NationStates Jolt Archive

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?


May I ask how you can say in one post that feminism has done 90% percent of its job in one post and then advocate what most people see as one of the more "radical" and most fought against of feminsits ideas in the next - the overly shocking (to many) that gender roles and identity are not and should not be based on what sex a person happens to be born.

If you don't like being stuck in a gender role, don't blame feminism (unless you want to say it wasn't a radical enough movement or for giving up on working on that too easily).

There is a media bias, not for or against men, but definitely promoting sterotypes of what men are "supposed to be like." If you want to be against this, you can't dismiss the sterotypes against women because you think that they have "been talked about too much." Neither can women who are fighting against having to conform to media sterotypes dismiss the ones against men if they want any hope of actually fixing the problem. Rather one must address the idea that *people* are expected to coform to certain sterotypes due to overwhelming media portrayal which serves to reinforce outdated cultural ideas based on what sex they are. The sterotypes were set up together to divide the genders into roles. If the stereotypes are to disappear, they must disappear together.

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.
hear, hear!

That this debate still persists astounds me....

That this debate still persists astounds me....
Lol look how long the “Why is homosexuality a sin” thread was around

That this debate still persists astounds me....

Hahaha 51 pages and going strong. March to 75.

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
Sorry but considering the harm perpetrated by Nazis and the recent resurgence of Nazi type organisations, I find the term very insulting to those who have been victimised by Nazism, and I also believe that employing the term 'feminazi' minimilises the impact of the word and risks blinding people to the abhorrence associated with Nazism. If you have any respect for the many people murdered, assaulted etc due to Nazi ideology, you wouldnt employ such terminology lightly, nor would you condon it's use (for instance by calling it awesome). A bunch of placard waving sexists does not compare to a group that wishes to genocide entire ethnic groups, it is insulting to victims of the latter to suggest that it does. I doubt you have any intention to offend those victimised by Nazism, so I hope you'll reconsider your endorsement and amusement with regards to the term 'feminazi'.

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.
Exactly, equality has not been achieved. The point of feminism wasnt to 'make a bit of progress', it was to achieve equality, equality has not been achieved, and since that was the goal of feminism, the goal has not been achieved. My understanding of your comments (in this post and earlier posts) is that the goal of feminism has been achieved, even though that goal, (equality) has not been achieved....that just doesnt make sense...

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.
Not presenting the other side is necessary if your argument is not to be discredited. You stated there was a media bias against men because they were presented in unflattering ways in the media, however since women are also presented in unflattering ways in the media, how can that be construed as being bias against men? They are not being singled out for negative treatment in the media, but rather are treated negatively alongside their sexual counterparts.

And of course my reading is not the only one. I'm just one man with a TV, internet access and an opinion. :D
Well again your point is moot unless you can show that the disrespect the media show to men is disporportionate to that shown to women. If both groups are equally disrespected, this can hardly be considered bias.

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?
Human cognition working as it does, we are unlikely in the near future to erase the use of 'thought categories' in which we place identifiable groups of people. However to my mind, much of the task of feminism and indeed any humanistic pursuit is to ensure that such categories do not supercede individual discretion. So while it is ok to believe that males have a tendancy to like sports, there is no justification in assuming that any particular male of female will or will not like sports. Whilst it is fine to think that males have a tendancy to like B.B.Quing, this doesnt give good cause to assume that any particular male or female does or does not like BBQuing. It's not so much that people have categories of roles that relate to gender that is problematic, but rather that people dont dispend their investment in such categories in favour of individual annalysis of individuals.

The fact that you as an individual might be categorised due to your sex, regardless of your actual personal attributes, doesnt prove that feminism has outlived it's use, but rather the opposite. If people were not assumed (regardless of personal attributes) to have all the traits of a particular sex and not the traits of the other, then you wouldnt have a problem, and the problem you do have, is one of the problems that feminists target.

In this thread several posters have mentioned the flip side to women being viewed as nuturer/caregiver, while men are viewed as breadwinners/providers. Ask any earnest father who has tried to get custody of children from a deficient mother, it's not just women who suffer as a result of genderised stereotyping. Consider the children left in the care of a deficient mother because the courts start at the assumption that her sex grants her nuturing skills that men dont tend towards (overcoming this obstacle is difficult beyond description). Consider the father who is desperately concerned for his children's welfare, but cannot without breaking the law do anything tangible to protect them. Genderised stereotypes taking precedence over (or eliminating the employment of) individulised discretion, has the potential to harm people of any gender.

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?
conversely, why give tax relief only to households with two incomes, particularly when you are trying to encourage family values.

conversely, why give tax relief only to households with two incomes, particularly when you are trying to encourage family values.
well, somebody like me would say that a household with two incomes is showing better family values and setting a better example for children, so if we are going to reward family values then those are the people who should get the reward.

of course, i don't think it's the government's job to encourage family values in the first place.

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.

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.

When I went to University (back in the mother country), there were 5 girls in our chemistry faculty (2 in 'pure' chemistry), about 10 girls in our Biomedical Sciences faculty, and about 3 girls in our Physics faculty - out of an intake of about 200 students.

By a lot of standards, GATech does have a lot of female students (I believe the latest enrollment figures show ALMOST 50/50 male:female ratio, overall) - and a fairly high proportion of female science students.

My point is, even allowing for how GATech is somewhat 'exceptional' by those standards, the TRENDS are still clearly visible.

I will admit, your knowledge is less anecdotal/statistical than mine... I only live 'near' GATech, you actually attend - which gives you, one assumes, a much better perspective on how the genders match up across disciplines.

Your post does seem to go on to bear out the point I was making - so, I assume you see the same trends 'in real life', that I see statistically, and hear of from friends.... no?

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.


See, the thing is - Feminism is almost diametrically opposed to Nazism. The one talks about the liberation of a minority, the other focuses on the oppression of a minority.

I don't find it humourous - because I don't see it as a joke. I see it as the original poster having an axe to grind, and throwing in a 'buzzword' to emote his readership. I also don't find the mere combination of words to be especially clever, especially when it is done to 'harm' another.

You are entitled to your own opinion, of course - and I wouldn't think to intrude on your right to express it... but, I will oppose it's flaws if I disagree.


..... :confused:


"Always will they condemn what they do not understand", roughly.


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.

Perhaps it will be a rude awakening for you, but the argument you are throwing out (about the oppression of poor little men, in advertising) is not a new argument to many. Perhaps to you, but many have been over this terrain before.

The comment I made about advertising... the "little secret"... I'm surprised it got you so uptight... it isn't a dig, it is a reference to the 'open secret' of advertising, which is that: advertising focuses on demographics.

It's unfortunate, even insulting - but it is the way the industry works... and, that is the sad thing... IT DOES WORK.

They want to sell a product associated with a perceived coloured racial demographic, of a low sub-urban income range... they don't get a snotty white guy in a suit to wave his doctorate at the audience, and expound his reasons... and if they did, he would end up the butt of a joke, again targetted at a certain demographic.

Like I say, insulting, but it works.

What you are objecting to, as a sexist trend, is what most people (unfortunately) respond to in a 'positive' fashion... that is, they shell out for the product.

So, perceived domestic products (and demographic study shows those products will chiefly be bought by housewives... and further analysis even allows them to target which advertising SLOT of the daily schedule those housewives optimally watch), will be sold through advertising that presents female role models that are clever, witty, adventurous, even... all the things the target demographic aspires to.

For you to be getting upset at that merely shows that you don't empathise with the target market... do you get upset when the girl frisks the guy in suggestive fashion in the cool-breath gum commercial?

Finally - regarding the chivalry comment... it was a hollow phrase, and I merely showed it to be so. If you are a student of history, you appreciate that chivalry has nothing to do with 'respecting women' - and is all about following a masculine, martial ideal. When chivalry 'respects' a woman - it is a tool, a means to an end... not a gender ideal.

See, the thing is - Feminism is almost diametrically opposed to Nazism.
Ah, but as has been noted earlier in the thread, Feminism and Femnazism are two different things. One of the basic definitions of Femnazism is that it concerns believing themselves superior to men. One of the core tenets of the Nazi regime was the idea of Aryan superiority. Thus what he was talking about was not necessarily opposed to naziism

Ah, but as has been noted earlier in the thread, Feminism and Femnazism are two different things. One of the basic definitions of Femnazism is that it concerns believing themselves superior to men. One of the core tenets of the Nazi regime was the idea of Aryan superiority. Thus what he was talking about was not necessarily opposed to naziism

Except that Nazism is 'real', and Feminism is 'real', and Femenazism has no manifesto or agenda, because it is a 'buzzword'... a way for threatened-feeling men to try to strike back at a perceived threat to their 'male-supremacy'.

Personally, as a man, I think females ARE superior to males... after all, they could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them.

(And, of course, the male "y" is just a defective "x"... so, at core, we are just 'broken' females).

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.

Which would not be "minding your own business," now would it?

Im not ready for parenthood.

I am unsurprised.

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"

I grew up as a girl in this country. I know where society tries to push young girls, and I was lucky to have a very supportive family and some really great teachers. But I have seen girls who feel that it isn't "proper" for them to excel in math and science because they are girls because of what parents/etc. have told them. I had a friend in high school whose grandmother told her point blank that she should go into nursing so that she could meet and marry a doctor. When she pointed out that she could just become a doctor herself, the reply was "Oh, I guess that's a good way to meet a doctor too." In other words, the grandmother didn't even understand the concept of equality.

Historically, there were much less women going into technical fields. Now, largely due to people pushing for the idea of equality of the genders, there are more. In the future, as long as we keep upholding that ideal, there will be more equal amounts. But as long as some idiot tells *one* girl that she should do X because she is a girl, then there is a problem.

Except that Nazism is 'real', and Feminism is 'real', and Femenazism has no manifesto or agenda, because it is a 'buzzword'... a way for threatened-feeling men to try to strike back at a perceived threat to their 'male-supremacy'.

Personally, as a man, I think females ARE superior to males... after all, they could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them.

(And, of course, the male "y" is just a defective "x"... so, at core, we are just 'broken' females).
I think you should probably insert a [/sarcasm] in there … even I didn’t catch it on the first read :) and I love sarcasm

Lol wait for the idiot flamers who don’t understand… lol

conversely, why give tax relief only to households with two incomes, particularly when you are trying to encourage family values.

Maybe because the tax brackets were already designed to give tax relief to single-income families? They *already* have tax relief. Do you really think the government can afford to hand taxes back like candy?

My point is, even allowing for how GATech is somewhat 'exceptional' by those standards, the TRENDS are still clearly visible.

I will admit, your knowledge is less anecdotal/statistical than mine... I only live 'near' GATech, you actually attend - which gives you, one assumes, a much better perspective on how the genders match up across disciplines.

Your post does seem to go on to bear out the point I was making - so, I assume you see the same trends 'in real life', that I see statistically, and hear of from friends.... no?

Ah yes, and the stereotypes abound. You can hear quite a few guys from the more technically oriented departments talking about "HS&T girls" and wondering why they came to a technical school at all. Meanwhile, most CS guys seem to be afraid of the girls in their department (of course, most Tech CS guys seem to be afraid of girls in general).

My department actually has a relatively high percentage of females - one of my thesis advisors is actually a female MD/PhD, but I have heard quite a bit about the other departments.

I think you should probably insert a [/sarcasm] in there … even I didn’t catch it on the first read :) and I love sarcasm

Lol wait for the idiot flamers who don’t understand… lol

Well, it is humour - but it is also true, at it's core...

Genetically, what makes a 'man' a 'man' is an aberration of the sex chromosome... so, if there is one 'true' form of human, it would HAVE to be female.

Of course, men are men, and women are women, and we are all the same, except for our differences...

I dream of equality between sexes, between races, between creeds, etc.

It offends me that my 'fellow' men view women as inferior, that my fellow country-men view 'such-and-such' racial group as inferior...

So, it always kind of cheers me up, to think that, at heart, my neanderthal-acting compatriots are, in fact, just a mutation of the female gene.

:)

Well, it is humour - but it is also true, at it's core...

Genetically, what makes a 'man' a 'man' is an aberration of the sex chromosome... so, if there is one 'true' form of human, it would HAVE to be female.

Of course, men are men, and women are women, and we are all the same, except for our differences...

I dream of equality between sexes, between races, between creeds, etc.

It offends me that my 'fellow' men view women as inferior, that my fellow country-men view 'such-and-such' racial group as inferior...

So, it always kind of cheers me up, to think that, at heart, my neanderthal-acting compatriots are, in fact, just a mutation of the female gene.

:)
I don’t see that it would HAVE to be female


As you could just say that double X is just a deformity also (could also claim the natural state is a XY pairing) really symmetric dose not always mean “default”

But I digress

Ah yes, and the stereotypes abound. You can hear quite a few guys from the more technically oriented departments talking about "HS&T girls" and wondering why they came to a technical school at all. Meanwhile, most CS guys seem to be afraid of the girls in their department (of course, most Tech CS guys seem to be afraid of girls in general).

My department actually has a relatively high percentage of females - one of my thesis advisors is actually a female MD/PhD, but I have heard quite a bit about the other departments.

It was a few years ago, but the same thing was true at my University... there were males who vociferously questioned why females should be doing a 'male' subject, like Chemistry.

Even some of the faculty (while not actively 'endorsing' such behaviour') perhaps unconsciously continued the same prejudice... a difficult concept comes up... a question is raised... the lecturer immediately asks one of his select cadre of 'boys' for their input... despite the excellent grades of several of the female students.... grades that often overshadowed those scored by the 'select cadre' favoured by the faculty.

With such ingrained prejudice, at an almost subliminal level, it is no surprise that females are often 'turned-off'.

Except that Nazism is 'real', and Feminism is 'real', and Femenazism has no manifesto or agenda, because it is a 'buzzword'... a way for threatened-feeling men to try to strike back at a perceived threat to their 'male-supremacy'.

Personally, as a man, I think females ARE superior to males... after all, they could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them.

(And, of course, the male "y" is just a defective "x"... so, at core, we are just 'broken' females).
Never seen VanDread have you? And just because it is not a movement per se does not mean the term is entirely illegitimate. As for females being superior, both sexes have specific quirks.

I don’t see that it would HAVE to be female


As you could just say that double X is just a deformity also (could also claim the natural state is a XY pairing) really symmetric dose not always mean “default”

But I digress

But digression is entertaining - and much more constructive than the bulk of the "Feminazi" rhetoric that the "anti-Feminists" trot out...

By the way, I believe "XX" is the natural formation of all chromosome pairs (that aren't, in some way, deformed) - including 'sex chromosomes'.

That would make the "XX" the 'natural' form, and the "XY", therefore, a 'mutant' form.

Never seen VanDread have you? And just because it is not a movement per se does not mean the term is entirely illegitimate. As for females being superior, both sexes have specific quirks.

Afraid not... I am yet to be introduced to the wonders that are, no doubt, Vandread.

The reason I claim the term as illegitimate... well, let's say that I decide to term to a "Masculazi", and proceed to tell you how you are an "evil revolutionary (or something) that wants women to be returned to their' antural order' of barefoot pregnancy in kitchens, serving males, like they are supposed to".

My 'coining' of the term gives me a 'buzzword', on which to hang all kinds of concepts - but it doesn't make any of the associated 'manifesto' true, or your political belief.

By the same token, just because some frustrated guy that can't get a date, adn decides he is the victim of a global female conspiracy to oppress him... just because he coins a tag for this 'oppressive movement' - that doesn't mean it is a 'real' thing, or that the 'victims' of his labelling follow the manifesto he alledges.

All humans are mutants to some degree.

We seem a lot more chilled out in Britain. In college, chemistry and maths were pretty evenly split down the genders, physics perhaps showed a slight male bias. I don't know of many males who took up psychology or media.

All humans are mutants to some degree.

We seem a lot more chilled out in Britain. In college, chemistry and maths were pretty evenly split down the genders, physics perhaps showed a slight male bias. I don't know of many males who took up psychology or media.

I find myself wondering where you studied... I studied at DeMontfort, one of the more 'progressive' (read, out for everyone's cash - male OR female) institutions... and, even there, the split was horribly stacked in favour of male enrollment in sciences.

Perhaps you attended Cardiff? I have heard that, one some of their courses, they had as much as a 7:1 female:male ratio...

I don't recall whether the available subjects were 'science' subjects, though.

1) Women have equality of law, which is the only form of equality that can be guarnteed.

2) Attempting to acchieve social equality by force is nothing less than cencorship of the PC varity (IE feminists complaining about women being portrayed as sex objects etc)

3) Social opinons will only be changed through practice not words.

But digression is entertaining - and much more constructive than the bulk of the "Feminazi" rhetoric that the "anti-Feminists" trot out...

By the way, I believe "XX" is the natural formation of all chromosome pairs (that aren't, in some way, deformed) - including 'sex chromosomes'.

That would make the "XX" the 'natural' form, and the "XY", therefore, a 'mutant' form.

Dude's been reading his Valerie Solanos. W0rd.

3) Social opinons will only be changed through practice not words.

Funny, that's exactly what I've been advocating all along - practice - and you have been arguing with me.

Stupidity was a movement, originating in the Biblical era, that strived to get people to do stupid things, including non-sensical, rambling forum posts based on fantasy and not fact. It was a very noble cause, and fought against bias towards honesty.


STUPIDITY TODAY IS JUST LIKE THAT. Modern stupids, or forum trolls, as I will call them from now on, do not want to be intelligent, they have to be stupid for the most part. Yes, I know that smart people get more money, but that gap is narrowing. Forum trolls want stupidity over the smart-asses who think they know everything just because they have "facts."

First off, smart people killed off cock-fights. Cock-fighting 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 letting two cocks kill each other, he won't do it again.

Second, they make up a lot of lies to desecrate stupid peoples' reputations. One of the most outrageous lies I've heard is that the reason our medicine is far behind what it could be is because stupid people slow it down because stupid people are sexually attracted to death. I mean it should be obvious to any person with half a brain that this is complete BS, not counting the Darwin Awards, but a hoity-toity liberal magazine printed it.

There is a newspaper in California, that was praised by "smart people" magazine for their default language usage. In usual life, when we speak of someone and we find out they like guys or something, we usually just discriminate against them because it's easier than trying to understand them. It's not a big deal, really. It is not a shackle on the ankles of all smart people in the world. However, they praised this newspaper, because in all their man-on-boy love, they referred to the person as "she", EXCEPT when talking about a convict, where they use "troglodyte". Nice, ain't it? Now tell me this isn't smart.

Smart people take every little thing to be this evil shit that Southerners put upon them to keep all women, blacks, Jews, and gays in slavery behind the stove/car wash/bank/interior design company. They oppose sports teams taking steroids, they oppose cheerleaders getting raped by jocks. They claim that cheerleaders are only enticing the sports players by wearing skirts, the way men want women to dress in the first place. Of course, that is not the reasoning behind it, the reasoning is stupid people are physically much stronger then smart people, like The Governator, thus making them more fit for getting away with shit, and smart people are more attractive to the largely stupid audience because they make more money, thus they are chosen to get fucked over because of jealousy that they can read and stupid people make posts like this one.

I will add to this later, but for now, i'll give you a chance to add/counter my post, but don't be too mean because I'm retarded.



I don't have much more to say, except that the person who wrote this probably hasn't been on a date in some time and is angry at all women because his mother didn't love him enough or something. Grow up, you douche.

Funny, that's exactly what I've been advocating all along - practice - and you have been arguing with me.

I dont follow. What I am talking about is instead of protesting and complaining about feminism, do your best to rise above any sexist prejudice. If it becomes a legal issue then report it, but otherwise it can be ignored. Giving into the attack and shouting "Thats sexist you shovinist pig" is childish in many cases. If it is not a legal issue it is not worth bothering about. What many people forget is that women make simmilar insults about men a great deal of the time.

I dont follow. What I am talking about is instead of protesting and complaining about feminism, do your best to rise above any sexist prejudice. If it becomes a legal issue then report it, but otherwise it can be ignored. Giving into the attack and shouting "Thats sexist you shovinist pig" is childish in many cases. If it is not a legal issue it is not worth bothering about. What many people forget is that women make simmilar insults about men a great deal of the time.

I never argued that someone should "give in to the attack." I simply argued that one must work pro-actively to dispel harmful social stereotypes - ie. practice.

*looks around*
Isn't anyone going to start on about religion? That's what we all usually do, what with the Cristian view...blah...well, DON'T START JUST CAUSE OF ME!!!
LOL!

3) Social opinons will only be changed through practice not words.

If you believe this, Neo dearest, why don't you just STFU?

Or, please explain, how threads like "Postmodernism: Does it need to grow up?" wasn't an attempt to use words to change social attitudes.

Are you saying things like

Putting aside the evolution/creation debate for now and purely examining the philosophical side of things, I want to ask evolutionists if they have considered the moral concequences behind their beliefs. Logicaly if life is an acident and it could have happened anywhere anytime anyway etc, then it has no meaning and no purpose yes. I mean if it was a random convergence of amino acids and other various chemicals then what are we doing here now? Have you considered that if life is an acident then we are all but acidents and life has little if no meaning if there is no reason for us being here beyond chance?

aren't in some way meant to get people to examine, and thus possibly change, their ideas?

Ideas and social change happen through discussion. I have seen you verbally promote several ideas. Face it, you just want peple who are trying to inform and educate about ideas that you don't like to shut up. Hypocrite.

Yeah! You Go!!!

It was a few years ago, but the same thing was true at my University... there were males who vociferously questioned why females should be doing a 'male' subject, like Chemistry.

Even some of the faculty (while not actively 'endorsing' such behaviour') perhaps unconsciously continued the same prejudice... a difficult concept comes up... a question is raised... the lecturer immediately asks one of his select cadre of 'boys' for their input... despite the excellent grades of several of the female students.... grades that often overshadowed those scored by the 'select cadre' favoured by the faculty.

With such ingrained prejudice, at an almost subliminal level, it is no surprise that females are often 'turned-off'.

That reminds me, I know people studying towards becoming maxillofacial surgeons. That involves doing dentistry, medicine AND specialising. Since it's such a long course, the selection people automatically doubt a woman who wants to take it because of the usual crap, "she may want to have kids" etc. Um, there was a man involved there somewhere, maybe he'll want to stay home with the kids? Basically that kind of thing is an old boys club.

And on the negative portrayal of women/men in advertising, ok, men may come off looking bad some of the time. But let me ask you this, what do women in bikinis have to do with selling chicken? Then theres those Cougar Bourbon ads. They sicken me.

All humans are mutants to some degree.

We seem a lot more chilled out in Britain. In college, chemistry and maths were pretty evenly split down the genders, physics perhaps showed a slight male bias. I don't know of many males who took up psychology or media.
You just nailed my two degrees - Psyc and Journalism.

well, somebody like me would say that a household with two incomes is showing better family values and setting a better example for children, so if we are going to reward family values then those are the people who should get the reward.

of course, i don't think it's the government's job to encourage family values in the first place.
Explain to me exactly how you come to the conclusion that having two incomes shows 'better' family values?

Maybe because the tax brackets were already designed to give tax relief to single-income families? They *already* have tax relief. Do you really think the government can afford to hand taxes back like candy?
Then why tax families at the same rate as individuals?

Oh, and the government cannot give back what it never owned. Taxes are not given back, they are taken. Confiscated. Removed from you.

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.

You'll have to do better than that if all you can do is to call me names. Small minds always resort to that - I hope you don't count yourself among them.

I have been very clear in prior posts and in my language to most often indicate a gender neutral term; 'primary caregiver'. I make no qualms about it most often being the woman. I also make no qualms about when the woman's career has more earning power (combined with her desire to continue it) then it is up to the man to be the primary caregiver and cease his career until the children are of school age. I addressed this several posts ago.

The only double standard is the one which does not allow the man the 'opt out' if his income is higher. I am content to live with that.

I suppose that I would be rightious in calling you a dengrating name or label now too, but unlike you, I am above that. (most of the time) :) I will instead presume (probably correctly) that you overlooked that post.

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?

Sorry I keep breaking this into smaller posts. I am on dial up with an unstable computer that I am trying to diagnose. I as half-way through a more thorough reply yesterday when CRAASH! So now I go in smaller bytes.

Back to topic at hand:

Umm, who said anything about the child tax cradit. Did you mean Marriage Penalty? If so, the why shouldn't NOW support a tax policy that is advantageous to everyone? Is it fair to punish marriage just because someone makes more money? Should we also punish them for having children? How about we punish them for using water? Maybe we could develop a great stream of income and punish them for getting sick too?

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.
The government promotes many things which involve personal choice - Personal choice is the foundation of what this country is about. The government promotes education, voting, recycling, health and much more.

If something were not about a personal choice then what would be the point in promoting or discouraging it?

Which would not be "minding your own business," now would it?

I like to judge things on a case by case basis.

I am unsurprised.

;)


Historically, there were much less women going into technical fields. Now, largely due to people pushing for the idea of equality of the genders, there are more. In the future, as long as we keep upholding that ideal, there will be more equal amounts. But as long as some idiot tells *one* girl that she should do X because she is a girl, then there is a problem.

I dout you will ever be able to stop all sexists. There are still a lot of racists out there, just less visable then before because society is against them.

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 wayback.

Wow. Advocating staying in an abusive relationship. Who the fuck wouldn't support that :roll:

You must have searched pretty hard for that little tidbit - because I could find it nowhere. Your implication is that this will be a part of the marriage promotion program is incorrect. It is the wrong target market completely. You have attempted bait and switch and I caught you.
I will address this below, but lets talk about the subject at hand first:

Critics incorrectly assume that the target population for the Healthy Marriage Initiative would be older, single mothers in the TANF program. Typically, older welfare mothers have already severed ties with the fathers of their children. Such relationships have often been dead for several years: These mothers, therefore, are not good candidates for a marriage program. Rather, healthy marriage programs would seek to improve the stability and quality of relationships for low-income women at a younger age. Couples at this stage of life--generally termed "fragile families"--have relatively good prospects for entering into healthy, stable marriages.
Many low-income mothers are trapped in patterns of serial cohabitation, moving through a sequence of fractured, failed relationships with men. Domestic violence is most likely to occur within this pattern of serial cohabitation. The Healthy Marriage Initiative could help prevent couples from falling prey to this destructive pattern by providing them with the knowledge and skills needed to build healthy, stable relationships. The proper time for such training is when couples are at a relatively young age--either prior to a child's conception or at the time of a child's birth--before self-defeating patterns of distrust and acrimony have developed.
By helping couples to avoid the pitfalls of serial failed relationships, the Healthy Marriage Initiative will substantially reduce, rather than increase, domestic violence. Indeed, unless couples are equipped with the skills they need to develop healthy relationships, it is difficult to imagine how the current rates of domestic violence in low-income communities can be reduced.

Contrary to the views of the NOW Legal Defense Fund, marriage tends to protect women from domestic abuse rather than increasing it. In general, domestic violence is more common in cohabiting relationships than in marriages. Analysis from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Department of Justice, also shows that mothers who are,
or have been, married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who have never married

Back to your failed bait and switch point:
There is a vast difference (that even you could understand) between advocating staying in a disfunctional (alcohol, abuse, etc) relationship versus providing counseling to people deaing with it. Others here have accuratly noted that very often women refuse to leave a disfuncional relationship. Should they be thrown to the wolves for their unwise choice when counseling has proven to be effective in many cases?
I frankly think they should leave and *consider* counseling only once they are out of the bad situation, but I am not in a position to force them to and neither are you. In that reality then it makes perfectly good sense to offer counseling to these people who seek it. There is nothing wrong with promoting a program that has proven itself to be more effective under the circumstances.
http://www.smartmarriages.com/violent.html

Try again. Make sure to use more swear words and insults. it really makes you look smarter.

Explain to me exactly how you come to the conclusion that having two incomes shows 'better' family values?
because of my personal views on what "good family values" would entail; for me, having both parents working is, in itself, a good family value, and therefore any family in which either parent does not have their own career is automatically providing a poorer example of values.

This has nothing to do with anything, but I find it interesting that the "Red states" (states voting for George W. Bush), which are supposedly the states of Christian moral values, are the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest.

The state with the lowest divorce rate?

Liberal Massachusetts.

This has nothing to do with anything, but I find it interesting that the "Red states" (states voting for George W. Bush), which are supposedly the states of Christian moral values, are the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest.

The state with the lowest divorce rate?

Liberal Massachusetts.
rates of divorce are extremely high among Born-again Christians in particular, as are rates of teen pregnancy, so Bible Belt states suffer most from these problems. homicide rates are higher in Red States, and especially high in states with above-average numbers of people self-reporting "very high" religiosity. the states in the last election that reported "morals" or "values" as most critical to them tended to be the states with the lowest rates of high school graduation, literacy, and college admissions. for years, repeated studies have shown that the second strongest indicator for physical and sexual child abuse is religiosity of the parents and strong belief in "traditional family values."

isn't it interesting how the people who claim to be most concerned with "values" tend to have the poorest sense of what is valuable?

because of my personal views on what "good family values" would entail; for me, having both parents working is, in itself, a good family value, and therefore any family in which either parent does not have their own career is automatically providing a poorer example of values.
So then you must feel that a daycare can raise a baby and a preschooler better than a parent. You must also feel that a baby and a preschooler prefers daycare to time spent bonding with a parent. Your family values oddly don't include anything related to family. I suppose having your baby bonding with a daycare providor instead of a parent is part of your grand family plan, since that is where they will spend the majority of their waking hours. But hey, since when does a baby need to bond with a parent, right? That's really not nearly as important as getting that neat corner office when it comes to family values.

When you die I suppose your last words will be "I wish I had spent more time with.... my boss! Gaak!" (die)

I feel sorry for your children.

So then you must feel that a daycare can raise a baby and a preschooler better than a parent. You must also feel that a baby and a preschooler prefers daycare to time spent bonding with a parent. Your family values oddly don't include anything related to family.

i believe that having a child attend preschool or daycare programs is preferable to them being cared for by a stay-at-home parent, yes. how you conclude that this negates the importance of family is beyond me...to me, that's like somebody saying that having your kid go to school rather than having them tutored in the home means you don't have family values.


I suppose having your baby bonding with a daycare providor instead of a parent is part of your grand family plan, since that is where they will spend the majority of their waking hours.

i spent my entire childhood attending daycare programs and preschools and such, and it did not in any way inhibit my bonding with my parents. in fact, i would venture to say that my relationship with my parents is unusually close compared to most people i know.

of course, i also made some very close bonds with the teachers and daycare workers who took care of me over the years. fortunately, my parents taught me the wonderful beauty of love, which is that we don't have a finite amount of it; my affection and bonding with the other adults and children in my life did not in any way diminish my love and bonding with my family, and in many ways i think it helped strengthen my familial ties. i learned a lot about different families, different cultures, different beliefs, and different social skills, and all of those things helped me to understand my own family and culture much more clearly than i might have if i had a more limited environment.


But hey, since when does a baby need to bond with a parent, right? That's really not nearly as important as getting that neat corner office when it comes to family values.

so you are saying you believe that preschool and such will improve a child's likelihood of success in the professional world? i never made that claim, but i certainly won't dispute it. personally i think it is quite possible to have a child with healthy, deep familial bonds who also has a broader understanding of social interaction and skills that will help them succeed in the world...i believe that i, my brother, and many of my fellow latch-key friends are prime examples of this.


When you die I suppose your last words will be "I wish I had spent more time with.... my boss! Gaak!" (die)

why would you suppose something so foolish?


I feel sorry for your children.good...you have expressed many views on these forums which lead me to conclude that your approval of my child rearing practices would be a red flag to warn me i was doing something wrong :).

So then you must feel that a daycare can raise a baby and a preschooler better than a parent. You must also feel that a baby and a preschooler prefers daycare to time spent bonding with a parent. Your family values oddly don't include anything related to family. I suppose having your baby bonding with a daycare providor instead of a parent is part of your grand family plan, since that is where they will spend the majority of their waking hours.
when did bottle mention anything about working right after the kid's born?

i know that personally, i would definitely take advantage of the year off for maternity leave (and hell, paternity leave should be a big thing too, afterall it would be nice to have the father bond with the infant as well) and i would hopefully have a job that is flexible enough that i could work from home or work shorter hours until my hypothetical kid is in kindergarden or old enough for preschool.

and you do know that a kid in day care generally ends up being able to get along better with their peers, right?

when did bottle mention anything about working right after the kid's born?

this is the thing that gets me: one of the two parents is going to HAVE to be working, at the very least, in pretty much all but the wealthiest families. so, according to Bozzy, that means the kid is not going to bond with that parent, is not going to love them as much, and is not going to see them as an equal role model. funny how most people i know who had a stay-at-home parent don't report that they love their working parent less, and they don't feel they bonded any less with their working parent. in many cases it is quite the opposite, in fact; most of my friends feel closest to their dads, even though many of them grew up in homes where mom stayed home and dad worked.

You'll have to do better than that if all you can do is to call me names. Small minds always resort to that - I hope you don't count yourself among them.

I suppose that I would be rightious in calling you a dengrating name or label now too, but unlike you, I am above that. (most of the time) :) I will instead presume (probably correctly) that you overlooked that post.
Oh of course, large minds dont call names, they just randomly accuse other posters of being each other, and insist this is so when it is pointed out that it is not so (which is in effect calling both the other posters liers, not that that is name calling or anything), and only desist when one of the concerned posters points out that making up false accusations against other posters is flamebaiting (of course no apology forthcoming). If only all our minds were as large as yours we could all sit around insisting that everyone that disagreed with us was in fact one very busy poster with a great many puppets... :rolleyes:

Sure Bozzy, you go on thinking of yourself as the King of Maturity and Reason, and thinking that making up lies about other posters (then implying they are the liers) when you get frustrated, is so much less petty and more mature and reasonable than name calling, no one else is fooled, but at least you can carry on feeling superior about yourself. :rolleyes:

You must have searched pretty hard for that little tidbit - because I could find it nowhere. Your implication is that this will be a part of the marriage promotion program is incorrect. It is the wrong target market completely. You have attempted bait and switch and I caught you.
I will address this below, but lets talk about the subject at hand first:

Critics incorrectly assume that the target population for the Healthy Marriage Initiative would be older, single mothers in the TANF program. Typically, older welfare mothers have already severed ties with the fathers of their children. Such relationships have often been dead for several years: These mothers, therefore, are not good candidates for a marriage program. Rather, healthy marriage programs would seek to improve the stability and quality of relationships for low-income women at a younger age. Couples at this stage of life--generally termed "fragile families"--have relatively good prospects for entering into healthy, stable marriages.
Many low-income mothers are trapped in patterns of serial cohabitation, moving through a sequence of fractured, failed relationships with men. Domestic violence is most likely to occur within this pattern of serial cohabitation. The Healthy Marriage Initiative could help prevent couples from falling prey to this destructive pattern by providing them with the knowledge and skills needed to build healthy, stable relationships. The proper time for such training is when couples are at a relatively young age--either prior to a child's conception or at the time of a child's birth--before self-defeating patterns of distrust and acrimony have developed.
By helping couples to avoid the pitfalls of serial failed relationships, the Healthy Marriage Initiative will substantially reduce, rather than increase, domestic violence. Indeed, unless couples are equipped with the skills they need to develop healthy relationships, it is difficult to imagine how the current rates of domestic violence in low-income communities can be reduced.

Contrary to the views of the NOW Legal Defense Fund, marriage tends to protect women from domestic abuse rather than increasing it. In general, domestic violence is more common in cohabiting relationships than in marriages. Analysis from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Department of Justice, also shows that mothers who are,
or have been, married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who have never married

Back to your failed bait and switch point:
There is a vast difference (that even you could understand) between advocating staying in a disfunctional (alcohol, abuse, etc) relationship versus providing counseling to people deaing with it. Others here have accuratly noted that very often women refuse to leave a disfuncional relationship. Should they be thrown to the wolves for their unwise choice when counseling has proven to be effective in many cases?
I frankly think they should leave and *consider* counseling only once they are out of the bad situation, but I am not in a position to force them to and neither are you. In that reality then it makes perfectly good sense to offer counseling to these people who seek it. There is nothing wrong with promoting a program that has proven itself to be more effective under the circumstances.
http://www.smartmarriages.com/violent.html

Try again. Make sure to use more swear words and insults. it really makes you look smarter.

Clicking TWO links on the first of the organizations listed was not hard at all.
The quote was easy to find.

Furthermore, if YOU look back to the quote that you yourself provided, NOW's objection to working in partnership with these groups was specifically what I stated: regardless of their other goals which may be helpful they ALSO encourage women to 'work through' abusive relationships rather than leaving them. That is unacceptable. The quote specifically stated that was the reason NOW refused to work with those groups. That one very policy which you yourself admit is not the preferable thing to do.

There was no bait in switch on my part. What I found in general was in no way talking about working through something in only the cases where women choose to stay. If they choose to stay of course counciling is better than nothing. But these pages where *clearly advocating STAYING to work through abusive relationships and *DISCOURAGING* leaving them.

You'll have to do better than that if all you can do is to call me names. Small minds always resort to that - I hope you don't count yourself among them.

I have been very clear in prior posts and in my language to most often indicate a gender neutral term; 'primary caregiver'. I make no qualms about it most often being the woman. I also make no qualms about when the woman's career has more earning power (combined with her desire to continue it) then it is up to the man to be the primary caregiver and cease his career until the children are of school age. I addressed this several posts ago.

The only double standard is the one which does not allow the man the 'opt out' if his income is higher. I am content to live with that.

I suppose that I would be rightious in calling you a dengrating name or label now too, but unlike you, I am above that. (most of the time) :) I will instead presume (probably correctly) that you overlooked that post.

Perhaps it was unitentional on your part, but except right after being specifically called on it, you have _always_ used female and homemaker interchangeably.

Furthermore, you have claimed that the female pay equality has been largely due to females "dropping out" to take care of children, yet here you would deny a many with a higher income even the option of dropping out. What if the family could afford the lower income? What if the woman had greater potential income? Really, you can't say that dropping out must be based on income levels, which then generate income disparity and promote a cycle of only one gender having the choice to 'opt' out and call that being equal.

Umm, who said anything about the child tax cradit. Did you mean Marriage Penalty? If so, the why shouldn't NOW support a tax policy that is advantageous to everyone? Is it fair to punish marriage just because someone makes more money? Should we also punish them for having children? How about we punish them for using water? Maybe we could develop a great stream of income and punish them for getting sick too?

This sounds like your problem with NOW is that they believe that liberal tax policy is in the best interest of most women. Feminist who believe a conservative tax policy is in the best interest of women work for more conservative tax policies. NOW is just one organization. And even then, as with all organizations, not every member supports every policy. The tax question is more of a debate about how best to accomplish the goals of feminism rather than about what those goals actually are. Furthermore, liberal tax policy ideas are spread over many groups, some of which support feminist ideas and some of which oppose them. In and of itself it is not a feminist issue.

I don’t see that it would HAVE to be female


As you could just say that double X is just a deformity also (could also claim the natural state is a XY pairing) really symmetric dose not always mean “default”

But I digress

*sigh*

Neither is a deformity. The X chromosome is the default, a human cannot survive without one. The Y chromosome is a specialization - neither better or worse, just different.

This is a simplification and totally ignores things like cross-over.

The X chromosome contains a lot of genetic material, only some of which is used in gender determination, and those parts used in gender determination are more or less recessive. The presence of the Y chromosome (which carries very little genetic material other than that which gives rise to male characteristics) determines male. Regardless of the number of X chromosomes present, the presence of a Y will give rise to a male. Of course, in the case of a male, any and all of the genes on the X which do not have analogues in the Y (ie, most of them) *will* be expressed even if those traits are generally recessive.

As such a XO (O being lack of second chromosome in the sex chromosome pairing) produces a viable offspring (one with Turner's Syndrome) with relatively mild detrimental effects, especially compared to absence of gentic material caused by partial absence of any of the autosomes (non-sex chromosomes).

A OY is not viable as the most of the X carries hundreds of genes, but very few of them have to do anything with sex determination, and the ones that don't have to do with sex determination are necessary in the production of a viable human organism.

*sigh*

Neither is a deformity. The X chromosome is the default, a human cannot survive without one. The Y chromosome is a specialization - neither better or worse, just different.

This is a simplification and totally ignores things like cross-over.

The X chromosome contains a lot of genetic material, only some of which is used in gender determination, and those parts used in gender determination are more or less recessive. The presence of the Y chromosome (which carries very little genetic material other than that which gives rise to male characteristics) determines male. Regardless of the number of X chromosomes present, the presence of a Y will give rise to a male. Of course, in the case of a male, any and all of the genes on the X which do not have analogues in the Y (ie, most of them) *will* be expressed even if those traits are generally recessive.

As such a XO (O being lack of second chromosome in the sex chromosome pairing) produces a viable offspring (one with Turner's Syndrome) with relatively mild detrimental effects, especially compared to absence of gentic material caused by partial absence of any of the autosomes (non-sex chromosomes).

A OY is not viable as the most of the X carries hundreds of genes, but very few of them have to do anything with sex determination, and the ones that don't have to do with sex determination are necessary in the production of a viable human organism.

But still, the "X" is the 'default' form, no?

Nobody was arguing "better" or "worse" (at least, not about chromosome shapes...), we were just debating that - if there is a 'default' setting for chromosome form, the "X" is the 'natural' form, adn the "Y" is a deviation.

But still, the "X" is the 'default' form, no?

Nobody was arguing "better" or "worse" (at least, not about chromosome shapes...), we were just debating that - if there is a 'default' setting for chromosome form, the "X" is the 'natural' form, adn the "Y" is a deviation.
No this is a matter of persception.
You could as easily say X is common and carried by all and Y is special and carried by the more specialised/developed. It would depend how you want to twist it and who you want to try and wind up.
If there was a default setting then if all defaulted to that then the species would be viable, clearly not the case!

Why are we talking about chromosomes? Does it really matter whats common ect ect ect?

No this is a matter of persception.
You could as easily say X is common and carried by all and Y is special and carried by the more specialised/developed. It would depend how you want to twist it and who you want to try and wind up.
If there was a default setting then if all defaulted to that then the species would be viable, clearly not the case!

The species IS viable with only "XX" arrangement... the only problem arises when you try to persuade those "XX" buggers to interact, without the "XY" accessories.

Since the basic chromosome pattern is an "X", "X" is obviously the default form. Gender is obviously a necessary di-morphism of the basic form, purely to facilitate the transfer of those chromosomes... but that is more a matter of convenience than anything else - it just so happens to be a commonly evolved path.

I think you are mis-reading my description of 'mutation' or 'deformity' as though they were conceptually 'bad'. That isn't implied... merely that the "Y" is, in essence, a corrupted "X"... a necessary aberration for our species to reproduce as it does.

Why are we talking about chromosomes? Does it really matter whats common ect ect ect?

Not at all. We just happily picked up one of the sub-threads of the actual thread, and ran with it.

Some might argue that the sub-thread has already generated more sensible response than the greater bulk of the main-thread did...

The species IS viable with only "XX" arrangement... the only problem arises when you try to persuade those "XX" buggers to interact, without the "XY" accessories.

Since the basic chromosome pattern is an "X", "X" is obviously the default form. Gender is obviously a necessary di-morphism of the basic form, purely to facilitate the transfer of those chromosomes... but that is more a matter of convenience than anything else - it just so happens to be a commonly evolved path.

I think you are mis-reading my description of 'mutation' or 'deformity' as though they were conceptually 'bad'. That isn't implied... merely that the "Y" is, in essence, a corrupted "X"... a necessary aberration for our species to reproduce as it does.
Interesting but your hypothesis introduces an accepted but not proven theory to support it (evolution) so you build your argument of shaky foundations (pedant that I am).
By using default it is implied that that is the acceptable and therfore normal form, this I would infer means the this is the better form. Again myself the pedant, but language is such an impresise thing, esp when like me you can't spell. And by that I in no way wish to imply you as an individual cannot spell..

I don’t see that it would HAVE to be female

let me clarify something:

female is the default phenotype, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE FETUS HAS XX OR XY CHROMOSOMES.

the phenotypic shift from female to male is triggered by the activity of a particular gene locus, the SRY. if this locus is removed or its activity blocked, an XY individual will remain female in phenotype. however, there is no gene deletion or block that can make an individual with XX become male; artificially ACTIVATING an SRY locus, or inserting one inappropriately, can cause an XX male, but the default phenotype will always be female.

again, neither male nor female GENOTYPE is the default, since the genotype is determined at fertilization and is then set by the time the fetus exists, but the PHENOTYPE of all humans is female by default.

let me clarify something:

female is the default phenotype, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE FETUS HAS XX OR XY CHROMOSOMES.

the phenotypic shift from female to male is triggered by the activity of a particular gene locus, the SRY. if this locus is removed or its activity blocked, an XY individual will remain female in phenotype. however, there is no gene deletion or block that can make an individual with XX become male; artificially ACTIVATING an SRY locus, or inserting one inappropriately, can cause an XX male, but the default phenotype will always be female.

again, neither male nor female GENOTYPE is the default, since the genotype is determined at fertilization and is then set by the time the fetus exists, but the PHENOTYPE of all humans is female by default.
to the point, precise and not doubt with supporting experimental evidence. Congrats.

Interesting but your hypothesis introduces an accepted but not proven theory to support it (evolution) so you build your argument of shaky foundations (pedant that I am).
By using default it is implied that that is the acceptable and therfore normal form, this I would infer means the this is the better form. Again myself the pedant, but language is such an impresise thing, esp when like me you can't spell. And by that I in no way wish to imply you as an individual cannot spell..

On the contrary, you COULD derive the principle of evolution from looking at the concept of chromosome formations, but such is not REQUIRED for the principles to hold true.

The chromosomal dimorphism operates independantly to evolution (although, arguably, works concurrently with evolution, also). If you look at one static body with chromosomal data, the majority of chromosomal data is likely to be of the "X" formation. If you look at a catalogue of similar bodies, again, the preponderance will be "X" formations. In the event of sexual dimorphism (i.e. if your sample group includes males and females) you will STILL find a majority of "X" data forms, with some "Y" data forms in a small minority (even if the male/female ratio is equal, the number of "Y" forms to "X" forms will be small.)

Thus, it is evident (regardless of evolution) that "X" formation is the 'natural' form, thus "XX" pairing must be the default form, thus "XY" pairing must be an aberration - although a fortunate one.


Similarly - I understand no implication of "better", per se, merely 'purer'.
And, while 'purer' can be better, the example of Oxygen shows us that too much of a good thing isn't a better thing.

Yes, the "XX" form is 'more correct' than the "XY" form, in terms of data transfer, and that IS what chromosomes are basically for... but there are macroscopic ramifications above this - not least of which is transferring the chromosomes in the first place - which (currently) pretty much requires the presence of both "XX" data and "XY" data (in the form of biological carriers).

If you believe this, Neo dearest, why don't you just STFU?

Or, please explain, how threads like "Postmodernism: Does it need to grow up?" wasn't an attempt to use words to change social attitudes.

Are you saying things like

aren't in some way meant to get people to examine, and thus possibly change, their ideas?

Ideas and social change happen through discussion. I have seen you verbally promote several ideas. Face it, you just want peple who are trying to inform and educate about ideas that you don't like to shut up. Hypocrite.

I am not discussing social ideals. I am talking about philosphy, theology and sociolgical theoy. The only way these change is through discussion and presentation of ideas. That is not however how society itself changes

I am not discussing social ideals. I am talking about philosphy, theology and sociolgical theoy. The only way these change is through discussion and presentation of ideas. That is not however how society itself changes
Is it not? If you change the peolpe that make up society and how they think do you not move society?

I am not discussing social ideals. I am talking about philosphy, theology and sociolgical theoy. The only way these change is through discussion and presentation of ideas. That is not however how society itself changes

You need to make this clearer...

I just spent a couple of minutes trying to work out how to respond to it, and I've decided I can't... because I'm not REALLY sure what it means...

Explain, please?

I am not discussing social ideals. I am talking about philosphy, theology and sociolgical theoy. The only way these change is through discussion and presentation of ideas. That is not however how society itself changes

So you are saying that theology, for example, is just an abstract concept to you and that Christianity is not, in your mind, a social ideal. In discussing Christianity you have absolutely zero, zip, nada, not one bit of whish or hope that someone will somehow decide that Jesus is the savior and become Chrisitian. You are saying that you have absolutely zero, zip, etc hope that you will convince an undecided potential voter that your views on oh say, homosexuality, are the correct ones.

If, on the other hand you are hoping to change people's views and thus encourage further action in line with your viewpoints, pleas explain how that is NOT how society changes itself.

In fact, please explain a single major change in the history of society that happened without the people first talking about philosophy, theology or sociological theory.

In fact, please explain a single major change in the history of society that happened without the people first talking about philosophy, theology or sociological theory.

WW1, the realisation of modern warfares horific nature was only made possible by the actuall fighting of a war. No one beleived it despite the fact that the war could have been fought a good ten years earlier and still had the same ammount of blood and carnage.

Then why tax families at the same rate as individuals?

Married couples that file together have different brackets than individuals, so this is a silly question.

So you are saying that theology, for example, is just an abstract concept to you and that Christianity is not, in your mind, a social ideal. In discussing Christianity you have absolutely zero, zip, nada, not one bit of whish or hope that someone will somehow decide that Jesus is the savior and become Chrisitian. You are saying that you have absolutely zero, zip, etc hope that you will convince an undecided potential voter that your views on oh say, homosexuality, are the correct ones.


I do believe that people will be converted to Christainaty, however you can only go so far with example. If you are the best example of a Chrisitan in the world by what you do, but do not know how to explain it to others, then you have a problem. Feminism on the other hand can be pushed forward by women simpley displaying the fact that women can be just as good as men in any field. When enough women achieve this, society will see that sexism is silly. This is what many are working towards now and I salute those doing this. However, women must not continally complain about "equality" as complaining will not change social opinons. Only by actually being as good as men in all fields they wish to be in can they prove their equality. I personaly believe that they are already, but it will take time for this fact to sink in across the wider populus.

I dout you will ever be able to stop all sexists. There are still a lot of racists out there, just less visable then before because society is against them.

The only way to continue reducing the number (on any instance of bigotry) is to make sure that everyone knows that "society is against them" and why. Often, while you cannot change a bigot, you can affect their children, who will not be bigotted (or at least to the same degree) and so on.....

I do believe that people will be converted to Christainaty, however you can only go so far with example. If you are the best example of a Chrisitan in the world by what you do, but do not know how to explain it to others, then you have a problem. Feminism on the other hand can be pushed forward by women simpley displaying the fact that women can be just as good as men in any field. When enough women achieve this, society will see that sexism is silly. This is what many are working towards now and I salute those doing this. However, women must not continally complain about "equality" as complaining will not change social opinons. Only by actually being as good as men in all fields they wish to be in can they prove their equality. I personaly believe that they are already, but it will take time for this fact to sink in across the wider populus.

You are arguing yourself into a corner.

On the one hand, women should stop forcing their issue into the public domain, on the other hand, they need to be seen to be equal...

You, yourself, admit that you think they are already equal... so why are they not SEEN as equal? That, my friend, is a matter of perception, and the only way you alter perceptions is by challenging them.

WW1, the realisation of modern warfares horific nature was only made possible by the actuall fighting of a war. No one beleived it despite the fact that the war could have been fought a good ten years earlier and still had the same ammount of blood and carnage.

I thought we were talking about society? This is not an example of a societal construct, as war is the exception in most society.

You are arguing yourself into a corner.

On the one hand, women should stop forcing their issue into the public domain, on the other hand, they need to be seen to be equal...

You, yourself, admit that you think they are already equal... so why are they not SEEN as equal? That, my friend, is a matter of perception, and the only way you alter perceptions is by challenging them.

They are not SEEN as equal for a number of reasons, mainly the historical one. However, forcing women to be SEEN as equal is nothing sort of PC censorship.

I thought we were talking about society? This is not an example of a societal construct, as war is the exception in most society.

Amoungst society at the time it was thought that war was a jolly and spiffing affair, and that it would all be very easy, nice and fun. WW1 changed all that.

Amoungst society at the time it was thought that war was a jolly and spiffing affair, and that it would all be very easy, nice and fun. WW1 changed all that.

Riiiiiiiiight. I'm sure people were signing up for the war because they thought it would all be drinking and football.....oh wait.....

Riiiiiiiiight. I'm sure people were signing up for the war because they thought it would all be drinking and football.....oh wait.....

They were all signing up to the war because they had no idea what it was rearly like. "Bash the Bosche", "boo sucks to Harry Hun", "in Berlin for tea and crumpets" etc, was the idea. People thought this was going to be like the colonial wars in Africa. It wasnt. If someone had told them what they were getting into then I expect the recruitment numbers would have droped significently. However no one could tell them because up too this point there had never been a war between two industrialised powers on this scale.

They were all signing up to the war because they had no idea what it was rearly like. If someone had told them what they were getting into then I expect the recruitment numbers would have droped significently. However no one could tell them because up too this point there had never been a war between two industrialised powers on this scale.

There was never a war *on this scale*. However, the idea that people saw war as being a lark is silly, and easily dispelled by reading documents written during or after *any* war, at least those in Western history.

There was never a war *on this scale*. However, the idea that people saw war as being a lark is silly, and easily dispelled by reading documents written during or after *any* war, at least those in Western history.

My point is no one, not even the Generals, knew what WW1 was going to be like. They went out their in their redcoats first in many cases for goodness sake! They had no idea how dangerous modern war was or the tatics needed to win it. Explain why everyone thought it would be over by Christmas if they thought it was hard? Hindsight documentation is pointless to use here. My point was that societys view of war was shattered forever by the events of World War One.

My point is no one, not even the Generals, knew what WW1 was going to be like. They went out their in their redcoats first in many cases for goodness sake! They had no idea how dangerous modern war was or the tatics needed to win it. Explain why everyone thought it would be over by Christmas if they thought it was hard? Hindsight documentation is pointless to use here. My point was that societys view of war was shattered forever by the events of World War One.

But this has no bearing whatsoever on the conversation at hand. No one ever though that war was a good thing (at least not the ones who would actually have to fight in it - the ruling class sometimes quite enjoyed it). There was no huge social change enacted due to just how horrible WWI was.

On the other hand, you have made one point. Do you know what gets rid of social prejudices? Generally, it is actually seeing first hand that they are wrong.

Married couples that file together have different brackets than individuals, so this is a silly question.
That is my point.

That is my point.

So you are agreeing with me then that single-income families already get tax breaks, and don't need further tax breaks? Good.

Dawn of the UNDEAD THREAD.

They are not SEEN as equal for a number of reasons, mainly the historical one. However, forcing women to be SEEN as equal is nothing sort of PC censorship.

Incredible. This is good, even for you!

Making a thing SEEN is a form of censorship?

I can't decide if that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, or a form of brilliance I just cannot measure.


Plus, the fact that you say women are not seen as equal (meaning YOU don't see them as equal??? They are seen as equal to me!) because of the 'historical' reason, shows that you must agree, deep down... that women NEED Feminism, they NEED to change that perception.

Incredible. This is good, even for you!

Making a thing SEEN is a form of censorship?

I can't decide if that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, or a form of brilliance I just cannot measure.


1) If you force any opinion of anything on anyone it is a form of censorship.


Plus, the fact that you say women are not seen as equal (meaning YOU don't see them as equal??? They are seen as equal to me!) because of the 'historical' reason, shows that you must agree, deep down... that women NEED Feminism, they NEED to change that perception.

2) I did not say I dont see them as equal, I do. I said that they are not seen as equal. In other words there is a large belief that women are infiror to men which has not been dispelled yet

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

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

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


So basically setup quotas, just feel-good numbers games, it doesn't matter if they hire 50 women who can't do the job well, just as long as the 50 women are numerically equal to the 50 men they have... Sounds like crap to me.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=280

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=137

Except for the islamism, it all makes sense.

1) If you force any opinion of anything on anyone it is a form of censorship.

2) I did not say I dont see them as equal, I do. I said that they are not seen as equal. In other words there is a large belief that women are infiror to men which has not been dispelled yet

Neo, Neo, Neo.... censorship is the removal of things considered inappropriate - you can't 'censor' by 'adding' something.

Perhaps you mean that you think Feminism is SO over-powering that it is drowning out all opposition? That still wouldn't actually make it censorship, since Feminism espousing it's policy is NOT forbidding anyone else from espousing theirs.

And, of course, Feminism isn't 'forcing an opinion' on you... they are putting their opinion out there, you have the choice to take it or leave it.

Why do YOU feel that Feminism is 'forcing an opinion' on you?

Your entire point (2) is exactly the reason why we NEED Feminism as an active campaigner - there IS a popular perception, in some quarters, that wishes females to remain in the role of pregnant and barefoot, and that still envisions them that way.

That is why Feminism NEEDS to be political and active, so that it can oppose and expose those perceptions.

I think feminism is a good idea. Everyone should be entitled to at least stick up for themselves. And if everyone else's group de jour is also allowed to become assholish and self-centered, so should the feminists.

Please. Feminism is too large a topic to tar with a brush as "bad" or "unnecessary". And women have been taking crap for too long. So let them vent, please?

Venting doesn't hurt you. That's why we can all vent here, and it doesn't even smell like farting.

So basically setup quotas, just feel-good numbers games, it doesn't matter if they hire 50 women who can't do the job well, just as long as the 50 women are numerically equal to the 50 men they have... Sounds like crap to me.

And yet, the 'classic' arrangement has seen the employment of men, regardless of talent, in preference to women.

Just so long as the candidates were all men... sounds like crap to me.

See, I would suggest a system where people were employed PURELY on their merits, without regard to race, religion, gender or age.

Unfortunately, while SOME organisations work within such schemes, WHERE some form of quota ISN'T enforced, far too many people will let their prejudices dictate who they will hire.

Don't believe it, try being anybody OTHER than a white, christian male in North East Georgia, and find out how many obstacles are put in your way. (Unless you wan't a 'girl' job, like working in a shop... or a 'black' job like packing supermarket bags... or a Mexican job like labouring)

(Note: those aren't MY choices... those are the 'roles' I have seen 'promoted'.)

I think feminism is a good idea. Everyone should be entitled to at least stick up for themselves. And if everyone else's group de jour is also allowed to become assholish and self-centered, so should the feminists.

Please. Feminism is too large a topic to tar with a brush as "bad" or "unnecessary". And women have been taking crap for too long. So let them vent, please?

Venting doesn't hurt you. That's why we can all vent here, and it doesn't even smell like farting.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of our more 'radical' right wing would happily remove even the ability of a 'group' to present it's claims...

What's next, burning books in Alabama? (Oh, wait....)

Your entire point (2) is exactly the reason why we NEED Feminism as an active campaigner - there IS a popular perception, in some quarters, that wishes females to remain in the role of pregnant and barefoot, and that still envisions them that way.




Whoever said women should be barefoot? If they're wearing sandals or slippers, it might be easier for them to clean the house without getting their own feet dirty and thus tracking dirt into areas they've already cleaned. It makes the work easier for them since they don't have to clean the same spot twice.

And yet, the 'classic' arrangement has seen the employment of men, regardless of talent, in preference to women.

Just so long as the candidates were all men... sounds like crap to me.

See, I would suggest a system where people were employed PURELY on their merits, without regard to race, religion, gender or age.

Unfortunately, while SOME organisations work within such schemes, WHERE some form of quota ISN'T enforced, far too many people will let their prejudices dictate who they will hire.

Don't believe it, try being anybody OTHER than a white, christian male in North East Georgia, and find out how many obstacles are put in your way. (Unless you wan't a 'girl' job, like working in a shop... or a 'black' job like packing supermarket bags... or a Mexican job like labouring)

(Note: those aren't MY choices... those are the 'roles' I have seen 'promoted'.)


Quotas are just a new form of discrimination. If you have to hire someone on a singular quality (gender, race ect) then that is discrimintation because you arent letting a more skilled person who doesnt fit the required quality have the job. It is a problem but quotas are not a solution.

I think feminism is a good idea. Everyone should be entitled to at least stick up for themselves. And if everyone else's group de jour is also allowed to become assholish and self-centered, so should the feminists.

Please. Feminism is too large a topic to tar with a brush as "bad" or "unnecessary". And women have been taking crap for too long. So let them vent, please?

Venting doesn't hurt you. That's why we can all vent here, and it doesn't even smell like farting.

It is indeed a large topic, but this thread is getting a bit bulky too.

Neo, Neo, Neo.... censorship is the removal of things considered inappropriate - you can't 'censor' by 'adding' something.


Fine its propoganda or indoctination. Any forcing of one opinon over others is bad in the media.


Perhaps you mean that you think Feminism is SO over-powering that it is drowning out all opposition? That still wouldn't actually make it censorship, since Feminism espousing it's policy is NOT forbidding anyone else from espousing theirs.


Feminists claim that anyone who even slightly opposes their ideas are shovinist cavemen. My point is that feminists need to relax.


And, of course, Feminism isn't 'forcing an opinion' on you... they are putting their opinion out there, you have the choice to take it or leave it.

Why do YOU feel that Feminism is 'forcing an opinion' on you?


Because they complain about equality when they clearly have it. They may not have equality of social perecption, but then society (in many cases) also portrays men as fat, lazy, beer swilling slobs.


Your entire point (2) is exactly the reason why we NEED Feminism as an active campaigner - there IS a popular perception, in some quarters, that wishes females to remain in the role of pregnant and barefoot, and that still envisions them that way.

That is why Feminism NEEDS to be political and active, so that it can oppose and expose those perceptions.

What is "Needed" is for women to not be antogonised by these social perceptions and get on doing whatever they want to achieve in life. If someone trys to stop them because they are a women (an employer etc) then they have a legal right to sue them. Social perceptions are not things to be winged about. They are to be ignored or dealt with in a mature way, and maturty is not winging about a patriarchial socity.

Quotas are just a new form of discrimination. If you have to hire someone on a singular quality (gender, race ect) then that is discrimintation because you arent letting a more skilled person who doesnt fit the required quality have the job. It is a problem but quotas are not a solution.

It is indeed a large topic, but this thread is getting a bit bulky too.

It is, perhaps, the lesser of two evils? You introduce one form of discrimination to lessen the impact of another?

I am with you, personally... I despise ALL forms of discrimination. There is nothing more annoying than going to an interview for a job that is going to go to someone else... not because they are better qualified, but because they fit a profile of a quota.

But, I am foced into something of a dilemma situation - since I can clearly see what those quotas are SUPPOSED to do...

It is, perhaps, the lesser of two evils? You introduce one form of discrimination to lessen the impact of another?

I am with you, personally... I despise ALL forms of discrimination. There is nothing more annoying than going to an interview for a job that is going to go to someone else... not because they are better qualified, but because they fit a profile of a quota.

But, I am foced into something of a dilemma situation - since I can clearly see what those quotas are SUPPOSED to do...

Prehaps but I still think its better without them. If there is a quota then there WILL be discrimination, without them there MAY be discrimination. I would prefer to keep the latter and take my chances.

Fine its propoganda or indoctination. Any forcing of one opinon over others is bad in the media.

Feminists claim that anyone who even slightly opposes their ideas are shovinist cavemen. My point is that feminists need to relax.

Because they complain about equality when they clearly have it. They may not have equality of social perecption, but then society (in many cases) also portrays men as fat, lazy, beer swilling slobs.

What is "Needed" is for women to not be antogonised by these social perceptions and get on doing whatever they want to achieve in life. If someone trys to stop them because they are a women (an employer etc) then they have a legal right to sue them. Social perceptions are not things to be winged about. They are to be ignored or dealt with in a mature way, and maturty is not winging about a patriarchial socity.

So, how exactly is the feminist movement 'forcing one opinion' over others in the media? Does 'feminism' own the media? Or are they operating under the same constraints as everyone else?

Feminists don't 'need to relax', Neo - because the inequalities STILL EXIST. Lots of men ARE still chauvinistic cavemen - and feminists need to keep doing what they do until that changes.

You are arguing from the point of the oppressor, here. I would suggest that you actually take some time to TALK to some feminists... hell, just to talk to some women (whether or not they describe themselves as feminist), about what it is like to be a woman in our societies.

Try reading some light feminist literature... Sheri S Tepper's "The Gate to Women's Country" might give you some food for thought.

Prehaps but I still think its better without them. If there is a quota then there WILL be discrimination, without them there MAY be discrimination. I would prefer to keep the latter and take my chances.

I would side with you (again), except that there clearly HAS BEEN discrimination. Perhaps quotas are not the BEST way of curing the problem... but they are, at least, a step in the right direction.

I would side with you (again), except that there clearly HAS BEEN discrimination. Perhaps quotas are not the BEST way of curing the problem... but they are, at least, a step in the right direction.

I dont think they will help at all. Quotas effectivly force the businesses to discriminate. They make an issue out of what is (at least for some businesses) a non-issue. Currently not all (by a long shot) businesses discriminate by gender, quotas would make gender an issue for these companies. The only thing effecting if a person is hired should be his/her competence.

I am not discussing social ideals. I am talking about philosphy, theology and sociolgical theoy. The only way these change is through discussion and presentation of ideas. That is not however how society itself changes
Neo, you are wrong about discourse not changing society, and in fact should be able to work out as much from your own comments. If discussion of philosophy/theology and sociological theory can change views of the aforementioned, then it can change society, because society is a bunch of individuals acting in accordance with their perceptions which accord with such things as their philosophical, theological and or social theories....in fact the power of discourse is obvious and fundamental, to the point where I am surprised that you would attempt to suggest otherwise...

Fine its propoganda or indoctination. Any forcing of one opinon over others is bad in the media.

Says the person who is perfectly fine with *his* view getting forced on others.

Stating an opinion forces it on no one.

I would side with you (again), except that there clearly HAS BEEN discrimination. Perhaps quotas are not the BEST way of curing the problem... but they are, at least, a step in the right direction.

I would have to disagree here.

Enforced discrimination is not going to help - as it pretty much guarrantees that some of those hired are going to be underqualified and *increase* the perception that women/blacks/etc are inferior. If someone believes you needed help to get there, the stigma will never go away. I, for one, would be *highly* insulted if I got a job/scholarship/etc. because there was a quota to meet.

I dont think they will help at all. Quotas effectivly force the businesses to discriminate. They make an issue out of what is (at least for some businesses) a non-issue. Currently not all (by a long shot) businesses discriminate by gender, quotas would make gender an issue for these companies. The only thing effecting if a person is hired should be his/her competence.

I totally agree. The only thing that SHOULD make a difference is ability.

Unfortunatley, that system, relying on people to make those decisions for themselves, led to a system so unbalanced that quotas became a credible alternative.

I agree, though... the quota system IS fatally flawed, and unfair.

I would have to disagree here.

Enforced discrimination is not going to help - as it pretty much guarrantees that some of those hired are going to be underqualified and *increase* the perception that women/blacks/etc are inferior. If someone believes you needed help to get there, the stigma will never go away. I, for one, would be *highly* insulted if I got a job/scholarship/etc. because there was a quota to meet.

I totally agree. I heard data just recently that suggests that, although more black lawyers are getting into the highest calibre law schools (due to quotas), they are getting poorer grades than they would have at 'second tier' schools, because they are not able to make the best use of the facilities... and would have become better lawyers at a (perceived) lesser school.

That isn't to say that coloured people can't be good lawyers, of course - just that filling quotas is actually being shown to do overall harm, by promoting race (for example) over suitability.

I am against ANY form of discrimination, 'positive' discrimination or 'negative' - and that is my chief disagreement with quotas... you only perpetuate separation, by treating people differently.

The problem, as I see it, however, is that some places NEED quotas - because they wouldn't hire anyone from a minority if they didn't HAVE to... regardless of ability.

(A close friend from back home is a classic example, she was studying law, and was refused a place at a law firm, because it was an 'Indian' law firm... her ability and qualification wasn't going to get her in, because she was white, and they didn't hire whites).

I totally agree. I heard data just recently that suggests that, although more black lawyers are getting into the highest calibre law schools (due to quotas), they are getting poorer grades than they would have at 'second tier' schools, because they are not able to make the best use of the facilities... and would have become better lawyers at a (perceived) lesser school.
Well frankly I would be very skeptical of any 'data' that somehow could tell you what marks someone would have got at an unspecified school they have never attended...

That isn't to say that coloured people can't be good lawyers, of course - just that filling quotas is actually being shown to do overall harm, by promoting race (for example) over suitability.
Then the problem probably lies with the quota system rather than with quotas generally. Evidently there is more to job suitability than school grades and technical attributes.

discrimination or 'negative' - and that is my chief disagreement with quotas... you only perpetuate separation, by treating people differently.
People are different, not merely in their personal attributes, but also in their circumstance.

The problem, as I see it, however, is that some places NEED quotas - because they wouldn't hire anyone from a minority if they didn't HAVE to... regardless of ability.
(A close friend from back home is a classic example, she was studying law, and was refused a place at a law firm, because it was an 'Indian' law firm... her ability and qualification wasn't going to get her in, because she was white, and they didn't hire whites)
Exactly, sensible quota systems can be very beneficial, however like everthing else, they can have negative impacts if formulated or used inappropriately. Motor cars can directly kill people if used inappropriately (which I suspect few quota systems do), but that doesnt seem to the average person reason enough to get rid of them.

Exactly, sensible quota systems can be very beneficial, however like everthing else, they can have negative impacts if formulated or used inappropriately. Motor cars can directly kill people if used inappropriately (which I suspect few quota systems do), but that doesnt seem to the average person reason enough to get rid of them.

I see nothing beneficial about quotas. They only force businesses to take race/gender into account when looking for employees. If someone is not hired because of their race/gender then they should be able to sue the company. The company should not be forced to hire a token black/female ect employee.

Well frankly I would be very skeptical of any 'data' that somehow could tell you what marks someone would have got at an unspecified school they have never attended...


The article I heard is referenced here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4229609

The Tavis Smiley Show, December 15, 2004 · Both proponents and opponents of affirmative action are stirred up by a study that hasn't even been published yet. Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor, has analyzed the effects of racial preferences in America's law schools and concludes the net effect is actually fewer black lawyers. Commentator -- and Sander's UCLA law colleague -- Kimberle Crenshaw weighs in on the report.

The actual report itself is yet to be released...


Then the problem probably lies with the quota system rather than with quotas generally. Evidently there is more to job suitability than school grades and technical attributes.


The evidence seem to suggest that the problem is that students are being 'held back' by the higher 'tier'... so they are coming out LESS well qualified, and less capable as lawyers.


Exactly, sensible quota systems can be very beneficial, however like everthing else, they can have negative impacts if formulated or used inappropriately. Motor cars can directly kill people if used inappropriately (which I suspect few quota systems do), but that doesnt seem to the average person reason enough to get rid of them.

That's my point. I don't REALLY like quotas, but I see that, sometimes, they may be necessary... and I suspect the REAL problem with quotas is abuse.

Feminists don't 'need to relax', Neo - because the inequalities STILL EXIST. Lots of men ARE still chauvinistic cavemen - and feminists need to keep doing what they do until that changes.


This is exactly my point. It is fine to hold women in that regard, as fine as it is to insult other religions. The problem comes when you act upon it or make crude genralisations. Thats what the laws are for, they protect women from being unfairly dismissed by employers or to be treated diffrently by the employment system or any other body. What feminists have to do is to continue to prove that women are equal to men by doing their work as well as they can, as anyone should. They shouldnt be going around complaining about peoples views. People have the right to hold whatever views they want. Other people can question those views and debate with them, but in the end you dont have to change your views for someone elses benfit. The views have had their logical actions legilslated against. So all thats left is the way people think, and that does no harm to anyone.

This is exactly my point. It is fine to hold women in that regard, as fine as it is to insult other religions. The problem comes when you act upon it or make crude genralisations. Thats what the laws are for, they protect women from being unfairly dismissed by employers or to be treated diffrently by the employment system or any other body. What feminists have to do is to continue to prove that women are equal to men by doing their work as well as they can, as anyone should. They shouldnt be going around complaining about peoples views. People have the right to hold whatever views they want. Other people can question those views and debate with them, but in the end you dont have to change your views for someone elses benfit. The views have had their logical actions legilslated against. So all thats left is the way people think, and that does no harm to anyone.

Actually, Neo... sometimes you DO have to change your views for other people's benefit... or at least, don't act on them... or keep them quiet.

For example, a former workmate of mine (named Roger.... funnily enough, I thought) who violently espoused his hatred of 'faggots', and various racial minorities.

Eventually, he had to change his views (or at the very least, silence his passion for them), if he wanted to keep his job.

Regarding "all thats left is the way people think, and that does no harm to anyone"... You know better, really, right? That's just trolling, right?

You honestly don't make a connection between ingrained patterns of hatred, and the acts carried out in their name?

Actually, Neo... sometimes you DO have to change your views for other people's benefit... or at least, don't act on them... or keep them quiet.

For example, a former workmate of mine (named Roger.... funnily enough, I thought) who violently espoused his hatred of 'faggots', and various racial minorities.

Eventually, he had to change his views (or at the very least, silence his passion for them), if he wanted to keep his job.

Regarding "all thats left is the way people think, and that does no harm to anyone"... You know better, really, right? That's just trolling, right?

You honestly don't make a connection between ingrained patterns of hatred, and the acts carried out in their name?

Read my post. It says dont act on them.


This is exactly my point. It is fine to hold women in that regard, as fine as it is to insult other religions. The problem comes when you act upon it or make crude genralisations. Thats what the laws are for, they protect women from being unfairly dismissed by employers or to be treated diffrently by the employment system or any other body. What feminists have to do is to continue to prove that women are equal to men by doing their work as well as they can, as anyone should. They shouldnt be going around complaining about peoples views. People have the right to hold whatever views they want. Other people can question those views and debate with them, but in the end you dont have to change your views for someone elses benfit. The views have had their logical actions legilslated against. So all thats left is the way people think, and that does no harm to anyone.

Look, feminism is just another -ism. It's a school of thought, a collection of disparate yet related beliefs, all centered around concepts of female identity and roles.

We can't say to stop thinking about female roles and female identity.
We can't close a school of thought just because we don't agree with the current thoughts circulating therein.
We can't tell women what to think and not to think, or to stop thinking about themselves.
Any woman who wants to can believe that she (or the collective "they") are set upon, discriminated against, abused, etc., because at some point in time, any one of them are or have been. And to discuss why that happens and what should be done to stop that is a good thing.
Everyone else gets their own -ism. Even Dada. (ok, that's a bad, bad pun).

So women should get feminism. It's not some homogeneous uniform set of ideas - maybe some people need to get out and read more.

Look, feminism is just another -ism. It's a school of thought, a collection of disparate yet related beliefs, all centered around concepts of female identity and roles.

We can't say to stop thinking about female roles and female identity.
We can't close a school of thought just because we don't agree with the current thoughts circulating therein.
We can't tell women what to think and not to think, or to stop thinking about themselves.
Any woman who wants to can believe that she (or the collective "they") are set upon, discriminated against, abused, etc., because at some point in time, any one of them are or have been. And to discuss why that happens and what should be done to stop that is a good thing.
Everyone else gets their own -ism. Even Dada. (ok, that's a bad, bad pun).

So women should get feminism. It's not some homogeneous uniform set of ideas - maybe some people need to get out and read more.

Excellent post.

Got to love "My Gun Not Yours"... he's kind of like an "Anti-Neo_Cannen"

:)

Look, feminism is just another -ism. It's a school of thought, a collection of disparate yet related beliefs, all centered around concepts of female identity and roles.

We can't say to stop thinking about female roles and female identity.
We can't close a school of thought just because we don't agree with the current thoughts circulating therein.
We can't tell women what to think and not to think, or to stop thinking about themselves.
Any woman who wants to can believe that she (or the collective "they") are set upon, discriminated against, abused, etc., because at some point in time, any one of them are or have been. And to discuss why that happens and what should be done to stop that is a good thing.
Everyone else gets their own -ism. Even Dada. (ok, that's a bad, bad pun).

So women should get feminism. It's not some homogeneous uniform set of ideas - maybe some people need to get out and read more.

Men aren't always allowed an -ism though. Any Machoism(?) is generaly seen as chauvinism or misogynism. I demand my right to a positive -ism.

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.
Congradulations! You have been accepted into the FBI (Feminazi Bitch Institution). You should recieve your membership card in the mail in a few days, in addition to castration scissors, and a complimentary book about the male conspiracy to keep women in slavery. Feel free to visit our website www.allmenareinferioranimals.com, where you can find many useful articles on how to quicker grow hair in your underarms, and talk on our discussion forums about topics like "Why men are inferior" and "What is the best way to deal with men? Castration or murder?"


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? If she weighed 350 pounds than either
A) I would run away because i am probably 10x faster then her
or
B) She would kill me with her weight when she would lie down on me.

Either way, i am safe.


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
I think he is right.


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?
Because he can also get a gun, and then use that to rape her.


I'm of the belief that if all women were armed, men would be far more polite.
And men shouldn't be armed? Such a bright and clear example of sexism.

"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.
Nazism is the idea that german men with blonde curls and blue eyes are superior to all others. Feminazism is the idea that female gender is superior to the male gender.

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.
Noone expects the woman to work if she doesn't want to. Except feminazis, of course.


Btw, i actually believe that there should be a few differences between genders, that is slight inequalities in some areas, with variating advantages (men have advantage in some, women in others) so that will on the whole make them equal, otherwise what will be the difference between a man and a woman? How will having a girlfriend be different than having a friend.


Righhhhht.... because NOW contols the media 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.
How about this: You cannot safely say "nice dress" to a coworker being under threat of getting a lawsuit of sexual harassment. And men are too ashamed to go to those programs anyway.

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.
So you're saying that men are stronger that women? Isn't that sexist? We must kill you now! By the way, almost every wife, nay, woman in a household, will commit daily verbal abuse to other members of a household. Men, however, almost never win verbal arguments. Ask any married man, and he will conferm this. So when they are drilled day and day and day, some just snap and hit their wife, since they do not see any other way out. Then all of a sudden, he is the bad guy, and goes to jail to meet Bobby: the 220lbs man that will be his boyfriend for the next 10 years.

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 think that this is none of your business, really. Nor mine.

Just like some boys don’t grow out of toys
All boys play with toys. Except older boys have different toys: cars, ps2s, girls, computers.

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

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.
And those numbers include the Middle Eastern countries, where women actually ARE being oppressed every day, as opposed to the Western World?

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?
A quick and short way to post my point.

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.

Do you always turn to character judgement, when you have nothing to say?
As for me, yes I am a homophobe and I believe masturbation is a sin. So what's your point?

Sorry but considering the harm perpetrated by Nazis and the recent resurgence of Nazi type organisations, I find the term very insulting to those who have been victimised by Nazism, and I also believe that employing the term 'feminazi' minimilises the impact of the word and risks blinding people to the abhorrence associated with Nazism. If you have any respect for the many people murdered, assaulted etc due to Nazi ideology, you wouldnt employ such terminology lightly, nor would you condon it's use (for instance by calling it awesome). A bunch of placard waving sexists does not compare to a group that wishes to genocide entire ethnic groups, it is insulting to victims of the latter to suggest that it does. I doubt you have any intention to offend those victimised by Nazism, so I hope you'll reconsider your endorsement and amusement with regards to the term 'feminazi'.

"Nazi" has long meant extreme supermicist. the term feminazi, not coined by me, has nothing to do with the Nazi party.


Except that Nazism is 'real', and Feminism is 'real', and Femenazism has no manifesto or agenda, because it is a 'buzzword'... a way for threatened-feeling men to try to strike back at a perceived threat to their 'male-supremacy'.

Personally, as a man, I think females ARE superior to males... after all, they could survive without us, but we couldn't survive without them.

(And, of course, the male "y" is just a defective "x"... so, at core, we are just 'broken' females).
You are married aren't you?
1) Feminazims is real, note NOW.
2) You are sexist, and what the hell will women do without our sperm?
3) That's just a pile of hot steaming bullshit posted on this forum.

I grew up as a girl in this country. I know where society tries to push young girls, and I was lucky to have a very supportive family and some really great teachers. But I have seen girls who feel that it isn't "proper" for them to excel in math and science because they are girls because of what parents/etc. have told them. I had a friend in high school whose grandmother told her point blank that she should go into nursing so that she could meet and marry a doctor. When she pointed out that she could just become a doctor herself, the reply was "Oh, I guess that's a good way to meet a doctor too." In other words, the grandmother didn't even understand the concept of equality.

Historically, there were much less women going into technical fields. Now, largely due to people pushing for the idea of equality of the genders, there are more. In the future, as long as we keep upholding that ideal, there will be more equal amounts. But as long as some idiot tells *one* girl that she should do X because she is a girl, then there is a problem.
When, 1950??? And old people are never open to ideas introduced past when they are 40.


Stupidity was a movement, originating in the Biblical era, that strived to get people to do stupid things, including non-sensical, rambling forum posts based on fantasy and not fact. It was a very noble cause, and fought against bias towards honesty.


STUPIDITY TODAY IS JUST LIKE THAT. Modern stupids, or forum trolls, as I will call them from now on, do not want to be intelligent, they have to be stupid for the most part. Yes, I know that smart people get more money, but that gap is narrowing. Forum trolls want stupidity over the smart-asses who think they know everything just because they have "facts."

First off, smart people killed off cock-fights. Cock-fighting 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 letting two cocks kill each other, he won't do it again.

Second, they make up a lot of lies to desecrate stupid peoples' reputations. One of the most outrageous lies I've heard is that the reason our medicine is far behind what it could be is because stupid people slow it down because stupid people are sexually attracted to death. I mean it should be obvious to any person with half a brain that this is complete BS, not counting the Darwin Awards, but a hoity-toity liberal magazine printed it.

There is a newspaper in California, that was praised by "smart people" magazine for their default language usage. In usual life, when we speak of someone and we find out they like guys or something, we usually just discriminate against them because it's easier than trying to understand them. It's not a big deal, really. It is not a shackle on the ankles of all smart people in the world. However, they praised this newspaper, because in all their man-on-boy love, they referred to the person as "she", EXCEPT when talking about a convict, where they use "troglodyte". Nice, ain't it? Now tell me this isn't smart.

Smart people take every little thing to be this evil shit that Southerners put upon them to keep all women, blacks, Jews, and gays in slavery behind the stove/car wash/bank/interior design company. They oppose sports teams taking steroids, they oppose cheerleaders getting raped by jocks. They claim that cheerleaders are only enticing the sports players by wearing skirts, the way men want women to dress in the first place. Of course, that is not the reasoning behind it, the reasoning is stupid people are physically much stronger then smart people, like The Governator, thus making them more fit for getting away with shit, and smart people are more attractive to the largely stupid audience because they make more money, thus they are chosen to get fucked over because of jealousy that they can read and stupid people make posts like this one.

I will add to this later, but for now, i'll give you a chance to add/counter my post, but don't be too mean because I'm retarded.
Taking the form of my post and inserting 'stupidity' and 'being smart' instead of feminsm randomly, as well as insult me and make suggestions about my relationship with my mother makes yuo a prime candidate for "stupidity".

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 wayback.

Wow. Advocating staying in an abusive relationship. Who the fuck wouldn't support that :roll:
A marriage on the brink of divorce is not necessarily abusive, they just may have some issues that can be worked out. In addition, I am sure the program tried to change the abusive partner.

because of my personal views on what "good family values" would entail; for me, having both parents working is, in itself, a good family value, and therefore any family in which either parent does not have their own career is automatically providing a poorer example of values.
So kids being raised by television, seeing their parents only when they come home tired at night, is a good value? Guess what, those are primarily the kids who go out to join a gang, and their parents are at work to see it.
Both parents working is not a black and white issue. I personally do not have a strong stance (i was just showing that there is evidence against both parents working.


So you are saying that theology, for example, is just an abstract concept to you and that Christianity is not, in your mind, a social ideal. In discussing Christianity you have absolutely zero, zip, nada, not one bit of whish or hope that someone will somehow decide that Jesus is the savior and become Chrisitian. You are saying that you have absolutely zero, zip, etc hope that you will convince an undecided potential voter that your views on oh say, homosexuality, are the correct ones.

If, on the other hand you are hoping to change people's views and thus encourage further action in line with your viewpoints, pleas explain how that is NOT how society changes itself.

In fact, please explain a single major change in the history of society that happened without the people first talking about philosophy, theology or sociological theory.
Stay on topic. Christianity is not related to it.


Venting doesn't hurt you. That's why we can all vent here, and it doesn't even smell like farting.
And i am venting against female supremacists.

Whoever said women should be barefoot? If they're wearing sandals or slippers, it might be easier for them to clean the house without getting their own feet dirty and thus tracking dirt into areas they've already cleaned. It makes the work easier for them since they don't have to clean the same spot twice.
Some male supremacist said that. If you ask me, male supremacists are as bad as female supremacists. Why does a woman saying men are keeping all women in bondage is sticking up for her civil rights, but a men saying that women are inferior to men is a biggot?

We can't say to stop thinking about female roles and female identity.
We can't close a school of thought just because we don't agree with the current thoughts circulating therein.
We can't tell women what to think and not to think, or to stop thinking about themselves.
Any woman who wants to can believe that she (or the collective "they") are set upon, discriminated against, abused, etc., because at some point in time, any one of them are or have been. And to discuss why that happens and what should be done to stop that is a good thing.
Everyone else gets their own -ism. Even Dada. (ok, that's a bad, bad pun). I am not arguing against moderate feminism. I am arguing against feminazism.

All boys play with toys. Except older boys have different toys: cars, ps2s, girls, computers.

Haha that was probably a bad idea mate.

Haha that was probably a bad idea mate.
Yea, probably. I didn't mean it to sound deragatory, but watch everyone is going to jump on my ass saying that I am a male supremacist, that i believe women are property etc etc etc...

And men shouldn't be armed? Such a bright and clear example of sexism.

There was nothing in the quote that suggested this. Come off your martyr comlex.

Nazism is the idea that german men with blonde curls and blue eyes are superior to all others. Feminazism is the idea that female gender is superior to the male gender.

Although people make quite a few jokes, I have yet to meet a single feminist who believes that either gender is "superior."

Noone expects the woman to work if she doesn't want to. Except feminazis, of course.

No, but Bozzy has made it quite clear that he expects her to stay home even if she doesn't want to. Anything else means that she doesn't love her children.

Btw, i actually believe that there should be a few differences between genders, that is slight inequalities in some areas, with variating advantages (men have advantage in some, women in others) so that will on the whole make them equal, otherwise what will be the difference between a man and a woman?

And this is the problem. Why should anyone be forced into a gender role they don't necessarily meet? Sure, many women meet the "traditional" feminine gender role and many men meet the "traditional" masculine gender role. However, many do not. Why should we institutionalize discriminatin against these people when we could just say that everyone should do what comes naturally to *them* and accept that, in some cases, this will result in disproportionate gender representation (ie. there will be more men in hard-core sports due to the tendency of men to be physically stronger/more aggressive).

How will having a girlfriend be different than having a friend.

Perhaps the difference in relationship? What does gender have to do with the difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship?

How about this: You cannot safely say "nice dress" to a coworker being under threat of getting a lawsuit of sexual harassment. And men are too ashamed to go to those programs anyway.

Sure you can. And if she complains, you just know that she is silly and that you shouldn't compliment her anymore.

On the other side, the proud male geek rarely has sex.

*boggle* Really? Should I start denying it to my boyfriend then so he can fit in?

And this is the problem. Why should anyone be forced into a gender role they don't necessarily meet? Sure, many women meet the "traditional" feminine gender role and many men meet the "traditional" masculine gender role. However, many do not. Why should we institutionalize discriminatin against these people when we could just say that everyone should do what comes naturally to *them* and accept that, in some cases, this will result in disproportionate gender representation (ie. there will be more men in hard-core sports due to the tendency of men to be physically stronger/more aggressive).
I believe i never said 'forced'.



Perhaps the difference in relationship? What does gender have to do with the difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship?Think about it: if your girlfriend is just like your friends, than hanging out with her is same as hanging out with yuor friends. A relationship is not all sex and making out and stuff.


Sure you can. And if she complains, you just know that she is silly and that you shouldn't compliment her anymore.
Some complains. Then some sue for sexual harassment and get a few thousand dollars from that.

With regards to quotas (summary response to the many comments by all);
Negative examples referred to in this thread, are not proof that 'quotas are a problem' but rather examples of why any tool should be used appropriately. I think it was Grave_n_idle who referred to the problem being when they were abused rather than used (hope I remembered that right), and that is exactly what I meant when I used motor vehicals as an analogy. In fact anything would have sufficed. We need to eat, for instance, but eating food self abusively does occur and people literally kill themselves as a result. People can 'abuse' exercise (that is become compulsive exercisers to the point of self harm). That's not about quotas, or motor vehicals, or food, or exercise, that's about people. When anything is used inappropriately it is at risk of being an abusive (ie net negative effect) use, including quotas.

Generally, an appropriate quota system doesnt have any element of force with regards to independent private enterprises. Nor would it distort negatively the productivity of enterprises. Certain implicatins follow from these pre-requisites. If employing a female over a male will incur a 5% tax rebate on her wage and benefit costs, but she is 5.01% less productive than the male applicant, the business has no good reason to hire her. And in reality that .01 % is a matter of subjectivity regardless of quotas, in fact so is 5%. Carrot type quotas designed to not negatively impact productivity do not distort so much that the targeted attribute superceeds all other requirements, nor any necessary requirement.
In essence if a quota system in application is manifestly unfair, doesnt actually achieve any positive results, or it's negative results outweigh positive results, or any one or more single implications are in themselves unacceptable, then it itsnt appropriate. But quota systems that dont have these effects, do exist and effect net positive outcomes for the wider community.

So these comments can also be seen as directed at the data from an as yet unpublished source. In the first place if the quota systems caused problems because they were identifiably flawed (not trying to beg the question), in some way that one could soundly reason wasnt an inherent implication of quota systems themselves, then the data applies more to particular instances than to quota systems in general.

Also the conclusion itself appears to me (as it is presented) somewhat strange, simply because I have difficulty imagining how you could possibly set about to measure such an outcome, based on the variables involved. Basically it appears they are saying, "we looked at people who went to school A, and imagined what their skills and grades would be if they went to 'some other school".

Aside from having a crystal ball that actually does work, I'm a bit mystified as to how and what they were investigating to be able to arrive at such a conclusion. So although I'm not dismissing the validity of the claim, I would have to have much more information before I would invest any creduality in it.

Neo Cannen
"Feminists claim that anyone who even slightly opposes their ideas are shovinist cavemen. My point is that feminists need to relax."
A person claiming that anyone who even slightly opposes their ideas are "...." is like claiming that anyone who says that everyone that is a feminist claim "..."
You are a pot calling a kettle black. In my personal experiance I actually dont recalling personally ever seeing a feminist behave as you describe, and I know a lot of feminists.

Please take this advice in the earnest spirit it is given in. People are people, they have both clever and stupid ideas. The best way to counter deffective reasoning, is not with equally defective generalisations, name calling and other distractions, but with effective reasoning. You may not convince the person with the skewed perspective (or on occasion malicious intent), but you will more effectively present your own point for the benefit of others, whilst also demonstrating the defectiveness of the conclusion you are countering. Define the flawed reasoning, demonstrate it's flaws, and watch the defective reasoning flounder. Much more effective than joining in the silliness with false generalisations, which is in essence what you are complaining about yourself.

Men aren't always allowed an -ism though. Any Machoism(?) is generaly seen as chauvinism or misogynism. I demand my right to a positive -ism.
You see this actually is entirely flawed, because there are groups who devote their efforts to the welfare of males. Whether or not they put 'ism' in their self description isnt really relevent..., some of these groups are very valuable, some are counterproductive, because the membership, subscribers and participants of these groups/inititives are people, their sex doesnt define the value of their thinking nor thier activities. This is true of people whether they perceive themselves as striving for the rights of women, men, children, the elderly, ethnic groups, religious groups, or the whales.

No one has a monopololy on stupidity, and the majority of people are not entirely bent on intentional malice to 'others'.

"Nazi" has long meant extreme supermicist. the term feminazi, not coined by me, has nothing to do with the Nazi party.
It doesnt matter who coined a term. The point is the meaning of the terminology. I can assure you that there are people who find casual use of this word in a manner that undermines the horror of the doctrine it describes, understandably offended.

Any one person can make of that what they will, however my own tendancies are that I loose nothing by being sensitive such an understandable preference and avoid upsetting other people needlessly, whilst avoiding using a terminology that would detract from any point I was trying to make, to the point of rendering my comments counter productive to my goal.

As I said, people dont have to care about needlessly causing upset and hurt to other people, even though doing so has a net negative effect on all involved and the wider community, and in this particular instance is in most contexts self defeating. However my own earnest advice is to avoid terminology that is ineffective, inflamatory to particular groups, and justifiably offensive to parties not even directly related to the point you are discussing.

Doom, why use a term if it prevents you communicating your point, and upsets people that you in reality have no malice toward? It just seems pointless to me, and although I dont feel judgmental emotionally towards such useage (rather sorry for those who I know have cause to cringe), I do find that such language makes it harder for me to take the person using it seriously. Try as I might, once someone uses that kind of needless sensationalist and frankly anti social (in the sense that it is reasonably offensive to sections of the community) terminology, I cant help but perceive of them in a certain in a certain way, and being only human, this can cause me to completely miss the actual point of what they are saying.

When, 1950??? And old people are never open to ideas introduced past when they are 40.
This is untrue...

Taking the form of my post and inserting 'stupidity' and 'being smart' instead of feminsm randomly, as well as insult me and make suggestions about my relationship with my mother makes yuo a prime candidate for "stupidity".
As does employing words like feminazi.
If person A says 'all men are sexist rapist'
and person B says 'all feminists say all men are sexist rapists', both person A and person B are indulging in equal amounts of stupidity (although arguably person A's stupidity manifests itself in a more offensive form) and defective reasoning. Neither mitigates, negates nor reduces occurences of the other. When someone reasons stupidly, dont follow them off the cliff of good sense. By all means stand soundly on the ground of rationality and have a good laugh, but dont take the plunge to emotive generality and name calling stupidity with them, just because you dont them to get lonely on their downward descent.

Some male supremacist said that. If you ask me, male supremacists are as bad as female supremacists. Why does a woman saying men are keeping all women in bondage is sticking up for her civil rights, but a men saying that women are inferior to men is a biggot?
For exactly the same reason that any man who (earnestly) said women were keeping men all in bondage would be sticking up for his rights but a woman who said men are inferior to women, is a biggot.

I am not arguing against moderate feminism. I am arguing against feminazism.
Actually you are not arguing against anything much at all. Mostly you are making unsubstantiated generalisations about certain groups making unsubstantiated generalisations...

Look, feminism is just another -ism. It's a school of thought, a collection of disparate yet related beliefs, all centered around concepts of female identity and roles.


I disagree. Feminism was a movement to get female equality of law which began with the surffragetes in Britain in the early part of the twentith century. Women now have equality of law.


We can't say to stop thinking about female roles and female identity.


I agree. But what we can ask them to stop doing is to complain and demand for something which they already have. Equality. Ok so they dont have social equality but guess what, NO ONE DOES. Teenagers dont have social equality as most people asume that if a teenager is walking down the street with headphones in he/she is listening to some explicit R&B rubbish and is a complete moral vacum/thug/slut etc. Guess what. There are social perceptions of virtually every type of group imaginable. The only way women, or any other group are going to rise above it is to ignore it and let people have their opinons. When those opinions are turned into actions however, THEN you can complain.


We can't close a school of thought just because we don't agree with the current thoughts circulating therein.


The original aim of said school of thought has been achieved.


We can't tell women what to think and not to think, or to stop thinking about themselves.


I agree, but we can ask them to stop complaining about something that they already have.


Any woman who wants to can believe that she (or the collective "they") are set upon, discriminated against, abused, etc., because at some point in time, any one of them are or have been. And to discuss why that happens and what should be done to stop that is a good thing.
Everyone else gets their own -ism. Even Dada. (ok, that's a bad, bad pun).


I agree that women should have feminism but that it should only fight ACTIONS of those opposing women (Discrimintive employment, domestic vilonce etc) NOT the thoughts. Forcing people to accept any kind of belief is unacceptable. Forcing people to change their actions to fit inside the law is not. I think that feminsim to fight the social perception of women is unessecary. If you are going to fight the social perception of women, then you must also fight the social perception of men. Men are often percived by many people as fat, disgusting, layabout, drunken, vilonent slobs/thugs etc. Shouldnt someone do something about that too?

I believe i never said 'forced'.

There isn't much difference between institutionalization and force. You feel that all people should meet certain gender roles. This is the definition of bigotry.


Think about it: if your girlfriend is just like your friends, than hanging out with her is same as hanging out with yuor friends. A relationship is not all sex and making out and stuff.

You really are impossibly sad. If you are attracted to someone, you are attracted to them because of who they are. It has nothing to do with silly assigned gender roles. There are many men out there who would be attracted to a woman who acted like "one of the guys" but was someone he could pursue a more in-depth relationship with. Since when does a silly arbitrary gender role decide whether or not any non-shallow person pursues a romantic relationship?

Some complains. Then some sue for sexual harassment and get a few thousand dollars from that.

Every company I have ever worked for has steps *before* a lawsuit. It's not "there was this one single comment and then she sued..."

.

Hummm... I was going to reply, but I took out all the parts that were too hateful/ridiculous/untrue...

And all that was left was the period at the end...

Good dot, excellent work.

I disagree. Feminism was a movement to get female equality of law which began with the surffragetes in Britain in the early part of the twentith century. Women now have equality of law.

I agree. But what we can ask them to stop doing is to complain and demand for something which they already have. Equality. Ok so they dont have social equality but guess what, NO ONE DOES. Teenagers dont have social equality as most people asume that if a teenager is walking down the street with headphones in he/she is listening to some explicit R&B rubbish and is a complete moral vacum/thug/slut etc. Guess what. There are social perceptions of virtually every type of group imaginable. The only way women, or any other group are going to rise above it is to ignore it and let people have their opinons. When those opinions are turned into actions however, THEN you can complain.


Yes, there are social perceptions of every group. But why should people be quiet and let perceptions that are wrong flourish and spread, especially when wrong perceptions will serve to increase harmful actions taken against a group.

Neo, I have seen you complain about certain perceptions people have about you because you are affiliated with a certain group. I have seen you attempt to inform people that belonging to that group does not mean that you fit all the preconceptions that some others have about the group to which you belong, even though your group has equal protection under law (in addition to being one that you choose to belong to rather than have just been assigned by accident of birth).


I agree that women should have feminism but that it should only fight ACTIONS of those opposing women (Discrimintive employment, domestic vilonce etc) NOT the thoughts. Forcing people to accept any kind of belief is unacceptable. Forcing people to change their actions to fit inside the law is not. I think that feminsim to fight the social perception of women is unessecary. If you are going to fight the social perception of women, then you must also fight the social perception of men. Men are often percived by many people as fat, disgusting, layabout, drunken, vilonent slobs/thugs etc. Shouldnt someone do something about that too?

At the heart of feminism is that a person cannot be judged by physical qualities with which they were born.. This includes men as well. Discussion doesn't force anyone to do anything. It does, however, sometimes get them to re-examine predjudices. Is that bad?

Married couples that file together have different brackets than individuals, so this is a silly question..
That's my point


So you are agreeing with me then that single-income families already get tax breaks, and don't need further tax breaks? Good.

No, but nice try. Two-income families pay tax at a rate higher than two individuals do. That is a marriage penalty.

Employment status as a determiner of tax bracket would be grossly unfair to everyone. In the case of single-income households charging a higher tax bracket based on one spouses long term unemployment would tend to give favorable tax status to upper income households where the children are in school or have moved out and the parents are both employed in their peak earing years. Meanwhile young couples with young children - who need the help the most - are dis-incented to marry or even take extended family leave. They would actually be better off filing as individuals even if one has no income at all due to various tax credits. Not exactly family friendly - or fair.
I suppose next you'll suggest that a stay-at-home parent should be contractually compensated by the spouse for the work they perform - and then owe Uncle Sam tax on that 'income'.

i believe that having a child attend preschool or daycare programs is preferable to them being cared for by a stay-at-home parent, yes. how you conclude that this negates the importance of family is beyond me..
It kinda sux that the quote of mine you were responding to does not get copied - it can make the flow seem a bit disjointed.
Brief stints at daycare are fine and quite possibly beneficial. I won't argue that. However 8+ hours a day five days a week are not brief. At that point the daycare becomes a parent-replacement. For a full time working parent this would be the case. The parent who is not dependant on the income is 'outsourcing' their parenthood solely to pursue their own interests OVER that of the child. There is no child in daycare who would rather not be with a parent. There is also developing evidence that this is of more than just fleeting importance (but even if it weren't it would still be selfish)
See links at end of post:

Placing a child in daycare while pursuing a career solely for the sake of the career (rather than living expenses) is simply saying 'my career is more important than you. I would rather spend time at work than with you.' Makes me wonder why someone in that circumstance would even have a child in the first place?



so you are saying you believe that preschool and such will improve a child's likelihood of success in the professional world? ..
The corner office I referred to in the text you quoted was not the childs, but the parents. The one traded for the time their child wanted with them.


i spent my entire childhood attending daycare programs and preschools and such, and it did not in any way inhibit my bonding with my parents. in fact, i would venture to say that my relationship with my parents is unusually close compared to most people i know.
And I spent my entire childhood riding in the car with no child safety seat or even seatbelt! Hey, I turned out allright! - By your same standards there is no need for us to be strapping our children into those safety devices today!


personally i think it is quite possible to have a child with healthy, deep familial bonds who also has a broader understanding of social interaction and skills that will help them succeed in the world...i believe that i, my brother, and many of my fellow latch-key friends are prime examples of this...

Once again, the research is against you. After a certain point (30 hours, I believe) there is a negative correlation for young children's social skills. If you read any of the links I provide you will see that before external relationships can be created a child first must stand on the foundation of a stron and safe relationship with a parent - Which cannot be done by proxy.



good...you have expressed many views on these forums which lead me to conclude that your approval of my child rearing practices would be a red flag to warn me i was doing something wrong :).
An insult with a smile does not make it cute. All of my views are based on fact and research unless otherwise stated. I even link them for those who doubt it. If you consider opinion based on fact a red flag then your own greatest 'value' must be ignorance... :)

Argh, I really hate insults. Just have to let you see how petty your's looked.

http://www.charakclinics.com/language3bonding.htm - great site overall.
http://education.umn.edu/ceed/publications/earlyreport/winter91.htm - a long winded yet interesting take on it.
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=38628 - Federal research shows trouble.

when did bottle mention anything about working right after the kid's born?

i know that personally, i would definitely take advantage of the year off for maternity leave (and hell, paternity leave should be a big thing too, afterall it would be nice to have the father bond with the infant as well) and i would hopefully have a job that is flexible enough that i could work from home or work shorter hours until my hypothetical kid is in kindergarden or old enough for preschool.

and you do know that a kid in day care generally ends up being able to get along better with their peers, right?

The whole context of our discussion is about newborn and toddler age children. Once a child is school age they have the foundation to build inter-personal relations with other people. Prior to that they crave and need a relationship with a primary caregiver.

I agree that maternity leave is a good idea. I think one year is insuffucuent. For those who can afford it I feel that up to school age is preferable. We both seem to agree on that. Consider also multi-children families - one year or more off per child can add up.

Paternity leave is just as desirable but very few could afford both at once. It could be done in place of maternity leave, though breastfeeding would be out - and ther are some benefits to breastfeeding. I (father) was lucky enough to enjoy two months of unemployment when my oldest was 14 months old. I will forever cherish the bond we formed in that brief period. (The look on his mothers face when he bonked his head and ran to ME instead of her was priceless!)

As far as a kid in day care generally ending up being able to get along better with their peers, I would be interested in seeing your source - since it is contrary to the data I have seen. Remember to be specific to children in daycare FULLTIME. I will not disagree that brief exposure to daycare, babysitters, playgroups or whatever other social interaction is healthy. Only the full-time absense of both parents is what I am discussing.

Oh of course, large minds dont call names, they just randomly accuse other posters of being each other, and insist this is so when it is pointed out that it is not so (which is in effect calling both the other posters liers, not that that is name calling or anything), and only desist when one of the concerned posters points out that making up false accusations against other posters is flamebaiting (of course no apology forthcoming). If only all our minds were as large as yours we could all sit around insisting that everyone that disagreed with us was in fact one very busy poster with a great many puppets... :rolleyes:

Sure Bozzy, you go on thinking of yourself as the King of Maturity and Reason, and thinking that making up lies about other posters (then implying they are the liers) when you get frustrated, is so much less petty and more mature and reasonable than name calling, no one else is fooled, but at least you can carry on feeling superior about yourself. :rolleyes:
Wow, you seem to be having alot of trouble getting over that - in spite of the fact that I did apologize once I realized that I had mistakenly run the two conversations together, assuming the author was the same. There never was any maliciousness to it (ala lieing - false accusations, etc) If you'd rather be angry than gracious that is up to you - you're the one who has to live with it.

Though I will, on further reflection, acknowladge the apology was directed to the other poster, who pointed out the error, and not you. Sorry 'bout that. I though you had abandoned the thread, as was indirectly implied in my apology to them.

Clicking TWO links on the first of the organizations listed was not hard at all.
The quote was easy to find.

Furthermore, if YOU look back to the quote that you yourself provided, NOW's objection to working in partnership with these groups was specifically what I stated: regardless of their other goals which may be helpful they ALSO encourage women to 'work through' abusive relationships rather than leaving them. That is unacceptable. The quote specifically stated that was the reason NOW refused to work with those groups. That one very policy which you yourself admit is not the preferable thing to do.

There was no bait in switch on my part. What I found in general was in no way talking about working through something in only the cases where women choose to stay. If they choose to stay of course counciling is better than nothing. But these pages where *clearly advocating STAYING to work through abusive relationships and *DISCOURAGING* leaving them.

I fail to see where these groups encourage people to stay and work through abusive relationships, particularly without seperating while dealing with them. Maybe you can provide links.

The bait and switch was based on you (and NOW) changing the topic from promoting marriage to counseling couples coping with abuse.

Heck, Altria funds most of the anti-smoking campaign and look where their money comes from! :)

Perhaps it was unitentional on your part, but except right after being specifically called on it, you have _always_ used female and homemaker interchangeably..

I try to use the term 'primary care-giver' except when the context is gender specific. If I have not it was as you noted - unintentional. Since this thread is about feminism - dafaulting to the female, particularly when discussing parental responsibilites that most often do, is quite easy to do unintentionally.

Furthermore, you have claimed that the female pay equality has been largely due to females "dropping out" to take care of children, yet here you would deny a many with a higher income even the option of dropping out. What if the family could afford the lower income? What if the woman had greater potential income? ..
I did address that. Where the womans income potential is greater she should have the option (but not mandate) of working while the man assumes the role of primary caregiver. I thought I was pretty clear on that, but I guess not clear enough. If I knew HTML better I'd put it in flashing text. That'd do the trick! The only reason that I consider it an option rather than a mandate is partially due to her body-parts being better suited to it (breastfeeding), plus post-partum issues but also due to good old-fashioned gentlemans values. Call it reverse-sexists if I want her to have more options than him. He does not get that option if his income is higher.


Really, you can't say that dropping out must be based on income levels, which then generate income disparity and promote a cycle of only one gender having the choice to 'opt' out and call that being equal.
Income disparities do not exist at the early career levels - which is usually when couples are having families. A male teacher and a female teacher start at the same level. Same for a lawyer or doctor or even a cashier at 7-11. Seniority and experience determine income - not body-parts. Whatever age the parents are, when the child has been raised to school-age one of them will have been out of the workforce for five or more years. (multi children) They should not expect to re-enter at the same pay as someone who was working the whole time. That does not happen.


This sounds like your problem with NOW is that they believe that liberal tax policy is in the best interest of most women. Feminist who believe a conservative tax policy is in the best interest of women work for more conservative tax policies. NOW is just one organization. And even then, as with all organizations, not every member supports every policy. The tax question is more of a debate about how best to accomplish the goals of feminism rather than about what those goals actually are. Furthermore, liberal tax policy ideas are spread over many groups, some of which support feminist ideas and some of which oppose them. In and of itself it is not a feminist issue.
You are getting close to the problem with NOW. They have politically prostituted themselves to tow the party line. Though an overwhelming amount of their agenda and research is just wrong - almost as much has very little or nothing to do with feminism at all. (and yes, even I will agree with some of their points) They are just sinking in the DNC talking points and trying to dress it up as feminism. No rational feminist organization takes the position that ALL Democrat positions are right for women and ALL Republican positions are wrong. NOW does. It is gross partisanship disguised as feminism. Take a gander at their website if you doubt me. A third of it is about homosexual issues (I doubt that one in three women are homosexual) More egregious is there is an entire section titled "Fighting the Right". It took me a while to figure out they meant the political right and not some sort of confusing civil right.
If they were not so blatantly partisan I would be considerably more receptive to their validity. They harm their cause with their shameless cow-towing to the DNC. This is one reason why I prefer ifeminist. Sadly, few people here have bothered to learn about them.

But still, the "X" is the 'default' form, no?

Nobody was arguing "better" or "worse" (at least, not about chromosome shapes...), we were just debating that - if there is a 'default' setting for chromosome form, the "X" is the 'natural' form, adn the "Y" is a deviation.
AFIK you are correct. Genetically it is quote posible that eve came before adam. realistically though sex ogans developed after asexual reproduction. Therefore 'Pat' came first.

I remember reading that there is a genetic flaw with the 'y' chromosome which compounds each generation. If left untreated it will result in the eventual extinction of maleness - and therefore humanity. I believe it said we have 125,000 years or so to develop a cure... or perfect asexual reproduction.

I'm personally not worried - by then the machines will have taken over. I just hope they're nice to us.

Neo, I have seen you complain about certain perceptions people have about you because you are affiliated with a certain group. I have seen you attempt to inform people that belonging to that group does not mean that you fit all the preconceptions that some others have about the group to which you belong, even though your group has equal protection under law (in addition to being one that you choose to belong to rather than have just been assigned by accident of birth).


Actually most of the time, I point out factual errors in people conceptions, not ones that are matters of opinon eg people always calling the Crusades Christians going round killing Muslims and them being a religous war, when infact it was another teritioral war. Europenas had taken the land, the Saracans took it from the Europeans, the Europeans wanted it back = War. Calling the Crusades a war where Christians killed all the non Christians they could find, is like calling WW2 a war where the free nations went to kill every Nazi they could find. Primarly it was a teritioral conflict, in that it was fine for the Nazis to be Nazi before they started annexing parts of Europe.

At the heart of feminism is that a person cannot be judged by physical qualities with which they were born.. This includes men as well. Discussion doesn't force anyone to do anything. It does, however, sometimes get them to re-examine predjudices. Is that bad?

You misunderstand me. I dont think its "Bad" that feminism asks for the rethinking of social opinion towards women. What I think is "bad" is that they perpetuate the myth that women do not have equality when they do. They complain about social perception equality but no one has that, so they should stop making it seem like they are being given a raw deal. And what I also think is "bad" is when Feminists try to look for sexism where there is none. Its like this story about a kid at my college. He had stolen these computer projectors from several rooms in the school, and when they found them in his locker he cried racism. Feminists do the same often.

You misunderstand me. I dont think its "Bad" that feminism asks for the rethinking of social opinion towards women. What I think is "bad" is that they perpetuate the myth that women do not have equality when they do. They complain about social perception equality but no one has that, so they should stop making it seem like they are being given a raw deal. And what I also think is "bad" is when Feminists try to look for sexism where there is none. Its like this story about a kid at my college. He had stolen these computer projectors from several rooms in the school, and when they found them in his locker he cried racism. Feminists do the same often.

Wow... you'd have thought that would make the news...

Feminists often steal projectors.... Police Baffled!

Or words to that effect.

No, but nice try. Two-income families pay tax at a rate higher than two individuals do. That is a marriage penalty.

You really aren't listening at all, are you? After all, that is *exactly what I said*. Two-income families pay at a higher tax rate than the two would individually. However, Single-income families (which is what we were discussing) pay at a LOWER rate than they would if the person drawing the income were not married. Thus, they already have a tax break by the very definition of the tax brackets.

Employment status as a determiner of tax bracket would be grossly unfair to everyone. In the case of single-income households charging a higher tax bracket based on one spouses long term unemployment would tend to give favorable tax status to upper income households where the children are in school or have moved out and the parents are both employed in their peak earing years. Meanwhile young couples with young children - who need the help the most - are dis-incented to marry or even take extended family leave. They would actually be better off filing as individuals even if one has no income at all due to various tax credits. Not exactly family friendly - or fair.

You are obviously making things up, since none of this was ever even suggested. The marriage tax brackets were *designed* to benefit single-income families. As such, single-income families are benefitted. However, double-income families are penalized. *This* is the penalty that the tax break was aimed at.

I suppose next you'll suggest that a stay-at-home parent should be contractually compensated by the spouse for the work they perform - and then owe Uncle Sam tax on that 'income'.

And again, you are spouting idiotic nonsense that I never even came close to advocating.

You really aren't listening at all, are you? .
No, I am reading. :)


After all, that is *exactly what I said*. Two-income families pay at a higher tax rate than the two would individually. However, Single-income families (which is what we were discussing) pay at a LOWER rate than they would if the person drawing the income were not married. Thus, they already have a tax break by the very definition of the tax brackets..
However, that person is now not just one person any more - they are two. Two ssn's, two mouths to feed and two citizens. Increasing the tax they owe simply because one is not working (for wages, at least) is unfair no matter how you color it. The name on the check has nothing to do with it. What's his is hers and what's hers is his.


You are obviously making things up, since none of this was ever even suggested. The marriage tax brackets were *designed* to benefit single-income families. As such, single-income families are benefitted. However, double-income families are penalized. *This* is the penalty that the tax break was aimed at.
What is it you are suggesting is fictional? If it is so obvious then it would be a simple matter for you to summarize.



And again, you are spouting idiotic nonsense that I never even came close to advocating.
Idiotic nonsense? Oooh, sounds like I hit a nerve. The correct term is illustrating absurdity with absurdity. Judging by your reaction I'd say it was close enough to hit home. I'll post it again just for fun;
"I suppose next you'll suggest that a stay-at-home parent should be contractually compensated by the spouse for the work they perform - and then owe Uncle Sam tax on that 'income'."
If you think that is an absurd idea then you oughta peruse the NOW website a bit closer.

Wow, you seem to be having alot of trouble getting over that - in spite of the fact that I did apologize once I realized that I had mistakenly run the two conversations together, assuming the author was the same. There never was any maliciousness to it (ala lieing - false accusations, etc) If you'd rather be angry than gracious that is up to you - you're the one who has to live with it.

Though I will, on further reflection, acknowladge the apology was directed to the other poster, who pointed out the error, and not you. Sorry 'bout that. I though you had abandoned the thread, as was indirectly implied in my apology to them.
Actually to be honest you amuse me more than anything else. Not sure why you thought I had abandoned the thread since I have continued posting in it. Must have missed your apology.

I guess the problem is that it's hard to extend someone the benefit of the doubt when out the blue they engage in the 'old attack the grammer' tactic, not to mention the disengenious excuse you gave for having done so. Whatever am I to make of you when you then accuse me of being someone else, and througout all this you are sanctimoniously lecturing other posters on the nicities of posting ettiquite.... :D
Let's just say so far as credibility goes, you do yourself no favours.

As far as a kid in day care generally ending up being able to get along better with their peers, I would be interested in seeing your source - since it is contrary to the data I have seen. Remember to be specific to children in daycare FULLTIME. I will not disagree that brief exposure to daycare, babysitters, playgroups or whatever other social interaction is healthy. Only the full-time absense of both parents is what I am discussing.
really? every study i've heard (as well as through my own observations in my experience) people who had both parents working get along easier with their peers. perhaps it has something to do with the kids spending their formative 5 years learning to bond with people their own age instead of just their parents?

Wow... you'd have thought that would make the news...

Feminists often steal projectors.... Police Baffled!

Or words to that effect.

You know what I mean. Feminists often cry sexism when it is completely irrelevent.

Think about it: if your girlfriend is just like your friends, than hanging out with her is same as hanging out with yuor friends. A relationship is not all sex and making out and stuff.
... someone's 15, aren't they.

my bf and i pretty much treat each other like friends, well, best friends, we look after each other, we care for eachother deeply. as someone (i forget who) once said "love is friendship set to music" being in a relationship with someone is very much like being friends with them, except everything is more... the connection is deeper, the bond stronger, more love, a different kind of love... sure we still joke around, playfight, watch t.v. (though we cuddle while doing so) talk about random shit, help each other with problems, but we also think about a future together... of course there's the whole physical thing as well.
and at any rate, you can be friends with members of the opposite sex... it isn't confined to one, you know. i have friends of both genders, more male than female actually, but there is a distinct difference between the guys i'm freinds with and the guy i'm dating. therefore, girls don't have to be overly girly and boys don't have to be overly "i'm the man" (that's actually a bit of a turn off) for relationships to work out. unless you're so homophobic and worried about your own sexuality that being attracted to a member of the opposite sex whose actions are not exactly those expected by traditional gender roles that you'll feel liek you're dating a member of the same sex and that's just icky...

I disagree. Feminism was a movement to get female equality of law which began with the surffragetes in Britain in the early part of the twentith century. Women now have equality of law.
is it true that some states allow a man to legally rape his wife? or were those recently repealled.

really? every study i've heard (as well as through my own observations in my experience) people who had both parents working get along easier with their peers. perhaps it has something to do with the kids spending their formative 5 years learning to bond with people their own age instead of just their parents?
Dream on - there is no study that supports that. But don't let that stop you from posting that there is one.
The majority of studies (real ones that I actually linked to - not imaginary ones like yours) show that during the formative years a child most needs to develop a trusting bond with a parent so they can later have the trust and self esteem to relate well to others. When that it absent they have a considerably higher liklihood of violent and anti-social tendancies.

is it true that some states allow a man to legally rape his wife? or were those recently repealled.
If by states you mean nations then yes, there are several where women have no rights over their body. If by states you mean parts of the USA then no, that is yet another example of you making up facts... -Pretty sad when you have the whole world wide web to help you with fact-checking.

Actually to be honest you amuse me more than anything else. Not sure why you thought I had abandoned the thread since I have continued posting in it. Must have missed your apology.

I guess the problem is that it's hard to extend someone the benefit of the doubt when out the blue they engage in the 'old attack the grammer' tactic, not to mention the disengenious excuse you gave for having done so. Whatever am I to make of you when you then accuse me of being someone else, and througout all this you are sanctimoniously lecturing other posters on the nicities of posting ettiquite.... :D
Let's just say so far as credibility goes, you do yourself no favours.
Coming from someone with an attitude such as you I hold that to no significance whatsoever.
I challenge you to point out more that two times I ever suggested someone uses bad grammar (the only other time being another thread when someone was trying to get the forum to do their English homework because they thought it to be an unnecessary subject) In fact, in this thread I have not ever beyond the criticism you solicited from me. Most often I am critical of the ‘Grammar Nazi’s’. I suppose I could use your tactic and rabidly call you a liar and other disparaging remarks for saying I 'sanctimoniously lecture other posters"..., but unlike you, I am above that
The venom runs through your veins, not mine. Enjoy.

You see this actually is entirely flawed, because there are groups who devote their efforts to the welfare of males. Whether or not they put 'ism' in their self description isnt really relevent..., some of these groups are very valuable, some are counterproductive, because the membership, subscribers and participants of these groups/inititives are people, their sex doesnt define the value of their thinking nor thier activities.
Bullshit, if there is a group that will fight for rights of men, they would be called chavinist sexists by almost everyone. In fact, everyone can have their own group, except white straight christian males. it's like a punishment to them for keeping everyone else inferior during the *-1950s.


It doesnt matter who coined a term. The point is the meaning of the terminology. I can assure you that there are people who find casual use of this word in a manner that undermines the horror of the doctrine it describes, understandably offended.
Doom, why use a term if it prevents you communicating your point, and upsets people that you in reality have no malice toward? It just seems pointless to me, and although I dont feel judgmental emotionally towards such useage (rather sorry for those who I know have cause to cringe), I do find that such language makes it harder for me to take the person using it seriously. Try as I might, once someone uses that kind of needless sensationalist and frankly anti social (in the sense that it is reasonably offensive to sections of the community) terminology, I cant help but perceive of them in a certain in a certain way, and being only human, this can cause me to completely miss the actual point of what they are saying.

But why not use this term? It fits very well the movement that belives that men are an inferior gender, and should be exterminated. ANd i do feel malice towars feminazis. So should you, unless you like the idea that you may be put on a farm for sperm, or whatever their sick minds really want. And note, how I am not saying that all women are feminazis, or all feminists are feminazis. I am just saying that they exist, and they must be prevented from achieving their goals.

Oh, and maybe it's not true that all people beyond 40 are not open to new ideas, but you must agree that as people go older, they get more and more closed minded.

And i never said that women are keeping men in bondage. I said that feminazis would like that.


You really are impossibly sad. If you are attracted to someone, you are attracted to them because of who they are. It has nothing to do with silly assigned gender roles. There are many men out there who would be attracted to a woman who acted like "one of the guys" but was someone he could pursue a more in-depth relationship with. Since when does a silly arbitrary gender role decide whether or not any non-shallow person pursues a romantic relationship?
You still have not explained it. I like my friends because of who he is. I like my girlfriend for who she is. If there is no difference between my buddies and my girlfriend, then what makes my buddy a buddy, and my girlfriend my girlfriend, and not the other way around.


Yes, there are social perceptions of every group. But why should people be quiet and let perceptions that are wrong flourish and spread, especially when wrong perceptions will serve to increase harmful actions taken against a group.
So teenagers should start a demonstration every time someone assumes one of them is a thug/slut? Prepubescent kids should boycott everything, because they got no civil rights whatsoever, and are considered almost propety of their parents?

really? every study i've heard (as well as through my own observations in my experience) people who had both parents working get along easier with their peers. perhaps it has something to do with the kids spending their formative 5 years learning to bond with people their own age instead of just their parents?
Bullshit. When kids don't see their parents, they go outside and befriedn the first person they meet, often a gangster, sometimes a pimp. In many cases, they don't fall in with the wrong crowd, but many times they do.


... someone's 15, aren't they.

16. And by the way, I know that you can be friends with the opposite sex. Thing is though, what is the difference for him hanging out with you and his friends? Wouldn't he rather hand out with his friends, and not buy you dinners, valentine day presents, keep the toilet seat down, etc.

is it true that some states allow a man to legally rape his wife? or were those recently repealled. ROFLMAO, this is off topic, but reminded me. Me and my frieends used to go around telling people that rape it's not illegal if you are married, or you paid for dinner.

You know what I mean. Feminists often cry sexism when it is completely irrelevent.
Yep.
"here, let me open this door for you..."
"SEXIST CHAVINISTIC PIG!!!!"

"turn left"
"YOU CHAVINIST! STOP CONTROLLING ME"
"but... this is our turn..."

"we are afraid that we are not going to hire you. you have a history with drugs, not a lot of experience, and so far, failed to provide us with a recomendation from yuor previous employment place"
"so you are going to hire a man for this place?"
"as a matter of fact, the employee we are going to hire, is male. he has 25 years of experience, 12 excellent recommendations and clean criminal history,"
"YOU SEXIST SHIT!!! YOU JUST DIDN'T HIRE ME BECAUSE I AM A WOMAN"

ROFLMAO, this is off topic, but reminded me. Me and my frieends used to go around telling people that rape it's not illegal if you are married, or you paid for dinner.
boy, it sure is funny when you give people false information and joke around about rape. do you also go around telling people it's not child molestation if the kid belongs to you?

really? every study i've heard (as well as through my own observations in my experience) people who had both parents working get along easier with their peers. perhaps it has something to do with the kids spending their formative 5 years learning to bond with people their own age instead of just their parents?

as Erikson (1963) noted about the school-age child, "There is no workable future within the womb of his family" (p. 259). in order to survive and reproduce, children must be able to function successfully in the world outside their home. they must form alliances that go beyond the nuclear family.

Dream on - there is no study that supports that. But don't let that stop you from posting that there is one.
The majority of studies (real ones that I actually linked to - not imaginary ones like yours) show that during the formative years a child most needs to develop a trusting bond with a parent so they can later have the trust and self esteem to relate well to others. When that it absent they have a considerably higher liklihood of violent and anti-social tendancies.

Well it could be see the sources from both sides about the studies. Personally I more likely believe the sources that daycare is good. Because most kids in sweden have gone to daycare for over 20 years including me and they seem to be growing up fine. But just some question that say that the parent should be the mum in the relationship? Is it not then a problem that it is the mum that typically is home have the demand to be home even if the dad is a better parent? Is it not so that you even if you go to daycare you can developed a good relationship with both parents? That is better a familly that both work seven hours a day and then both parents take the time to be with their child on their free time? Or a familly there the mum is home with the child all the day but there the dad work fourteen hours a day and don't have the time to bond with the child?

as Erikson (1963) noted about the school-age child, "There is no workable future within the womb of his family" (p. 259). in order to survive and reproduce, children must be able to function successfully in the world outside their home. they must form alliances that go beyond the nuclear family.
So far I have been specific to infants and pre-school age children. Your source is not relevant. It also does not say anything about proxy-parenting via day-care. I was pretty clear that even at young ages social interaction os beneficial. It is the full-time absence of a parent that is detrimental.

boy, it sure is funny when you give people false information and joke around about rape. do you also go around telling people it's not child molestation if the kid belongs to you?
I agree with you. Their 'humor' is tasteless. I hope he never lets his friend pay for dinner - it could result in an 'uncomfortable' position for him later.

Well it could be see the sources from both sides about the studies. Personally I more likely believe the sources that daycare is good. ?
There is no study which concludes or even finds the possibility that daycare is a preferable replacement for a parent.

Because most kids in sweden have gone to daycare for over 20 years including me and they seem to be growing up fine.
Most adults today never sat in a child safety seat when riding in a car as a child. Many in fact rode in the 'tail gunner' position in he back of stationwagons. We all came out fine also. By your logic then safety seats are not needed.

But just some question that say that the parent should be the mum in the relationship? Is it not then a problem that it is the mum that typically is home have the demand to be home even if the dad is a better parent?
Often it is most convenient and preferred by the woman to choose to stay at home. There is nothing wrong with a family where man who chooses to do so instead. So long as one parent is home and the family can afford it then either is acceptable. There would be no point as to whom the better parent would be. There is no correct answer which would be universally true.


Is it not so that you even if you go to daycare you can developed a good relationship with both parents?
A young child left to daycare fulltime has no opportunity to form relationships with parents. Considering the typical person sleeps eight hours and spends time grooming, driving and dealing with household chores that leaves very little time to spend on bonding. Most children are still able to develop a socially acceptable demeanor in spite of this, however the liklihood they do not is considerably greater than for young children with a full time parent. The links I provided support that.

Regardless, even if there were no long-term adverse effects, it is selfish for a parent to abandon their young children to daycare while pursuing a career. At that age a parent is the most important and loved person to that child. The child wants and needs nothing more than to be with a parent. The message that the parent loves their career more than their child is very clear.

That is better a familly that both work seven hours a day and then both parents take the time to be with their child on their free time? Or a familly there the mum is home with the child all the day but there the dad work fourteen hours a day and don't have the time to bond with the child?
In cases where the family finances cannot support a single income then the choice for daycare is unavoidable and unfortunate, but acceptable. There is no 'requirement' that a family owes 14 hours a day at work. Many families do live quite comfortably on one income, and many more could with little to no sacrafice.

You know what I mean. Feminists often cry sexism when it is completely irrelevent.

On a similar note, did I not just recently see you in the "waah-waah-waah, christians-have-it-so-hard" thread?

I guess it's okay for christians (still the dominant force) to just keep on bitching about how hard 'they have it'... but when a GENUINE oppressed group decides to express itself, you are strangely opposed to their action?

Explain, please?

Or is this the christian dish they call 'hypocrisy'?

If by states you mean nations then yes, there are several where women have no rights over their body. If by states you mean parts of the USA then no, that is yet another example of you making up facts... -Pretty sad when you have the whole world wide web to help you with fact-checking.

I would advise a quick visit to the Google-Doctor, my friend.

I'm sure he can prescribe something for your rabid assertions.

In response to the original poster (Dakini, I think) - I seem to recall that Marital Rape was finally made illegal across states, about a decade or so ago.

(In all but 'special cases')

We had a thread about this before... if I can find the link I posted then, I'll post it again:

"On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes. In 17 states and the District of Columbia, there are no exemptions from rape prosecution granted to husbands. However, in 33 states, there are still some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is most vulnerable (e.g., she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is legally unable to consent, a husband is exempt from prosecution in many of these 33 states."

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id2632704

boy, it sure is funny when you give people false information and joke around about rape. do you also go around telling people it's not child molestation if the kid belongs to you?
Roflmao, no i didn't but that would have been funny too..
Anyway, it's not like anyone took us serious. They knew we were kidding around.


as Erikson (1963) noted about the school-age child, "There is no workable future within the womb of his family" (p. 259). in order to survive and reproduce, children must be able to function successfully in the world outside their home. they must form alliances that go beyond the nuclear family.
it's one thing to function outside of the family, it's another thing to barely know your parents.

However, that person is now not just one person any more - they are two. Two ssn's, two mouths to feed and two citizens. Increasing the tax they owe simply because one is not working (for wages, at least) is unfair no matter how you color it. The name on the check has nothing to do with it. What's his is hers and what's hers is his.

HOLY SHIT YOU AREN'T READING AT ALL, ARE YOU!!!!????

What part of "the tax brackets for single-income families are designed to give the family a tax break over the working spouse being single" do you not understand. Maybe if I use two-year old language:

A single person gets a tax bracket where they pay a percentage of their wages in taxes.

If that person gets married, and is the only income for the family, they pay a LOWER percentage due to the way the marriage tax brackets are configured.

Now, where in *any* of that do you see "raise the taxes on that person"???

Idiotic nonsense? Oooh, sounds like I hit a nerve. The correct term is illustrating absurdity with absurdity. Judging by your reaction I'd say it was close enough to hit home. I'll post it again just for fun;
"I suppose next you'll suggest that a stay-at-home parent should be contractually compensated by the spouse for the work they perform - and then owe Uncle Sam tax on that 'income'."
If you think that is an absurd idea then you oughta peruse the NOW website a bit closer.

Why should I care about the NOW website?

feminism- "Put women in the army you bastards" then "Take women off the front line you bastards"

http://img145.exs.cx/img145/7356/picture0043av.jpg

Coming from someone with an attitude such as you I hold that to no significance whatsoever.
I challenge you to point out more that two times I ever suggested someone uses bad grammar (the only other time being another thread when someone was trying to get the forum to do their English homework because they thought it to be an unnecessary subject) In fact, in this thread I have not ever beyond the criticism you solicited from me. Most often I am critical of the ‘Grammar Nazi’s’. I suppose I could use your tactic and rabidly call you a liar and other disparaging remarks for saying I 'sanctimoniously lecture other posters"..., but unlike you, I am above that
The venom runs through your veins, not mine. Enjoy.
There you go again Bozzy, in the first place I most certainly did not solicit your original comments about my grammatical presentation, indeed why would I out of the blue tack on such a soliticitation to my comments? If you really believe this fairy tale of yours please provide some evidence, ie quote where I even raised the issue of my grammer prior to your having commented on it. I have no interest in searching your post history to find out how often you indulge in such juvenile behaviour, if it's so rare for you to do so, I cant imagine why you saw fit to suddenly start it up with me.

In the second place, er what attitude, the one where I dont agree with everything you say? I have not used insulting names or language, have not commented on your grammer, nor have I done anything else which justifies your comment about my attitude. Your comments about my attitude (like your grammer critique, and false accusations) is inappropriate unjustified and juvenile, not to mention utterly transparent.

I'm aware that you are critical of grammer nazis, accept when you are being one, that's what makes you such an amusing hypocrite I guess.

You already have implied that I am dishonest, but since you aplogised to someone else about it.....use whatever tactics you like, the fact is I didnt ask you to comment on my grammer but you felt the need to comment, then made up a story about my soliciting your comments... I know I'm not a lier and the thread history is all still here if you actually do believe your own strange assertions.

Stating the truth based on observation requires no vile nor rabiness, constantly telling other posters you are above them and/or 'above that' generally qualifies one as sanctimonious, most particularly so when one's behaviour appears to not be above much at all.


Doom 777
You can imagine and say what you like, it is a fact that groups devoted to pursuing the rights and well being of men exist. It's not my fault you have not heard of them, and the fact that you are not only unaware of them, but find it hard to believe that such groups exist, only proves my point with regards to how informed you are about the issue on which you are commenting.

As for why not use the term 'femnazi', because (as I have pointed out) there are people who have been victimised by nazia, who have had their entire family murdered for instance, and who have every reason to be offended by such flippant and minimilising use of the term. I dont see why you should feel (as you claim to) any malice towards such people (or perhaps you simply didnt read my earlier comments accurately), unless you are anti semetic or otherwise racist whyever would you have malice towards the victims of nazis and nazism? And evidently aside from the fact that I am in no danger whatsoever of being put out on a sperm farm, I have no need to feel malice towards the misguided or mischievious. Malice is not needed in order to oppose something, and indeed arguably the clearer head free from the clouding effect of malice is preferable in just about any scenario I can imagine.

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


I don't agree with a lot of the extreme anti-feminism either... but how is your women-only, men-are-pigs colony going to survive without men?

So far I have been specific to infants and pre-school age children. Your source is not relevant. It also does not say anything about proxy-parenting via day-care. I was pretty clear that even at young ages social interaction os beneficial. It is the full-time absence of a parent that is detrimental.
oh, i wasn't trying to provide a source that proves you wrong. to me, that would be like providing sources that establish the sky is typically colored blue on a clear day...it's so obvious that i am baffled as to how anybody fails to grasp the basic reality.

Lol this thread is getting nasty. As for doom777s humor, well kids say whatever. Offending people with jokes can be funny, as long as you dont go too far.

On a similar note, did I not just recently see you in the "waah-waah-waah, christians-have-it-so-hard" thread?

I guess it's okay for christians (still the dominant force) to just keep on bitching about how hard 'they have it'... but when a GENUINE oppressed group decides to express itself, you are strangely opposed to their action?

Explain, please?

Or is this the christian dish they call 'hypocrisy'?

I was complaining about how Muslim nations deny religious freedom but thats diffrent. Thats breaking a basic human right. It is not a human right to have your group perciveded as good. Freedom of religion is a human right.

Hmm. This thread continues. I thought it had died long ago.

The only good feminist, is one that understands the word "equality". This is actually most of them - at least if you don't count little things like expecting the man to pay for dinner.

The stereotypical rabid man-hating feminist has been on the decline for years. Hopefully this trend will continue. All they really do is help convince the chauvinists that they are actually right, and make other feminists look like frothing madwomen.

What's needed is more of the people that calmly and rationally look for real problems, make sure they really are problems, and then find solutions to the problems.

I was complaining about how Muslim nations deny religious freedom but thats diffrent. Thats breaking a basic human right. It is not a human right to have your group perciveded as good. Freedom of religion is a human right.

No, it's not about perception as good... it's about active equality... which is the same thing freedom of religion espouses...

Or does 'equality' only count when it is religion?

And, YOUR religion, at that?

I'm right, I guess... this bitter dish is hypocrisy... served cold.

I don't agree with a lot of the extreme anti-feminism either... but how is your women-only, men-are-pigs colony going to survive without men?

It wont :p

It wont :p

I would draw your attention to the January 2005 edition of Discover magazine, which has a rundown (if you will) of science events from the lasty year, written in terms that even the most unscientific of laypersons can understand... (see, I'm trying to find a source that will cater to your 'ability').

It clearly describes scientific procedures by which the last cellular combination problems have been ironed out (in mice, so far) - which COULD allow females of a species to reproduce ENTIRELY without males.

You might want to look into it.

What it means, from a scientific point of view, is that women may CHOOSE to keep men around... but they no longer NEED to.

Sobering thought for you, perhaps?

I would draw your attention to the January 2005 edition of Discover magazine, which has a rundown (if you will) of science events from the lasty year, written in terms that even the most unscientific of laypersons can understand... (see, I'm trying to find a source that will cater to your 'ability').

It clearly describes scientific procedures by which the last cellular combination problems have been ironed out (in mice, so far) - which COULD allow females of a species to reproduce ENTIRELY without males.

You might want to look into it.

What it means, from a scientific point of view, is that women may CHOOSE to keep men around... but they no longer NEED to.

Sobering thought for you, perhaps?

Hmmmm the way this reads it comes out seeming that you think that men are here at a womans pleasure and that anytime they like women could remove men from existance. Unless you meant individual women in which case they dont actualy "need" men. They could of course try to move to a remote area and create a small colony but is that really worth the effort? Secluded areas are getting hard to find these days.

No, it's not about perception as good... it's about active equality... which is the same thing freedom of religion espouses...


Equality of what?

I only read the first page, so sorry if this kind of thing has already been said.
But I'm one of those "feminazis" you're talking about. You're blind if you don't see a need for feminism today and that there is sexism in every day language. It may be extreme to you, but that's just how it is. Women were oppressed for a very long time, and we're still oppressed even if we've come very far. We still have a LONG way to go, especially in a world where the religious right is on the rise.
I'm sure you'd call Susan B. Anthony a "feminazi" if you lived back then, too. You're male. You don't understand what it's like to be a woman, any more than a white person could understand what it's like to be black.

I only read the first page, so sorry if this kind of thing has already been said.
But I'm one of those "feminazis" you're talking about. You're blind if you don't see a need for feminism today and that there is sexism in every day language. It may be extreme to you, but that's just how it is. Women were oppressed for a very long time, and we're still oppressed even if we've come very far. We still have a LONG way to go, especially in a world where the religious right is on the rise.
I'm sure you'd call Susan B. Anthony a "feminazi" if you lived back then, too. You're male. You don't understand what it's like to be a woman, any more than a white person could understand what it's like to be black.

I don't blame you for not reading all of it, it's become bloated. You probably dont actualy fit into the extremist group labled "feminazis", we're talking very extreme. I don't understand why words are so damn important. Does it really matter if its called a manhole? what about mental should we change that? or manners? is it really worth the effort.

First off, they killed of chivalry.

Chivalry, I am glad to inform you died along with Feudalism after the Middle-Ages...we live in the post-modern age, now please don't try to bring back such good old fashioned things as hunting the mammoth, human sacrifices to Ishtar or chivalry...we must progress...the future awaits us.

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

Or will someone challenege that

Maybe someone has already replied to this, but who do you think Cleopatra was? She obviously had enormous influence in her time over the great leaders of Rome- clearly you can't say that woman have no leadership capacities? ;)

In my case I think it was near impossible to believe women as inferior due to the fact that 90% of my family seems to be women. I also try and be a gentleman I suppose to my girlfriend as I feel it is my duty to make her the happiest woman on this damned planet (yes, that is what I have said and I stick to my extremely sappy story ~.~)

I think of something is blatantly going too far (such as people wanting to change things like "manhole" and "man kind" simply because it uses the word "man" is pointless because when I think of manhole or mankind I don't picture men, I picture people...or a hole in the ground in the case of manhole :P)

Equal pay = neccassary I believe, but I also believe that to insult a woman because she chooses to be a stay-at-home mom which does in fact happen, is a foolish concept too.

It'd take years to deal with each case individually but that is how it must be done for justice to be served.

Illegalise it! Back to the kitchen and shave yourself, woman!

No, really, feminism sucks. I am for equality between the sexes, but I could vomit on any random feminist, to show them my appreciation. Yes, I am an anti-feminist. I prefer gender-equality, not advantageous treatment of women.

Illegalise it! Back to the kitchen and shave yourself, woman!

No, really, feminism sucks. I am for equality between the sexes, but I could vomit on any random feminist, to show them my appreciation. Yes, I am an anti-feminist. I prefer gender-equality, not advantageous treatment of women.

hehehe you'r going to cause a riot.

I feel it is my duty to make her the happiest woman on this damned planet

Good.

I think of something is blatantly going too far (such as people wanting to change things like "manhole" and "man kind" simply because it uses the word "man" is pointless because when I think of manhole or mankind I don't picture men, I picture people...or a hole in the ground in the case of manhole :P)

Even better.

Chivalry, I am glad to inform you died along with Feudalism after the Middle-Ages...we live in the post-modern age, now please don't try to bring back such good old fashioned things as hunting the mammoth, human sacrifices to Ishtar or chivalry...we must progress...the future awaits us.

I think you are thinking of chivalry as a bunch of guys riding around on horses. We are talking about the idea of chivalry, about how you should treat people. Good ideas don't die. They just stop being expressed.

Jenn Jenn Land[/B]]
You're male. You don't understand what it's like to be a woman, any more than a white person could understand what it's like to be black.

And your a sexist pig, you refer to us as males, and in the same sentence to

your own gender as 'woman'.

Your also a whiner, do you think by being a woman, that that has given you

some kind of monopoly on lifes hardships, just because of your sex?

Also, does a black person understand what its like to be white?

Or better still, who cares either way!

Get over your big victim self, and grow up.

This is the deal with fixing sexist words: While I write for a newspaper and cannot use sexist words myself, I feel that the concept of fixing them is no different from Political Correctness - something that I very much dislike

If we all showed a wee bit of chivalry, guys wouldn't be hated so much me thinks. Then again, I suppose it could be considered "humouring" a woman nowadays as alot of women think all guys want is sex which is also our fault for acting like retarded pigs half the time...

On the topic of feminism again though, women deserve everything men get but if they ever become "greater" than men that is also unequal but the persuit of it equality should not be haulted due to the fear that that could happen. If we didn't allow it to come to fruition, then african-(enter your country here) would not have the rights they do now (although we still have a ways to go on that one still...).

I get the feeling what I'm saying is going no where fast so I'll stop now.

[QUOTE=Stabbatha] as alot of women think all guys want is sex which is also our fault for acting like retarded pigs half the time...

Its all alot of women want as well.

Hmmmm the way this reads it comes out seeming that you think that men are here at a womans pleasure and that anytime they like women could remove men from existance. Unless you meant individual women in which case they dont actualy "need" men. They could of course try to move to a remote area and create a small colony but is that really worth the effort? Secluded areas are getting hard to find these days.

Not exactly... but look at it a slightly different way - the technology exists that can produce ONLY female children.

The technology also exists that can create a viable lifeform from two sets of "XX" data, without the need for the "XX"/"XY" combination.

Technology exists that could stop any more male children being born, and yet still perpetuate the race.

Thus, although women might still WANT men, they no longer NEED them.

Equality of what?

Oh my god... do try to keep up, Neo.

Look carefully at the first word of your answer.

I wish you would just sit, and look at that word for a few minutes.

Then, explain why your question is nonsensical.

And your a sexist pig, you refer to us as males, and in the same sentence to your own gender as 'woman'.
Your also a whiner, do you think by being a woman, that that has given you
some kind of monopoly on lifes hardships, just because of your sex?
Also, does a black person understand what its like to be white?
Or better still, who cares either way!
Get over your big victim self, and grow up.

You know, Terminalia, you'd get a lot less condemnation on these fora, if you'd just cut out all the 'personal' crap.

If you have a point to make, make it.

Enough with the flames and insults, already.

Dear God ( oh no i said a bad word-Humor.) ITs a Generalization battle! Look argue all you want it changes neither side on neither side will swing to the others belief. Feminazi, Male pig, all insults and all utter BS.. Both men and women need to get over themselves and you ladies aren't helping your position by denutting men through text, nor are you guys helping your own position with what your doing.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You know, Terminalia, you'd get a lot less condemnation on these fora, if you'd just cut out all the 'personal' crap.

Bollocks.

Enough with the flames and insults, already.

lol I cop it sometimes as well, its just part of the chat, we'd be so bored

without it.

Not exactly... but look at it a slightly different way - the technology exists that can produce ONLY female children.

The technology also exists that can create a viable lifeform from two sets of "XX" data, without the need for the "XX"/"XY" combination.

Technology exists that could stop any more male children being born, and yet still perpetuate the race.

Thus, although women might still WANT men, they no longer NEED them.

Theres an example of something that just shouldn't have been invented, surely there is something better science money can go towards?

go in the kitchen and make me a pie and knit me a sweater, now!

go in the kitchen and make me a pie and knit me a sweater, now!

Why did the woman go on holidays?

Who cares, the real question should be, what was she doing out of the

kitchen in the first place. :)

Theres an example of something that just shouldn't have been invented, surely there is something better science money can go towards?

I disagree, I don't think there is any such thing as bad knowledge, it's just what you do with it.

If there was a virus that targetted the "XY" pair, it could effectively wipe out the male half of our race (or any other species), and yet leave the female portion pretty much untouched.

We now have the science that our race could survive such and incident, or could repair such a damage to another area of the ecosphere.

It doesn't HAVE TO BE USED as a method of replacing men.. I'm just saying the it would now be POSSIBLE.

Similarly, IVF could be used as half of the NO MALE scenario - but it is just as valid in other contexts - like regular low-fertilities, or in situations where you might want to conceive while the eggs and sperm are fresh, but might not want to carry the cghild yet - e.g. This could be important for long-term spaceflights.

Oh my god... do try to keep up, Neo.

Look carefully at the first word of your answer.

I wish you would just sit, and look at that word for a few minutes.

Then, explain why your question is nonsensical.

No I am serious, what do women want equality of now? What exactly? They have equality of law. No one has equality of social perception so there is no point fighting for that. Please explain it.

No I am serious, what do women want equality of now? What exactly? They have equality of law. No one has equality of social perception so there is no point fighting for that. Please explain it.

What do you mean, "No one has equality of social perception"?

If you live in England or the US, and you are white male, that doesn't discuss religion... you are socially equal... it gets a LITTLE cloudier once religion is mentioned, but the same base premise holds.

Now, if you look at that large group, and you admit you are gay - bam, there goes your 'perceived equality'.

If you admit you are a Wiccan or a Muslim - bam, there goes your 'perceived equality'.

Now, you could say that should be an end of it... you get the crappy end of the stick, you should just have to deal with it.

I think not. I would rather that everyone was treated equally... even religious wack-jobs...

Also - just because the law SAYS that all are equal, doesn't make it so.

Take a visit to Georgia, some time. See how the 'equal' blacks and Mexicans are treated, relegated to ghetto slums, and given the menial work that others won't do, because most of the landlords and employers don't want them.

See how females are given certain 'types' of 'girl' jobs, because there is still that ingrained belief that 'women can't do' some jobs.

So - the law protects... but prejudices still exist.

Example - a black friend of mine looking for a house... calling house-letting agencies. Asks about a specific house, is told that it has already been let.

I called up the same number, and talked to the same person. I was told it was still available...

Law protects... but still, it isn't EQUAL.

What do you mean, "No one has equality of social perception"?

If you live in England or the US, and you are white male, that doesn't discuss religion... you are socially equal... it gets a LITTLE cloudier once religion is mentioned, but the same base premise holds.

Now, if you look at that large group, and you admit you are gay - bam, there goes your 'perceived equality'.

If you admit you are a Wiccan or a Muslim - bam, there goes your 'perceived equality'.

Now, you could say that should be an end of it... you get the crappy end of the stick, you should just have to deal with it.

I think not. I would rather that everyone was treated equally... even religious wack-jobs...

Also - just because the law SAYS that all are equal, doesn't make it so.

Take a visit to Georgia, some time. See how the 'equal' blacks and Mexicans are treated, relegated to ghetto slums, and given the menial work that others won't do, because most of the landlords and employers don't want them.

See how females are given certain 'types' of 'girl' jobs, because there is still that ingrained belief that 'women can't do' some jobs.

So - the law protects... but prejudices still exist.

Example - a black friend of mine looking for a house... calling house-letting agencies. Asks about a specific house, is told that it has already been let.

I called up the same number, and talked to the same person. I was told it was still available...

Law protects... but still, it isn't EQUAL.

But trying to force people to change opinions is brainwashing . All you can control is the way that those opinons shape peoples actions, and I agree that that should be stopped. But you cant force people to not have prejudices. You can just legislate against those prejudices becoming actions and better enforce the legislation.

But trying to force people to change opinions is brainwashing . All you can control is the way that those opinons shape peoples actions, and I agree that that should be stopped. But you cant force people to not have prejudices. You can just legislate against those prejudices becoming actions and better enforce the legislation.

Not at all... I never said anything about FORCING people to change their belief... what you do is constantly present your argument... make people think.

Eventually, hopefully, people will change their OWN minds... once they get over the inbuilt oppositions, and the ingrained intolerances.

Yes - you legislate against prejudicial actions, and you EDUCATE against prejudicial opinions.

No I am serious, what do women want equality of now? What exactly? They have equality of law. No one has equality of social perception so there is no point fighting for that. Please explain it.

Exactly, its an ongoing movement, designed with only one thing as its real

goal in the end, which is to subjugate and suppress men.

Exactly, its an ongoing movement, designed with only one thing as its real

goal in the end, which is to subjugate and suppress men.

Isn't that what marriage is for?

Isn't that what marriage is for?

yes thats another one :)

harems I say.

Personally, I am all for subjugating men - but there are some women who would exhalt them. bah!

I do not work toward a goal of subjugating all men, however, because I couldn't get everyone to agree. Some men like to be bossed around and told what to do, and like it.

If men would stop trying to keep women economically depressed, we would be a lot nicer to you. Maybe!!!!!!

Slender Goddess

Personally, I am all for subjugating men - but there are some women who would exhalt them. bah!
I do not work toward a goal of subjugating all men, however, because I couldn't get everyone to agree. Some men like to be bossed around and told what to do, and like it.
If men would stop trying to keep women economically depressed, we would be a lot nicer to you. Maybe!!!!!!
Slender Goddess

Were not trying to keep you economically suppressed, there are plenty of

women out there who earn alot more than me, but overall, there are more

men working generally, working longer hours, and working in dangerous not to

mention filthy jobs, that most women will not touch, no matter what the pay,

these jobs(Im in one of them) because of their nature, pay well.

Would you for instance SL, work in 40 degree heat at the worst day after

day, pushing wheel burrows of bricks and cement around, never sitting down,

hardly talking to anyone, always moving heavy stuff around, sometimes

bleeding from cuts and grazes, or getting seriously hurt by something like a

rio bar stab, and covered in annoying flies and sweat?

Please be nice at least to guys like me, were doing vital work, that most

people, especially women, would run a mile from.

You need to look at the other side sometimes.

...but if a woman did the same job as you, as well as you do it, then they deserve equal pay. (Not saying you are against equal pay, just saying that for whatever reason I say that)

What it means, from a scientific point of view, is that women may CHOOSE to keep men around... but they no longer NEED to.

Sobering thought for you, perhaps?


So, from a technical point, if every man was a pig and rotten sob, we'd be in the streets raping and beating women left and right and physically and technically, we could do that, on average we're stronger than women, and we're probably more of the police and armed forces (who can really stop armies but other armies, well effectively stop) the idea that all men want to rape any women they meet, is just feminazist crap. (All we have to do is look outside and see the complete lack of mass rape and mass pillage to know that there is no mass rape going on)

From a technical point of view, men could technically just grab any woman they want, and make her a slave, and force her to have as many kids as he wants her to, but then we have something called MORALITY, which thank God, most people have.

Morality is also why women don't try some crazy campaign to kill all the men, many women, like many men, still have MORALITY.


But sadly, many of both sexes do not (as evidenced by rapists, feminazists, etc)

...but if a woman did the same job as you, as well as you do it, then they deserve equal pay. (Not saying you are against equal pay, just saying that for whatever reason I say that)

Of course, speaking for my own job at present, which I have done on and off

for over 12 years, I have only met one female labourer doing it, she was

good, a solid maori girl, but not as good or quick as me, a lot of guys arent

either.

She was solid and organised, but also one of a kind, its not really a job for

women.

Were not trying to keep you economically suppressed, there are plenty of
women out there who earn alot more than me, but overall, there are more
men working generally, working longer hours, and working in dangerous not to
mention filthy jobs, that most women will not touch, no matter what the pay,
these jobs(Im in one of them) because of their nature, pay well.
Would you for instance SL, work in 40 degree heat at the worst day after
day, pushing wheel burrows of bricks and cement around, never sitting down,
hardly talking to anyone, always moving heavy stuff around, sometimes
bleeding from cuts and grazes, or getting seriously hurt by something like a
rio bar stab, and covered in annoying flies and sweat?
Please be nice at least to guys like me, were doing vital work, that most
people, especially women, would run a mile from.
You need to look at the other side sometimes.

You make me laugh, Terminalia...

In one thread you are 'knocking people out'...

In another thread you're the 'rugby' hero...

And now, we have Terminalia's 'sob story' of how mean and nasty his ickle job is.... poor thing.

:D

So, from a technical point, if every man was a pig and rotten sob, we'd be in the streets raping and beating women left and right and physically and technically, we could do that, on average we're stronger than women, and we're probably more of the police and armed forces (who can really stop armies but other armies, well effectively stop) the idea that all men want to rape any women they meet, is just feminazist crap. (All we have to do is look outside and see the complete lack of mass rape and mass pillage to know that there is no mass rape going on)

From a technical point of view, men could technically just grab any woman they want, and make her a slave, and force her to have as many kids as he wants her to, but then we have something called MORALITY, which thank God, most people have.

Morality is also why women don't try some crazy campaign to kill all the men, many women, like many men, still have MORALITY.

But sadly, many of both sexes do not (as evidenced by rapists, feminazists, etc)

Not sure what the point was....

I'm glad you like your little 'feminazi' phrase... you seem to enjoy using it so.

So... are you saying you are in favour of rape, beatings and the enslavement of women? That seems to be what you are arguing for...

Maybe I'm just not 'getting' your post...

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You make me laugh, Terminalia...

Good, laughter is the best medicine you can get.


In one thread you are 'knocking people out'...

Huh?

In another thread you're the 'rugby' hero...

No.. its league... league.

And Im no hero either, just part of the team.

And now, we have Terminalia's 'sob story' of how mean and nasty his ickle job is.... poor thing.

Im just telling it how it is,but I like my work generally, out in the fresh air and

mountains.

[QUOTE]
Im just telling it how it is,but I like my work generally, out in the fresh air and
mountains.

And yet, you spent all that time 'complaining' about it... or were you just 'acting it up', so that everyone could see how 'manly' your job was, and 'not for girls'?

Not exactly... but look at it a slightly different way - the technology exists that can produce ONLY female children.

The technology also exists that can create a viable lifeform from two sets of "XX" data, without the need for the "XX"/"XY" combination.

Technology exists that could stop any more male children being born, and yet still perpetuate the race.

Thus, although women might still WANT men, they no longer NEED them.

Ok, just to clarify so that everyone knows that this isn't actually possible in human beings yet. We haven't even managed this in *any* higher order mammals. Mice are as far as it has gotten and mice are much more malleable than primates. Even in mice, there is a *huge* chance of failure every time you try it. It is unlikely that this will be perfected enough for use in humans any time soon.

Ok, just to clarify so that everyone knows that this isn't actually possible in human beings yet. We haven't even managed this in *any* higher order mammals. Mice are as far as it has gotten and mice are much more malleable than primates. Even in mice, there is a *huge* chance of failure every time you try it. It is unlikely that this will be perfected enough for use in humans any time soon.

I did specify mice, earlier in the thread... and I only said we have the 'technology' to carry it forward to other species.

I seem to recall that they were getting mere tens of positive results out of thousands of attempts... but I haven't even said it was a 'reliable' technology, yet.

I am just pointing out, as a principle - that technology has now reached a level where the female of a species (nodding to our own) will be able, if necessary, to perpetuate sans male.

It's intended to give some of the more fervent anti-female-contingent a pause for thought.

I did specify mice, earlier in the thread... and I only said we have the 'technology' to carry it forward to other species.

I seem to recall that they were getting mere tens of positive results out of thousands of attempts... but I haven't even said it was a 'reliable' technology, yet.

I am just pointing out, as a principle - that technology has now reached a level where the female of a species (nodding to our own) will be able, if necessary, to perpetuate sans male.

It's intended to give some of the more fervent anti-female-contingent a pause for thought.
On the same note how far are we really from true test tube babies? removing the female from the equasion too ... :p

On the same note how far are we really from true test tube babies? removing the female from the equasion too ... :p

Well - we DO have the precedent that we have PARTIALLY raised a test-tube baby... that is... to the implant stage.

(Which isn't much)

versus:

We have the precedent that we can get a handful of babies from massed girl-mouse-only 'breeding', but no humans YET.

Tricky one...

I think, to be honest, that the technological hurdles are still larger on the pure-test-tube situation... although I dream of that day... it would solve SO MANY problems...

Well - we DO have the precedent that we have PARTIALLY raised a test-tube baby... that is... to the implant stage.

(Which isn't much)

versus:

We have the precedent that we can get a handful of babies from massed girl-mouse-only 'breeding', but no humans YET.

Tricky one...

I think, to be honest, that the technological hurdles are still larger on the pure-test-tube situation... although I dream of that day... it would solve SO MANY problems...


wasnt this in the Dont break the hymen thread earlier? or was it the foreskin of Jesus thread? ;)

wasnt this in the Dont break the hymen thread earlier? or was it the foreskin of Jesus thread? ;)
I think I said it ... that and something about using a sheep as a sourogate mother ... lol

wasnt this in the Dont break the hymen thread earlier? or was it the foreskin of Jesus thread? ;)

I find myself curiously amused by the concept of a thread called "Don't break the hymen"...

I guess I'm just odd, like that.

:)

I find myself curiously amused by the concept of a thread called "Don't break the hymen"...

I guess I'm just odd, like that.

:)


well it could have been named that....i tend to put things in my own words-lol. whatever thread the c section debate was with Cameron Diaz........ ;)

well it could have been named that....i tend to put things in my own words-lol. whatever thread the c section debate was with Cameron Diaz........ ;)

Didn't we hijack "Biblical Questions" for that?

You know, it's not every day you get to slip "C-Section" and "With Cameron Diaz" into a conversation....

:)

Didn't we hijack "Biblical Questions" for that?

You know, it's not every day you get to slip "C-Section" and "With Cameron Diaz" into a conversation....

:)
Nor sheep with "giving birth to Christ" :p

Nor sheep with "giving birth to Christ" :p

Aye, it's been an unusually 'colourful' day, thus far... :)

Aye, it's been an unusually 'colourful' day, thus far... :)


we 3 tend to have those reguarly....

we 3 tend to have those reguarly....
keeps things intresting

I think termy was really getting upset with my fluffling him :D

I say we keep the boys and the girls, eliminate the need for either in the reproduction process, and just say no to labor pains. That said, I do think that we should continue to PRACTICE the technique, just in case we someday need to use it again. Yes, LOTS of practice :fluffle: ;)

keeps things intresting

I think termy was really getting upset with my fluffling him :D

I think what REALLY got him down, was when Peech so THOROUGHLY 'owned' him.... poor little tyke.

Oh... Feminism Good, YAY!

(ON TOPIC.... :P)

I say we keep the boys and the girls, eliminate the need for either in the reproduction process, and just say no to labor pains. That said, I do think that we should continue to PRACTICE the technique, just in case we someday need to use it again. Yes, LOTS of practice :fluffle: ;)

Now THERE is an argument you just can't fault.

i cant believe i havent gotten in on this thread yet....

*goes back to read thread origin*

thanks Gravy........he wasnt too hard to own was he? ;)

i cant believe i havent gotten in on this thread yet....

*goes back to read thread origin*

thanks Gravy........he wasnt too hard to own was he? ;)

No... you just slapped him down... it was quite lovely to watch! :)

lol internet heroes :rolleyes:

your just a pack of wankers.

And yet, you spent all that time 'complaining' about it... or were you just 'acting it up', so that everyone could see how 'manly' your job was, and 'not for girls'?

Your an idiot.

Your an idiot.


termin......are you following us? Internet heroes....LOL

i'm Chat Woman
grave can be Chat Man
and UT can be ......well help me think of a name for him

lol internet heroes :rolleyes:

your just a pack of wankers. :)

Second time you've gone delving after my masturbation habits, Term... starting to look like something of an obsession.

I don't mind... I think you're kind of .... cute ;)

Now THERE is an argument you just can't fault.


I know, I have loads of good ideas.
I should rule the world.
:D

I know, I have loads of good ideas.
I should rule the world.
:D

Hey, it's a pretty good manifesto, so far....

I'd vote for it. :)

=Peechland]termin......are you following us? Internet heroes....LOL
i'm Chat Woman

What about dumb bitch instead?

[QUOTE=Peechland]termin......are you following us? Internet heroes....LOL

i'm Chat Woman

What about dumb bitch?

You can have that if you really want... it's not taken yet...

:)

Kiss Kiss

You can have that if you really want... it's not taken yet...

:)

Kiss Kiss

Sorry I thought your wife had it?

i'm Chat Woman

What about dumb bitch instead?

now see here you......I'm neither dumb nor a bitch. I was making a pun of cat woman and bat man. Here, *hands term some money*

why dont you go buy yourself a sense of humor?

now see here you......I'm neither dumb nor a bitch. I was making a pun of cat woman and bat man. Here, *hands term some money*
why dont you go buy yourself a sense of humor?

No keep it, your vibrator will probably need new batterys soon.

No keep it, your vibrator will probably need new batterys soon.

great....now i'll b wondering about that the rest of the day.


*tries to remember*C or D batteries?

Sweet Jesus, when will people learn to respect the English language enough to make certain they know how to spell before they use it? :headbang:

You know, my mom and I were talking about when she was a girl and about some of the things my Grandmother had to put up with. My grandma was born in 1905 (may she RIP) so it was like 1925 when she married. She called her husband "Mr FLoyd". She wasnt allowed to speak to other men without permission, not even at the trade store. Back then, if a man wanted to get rid of his wife and go with another woman, he could go so far as to have the Dr. declare her insane and put her away. I know they did that way before 1925 too, but I'm just saying.
My mom told me they would have hung me up by a tree for husband killing if I had lived in those days......she'd be right too.

great....now i'll b wondering about that the rest of the day.
*tries to remember*C or D batteries?

I would say you would need D.

You know, my mom and I were talking about when she was a girl and about some of the things my Grandmother had to put up with. My grandma was born in 1905 (may she RIP) so it was like 1925 when she married. She called her husband "Mr FLoyd". She wasnt allowed to speak to other men without permission, not even at the trade store. Back then, if a man wanted to get rid of his wife and go with another woman, he could go so far as to have the Dr. declare her insane and put her away. I know they did that way before 1925 too, but I'm just saying.
My mom told me they would have hung me up by a tree for husband killing if I had lived in those days......she'd be right too.


We've come a looooong way, baby.

We sure have Tigger.....I cant even imagine what women had to put up with throughout history. On the other side of the coin, I dont understand why some women yell at a guy for being chivalras and doing things like bringing her flowers, opening the door for her, stuff like that. I love that stuff. Its polite ...good manners never go out of style. Its just being a gentleman.

We sure have Tigger.....I cant even imagine what women had to put up with throughout history. On the other side of the coin, I dont understand why some women yell at a guy for being chivalras and doing things like bringing her flowers, opening the door for her, stuff like that. I love that stuff. Its polite ...good manners never go out of style. Its just being a gentleman.


I agree, but I also think women should do those things for men. I get my husband flowers occasionally. I used to be, and still am to a point, and just to get my husband riled, very anti-male. I think that people should just be nice to each other, and treat each other the way they would like to be treated. If everyone respected everyone else, this world would be a calmer, gentler place. Don't get me wrong, I'm mean and hateful sometimes, but I really think everyone should just be kind. :fluffle: :)

No doubt the world could use a huge dose of love all the way around. Yes , we should be nice to others,and also, respect is something that is lacking .Sure the fellows should get little surprise gifts too.

termin......are you following us? Internet heroes....LOL

i'm Chat Woman
grave can be Chat Man
and UT can be ......well help me think of a name for him

Chat It? Chat Thing?

termin......are you following us? Internet heroes....LOL

i'm Chat Woman
grave can be Chat Man
and UT can be ......well help me think of a name for him
The fluffler (kind of like the joker)!

No doubt the world could use a huge dose of love all the way around. Yes , we should be nice to others,and also, respect is something that is lacking .Sure the fellows should get little surprise gifts too.
:D

The fluffler (kind of like the joker)!

of course!

of course!
lol that or you can keep calling me scrappy :P

Scrappy Doo?

Scrappy Doo?
Naw told her about a fight once and she started calling me scrappy :P

heh heh

Lol the way this spamming is going this ancient thread will be gone soon.

Lol the way this spamming is going this ancient thread will be gone soon.
And this is not spam in and of itself how?

And this is not spam in and of itself how?
Of course, and your point is? The feminism issue has been beaten to death, this thread is only alive out of pure spite for intelligence.