NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh I'm sorry. The majority doesn't get where it's supposed to go. Happy?
Ecstatic.

Not all aid is governmental either. In fact, most isn't.

Oh I'm sorry. The majority doesn't get where it's supposed to go. Happy?

But the people who could be saved aren't worth it in relation to how much it helps people the US doesn't support?

But the people who could be saved aren't worth it in relation to how much it helps people the US doesn't support?
Generally I think Governments should stick to diplomacy. Aid providers should be independent.

Ecstatic.

Not all aid is governmental either. In fact, most isn't.
This is true, but except for the NK bit, I did not specify gov. aid. All aid goes this path, the major exception being foreign(American or European, or Australian/NZ) missionaries who distribute it directly. It certainly didn't work with Saddam.

This is true, but except for the NK bit, I did not specify gov. aid. All aid goes this path, the major exception being foreign(American or European, or Australian/NZ) missionaries who distribute it directly. It certainly didn't work with Saddam.

Its worth trying. Deliberatly stoping aid breeds hate which leads to the "terrorists". Its past midnight here, im going to sleep, goodnight all.

This is true, but except for the NK bit, I did not specify gov. aid. All aid goes this path, the major exception being foreign(American or European, or Australian/NZ) missionaries who distribute it directly. It certainly didn't work with Saddam.
All aid goes what path? And why would Christian NGOs, and only Christian NGOs, be exempt? Aid doesn't only take the form of material donations.

Its worth trying. Deliberatly stoping aid breeds hate which leads to the "terrorists". Its past midnight here, im going to sleep, goodnight all.
Nighty night.

Nighty night.

Hey cool 50 posts, yay me.

Good night.

Hey cool 50 posts, yay me.

Good night.
I won't comment on how sad that makes me look.

All aid goes what path? And why would Christian NGOs, and only Christian NGOs, be exempt? Aid doesn't only take the form of material donations.
Because of percieved threat of force. If groups were to start unilaterally attacking and ripping off the missionaries there would be a very very nasty response from the West.

Because of percieved threat of force. If groups were to start unilaterally attacking and ripping off the missionaries there would be a very very nasty response from the West.
That doesn't answer the question - what path are you talking about when you say that all aid, except missionary aid, goes the same path?

Its worth trying. Deliberatly stoping aid breeds hate which leads to the "terrorists". Its past midnight here, im going to sleep, goodnight all.
Actually your economic status has little to do with your affinity for terrorism. This was looked at by a Harvard prof. who is quite left wing and went into the study expecting a link between being poor and being a terrorist. Instead he found that the only real correlation was if a country is on either the free end of the scale or the extremely authoritarian end of the scale there was a very low amount of terrorists and if a country was in between the two extremes the amount of terrorist produced rose sharply.

That doesn't answer the question - what path are you talking about when you say that all aid, except missionary aid, goes the same path?
Most aid is meant to go directly to the general population of where ever it's given. Unless the distribution of said aid is pretty much directly supervised it quite often gets appropriated by other groups.

Most aid is meant to go directly to the general population of where ever it's given. Unless the distribution of said aid is pretty much directly supervised it quite often gets appropriated by other groups.
That's such a gross generalisation, there's little point answering it.

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?"
Well, 895,432 males were castrated last year by feminists - 94,321 men were forced into domestic servitude, 23,432,100 men died younger than their spouses, 190,000 men were poisoned by their spouses, 721,000 men were prevented from going to a titty-bar by women.

See, you're not the only one who can make up numbers.

Well, 895,432 males were castrated last year by feminists - 94,321 men were forced into domestic servitude, 23,432,100 men died younger than their spouses, 190,000 men were poisoned by their spouses, 721,000 men were prevented from going to a titty-bar by women.

See, you're not the only one who can make up numbers.
Lol I like your choice of “restrictions” lol

May not agree with one side or the other on the overall topic but I was going to call him on citing his sources before … you just did it in a much more colorful way

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? Have you ever looked at the statistics of US citizens (that is, legal residents) who are in homeless shelters, living on the streets, or otherwise well below "poverty" conditions? There's plenty of places where the food & aid could be sent to do some good - but the government would apparently rather go for political favor in pissant 3rd world nations, knowing the supplies dont get where they claim they should be going, rather than helping out their own people at home.

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.
You made the claim that young women get paid less than young men in entry-level positions. You made the point several times. I called your bluff and still do - provide evidence. You have not only failed to back up your assertation, you have sidestepped the issue. You've attempted to change the discussion from domestic to international, bringing places into the discussion which do not even have a women's movement. Nice try, but I'm still calling you on 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.

You really should. Regardless of their current validity thay have defined feminism in America for decades. I really see little point of continuing this discussion with someone who knows so little about feminism.


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.
They are called 'grammar Nazis' and you would have difficuly calling me one. I only mentioned it because you pressed.


The meaning of my words doesnt change just because you choose to infer something not stated or implied.
Step off. I acknowladged that already.


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...


Dodge!


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.
Still dodging. You are now avoiding any discussion of the liberal feminists movement and instead trying to move to the politics and culture of the middle east.



Which ideals?
All of them.

Have you ever looked at the statistics of US citizens (that is, legal residents) who are in homeless shelters, living on the streets, or otherwise well below "poverty" conditions? There's plenty of places where the food & aid could be sent to do some good - but the government would apparently rather go for political favor in pissant 3rd world nations, knowing the supplies dont get where they claim they should be going, rather than helping out their own people at home.
Right, and just look at all that money being wasted on Aids and cancer research. They should be buying sandwiches in the ghetto!

Well, 895,432 males were castrated last year by feminists - 94,321 men were forced into domestic servitude, 23,432,100 men died younger than their spouses, 190,000 men were poisoned by their spouses, 721,000 men were prevented from going to a titty-bar by women.

See, you're not the only one who can make up numbers.
...I was going to call him on citing his sources before … you just did it in a much more colorful way

Of course, the difference is that I didn't make up numbers, but rather reported facts that are documented and easily verifiable.

United States Department of Justice

"Data reported by OJP’s Bureau of Justice Statistics show that almost 700,000 incidents of domestic violence are documented each year. FBI data further show that in the last 25 years almost 57,000 individuals have been killed in domestic violence situations."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/press/agrelease102002.htm

RAINN (The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network)

In 2002, there were 247,730 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. [2002 NCVS]

Of these approximately 248,000 victims, about 87,000 were victims of completed rape, 70,000 were victims of attempted rape, and 91,000 were victims of sexual assault. [2002 NCVS]

Up to 4,315 pregnancies may have resulted from these attacks. [RAINN calculation based on 2002 NCVS and medical reports]

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

As you already said, your statistics are made up.

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

You have misunderstood completely. I am not justifying any behavior. In fact I think all this "feminazi" talk is blown so far out of proportion as to constitute an urban myth. Just who are these "feminazis?" Where can we read their über-woman manifesto? What are the tangible results of their agenda?

So a couple of people have encountered rude women.

Whoop-dee-do.

Does that constitutes a national movement?

Rape and domestic abuse, on the other hand, are very real, and unlike so-called "feminazis," documented and verifiable. If there is a victim in the war of the sexes, it is not some poor misunderstood chivalrous man berated by legions of man-hating "feminazis" for holding a door, but rather the hundreds of thousands of women who are beaten, abused, and raped each and every year.

Of course, the difference is that I didn't make up numbers, but rather reported facts that are documented and easily verifiable.

United States Department of Justice

"Data reported by OJP’s Bureau of Justice Statistics show that almost 700,000 incidents of domestic violence are documented each year. FBI data further show that in the last 25 years almost 57,000 individuals have been killed in domestic violence situations."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/press/agrelease102002.htm


And the part about them being disproportionatly women? Also, incidents is not the same as victims. Unmentioned by you is the fact that cases of abuse against men are reported with considerably less frequency.


RAINN (The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network)

In 2002, there were 247,730 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. [2002 NCVS]

Of these approximately 248,000 victims, about 87,000 were victims of completed rape, 70,000 were victims of attempted rape, and 91,000 were victims of sexual assault. [2002 NCVS]

Up to 4,315 pregnancies may have resulted from these attacks. [RAINN calculation based on 2002 NCVS and medical reports]

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

As you already said, your statistics are made up.
Good data. Don't forget to mention the parts where incidents of rape are not up, but the reporting of rape is. Also don't forget the part about the low reporting rate among male victims.

76% of murder victims are male. Why are these victims ignored? Why the emphasis on women victims only when men are more likely to be victims?

Worth noting is the broad expansion of the definition of rape over the last few daceades while the occurrance of rape has not increased proportionate to that.


How many people have been beaten, raped, or killed by these so-called "feminazis?"
So there won't be sexual equality until women and men murder and rape with the same frequency?

And the part about them being disproportionatly women? Also, incidents is not the same as victims. Unmentioned by you is the fact that cases of abuse against men are reported with considerably less frequency.

Good data. Don't forget to mention the parts where incidents of rape are not up, but the reporting of rape is. Also don't forget the part about the low reporting rate among male victims.

76% of murder victims are male. Why are these victims ignored? Why the emphasis on women victims only when men are more likely to be victims?

Wort noting is the broad expansion of the definition of rape over the last few daceades while the occurrance of rape has not increased proportionate to that.

So there won't be sexual equality until women and men murder and rape with the same frequency?

Are you demented? Yes, 76% of murder victims are men - and an even larger percentage of killers are men, as well (88%). Are you deliberately missing my point? The issue is not that incidents of rape are up or down or that the definition of rape may have changed, and certainly it has nothing to do with women committing crimes on par with men.

My point is that this whole thread, in which insecure men and self-hating women tear down women and feminists with stories of mythical "feminazis," IS STUPID!!! Especially when it is women who continue to be victimized by men, not the other way around.

ba-bump

Are you demented? Yes, 76% of murder victims are men - and an even larger percentage of killers are men, as well (88%). Are you deliberately missing my point? The issue is not that incidents of rape are up or down or that the definition of rape may have changed, and certainly it has nothing to do with women committing crimes on par with men.

My point is that this whole thread, in which insecure men and self-hating women tear down women and feminists with stories of mythical "feminazis," IS STUPID!!! Especially when it is women who continue to be victimized by men, not the other way around.

If it is so stupid why are you still here after 30+ pages.

ba-bump

Interesting way to prove my point.

Have you ever looked at the statistics of US citizens (that is, legal residents) who are in homeless shelters, living on the streets, or otherwise well below "poverty" conditions? There's plenty of places where the food & aid could be sent to do some good - but the government would apparently rather go for political favor in pissant 3rd world nations, knowing the supplies dont get where they claim they should be going, rather than helping out their own people at home.

The problem is aid given by non-governmental sources isn't being let through. America gave up any chance of being in ANYONES good favor.

If it is so stupid why are you still here after 30+ pages.

What can I say? I like to argue.

Not heard of too many jobs that allow childbirthing in the back room during your break, at least, not in modern industrialized nations.

However, if your pregnancy is planned so that you give birth during a holiday, you are fine. And if you onlly take off to actually give birth - you can use normal sick leave for that.

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.

Read that paragraph. You are *incredibly* condescending towards anyone who doesn't make the choice that you think is "proper," thus providing a societal push that attempts to force women to stay home after giving birth.

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

No, it really doesn't.

And I'm sure you can back that up with proof more valid than ancedotal evidence?

Effort on the job is not exactly something that can be studied. I know the women engineers I have spoken to - I know the numbers - I know that **many** women in these jobs never even have children, so your argument is useless.

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.

Which demonstrates your sexism right off the bat. I don't think that *anyone* should get *anything* without hard work for it. However, it is a fact that women in traditionally male jobs tend to get the shaft - being worked harder with less chance of promotion *even if they never have children*. This problem is slowly being worked out, but is not yet completely gone.

If there is a victim in the war of the sexes, it is not some poor misunderstood chivalrous man berated by legions of man-hating "feminazis" for holding a door, but rather the hundreds of thousands of women who are beaten, abused, and raped each and every year.

"Rape is the crime all men use to subjugate all women".

Does anyone genuinely believe this crap any more? If you do not except the idea of a feminazi agenda, surely you must have the same difficulty believing in some enormous male gender conspiracy to enslave women through fear?

Please - this is as insulting and, er... SEXIST as the day it was first written.

"Rape is the crime all men use to subjugate all women".

Does anyone genuinely believe this crap any more? If you do not except the idea of a feminazi agenda, surely you must have the same difficulty believing in some enormous male gender conspiracy to enslave women through fear?

Please - this is as insulting and, er... SEXIST as the day it was first written.

Your post, including a quote I never referenced or endorsed, bears no resemblance to what I have said, so I have no comment to make.

You are setting up a straw man, so have fun knocking it down.

Effort on the job is not exactly something that can be studied. I know the women engineers I have spoken to - I know the numbers - I know that **many** women in these jobs never even have children, so your argument is useless.

Feelings of being unfairly treated means nothing, everyone who sees other people acomplishing things they are not try to find a reason.


Which demonstrates your sexism right off the bat. I don't think that *anyone* should get *anything* without hard work for it. However, it is a fact that women in traditionally male jobs tend to get the shaft - being worked harder with less chance of promotion *even if they never have children*. This problem is slowly being worked out, but is not yet completely gone.

Maybe you would get paid more if you didn't spend all your time on an online forum? Joking aside there is a wage gap but it's closing, no further actions need to be taken.

Your post, including a quote I never referenced or endorsed, bears no resemblance to what I have said, so I have no comment to make.

You are setting up a straw man, so have fun knocking it down.

1) You still made a comment.
2) No comment is a comment.
3) Never underestimate the fun involved in beating a straw man.

Feelings of being unfairly treated means nothing, everyone who sees other people acomplishing things they are not try to find a reason.

When the statistics back you up and *every* woman I have spoken to in the profession feels this way, I don't think it can be chalked up to a martyr complex.

Joking aside there is a wage gap but it's closing, no further actions need to be taken.

Funny, that's exactly what I said.

Well, 895,432 males were castrated last year by feminists - 94,321 men were forced into domestic servitude, 23,432,100 men died younger than their spouses, 190,000 men were poisoned by their spouses, 721,000 men were prevented from going to a titty-bar by women.

See, you're not the only one who can make up numbers.
Actually their stats were pretty dead on.


The wage gap is currently at about 95 cents on the dollar for women vs. men if you break pay down by class of job. The promotion problem still exists largely because the higher up in a company you get the older the management gets. As such they hold views from the past. In 2-3 generations the promotion problem will be largely extinguished.

The idea that one's role in society should be determined by gender is SEXISM.
sex·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.
1)Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2)Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Maybe, maybe not. That is shaky.


Isn't it amazing what you can learn when you aren't spouting off illiterate bigotry?
Show me how I am illiterate OR a bigot?

Well, 895,432 males were castrated last year by feminists - 94,321 men were forced into domestic servitude, 23,432,100 men died younger than their spouses, 190,000 men were poisoned by their spouses, 721,000 men were prevented from going to a titty-bar by women.

See, you're not the only one who can make up numbers
For a few seconds, i though that was real. Damn, that would have been such a good argument against feminazism :(

Also don't forget the part about the low reporting rate among male victims.
Yep. If I was raped by a woman, that would make my day, cause guess what, i got laid.
If I was raped by a guy, then I would never admit that to anyone.

1) You still made a comment.
2) No comment is a comment.
3) Never underestimate the fun involved in beating a straw man.
You need some sleep, man.

When the statistics back you up and *every* woman I have spoken to in the profession feels this way, I don't think it can be chalked up to a martyr complex.
Every? Reread all of the posts in this thread, and your statement now becomes invalid.

Every? Reread all of the posts in this thread, and your statement now becomes invalid.

How many female engineers have posted?

How many that have been in the profession longer than a year or two?

How many female engineers have posted?

How many that have been in the profession longer than a year or two?
Are we talking purely mechanical engineering?

sex·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.
1)Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2)Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.


Its funny when a deffinition of sexism is sexist.

Yep. If I was raped by a woman, that would make my day.
If I was raped by a guy, then I would never admit that to anyone.


If I was raped by a woman I would actualy be pissed off. If I was raped by a guy I would be reaching for a crowbar (gotta love half-life 2 and all the lessons it teaches us).

You need some sleep, man.

Its 1pm here (New Zealand). My utter lack of sensibility is probably cause I've just had exams and need to release a little bit of crazyness.

Are we talking purely mechanical engineering?

I have seen it in mechanical, electrical, and environmental engineering.

Bioengineering to a lesser, but still somewhat present extent.

And as time goes on, it becomes less and less prevalent - which is why I asked how many female engineers that have actually been in the profession for a while have posted.

Its funny when a deffinition of sexism is sexist.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I just found it mildly amusing that a definition of sexism included "expecialy against women"

I just found it mildly amusing that a definition of sexism included "expecialy against women"

It is amusing, but doesn't mean that the meaning of the word is actually sexist, only that it has historically been used *much* more often to refer to discrimination against women.

It is amusing, but doesn't mean that the meaning of the word is actually sexist, only that it has historically been used *much* more often to refer to discrimination against women.

I agree, but should it be like that? Blacks cant be racists sort of thing?

I agree, but should it be like that? Blacks cant be racists sort of thing?

I never said it *should* be that way, nor does it being in the dictionary necessarily mean that it is. It simply means that it has been used that way the most often. This fact is partially because most sexism/racism *is* directed at certain groups. After a while, people who don't understand language start thinking that is the *only* definition.

I agree, but should it be like that? Blacks cant be racists sort of thing?

It's an acknowledgement of reality. If we talk about rape or domestic abuse, it is generally women who are the victim, although, yes, men are a minority of those victimized as well. Or using the pronoun "he" to describe football players. Yes, there are women who play football (although not at a professional level), but mostly it is men we are referring to.

Same with sexism. There are relatively few examples of men being the recipients of sexism, which is not to say it never happens.

You are letting political correctness override reality.

It's an acknowledgement of reality. If we talk about rape or domestic abuse, it is generally women who are the victim, although, yes, men are a minority of those victimized as well. Or using the pronoun "he" to describe football players. Yes, there are women who play football (although not at a professional level), but mostly it is men we are referring to.

Same with sexism. There are relatively few examples of men being the recipients of sexism, which is not to say it never happens.

You are letting political correctness override reality.

Who really cares if they use "he" instead of "he or she" or even worse "it". Does it really make that bigger difference. Do you honestly believe that rape is a massive male conspiracy to supress the females of the world? Or are you saying that men are more abusive than women?

Who really cares if they use "he" instead of "he or she" or even worse "it". Does it really make that bigger difference. Do you honestly believe that rape is a massive male conspiracy to supress the females of the world? Or are you saying that men are more abusive than women?

I'm not saying any of those things. Why would you jump to such wild conclusions?

I'm not saying any of those things. Why would you jump to such wild conclusions?

Im emotionaly unbalanced ;) . There are pleanty of sexist acts against males, custody of children being a prime example. There is nothing fair about how custody of children works out. Its an uphill battle for men at best.

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?

Still, you make no sense. :mad:

What I said before, at least the thanking you was totally tough in cheak... you know, humor...

I guess people aren't used to feminists being funny either.

Another good example was the draft. I know its a doubble edged blade because women couldn't enter the military but does anyone actualy want to be drafted?

If feminism equates equality of women with men then everyone with political influence should be a feminist nowadays. Why is the term derrogatory, to some? It is for the reason that the feminists of today pounce upon issues of mundane importance and the slightest form of assumed sexual preference. Where are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott-esque feminists? They are the ones who are at least tolerably satisfied with the conditions of women in this day and age. Feminism exists today only to beat a long-dead horse to see if it can still plow. The wage gap is, no doubt, a reminder that democracy is not perfect. Society today is correcting this on its own, without the help of feminist firebrands. People in the generality today have no desire to sbjugate the female half, but everything can't come at once. If females demanded no difference from males today, they would have to undergo the same terms of military service as males, the same sports leagues and the same standards. My point is, feminists must understand that with "power comes responsibility." If females deserve exactly the same treatment as men, then they have no less obligation to get the restaurant check, hold open the door, and find a job to support the family than males do.

If females demanded no difference from males today, they would have to undergo the same terms of military service as males, the same sports leagues and the same standards. My point is, feminists must understand that with "power comes responsibility." If females deserve exactly the same treatment as men, then they have no less obligation to get the restaurant check, hold open the door, and find a job to support the family than males do.

I agree. And we females ought to have these responsibilities.

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.

First of all, gender equality has NOTHING to do with the economic disaster that forces BOTH parents into the workforce and leaving their offspring without one or the other parent's supervision.

Gender equality has NOTHING to do with laziness or exhaustion on BOTH parents' parts in making decent meals for the family to eat and resorting to fast garbage-food.

SOME men are HAPPY to choose the domestic route of caring for home and children while the wife works and acts as provider. That is, when they're not being made to feel less manly by ignorant wanks who don't know any better.

Children don't need female attention and nurturing over male, they just need the attention and nurturing. A man can cuddle, hold, reassure, teach and give affection every bit as well as a woman.

Your arguements are chauvenistic to the extreme, and insulting to both men AND women in their implications. Just because YOUR lame butt doesn't want to cook, clean and look after the offspring doesn't mean that all males feel this way.

In two-provider families, BOTH partners should be performing the domestic duties rather than letting the house go to the dogs and the children go to the TV/internet while getting fat and sickly on fast food. But it doesn't sound like in your world that's how it works. Sounds more like you're a supporter of the "if the woman doesn't do it all, it doesn't get done" school of thinking. Good luck finding and keeping a mate.

the same sports leagues

Women aren't equal to men generally in physicallity. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of girls who are athletic and could easily kick my ass, but you gotta admit males have an obvious advantage in contact sports like football, and there's really no way a professioanl football league comprised of women can be competitive with the male league.

But just for about everything else like tenis, golf, basketball, and yes I think women could make NBA quality players. I just think the pool of female players is smaller than the male pool of players nationally because of society. More boys play basketball than girls, right? That might explain why the WNBA sucks.

How many female engineers have posted?

How many that have been in the profession longer than a year or two?

Spent half a decade in network engineering. Not sure if that's the engineering you were looking for. And the pay difference is much bigger than 95 cents on the dollar. Try 65 to 75 cents on the dollar and you're much closer to the mark for the late 90s. Try having to take short term disability plans in lieu of maternity leave with most employers in states with very liberal policies that include spousal equivalents for getting insurance. Try being treated like a rank amateur by customers and male coworkers alike even when being more qualified than male peers who receive respectful, preferential and deferential treatment by both customer and employer.

If you can put yourself in THOSE shoes, you know what it is to be a female network engineer working for large, well-established ISPs in the states of Virginia and Maryland, and in the District of Columbia.

This is my direct experience AND my direct observation of other female workers in the network engineering field. Bear in mind, these companies all had NDAs that prohibited comparing payscale... but even management are chatty little scamps at lunch after a beer and everyone knows the deal here. Just not a thing you can do about it legally.

Another good example was the draft. I know its a doubble edged blade because women couldn't enter the military but does anyone actualy want to be drafted?

I don't want to be drafted. However, I do not wish to receive special treatment above and beyond a man. Thus, as he has to register for selective service, I believe I should be required to as well.

Spent half a decade in network engineering. Not sure if that's the engineering you were looking for. And the pay difference is much bigger than 95 cents on the dollar. Try 65 to 75 cents on the dollar and you're much closer to the mark for the late 90s. Try having to take short term disability plans in lieu of maternity leave with most employers in states with very liberal policies that include spousal equivalents for getting insurance. Try being treated like a rank amateur by customers and male coworkers alike even when being more qualified than male peers who receive respectful, preferential and deferential treatment by both customer and employer.

If you can put yourself in THOSE shoes, you know what it is to be a female network engineer working for large, well-established ISPs in the states of Virginia and Maryland, and in the District of Columbia.

This is my direct experience AND my direct observation of other female workers in the network engineering field. Bear in mind, these companies all had NDAs that prohibited comparing payscale... but even management are chatty little scamps at lunch after a beer and everyone knows the deal here. Just not a thing you can do about it legally.

I was speaking of any predominantly male profession.

And your personal experience simply confirms my point.

Do you feel that the situation is getting better, though? Most females I know in male-dominated professions have had quite struggle, but feel that it is getting progressively better.

I'm still getting my post-secondary education, so I'm not technically in the workforce yet. I'm hoping things will have continued along and will be fairly equal in 3-4 years when I can actually get into the industry (bioengineering for me).

Im emotionaly unbalanced ;) . There are pleanty of sexist acts against males, custody of children being a prime example. There is nothing fair about how custody of children works out. Its an uphill battle for men at best.
Write to your congressmen and push for a resurrection of the ERA if you want to solve that.

Write to your congressmen and push for a resurrection of the ERA if you want to solve that.

Dont have a congressman or congress for that matter. The problem is not in the laws which are theoreticly fair but in the judges who show bias to the mother.

Dont have a congressman or congress for that matter. The problem is not in the laws which are theoreticly fair but in the judges who show bias to the mother.
I know, but it would probably help a little bit, and the damn thing needs to be passed anyway.

You made the claim that young women get paid less than young men in entry-level positions. You made the point several times. I called your bluff and still do - provide evidence. You have not only failed to back up your assertation, you have sidestepped the issue. You've attempted to change the discussion from domestic to international, bringing places into the discussion which do not even have a women's movement. Nice try, but I'm still calling you on it.

Actually I made the claim so you would understand why your own assertion regarding the cause of the difference, didnt convince me. I made the claim only once and in the context I have just explained. As it happens the discussion I was having was not domestic, if you re-read my comments you will find that my assertion was that one group wanting one thing was worldwide larger, more economically powerful, more socially powerful, and more politically powerful than the other group to which I was referring. Firstly regardless of how the wealth is acquired, it still exists, so your comments suggesting that it may have been acquired due to unavoidable or entirely fair means isnt relevent. Secondly it's obviously an international comment when the phrase 'world wide' is specifically invoked. I'm not really not sure what part of my actual point you are replying to. I'll say it again, those who want to keep equality from happening are a larger more powerful group than those that want to make males inferior class citizens, I dont think that the latter group will succeed in acheiving their goals. So do you disagree that men who wish to prevent equality have more power and are more numerous than women who wish to subjugate men, or do you disagree that such women are not going to achieve their ends?

You really should. Regardless of their current validity thay have defined feminism in America for decades. I really see little point of continuing this discussion with someone who knows so little about feminism.
You mean they have defined localised political feminist dialogue and had cocurrent effect on the direction of policy? That I would suggest is not a feminist problem but rather a problem inherent in the political and media system of the US.
:)

They are called 'grammar Nazis' and you would have difficuly calling me one. I only mentioned it because you pressed.
Bozzy, are you really suggesting that out of the blue I pressed you to comment on the grammatical presentation of my posts? Or by pressed do you mean my comments after you had already mentioned it?


Step off. I acknowladged that already.
You did, I thought you just reiterated your earlier comments, or perhaps you were referring to a different set of earlier comments?

Dodge!
Then you are still side stepping the point I am making.

Still dodging. You are now avoiding any discussion of the liberal feminists movement and instead trying to move to the politics and culture of the middle east.
No I am providing evidence of my point which is that those who would prevent equality are more numerous and more collectively powerful than those who wish to render men inferior class citizens. The power and size of a group directly influences their ability to achieve their aims and implies which group if either, is most likely to be successful.

You seem to think that I am discussing some localised political loudmouths, I really dont know why. My only point is that the larger more powerful group that want to prevent equality are unlikely to utterly fail while the smaller less powerful group of anti-male sexists achieves cultural/political and economic dominance. In my opinion it just is not going to happen. If you have good reason to think otherwise, by all means address the point of my comments, if you just want to prove to me that there are idiots everywhere and sometimes they get more attention and credibility than they deserve (and that some such people try to and occasionally succeed in dressing up their facism as 'feminist progress'), you need not waste your efforts - I'm already clued up to that one. I just dont happen to think they're (anti male sexists) so much more competent than the majority of us, that they'll succeed in taking over the world...

All of them.
So should I consider your failure to actually identify a single 'ideal' I pupportedly hold as being confirmation of my initial instinct and consider your comments a generalised throw away line that you add to the end of posts in an attempt to imply some form of intellectual depth on your part?

My point is that the total combined numbers, economic, social and political power of those who dont want women to achieve equality, is larger than the combined numbers, economic, social and political power of those who wish to subjugate men, and that this implies that it is very unlikely that the earlier group will fail utterly whilst the latter is triumphant.

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

Yes, because female leaders never go to war.



oh no, wait...hang on...
|
|
|
V

In two-provider families, BOTH partners should be performing the domestic duties rather than letting the house go to the dogs and the children go to the TV/internet while getting fat and sickly on fast food. But it doesn't sound like in your world that's how it works. Sounds more like you're a supporter of the "if the woman doesn't do it all, it doesn't get done" school of thinking. Good luck finding and keeping a mate.

And therein lies the rational: the more feminism spreads, the less likely those SOAs (sons of assholes) are of finding a slave-wife, so as a result, they oppose Title Nine and hold fast to crazy fundamentalist belief systems... and why? Becuase they're too goddamn lazy to learn how to cook and clean up after themselves; how pathetic.

And therein lies the rational: the more feminism spreads, the less likely those SOAs (sons of assholes) are of finding a slave-wife, so as a result, they oppose Title Nine and hold fast to crazy fundamentalist belief systems... and why? Becuase they're too goddamn lazy to learn how to cook and clean up after themselves; how pathetic.

Hehehe I can clean but are you sure you want to taste my cooking?

Hehehe I can clean but are you sure you want to taste my cooking?
You could cook us all up some butter chicken,

or heat up the BBQ,



....or at least have the phone-number of a good take-out handy.... ;)


......pavlova for dessert, if all else fails you can buy one ready-made from the supermarket and dress it up with whipped cream from a can, and crushed up Cadbuy Flake bars....

With modern technology all things are possible.... :D

The idea that one's role in society should be determined by gender is SEXISM.
sex·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.
1)Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2)Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Maybe, maybe not. That is shaky.



Shaky? How is it "shaky" when saying 'the idea that one's role in society should be determined by gender is sexism' means EXACTLY the same thing as your #2?

As for how that is discrimination - well, ask a father who is denied custody because the courts tend to assume that the mother by virtue of simply being female is a better parent. Ask a divorced person of either gender who entered a marriage under the idea that there would be a permanent sharing of resources and as such sacrificed personal economic gain for the overall gain of the family unit how how they were not disadvantaged if the partner pulling in the resource leaves. As for how that discriminates largely against women (in the U.S. ), women are still pressured by society to be the gender that makes the decision to sacrifice personal economic gain. And these are just a few examples.

The reason I would put definiton #2 as more important than definition #1 is that sexism is harmful *anyone* who wishes to step outside of stereotypical gender roles. Definition #1 is secondary as it is the sterotyping that causes discrimination and agaisnt women is tertiary because the results arising from the stereotyping which causes the discriminiation are more often harmful to femals than males.


Yep. If I was raped by a woman, that would make my day, cause guess what, i got laid.
If I was raped by a guy, then I would never admit that to anyone.

You have no fucking clue what rape is. If it would "make your day" and you count it as "getting laid" then it isn't rape. Basically what you have just said is that you are willing to perform any sex act with any woman at any time.

And therein lies the rational: the more feminism spreads, the less likely those SOAs (sons of assholes) are of finding a slave-wife, so as a result, they oppose Title Nine and hold fast to crazy fundamentalist belief systems... and why? Becuase they're too goddamn lazy to learn how to cook and clean up after themselves; how pathetic.
Emotionally I oppose Title IX because being on the freshman soccer team I had to wear old Girls softball uniforms instead of new soccer uniforms for our games. I do support it however because it pissed off the football and basketball crowd which was inherently a good thing :p



You have no fucking clue what rape is. If it would "make your day" and you count it as "getting laid" then it isn't rape. Basically what you have just said is that you are willing to perform any sex act with any woman at any time. As a male I don't quite understand it but there are many males who have this mentality. Or at least they think they do. If it were to come down to the reality of it however I think most of them would run away screaming and gibbering in terror like Scooby Doo and Shaggy run away from monsters.

If I was raped by a woman, that would make my day, cause guess what, i got laid.

What if she weighed 350 lbs. and rammed a dry broomstick up your ass, then shit and pissed on you? Would you then begin to feel some shame and humiliation? Would that begin to drive home the fact that rape is not about sex, but is an act of brutality and violence?

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.


Yes thats like saying that all vegaterians want humans to die because of a few freaks in PETA.

Not all Feminists want women to be better then men. I've also never heard of that "men slow down disease cures" or whatever.

True Feminists want equality for all. We stive for equal rights of all people, no matter sexual, racial, or gender orientation. Anyone claiming that feminism is anything but that is a nut job or an uninformed person.

True Feminists want equality for all. We stive for equal rights of all people, no matter sexual, racial, or gender orientation. Anyone claiming that feminism is anything but that is a nut job or an uninformed person.


I completely agree. But then again most people are uninformed about it anyways which is why i honestly think you should look up a few things before posting on a topic you know little about...

Who really cares if they use "he" instead of "he or she" or even worse "it". Does it really make that bigger difference. Do you honestly believe that rape is a massive male conspiracy to supress the females of the world? Or are you saying that men are more abusive than women?

Saying 'rape is a massive male conspiracy to supress the females of the world' implies that it is a planned, organized thing that conforms to time tables, etc. Anyone who thinks that is daft.

Which is quite different from saying that rape doesn't oppress females.

Rape is a societal phenomena that operates to opress females. The mechanisms of this phenomena are being carried on, largely to an unconcious extent, by many males and females alike. The misinformation surrounding rape, that societal attitude toward rape (look up a post or two for a prime example), etc, all contribute to the oppression caused by the individual sickos who commit those acts of violence against other individuals.
It is a synergistic effect - vaguely like the stock market. Most people who invest - usually through brokers, etc., have no clue exactly how that is going to determine the overall shape. Minus things like insider trading and hostile takeovers, there is no "conspiracy" to make a particular stock rise or fall, just all the little pieces add up to that happening.

For example a couple of months ago in Boston the news source where telling females not to go out alone because they were unsafe because there was a sick ass rapist running around. The implication being, that if they stayed in then they were safe. This implication was false. If they stayed in the women were most likely to be safe from that one particualar rapist. Over 70% of rapes are committed by someone that a woman knows. Being safe from one particular rapist does not make women necessarily safer. Such news reports also carry an underlying assumption that a woman who goes out alone and is raped is somehow complicit in the crime that was committed against her, which is ridiculous. It is like saying that banks shouldn't have cash on hand because they might get robbed. But the news, the attitudes toward rape (ie - what were you wearing, how many people have you slept with in the past, etc) limit a woman's ability to move about and interact freely *without fear* (and considering how much attention is being focused on terrorism these days, one would think the abiltiy to operate without fear for existing as a female, nation, etc as a right should be understood). As a counter-example, men are the victims of the majority of violent crimes, yet no *fear* about crime happening to them *just because they are male* is being pushed by society. So yes, rape (or the phenomena of rape) is a form of opression against women, but not an organized form of oppression. It is a case where overall thinking needs to be changed in most men and women alike.

Actually many forms of sexism operate at a level where the person being sexist is not even aware of this fact - it is unintentional. This is one of the reasons that some people take perfectly rational *feminst* statements and critiques and think these statements either blame men or wish to put females over men. For example, I have seen women who make the (true) statement that the majority of women who commit violent crimes receive harsher penalities than the majority of men who commit equivalent crimes be accused of being "feminazis." Somehow, due to underlying misconceptions some people (male and female) interpret such a statement as advocating that the criminal justice system should 'take it easy on females' when all that statement is acutally saying is that justice should be meted out equally regardless of gender.

Women have equality. Get over it. You can sue anyone for not employing/employing you on sexist grounds or for paying you diffrently for any reason. What you dont have is equality of culture, and you wont get that by ranting about it.

Gun Control - The idea that a woman raped and then strangled with her own panties is somehow morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Women have equality. Get over it. You can sue anyone for not employing/employing you on sexist grounds or for paying you diffrently for any reason. What you dont have is equality of culture, and you wont get that by ranting about it.

Are the colors pretty in your little fantasy land where you get what you want without ever uttering the slightest peep?

When you talk about an issue, Neo Cannen, do you do so just to hear yourself talk (or see your self write )?

Because if you are actually hoping to change anything by talking I suggest you shut up right now.

Unless of course *your* ranting is somehow different or superior to *women* ranting :rolleyes:

Are the colors pretty in your little fantasy land where you get what you want without ever uttering the slightest peep?

When you talk about an issue, Neo Cannen, do you do so just to hear yourself talk (or see your self write )?

Because if you are actually hoping to change anything by talking I suggest you shut up right now.

Unless of course *your* ranting is somehow different or superior to *women* ranting :rolleyes:
No it is all ranting … fair and equal … its his right to rant just like its mine to pick on him/her for it :)

I'm just wondering why I have to "do" anything about feminism.

It seems to run just fine without me.

Gun Control - The idea that a woman raped and then strangled with her own panties is somehow morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

I'm willing to bet worldwide that there are more people who believe that, uhm, joke-thing than there are actual feminazi's.

Violets, my wife doesn't think it's a joke.

I suppose you would rather that her stalker still be able to attack her.
I suppose you would rather that she count on the police and courts, who have NEVER protected her, despite protective orders.
I suppose you would rather that she be beaten and stabbed and chased and stalked for the rest of her life.
It went on for six year, Violets.

Now she has a gun. She carries it. And he knows it. And he is very, very afraid.

And he stays away. It's worked for two years now. Can you tell me if any of the police and courts have done anything nearly as effective?

Women have equality. Get over it. You can sue anyone for not employing/employing you on sexist grounds or for paying you diffrently for any reason.

You know, that's exactly what the Catholic bishop said to me the other day when I met her unexpectedly.

Violets, my wife doesn't think it's a joke.

I suppose you would rather that her stalker still be able to attack her.
I suppose you would rather that she count on the police and courts, who have NEVER protected her, despite protective orders.
I suppose you would rather that she be beaten and stabbed and chased and stalked for the rest of her life.
It went on for six year, Violets.

Now she has a gun. She carries it. And he knows it. And he is very, very afraid.

And he stays away. It's worked for two years now. Can you tell me if any of the police and courts have done anything nearly as effective?

Just because I am feminist, and more liberal than most doesn't mean that I am in favor banning guns. And I certainly don't trust the courts or the police to be fair and unbiased when it comes to rape and cases of extreme harrasment (they are part of the 'what were you wearing' culture). Weapons work much better than a companion -male or otherwise- when it comes to protecting oneself against violent crime. And they sure as hell beat hiding in fear. I'm not sure I trust the courts to believe the self-defense plea in stalker cases either since they do so little to handle them in the first place, but the odds of surviving the court system relatively unscathed are better than the odds of surviving a psycho stalker unscathed.

(I've done a lot of work at battered women's shelters and I have seen how little help can be counted on from they system in terms of protection even after death threats have been issued by the very people who have previously put their spouses/girlfriends/occasionally randomly picked women in hospitals).

I'm of the belief that if all women were armed, men would be far more polite.

I'm of the belief that if all women were armed, men would be far more polite.

if all women were armed, the criminality-related death in the US, already the worst of all developped countries, would become an even more terrible disaster.

Your wife is protected, but the solution is not to love guns, but to make justice better.

You know, that's exactly what the Catholic bishop said to me the other day when I met her unexpectedly.

You cannot legisalte religion. That is opressive to said religion unless you do it to ALL religions.

Are the colors pretty in your little fantasy land where you get what you want without ever uttering the slightest peep?

When you talk about an issue, Neo Cannen, do you do so just to hear yourself talk (or see your self write )?

Because if you are actually hoping to change anything by talking I suggest you shut up right now.

Unless of course *your* ranting is somehow different or superior to *women* ranting :rolleyes:

Women HAVE equality of law. They cannot keep complaining about that. They can sue anyone they want if they treet them without equality. That is enshrined in law and that is fact. So women cannot go "We dont have equality wa wa wa!!" because it is writen down in the statute book.

You cannot legisalte religion. That is opressive to said religion unless you do it to ALL religions.

So when you said:

Women have equality. Get over it. You can sue anyone for not employing/employing you on sexist grounds or for paying you diffrently for any reason.

...you actually meant that women don't have equality. and they can't sue everyone for not employing them on sexist grounds?

Just a guess here, but I think Neo has trouble getting laid...

So when you said:

...you actually meant that women don't have equality. and they can't sue everyone for not employing them on sexist grounds?

You cant sue because "Bishop" is not a job which you apply for, it is a postion which is offered.

Actually many forms of sexism operate at a level where the person being sexist is not even aware of this fact - it is unintentional. This is one of the reasons that some people take perfectly rational *feminst* statements and critiques and think these statements either blame men or wish to put females over men. For example, I have seen women who make the (true) statement that the majority of women who commit violent crimes receive harsher penalities than the majority of men who commit equivalent crimes be accused of being "feminazis." Somehow, due to underlying misconceptions some people (male and female) interpret such a statement as advocating that the criminal justice system should 'take it easy on females' when all that statement is acutally saying is that justice should be meted out equally regardless of gender.

Funny, this is a *lot* like my comment that women in male-dominated professions often have to work harder for the same respect and promotions being interpreted by Bozzy as meaning "women shouldn't have to work hard," even though I never even came close to implying that.

Women HAVE equality of law. They cannot keep complaining about that. They can sue anyone they want if they treet them without equality. That is enshrined in law and that is fact. So women cannot go "We dont have equality wa wa wa!!" because it is writen down in the statute book.

Lawsuits take time and money and are often counterproductive in the workplace as they make it *even harder* to succeed.

The law absolutely bars unfair discrimination on a gender basis. However, all of society has not yet caught up to the law. Are things getting better? Yes. Are they there (equality) yet? No.

It's a pretty simple concept.

There are two major problems, the way I see it. First, as it pertains to employment, the "Old Boys Network" really has more to do with socio-economics than gender or gender issues within the upper echelon of socio-economics. The primary wage gap is in white collar employment. Whe you look at the average American working class jobs the difference is far less extreme.

Second, only public corperations should have any responsibility in this regard anyway. If I'm a woman and I build a multi-million dollar business but hold it privately, like say Opera (at least I don't think her program is on the public market), I should be able to pay whom ever I hire, male or female, however much I want to for what ever reasons I want to. The gov. doesn't have the moral right to dictate to me what I do with my business and needs it legal rights stripped in that regard.

For public companies with stock holders and or those who advertise as "equal opportunity employers" things are different. They do have a responsibility to remain unbiased.

Melt it down in to pots and pans!!

"Feminazi"? I am offended by this term. Gravely. You have no idea what nazism is all about, do you? I am german. My father is 72 years old. He was member of the Hitler Youth. His head was stuffed with nazi propaganda from the tender age of eleven. Not a day goes by that I don't hear him talk about it (he lives with me and my wife).

Nazism is not just extreme razism. A nazi is taught, not just that all other races are inferior, but that he is superior to everyone. that he is better than everyone. Everyone who doesn't look good with blonde curls and blue eyes, that is.

It goes so much deeper than this too. Nazism is so much more than feminism can ever be. It is even more despicable than kommunism, not to mention kommunism's little brother, socialism.

Please, think before you say things like this. Learn to consider the consequences of your actions. If you can't do that, the you must learn to face and accept them.

"Feminazi" is a bad term. I did not invent it nor did anyone on this thread. I am not sure if it is actualy refering to nazis or it is just a catchier easier was to say "Annoying bitchy female supremist hiding behind a cover of feminism".

We all know there is a lot of sexism in the world. However I feel that feminists sometimes understate the sexism against males, even their name hints at it. Why dont we try comparing some things.
* These are generalisations, all sexism is.

1F) Females get paid less in the workplace ( on average, bla bla bla) and have less chance of promotion.
1M) Males are expected to support their families.

2F) Females are more likely to be raped.
2M) If a male is raped he has a poor case as everyone will believe he wanted it.

3F) Religious organisations are sexist about their preists ect ect.
3M) Strip clubs are sexist about their stripers ect ect. (Not quite serious but who wants to be a preist anyway?)

4F) It is hard for females to get into the army/male dominated jobs.
4M) Males face the draft. (and see point 3M ;) )

5F) Women are expected to stay home and look after children.
5M) Men find it hard to get fair custody over the children.

Im sure there are many more and please feel free to add your own. There are people working to equalise the female sides of this, but is anyone fighting for the male side?

1F) Females get paid less in the workplace ( on average, bla bla bla) and have less chance of promotion.
1M) Males are expected to support their families.

False dichotomy. These days, women are expected to bring in a paycheck *and* do all the housework (in many cases). Men are simply expected to bring in a paycheck.

2F) Females are more likely to be raped.
2M) If a male is raped he has a poor case as everyone will believe he wanted it.

Females are also assumed to have "wanted/deserved it," hence all the "what were you wearing?" and "how many partners have you had?" questions.

A more proper comparison may be that there would be even more disbelief if a man came forward and that society puts even more of a stigma on male rape victims.

3F) Religious organisations are sexist about their preists ect ect.
3M) Strip clubs are sexist about their stripers ect ect. (Not quite serious but who wants to be a preist anyway?)

Many women feel called to be religious leaders, as do many men.

4F) It is hard for females to get into the army/male dominated jobs.
4M) Males face the draft. (and see point 3M ;) )

Women should face the draft as well.

5F) Women are expected to stay home and look after children.
5M) Men find it hard to get fair custody over the children.

Women are generally expected to work *and* take care of the house and children. However, if the man has been as involved in the children's lives as she has, he should absolutely have equal chances at custody - and this is something that is being corrected over time.

Im sure there are many more and please feel free to add your own. There are people working to equalise the female sides of this, but is anyone fighting for the male side?

I fight against sexism/racism/discrimination based on sexual orientation/discrimination based on age/discrimination based on social status wherever I see it.

..It goes so much deeper than this too. Nazism is so much more than feminism can ever be. It is even more despicable than kommunism, not to mention kommunism's little brother, socialism.


You say communisim is bad?...Socialism I can see some hate for (in Russia and China), but they are not the same. Communism, in its purest form, is owning nothing, sharing everything (including children) with others, often in a commune (get it?). Socialism is often a government owning all, not tolerating dissent. Communism is no government at all.

A joke I once heard about feminism:

A man was riding a bus when a radical feminist came on. He got up.
"Here's a man patronizing the 'poor, helpless female race' " She thought, and she pushed him back down into his seat.
A while down the road, he got back up. She pushed him down again.
A little longer down the road, the hapless man got back up. Before he was shoved back down, he pleaded:
"Please lady, you gotta let me up. I'm a mile past my stop already."

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

with sterotypes it obviously isnt the entire group in question but it is obviously a large part of it in order to sway pplz views torward it. i also partly agree with what he has to say about those damn feminazis ^_^

Are you demented? Yes, 76% of murder victims are men - and an even larger percentage of killers are men, as well (88%). Are you deliberately missing my point? The issue is not that incidents of rape are up or down or that the definition of rape may have changed, and certainly it has nothing to do with women committing crimes on par with men.

My point is that this whole thread, in which insecure men and self-hating women tear down women and feminists with stories of mythical "feminazis," IS STUPID!!! Especially when it is women who continue to be victimized by men, not the other way around.
Actually, men are far more likely to be victimized of men. NOW would like you to not notice that. Kinda ruins their whole point. Most women lack the physical ability to abuse men, though many try.

In Domestic abuse cases it usually takes two to tango, but the man is most often blamed and arrested because of society stereotype. Even when the woman was the agressor and he was defending himself. Why is there not support for them? Is he less deserving just because he is 'bigger' than her?

We all know there is a lot of sexism in the world. However I feel that feminists sometimes understate the sexism against males, even their name hints at it. Why dont we try comparing some things.
* These are generalisations, all sexism is.

1F) Females get paid less in the workplace ( on average, bla bla bla) and have less chance of promotion.
1M) Males are expected to support their families.

2F) Females are more likely to be raped.
2M) If a male is raped he has a poor case as everyone will believe he wanted it.

3F) Religious organisations are sexist about their preists ect ect.
3M) Strip clubs are sexist about their stripers ect ect. (Not quite serious but who wants to be a preist anyway?)

4F) It is hard for females to get into the army/male dominated jobs.
4M) Males face the draft. (and see point 3M ;) )

5F) Women are expected to stay home and look after children.
5M) Men find it hard to get fair custody over the children.

Im sure there are many more and please feel free to add your own. There are people working to equalise the female sides of this, but is anyone fighting for the male side?

In addition to what Dempublicents had to say, all of these dichotomies are caused by the ingrained idea that there are supposed to be clearly defined gender roles. If we could all stop thinking of certain traits /emotions /jobs /etc as belonging to a gender and looking at everyone as simply _human_ then these dichotomies would come close to vanishing.

Violets, IIRC, current feminist thought (at least at the nearby university) holds that gender roles are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

Victims of our own biology, it would seem.

Nice thought, but evidently a lot of feminists have given up on the idea that we'll become gender blind.

Besides, you should celebrate some of the gender roles you can fill that men cannot.

Read that paragraph. You are *incredibly* condescending towards anyone who doesn't make the choice that you think is "proper," thus providing a societal push that attempts to force women to stay home after giving birth.
.
The real push on women comes for the ladies of NOW who measure a woman's worth by her paycheck. If a woman loves her young children more than her job then explain why, if she can afford the option, she would delegate their nurturing to strangers while she pursues her selfish interests instead of waiting until they are of school age?

Since you are ignorant of NOW and what they stand for I see little point is continuing this discussion with you.

You've also failed miserably to provide anything resembling evidence that starting pay is lower for women. You've implied a glass ceiling at your workplace as a universal rule, and avoided considering external facts that could cause the same results, preferring to blame it on vagina ownership.

Your points are weak, unresearched and unbased. Come back when your homework is done.

Non-human animals have both patriarchal groups and matriarchal groups, so feminism doesn't really matter.

I think the holding the door thing is way outdated. Whoever is first holds the door, or you pass it on.

Females and non-whites have an advantage these days. But, two wrongs don't make a right.

There are two major problems, the way I see it. First, as it pertains to employment, the "Old Boys Network" really has more to do with socio-economics than gender or gender issues within the upper echelon of socio-economics. The primary wage gap is in white collar employment. Whe you look at the average American working class jobs the difference is far less extreme.

Second, only public corperations should have any responsibility in this regard anyway. If I'm a woman and I build a multi-million dollar business but hold it privately, like say Opera (at least I don't think her program is on the public market), I should be able to pay whom ever I hire, male or female, however much I want to for what ever reasons I want to. The gov. doesn't have the moral right to dictate to me what I do with my business and needs it legal rights stripped in that regard.

For public companies with stock holders and or those who advertise as "equal opportunity employers" things are different. They do have a responsibility to remain unbiased.
It does not work that way. If you run a coffee shop and refuse to hire someone because they are black, white, catholic, married, single, man, woman or both, you can be sued. Few exceptions are made (such as the entertainment industry. Imagine Dustin Hoffman as Kunta Kinte and you see why)

The real push on women comes for the ladies of NOW who measure a woman's worth by her paycheck. If a woman loves her young children more than her job then explain why, if she can afford the option, she would delegate their nurturing to strangers while she pursues her selfish interests instead of waiting until they are of school age?

Since you are ignorant of NOW and what they stand for I see little point is continuing this discussion with you.

You've also failed miserably to provide anything resembling evidence that starting pay is lower for women. You've implied a glass ceiling at your workplace as a universal rule, and avoided considering external facts that could cause the same results, preferring to blame it on vagina ownership.

Your points are weak, unresearched and unbased. Come back when your homework is done.



Though that begs the question ... why her (I know my mom personaly wished she would have spent some more time if they could have afforded it she loves being a nurse and all) but my dad had the better options ... her job was going to be there and he had to take his shot so she went part time but she wishes she could quit and just watch us.

Anyways I am meandering ... in our situation it made sence for my mom to do it and she liked to do it

But why is it selfish if she wants to presue a career?

Maybe the guy should step up if his options arnt as great and do his share of the work too

The real push on women comes for the ladies of NOW who measure a woman's worth by her paycheck. If a woman loves her young children more than her job then explain why, if she can afford the option, she would delegate their nurturing to strangers while she pursues her selfish interests instead of waiting until they are of school age?

Explain why you are so condescending towards any woman who wishes to have both children and a successful career.

Explain why you set up a completely false dichotomy between nurturing children and having a career.

You've also failed miserably to provide anything resembling evidence that starting pay is lower for women.

I never claimed that there was any such thing.

You've implied a glass ceiling at your workplace as a universal rule, and avoided considering external facts that could cause the same results, preferring to blame it on vagina ownership.

Your "they have kids" argument does not apply to the women of which I was speaking.

You can turn your back on it or ignore it if you like, but my guess is that you are not *in* a traditionally male profession which women have just now begun to enter into. I am, and I have seen the lingering effects of sexism. Luckily, these effects are slowly working themselves out.

Your points are weak, unresearched and unbased. Come back when your homework is done.

No, they are not. My homework is done - I have first-hand experience.

In addition to what Dempublicents had to say, all of these dichotomies are caused by the ingrained idea that there are supposed to be clearly defined gender roles. If we could all stop thinking of certain traits /emotions /jobs /etc as belonging to a gender and looking at everyone as simply _human_ then these dichotomies would come close to vanishing.

The examples I used were of little importance. The point I was trying to make is why is a group of people trying for gender equality called "feminists", the name implies that they are trying to raise females rights where there are clearly inequalities for males which need to be addressed. Biologicly speaking there are *some* traits which are more common in one gender.

Actually, men are far more likely to be victimized of men. NOW would like you to not notice that. Kinda ruins their whole point. Most women lack the physical ability to abuse men, though many try.

In Domestic abuse cases it usually takes two to tango, but the man is most often blamed and arrested because of society stereotype. Even when the woman was the agressor and he was defending himself. Why is there not support for them? Is he less deserving just because he is 'bigger' than her?

Righhhhht.... because NOW contols the media :eek: Talk about conspiracy theories.

If ideas about how men shouldn't be able to leave their homes alone because it isn't safe for them, or that men shouldn't be allowed in public unaccompanied in order to deter their criminal tendancies start getting tossed around in everyday conversation, then you can start worrying about 'female supremecists.' And who the fuck needs physical stength when there are weapons if women really wanted to terrorize men. Try again. You are almost amusing.

There are programs for battered men.

However, even if the woman does engage in physical violence (and I have seen no proof that this happens in anywhere near the majority of domestic violence cases and a physical response to words is never appropriate regardless of the genders involved in the dispute) then self defense requires the minimum amount of force needed for safety. And that is hardly what is happening in most cases of domestic violence. When one person is largely untouched and the other is beat the hell out of that is not a "societal perception." That is a perception based on empirical evidence.

Bozzy, it does not take "two to tango" for domestic violence.
You evidently have never studied the matter. I have, extensively.

It takes one aggressor to make one victim. And if the victim does not have the economic wherewithal to move away (an act which radically increases the probability of death), she must stay and take it over and over again.

Moving away usually progresses to stalking on the part of the aggressor, and in most cases, death to the victim.

The system will NOT protect the woman, in general. She cannot run far enough or fast enough. She won't have enough support to keep her safe, and she must often choose between abandoning her children to the care of a monster and leaving, or staying and trying to endure the abuse.

I've met too many people with the benighted view of domestic abuse. And they are the main reason that it continues to be a major problem.

The examples I used were of little importance. The point I was trying to make is why is a group of people trying for gender equality called "feminists", the name implies that they are trying to raise females rights where there are clearly inequalities for males which need to be addressed. Biologicly speaking there are *some* traits which are more common in one gender.

One of the earliest femists writers was Mary Wollenstonecraft Shelley. That should give an idea of how old the movement is. When the name "feminist" was given to the movement society was so unequal that the idea that a man would want the freedom to take on jobs and roles traditionally assigned to females was practiically unthinkable. And like all labels it stuck. Sort of like the political parties today - in some ways they stand for almost the opposite of what they standed for when they started, but they don't change their name. Brand recognition or something.

The only limitations that I can think of that are determined by gender are pissing standing a good degree of accuracy, donating sperm, donating ova, carrying a child to birth, breast feeding, being able to orgasm many times an hour, and sports which require extraordinary amounts of brawn.

A lot of the traits which seem more limited to one gender than the other are *socialized* rather than inherent.

The real push on women comes for the ladies of NOW who measure a woman's worth by her paycheck. If a woman loves her young children more than her job then explain why, if she can afford the option, she would delegate their nurturing to strangers while she pursues her selfish interests instead of waiting until they are of school age?

Since you are ignorant of NOW and what they stand for I see little point is continuing this discussion with you.

You've also failed miserably to provide anything resembling evidence that starting pay is lower for women. You've implied a glass ceiling at your workplace as a universal rule, and avoided considering external facts that could cause the same results, preferring to blame it on vagina ownership.

Your points are weak, unresearched and unbased. Come back when your homework is done.

This is BOZZY's fabeled NOW anti-homemaker stance:

Homemakers' Rights

NOW actively supports full rights for homemakers and recognition of the economic value of the vital services they perform for family and society. We also support legislation and programs reflecting the reality of marriage as an equal economic partnership.

One of the earliest femists writers was Mary Wollenstonecraft Shelley. That should give an idea of how old the movement is. When the name "feminist" was given to the movement society was so unequal that the idea that a man would want the freedom to take on jobs and roles traditionally assigned to females was practiically unthinkable. And like all labels it stuck. Sort of like the political parties today - in some ways they stand for almost the opposite of what they standed for when they started, but they don't change their name. Brand recognition or something.

The only limitations that I can think of that are determined by gender are pissing standing a good degree of accuracy, donating sperm, donating ova, carrying a child to birth, breast feeding, being able to orgasm many times an hour, and sports which require extraordinary amounts of brawn.

A lot of the traits which seem more limited to one gender than the other are *socialized* rather than inherent.

There are however some jobs that require a lot of brawn. This is less so than it used to be as machines replace mussle but there are still some jobs which require a large amount of strength. There are undoutedly females which have the needed strength but they are not as common as males.

I notice that Bozzy hasn't given any thought to how he'll get laid with an attitude like that.

Women don't stay with a_holes.

I notice that Bozzy hasn't given any thought to how he'll get laid with an attitude like that.

Women don't stay with a_holes.

Women dont, girls do have a tendancy to like the "rebels" in younger years.

Women dont, girls do have a tendancy to like the "rebels" in younger years.
Some don’t grow out of it either :)

Just like some boys don’t grow out of toys :)

Some don’t grow out of it either :)

Just like some boys don’t grow out of toys :)

*Wishes for a skyline*

There are however some jobs that require a lot of brawn. This is less so than it used to be as machines replace mussle but there are still some jobs which require a large amount of strength. There are undoutedly females which have the needed strength but they are not as common as males.
The fitness of the applicant should be based on that - the fitness of the applicant, not the general trend amongst a group they can be categorised as belonging to. How many people who dont have physical strength would even want to apply for a job that requires it? By ensuring applicants know that the job requires 'brawn-labour' you'll weed out people who like to avoid strenuous activities. Those that dont like to avoid strenuous activities, probably dont (avoid them) and so are fit for the job. Since employers get to see applicants before they hire them, if there is any doubt, they can have the applicant do some tasks (that will be part of their job) at the interview. It will become apparent if they are fit to the job or not.

The point about equality is not to ignore or negate identifiable gender related trends, but rather to accept that trends are in no way absolutes and so should be set aside when considering individuals. The fact that there is a trend for more women to be nurturers, should be meaningless when any particular man and women come before the courts seeking custody of their children. The fact that women often are not suited to the same physical tasks that greater numbers of men tend to be suited to, should be meaningless when any particular man or women applies for job.

I was speaking of any predominantly male profession.

And your personal experience simply confirms my point.

Do you feel that the situation is getting better, though? Most females I know in male-dominated professions have had quite struggle, but feel that it is getting progressively better.

I'm still getting my post-secondary education, so I'm not technically in the workforce yet. I'm hoping things will have continued along and will be fairly equal in 3-4 years when I can actually get into the industry (bioengineering for me).

Yes, the entire online tech industry is male-dominated and regarded as the domain of the proud male geek. Gotta love em. -GRIN!-

No, it's not getting much better. Least not in my neck of the woods. If anything, with the crunch on the market, it's probably gotten worse.

I can't imagine that bioengineering will be any worse, though it might be better. Attitudes differ drasticly depending on field and location. I wish you lots of luck though.

Just a guess here, but I think Neo has trouble getting laid...

LOL honey, I'm SURE of it.

Though that begs the question ... why her (I know my mom personaly wished she would have spent some more time if they could have afforded it she loves being a nurse and all) but my dad had the better options ... her job was going to be there and he had to take his shot so she went part time but she wishes she could quit and just watch us.

Anyways I am meandering ... in our situation it made sence for my mom to do it and she liked to do it

But why is it selfish if she wants to presue a career?

Maybe the guy should step up if his options arnt as great and do his share of the work too
As in the case of your parents, most often it makes most sense for the woman to be primary caregiver. Not just because of time off for birthing, but also nursing. If a woman has more earning power than her spouse and can work out the birthing/nursing thing, and if she is willing, then there is nothing wrong with the man being the primary caregiver.

Explain why you are so condescending towards any woman who wishes to have both children and a successful career.

Explain why you set up a completely false dichotomy between nurturing children and having a career.

My last post made it pretty clear. Why would a woman pursue a career she loves less than her children and delgate their early and formative nurturing to stragers? With the exclusion of finances there is no reason beyond the fact that the woman puts her selfish career interests over the interests of her children. Children are best served by a full-time caring parent than daycare or nannys.

(of course, a stay-at home father would exempt her, and a father with less promising career prospects should do so or face the same scorn)




I never claimed that there was any such thing..

Yes, you did, under your other name of Peopleandstuff.


Your "they have kids" argument does not apply to the women of which I was speaking. ..

Actually in your case I suggested there were other issues such as prior work experience that could be at play. If not then your colleagues are fools for putting up with it. If it could be adequately documented then there are remedies. Otherwise it is, as I have suggested, here-say ancedotal BS.


You can turn your back on it or ignore it if you like, but my guess is that you are not *in* a traditionally male profession which women have just now begun to enter into. I am, and I have seen the lingering effects of sexism. Luckily, these effects are slowly working themselves out...

I am in a highly regulated field which is licensed and male-dominated. My assistant is an affluent married parent of three young children. My 'junior' partner is a senior citizen and a woman. She is only 'junior' based on her experience. (crossover from another industry) Yes, someone (a woman) tried to subject her to sexual discrimination, once. Heaven help the poor SOB now.

Oh, and for those who question, my sexual activity is hardly relevant here. However I find it bountyful and my spouse is more pleased than the 'Enzyte' couple.

Bozzy, it does not take "two to tango" for domestic violence.
You evidently have never studied the matter. I have, extensively.

It takes one aggressor to make one victim. And if the victim does not have the economic wherewithal to move away (an act which radically increases the probability of death), she must stay and take it over and over again.

Moving away usually progresses to stalking on the part of the aggressor, and in most cases, death to the victim.

The system will NOT protect the woman, in general. She cannot run far enough or fast enough. She won't have enough support to keep her safe, and she must often choose between abandoning her children to the care of a monster and leaving, or staying and trying to endure the abuse.

I've met too many people with the benighted view of domestic abuse. And they are the main reason that it continues to be a major problem.
I do not discount the fact that there are some cases af radical abuse, though I do have difficulty accepting that a woman can be left with no choice but to stay with the abuser (not to mention her original poor choice to hook up with the creep to begin with). My point is that I don't think that in 700,000 instances this is always the case. There are plenty of instances where the woman instigated yet the man went to jail.

The point is that women are not the victim of male violence nearly as often as men. That does not demonstrate any 'conspiracy' to harm women or keep them down. Given your own statistics a woman is about as likely to be a victim of domestic violence in a given year as she is of being struck by lightning in her lifetime. (use http://www.thunderstruk.com/facts19.htm) That, however, does not fit nicely into the victomhood that helps NOW position men as agressors in their fight. Rather than address voilence in general, they take a narrow segment and use it to portray men as 'agressive' and needing to be 'controlled' around women. Meanwhile leaving male victims (of men or women) to fend for themselves.

Also your statistics don't show that while cases of male -vs- female violence have been fairly level, cases of voilence perpetrated by women (against both sexes) has grown.

And don't presume to tell me what I have or have not studies. I've simply not accepted everything spoon-fed to me by biased sources as fact. I've verified and searched for my own facts.

I'm not talking about statistics. I'm talking about women and men I've actually seen in these situations. I intervene in these situations, and I am not the government.

And in no case did the woman instigate it.
And in no case did the woman have the economic ability to escape without outside help.
And in all but two cases, the man threatened to hold her children hostage against her leaving.
And in no case did the man fail to then stalk her after she left.
And in two cases the man finally killed the woman.
And that's in over sixty cases.

I have seen one case in which a man was beaten in a domestic violence situation, and that was in the case of a gay couple. And the stalking is now occurring in that case.

It does not work that way. If you run a coffee shop and refuse to hire someone because they are black, white, catholic, married, single, man, woman or both, you can be sued. Few exceptions are made (such as the entertainment industry. Imagine Dustin Hoffman as Kunta Kinte and you see why)


I understand that it doesn't work that way. I see that as a flaw in our legal system and a gross abuse of individual property rights.

I do not discount the fact that there are some cases af radical abuse, though I do have difficulty accepting that a woman can be left with no choice but to stay with the abuser (not to mention her original poor choice to hook up with the creep to begin with). My point is that I don't think that in 700,000 instances this is always the case. There are plenty of instances where the woman instigated yet the man went to jail.

Wow. Just engage in blame the victim. Next time someone unexpectedly screws you over in any fashion whatsever, just remember, it was YOUR fault.

And yeah. Some women who actually want to leave have a very hard time. The worst of abusers socially isolate their victims, leaving them no one to turn to. They have no money. Their abusers threaten to kill them if they leave. There have been cases of men using female friends/relatives to find out where shelters for abused women are and then actually turn up at the shelter door with fucking loaded guns. And these assholes don't tend to stay in jail for more than a night or two.

Define instigate. And then explain how severe abuse is in anyway justified. If the man is nearly as beat up as the woman, then and only then will I buy self defense and not using any little thing as an excuse to go overboard.

The point is that women are not the victim of male violence nearly as often as men. That does not demonstrate any 'conspiracy' to harm women or keep them down. Given your own statistics a woman is about as likely to be a victim of domestic violence in a given year as she is of being struck by lightning in her lifetime. (use http://www.thunderstruk.com/facts19.htm) That, however, does not fit nicely into the victomhood that helps NOW position men as agressors in their fight. Rather than address voilence in general, they take a narrow segment and use it to portray men as 'agressive' and needing to be 'controlled' around women. Meanwhile leaving male victims (of men or women) to fend for themselves.

Also your statistics don't show that while cases of male -vs- female violence have been fairly level, cases of voilence perpetrated by women (against both sexes) has grown.

And don't presume to tell me what I have or have not studies. I've simply not accepted everything spoon-fed to me by biased sources as fact. I've verified and searched for my own facts.

Wow, Boz. Way to mislead.

While it is true that men are more likely to be the victims of crime IN GENERAL, women are more than twice as likely to be the victims OF CRIME COMMITTED BY AN INTIMATE. Get the difference. No one has decided that men are 'agressives' who need to be 'controlled' around women - do you see a pick separitist or monitering of men push? What feminists do say is that society pushes the idea of the female as a victim or PUBLIC CRIME (and practically all news stories about 'how to avoid being attacked in a car park' or whatever are directed at women) while in PUBLIC women are actually SAFER than men. Around male acquiantaces, however, women are more than twice as unsafe as males around female acquaintances. (the highly biased source spoonfeeding me this information is the United States DOJ).

Feminists are not pushing the idea of victomhood. They are fighting the false perceptions of where and when crime against women happens.

Intimate violence

* In 2002, women experienced an estimated 494,570 rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault victimizations at the hands of an intimate, down from 1.1 million in 1993. In 1993, men were victims of about 160,000 violent crimes by an intimate partner, and in 2002 men were victims of about 72,520 violent crimes by an intimate partner.
* On average, from 1976-1998, the number of murders by intimates decreased by 4 percent per year for male victims and 1 percent per year for female victims.
* The sharpest decrease in number of intimate murders has been for black male victims. A 74% percent decrease in the number of black men murdered between 1976 and 1998 occurred.
* Intimate violence is primarily a crime against women -- in 1998, females were the victims in 72% of intimate murders and the victims of about 85% of nonlethal intimate violence.
* Women age 16-24 experienced the highest per capita rates of intimate violence (19.6 victimizations per 1,000 women).
* Intimates (current and former spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends) were identified by the victims as the perpetrators of about 1% of all workplace violent crime.

As in the case of your parents, most often it makes most sense for the woman to be primary caregiver. Not just because of time off for birthing, but also nursing. If a woman has more earning power than her spouse and can work out the birthing/nursing thing, and if she is willing, then there is nothing wrong with the man being the primary caregiver.

Why should there be a -primary- caregiver?

Marriages can't be, you know, equal?

Why should there be a -primary- caregiver?

Marriages can't be, you know, equal?
To be fair there is a certain reality of the work field … where you don’t get to set your hours … if one member of the marriage has higher earning power it makes more sence to let the other be the primary caregiver to maximize the others earning power


Ideally they each would be making the same amount of money

And be able to choose the amount of hours they work so that things can be split evenly.
But that almost never works … too many outside pressures.


(finding 2 20 hr a week jobs rather then 1 40 hr a week job that pays the same hourly wage is almost impossible) so if they had to split the 40 hrs to make it fair there is no way that they could make the same amount of money (or un likly)

Yes, you did, under your other name of Peopleandstuff.

Oh wait, are you the idiot who loves to make up other personalities for people? I have no puppets - this is my only country.

Actually in your case I suggested there were other issues such as prior work experience that could be at play.

Which I pointed out was the same.

If not then your colleagues are fools for putting up with it. If it could be adequately documented then there are remedies.

Lawsuits are (a) expensive and (b) generally more counterproductive than doing nothing in a case like this.

I am in a highly regulated field which is licensed and male-dominated. My assistant is an affluent married parent of three young children. My 'junior' partner is a senior citizen and a woman. She is only 'junior' based on her experience. (crossover from another industry) Yes, someone (a woman) tried to subject her to sexual discrimination, once. Heaven help the poor SOB now.

...Trying to figure out how this has any relevance to the conversation...

Feminism is no longer nessecary. By continually pushing for reform of culture feminists (now having eqality) are inadvertently pushing across the following ideas

1) Men are inferior to them
2) They do not have equality

Neither of which are true. In effectively all cases of employment women have the legal right to challenge if they believe they have been discriminated against, and the same thing for pay. Exactly how are women still not equal when it comes to the law?

Just a guess here, but I think Neo has trouble getting laid
LOL honey, I'm SURE of it.

Havent you got anything better to do than speculate about my sex life from what I post on here? Like say the debate itself? Its kind of low dont you think?

Feminism is no longer nessecary. By continually pushing for reform of culture feminists (now having eqality) are inadvertently pushing across the following ideas

1) Men are inferior to them
2) They do not have equality

Neither of which are true. In effectively all cases of employment women have the legal right to challenge if they believe they have been discriminated against, and the same thing for pay. Exactly how are women still not equal when it comes to the law?

Wow, Neo. I haven't come across the "men are inferior" idea yet.
As for the "don't have equality", it's a fact. According to both government and independent studies, the following have the greatest impact on your life's earnings in real dollars adjusted for inflation:

1. Your gender
2. Your level of education
3. Your household income at age 18

That's it. And your gender counts big. A woman makes 2/3 of what a man makes for comparable work. And this figure, despite repeated legislation, so-called progress, and repeated sampling, has barely budged.

Is 2/3 equal to 1? Or am I getting the math wrong.

If you're interested, the calculations are a matter of case law in the US. I wrote the calculations, did the research, and wrote a software application to do wage loss calculations. It's enshrined in case law with the EEOC.

Wow, Neo. I haven't come across the "men are inferior" idea yet.


They dont say it out loud, but by continually pushing their "Lack of equality" in peoples faces they are sugesting they are worthy of more than they are.


As for the "don't have equality", it's a fact. According to both government and independent studies, the following have the greatest impact on your life's earnings in real dollars adjusted for inflation:

1. Your gender
2. Your level of education
3. Your household income at age 18

That's it. And your gender counts big. A woman makes 2/3 of what a man makes for comparable work. And this figure, despite repeated legislation, so-called progress, and repeated sampling, has barely budged.

Is 2/3 equal to 1? Or am I getting the math wrong.

If you're interested, the calculations are a matter of case law in the US. I wrote the calculations, did the research, and wrote a software application to do wage loss calculations. It's enshrined in case law with the EEOC.

Fine then sue. That is anyones right. Wether or not they are actually getting the same pay is irrelevent. Under law they have the ability to demand higher wages if someone of a diffrent gender is reciving higher pay for the same job. If women are not doing anything about being paid less then that is there own fault. They should do something, that is their right and it should be excercised. It is a fact that there is equal pay legislation in both the US and UK. Get over it. The fact that the legisaltion has not changed things is stupid as we have anti-murder laws but people still get killed. We can however bring to justice the killer, and the same is true of a discriminative employer .Women have equality of law. They may not have equality of cultural opinion, but they wont get it by ranting and raving about it. People will only laugh

Feminism is no longer nessecary. By continually pushing for reform of culture feminists (now having eqality) are inadvertently pushing across the following ideas

1) Men are inferior to them
2) They do not have equality

Neither of which are true. In effectively all cases of employment women have the legal right to challenge if they believe they have been discriminated against, and the same thing for pay. Exactly how are women still not equal when it comes to the law?

Oh, so very naive. Are you sure you aren't 12?

Yes, by law, women (much like blacks) have equality. Whoopdeedoo.

The problem (in both cases) is that discrimination is still a very bit part of social attitudes.

So, women can sue, eh?

A woman sues to be able to play on a football team, for which she meets all the requirements.
What is said about her? -- She is "ruining" the sport. How dare she? Who wants women playing football?
This is despite the fact that she is a very good kicker - better than many men.
The woman is harrassed by her male teammates both on the field and off. She is raped by one of her teammates. When she drops out of school and reports the crime, what does her coach say? - "She wasn't that good of a kicker anyways."

All of the above actually happened, quite recently in fact.

I do not discount the fact that there are some cases af radical abuse, though I do have difficulty accepting that a woman can be left with no choice but to stay with the abuser (not to mention her original poor choice to hook up with the creep to begin with). My point is that I don't think that in 700,000 instances this is always the case. There are plenty of instances where the woman instigated yet the man went to jail.

The point is that women are not the victim of male violence nearly as often as men. That does not demonstrate any 'conspiracy' to harm women or keep them down. Given your own statistics a woman is about as likely to be a victim of domestic violence in a given year as she is of being struck by lightning in her lifetime. (use http://www.thunderstruk.com/facts19.htm) That, however, does not fit nicely into the victomhood that helps NOW position men as agressors in their fight. Rather than address voilence in general, they take a narrow segment and use it to portray men as 'agressive' and needing to be 'controlled' around women. Meanwhile leaving male victims (of men or women) to fend for themselves.

Also your statistics don't show that while cases of male -vs- female violence have been fairly level, cases of voilence perpetrated by women (against both sexes) has grown.

And don't presume to tell me what I have or have not studies. I've simply not accepted everything spoon-fed to me by biased sources as fact. I've verified and searched for my own facts.


Considering those stats include inner city gang violence they aren't really that reliable. Separate the gang violence from other violence and then compare the male-female ratio of the "other" catagory. You would get a number much closer to the reality of the situation.

They may not have equality of cultural opinion, but they wont get it by ranting and raving about it. People will only laugh
How do you think any group that was discriminated against gained rights? By ranting and raving about the inequality they suffered. I'm not sure what you were doing when they were teaching about the civil rights movement of the 60's, but there was a lot of unrest and social upheaval and speeches. Ranting and raving seems to work. They may be oversimplified, but how do you expect them to set things right? Just sit there and be quiet?

Also, lawsuits? You do realize that alot of people aren't aware of what their coworkers and neighbors earn right? Do you have any idea how hard it would be for a single employee to sue a large company over something like this? Thats why the make lifetime movies about the people who win.

How do you think any group that was discriminated against gained rights? By ranting and raving about the inequality they suffered.

Those are LEGAL equalities, not cultural viewpoints. You dont change culture by ranting and raving. You change laws with that. You cannot change the cultural steryotype of the "Blonde bimbo" or any of the other various views of women in society by complaining about them.

Also, lawsuits? You do realize that alot of people aren't aware of what their coworkers and neighbors earn right? Do you have any idea how hard it would be for a single employee to sue a large company over something like this? Thats why the make lifetime movies about the people who win.

It is not hard. It is only percived as hard by the media, it is the law that if it is discovered that a company is being sexist in its employment/salary policy then they have the right to sue and to demand higher wages. Whining "But its hard" is stupid on the grounds that it is also hard to catch burglars but people do it anyway because they are breaking the law. The fact is an employe has the right to know what someone doing the same job as them is paid and the right to know why they are being paid higher if they are. Those are rights. These cannot be changed and it cannot be claimed that women/men are treeted diffrently because of gender under the law becuase the law says that you cannot pay someone diffrently because of gender. Ergo women have equality of law.

I'm not sure what your point is, women do have the legal right to demand equal pay, but you’re saying its ok because culturally people don't want them to have it? Therefore you can sue, but not complain about it because complaining doesn't help?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it culturally acceptable for women to be paid the same, and wouldn't that be where the feminists come in?

As far as the Women are better crap goes, feminazis and feminists are not the same thing. I hardly think Greenpeace represents the interests of every environmentalist or that PETA defines anyone who believes in animal rights. These are groups that take a relatively good thing way too far. They aren't an indictment of the entire movement.

These are my points

1) Women have equality in terms of rights. Of this there is no question.
2) Women, like every social group of any kind, have sterotypes about them (men do as well, as do ethnic minorities). This is cultural ineqality which many feminists try to put a stop to but cannot as cultural identy can only change passively with time, and not by force.
3) By continually trying to make a case for "Womens rights" and saying that women need help they are pushing men back and are making them seem socialy inferior (though it may or may not be intentional that they are doing this, but that is what they are doing). Evidence of this can be seen in the UK when it was thought that the education system was treeting girls so badly that it worked very hard to introduce "Girl friendly" education policies. However, by intentionaly favouring girls, the system is now overyly favouring girls and the gap is worse now than it was when girls were lagging. The point is that now it is intentionaly female freindly where as before it was not intentionaly male dominated.

Why should there be a -primary- caregiver?

Marriages can't be, you know, equal?
Primary caregiver is simply the person who spends the most waking hours with the child. If one spouse works then the other is the primary caregiver. The only way to avoid it is if neither spouse works. If both spouses work then the primary caregiver is daycare/babysitter/nanny.

...Trying to figure out how this has any relevance to the conversation...
Yoou presumed to speculate I work in a field not male-dominated.

Oh wait, are you the idiot who loves to make up other personalities for people? I have no puppets - this is my only country....
If you expect a reply again you will select your adjectives more carefully. Itr is apparently coincidence that your threads started at the same time P&S stopped. My bad.



Lawsuits are (a) expensive and (b) generally more counterproductive than doing nothing in a case like this.....
Good thing they are not your only option. Even liberals know that.

Wow. Just engage in blame the victim. Next time someone unexpectedly screws you over in any fashion whatsever, just remember, it was YOUR fault.
.

If you were to walk into a gay bar wearing a shirt that said 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and got beat up, you would share in the responsibility. Not all, but many victims, willingly place themselves in a position to be victimized.

And yeah. Some women who actually want to leave have a very hard time. The worst of abusers socially isolate their victims, leaving them no one to turn to. They have no money. Their abusers threaten to kill them if they leave. There have been cases of men using female friends/relatives to find out where shelters for abused women are and then actually turn up at the shelter door with fucking loaded guns. And these assholes don't tend to stay in jail for more than a night or two.
.

I don't doubt that there are some cases of this. I do doubt that it is of epidemic proportion.

Define instigate. And then explain how severe abuse is in anyway justified. If the man is nearly as beat up as the woman, then and only then will I buy self defense and not using any little thing as an excuse to go overboard.

.
I hate to use personal ancedote but here it may work best. A very muscular friend's wife freaked out one night. Mostly it was stress from a recent death in her family. She chose to take it out on him for a completely unrelated reason. She threw objects, she hit, she swore, etc. To keep her from hurting him he was forced to physically restrain her. (and she ain't that small herself) In the process he left a red mark on her arm. Neighbors heard the commotion and phoned the police. The police, upon arrival, informed him that he could be arrested for domestic assault if she chose to press charges because of the mark on her arm, regardles of the condition he was in. She chose not to.

That pretty well describes instigate.

While it is true that men are more likely to be the victims of crime IN GENERAL, women are more than twice as likely to be the victims OF CRIME COMMITTED BY AN INTIMATE. .
Well DUH,. that is because there are far more women who are intimate with men than there are men who are intimate with men.

If you have to dissect male violence to only 'intimates' in order to make the case that women alone are victims of male violence then you really have no point. Which is why I had to point out the struck-by-lightning example.

As far as women being only half as likely to perpetrate crimes against intimates, doesn't that seem a bit high (not low) compared to other statistics? Also, this does not consider man/man or woman/woman intimates. You presume they are all heterosexual.

Those are LEGAL equalities, not cultural viewpoints. You dont change culture by ranting and raving. You change laws with that. You cannot change the cultural steryotype of the "Blonde bimbo" or any of the other various views of women in society by complaining about them.

So very, very naive.

It is not hard. It is only percived as hard by the media, it is the law that if it is discovered that a company is being sexist in its employment/salary policy then they have the right to sue and to demand higher wages. Whining "But its hard" is stupid on the grounds that it is also hard to catch burglars but people do it anyway because they are breaking the law. The fact is an employe has the right to know what someone doing the same job as them is paid and the right to know why they are being paid higher if they are. Those are rights. These cannot be changed and it cannot be claimed that women/men are treeted diffrently because of gender under the law becuase the law says that you cannot pay someone diffrently because of gender. Ergo women have equality of law.

There is no right to know what anyone else at your workplace is paid. Such would be an invasion of their privacy. Stop making shit up.

Yoou presumed to speculate I work in a field not male-dominated.

No, I didn't.

The only thing I presumed is that you are not a female working in a male-dominated field.

Well DUH,. that is because there are far more women who are intimate with men than there are men who are intimate with men.

If you have to dissect male violence to only 'intimates' in order to make the case that women alone are victims of male violence then you really have no point. Which is why I had to point out the struck-by-lightning example.

As far as women being only half as likely to perpetrate crimes against intimates, doesn't that seem a bit high (not low) compared to other statistics? Also, this does not consider man/man or woman/woman intimates. You presume they are all heterosexual.

The 'over twice as much' was lazy math. The fact is women are slightly over 6.5 times as much to be the victims of intimate violence than men are. As there are equal percentages of male and female homosexuals, that wouldn't really alter the statistics much (unless by YOUR duh, statement, you are implying that since males tend to commit more crimes then the men victimized by their partners are more than likely to be gay).

But the point, which you seem to be dancing around no matter how much it is stated NOT that women are more often the victim of male violence than men are the victims of male violence, but that MALES ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE VICIMIZED BY A STRANGER-USUALLY A MALE- WHILE FEMALES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMIZED BY SOMEONE THEY KNOW -USUALLY A MALE.

You are the only one who keeps insisting I am saying that women alone are the targets against male violence, even though I have never said anything other than women are more likely to be assaulted by a man they know than they are to be assaulted by a strange man. Meaning the problem is not "male violence against females" so much as the attitudes about females which cause many men - mostly men who don't go around committing violence against strangers - to feel that it is okay to commit violence against the women that they do know.

If you were to walk into a gay bar wearing a shirt that said 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and got beat up, you would share in the responsibility. Not all, but many victims, willingly place themselves in a position to be victimized.

No, you wouldn't. You would bear the responsibility of having a lot of nasty words thrown your way, but violence in response to words is never acceptable. The responsibilty for the violence in this case would be soley on those who committed it.

What you are saying is that anyone who carries cash or wears an expensive piece of jewelry and gets robbed shares in the responsibity. Or for that matter anyone who owns anything has "placed themselves in the position to be robbed" and thus is complicit in their own victimization. Fucking bullshit.

These are my points

1) Women have equality in terms of rights. Of this there is no question.
2) Women, like every social group of any kind, have sterotypes about them (men do as well, as do ethnic minorities). This is cultural ineqality which many feminists try to put a stop to but cannot as cultural identy can only change passively with time, and not by force.
3) By continually trying to make a case for "Womens rights" and saying that women need help they are pushing men back and are making them seem socialy inferior (though it may or may not be intentional that they are doing this, but that is what they are doing). Evidence of this can be seen in the UK when it was thought that the education system was treeting girls so badly that it worked very hard to introduce "Girl friendly" education policies. However, by intentionaly favouring girls, the system is now overyly favouring girls and the gap is worse now than it was when girls were lagging. The point is that now it is intentionaly female freindly where as before it was not intentionaly male dominated.

As I don't know of this particular policy I cannot judge whether or not it went to far. But even if the schools prior to the change were not *intentionally* more boy-friendly, the fact remains that the policies were favorable to boys at the expense of girls.

Many times policies instituted to try to make things more equal are labelled "girl" or "woman" friendly (perhaps because so many places which call themselves equal - as schools that unintentionally favor males - are actually female- unfriendly). I do agree that there should be better names for the policies and not all of the policies are well thought out or well implemented. But can you at least understand that an institution that favors one gender over the other needs to be changed so that everyone is treated equally and that doing nothing will not cause anything to change?

I hate to use personal ancedote but here it may work best. A very muscular friend's wife freaked out one night. Mostly it was stress from a recent death in her family. She chose to take it out on him for a completely unrelated reason. She threw objects, she hit, she swore, etc. To keep her from hurting him he was forced to physically restrain her. (and she ain't that small herself) In the process he left a red mark on her arm. Neighbors heard the commotion and phoned the police. The police, upon arrival, informed him that he could be arrested for domestic assault if she chose to press charges because of the mark on her arm, regardles of the condition he was in. She chose not to.

That pretty well describes instigate.

Not even a fraction of the cases that I have seen are like that. Having volunteered in shelters almost all of the marks I have seen go far beyond anything that could be caused by restraining someone. While working the hotlines I have recieved phone calls threatening all kinds of violence not just toward the sheltered women but towards any that would help protect them. The usual complaint by these men who were threatening was not that the women had done anything other than "dared" to leave them. Honestly, before I worked at abuse shelters I thought that most of the women who stayed with the abusive partners had "problems" and that there was a lot more hype about abuse too. Working there changed that. All the stories, the news - nothing compared to seeing first hand what these women go through and hearing from the ones threatening them.

Yes, you did, under your other name of Peopleandstuff.

Hang on, is that why a lot of your comments made it appear as though you have reading/comprehension difficulties? I just thought you were one of those people who read things into comments that actually are not there nor even implied...
I dont do the whole 'puppet nation' thing, I have problems enough remembering one username-password combo...

If you expect a reply again you will select your adjectives more carefully. Itr is apparently coincidence that your threads started at the same time P&S stopped. My bad.
I would guess it must be. But by all means, disbelieve us both.

I suspect deliberately posting in one thread under different user names to intentionally deceive and annoy another poster, could probably be construed as 'griefing'. So if that's what you think is happening, I invite you to take it up with the moderators.

Basically if you genuninely think we are the same poster using different nations, then prove it, otherwise you are flame baiting.

As I don't know of this particular policy I cannot judge whether or not it went to far. But even if the schools prior to the change were not *intentionally* more boy-friendly, the fact remains that the policies were favorable to boys at the expense of girls.

Many times policies instituted to try to make things more equal are labelled "girl" or "woman" friendly (perhaps because so many places which call themselves equal - as schools that unintentionally favor males - are actually female- unfriendly). I do agree that there should be better names for the policies and not all of the policies are well thought out or well implemented. But can you at least understand that an institution that favors one gender over the other needs to be changed so that everyone is treated equally and that doing nothing will not cause anything to change?

Change to the point of equality. They got equality and continued (the story of feminism wraped up in five words)

Neo, if there was equality, then women and men would, on the average, make the same amount of money for the same job.

Now, a disparity is illegal today. But, it's still unchanged.

So there's no equality, Neo.

If I have 9 dollars and you have 6, we don't have equality in the amount of money we have.

Change to the point of equality. They got equality and continued (the story of feminism wraped up in five words)

Yeah, just like minorities are on an exactly equal footing with white middle-class people.....

Simply having equality of the law does not make things so. Social change is necessary for this and social change is *slow*.

Yeah, just like minorities are on an exactly equal footing with white middle-class people.....

Simply having equality of the law does not make things so. Social change is necessary for this and social change is *slow*.

Please. There is no significent social prejudice against members of ethnic minorities any more. There may be fringe groups that are exagerated by the media but the fact is that racism is nowhere near the significnet problem that everyone makes it out to be (at least in the UK anyway). The point I am making is that feminists and anti-race campaigners can no longer complain about a lack of equality. If the law is there then there is nothing more anyone can do. What do you want people to do, make a law regarding cultural sterotyping? Its impossible for anyone to "Force" social change and so femisnts complaining about it will go nowhere. It will only make people laugh at them more.

Neo, if there was equality, then women and men would, on the average, make the same amount of money for the same job.

Now, a disparity is illegal today. But, it's still unchanged.

So there's no equality, Neo.

If I have 9 dollars and you have 6, we don't have equality in the amount of money we have.

Thats stupid. Thats like saying "We dont do enough to stop murderers. We have the law but murderes still exist". Having a law means that if it happens it can be policed against. In both cases (murder and unequal pay) the perpretratior can be brought to justice.

Please. There is no significent social prejudice against members of ethnic minorities any more. There may be fringe groups that are exagerated by the media but the fact is that racism is nowhere near the significnet problem that everyone makes it out to be (at least in the UK anyway).

And your little corner of the world is not the whole world.

The point I am making is that feminists and anti-race campaigners can no longer complain about a lack of equality. If the law is there then there is nothing more anyone can do.

This is a silly statement. Social change does not only come through law-making.

Its impossible for anyone to "Force" social change and so femisnts complaining about it will go nowhere. It will only make people laugh at them more.

Of course, if you don't say anything, social change will *never* occur. Don't be silly. Do you think anyone ever accomplished anything by sitting back and saying "If I just shut my mouth, it'll all change eventually..."

Havent you got anything better to do than speculate about my sex life from what I post on here? Like say the debate itself? Its kind of low dont you think?

Thats stupid. Thats like saying "We dont do enough to stop murderers. We have the law but murderes still exist". Having a law means that if it happens it can be policed against. In both cases (murder and unequal pay) the perpretratior can be brought to justice.

LOL Neo!!!! Pay attention, person who won't be spreading his defective genetic material further into our genepool. I've been FERVENTLY participating in the debate of the thread... Maybe I didn't use small enough words for you to understand in all those other posts.

Your weak rhetoric doesn't stand up to reality's light. The fact is that making laws isn't enough when the system also allows laws that patently and almost unilaterally make it difficult, if not impossible to enforce them and when the police and courts are filled with people who have no motivation to uphold socially progressive legislations. Many women who try to pursue their legal rights to equal pay and safety from physical and psychological abuse in the home and the workplace find themselves in even worse situations for having taken legal action.

The LAWS cannot protect women or ensure their rights and equality. That requires a united agreement between men and women to ENFORCE and ABIDE by these laws. Which we don't have. YOU are a case in point. You disgusting little chauvenist.

You and that misogenist pig Bozzy should shack up together. No, wait, that's right, you're a raging homophobe too. The "God hates gays" kind of homophobe. Gee... I hope you enjoy solitary masturbation. Oh, doh! Sorry, you can't do that either. It's a sin.

Poor Neo.

Sucks to be you.

Yeah, I know that was terribly mean. But I'm past caring about the feelings of bigmouthed little boys of any age who patently and LOUDLY believe that women are inferior creatures, fit only to breed more little sexist piglets, clean up after their swinish men and feed them on demand.

Please. There is no significent social prejudice against members of ethnic minorities any more. There may be fringe groups that are exagerated by the media but the fact is that racism is nowhere near the significnet problem that everyone makes it out to be (at least in the UK anyway). The point I am making is that feminists and anti-race campaigners can no longer complain about a lack of equality. If the law is there then there is nothing more anyone can do. What do you want people to do, make a law regarding cultural sterotyping? Its impossible for anyone to "Force" social change and so femisnts complaining about it will go nowhere. It will only make people laugh at them more.

OMG!!! You don't get out much, do you?

Racism is still rampant today. So is sexism. Just because laws have been passed to discourage these things doesn't mean that they have ceased to be a huge issue. Even in your beloved UK. All the laws have done is force bigots and sexists to be more sneaky about their abuse of minorities and women to avoid punishment for their misdeeds.

PEOPLE, not just feminists, should be complaining and doing it LOUDLY to force the system to uphold the laws that have already been enacted and to supplement them where neccessary to make them more easily enforced. This cannot and will not happen if everyone just sits down and shuts the hell up as you are so fond of repeating they should do. Silence is all too often taken for consent and agreement with social wrongs.

Social change should be forced by members of the society. People must stand up and state that there is an injustice existing to make the rest of society aware that it exists. If the myth of social equality is allowed to stay in place through silence and lack of action, then no positive changes can be made. As stupid as it is, the "squeaky wheel" principle is highly effective and it's about the only option we have open to us. History shows us that suffering quietly doesn't make things get better. It is just a wasted martyrdom of those who won't or can't speak up for themselves.

Dude, you make the baby Jesus cry.

Please. There is no significent social prejudice against members of ethnic minorities any more. There may be fringe groups that are exagerated by the media but the fact is that racism is nowhere near the significnet problem that everyone makes it out to be (at least in the UK anyway). The point I am making is that feminists and anti-race campaigners can no longer complain about a lack of equality. If the law is there then there is nothing more anyone can do. What do you want people to do, make a law regarding cultural sterotyping? Its impossible for anyone to "Force" social change and so femisnts complaining about it will go nowhere. It will only make people laugh at them more.
Not true, although at this point I would say that the number of racists has balanced out at the very least proportionately between black and white racists. Still not a good thing, but it's slightly different in nature.

Your weak rhetoric doesn't stand up to reality's light. The fact is that making laws isn't enough when the system also allows laws that patently and almost unilaterally make it difficult, if not impossible to enforce them and when the police and courts are filled with people who have no motivation to uphold socially progressive legislations.


The laws exist. There is little more society can do to change its views. The views can be explained of course but they should not be forced down the throats of everyone. The fact is that there is equal pay legislation and that it is possible to demand justice. If it is difficult then logic dictates it is difficult across the whole system and so must be reformed as a whole.


Many women who try to pursue their legal rights to equal pay and safety from physical and psychological abuse in the home and the workplace find themselves in even worse situations for having taken legal action.


Thats a social problem, not a legal one. The law is the only area where equality can be guarnteed. Physical assult is a crime, verbal abuse you have to learn deal with.


The LAWS cannot protect women or ensure their rights and equality. That requires a united agreement between men and women to ENFORCE and ABIDE by these laws. Which we don't have. YOU are a case in point. You disgusting little chauvenist.


Actually all it needs are people willing to enforce the laws. There is no agreement to abide by murder laws as murders do happen. Unequal pay happens but it is the job of the legal system to reform both. If the legal system is failing in this regard then I say, reform the legal system.


You and that misogenist pig Bozzy should shack up together. No, wait, that's right, you're a raging homophobe too. The "God hates gays" kind of homophobe. Gee... I hope you enjoy solitary masturbation. Oh, doh! Sorry, you can't do that either. It's a sin.

Poor Neo.

Sucks to be you.


1) I am not a homophobe
2) I neither hate nor fear homosexuals, read the "Why is homosexuality a sin" thread and you will see my point of view.


Yeah, I know that was terribly mean. But I'm past caring about the feelings of bigmouthed little boys of any age who patently and LOUDLY believe that women are inferior creatures, fit only to breed more little sexist piglets, clean up after their swinish men and feed them on demand.

I have never sugested women are infiror, please retract that statement. What I am saying is that they have the only type of equality that can be guarenteed, legal equality.

Yay New Zealand passed the civil union bill. :)

Yay New Zealand passed the civil union bill. :)
Boo, hiss, hiss boo...it's a cop out... :headbang:

Boo, hiss, hiss boo...it's a cop out... :headbang:

No its a step in the right direction

No its a step in the right direction
No it is an excuse to not take any further steps. It removes the urgency and impetuous of granting equal rights to citizens regardless of sexual preference, without actually ever granting such equality. It's a cop-out designed to remove some of the effects of the problem without actually solving the problem (for fear of alienating busy bodies who think it's their business to monitor who marries whom).

No civil union bill = more chance of equality regarding marraige laws
civil union bill = excuse to not ensure equality regarding marraige laws.

Basically if anyone tries to complain about the discrimination with regards to marraige and sexuality, the excuse will be, 'oh but they can have a civil union and it's basically the same', meanwhile the 'Christian Right' are not any happier about civil unions than they would be about marraige, so they are agitated, and homosexuals still cant get married so they are still discriminated against, and the whole issue can be swept under the carpet using 'civil unions' as an excuse to not grant homosexual people the same rights as heterosexual citizens, while patting ourselves on the back for being so 'enlightened'.

Feminism ---

It's so sad that this is even an issue. "Girls have cooties!" "Boys drool!" Sheesh.

There are arrogant, close minded jerks on both sides of the gender line. I say lock them all up in a room together and throw away the key.

Homosexuality & Marriage ---

I always find it interesting that people seem to believe it's not natural. Virtually every sexual species studied has displayed homosexual behavior. Quite a bit in some of them.

I find even more laughable positions like "marriage has always meant a monogamous union between one man and one woman". Take an anthropology course, and you'll find out it's not even close. Many cultures have examples of plural marriages, same-sex marriages, non-monogamous marriages, etc.

Of course, then you get the religious angle. Given that there are religions that have no objection whatsoever to homosexual marriages, passing a law that bans homosexual marriages is ultimately religious discrimination.

Now, even if a "civil union" were to provide exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage, it would still be innately discriminatory - as they have choosen to label it something differant merely because the people involved were differant. This is no differant than, say, deciding to call it a "legal binding" if a jewish couple decided to get married, or a "state joining" if a black couple wanted to get hitched.

----

Legal equality, basic respect and tolerance of differances should be automatic. People with delusions of superiority make my brain hurt.

The average woman employee makes 25% less than her male counter part

Way to pull a statistic out of thin air. If you ever bothered to take a census(as in ask two or three people) of income the pay difference for the same position is never that high.

Let me ask you this if women really did work for 25% less then men why arent their more women workers? Name one company that wouldnt like to get rid of a quarter of their payroll and still have the same jobs being done.

Whenever you see a national/state/city average payroll difference. Remmember that.


Men are more willing to do jobs that require heavy labor, these jobs tend to pay better.
Men are more willing to work in dangerous situations; these jobs also pay better.
On average, men are more willing to do extra work without pay, as in favors.


These three factors almost always account for average pay difference. The first two are statistical. Ill admit the last one is debateable, but ive talked with alot of managers, both male and female, and they agree with it more often than not.

If you take all the money paid to men and divide it by the number of men working and then do the same for women, one indeed gets a number on the order of 75%. However, if one breaks it down by job class as well the difference is somewhere between 95-98% of what men make.

Dont cheapen it because of its shortcomings. The civil unions bill has made gays around the country happy and in the end thats all that matters. They have more rights then most countries and it is enough for now. Changing minds takes time.

Dont cheapen it because of its shortcomings. The civil unions bill has made gays around the country happy and in the end thats all that matters. They have more rights then most countries and it is enough for now. Changing minds takes time.
I'm not cheapening it, it's already 'low rent'. It's not good enough, it wont change the minds of those opposed to homosexual marraige (but is a good 'sop' to those who still are 'ungrateful' enough to complain). It is clear discrimination, wrapped and handed over as a present that homosexuals are expected to be 'grateful' for. "More rights than most countries" is not "enough" if it's not enough. Equality is enough, or at least the deliberate and intentional removal of known inequalities. The Civil Union bill is simply legislating inequality and discrimination in order to 'console' social conservatives who are opposed (whilst failing miserably to do so) to homosexual activities and homosexuals generally, while trying to remove credible reasons (for instance the overt financial ramifications of homosexuals not being able to get married) for legitimate complaints about a form of institutionalised discrimination against a particular group of citizens.

Dont cheapen it because of its shortcomings. The civil unions bill has made gays around the country happy and in the end thats all that matters. They have more rights then most countries and it is enough for now. Changing minds takes time.

Meh. Mr. Tamaki will have it repealed in a few years anyway.

Meh. Mr. Tamaki will have it repealed in a few years anyway.

:cool: Only if he takes F. Franco's advice....literally :cool:

:cool: Only if he takes F. Franco's advice....literally :cool:

Franco eh? Well I'll be sure to mention it to him.

I'm not cheapening it, it's already 'low rent'. It's not good enough, it wont change the minds of those opposed to homosexual marraige (but is a good 'sop' to those who still are 'ungrateful' enough to complain). It is clear discrimination, wrapped and handed over as a present that homosexuals are expected to be 'grateful' for. "More rights than most countries" is not "enough" if it's not enough. Equality is enough, or at least the deliberate and intentional removal of known inequalities. The Civil Union bill is simply legislating inequality and discrimination in order to 'console' social conservatives who are opposed (whilst failing miserably to do so) to homosexual activities and homosexuals generally, while trying to remove credible reasons (for instance the overt financial ramifications of homosexuals not being able to get married) for legitimate complaints about a form of institutionalised discrimination against a particular group of citizens.

The bill only just passed. The chance of full rights passing was even lower. Im all for equal rights I just think society as a whole is not ready to accept it, the churches spent to long telling people not to. Are you a NZer?

Are you a NZer?
Yes.

Yes.

ok. just wondering.

Franco eh? Well I'll be sure to mention it to him.
LOL, you mean someone hasnt already...? ;)

Still at anyone who has invested heavily in 'black t-shirt' producing companies will be grinning... :D all the way to the bank, wonder if I've any spare $'s lying around... ;)

Way to pull a statistic out of thin air. If you ever bothered to take a census(as in ask two or three people) of income the pay difference for the same position is never that high.
Let me ask you this if women really did work for 25% less then men why arent their more women workers? Name one company that wouldnt like to get rid of a quarter of their payroll and still have the same jobs being done.
Whenever you see a national/state/city average payroll difference. Remmember that.

Men are more willing to do jobs that require heavy labor, these jobs tend to pay better.
Men are more willing to work in dangerous situations; these jobs also pay better.
On average, men are more willing to do extra work without pay, as in favors.

These three factors almost always account for average pay difference. The first two are statistical. Ill admit the last one is debateable, but ive talked with alot of managers, both male and female, and they agree with it more often than not.

And lets not forget all the dirty filthy jobs(which often pay well) which leave

you covered in grit, and sweat, mud, sludge, Ive done plenty of them too,

and met few women in them( two in the last five years) lets not just thank

only men in general for doing this necessary work, apon which unattended

too, would leave western civilisation at a dead stop within weeks.

Lets just thank that necessary percentage of men in society, of which I'm a

proud dirt and sweat covered part of.

Without us, society, you would be helpless.

(as we would be, because we need your money lol)

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

damn straight. Go Australia! :p

Way to pull a statistic out of thin air. If you ever bothered to take a census(as in ask two or three people) of income the pay difference for the same position is never that high.

Let me ask you this if women really did work for 25% less then men why arent their more women workers? Name one company that wouldnt like to get rid of a quarter of their payroll and still have the same jobs being done.

Whenever you see a national/state/city average payroll difference. Remmember that.


Men are more willing to do jobs that require heavy labor, these jobs tend to pay better.
Men are more willing to work in dangerous situations; these jobs also pay better.
On average, men are more willing to do extra work without pay, as in favors.


These three factors almost always account for average pay difference. The first two are statistical. Ill admit the last one is debateable, but ive talked with alot of managers, both male and female, and they agree with it more often than not.

Jobs requiring physical labor tend to pay more because it is primarily men who can do them. Jobs which have been viewed traditionally as "women's work" have lower payscales even though they require no less eduation or skills as other classes of jobs.

Women have historically been forbidden and discouraged from working in dangerous situations. The fact that it is "dangerous" is why women were kept out of the military so long and the idiotic reason why the draft has been male only.

Women have historically been expected to take care of the children, and the house, including doing things like preparing the males foods and wash his clothes, etc., thus giving men more _time_ to do extra work without pay.

All results of sexism.

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

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

seeing how our socity is going backwards why dont we just take away womes rights? :rolleyes:

Jobs requiring physical labor tend to pay more because it is primarily men who can do them. Jobs which have been viewed traditionally as "women's work" have lower payscales even though they require no less eduation or skills as other classes of jobs.

Women have historically been forbidden and discouraged from working in dangerous situations. The fact that it is "dangerous" is why women were kept out of the military so long and the idiotic reason why the draft has been male only.

Women have historically been expected to take care of the children, and the house, including doing things like preparing the males foods and wash his clothes, etc., thus giving men more _time_ to do extra work without pay.

All results of sexism.
Lol though I don’t argue that is the case in some areas … not universally true

Example I worked in housekeeping at a nursing home for 3 years (about as “woman’s work” as it gets) … paid a dollar an hr more then I worked in Fingerhut factory.

Same with my bro’s job in housekeeping at a comfort in … then he moved to being a nurses aid … that paid even more

Same with my friends job as a secretary (he was making WAY more)


I mean I see historically it has been very pronounced, but over the years service industry pay has gone way up relative to factory work … and a lot of the service industry is “woman’s work”

Considering those stats include inner city gang violence they aren't really that reliable. Separate the gang violence from other violence and then compare the male-female ratio of the "other" catagory. You would get a number much closer to the reality of the situation.
Not exactly sure what your point is...

But the point, which you seem to be dancing around no matter how much it is stated NOT that women are more often the victim of male violence than men are the victims of male violence, but that MALES ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE VICIMIZED BY A STRANGER-USUALLY A MALE- WHILE FEMALES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMIZED BY SOMEONE THEY KNOW -USUALLY A MALE.

.
That is inaccurate. The stats are in the study posted many pages back. I am on my dial-up conn now or I'd go back and find it. As I recall it sayd somewhere around 75% of ALL crimes are perpetrated be someone who the victim knows. I know that figure ins not specific, but I'd be all night trying to find it on dial-up. Sorry, may you can?

No, you wouldn't. You would bear the responsibility of having a lot of nasty words thrown your way, but violence in response to words is never acceptable. The responsibilty for the violence in this case would be soley on those who committed it.

What you are saying is that anyone who carries cash or wears an expensive piece of jewelry and gets robbed shares in the responsibity. Or for that matter anyone who owns anything has "placed themselves in the position to be robbed" and thus is complicit in their own victimization. Fucking bullshit.
Hey, it looks good on paper, but I have to disagree with you. Go to the worst side of town and start yelling racial slurs against the predominate minority there. Few people will give you sympathy after your ass gets kicked from here to right over there. (maybe the klan...) It was your choice to put yourself in that position. You are still a victim, but you also have the personal responsibility for intentionally and foolishly putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

Maybe you think it'd be a better world if you could call a black man a 'niga' right to his face without deserving an arse whoopin. I don't agree.

The laws exist. There is little more society can do to change its views. The views can be explained of course but they should not be forced down the throats of everyone.

Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto discrimination?

Thats a social problem, not a legal one. The law is the only area where equality can be guarnteed. Physical assult is a crime, verbal abuse you have to learn deal with.

Who said anything about guarrantees?

Society teaches certain misconceptions about gender roles/races/etc. It is in no way wrong to point out the falsities that many people spread.

What I am saying is that they have the only type of equality that can be guarenteed, legal equality.

Which no one has denied (in most Western countries anyways), so stop bithching about something that no one even said.

Neo, if there was equality, then women and men would, on the average, make the same amount of money for the same job.

Now, a disparity is illegal today. But, it's still unchanged.

So there's no equality, Neo.

If I have 9 dollars and you have 6, we don't have equality in the amount of money we have.
Even if the woman had only 2 years of experience to the mans 20. Even if he sells twice as much as her. Even if he produces twice as much product as her.

Thaqt isn't equality, my misguided friend.

Even if the woman had only 2 years of experience to the mans 20. Even if he sells twice as much as her. Even if he produces twice as much product as her.

Thaqt isn't equality, my misguided friend.

Which is not anywhere *near* the case people are complaining about.

Not even a fraction of the cases that I have seen are like that. Having volunteered in shelters almost all of the marks I have seen go far beyond anything that could be caused by restraining someone. While working the hotlines I have recieved phone calls threatening all kinds of violence not just toward the sheltered women but towards any that would help protect them. The usual complaint by these men who were threatening was not that the women had done anything other than "dared" to leave them. Honestly, before I worked at abuse shelters I thought that most of the women who stayed with the abusive partners had "problems" and that there was a lot more hype about abuse too. Working there changed that. All the stories, the news - nothing compared to seeing first hand what these women go through and hearing from the ones threatening them.
You're not the only one to have helped abused women. By the time they are seeking help at a shelter they are all in the worst way. This is not, however, the 'typical' domestic abuse call reflected in that 700,000 number. Also, very few of the women who find themseves in that positino are ever actually surprized that the guy turned out to be abusive. They often saw the warning signs very early and/or were warned by friends and family who did. They often said "I thought I could change him" "He just needed someone to love" "It was exciting at first". I've heard it all. At the end of the day they have much in common with the 'enablers' of addicts - in this case the substance is violence. (Which is why the same women often fall into ANOTHER abusive relationship later!)

Is it good or excuseable? Of course not. Is it their fault? Though they are often responsible for entering knowingly into a dangerous relationship, the fault still lies squarely with the man. Is male violence agains women epidemic - absolutely not.

Which is not anywhere *near* the case people are complaining about.
Then try using a more reasonable and accurate example.

Yeah, just like minorities are on an exactly equal footing with white middle-class people.....

Simply having equality of the law does not make things so. Social change is necessary for this and social change is *slow*.
Why not "White middle-class poor people"?

Social change takes about one generation for a group that works to integrate. It did for the Irish, it did for the Italians, it most recently did for the southeast Asians. Asians, a clear minority, are financially and educationally comparable to whites in most every regard, and exceed in many.

Maybe they are the new 'The Man'

People with delusions of superiority make my brain hurt.
People with illusions of victimhood are even worse. They take credibility away from real victims.

Men are more willing to do jobs that require heavy labor, these jobs tend to pay better.
Men are more willing to work in dangerous situations; these jobs also pay better.
On average, men are more willing to do extra work without pay, as in favors.



OMG. Please tell me you didn't say that 'favors' line. Even I gotta disagree with you on all of these.

Jobs requiring physical labor tend to pay more because it is primarily men who can do them. Jobs which have been viewed traditionally as "women's work" have lower payscales even though they require no less eduation or skills as other classes of jobs.

Women have historically been forbidden and discouraged from working in dangerous situations. The fact that it is "dangerous" is why women were kept out of the military so long and the idiotic reason why the draft has been male only.

Women have historically been expected to take care of the children, and the house, including doing things like preparing the males foods and wash his clothes, etc., thus giving men more _time_ to do extra work without pay.

All results of sexism.

FINALLY, you made some reasonable points. Your conclusion is flawed, but the points are worthy of discussing.

seeing how our socity is going backwards why dont we just take away womes rights? :rolleyes:
because they are still the hand that rocks the cradle... (rules the world)

That is inaccurate. The stats are in the study posted many pages back. I am on my dial-up conn now or I'd go back and find it. As I recall it sayd somewhere around 75% of ALL crimes are perpetrated be someone who the victim knows. I know that figure ins not specific, but I'd be all night trying to find it on dial-up. Sorry, may you can?

It doesn't give percentages but here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate


Hey, it looks good on paper, but I have to disagree with you. Go to the worst side of town and start yelling racial slurs against the predominate minority there. Few people will give you sympathy after your ass gets kicked from here to right over there. (maybe the klan...) It was your choice to put yourself in that position. You are still a victim, but you also have the personal responsibility for intentionally and foolishly putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

Maybe you think it'd be a better world if you could call a black man a 'niga' right to his face without deserving an arse whoopin. I don't agree.

Sympathy, maybe not. But neither would they feel any sympathy when the person who used violence was convicted and punished for assault, when the appropriate response would have been to ignore the idiot or return harsh words. The legal system certainly wouldn't say, "well, it's your fault that you got the shit beat out of you." There is never any excuse to blame the victim and even less excuse for the legal system to attempt to blame a victim.

Is male violence agains women epidemic - absolutely not.

No one is claiming that it is epidemic (at least not in this country). But neither is terrorism epidemic. No one is saying that men (as a group) are evil because they are violent, or even because sometimes their victims are women. The problem with violence against women is not so much in the amount but the fact that the majority of it is committed by people the women know, and the implications of that. If the violence against women were as random as the violence against men then it wouldn't be a feminist issue. Again, it is not men who are the problem (except for the individuals who actually commit the violence) but the attitudes about women which make them more likely to be the victim of crime at the hands of someone they know. You just don't victimize someone you know and think of as an equal. And yes, as you mentioned, the women in these relationships tend to return to others like them. Being a victim of intimate crime (especially when one was in an abusive household as a child, the most common indicator of whether someone is likely to be an abuser or be abused) undermines the self-esteem and belief in one's own equality. It is a vicious cycle. When one's attacker is a stranger, it is easier to get pissed, to say they had no right. For some reason, people tend to make up stupid excuses for the people they care about even if it means trying to take some of the blame onto themselves.

wow, the three main clues to tell how objective/intelligent the posters of any given argument/thread ore 1) the depth into the issue they go
2) the number and relevance of side issues hat are brought up and
3) the amount of Ad Hominem. after carefully reading this thread in its entirety, i give it a (out of ten) 1/4. it amazes me what lengths and tangents that feminists, feminist defenders and anti feminists will go to and the lack of depth they have achieved. everything from society and religion to communism and children is blamed/bashed and no one has even mentioned any of the meters, I can't believe an argument on feminism has gone on this long w/o a single mention of Guinevere, the classic measure of womens equality/feminism. think about it, when the Arthur legend was first being told, there was no guinevere, and women generally were not thought of in an everyday sense, many geneologies don't mention them, they weren't counted in censuses, and coultdn't own property among other things, later, as women became more and more objects of literature and began having more and more legal and social existence, Guinevere was 'appended' to Arthur, she became the Queen and nothing much more came of it until women gained more and more legal and social standing, 'the queens court' becomes a term for ones stamding in social situations, if the queen and the women the queen was accompanied and conversed with disliked you, then you were pretty much an outcast, and Guinevere became a more powerful figure, the love traingle woth Lancelot developes, and slowly she becomes more developed as a character and more powerful as a plot device and as a Queen. Recently, a movie came out in which Guinevere is an almost obscene figure, slaughtering the bad guys right along side the men, as good as them in every way but still taking every oportunity to point out their short comings and attempting to excel in evry way the did even though the men didn't all excel in the same areas, she at least tried to. what does that say about modern, western society?

and as to society itself, it is very much governed by the majority, people do things these days that people wouldn't dream of earlier and are only accepted now because they are incredibly common, i heard aomeone use smoking as a counter example, that person need only got to a restauraunt to see that the smoking issues proves my point rather than disprove, smokers are outcasts, in texas you can't smoke with in 20 feet of public places and restauraunts and bars have very strict policies about smoking, even though smoking is still very much legal, those who do are very much outcasts

i dislike many forms of feminism*, although i am pro equality, seemingly contradictory i know, but feminism is killing many of the good things left to western society. For example; i am generally prediposed towards being kind and helping people, i hold doors for anybody (not just women) and help people carry things or do chores when i'm around. how do you think i felt when, one day while shopping i stopped to hold a door for some one coming after me and i hear in a very accusing tone of voice "Your holding that door open because I'm a women arent' you!?" , I honestly, before she said that couldn't have said if i was holding the door open for a gorrilla, its not something i think about, i don't look to see who's behind me before holding the door. or once, when carrying quite a load, i gently asked the nearest person to open a door that i required passage through, my arms were full and the situation was not one where setting the things down would be appropriate
a women was kindenough to hold the door open for me, but before i could make use of said door, a feminist (making assumptions here) waded through the crowd, grabbed the woman by the arm, whispered something harshly in her ear (didn't catch what) and dragged her away, leaving me, arms full, still stranded on the wrong side of the door. this kind of behavior is not conducive to support,i'm normally quite well disposed towards charities and equality movements, but these and other similiar situations have embittered me and prevented me from (as i would have otherise done) donating money and time to 'feminist' movements and organizations

*feminism-Noun. the view or belief that A. men are inferior to women. B, men do things that are nice for women because they believe women ar weaker or less capable C. that women must do everything for themselves to be seen as equal to men. D. that men, in all forms except subservient to women completely are scum.

wow, the three main clues to tell how objective/intelligent the posters of any given argument/thread ore 1) the depth into the issue they go
2) the number and relevance of side issues hat are brought up and
3) the amount of Ad Hominem. after carefully reading this thread in its entirety, i give it a (out of ten) 1/4. it amazes me what lengths and tangents that feminists, feminist defenders and anti feminists will go to and the lack of depth they have achieved. everything from society and religion to communism and children is blamed/bashed and no one has even mentioned any of the meters, I can't believe an argument on feminism has gone on this long w/o a single mention of Guinevere, the classic measure of womens equality/feminism. think about it, when the Arthur legend was first being told, there was no guinevere, and women generally were not thought of in an everyday sense, many geneologies don't mention them, they weren't counted in censuses, and coultdn't own property among other things, later, as women became more and more objects of literature and began having more and more legal and social existence, Guinevere was 'appended' to Arthur, she became the Queen and nothing much more came of it until women gained more and more legal and social standing, 'the queens court' becomes a term for ones stamding in social situations, if the queen and the women the queen was accompanied and conversed with disliked you, then you were pretty much an outcast, and Guinevere became a more powerful figure, the love traingle woth Lancelot developes, and slowly she becomes more developed as a character and more powerful as a plot device and as a Queen. Recently, a movie came out in which Guinevere is an almost obscene figure, slaughtering the bad guys right along side the men, as good as them in every way but still taking every oportunity to point out their short comings and attempting to excel in evry way the did even though the men didn't all excel in the same areas, she at least tried to. what does that say about modern, western society?

and as to society itself, it is very much governed by the majority, people do things these days that people wouldn't dream of earlier and are only accepted now because they are incredibly common, i heard aomeone use smoking as a counter example, that person need only got to a restauraunt to see that the smoking issues proves my point rather than disprove, smokers are outcasts, in texas you can't smoke with in 20 feet of public places and restauraunts and bars have very strict policies about smoking, even though smoking is still very much legal, those who do are very much outcasts

i dislike many forms of feminism*, although i am pro equality, seemingly contradictory i know, but feminism is killing many of the good things left to western society. For example; i am generally prediposed towards being kind and helping people, i hold doors for anybody (not just women) and help people carry things or do chores when i'm around. how do you think i felt when, one day while shopping i stopped to hold a door for some one coming after me and i hear in a very accusing tone of voice "Your holding that door open because I'm a women arent' you!?" , I honestly, before she said that couldn't have said if i was holding the door open for a gorrilla, its not something i think about, i don't look to see who's behind me before holding the door. or once, when carrying quite a load, i gently asked the nearest person to open a door that i required passage through, my arms were full and the situation was not one where setting the things down would be appropriate
a women was kindenough to hold the door open for me, but before i could make use of said door, a feminist (making assumptions here) waded through the crowd, grabbed the woman by the arm, whispered something harshly in her ear (didn't catch what) and dragged her away, leaving me, arms full, still stranded on the wrong side of the door. this kind of behavior is not conducive to support,i'm normally quite well disposed towards charities and equality movements, but these and other similiar situations have embittered me and prevented me from (as i would have otherise done) donating money and time to 'feminist' movements and organizations

*feminism-Noun. the view or belief that A. men are inferior to women. B, men do things that are nice for women because they believe women ar weaker or less capable C. that women must do everything for themselves to be seen as equal to men. D. that men, in all forms except subservient to women completely are scum.

First off wow you read the whole thing from the begining? Thats an amazing effort on your part. However starting a post with insults didnt give me good hope, but it seems a well reasoned post after my own heart.

*feminism-Noun. the view or belief that A. men are inferior to women. B, men do things that are nice for women because they believe women ar weaker or less capable C. that women must do everything for themselves to be seen as equal to men. D. that men, in all forms except subservient to women completely are scum.

The women who you described are the *minority* among feminists.

Feminism: The belief that both genders should be treated equally and should begin on an equal footing, with differences in treatment being allowed only for clear biological differences.

Which no one has denied (in most Western countries anyways), so stop bithching about something that no one even said.

What I am complaining about is that feminists have the idea that they do not have equality and continue to whine and winge about it when they do, as I have proved. You cant whine and winge about social inequality as everyone has that. The fact that men are often portrayed as dumb, fat, bloated layabouts is a social inequality, but whining about it will change noting. To quote Rowan Atkinson

"These arguments come from the idea of a right not to be offended, but I believe the right to offend is of far greater value. I would like to thank the government that it is still enshrined in law that people may make rude remarks about the French"

*feminism-Noun. the view or belief that A. men are inferior to women. B, men do things that are nice for women because they believe women ar weaker or less capable C. that women must do everything for themselves to be seen as equal to men. D. that men, in all forms except subservient to women completely are scum.

When I engage in debate I generally have to rely on things like supporting evidence, logic, deductive reasoning, etc. I didn't know I could just make up new meanings for words to win my argument.

Thanks for the pointer.

What I am complaining about is that feminists have the idea that they do not have equality and continue to whine and winge about it when they do, as I have proved.

Legal equality is not true equality. It is a start in the right direction, but the views of those in society must change before true equality is met. Until then, there will still be old laws and customs that were *based* in the idea of equality and no one has even questioned them yet.

Did you know that young girls who display an interest in math and science are often still told that "girls don't like those subjects. Those are *boy's* subjects." There is nothing illegal in this (unless it is the teacher saying it), but it presents *clear* social inequality. These girls, who have the same interest and potential in this area are discouraged from excelling in it because it is not "their area." For this reason, women such as myself go to schools to demonstrate science experiments/help with math homework/etc. We do so for both boys and girls, but one of our primary purposes is to demonstrate to girls (as the boys are not told this) that girls *can* excel at math and science and *can* enjoy it.

You cant whine and winge about social inequality as everyone has that.

This is idiotic. It's like saying "You can't try to cure the flu because everyone gets that." "You shouldn't worry about first aid because everyone gets hurt."

You can certainly try and do something about social inequality. In fact, any moral person *should* try and do something about it, wherever it may lie.

The fact that men are often portrayed as dumb, fat, bloated layabouts is a social inequality, but whining about it will change noting.

Men are portrayed this way in *jokes*. But the idea of men in this image has in no way permeated society as if it were a fact, nor is it keeping any men from reaching their full potential. No one tells a young boy "Girls are supposed to be smart, skinny, hard-workers. Boys are supposed to be dumb, fat, bloated layabouts. Don't study, eat a lot, and don't do any work."

"These arguments come from the idea of a right not to be offended, but I believe the right to offend is of far greater value. I would like to thank the government that it is still enshrined in law that people may make rude remarks about the French"

I agree that there is no right to not be offended (although, strangely enough, you have personally argued against this point in other threads). However, offense and perpetrating false myths are two very different things.

I can't believe an argument on feminism has gone on this long w/o a single mention of Guinevere, the classic measure of womens equality/feminism. think about it, when the Arthur legend was first being told, there was no guinevere, and women generally were not thought of in an everyday sense, many geneologies don't mention them, they weren't counted in censuses, and coultdn't own property among other things, later, as women became more and more objects of literature and began having more and more legal and social existence, Guinevere was 'appended' to Arthur, she became the Queen and nothing much more came of it until women gained more and more legal and social standing, 'the queens court' becomes a term for ones stamding in social situations, if the queen and the women the queen was accompanied and conversed with disliked you, then you were pretty much an outcast, and Guinevere became a more powerful figure, the love traingle woth Lancelot developes, and slowly she becomes more developed as a character and more powerful as a plot device and as a Queen.


My good god - that has to be one of the biggest sentences I have ever seen.

Also - I don't agree with your analysis of the Arthurian myth - since, well, basically, I'm not sure where you got your data.

Sure - Guinevere is a later addition to an earlier story, but so is Arthur - since the only two things that survive from the ORIGINAL tellings of the story you mention are Morgana (although not even close to her original form) and the Grail - which was stolen from the same root story as Morgana, excised from the text, and then re-inserted hundreds of years later.


or once, when carrying quite a load, i gently asked the nearest person to open a door that i required passage through, my arms were full and the situation was not one where setting the things down would be appropriate
a women was kindenough to hold the door open for me, but before i could make use of said door, a feminist (making assumptions here) waded through the crowd, grabbed the woman by the arm, whispered something harshly in her ear (didn't catch what) and dragged her away, leaving me, arms full, still stranded on the wrong side of the door.

You are right... you were making assumptions.

Was she wearing an "I'm a Feminist, Ask Me How" T-Shirt? You admit you didn't hear what was said, and you have no idea what the 'alleged feminist' had as her motivation - or what her relationship was to the 'kind' woman.

This is part of the evidence of why Feminism is still, not only current, but essential.... if a man had been holding the door for you, and another man had grabbed him, urgently whispered something, and dragged him away - would you have jumped to the conclusion of 'Masculinist' conspiracy?

Legal equality is not true equality. It is a start in the right direction, but the views of those in society must change before true equality is met. Until then, there will still be old laws and customs that were *based* in the idea of equality and no one has even questioned them yet.


Legal equality is the only form of equality that we can be certian of having. Social equality is (like society) impossible to messure. Statistics are possible methods but there is no way to prove them certian and it is possible to reinterpret them in cases of employment/gender/pay relationships.


Did you know that young girls who display an interest in math and science are often still told that "girls don't like those subjects. Those are *boy's* subjects." There is nothing illegal in this (unless it is the teacher saying it), but it presents *clear* social inequality. These girls, who have the same interest and potential in this area are discouraged from excelling in it because it is not "their area." For this reason, women such as myself go to schools to demonstrate science experiments/help with math homework/etc. We do so for both boys and girls, but one of our primary purposes is to demonstrate to girls (as the boys are not told this) that girls *can* excel at math and science and *can* enjoy it.


1) Who else but the teacher would be saying this?
2) In the UK (not sure about America) both Boys and Girls HAVE to do maths and science untill they are 16 at which point they can then chose what they want to do between the ages of 16+ in terms of both A-levels and University. And girls outperform boys in both these subjects at present anyway (mostly because of the turn-around of the late 80's/early 90's which has yet to be fixed to equality)



This is idiotic. It's like saying "You can't try to cure the flu because everyone gets that." "You shouldn't worry about first aid because everyone gets hurt."

You can certainly try and do something about social inequality. In fact, any moral person *should* try and do something about it, wherever it may lie.


Social perspecives will be changed but not by force. The education system (In the UK at least) has been changed so now girls have equal (if not better) oppotunites than boys.


Men are portrayed this way in *jokes*. But the idea of men in this image has in no way permeated society as if it were a fact, nor is it keeping any men from reaching their full potential. No one tells a young boy "Girls are supposed to be smart, skinny, hard-workers. Boys are supposed to be dumb, fat, bloated layabouts. Don't study, eat a lot, and don't do any work."


I would submit to you that very few people seriously take the opinon that a womens place is only in the home. Social opinion of women these days is very much equal, the idea of women in the workplace is a common placed one now. Dual income families are on the rise as are families where the women is the primary breadwinner. However there is still the sterotype as women in the home only, as there is the sterotype of men as lazy ignorent slobs. There is both an equality of positives and negatives

Legal equality is the only form of equality that we can be certian of having.

And as I have said before (and you conveniently ignored, as usual), no one is talking about being certain or having guarantees here. We are simply saying that your assertion that there is perfect equality and everyone should just shut up and take it is idiotic.

Social equality is (like society) impossible to messure. Statistics are possible methods but there is no way to prove them certian and it is possible to reinterpret them in cases of employment/gender/pay relationships.

Who needs to prove anything? If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you speak up about it. If people agree, they talk about it. If those people agree, they talk about it. Even those who don't agree will think about it and maybe agree with it partially. And on and on and on..... this is the way that social change occurs.

1) Who else but the teacher would be saying this?

Parents, other students who were brought up to believe it, family members, TV shows - basically, society in general.

2) In the UK (not sure about America) both Boys and Girls HAVE to do maths and science untill they are 16 at which point they can then chose what they want to do between the ages of 16+ in terms of both A-levels and University.

I never said that people don't have to attend classes in math and science. However, girls are often told that they are not *supposed* to do well in these courses, that being a girl means you are more interested in literature and art, etc. If you are told from the time you begin school that "girls aren't good at this" and "girls are supposed to be interested in this other stuff," you are *very* unlikely to do well in these subjects.

Social perspecives will be changed but not by force. The education system (In the UK at least) has been changed so now girls have equal (if not better) oppotunites than boys.

I find it funny that you see speaking up about social injustice to be "force." Let me explain something to you, if you don't speak up about a problem and try to fix it - *NOTHING WILL CHANGE*.

And again, if equal opportunities are offered, but society still holds the bias that girls should do X and boys should do Y within it, then there will still be discrepancies based on gender.

I would submit to you that very few people seriously take the opinon that a womens place is only in the home.

I would submit to you that you have a *very* limited experience of humanity.

Social opinion of women these days is very much equal, the idea of women in the workplace is a common placed one now.

And you are *very* naive.

You have shown your own unequal stances here. You think that you can scream and cry and whine about what you perceive as unjust actions towards your religion, even though your religion has equal protection under the law to any other religion. However, you say that women who feel that they are being treated unjustly should just shut up, because "forcing" it won't work, and everyone will just laugh at them.

I feel that your bitching about some perceived injustice done to your religion is silly. You feel that women complaining about social inequality is silly. That is your opinion, which you have the right to hold. However, your assertion that they should shut up and stop "whining" about it is extremely hypocritical.

Dual income families are on the rise as are families where the women is the primary breadwinner.

And yet women are still expected to also be the primary caregiver/housekeeper/shopper/cook in the family *on top* of these new responsibilities. Instead of equaling things out, in many cases, women have been held to the same responsibilities they "traditionally" had and have had *new* responsibilities added on top. Meanwhile, men are often still expected to come home and relax while their wife (who also worked all day) cooks dinner, cleans up afterwards, etc.

Note: This is not *always* true, and it is beginning to equal out - due to the complaints of those who felt it was unfair. But it is not there yet.

And as I have said before (and you conveniently ignored, as usual), no one is talking about being certain or having guarantees here. We are simply saying that your assertion that there is perfect equality and everyone should just shut up and take it is idiotic.


I never said there was perfect equality. What I did say was that the only equality that can be effectively altered by protest has been fixed. You cannot "Fix" society by shouting at it that it is wrong.


Who needs to prove anything? If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you speak up about it. If people agree, they talk about it. If those people agree, they talk about it. Even those who don't agree will think about it and maybe agree with it partially. And on and on and on..... this is the way that social change occurs.


Talk changes nothing. If you feel you have been unjustly treated you DO something about it, in the case of equal pay write an assertive (not Angry) letter to your employer. If they refuse to solve the problem then sue, which is your right. When/if the case is sucessful others will realise that they can deal with their problems in the same way and so will act acordingly. Society does not change with talk, it changes with action.



I never said that people don't have to attend classes in math and science. However, girls are often told that they are not *supposed* to do well in these courses, that being a girl means you are more interested in literature and art, etc. If you are told from the time you begin school that "girls aren't good at this" and "girls are supposed to be interested in this other stuff," you are *very* unlikely to do well in these subjects.


This must just be an American thing then. In the UK girls do better than boys in all three sciences at both GCSE (16) and A-Level (18). Also the numbers are pretty much equal for numbers of boys and girls taking the course, and I know for a fact that in my school, the biology group is aprox 75% girls, 25% boys.


I find it funny that you see speaking up about social injustice to be "force." Let me explain something to you, if you don't speak up about a problem and try to fix it - *NOTHING WILL CHANGE*.

And again, if equal opportunities are offered, but society still holds the bias that girls should do X and boys should do Y within it, then there will still be discrepancies based on gender.


And how do you go about "Fixing" social opinions. You dont do it by ranting and raving. You do it by putting your opinions into practice yourself and with those of a like mind to you.


You have shown your own unequal stances here. You think that you can scream and cry and whine about what you perceive as unjust actions towards your religion, even though your religion has equal protection under the law to any other religion. However, you say that women who feel that they are being treated unjustly should just shut up, because "forcing" it won't work, and everyone will just laugh at them.
.

I am not lobbying for social change, but legal change. You have proven that you have not listened. I accept that societys opinon on homosexuality will not change by me speeking my opinion. However I, and those of a like mind to me have the right and the power to lobby the government to stop what they are doing


I feel that your bitching about some perceived injustice done to your religion is silly. You feel that women complaining about social inequality is silly. That is your opinion, which you have the right to hold. However, your assertion that they should shut up and stop "whining" about it is extremely hypocritical.


I am complaining about a legal issue (the law supporting/opposing Gay marriage) and they are complaining about a social one (the perception of women in society). Only by action, not words will they overturn this opinion. The actions being to take on the role of the primary breadwinner more, to force an equal distribution of domestic labour, to challenge any equal pay dispute using the law.

Did you know that young girls who display an interest in math and science are often still told that "girls don't like those subjects. Those are *boy's* subjects." There is nothing illegal in this (unless it is the teacher saying it), but it presents *clear* social inequality. These girls, who have the same interest and potential in this area are discouraged from excelling in it because it is not "their area." For this reason, women such as myself go to schools to demonstrate science experiments/help with math homework/etc. We do so for both boys and girls, but one of our primary purposes is to demonstrate to girls (as the boys are not told this) that girls *can* excel at math and science and *can* enjoy it.

Bull. This is a completly unprovable point. Who the hell says that? There are pleanty of girls succeeding in maths and science. There are also pleanty who hate those subjects (with good cause, stupid geology) the same with boys.

You can certainly try and do something about social inequality. In fact, any moral person *should* try and do something about it, wherever it may lie.

Hey hey now, who are you to tell me what "any moral person" should or shouldnt do? People have different morals. One of mine is to keep my nose out of other peoples business and let them sort it out. Would've worked well in Iraq.


And as I have said before (and you conveniently ignored, as usual), no one is talking about being certain or having guarantees here. We are simply saying that your assertion that there is perfect equality and everyone should just shut up and take it is idiotic.

Do you know what I think the biggest bar to social equality is? Hearing a bunch of women bitch about it. Doesnt put a very good face on women. They shouldnt "shut up and take it" but the only issues they ever follow have been beaten to death already so many damn times.

I never said that people don't have to attend classes in math and science. However, girls are often told that they are not *supposed* to do well in these courses, that being a girl means you are more interested in literature and art, etc. If you are told from the time you begin school that "girls aren't good at this" and "girls are supposed to be interested in this other stuff," you are *very* unlikely to do well in these subjects.

If girls can be swayed to think they *must* suck at something because of their gender maybe they shouldnt be allowed out of the home.

And yet women are still expected to also be the primary caregiver/housekeeper/shopper/cook in the family *on top* of these new responsibilities. Instead of equaling things out, in many cases, women have been held to the same responsibilities they "traditionally" had and have had *new* responsibilities added on top. Meanwhile, men are often still expected to come home and relax while their wife (who also worked all day) cooks dinner, cleans up afterwards, etc.

Again stop making points you cannot posibly prove. In my family the work was spread evenly. Does that prove anything no, but it has a shread more evedence then your comment did.

Bull. This is a completly unprovable point. Who the hell says that? There are pleanty of girls succeeding in maths and science. There are also pleanty who hate those subjects (with good cause, stupid geology) the same with boys.

Hey hey now, who are you to tell me what "any moral person" should or shouldnt do? People have different morals. One of mine is to keep my nose out of other peoples business and let them sort it out. Would've worked well in Iraq.

Do you know what I think the biggest bar to social equality is? Hearing a bunch of women bitch about it. Doesnt put a very good face on women. They shouldnt "shut up and take it" but the only issues they ever follow have been beaten to death already so many damn times.

If girls can be swayed to think they *must* suck at something because of their gender maybe they shouldnt be allowed out of the home.

Again stop making points you cannot posibly prove. In my family the work was spread evenly. Does that prove anything no, but it has a shread more evedence then your comment did.

So - you argue that, since Feminist issues have been discussed, they should now be dropped?

Kind of missing the point of Feminism, then - since equality has yet to be achieved.

If you truly believe that there is equality in HOW science subjects are taught, and 'sold' to boys and girls, I suggest you look at college/university enrollment figures, for the gender distribution of new attendees in science courses.

It's an unfortunate fact, but, even with good work done over the past few years, girls are still being encouraged not to pursue science courses into higher education.

I'm sorry, friend, but your post reads like a misogynist 'how-to' - and is perfect evidence of how far Feminism still has left to go.

So - you argue that, since Feminist issues have been discussed, they should now be dropped?

Please point out where I said that. Did you even read my whole post? I said they should stop beating the same issues to death.

If you truly believe that there is equality in HOW science subjects are taught, and 'sold' to boys and girls, I suggest you look at college/university enrollment figures, for the gender distribution of new attendees in science courses.

Not all statistics are damning evidence. No one discourages girls from doing science and maths, at least where I live. You know how I know? Cause I go to high school. I am even in the top maths class along with about 45% girls.

It's an unfortunate fact, but, even with good work done over the past few years, girls are still being encouraged not to pursue science courses into higher education.

Above post and UNPROVEABLE.

I'm sorry, friend, but your post reads like a misogynist 'how-to' - and is perfect evidence of how far Feminism still has left to go.

Allright maybe the bit about the girls staying in the home because they can be swayed so easily but it was a *joke*.

1. Please point out where I said that. Did you even read my whole post? I said they should stop beating the same issues to death.

2. Not all statistics are damning evidence. No one discourages girls from doing science and maths, at least where I live. You know how I know? Cause I go to high school. I am even in the top maths class along with about 45% girls.

3. Above post and UNPROVEABLE.

4. Allright maybe the bit about the girls staying in the home because they can be swayed so easily but it was a *joke*.

I added the numbers so I can respond:

1) As you posted here, you posted a comment that basically boils down to what I said... so much so, that you could identify the very line (from my description) to repost it.

2) On the subject of not reading posts...

3) What do you mean "unprovable"? The scores at high school are approximately equal (maybe skewed a little in favour of the girls!), and the proportions are APPROACHING equality at schools (but, still not actually an equal division, overall).

Therefore, if the attendee figures into higher education show a marked discrepency, it must be AFTER schooling, but BEFORE Higher ed.

Thus, girls are being 'turned-off' of Higher Education in the fields of science.

4) Oh, a joke. And a brilliant one, what's more? Maybe it IS funny to you, but there is a large percentage of the population dealing seriously with the issues you consider worthy of such 'levity'.

1) As you posted here, you posted a comment that basically boils down to what I said... so much so, that you could identify the very line (from my description) to repost it.

The issues im talking about are things like equal pay which has been talked about extensivly and now the wage gap is shrinking, no further talks are necceesary.

3) What do you mean "unprovable"? The scores at high school are approximately equal (maybe skewed a little in favour of the girls!), and the proportions are APPROACHING equality at schools (but, still not actually an equal division, overall).

Therefore, if the attendee figures into higher education show a marked discrepency, it must be AFTER schooling, but BEFORE Higher ed.

Thus, girls are being 'turned-off' of Higher Education in the fields of science.

Just because you are good at something doesnt mean you like it or want it as a career. When I see enrolment figures are exactly even thats when I will worry about sexism in our education system. I dont see why you assume girls are being "turned-off" higher education. Almost seems your hinting that you think they cant make the decision for themselves.

4) Oh, a joke. And a brilliant one, what's more? Maybe it IS funny to you, but there is a large percentage of the population dealing seriously with the issues you consider worthy of such 'levity'.

Relax would you. There are pleanty of jokes out there disciminating against guys shoved away as just jokes. Arent guys alowed to make them too?

3) What do you mean "unprovable"? The scores at high school are approximately equal (maybe skewed a little in favour of the girls!), and the proportions are APPROACHING equality at schools (but, still not actually an equal division, overall).

Therefore, if the attendee figures into higher education show a marked discrepency, it must be AFTER schooling, but BEFORE Higher ed.

Thus, girls are being 'turned-off' of Higher Education in the fields of science.
Classroom performance does not necessarily equate with performance in the real world at all. If classroom performance meant anything I'd be making a million a year before I'm 30. Given my temprament that ain't likely. It's been proven that girls can learn better than boys when sitting still for long periods of time. Boys learn better if the task is involving. Since most of school consists of th former, it's actually unsurprising that girls do better.

Classroom performance does not necessarily equate with performance in the real world at all. If classroom performance meant anything I'd be making a million a year before I'm 30. Given my temprament that ain't likely. It's been proven that girls can learn better than boys when sitting still for long periods of time. Boys learn better if the task is involving. Since most of school consists of th former, it's actually unsurprising that girls do better.

Which is all very informative, but has nothing to do with what I was saying, what the other poster was saying, or what the thread is about.

Yes - girls do better academically, statistically - even in sciences.

Yes - girls are graduating high school (or finishing high school in UK, no 'graduation') with equivalent, or better, grades in the sciences.

But, strangely, the female impact on college/university enrollment FOR SCIENCES is way below that for males.

Nothing to do with the 'real world' (by which, I assume, you mean the 'working world').

What it is to do with, is girls are qualifying just like the boys, but, for some reason, not pursuing those scientific careers.

So - someone, somewhere, is persuading females to head in other directions - and, a quick inspection of various enrollments shows much higher enrollment numbers for more 'girl-orientated' fields, such as the arts.

Those are not my deliniations into 'girl' or 'boy' subjects - but they are obviously stereotypes that are still lingering, and, it would appear, being perpetuated.

The issues im talking about are things like equal pay which has been talked about extensivly and now the wage gap is shrinking, no further talks are necceesary.

Just because you are good at something doesnt mean you like it or want it as a career. When I see enrolment figures are exactly even thats when I will worry about sexism in our education system. I dont see why you assume girls are being "turned-off" higher education. Almost seems your hinting that you think they cant make the decision for themselves.

Relax would you. There are pleanty of jokes out there disciminating against guys shoved away as just jokes. Arent guys alowed to make them too?

The wage gap is shrinking, but it is still not equal.

Add to that, in many fields where the wage gap is minimal, male executives are often offered substantially better 'bonuses' and 'incentive schemes' than female executives of the same level.

People have ways of protecting their 'old-boy-networks'.

The 'making decisions for themselves' poke utterly negates any feeling I might have had for responding to your second 'claim'. I find it hard to dignify a response that equates to:

"Yeah, well, you can't fly, either!"

And, while I'm at it... why should I relax? I was fed that same excuse when rednecks stood joking about my black friends, when a less than tolerant 'professed' christian launched a one-man stand-up tirade against "towelheads" (as he called them), and when a close female friend was exposed to similar waste-of-space 'humour' by a male 'friend' of hers.

"It's just a joke". Well, why am I not laughing, then?

Which is all very informative, but has nothing to do with what I was saying, what the other poster was saying, or what the thread is about.

Yes - girls do better academically, statistically - even in sciences.

Yes - girls are graduating high school (or finishing high school in UK, no 'graduation') with equivalent, or better, grades in the sciences.

But, strangely, the female impact on college/university enrollment FOR SCIENCES is way below that for males.

Nothing to do with the 'real world' (by which, I assume, you mean the 'working world').

What it is to do with, is girls are qualifying just like the boys, but, for some reason, not pursuing those scientific careers.

So - someone, somewhere, is persuading females to head in other directions - and, a quick inspection of various enrollments shows much higher enrollment numbers for more 'girl-orientated' fields, such as the arts.

Those are not my deliniations into 'girl' or 'boy' subjects - but they are obviously stereotypes that are still lingering, and, it would appear, being perpetuated.

Have you ever considered the posibility that they may just prefer this subject out of their own free will? Why are you so sure that people are all mindless drones that follow what other people tell them to. Could you get me a source on your statistics (i'm not saying they dont exist I simply wish to analyize them for myself).

This must just be an American thing then. In the UK girls do better than boys in all three sciences at both GCSE (16) and A-Level (18). Also the numbers are pretty much equal for numbers of boys and girls taking the course, and I know for a fact that in my school, the biology group is aprox 75% girls, 25% boys.

girls do better than boys in school in general.

they think it's because parents are more willing to let their boys get away with things than girls. girls are more often expected to help out with chores, sit quietly and behave et c. while boys are allowed to run about and cause a ruckus.

Have you ever considered the posibility that they may just prefer this subject out of their own free will? Why are you so sure that people are all mindless drones that follow what other people tell them to. Could you get me a source on your statistics (i'm not saying they dont exist I simply wish to analyize them for myself).
i'm in physics.

do you want to know how many girls are in my programme? 3 who aren't in med phys. that's including myself.

do you know how many times my parents have tried to push me towards life sciences? hell, my academic advisor suggested that i go that way too...

and you do realise that if you're actively encouraged from doing something, especially from a young age, chances are better that you won't do said thing?

Have you ever considered the posibility that they may just prefer this subject out of their own free will? Why are you so sure that people are all mindless drones that follow what other people tell them to. Could you get me a source on your statistics (i'm not saying they dont exist I simply wish to analyize them for myself).

Okay - let's look at it reasonably.

So - roughly equal numbers of girls and boys chose science 'of their own free will' at school.

Roughly equal proportions of girls and boys go on to higher education 'of their own free will'.

Large switch in favour of predominantly male classes in many science fields...

It's not about being mindless drones, what is the factor that is stopping those scientifically-minded-high-school girls from becoming-scientifically-minded-college girls?

I know that, at my sister's (all girl) school, they were told that there were no jobs for women in science, and were encouraged to take courses that would lead to employment - business related, or arts-based.

girls do better than boys in school in general.

they think it's because parents are more willing to let their boys get away with things than girls. girls are more often expected to help out with chores, sit quietly and behave et c. while boys are allowed to run about and cause a ruckus.

I seem to recall somewhere that girls do better in mixed-schools, but boys do better in single-sex schools.

I guess girls can just concentrate better in the presence of distractions...

i'm in physics.

do you want to know how many girls are in my programme? 3 who aren't in med phys. that's including myself.

do you know how many times my parents have tried to push me towards life sciences? hell, my academic advisor suggested that i go that way too...

and you do realise that if you're actively encouraged from doing something, especially from a young age, chances are better that you won't do said thing?

Good for you. Someone with some will power. How old are you?(not meant to be offensive in any way) If your parents tried to push you away from doing something you wanted to do I hope you told em to run their own lives. I honestly cant see why so many people listen to what other people want them to be, figure out what you want to be and be it, fuck the rest of the world.


Okay - let's look at it reasonably.

So - roughly equal numbers of girls and boys chose science 'of their own free will' at school.

Roughly equal proportions of girls and boys go on to higher education 'of their own free will'.

Large switch in favour of predominantly male classes in many science fields...

It's not about being mindless drones, what is the factor that is stopping those scientifically-minded-high-school girls from becoming-scientifically-minded-college girls?

I know that, at my sister's (all girl) school, they were told that there were no jobs for women in science, and were encouraged to take courses that would lead to employment - business related, or arts-based.

I dunno how it is where you live but we do things differently here. No one tells me what the hell I should do. Some girls just hate science, some enjoy it but dont want to do it for a career. Some do it for a career and yipee for them.

Have you ever considered the posibility that they may just prefer this subject out of their own free will? Why are you so sure that people are all mindless drones that follow what other people tell them to. Could you get me a source on your statistics (i'm not saying they dont exist I simply wish to analyize them for myself).

Right off the top of my head, I can't recall where I saw the statistics for overall admissions - but, I quickly tracked down some stats for one near me: Georgia Tech.

http://www.academic.gatech.edu/study/report.htm

Now - Georgia Tech is actually against the curve, since it has a very high percentage of females enrolling, proportionally... but even so, a trend can be seen:

Examine Figure 4: Which still shows the skew I was talking about, where girls are translated into art subjects more than science subjects (even in a college like Georgia Tech).

Similarly: In figure 3: Girls are being focused more into 'humanitarian' sciences (psychology, Biology, Earth Sciences), and are progressively more and more under-represented in the 'Hard' Science categories (Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mathematics and Physics).

Even at Georgia Tech, atypical for it's overall gender profile, the pattern still holds, on closer examination.

I dunno how it is where you live but we do things differently here. No one tells me what the hell I should do. Some girls just hate science, some enjoy it but dont want to do it for a career. Some do it for a career and yipee for them.

Well done, you must be quite the little anarchist.

I AM surprised that you school has no counsellors, no career advice, and no teacher input, though.

Having lived on BOTH sides of the big water, I have to say that the differences between European schools and US schools are mainly superficial, or symptoms of the Cult of Mammon that is so prevalent in ALL aspects of US society...

For the large part, both areas seem to focus females into more 'girl-friendly' courses (as they see it).

Of course, I don't have any idea where you are - maybe you are sitting in an internet cafe in Ulaan Baator, and are the pride of Outer Mongolia's Anarchist Equality program...

Right off the top of my head, I can't recall where I saw the statistics for overall admissions - but, I quickly tracked down some stats for one near me: Georgia Tech.

Now - Georgia Tech is actually against the curve, since it has a very high percentage of females enrolling, proportionally... but even so, a trend can be seen:

Examine Figure 4: Which still shows the skew I was talking about, where girls are translated into art subjects more than science subjects (even in a college like Georgia Tech).

Similarly: In figure 3: Girls are being focused more into 'humanitarian' sciences (psychology, Biology, Earth Sciences), and are progressively more and more under-represented in the 'Hard' Science categories (Chemistry and Biochemistry, Mathematics and Physics).

Even at Georgia Tech, atypical for it's overall gender profile, the pattern still holds, on closer examination.

Could you get me a link to some statistics.

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.
This is just stupid and unprofessional.
Any good writer knows when referring to third-person singular pronouns, apply this rule to avoid looking like a pretentious dickweed:

Unless there is a good reason not to, apply the gender of the principal author

Duh.

Well done, you must be quite the little anarchist.

I AM surprised that you school has no counsellors, no career advice, and no teacher input, though.

Having lived on BOTH sides of the big water, I have to say that the differences between European schools and US schools are mainly superficial, or symptoms of the Cult of Mammon that is so prevalent in ALL aspects of US society...

For the large part, both areas seem to focus females into more 'girl-friendly' courses (as they see it).

Of course, I don't have any idea where you are - maybe you are sitting in an internet cafe in Ulaan Baator, and are the pride of Outer Mongolia's Anarchist Equality program...


New Zealand :) . We have counciling ect ect but they dont tell you what to do, you tell them what you want to do and they tell you what courses you need to take.

Could you get me a link to some statistics.

Previous post should now show the link that I seem to have, so skillfully, obliterated the first time I posted...

New Zealand :) . We have counciling ect ect but they dont tell you what to do, you tell them what you want to do and they tell you what courses you need to take.

They have no input? How is that 'counselling'?

You are very lucky to be such a free-spirit, in a school system that obviously embraces such flighty ephemerality.

Unfortunately, you are a deviation from the statistical mean.

They have no input? How is that 'counselling'?

You are very lucky to be such a free-spirit, in a school system that obviously embraces such flighty ephemerality.

Unfortunately, you are a deviation from the statistical mean.
It's too far away didnt say they have no input, just that they dont tell you what to do, which isnt exactly purely accurate, however it is generally accurate. Actually the best counselling works like that. Ideally counsel is advice that facilitates your decision making, (and hopefully also increases your decision making skills).

Whilst I dont believe the school system It's too far away refers to is perfect (and in some cases it is less than less than perfect), I do believe that generally it's not a bad system. Literacy and numeracy rates are good, for instance.

It should be pointed out that we are discussing one of (if not the) first countries in the world to grant full voting rights to women, one of the few countries in the world where intermarraige between white settlers/second third and fourth generation colonists and the native population has been not uncommon and generally isnt considered unusual, currently a world leader in reconciliation with pre-colonial people's descendents, and also relatively advanced in the area of homosexual rights (there are several openly homosexual Members of Parliament, and a even a transexual Member of Parliament)...basically so far as I can tell it's a relatively socially advanced country.

They have no input? How is that 'counselling'?

You are very lucky to be such a free-spirit, in a school system that obviously embraces such flighty ephemerality.

Unfortunately, you are a deviation from the statistical mean.

Yeah my school figures if you dont want to learn they cant be bothered teaching you. As long as you dont distract students who do want to learn. Its co-ed with no uniform, greatest place ever.

Yeah my school figures if you dont want to learn they cant be bothered teaching you. As long as you dont distract students who do want to learn. Its co-ed with no uniform, greatest place ever.
So's mine, (Auckland Uni), what school do you attend?

So's mine, (Auckland Uni), what school do you attend?

Onslow college (Wellington). Freedoms like that are a bit rarer in what americans would call highschool.

Good for you. Someone with some will power. How old are you?(not meant to be offensive in any way) If your parents tried to push you away from doing something you wanted to do I hope you told em to run their own lives. I honestly cant see why so many people listen to what other people want them to be, figure out what you want to be and be it, fuck the rest of the world.

i'm 21.

and actually, i debated highly between going into physics and studying philosophy. it was actually the job prospect plus general interest that tilted the scales towards physics (plus it's a lot easier to learn philosophy on your own) though i think i may try for a second bachelor's and do a philosophy one, possibly with a minor in german (if my marks aren't high enough for grad school, then hopefully i'd at least be able to get into teacher's college [no, this is not a "if you can't do, teach." thing, i've been thinking about teaching highschool and apparantly physics teachers are in high demand] and as my current minor (philosophy) is not a teachable, i'd probably pick up german for my second teachable were i to do a second degree)

and well, now my parents are rather insistant that i not go into teaching, but really, i wouldn't mind inspiring young minds into loving physics. :)

This is just stupid and unprofessional.
Any good writer knows when referring to third-person singular pronouns, apply this rule to avoid looking like a pretentious dickweed:

Unless there is a good reason not to, apply the gender of the principal author

Duh.

oddly enough, my astronomy text had a blurb in the intro about this: they stated that since many textbooks use "he" in the interest of fairness, they'll use "she" not that they use pronouns very often... it pretty much only happened when describing newton's laws, i think.

I seem to recall somewhere that girls do better in mixed-schools, but boys do better in single-sex schools.

I guess girls can just concentrate better in the presence of distractions...
well, same sex schools are generally private, aren't they?

i would think that a parent who would send their kids to private school would force discipline on their sons a little more... either that or the school does that.

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 agree with 90% of your post. Feminism accomplished it's purpose - either ensuring gender equality or providing the legal means to obtain it - and should have gone the way of the Woman's Suffrage movement, but sadly has not. Also unfortunatly true has been the replacement of feminism with feminazism (awesome term) where women believe they are superior to men and want society structured that way. Those people are nothing but bigots who deserve to be treated the same way we treat the KKK, Nazis and other discriminatory groups.

I disagree w/ saying that Chivalry was a pure and good thing. I believe it was simply culturally imposed sexism. It is fine and good to hold doors or pay for someone out of kindness, but under Chivalry, women were idolized and such behavior was expected towards women simply because they were women. We still see this today, in that it is considered charming for a man to hold a door for a lady, and I can remember more than a few times being told by my parents that I should hold doors for women, and of course never strike a woman, even in self-defense. Chivalry was sexism at its finest, and it it sad that it still affects our culture.

Also, still on topic (sorry if this was hit on b4, but I couldn't read all 49 pages of flaming posts) has anyone but me noticed a serious media bias against men? When watching commericals, i find there are 2 types that really get me. In the first I find that to an incredible extent, the men in the commercial (where there are men and women) are either wrong, lacking in knowledge, in need of help, or just plain stupid. Then, there is a woman with an answer, knowledge, some form of aid, or there to call the man on something he did wrong. OR the second type of sexist commerical, the one where men are portrayed as either unintelligent, animalistic, or driven almost entirely by their sex drive. I find it really offensive, but honestly think this bias exists. Anyone who can agree with me on this, or perhaps I can get someone to call me delusional?

well, same sex schools are generally private, aren't they?

i would think that a parent who would send their kids to private school would force discipline on their sons a little more... either that or the school does that.

Almost all high schools in NZ are single sex. :mad:

Also, still on topic (sorry if this was hit on b4, but I couldn't read all 49 pages of flaming posts) has anyone but me noticed a serious media bias against men? When watching commericals, i find there are 2 types that really get me. In the first I find that to an incredible extent, the men in the commercial (where there are men and women) are either wrong, lacking in knowledge, in need of help, or just plain stupid. Then, there is a woman with an answer, knowledge, some form of aid, or there to call the man on something he did wrong. OR the second type of sexist commerical, the one where men are portrayed as either unintelligent, animalistic, or driven almost entirely by their sex drive. I find it really offensive, but honestly think this bias exists. Anyone who can agree with me on this, or perhaps I can get someone to call me delusional?


Indeed I bought this up before. Sexism exists both ways and yet people fighting for equality are "feminists". They work on inequalities towards females and tend to downplay the ones effecting men.

I agree with 90% of your post. Feminism accomplished it's purpose - either ensuring gender equality or providing the legal means to obtain it - and should have gone the way of the Woman's Suffrage movement, but sadly has not. Also unfortunatly true has been the replacement of feminism with feminazism (awesome term) where women believe they are superior to men and want society structured that way. Those people are nothing but bigots who deserve to be treated the same way we treat the KKK, Nazis and other discriminatory groups.
Equality has not been achieved, thus it has not 'served it's purpose'. Feminazi is not an awesome word, it is a derogatory term that suggest the person using it is ignorant to some large degree, or believe that it is witty and will hide their lack of coherent reasoning, or their inability to accurately express whatever coherent reasoning they have formed, or at best foolishly employed, because all but the 'converted' have every reason to believe one of the former probably applies. Thus it discredits the person employing the term more often than not, and a great deal more often that it adds credibility. Relatively few women want society structured to make men inferior, when numbers of men who wish to prevent equality are the comparison. Any form of bigotry is ugly, however infering 'nazism' is disrespectful beyond those you are commenting on. Sexism whether directed towards male or females is sexism, not nazism. If you really think that something is being taken too far, you are defeating any good your comments might be doing if you include overly emotive, over-hype words that infers your argument is based on unsound emotion and/or ignorance, rather than rational reasoning. To make your point, stick to the point. Describe the behaviour that offends, the reasons why it is problematic, and the most appropriate alternative. This prevents your message being lost in 'noise' that can sidetrack people away from any legitimate concerns you have raised, to the point where people miss the point/s you are making entirely. Arguing semantics wont improve the communication of the points you are making, so it's best not to use language that will incite such arguments.
Most particularly it can be discrediting, try as I might I find it harder to invest credibility once terms like 'unwashed liberal communist hippy' or 'evil, facist right wing control freak', or 'feminazi' get bandied about by the person trying to present a point. It seems to me if they had a strong point they wouldnt feel it necessary to employ such language. I'm no more impressed with emotive unsubstantive insistences that 'all men are dominating rapists', than I am with implying merely sexist behaviour that is either not intended to be sexist (ie misguided), or is actually for entirely sexist reasons being attempted under a guise of being 'feministic progress' is equivalent to nazism. For the sake of making your point, I urge you to avoid using derogatory 'name calling' type tactics, otherwise you risk drowning your own message in static.

I disagree w/ saying that Chivalry was a pure and good thing. I believe it was simply culturally imposed sexism. It is fine and good to hold doors or pay for someone out of kindness, but under Chivalry, women were idolized and such behavior was expected towards women simply because they were women. We still see this today, in that it is considered charming for a man to hold a door for a lady, and I can remember more than a few times being told by my parents that I should hold doors for women, and of course never strike a woman, even in self-defense. Chivalry was sexism at its finest, and it it sad that it still affects our culture.
Er, chivalry was actually primarily a means of controlling the 'warrior gentry'.

Also, still on topic (sorry if this was hit on b4, but I couldn't read all 49 pages of flaming posts) has anyone but me noticed a serious media bias against men? When watching commericals, i find there are 2 types that really get me. In the first I find that to an incredible extent, the men in the commercial (where there are men and women) are either wrong, lacking in knowledge, in need of help, or just plain stupid. Then, there is a woman with an answer, knowledge, some form of aid, or there to call the man on something he did wrong.
What exactly is being sold? To whom? How is the implied or presented 'stereotype' presented, are you certain that your reading is not the only reading, and who wrote the commercial?


OR the second type of sexist commerical, the one where men are portrayed as either unintelligent, animalistic, or driven almost entirely by their sex drive.
See questions above. Also I notice that you dont object to commercials where women are shown as 'sex toys/objects' for men, or where qualities stereotyped as 'feminine' are packaged in commercials in such a way that females are the object of the joke. To be honest females certainly get at least their share of 'unflattering' portrayals in the media.

To put this bluntly, I really dont think that your opinion represents an entirely objective evaluation of the situation.

it really offensive, but honestly think this bias exists. Anyone who can agree with me on this, or perhaps I can get someone to call me delusional?
You would certainly need to produce more information in order to convince me with regards to this definate 'bias'. With regards to your mental state, based on your comments so far, I certainly see no reasonable cause for assuming you are, (much less actually calling you 'delusional').

I agree with 90% of your post. Feminism accomplished it's purpose - either ensuring gender equality or providing the legal means to obtain it - and should have gone the way of the Woman's Suffrage movement, but sadly has not. Also unfortunatly true has been the replacement of feminism with feminazism (awesome term) where women believe they are superior to men and want society structured that way. Those people are nothing but bigots who deserve to be treated the same way we treat the KKK, Nazis and other discriminatory groups.

I disagree w/ saying that Chivalry was a pure and good thing. I believe it was simply culturally imposed sexism. It is fine and good to hold doors or pay for someone out of kindness, but under Chivalry, women were idolized and such behavior was expected towards women simply because they were women. We still see this today, in that it is considered charming for a man to hold a door for a lady, and I can remember more than a few times being told by my parents that I should hold doors for women, and of course never strike a woman, even in self-defense. Chivalry was sexism at its finest, and it it sad that it still affects our culture.

Also, still on topic (sorry if this was hit on b4, but I couldn't read all 49 pages of flaming posts) has anyone but me noticed a serious media bias against men? When watching commericals, i find there are 2 types that really get me. In the first I find that to an incredible extent, the men in the commercial (where there are men and women) are either wrong, lacking in knowledge, in need of help, or just plain stupid. Then, there is a woman with an answer, knowledge, some form of aid, or there to call the man on something he did wrong. OR the second type of sexist commerical, the one where men are portrayed as either unintelligent, animalistic, or driven almost entirely by their sex drive. I find it really offensive, but honestly think this bias exists. Anyone who can agree with me on this, or perhaps I can get someone to call me delusional?

Kindly explain why you find "Feminazi" an awesome term?

To me, it is not only derogatory, but also, vastly innacurate... please explain?

I assume it just means, you don't understand what Feminism actually is, and you are choosing to strike out against it, on that basis.

"damnant quod non intelligunt"


Let me clue you in on a little secret. You listening? Television advertisers.... use advertising that WORKS... big secret, huh?

If showing a girl draped over a car sells the car... bam, the girl is on the car (objectifying women as sexual 'accessories', since it is well established what the psychological significance of the car is...)

If showing the clever mom sells Band-Aid... well, to be honest, since Mom is the market they are aiming at, they are going to package "clever mom"... because every mom likes to think she is making wise decisions for her family.

I do find myself wondering how uneasy you are about you gender role, if you find 'man=barbecuing, beer-drinking, sport-fan" and 'woman=intelligent, caring, sensitive, homemaker' challenging.

By the way, holding a door open isn't chivalry.. unless you do it from horseback.

This is BOZZY's fabeled NOW anti-homemaker stance:

Homemakers' Rights

NOW actively supports full rights for homemakers and recognition of the economic value of the vital services they perform for family and society. We also support legislation and programs reflecting the reality of marriage as an equal economic partnership.
Sounds good, but it is not reflected by their actions. It is also buried so deep in their website as to be impossible to find.

If they are so interested in homemakers rights then why do they fight the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief going to single income households?

"According to a study last year by the Treasury Department, 24.8 million couples paid a marriage penalty on their estimated 1999 tax returns, or a little less than half of all joint returns filed. The average penalty was $1,141. While nearly half of all couples are disadvantaged by the tax code, 41 percent actually paid lower taxes as a result of being married, enjoying a "marriage bonus" averaging $1,274. These couples generally have only one wage earner in the family, or one spouse earns considerably more than the other"

"I do not favor a Marriage Penalty Tax Relief bill that primarily favors wealthy couples. If legislation can be drafted to benefit lower and moderate income couples while removing any penalty there may be for being married, I would support that. I believe, however, that the proposed bills are too costly and do not appear to be fair in that they primarily advantage upper income earners"

Penalizing 'upper income' people for getting married is OK according to NOW, especially if they have the nerve to have one stay-at-home parent.
(remember, 'upper income' according to liberals is anyone earning above the national average of about $35,000)

Here's a nice quote on their view of the role of fatherhood;
"Unfortunately, the proposal contains negatives as well. The new Senate bill would add more than $100 million for "marriage and fatherhood promotion" programs for media campaigns and services that emphasize marriage, components that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) wants. "

Yes, supporting marriage and fatherhood is undesireable to NOW.

How about their rule of parental custody?

"The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody (as opposed to more common sole custody - most often awarded to women) is in the "best interests of the child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child"

Yes, they say standards that presume fathers as being 'in the best interest of the child' are a bad thing.

Here is where NOW equates marriage with domestic violence;

"The statement's approximately 100 signers, including the conference sponsors (The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education; Institute for American Values; Religion, Culture, and Family Project), claim that their support for marriage does not require "turning back the clock on desirable social change, promoting male tyranny or tolerating domestic violence." But the values they are promoting are sometimes in direct conflict with goals such as ending domestic violence and winning gender equality. In recommending public policy to promote marriage, the signers offer no way to reconcile these conflicts."

How about the role of women who abandon their children to daycare to pursure their own selfish career goals? NOW lauds them;

"The housewife lifestyle that defined a norm for many women when Betty Friedan wrote The Feminist Mystique is no more. The average woman is in the labor force. There is mass approval for work, even for women with young children"

"More U.S. women with pre-school children participated in the labor force in one year, 1996, than did all European women, many of them without children. Women's employment represented two-thirds of the 14 percent difference between American and European employment rates in that year"

Here is a good critisism of what NOW has done to the feminist movement:

"Gender feminists redefined the opposite sex into a distinct political class whose interests were inherently antagonistic to women. In the theory that followed, Dworkin pronounced all men to be rapists. Kate Millett called for the end of the family unit. Catharine MacKinnon declared marriage, rape and prostitution to be indistinguishable from each other.

Viewed through the political lens of gender feminism, maleness ceased to be a biological trait and became a cultural, or ideological one. In Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, MacKinnon insisted, "Male is a social and political concept, not a biological attribute."(114) In Our Blood, Dworkin agreed, " In order to stop... systematic abuses against us, we must destroy these very definitions of masculinity and femininity, of men and women..."(48) Maleness could not be reformed. It needed to be eliminated."
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/essays/mises.html

and here is what feminism should be and seems to slowly be evolving into:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0312.html

If NOW was really supportive of homemakers then why do they not have links to homeschooling support sites. Where is their fight to push businesses to have hours around the school schedule so women can be home at the same time their children are? Where is the support of single-income mothers rather than the attack on the single income 'upper income' (>$35,000)households? Why do they not fight for womens rights to work from home? Why in their entire site is there not one example that glorifies a woman who choses to stay at home mised into their countless examples of women who work, "even with preschool age children"?

NOW has shown no real interest in the needs of hommakers. If that quote actually is from their website then it is a glorious example of hypocracy and lipservice.

Kindly explain why you find "Feminazi" an awesome term?

To me, it is not only derogatory, but also, vastly innacurate... please explain?

I assume it just means, you don't understand what Feminism actually is, and you are choosing to strike out against it, on that basis.

I find it awesome because i find it humorous and clever, regardless of whether you believe it means I don't understand Feminism or not. Perhaps i should have put LOL in the ()'s instead of awesome term, but at the time i didn't realize just how many people would misunderstand my implication.

"damnant quod non intelligunt"

..... :confused:


Let me clue you in on a little secret. You listening? Television advertisers.... use advertising that WORKS... big secret, huh?

If showing a girl draped over a car sells the car... bam, the girl is on the car (objectifying women as sexual 'accessories', since it is well established what the psychological significance of the car is...)

If showing the clever mom sells Band-Aid... well, to be honest, since Mom is the market they are aiming at, they are going to package "clever mom"... because every mom likes to think she is making wise decisions for her family.

I do find myself wondering how uneasy you are about you gender role, if you find 'man=barbecuing, beer-drinking, sport-fan" and 'woman=intelligent, caring, sensitive, homemaker' challenging.

By the way, holding a door open isn't chivalry.. unless you do it from horseback.

Hint : People respect you more if you show some respect, even when posting. I tried to remain respectful and simply state my opinions, but I guess it is too much to ask from some people. And I don't think i got into the economics of advertising, or the obvious sexism against women in some commercials, the latter because it is a LAME, OVERUSED, OVERARGUED, OVERDISCUSSED TOPIC THAT DOES NOT BEAR REPEATING BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SEEN AND HEAD SO MUCH. My theory, however, I have only heard once before, and was looking for people who might want to discuss it.

And perhaps I don't much like the idea of being presented with a gender role? Perhaps I simply don't like being automatically seen as the "bar-b-cuing, beer drinking, sport fan type" and not an "intelligent, sensitive, caring individual?" Thats not a very egalitarian way of looking at things, especially because I AM intelligent, caring and compassionate, I'm not a huge sports fan, prefer to remain sober, love bbq but don't do the backyard bbq thing, and am yet a male! Why can't a man be caring and intelligent? Why should I be comfortable with a gender role that doesn't fit me?

And yes, holding the door is chivalry. Let me "Clue You In" on the fact that there are 2 ways to take the term Chivalry. 1st, it can be the tactics used when armed men on horseback engage in battle. 2nd, it can be the life code invented in the Middle Ages dealing with, among other things, inter-sexual relations. In those relations, women were ascribed an immediate position of honour, deserving of respect and service... yada yada yada. Long story short, holding a door for a lady is a cultural remnant of Chivalry based on the idea that all women were deserving of service and respect from men.

I would have thought that people would realize that the first definition of Chivalry did not apply to the situation at all and figured this out on there own, but i was wrong.

Equality has not been achieved, thus it has not 'served it's purpose'. Feminazi is not an awesome word, it is a derogatory term that suggest the person using it is ignorant to some large degree, or believe that it is witty and will hide their lack of coherent reasoning, or their inability to accurately express whatever coherent reasoning they have formed, or at best foolishly employed, because all but the 'converted' have every reason to believe one of the former probably applies. Thus it discredits the person employing the term more often than not, and a great deal more often that it adds credibility. Relatively few women want society structured to make men inferior, when numbers of men who wish to prevent equality are the comparison. Any form of bigotry is ugly, however infering 'nazism' is disrespectful beyond those you are commenting on. Sexism whether directed towards male or females is sexism, not nazism. If you really think that something is being taken too far, you are defeating any good your comments might be doing if you include overly emotive, over-hype words that infers your argument is based on unsound emotion and/or ignorance, rather than rational reasoning. To make your point, stick to the point. Describe the behaviour that offends, the reasons why it is problematic, and the most appropriate alternative. This prevents your message being lost in 'noise' that can sidetrack people away from any legitimate concerns you have raised, to the point where people miss the point/s you are making entirely. Arguing semantics wont improve the communication of the points you are making, so it's best not to use language that will incite such arguments.
Most particularly it can be discrediting, try as I might I find it harder to invest credibility once terms like 'unwashed liberal communist hippy' or 'evil, facist right wing control freak', or 'feminazi' get bandied about by the person trying to present a point. It seems to me if they had a strong point they wouldnt feel it necessary to employ such language. I'm no more impressed with emotive unsubstantive insistences that 'all men are dominating rapists', than I am with implying merely sexist behaviour that is either not intended to be sexist (ie misguided), or is actually for entirely sexist reasons being attempted under a guise of being 'feministic progress' is equivalent to nazism. For the sake of making your point, I urge you to avoid using derogatory 'name calling' type tactics, otherwise you risk drowning your own message in static.


Er, chivalry was actually primarily a means of controlling the 'warrior gentry'.


What exactly is being sold? To whom? How is the implied or presented 'stereotype' presented, are you certain that your reading is not the only reading, and who wrote the commercial?



See questions above. Also I notice that you dont object to commercials where women are shown as 'sex toys/objects' for men, or where qualities stereotyped as 'feminine' are packaged in commercials in such a way that females are the object of the joke. To be honest females certainly get at least their share of 'unflattering' portrayals in the media.

To put this bluntly, I really dont think that your opinion represents an entirely objective evaluation of the situation.


You would certainly need to produce more information in order to convince me with regards to this definate 'bias'. With regards to your mental state, based on your comments so far, I certainly see no reasonable cause for assuming you are, (much less actually calling you 'delusional').

See Previous Post about the FEMINAZI thing. My bad in the wording of my 1st post. I fully agree w/ the name calling hurting one's argument. I didn't make the term up, I don't even necessarily agree with it. I just found it amusing.

I'm not arguing that Equality has been achieved totally. No one could argue that. I'm saying that in the areas where equality has not been achieved, there are laws that can be used, that were passed largely due to feminism. For example, a woman who does the same work may earn less than a man. Nowadays, one can seek legal help, apply the appropriate law, and generate that equality, at least in that case. The same can be said if one is not hired because of being a woman. Any number of non-discrimination acts provide legal recourse for someone in that situation. There will always be people who hate and discriminate against others. Feminism accomplished it's purpose by furthering equality and providing the legal means to deal with those bigots who still discriminate.

See last post about objectivity. I didn't discuss what I saw as REALLY old news, so I left out that side of the argument. I was presenting a novel side to the stereotypes in TV ads arguement.

And of course my reading is not the only one. I'm just one man with a TV, internet access and an opinion. :D

Bull. This is a completly unprovable point. Who the hell says that? There are pleanty of girls succeeding in maths and science. There are also pleanty who hate those subjects (with good cause, stupid geology) the same with boys.

Compare the numbers today (with people like me encouraging them) to 15 years ago. Compare *those* to 15 years before that.

It take a long time for social prejudice to wear itself out. The point remains, however, that there are still those in society who spread this idiotic idea that X is what women are interested and Y is what men are interested in and that is the way it should be.

All you are demonstrating here is that those of us making an effort to decrease the social prejudice are actually accomplishing something.

Hey hey now, who are you to tell me what "any moral person" should or shouldnt do? People have different morals. One of mine is to keep my nose out of other peoples business and let them sort it out. Would've worked well in Iraq.

And I'm sure you would walk right by a person getting killed in the street. If you would like to believe that to be a moral action, by all means go ahead...

Do you know what I think the biggest bar to social equality is? Hearing a bunch of women bitch about it.

How exactly is going to schools and helping with science and math work (as I have described) "bitching" about it? How exactly is pointing out "Hey, we've made progress, but we aren't there just yet," "bitching" about it?

If girls can be swayed to think they *must* suck at something because of their gender maybe they shouldnt be allowed out of the home.

I'll tell you what. Find an infant. Raise that infant from birth telling them that they should be interested in X but not in Y, because "that's the way boys/girls are." The chances that they will do Y are *incredibly* low.

Again stop making points you cannot posibly prove. In my family the work was spread evenly. Does that prove anything no, but it has a shread more evedence then your comment did.

My comment has the backing of actual society. You in a more progressive family. Congratulations. Again, all your anecdotal evidence does is show that we are improving the situation.

Now - Georgia Tech is actually against the curve, since it has a very high percentage of females enrolling, proportionally... but even so, a trend can be seen:

Eh? Boys still outnumber us here like 3:1. (Of course, it used to be 7:1, so I guess it's definitely improved =)

You should check out Mercer University. Our engineering school there had a proportionally very large percentage of females - something like 8th in the country.

Even at Georgia Tech, atypical for it's overall gender profile, the pattern still holds, on closer examination.

Man, I go to GATech and I've never heard that it is "atypical" for it's gender profile. Are there even less girls at other schools?

Of course, I do know that (in undergrad) at least, there are about 2 girls in the entire CS department, very few in several of the engineering disciplines and a rather large percentage in HS&T (history and science of technology - or some such major) which is considered one of the easiest degrees there.

If they are so interested in homemakers rights then why do they fight the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief going to single income households?

"According to a study last year by the Treasury Department, 24.8 million couples paid a marriage penalty on their estimated 1999 tax returns, or a little less than half of all joint returns filed. The average penalty was $1,141. While nearly half of all couples are disadvantaged by the tax code, 41 percent actually paid lower taxes as a result of being married, enjoying a "marriage bonus" averaging $1,274. These couples generally have only one wage earner in the family, or one spouse earns considerably more than the other"

"I do not favor a Marriage Penalty Tax Relief bill that primarily favors wealthy couples. If legislation can be drafted to benefit lower and moderate income couples while removing any penalty there may be for being married, I would support that. I believe, however, that the proposed bills are too costly and do not appear to be fair in that they primarily advantage upper income earners"

Penalizing 'upper income' people for getting married is OK according to NOW, especially if they have the nerve to have one stay-at-home parent.
(remember, 'upper income' according to liberals is anyone earning above the national average of about $35,000)

You miss the point. The marriage tax brackets were specifically designed to benefit single income families. The so-called "marriage tax" only applies to families with more than one income - as being married *helps* those with only a single income. While I may not agree on their stance, I can certainly see where it is coming from. Why give tax penalty "relief" to those who weren't paying a penalty in the first place?

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.
*hugs Texastambul*

Thank you for bringing some sanity here.

I'd consider myself a feminist, and I do not want to make women superior to men... Neither do ANY of the feminists I know. Fuck's sake, my boyfriend is a feminist.

Add to Texastambul's post the low representation of women in upper management and high profile political roles. And don't give me stuff about women "preferring to stay home and.. whatever..."
PS: I love it when people call me a feminist as if it's an insult...

And I don't think i got into the economics of advertising, or the obvious sexism against women in some commercials, the latter because it is a LAME, OVERUSED, OVERARGUED, OVERDISCUSSED TOPIC THAT DOES NOT BEAR REPEATING BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SEEN AND HEAD SO MUCH. My theory, however, I have only heard once before, and was looking for people who might want to discuss it.
so it's alright to discuss the negative portrayl of men in commercials, but not the objectification of women?

nice to know you discuss all aspects of a problem.

And perhaps I don't much like the idea of being presented with a gender role? Perhaps I simply don't like being automatically seen as the "bar-b-cuing, beer drinking, sport fan type" and not an "intelligent, sensitive, caring individual?" Thats not a very egalitarian way of looking at things, especially because I AM intelligent, caring and compassionate, I'm not a huge sports fan, prefer to remain sober, love bbq but don't do the backyard bbq thing, and am yet a male! Why can't a man be caring and intelligent? Why should I be comfortable with a gender role that doesn't fit me?
i might ask you the same set of questions. not all portrayls of women in commercials are as flattering as you make them out to be and not all men are protrayed as idiots.

haven't you seen that tide commercial where the wife is describing a complex way to get stains out of clothes and how to prewash and the husband just gets out his nifty little tide brush and gets it done quickly with little effort? the wife seems obsessive over her laundry for one thing, and for another, the husband is the clever one who found an easier way to do the job.

furthremore, the ads are targetted towards women, which in itself is rather sexist. if you watch a beer commercial, the obvious target is men (generally, there have been some neutral ones) if you watch a commercial about household cleaning products, it is targetted towards women. don't be so insulted that women are portrayed better in those. hell, i would be happy if men were the clever ones who get the stain out of the carpet. but they don't. it's always women who do so. this is a sign that society's roles for women are still the same as they were in the 50's. it sends the message to even working women that she must be the one who cleans the house, regardless of whether she's putting in 50 hour weeks at work.

Long story short, holding a door for a lady is a cultural remnant of Chivalry based on the idea that all women were deserving of service and respect from men.
but that's just common courtesy now. if you're with someone, you hold the door for them. regardless of their gender. and it does get irritating being a woman and trying to be nice and hold the door for a male companion who stands there and insists on taking the door and letting you go through first. it's one thing if you get there first. if i got there first, i'm holding the door for you. you can get the inside door.

And I'm sure you would walk right by a person getting killed in the street. If you would like to believe that to be a moral action, by all means go ahead...

If I saw a person getting killed on the street I would call the cops from my cell phone then run my ass off. I dont intend on taking on armed attackers.

I'll tell you what. Find an infant. Raise that infant from birth telling them that they should be interested in X but not in Y, because "that's the way boys/girls are." The chances that they will do Y are *incredibly* low.


Im not ready for parenthood.

My comment has the backing of actual society. You in a more progressive family. Congratulations. Again, all your anecdotal evidence does is show that we are improving the situation.

There is no way you can prove that there are less females doing university for maths and science because someone told them it was "not a girl thing"

Sounds good, but it is not reflected by their actions. It is also buried so deep in their website as to be impossible to find.

If they are so interested in homemakers rights then why do they fight the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief going to single income households?

"According to a study last year by the Treasury Department, 24.8 million couples paid a marriage penalty on their estimated 1999 tax returns, or a little less than half of all joint returns filed. The average penalty was $1,141. While nearly half of all couples are disadvantaged by the tax code, 41 percent actually paid lower taxes as a result of being married, enjoying a "marriage bonus" averaging $1,274. These couples generally have only one wage earner in the family, or one spouse earns considerably more than the other"

"I do not favor a Marriage Penalty Tax Relief bill that primarily favors wealthy couples. If legislation can be drafted to benefit lower and moderate income couples while removing any penalty there may be for being married, I would support that. I believe, however, that the proposed bills are too costly and do not appear to be fair in that they primarily advantage upper income earners"

Penalizing 'upper income' people for getting married is OK according to NOW, especially if they have the nerve to have one stay-at-home parent.
(remember, 'upper income' according to liberals is anyone earning above the national average of about $35,000)

No one is pushing for a removal of child tax credits for families of any income. So what are you bitching about? That NOW supports fiscal policies that are more advantageous to a greater number of people and families rather than supporting your fiscally 'conservative' ideas?


Here's a nice quote on their view of the role of fatherhood;
"Unfortunately, the proposal contains negatives as well. The new Senate bill would add more than $100 million for "marriage and fatherhood promotion" programs for media campaigns and services that emphasize marriage, components that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) wants. "

Yes, supporting marriage and fatherhood is undesireable to NOW.


Marriage is a personal choice. Why should government pay to push one type of choice over others? Do you see them pushing for advertisment saying "NOES...Don't get married :eek:? No. You don't.


How about their rule of parental custody?

"The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody (as opposed to more common sole custody - most often awarded to women) is in the "best interests of the child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child"

Yes, they say standards that presume fathers as being 'in the best interest of the child' are a bad thing.


Do you know how to arrive at a logical conclusion to anything? Nowhere did that say sole custody to the mother was always in the best interest of a child, or that removing a child from the father's custody was always the best. It says, that the standard of joint custody does make it harder to determine what is in the best interest of the child - it makes harder to declare either parent unfit, and thus award sole custody to either parent when it is in the best interest of the child. The ramifications of this are that custody is not stripped an abusive parent -whether male or female (although statistics speak quite clearly about which gender is more likely to be the abuser).


Here is where NOW equates marriage with domestic violence;

"The statement's approximately 100 signers, including the conference sponsors (The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education; Institute for American Values; Religion, Culture, and Family Project), claim that their support for marriage does not require "turning back the clock on desirable social change, promoting male tyranny or tolerating domestic violence." But the values they are promoting are sometimes in direct conflict with goals such as ending domestic violence and winning gender equality. In recommending public policy to promote marriage, the signers offer no way to reconcile these conflicts."


Explain how not supporting programs and groups which put the marriage vow above safety, which encourage people to stay in abusive relationships is equating marriage with domestic violence.

A description of a book that the Coalition For Marriage supports and promotes, as described on their page about violence and divorce:

A program for couples with serious problems who are
disillusioned, separated and/or on the brink of divorce.
You'll be helped by couples who have also "been to the brink" - who have
experienced serious problems including affairs, alcoholism, gambling,
violence, etc or who have simply fallen out of love - but who have worked their way
back.

Wow. Advocating staying in an abusive relationship. Who the fuck wouldn't support that :roll:


How about the role of women who abandon their children to daycare to pursure their own selfish career goals? NOW lauds them;

"The housewife lifestyle that defined a norm for many women when Betty Friedan wrote The Feminist Mystique is no more. The average woman is in the labor force. There is mass approval for work, even for women with young children"

"More U.S. women with pre-school children participated in the labor force in one year, 1996, than did all European women, many of them without children. Women's employment represented two-thirds of the 14 percent difference between American and European employment rates in that year"


Hmmm.... where is your critisicm of all the fathers in two parent homes who selfishly pursue their careers instead of staying home and being a primary caretaker? The only people who somehow think that job is predicated upon gender are .... sexists. Like you.


Here is a good critisism of what NOW has done to the feminist movement:

"Gender feminists redefined the opposite sex into a distinct political class whose interests were inherently antagonistic to women. In the theory that followed, Dworkin pronounced all men to be rapists. Kate Millett called for the end of the family unit. Catharine MacKinnon declared marriage, rape and prostitution to be indistinguishable from each other.

Viewed through the political lens of gender feminism, maleness ceased to be a biological trait and became a cultural, or ideological one. In Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, MacKinnon insisted, "Male is a social and political concept, not a biological attribute."(114) In Our Blood, Dworkin agreed, " In order to stop... systematic abuses against us, we must destroy these very definitions of masculinity and femininity, of men and women..."(48) Maleness could not be reformed. It needed to be eliminated."
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/essays/mises.html

and here is what feminism should be and seems to slowly be evolving into:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0312.html



1)Wow. Quoting something that quotes some of the most radical feminists ever (form a libertarian-biased source while describing a historical view of the feminists movement and not current policy no less) and then doing it out of contexts proves what, other than you have no clue what feminism is about and are reaching for straws? Oh wait, you did show that feminism isn't some monolithic hive-minded movement as has been claimed by you and others elsewhere in this thread, and you did show that some feminist are socially and/or fiscally left leaning while others are right leaning, and that there are various schools of thought on how to obtain equality, thus knocking down your whole "all feminists subscribe to one school of thought argument which brought up NOW and attempted to equate it with the entire feminist movement in the first place.


If NOW was really supportive of homemakers then why do they not have links to homeschooling support sites. Where is their fight to push businesses to have hours around the school schedule so women can be home at the same time their children are? Where is the support of single-income mothers rather than the attack on the single income 'upper income' (>$35,000)households? Why do they not fight for womens rights to work from home? Why in their entire site is there not one example that glorifies a woman who choses to stay at home mised into their countless examples of women who work, "even with preschool age children"?

NOW has shown no real interest in the needs of hommakers. If that quote actually is from their website then it is a glorious example of hypocracy and lipservice.

In the first place, the kind of support NOW wants for homemakers (a salary) wouldn't fly politically right now. No legislation to work for or against. Largely NOW works with what is there.

Second of all, there is a lot of support for single-working income mothers. Pushes for fair wages, etc. Just because they don't support tax programs that would benefit the relative few who make above a certain income over the large numbers who don't make that much does not equal lack of support.

Third of all, NOW does support family friendly work policies such as family leave, flex time, flex-place (that is working from home)etc. Right now family leave is most under attack and the center of their efforts. Meanwhile, your vaunted ifeminist would not do such, as this would be putting government dictates on the workplace, and as libertarians, most who belong don't subscribe to that sort of thing. Can't you even be consitent in what you support - or did you just like ifeminist because they said homemaker more?