


but because women though still discriminated against economically and socially, are not as discriminated against as once they were.

Not factual; an erroneous interpretation of statistical data.


Your comments make it clear that if equal numbers of men were homemakers as are women, that this would be an example of men being discriminated against, and that if women's earning potential were across the board equivalent to mens, that this would be discrimination against men, suck it up, if you are good at your job and willing to contribute fairly to household chores you have nothing to fear, if you expect to be paid twice as much as a female underling who happens to be twice as competent as you, before coming home to a cooked meal, kids all in bed while wifie heads off to 'slip into something more comfortable' before performing your evening 'floor show' and complementary lap dance, you'll probably be disappointed...
Do you find your "." key difficult to use more than every 128 words?




Also, why the condesention towards the people who choose the become primary care-givers to their own families?

Well done on proving my point. You see the exception is for a female to earn more than a male, whilst (as is made clear within the context of your comments) the norm is for males to earn more, females (as is made clear in your comments) are more likely to end up as home makers. Read your own comments, there is a clear assumption that men should earn more than women, because you are not concerned that the gap has not yet been eliminated, but are freaked out that some men earn less than women. If the gap were eliminated many women would earn more than many men just as many men would continue to earn more than many women. Why should not half of all homemakers be men? You are complaining that things have switched around not because more men are expected to be homemakers than are women, and not because men earn less, nor even because it is equal, but because women though still discriminated against economically and socially, are not as discriminated against as once they were. It is possible for some women to earn more than some men, and occasionally men stay home instead of women, yet this is still the exception (as is clear from your own comments) and to you this is a matter of concern.....dress it up however you like, it is not discrimination against men that concerns you, but rather equality for women. Your comments make it clear that if equal numbers of men were homemakers as are women, that this would be an example of men being discriminated against, and that if women's earning potential were across the board equivalent to mens, that this would be discrimination against men, suck it up, if you are good at your job and willing to contribute fairly to household chores you have nothing to fear, if you expect to be paid twice as much as a female underling who happens to be twice as competent as you, before coming home to a cooked meal, kids all in bed while wifie heads off to 'slip into something more comfortable' before performing your evening 'floor show' and complementary lap dance, you'll probably be disappointed.... :rolleyes:
You don't understand. I am not complaining that more women are earning more then man, and that male "housewifes" are starting to appear. In fact, i am glad it happens. I just brought it up to show that women ARE gaining in power/rights/social position. If feminazis don't interfere, by the end of this century, nay, half a century, we should be completely equal.

The destruction of the family, childen raised by television because both parents work, kids who grow up fat on McDonald's because both parents are too lazy to cook a decent meal, etc. You see, it makes sense for women to remain at home because it works! It's nothing against them, and I don't see it as being a bad thing. After all, a popular country song called "Mr. Mom" details all the work a man has to do when he loses his job and has to stay at home and watch the kids while his wife goes to work. So you see, women actually accomplish more by raising the kids. After all, until recently the "Tender Years" Doctrine held that in divorce cases, young children needed to be with their mother. Now, why would we want to go and upset a balance that has worked for years, especially when any half-intelligent man knows exactly how hard his wife works at home.
No, he just believed that women and men should have different roles in society. Not that I agree with him, but he doesn't want women to have less rights than men.

Why the hell not? That statement implies one of three mentalities:
1) Male sexist who believes that control over sexual protection is exclusively his responsibility.
2) Screwed-up feminazi who loves equal-or-more rights but doesn't want the responsibilities.
3) You're just supremely ignorant - which seems the most likely.
You don't read do you, i already corrected this mistake.

No, all that did was guarantee equal rights in the workplace.
But isn't that the feminazi's main point, that women don't get paid as much? Well legally, that point doesn't exist. And culture is harded to understand.




But other than replying. I have learned much so far from this thread. I am glad to know that not all feminists are pure sexists who believe themselves to be superior to men. This puts me at great ease compared to what I felt before the thread.

Doom, you and the real feminists here (not the "feminazis") may enjoy this site:

http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php

enjoy.

The answer to both of these is quite simple if you understand one of the basic laws of nature: Men don't get pregnant nor do they nurse (breastfeed). A woman must take time off during pregnancy and immediately afterword. If the household is not financially dependant on her income then she will often choose to stay home and nurture her child instead of return to work and pay a stranger to nurture her child.

Depending on her job, a woman may not have to take time off at all. And while she *may* choose to stay home, she should never be forced to do so.

Not factual; an erroneous interpretation of statistical data.

Being a woman in a "traditional male" profession, I can tell you that there is quite a gap. For instance, female engineering professors who have been at a school for equal amounts of time as men are statistically less likely to be tenured or to have been promoted at all. This is also true in engineering firms.

On top of that, those who *have* been promoted have had to do so through much more effort than most men with equal promotions as they had to "prove themselves" equal to men, while men were just expected to do well (and make a few mistakes along the way.

The answer to both of these is quite simple if you understand one of the basic laws of nature: Men don't get pregnant nor do they nurse (breastfeed). A woman must take time off during pregnancy and immediately afterword. If the household is not financially dependant on her income then she will often choose to stay home and nurture her child instead of return to work and pay a stranger to nurture her child.
Except that the discrepancy exists at entry levels, a fact which cannot be explained by pregnancy.

In the higher income brackets, about the only place your so called 'wage gap' is found, the woman's income is less likely to be necessary and therefore she is less likely to delegate her child's nurturing. The man is able to continue to work and climb the ladder of success. Once the children are old enough to attend school the woman will have been out of the workforce for at least 5 years - longer if she had more children. It would be ridiculous to expect her to re-enter the workforce at a rate of pay or a position equal to that held by others who have never left the workforce.
Aha, except that the wage discrepency effects women who have never yet had children (or never had children at all) and who have never spent any prolonged time unemployed or outside the work force.

Over time it is also quite possible that she may reject a promotion that would lead to higher pay because it could require a geographic move which would end her higher-earning, higher seniority, spouse's job.
Again this does not account for women who have never bred, and never been out of the workforce. I know of cases where women in their 40's who have higher educational levels than their partners, have worked continuously since entering the workforce and are very good at their jobs still earn less than their less well educated spouses.

The 'wage gap' disappears when seniority (time on the job) are considered. What the N.O.W. is asking for isn't the end of a wage gap, but instant seniority for women - a discriminatory idea.
No it doesnt, I've seen figures based on entry level wages/salarys that show that women earn less.

Not factual; an erroneous interpretation of statistical data.
No it is factual, the world is much bigger than the place where you live...you do understand that in many places women are still for all intents and purposes considered chattle? You do understand that in many places women cannot vote, cannot leave the house without the permission of a male, are not entitled to travel or leave the country unless accompanied by a related male, are not permitted to drive cars, and can be killed with impunity if they should 'besmirch' the family honour? People who subscribe to this kind of treatment of women far outnumber the radical 'men haters' referred to by the Doom.

Do you find your "." key difficult to use more than every 128 words?
This is relevent how exactly?

Also, why the condesention towards the people who choose the become primary care-givers to their own families?
My comments did not imply (much less) state a condesention towards people who choose to be primary care-givers.

You don't understand. I am not complaining that more women are earning more then man, and that male "housewifes" are starting to appear. In fact, i am glad it happens. I just brought it up to show that women ARE gaining in power/rights/social position. If feminazis don't interfere, by the end of this century, nay, half a century, we should be completely equal.
The main point you appear to try to make is that things will (despite the large group of men who wish to prevent this) become equal without any feminist intervention, and yet feminists despite the intervention of men who would prevent equality, will somehow render men inferior. That doesnt make sense because it seems to me that the advantage is with those who already enjoy political, economic and social advantages and who are a larger group. If that large group of males can be defeated by such a small group of females, perhaps its time to bow out and admit them superior, they would have to be to achieve their agenda given the odds stacked against them, whilst the larger more powerful group trying to prevent equality fails.

I am glad to know that not all feminists are pure sexists who believe themselves to be superior to men. This puts me at great ease compared to what I felt before the thread.
Well to be honest I really do think your fears were out of porportion. When I was younger many boys would insist that girls were all weak and lame, and girls would insist that boys were sexist bullying turds, now I know a few ladies and a few guys who still have that kind of attitude, but they usually sit home alone on a Saturday night, it's not just their own gender that avoids them, male or female, a sexist loud mouth is no fun when you are out at the pub trying to be social. By the time people get to a certain age, most of us know that gender relations need not be a competition and that the world is a richer and more enjoyable place for having more than one gender.

A genuine feminist is only a feminist by extention; basically if you are 'humanist' and specialise in attending to equality for female humans, then you are a feminist, if you wish to enhance the status of females regardless of the status of all other human beings, then you are not a feminist, you are a sexist. So far as a genuine feminist is concerned, if they stray to far one way or another and thier ideas become unsound, reasoning is the best way to address this, so far as the latter group is concerned, reasoning is unlikely to change their mind, but it will prove the flaw in their 'line' much more quickly than calling them 'feminazis' will. Using such terminology will impress the already converted, but do nothing to bring others around to viewing things as you do, it may even influence people to ignore what you are saying. The best way to address unsound reasoning is to overtly address the flaws, not to legitimise the reasoning, by calling the arguer names (insinuating that you have no genunine criticism of the reasoning).

Also, why the condesention towards the people who choose the become primary care-givers to their own families?

my biggest problem with the feminazis

How condescending of you. I suppose you'd consider people who pay strangers to raise their children fully actualized.

Well, considering that I disagree with housewifery as a career, yeah, I'm condescending toward anyone who chooses it as a career. I also don't consider being a maid or a janitor (And a good friend and coworker of mine did janitorical work for most of the time we worked together, I -know- how much a waste of his potential it was) a worthwhile career. A good summer job, maybe, a good get on your feet job... and, of course, I'll never, ever, look down upon someone who NEEDS a job to keep themselves and/or their family going...

But, if you have a choice between living your life with a duster in your hand, or making your SO help with chores so you can both have careers or at least productive hobbies... gah.

And, if you actually know what the word 'wife' means, you'll have realized that I never said a damned thing about raising kids. If your kids are young enough that they need someone to be home with them, then spending more time at home for that purpose is fine with me, though the idea of a 'primary' caregiver makes me gag, unless the situation truly requires it (Such as mummy or daddy does massively important things so the sacrifice of the children's well-being is an acceptable loss). However, when they're off at school, putting around the house picking up socks and tending the garden are really unimpressive ways to live your life. I'm not quite so egotistical to think everyone should -care- what I feel is a worthwhile existance, but certainly, I'm allowed to the subjective opinion that being a maid is a waste if its all you do.

Please, when pouting at someone else's opinion, make sure you've actually read the words in it.

And, if you actually know what the word 'wife' means, you'll have realized that I never said a damned thing about raising kids. If your kids are young enough that they need someone to be home with them, then spending more time at home for that purpose is fine with me, though the idea of a 'primary' caregiver makes me gag, unless the situation truly requires it (Such as mummy or daddy does massively important things so the sacrifice of the children's well-being is an acceptable loss). However, when they're off at school, putting around the house picking up socks and tending the garden are really unimpressive ways to live your life. I'm not quite so egotistical to think everyone should -care- what I feel is a worthwhile existance, but certainly, I'm allowed to the subjective opinion that being a maid is a waste if its all you do.

Please, when pouting at someone else's opinion, make sure you've actually read the words in it.

Then I have misunderstood you and vice-versa. "Housewife" to me includes the most important duty of caring for young children. One parent, most often the mother, takes this role and becomes the primary caregiver while the other works full time. That is the highest calling a human can answer.

Once the children are old enough for school then it is time to move on. I agree completely. It is important, however, for a parent to still be there and available for the children after school and when they are ill. because this can interfere with a career this often leads a mother to pursue part time work, a part-time business, a flexible hours job or volunteer work. (presuming the family has the financial flexibility, of course and the father has a firm hold of his own career)

If she just stays home, reads the karma-sutra and cooks, then yeah, I have a problem with that also. Sorry, same words-different language.

Depending on her job, a woman may not have to take time off at all. And while she *may* choose to stay home, she should never be forced to do so..
Not heard of too many jobs that allow childbirthing in the back room during your break, at least, not in modern industrialized nations. I've also never heard of a woman being 'forced' to stay home in the modern world. For most parents the option of staying home with their children is an attractive one. I suppose there are some people who feel their job is more important than caring for their baby. Of course there are some who don't have the option of staying home at all because of finances. (Though many would be amazed at how little sacrafice it would take to live on one paycheck.)

So, that argument of yours lacks any basis in the real world.


Being a woman in a "traditional male" profession, I can tell you that there is quite a gap. For instance, female engineering professors who have been at a school for equal amounts of time as men are statistically less likely to be tenured or to have been promoted at all. This is also true in engineering firms.

On top of that, those who *have* been promoted have had to do so through much more effort than most men with equal promotions as they had to "prove themselves" equal to men, while men were just expected to do well (and make a few mistakes along the way.

And I'm sure you can back that up with proof more valid than ancedotal evidence? Time on the job is only one factor. Years of experience at another job are also considered. Hire date is meaningless when family leave comes into play - as I mentioned earlier. As far as 'requireing more effort' that sounds good, but you offer nothing to back it up. Without evidence I find your position uncompelling and likely just the rant of someone who feels entitled to more for less through any means.

Not heard of too many jobs that allow childbirthing in the back room during your break, at least, not in modern industrialized nations. I've also never heard of a woman being 'forced' to stay home in the modern world. For most parents the option of staying home with their children is an attractive one. I suppose there are some people who feel their job is more important than caring for their baby. Of course there are some who don't have the option of staying home at all because of finances. (Though many would be amazed at how little sacrafice it would take to live on one paycheck.)

So, that argument of yours lacks any basis in the real world.



And I'm sure you can back that up with proof more valid than ancedotal evidence? Time on the job is only one factor. Years of experience at another job are also considered. Hire date is meaningless when family leave comes into play - as I mentioned earlier. As far as 'requireing more effort' that sounds good, but you offer nothing to back it up. Without evidence I find your position uncompelling and likely just the rant of someone who feels entitled to more for less through any means.

See: Lazy Poor? An Assignment

Except that the discrepancy exists at entry levels, a fact which cannot be explained by pregnancy.
Really? And you know this how? Show me proof. I am calling your bluff. Most of your replies are made with this invalid assumption.


No it doesnt, I've seen figures based on entry level wages/salarys that show that women earn less.
So it should be easy for you to share that and prove it.


Again this does not account for women who have never bred, and never been out of the workforce. I know of cases where women in their 40's who have higher educational levels than their partners, have worked continuously since entering the workforce and are very good at their jobs still earn less than their less well educated spouses. .

And you think ancedotal evidence is valid as stand-alone proof? You think that education alone and time on the job is all that determines income? I know of cases where the man has an Masters degree and the woman only a AA degree and she earns way more than he. He is a school teacher and she is a Real Estate Agent. Does that make it wrong? Of course not. The job itself matters as much as anything else. I outearn many women in my field, many with more education. I am fully commissioned - do you feel they deserver a higher commission rate solely because they have vaginas?



No it is factual, the world is much bigger than the place where you live...you do understand that in many places women are still for all intents and purposes considered chattle? You do understand that in many places women cannot vote, cannot leave the house without the permission of a male, are not entitled to travel or leave the country unless accompanied by a related male, are not permitted to drive cars, and can be killed with impunity if they should 'besmirch' the family honour? People who subscribe to this kind of treatment of women far outnumber the radical 'men haters' referred to by the Doom..

Yes, one such place is Iran. Also Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt. Why is N.O.W. wasting there time here beating dead issues long resolved like 'equal pay' when they could be helping the women who really need it.


This is relevent how exactly?
(related to your 128 run-on sentence)
A run-on sentence is not only difficult to read, it also can imply a rant - senseless raving when emotion overcomes your ability to think clearly.


My comments did not imply (much less) state a condesention towards people who choose to be primary care-givers.
Understood - see my prior post. Same words - different language.


The main point you appear to try to make is that things will (despite the large group of men who wish to prevent this) become equal without any feminist intervention, and yet feminists, despite the intervention of men who would prevent equality, will somehow render men inferior. That doesnt make sense because it seems to me that the advantage is with those who already enjoy political, economic and social advantages and who are a larger group. If that large group of males can be defeated by such a small group of females, perhaps its time to bow out and admit them superior, they would have to be to achieve their agenda given the odds stacked against them, whilst the larger more powerful group trying to prevent equality fails.

Really, tell me more about the male organization that makes N.O.W. pale in scope and scale? Really, because I am a man and I've not heard of this. Is there someplace I can get a membership card?



Well to be honest I really do think your fears were out of porportion. When I was younger many boys would insist that girls were all weak and lame, and girls would insist that boys were sexist bullying turds, now I know a few ladies and a few guys who still have that kind of attitude, but they usually sit home alone on a Saturday night, it's not just their own gender that avoids them, male or female, a sexist loud mouth is no fun when you are out at the pub trying to be social. By the time people get to a certain age, most of us know that gender relations need not be a competition and that the world is a richer and more enjoyable place for having more than one gender.
Personally, I like women more then men. I work in a job where there are 40 women and 3 men in the area. Not bad, eh? My junior partner is a woman. I am not afraid of them or anyone else. I have never said anything here to indicate that. My fears cannot be out of proportion because I have none. (at least in this arena - don't ask me about alligators!) You may find it easier to dismiss me by considering me fearful or even phobic, but it would be incorrect. And I agree, a loudmouth, sexist or otherwise, is about as attractive as an alligator. (yikes!)


A genuine feminist is only a feminist by extention; basically if you are 'humanist' and specialise in attending to equality for female humans, then you are a feminist, if you wish to enhance the status of females regardless of the status of all other human beings, then you are not a feminist, you are a sexist. So far as a genuine feminist is concerned, if they stray to far one way or another and thier ideas become unsound, reasoning is the best way to address this, so far as the latter group is concerned, reasoning is unlikely to change their mind, but it will prove the flaw in their 'line' much more quickly than calling them 'feminazis' will. Using such terminology will impress the already converted, but do nothing to bring others around to viewing things as you do, it may even influence people to ignore what you are saying. The best way to address unsound reasoning is to overtly address the flaws, not to legitimise the reasoning, by calling the arguer names (insinuating that you have no genunine criticism of the reasoning).

If yo like I can point out the many flaws in the N.O.W. platform. It would be a lengthy post. They regularly ignore and trample 50% of the humans in 'humanist' in their female-supremasist agenda. They also trample many women who disagree with their agenda. Ifeminist has called them on it on many occasions. you should check them out.

There is also a funny book called "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell Ph.D., a former N.O.W. executive. The first part of the book is compelling, but the last part is utter garbage. (He goes waaaay too far, even for me)

Challenge your ideals.

See: Lazy Poor? An Assignment
Been there, done that. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

As previously mentioned, there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence each year. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault. Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime.

Given that reality just how important is this mythical "female-supremacist agenda?" Just who is the aggressor in this "war of the sexes?" How many people have been beaten, raped, or killed by these so-called "feminazis?"

As previously mentioned, there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence each year. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault. Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime.

Given that reality just how important is this mythical "female-supremacist agenda?" Just who is the aggressor in this "war of the sexes?" How many people have been beaten, raped, or killed by these so-called "feminazis?"
So I see being a “feminazi” is being a direct counter to rape … wow so you mean we cant disagree with their tactics just because of what they are opposing?

New info to me kind of leads to a “ends justify the means” sort of mentality me thinks

But maybe I am misreading it … I detest rape but I don’t like some of their methods either.

Oh well I am going to keep treating women the best way I can and blow off the idiot fringe just like I have been doing

No, he just believed that women and men should have different roles in society. Not that I agree with him, but he doesn't want women to have less rights than men.


The idea that one's role in society should be determined by gender is SEXISM.

Really? And you know this how? Show me proof. I am calling your bluff. Most of your replies are made with this invalid assumption.


So it should be easy for you to share that and prove it.
Actually my reply is not based on this point at all, you have side tracked yourself. My point is that the group who do not wish for women to have equality has more economic power than the group who wish to render men inferior. Whether or not the economic status reflects actual productivity is actually not relevent to the issue.

And you think ancedotal evidence is valid as stand-alone proof? You think that education alone and time on the job is all that determines income? I know of cases where the man has an Masters degree and the woman only a AA degree and she earns way more than he. He is a school teacher and she is a Real Estate Agent. Does that make it wrong? Of course not. The job itself matters as much as anything else. I outearn many women in my field, many with more education. I am fully commissioned - do you feel they deserver a higher commission rate solely because they have vaginas?
I'm not sure why you imagine I'm intent on proving any point. Anectodal evidence evidences the possible, but gives not indication as to rate of occurance. I simply contend that other factors than productivity determine earning potential. In fact this should be obvious to anyone who has considered the work/contribution/productivity and compensation of a fireman vs the work/contribution/productivity and compensation of Britney Spears...

Yes, one such place is Iran. Also Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt. Why is N.O.W. wasting there time here beating dead issues long resolved like 'equal pay' when they could be helping the women who really need it.
I wouldnt have a clue, in fact N.O.W. have so spectacularily failed to make any impression on me and my perspective, I actually dont even know or care who they are...which is my point really. I know of atrocities that happen to females simply for being females, I dont know of equal numbers of similar happenstances with regards to men, I know of complete lack of human rights occuring simply because a person is a female, I'm not aware of an equal happenstance with males. The chances of men being subjucated is limited, because very few people relative to world population want that and men are not on a large scale economically, socially and politically helpless. When it comes to women being subjucated, chances dont come into it, it's an empiracal fact, it's happening right now. Many of the conditions that promote and facilitate the inferiority of women simply are not applicable with regards to men.

(related to your 128 run-on sentence)
A run-on sentence is not only difficult to read, it also can imply a rant - senseless raving when emotion overcomes your ability to think clearly.
I doubt a run-on sentence should be too much of a challenge given the variety of spelling and grammatical stylings employed by posters on this board. I suggest that senseless side tracking with pointless comments about grammatical presentation implies an inability to focus.

Understood - see my prior post. Same words - different language.
The meaning of my words doesnt change just because you choose to infer something not stated or implied.

Really, tell me more about the male organization that makes N.O.W. pale in scope and scale? Really, because I am a man and I've not heard of this. Is there someplace I can get a membership card?
Heard of the Teliban, the State of Saudi Arabia, entire nations based on Sharia law... ? I've never even heard of N.O.W., but I suggest most people have heard of the Teliban, and I suspect they alone have had more effect on peoples' lives than all the extreme anti-male sexists in the world combined...


Personally, I like women more then men. I work in a job where there are 40 women and 3 men in the area. Not bad, eh? My junior partner is a woman. I am not afraid of them or anyone else.
I'm not sure why then you take issue with my comments, my point is that some small group of sexist anti male extremists are not about to take over the world. They are vastly outnumbered by people who have no wish to see any such thing happen, including a rather large group who hold a view that women should not have equality.

I have never said anything here to indicate that. My fears cannot be out of proportion because I have none. (at least in this arena - don't ask me about alligators!) You may find it easier to dismiss me by considering me fearful or even phobic, but it would be incorrect. And I agree, a loudmouth, sexist or otherwise, is about as attractive as an alligator. (yikes!)
I think you'll find that it is Doom777 and a few others who have fears, and my original comments were directed at those fears. I just dont believe that there is any good reason to believe that men will be subjucated by women.

If yo like I can point out the many flaws in the N.O.W. platform. It would be a lengthy post. They regularly ignore and trample 50% of the humans in 'humanist' in their female-supremasist agenda. They also trample many women who disagree with their agenda. Ifeminist has called them on it on many occasions. you should check them out.
What has this got to do with my comments? If they dont respect human rights then they dont interest me, and they cant legitimately be called humanist either.

There is also a funny book called "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell Ph.D., a former N.O.W. executive. The first part of the book is compelling, but the last part is utter garbage. (He goes waaaay too far, even for me)

Challenge your ideals.
Which ideals?

I have learned much so far from this thread. I am glad to know that not all feminists are pure sexists who believe themselves to be superior to men. This puts me at great ease compared to what I felt before the thread.

Isn't it amazing what you can learn when you aren't spouting off illiterate bigotry?

As previously mentioned, there are 87,000 rapes, 91,000 sexual assualts, and 700,000 victims of domestic violence each year. In the past 25 years 57,000 people were killed through domestic assault. Overwhelmingly these people are women. In fact, statistically, about 15% of American women will be raped in their lifetime.

Given that reality just how important is this mythical "female-supremacist agenda?" Just who is the aggressor in this "war of the sexes?" How many people have been beaten, raped, or killed by these so-called "feminazis?"

I thought this deserved a second posting.

The chances of men being subjucated is limited, because very few people relative to world population want that and men are not on a large scale economically, socially and politically helpless. When it comes to women being subjucated, chances dont come into it, it's an empiracal fact, it's happening right now. Many of the conditions that promote and facilitate the inferiority of women simply are not applicable with regards to men.

Explain what you mean by "not applicable", give examples. There are pleanty of men who are economically helpless, they are called the poor, funnily enough not all men are working on huge saleries. Social and politics aren't issues where I come from (we have a female Prime Minister), they are in some parts of the world but we've seen what happens when you try to force something on the middle east.


Heard of the Teliban, the State of Saudi Arabia, entire nations based on Sharia law... ? I've never even heard of N.O.W., but I suggest most people have heard of the Teliban, and I suspect they alone have had more effect on peoples' lives than all the extreme anti-male sexists in the world combined...

There are some horrible people in power. The Teliban hasn't had a great effect on me, they have killed a lot of people, so have the Americans and their allies (setting up a nice cycle of violence while they were at it). As I have previously stated it is not our job to judge them, we may think ourselves more wisened than them but in morality all that exists is oppinion. The people in power in those countries do what they see fit, you may think "What is he nuts, all inteligent people know that this is how things should be" but thats probably what they think too. Are you the first person to ever stumble apon the absolute perfect beliefs?


I think you'll find that it is Doom777 and a few others who have fears, and my original comments were directed at those fears. I just dont believe that there is any good reason to believe that men will be subjucated by women.

I sure hope that i'm not included in there.

There are some horrible people in power. The Teliban hasn't had a great effect on me, they have killed a lot of people

When they came to arrest the Jews, I did not say anything, because I was not Jewish.
When they came to arrest the communists, I did not say anything, because I was not a communist.
When they came to arrest the homosexuals, I did not say anything, because I was not homosexual.
When they came to arrest me, nobody was left to speak for me.

When they came to arrest the Jews, I did not say anything, because I was not Jewish.
When they came to arrest the communists, I did not say anything, because I was not a communist.
When they came to arrest the homosexuals, I did not say anything, because I was not homosexual.
When they came to arrest me, nobody was left to speak for me.

In my honest oppinion, I think the American government started it(to risk sounding like a little child).

Explain what you mean by "not applicable", give examples. There are pleanty of men who are economically helpless, they are called the poor, funnily enough not all men are working on huge saleries. Social and politics aren't issues where I come from (we have a female Prime Minister), they are in some parts of the world but we've seen what happens when you try to force something on the middle east.
What I mean is not being allowed to own property, not having any rights to freedom of movement, freedom from physical coercion, no right to vote, no legal redress etc.


There are some horrible people in power. The Teliban hasn't had a great effect on me, they have killed a lot of people, so have the Americans and their allies (setting up a nice cycle of violence while they were at it). As I have previously stated it is not our job to judge them, we may think ourselves more wisened than them but in morality all that exists is oppinion. The people in power in those countries do what they see fit, you may think "What is he nuts, all inteligent people know that this is how things should be" but thats probably what they think too. Are you the first person to ever stumble apon the absolute perfect beliefs?
Your comments are irrelevent to the point I was making. I'm not sure how to say this any more simply, but all I am saying is that men are not about to loose the right to have careers or to leave their home without the permission of a related female, they are not about to loose the right to vote, they are not about to loose the right to own property, they are not about to be subjugated even if there are some radical sexist nutters out there who might wish that it would happen.

I sure hope that i'm not included in there.
Well if you are worried that men are about to be subjugated as a result of some far out fringe mutterers, however loud and obnoxious they may be, then yes my invitation to 'not worry about it' extends to you, if however you realistically can see that it's about as likely as ET arriving in your backyard in the next few hours, wanting to borrow your phone, then how can you be included. My point is simply that a small group of sexist man hating zealots are not going to succeed in subjugating men, nor in intering all men in sperm farms, nordoing away with male-kind through the miracles of cloning. It might make an interesting sci-fi or fantasy novel, but in the real world too many pre-conditions make it unlikely and too few factors facilitate in favour of it.

What I mean is not being allowed to own property, not having any rights to freedom of movement, freedom from physical coercion, no right to vote, no legal redress etc.

Agreed, although the world is steadily improving.


Your comments are irrelevent to the point I was making. I'm not sure how to say this any more simply, but all I am saying is that men are not about to loose the right to have careers or to leave their home without the permission of a related female, they are not about to loose the right to vote, they are not about to loose the right to own property, they are not about to be subjugated even if there are some radical sexist nutters out there who might wish that it would happen.

Dont speak to me as if I am stupid, I was just pointing out that people believe different things and it is not our place to think we are all knowing. Apart from that agreed.

Well if you are worried that men are about to be subjugated as a result of some far out fringe mutterers, however loud and obnoxious they may be, then yes my invitation to 'not worry about it' extends to you, if however you realistically can see that it's about as likely as ET arriving in your backyard in the next few hours, wanting to borrow your phone, then how can you be included. My point is simply that a small group of sexist man hating zealots are not going to succeed in subjugating men, nor in intering all men in sperm farms, not genetically doing away with men through the miracles of cloning. It might make an interesting sci-fi or fantasy novel, but in the real world too many pre-conditions make it unlikely and too few factors facilitate in favour of it.

ET came last night so he wont be back for another coupple of months.

In my honest oppinion, I think the American government started it(to risk sounding like a little child).
? When did I imply that everything the US Gov. did was perfect? However, we are nowhere near the point of mass arrests and unlimited jailings for non-criminal groups of people, barring victimless drug users.

? When did I imply that everything the US Gov. did was perfect? However, we are nowhere near the point of mass arrests and unlimited jailings for non-criminal groups of people, barring victimless drug users.

Trade and aid stoped from entering the middle east by the US government has killed more people than the terrorists ever have.

Agreed, although the world is steadily improving.




Dont speak to me as if I am stupid, I was just pointing out that people believe different things and it is not our place to think we are all knowing. Apart from that agreed.
I'm not trying to imply that you are stupid, the fact that I've being trying to make the same point for several posts, and more than one poster appears to have interpreted my post other than how I intended, kind of implies more about my communication skills than it does your intelligence. I'm just trying to make my point overt enough so it doesnt continue to be misconstrued and that point is simply that I dont see a few radical anti-male sexists posing as, (or convinced they are) feminists, succeeding in making men inferior class citizens...

I just dont think it's going to happen...


ET came last night so he wont be back for another coupple of months.
err, then again I didnt predict that one either..... :eek:

Trade and aid stoped from entering the middle east by the US government has killed more people than the terrorists ever have.
Ah yes, just like the trade and aid going to N Korea ends up in the hands of it's citizens. We have seen what happens many times with trade and aid. Unless it is extremely backed with the threat of force it doesn't get to the people it needs to go to. Quite a bit of the aid that goes to africa in the form of foo and money ends up being appropriated by various self-serving groups. And in the case of Zimbabwe and the S african region is directly encouraged by the Belgian company DeBeers.

Unless it is extremely backed with the threat of force it doesn't get to the people it needs to go to.
Sweeping statements. Gotta love 'em.

Ah yes, just like the trade and aid going to N Korea ends up in the hands of it's citizens. We have seen what happens many times with trade and aid. Unless it is extremely backed with the threat of force it doesn't get to the people it needs to go to. Quite a bit of the aid that goes to africa in the form of foo and money ends up being appropriated by various self-serving groups. And in the case of Zimbabwe and the S african region is directly encouraged by the Belgian company DeBeers.

It doesnt always get to where its needed. But is it any better sitting somewhere in the US cause it cant be sent where it _might_ do some good?

err, then again I didnt predict that one either..... :eek:

Dont worry, most people wouldnt.

Sweeping statements. Gotta love 'em.
Oh I'm sorry. The majority doesn't get where it's supposed to go. Happy?